OT: Michigan Undergraduate quality?

I agree ! Actually my BS ( chemistry ) was much harder than Med School. My year they broke down and admitted a few Sparties to Med School, attempting a sort of in state equal opportunity program. The Sparties howled about how hard it was while the rest of us thought it was not as bad as Undergrad ! I was accepted at MSU Osteopathic ( ranked above their med school ), Creighton, Indiana,Wisconsin,and Case Western before I stopped sending out applications but I was rejected at MSU Medical School. I have that rejection letter framed, right next to my UM Med School acceptance letter and Diploma !!!

I need to preface this comment by saying that I went to UofM and greatly enjoyed my time there.  That being said, I can see how class size, etc. can make a difference in someone's collegiate experience.  I have friends that went to Kettering (then GMI) and they had a much more intimate experience with the faculty of their university.  Not only did the advisors know them personally, but the professors did as well.  It reminded me more of a high school than a college.  While I was in many classes of less than 20 students (especially in the upper levels) and had a few Profs that I knew pretty well,I can definately see how you could feel lost in the system there.  If you weren't a very social person, you could stay in your dorm for weeks at a time and I doubt anyone would notice you weren't there.So, don't discredit those who worry about those types of issues.  

Also, I have to question your comment about the average ACT being a 28.  I scored a 31 on my ACTs which was in the top 1% scores my year.  That was good enough to get me into the honors college at UofM.  I have a hard time believing that there was an average of 28 for the entire university.  Where did you get that number from? 

As a professor (not at Michigan), I will add that your peers in class also dictate how much you will be pushed/challenged in a class.  At a top university, your peers are better, and the same basic couse can cover more material, have tougher assignments, etc. so that the students understand the material better and develop stronger skills.  There are always students who won't "get it" at the top schools and brilliant students at poorly-regarded schools, but the proportion of students at various places on that spectrum definitely has an impact on the level of teaching that's possible in the course.

MSU has become much more selective over the past decade or so, particularly since Lou Anna K. Simon took over.

I don't know when you applied, but MSU's average ACT score is now a more respectable 25. Its Honors College has also grown, which I assume has helped those admissions statistics (minimum to get into the HC as a freshman is a 30).

Michigan's average score is indeed around 28, which is impressive for a public school. For reference, Northwestern's average ACT score is 31/32.

The observation is that U of M is a terrible undergraduate school...so there's some truth to that?  Wha?

My bad.  That's not the point I was trying to make (which I think we agree on).

Student are better.  The education itself, at least in my experience (engineer), isn't that different.  Also, I'm comparing places like Cal to places like Minnesota/Ohio State/MSU/etc.  There are plenty of resources at all of those schools.  

Engineering also tends to be more selective anyway (either self selective or selective by admissions).

I live in Northern Cal, went to law school here, and 40% of my classmates were Cal grads.  They are about the same intelligence-wise as my U-M classmates (although none of them will admit it). 

The reason I am commenting is your analogizing U-M/MSU to Cal/UCD is misplaced.  UCD students are far smarter than MSU students.  UCD students are not quite Cal level, but pretty good.  I think a better analogy would be U-M/MSU to Cal/CSU (California State Universities with a number of locations). 

I realize this is probably an esoteric contribution, but WTF, it's better than thinking about our linebackers and secondary!

I live in Northern Cal, went to law school here, and 40% of my classmates were Cal grads.  They are about the same intelligence-wise as my U-M classmates (although none of them will admit it). 

The reason I am commenting is your analogizing U-M/MSU to Cal/UCD is misplaced.  UCD students are far smarter than MSU students.  UCD students are not quite Cal level, but pretty good.  I think a better analogy would be U-M/MSU to Cal/CSU (California State Universities with a number of locations). 

I realize this is probably an esoteric contribution, but WTF, it's better than thinking about our linebackers and secondary!

I think my opinion on the TA thing was permanently swayed by one TA who taught a argumentative writing class.  First of all, the TAs went on strike that year and all they really got out of it was a new title, so she was adament that no one was allowed to refer to her as a TA.  Secondly, she arbitrarily decided that all papers would be on various women's studies issues.  Then, in the final straw, she berated a male student because he wrote a paper detailing why women should have equal access and opportunity in athletics by being offered separate but equal teams with equal resources and support.  He included medical information about blood oxygen levels, ratio of heart size to total body size, etc. to prove that it would be unfair to expect women to be able to compete evenly with male counterparts.  She was insulted and said women were only at a disadvantage athletically right now because athletic shoes and training equipment were designed by men, for men.  She also said that if you looked at the graph of world record times in women's track and field events vs. men's you would see that by 2020 women would have better records in virtually all events.  When he said that the women's records were probably increasing faster because women had only been encouraged athletically in the last few generaltions she actually threw him out of class.  I never again took a class taught by a TA.

kidding, right?

I really don't care about MSU or anything about their students and alumni, but they bring it on themselves.

However among large research universities they are clearly not in Michigan's league overall. Sheer size provides resources (financial, libraries, lab space, etc.) that smaller schools do not possess. Thus State will rank relatively well among all schools but among the subset of Big 10 schools MSU ranks dead last in the 2011 US News rankings.