Just saw this report that ranked our fine institution as the 19th best University in the World!!
We even placed ahead of two Ivy's: Brown & Dartmouth
Just saw this report that ranked our fine institution as the 19th best University in the World!!
We even placed ahead of two Ivy's: Brown & Dartmouth
You Scout guys never tire of this garbage, do you?
I rarely put stock in any global ratings or any ratings from the Guardian period.
I still think that Michigan is one of the best all around institutions in the world. There is no way that Michigan can be ranked in the top 10 for every grad program and then it's undergrad programs just be "Eh okay".
The Guardian is often baffling in their British university rankings, they recently put two constituents of the University of London (GOODT) below a school called Thames Valley University, which offers more certificate programs than degrees.
As for our undergrad rankings, we're a research oriented school. I don't find it at all unbelievable that LSA is weak enough to drag us into the 20's.
Whoa whoa whoa. I am in LSA and I had to write a paper once, and I had to take three freaking years of spanish (passed by the slimmest of margins) and I do all this hard math stuff.
Oh and Psych 111: not as easy as everyone says it is.
So yeah, obviously LSA isn't weak...
LSA isn't weak. There are weak people, but the program isn't weak.
University of Michigan - College of Engineering: the real Honors College.
EDIT: For all of those who feel I'm wrong, take a look the following courses I took as an undergrad and then tell me if you think differently:
Applied Partial Differential Equations
Nuclear Particle Physics
Nuclear Reactor Theory
Nuclear Reactor Design
and a few others I cannot remember off the top of my head.
Now, I'm not saying LSA isn't tough, but come on...
Uh oh peeps are pissed. School rankings have more to do with the quality of the faculty and faculty to student ratios than course offerings. The electives that I took in LSA were often much larger than courses you'd see at top private universities or other colleges within the UofM; they also had a high number of GSAs and Lecturers teaching them... that drags down the rankings.
Great, you took courses that were relevant to engineering. I know engineers that couldn't write a paper to save their lives at the end of their senior years. I also knew engineers completely and totally competent enough to do so.
COE exams have to be written in the students' own blood. No partial credit for passing out before completing the exam. Once, I actually started feeling woozy, and the guy next to me was comatose. I used his blood. I passed.
I love watching arrogant engineers flail in my philosophy and history classes.
what do you do when they ace them?
Props to them, but usually they have the good sense to pick out the easier LS&A classes. When they encounter a class that demands a lot of reading and rigorous writing things usually don't go as hot.
I would've said, nice work, then ask them where the bus is for north campus, since that was freshman year.
Didn't see too many engineers in 300 and 400 level history courses.
even though I never spent more than a few hours studying for them and most of the engineers I know were the same.
Different strokes for different folks.
Bouje, I'm going to try and say this in the nicest way possible, but I would be shocked if you specifically ever rocked a philosophy class.
I said LSA classes. And since you felt the need to call me out here ya go buddy:
But hey I did take Logic and another philosophy course at Community College in high school.
In U.S. History 1865-Present, and in Thermodynamics. I took a different history course, and barely made a B+. It all comes down to the instructor.
The only class which really kicked my ass was Physics 242. It introduced relativity and quantum physics. The quantum physics content was utterly bewildering. That one class almost kept me from getting my degree. It was that bad.
Come on, we've been over this before. Our overall ranking has nothing to do with LSA or any other academic program. In fact, our academic score is usually around 15th or so. What hurts us is a combination of us having a higher acceptance rate than the small private schools, and us (like most public schools) having a lower rate of alumni donations.
Seriously, where does all this anti LSA resentment come from?
"There is no way that Michigan can be ranked in the top 10 for every grad program and then it's undergrad programs just be 'Eh okay'."
Why not? Profs work with grad. students and rarely w/undergrads.
After asking why the Communications Department wasn't very good (back when they had it, I am dating myself here) I once had an academic advisor tell me, "We can't be expected to be the best at everything." Then I thought, "Aren't we the leaders and best? Did I miss the asterisk? Why do I have to pay the same as those who are actually getting the best?"
the case now. For the large lectures you will have a prof leading the lecture and the GA/TA leading the smaller discussions (only once a week).
This is a fallacy and a myth about Michigan/large institutions in general that Professors do not teach undergrads. They do. For every lecture in Econ I had a prof, every Engineering class I had a prof, every science lecture, etc.
Lecturing to 250 kids sitting in chairs asking hardly any questions isn't "working with" them. Face it, undergrads do not have the access to profs that graduate students do. Trust me, my dad is a professor. All during my childhood, graduate students would come over occasionally for get-togethers. Not once was an undergraduate a guest. And this was true for my dad's friends who were also professors.
Also, lecturing alone doesn't equal teaching. Lecturing equals books on tape. Genereally speaking, lecturing alone is what happens in those courses with TA's b/c the students are asked to hold their questions for their TA's in the discussion meetings.
as you want. Case in point: lectures for Orgo 1&2 the prof had office hours and if you went you would be one of only a handful of people there (if there were that many). I personally got one on one help from the lab professor for lecture (because he was a better teacher I went to him).
If you want the one on one time with a prof you can get it you just have to put in the extra work and effort and most students in college don't do that.
It severely depends on the size of the classes and what point of a student's career we are talking about.
Chem 130 (freshman chemistry) = 400+ student lecture w/little student/prof interaction.
NERS 311 (Nuclear Engineering [my major], a junior class) = 30 students with constant student/prof interaction including office hours and other out-of-class meetings.
Continue that trend and it explains why many of my graduate classes were 3 hours long with one professor and just 5 or 6 students.
I'm merely trying to illustrate that you cannot generalize "all undergrad classes have no student/prof interaction".
Why should a professor -- who could be doing meaningful research and bringing in millions more in grant money -- waste time lecturing? It seems to be a horrible waste of time when a lecturer (or post-docs, etc) could be doing the same (in some cases, a better job).
At least in engineering, professors are hired for research and a bit of teaching; lecturers are hired to teach exclusively. Students, in general, have all the opportunities in the world to work directly with professors, whether by UROP or independent study / research. I agree with a previous poster -- (paraphrased) professors are better suited toward teaching smaller classes and specific topics/concentrations. Let "intro to ____" be taught by someone else.
For example Professor Kotov in the ChemE department who is an excellent researcher only taught ChemE 330. They still have an obligation to teach students.
But lecturing can hardly be considered "working with undergraduates," which was Sharik's point, not simply teaching them. Lecturing is performing for students, it conveys information to them, but it's not working with them.
Once a lecture gets above 30, professors just don't have the time to work with students in developing their understanding of and ideas about the course material.
where most students do not take the initiative to go (until exam time). I've taken many of the largest classes at Michigan and could always have access to a professor.
Another thing let's take Biology, Psychology etc (any class where you just regurgitate material) there is absolutely no difference between a class of 30 and a class of 500. They talk, you memorize, you regurgitate on the exam, forget it forever. You don't really need to talk to the prof to "understand the material" more just memorization is all that matters and you are either good at it or you're not.
"After asking why the Communications Department wasn't very good (back when they had it, I am dating myself here)"
Ahh yes, back in the old days of the present...where the Communications Department still exists.
There are several reasons undergrad it ranked lower than the grad programs. For one, Michigan is a grad oriented research university and puts a huge chunk of resources into its grad/research programs in comparison to undergrad.
Secondly, one of the reasons that our undergrad rankings have dropped in recent years/are lower than the grad rankings is because the percentage of applicants accepted has steadily risen. Last year undergrad accepted somewhere near 50% (I actually believe it was just over 50% IIRC) of everyone who applied. This is in stark contrast to say the law school which accepts around 20% or the med school which accepts under 3%! When exclusivity is a factor in the rankings, it is not hard to see why undergrad is ranked lower. It is not the only reason, but it is one that people have repeatedly pointed out in the past.
However you have to keep in mind that the med school acceptance rates for most schools is under 3%, just like Michigan's. It's because virtually the same group of people apply to a bunch of med schools; and then you have the whole early acceptance thing where you only have a couple of weeks to reserve your place at a school before the offer expires. This may lower the weight that rankings give to med school acceptance rates.
Don't know about law school, but it could be the same scenario. But for other grad schools (engin, econ, w/e), acceptance rates probably hold more weight.
I can't wait to see how Popular Mechanics rates the universities of the world! And Mad Magazine as well!
I'm sure that "our fine institution" will also be well regarded when International Phlegm comes out with its annual report!
International Phlegm's articles are always mediocre, but some of the centerfolds are quite fascinating.
Oh right, you actually read the articles and DON'T buy it for the pictures...riiiiiight.
And here we go: This thread is becomming the circle jerk that these threads always become! Everyone thinks they know all about the University of Michigan and shit! Whooooeeeee
I hate this shit.
So yeah I actually do know about Michigan.
You made that clear enough with your comments about the accessibility of professors.
Sure some more than others but I always felt that if you took the time to seek out your professors they would take the time to meet with you.
Most students don't take advantage of the prof's office hours, but for those who do, I've never heard complaints about getting all the attention they needed.
Also, while I'd agree that the student-to-prof ratio is very large for undergraduate, low-level classes, I can't for the life of me understand why that doesn't suffice. Grad students need access to professors because they're deep into the heart of the subject matter; profs are the only ones with the foundation to support them. Undergrads, on the other hand are barely scratching the surface of the subject matter. In many cases, a prof ISN'T the best resource - they're too deep into academia to relate to the noob very effectively. A TA, in these cases, are probably just as good. My 2 cents.
I was an Orientation Leader. Waaaaaay back when.
am an alumnus (circa May '09), and I find your dribble to be worth less than a pile flaming feces, because at least the flaming feces can be funny when used in conjunction with a doorbell.
Being better than Brown and Dartmouth is nothing to write home about.
I can't speak for LSA, but our Engineering programs are top-notch, undergrad and graduate. Mechanical Engineering Undergrad was #2 behind MIT a couple years ago, and is consistently within the top 5. I think the only program that isn't consistently in the top 10 is Biomedical Engineering, which hangs around 11-13.
(was started when I was a freshman or sophomore circa 2003/04)
above is true. They didn't receive accreditation until like 2006 or something. Undergrad biomedical engineering is a joke, as will be the case at all schools. We typically look to hire electrical, mechanical, or materials science/chemical engineers before looking at BS-BMEs. Multi-disciplinary fields in general typically require at the minimum a grad-level understanding of the subject.
...who are doing BioMed undergrad are doing it as part of their pre-med program. So yeah...
It has to be coupled with going to med school or PHD/Masters program because a bio-med undergrad program doesn't give you enough of an understanding of the core concepts of EE/CE/ChemE/ME to be hired in over the equivalent counterparts mentioned above.
Nuclear Engineering: #1 over MIT
The History Deptartment was ranked as high as 5 while I was there, but has now dropped to 7. So it's not only Engineering that has top 10 programs.
That being said, some programs are (and in my mind should be) considered somewhat of a joke amongst the majority of the student body. I'll go out on a limb here and say Philosophy, Political Science, and Communications are right up there...
Pretty much any degree where all that you can do is teach or do research isn't a very good decision. (no offense to anyone here)
That is silly. Grad school is the new college, people.
anyone with those three majors are complete idiots who are destined for failure and will be crushed by the mighty engineers
pull your own head out of your ass please
is not what I said, stop putting words in my mouth. There are smart people in every program at Michigan (it's a requirement to get in). I was merely stating that (fair or unfair) that is the viewpoint of a large part of the student body.
I can almost guarantee that the majority of Pre-Med, Math, Chem, Bio, History, Pre-Law, and Business undergrads feel this way. I said nothing about it being fair or right.
First, I was a history major, and people considered that a joke.
Second, why do you feel the need to come onto this board and shit on the degrees that any number of people here worked four years to attain? To make yourself feel bigger? You got an engineering degree, congratulations! Is that what you're looking for? Why the need to be a flaming asshole about it?
Edit: I read back in the thread and saw that you graduated 5 months ago, which explains, to me, your inflated sense of ego about it.
Look, this all started way back (way way back) with a comment about how LSA "brings the ranking down". Now, I apologize for any offense I have caused you (and other LSAers). I certainly did not intend to offend. I did try (piss-poorly, I might add) to illustrate why that viewpoint exists.
I know for a fact I am not the only one who has encountered said viewpoint. I have a number of friends (including a history major: HartAttack) who worked very hard for their degress, and I don't want to take anything away from them. I guess I was just trying to add (one way or another) to the discussion...at least initially. Then, trying to clarify my statements I only ended up digging the hole deeper.
FUTURE DISCLAIMER: Poster does most of his mgblogging at work and does not always have time for well-thought-out replies. If he says something asinine, please take it with a grain of salt.
Kudos for the mea culpa. Most people would have just run and hide.
Eh, I'm usually man enough to tell when I'm being an ass and when it's time to stfu. Also I have a future life lesson: re-read what you wrote before hitting "save".
Of course, you're still wrong that it's LS&A that brings the rankings down. Instead it's the formula that US News uses for institutional ranking (alumni giving, acceptance rate, etc.), which is, by the way, completely delinked from the department rankings (which are arrived at by surveying professors across the discipline).
Uh oh, I double majored, with one program apparently considering the other a joke. Oh man did I hate my internal struggles with that one.
Say, you smell bad, are Asian, and are still a virgin, right? Because that is what the rest of the campus thinks of engineers, so by your logic, it must be true.
It's only like 50% Asian/Indian.
I am not:
smelly (shower regularly)
That's all subjective. I always pictured you as a fat Pacific Islander.
Philosophy is ranked 8th in the country. Political Science is ranked in the top 5*. At one time I was going to major in philosophy. The material was very tough in every course I took. I'll go out on a limb and say you don't know what you're talking about.
*This is more impressive than having an engineering program having the same ranking b/c so many schools don't have an engineering program.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say those rankings refer to grad schools. An undergrad degree in Philosophy, Poli Sci, and Communications gets you...an applicaiton for grad school. Which is why the corresponding undergrad programs aren't taken too seriously.
As for grad school programs, I have no doubt they are difficult and rigorous.
Really, they automatically get you a grad school application? I could have sworn they got you a degree and, for quite a few of my friends in those programs, a job.
I tell ya, for someone who is so damn intelligent and resourceful and just all around wonderful enough to get into engineering, you sure are posting a lot in the afternoon on a Monday.
me tak ez klasses in lsplay insted of hard engine making klass and family sya WHY YOUY TAKE EZ KLASS U DO NOTHING WITH LIFE but i get lsplay paper say i gradute skool but no grad skool application come wit but i get job neway and now make sum green paper but not a lot of green paper but am very happy with life and feel no need 4 gradute skool
You clearly don't understand, literally, anything.
You clearly don't understand, literally, anything.
Because my women's studies/political science major got me...a job. And relatively quickly.
When I graduated with my engineering degree, I used it to get an application for a grad school. I also knew many who used their engineering degree to get into their parents' basements.
Here's what I've learned in the intervening 12+ years: The rankings mean very little, except maybe to the poor schmuck tasked with sorting through resumes to decide whether you get an interview for your first job. Beyond that, the rankings don't mean a damn thing. Undergrad degrees from virtually any institution are taken seriously as long as you take your time there seriously. Fuck around, and you're lucky to get any consideration at all. Excel, and you'll be fine.
Stop with the engineering conceit. You're making us look bad.
Clearly I'm being an ass, ignore me.
I guess the Brits aren't putting enough emphasis on speed. No mention of the SEC anywhere on that list.
I never realized UW-Madison was THAT prestigious, #61 in the world.
The blokes at the Guardian must really like the cheese curds.
UW-Madison is a pretty good school.
Michigan is top 25 (27 in this years ranking)
Illinois is #39 and
Wisco is also #39 in US news and world report
They are a good school and it's kind of ignorant to post otherwise they aren't exactly State or OSU
Florida State? I admire your bravery in not shying away from the subject of relative school rankings.
Their school is very good at everything...
I know that they are actually a very good school, but 61st in WORLD is what struck me. Based on the article they are 21st best school in the entire. That seemed pretty aggressve.
but not for the reasons you think
Obes is Dex?
Anyone else note that ND is nowhere to be found? Not surprising to me, as it is again proof of how distorted ND fanatics view their university in both the academic and athletic arena!
To be fair, the ranking system seems to weigh graduate schools more than anything else (which explains U of Chicago and Johns Hopkins' lofty status and Brown and Dartmouth's lower status). Still, the Domer's exclusion is a slap in the face (they do have a law school!).
There are no "bad schools" or programs at Michigan. Some more highly ranked nationally (and apparently internationally) but we're splitting hairs.
Research grants are heavily weighted (but not exclusive to) engineering, medicine, bio-sciences, physics, chemistry, etc. However, grant money flows into law, anthropology, geology, history, and others.
As I recall, to get my B.S. Eng degree required 128 credit hours, whereas my friends in LSA required 120 (for the most part, there may have been specific programs that differed). We're talking about 2-3 classes spread over 4-5 years. Not exactly earth shattering.
I defy anyone to say that the grading curve for pre-law or pre-med wouldn't kick anyone's ass. The competition is tough, making the pressure at least on a par with engineering. And I seriously doubt that math, physics and chemistry students were "coasting" their way to a degree.
While I can't speak for the Philosophy classes, (I didn't take any) I did take plenty of English Dept classes, Italian, and History. While I regarded them as more "fun" than "required", (there were "electives", after all) I knew damn well that I had better study or they could kill my GPA as easily as Aero 340, and the professors were not likely to be any more lenient than Werner Dahm.
Many of my fellow COE students questioned why we needed to take Humanities classes. Simple answer: So you know something about the world and can communicate with other people, dumb ass. Having the best ideas in the world won't mean shit if you can't tell people about them in a way they'll understand.