a few more health related ones.
Social Work: #1
Health Care Management: #1
Public Health: #4
a few more health related ones.
Social Work: #1
Health Care Management: #1
Public Health: #4
The MBA progream being ranked 11 is ok, but I'd argue that we're a stronger porgram than Stern and CBS, especially outside of finance. Hard to find fault with any of the other schools being ahead of us.
I'd argue that Columbia and Stern should be lower too, but when salary is a marker, both will beat Ross every time. Bankers have the highest salary and I feel like Ross is weakest there.
I had a great experience at Ross, so the ranking isn't too important for me.
Also, Wharton should be below Harvard and Stanford. Those two are, at least for me, head and shoulders above the pack in reputation.
Depends, in many industries (finance, marketing, health care, real estate) and countries Wharton is on par or above H/S. Right now Stanford is really hot because of the tech boom. I'd actually go to Wharton over Harvard if I had the choice, but in reality any of those top 3 is about the same in terms of professional opportunities and network.
If I had to make changes: move up Michigan and Dartmouth, move down Stern, Berkeley and Kellogg (a bit)
I view the focus level rankings as totally made up. To me, the MBA is 100% about name, recruiting opportunities, and alumni network. Stanford for me is way above Wharton there, and their application numbers bear it out. Harvard is, well, Harvard.
Alumni network I would say Wharton has a stronger one than Stanford, especially outside of CA or tech (where Stanford is supreme). I worked in NYC and FL many years and the number of Stanford alumns I met was almost zero. On the other hand in Mexico Stanford reigns supreme while in South America few people apply to Stanford.
Recruiting opportunities are about the same at those 3 schools (with more startups and tech recruiting at Stanford and more general management / finance / consulting at the east coast schools). Check the companies that recruit at the 3 schools if you want.
Name I agree with you re: Harvard and Stanford, especially due to the larger universitiy brands behind them.
Application numbers can be misguided a bit. Stanford has the higher yield thanks in part to smallest class size, tech/entrepreneurship focus and unique style of the program (touchy feely, etc).
I agree that focus level rankings are somewhat irrelevant, but not 100%. Marketing opportunities at Kellogg are as good as any of the top 3 schools, and Chicago has the same access to top finance job as the top 3.
I personally do love the Stanford program especially because of the D-School.
Companies that recruit is a huge deal that too few applicants pay attention to during the application process. Ross isn't as strong a finance school because a lot of the top firms recruit lightly there, not because of some ranking. It's also why we're so strong in consulting and marketing, for example.
Regardless, I think perception is everything in b-school. The education at the top schools is basically the same, with the main difference being total emphasis on cases vs some lecture. If you think Kellogg is best and the firms you care about agree, then it is best.
People tried really hard to complicate b-school selection. I basically looked at the previous paragraph and it was easy. I got everything I wanted from Ross.
Yep, agree with you my friend
But I think Kellogg deserves to be where they are. I interviewed quite a few Kellogg students and they were top notch.
The list of top MBA schools and the order they are listed is nearly identical to where it was in 1980. Virtually no difference. You are who they think you are.
If I had to guess, Law School and Medical School rankings are probably similar in that regard. Like in college sports (and many high stakes areas) success begets success.
I'd agree. I remember applying to law school back in 2003 and then checking 10 years later for a friend's sister and saw virtually no real movement inside the top 15. Sure, a couple of schools changed places, but you rarely saw much movement.
I also think the major factor, especially in service fields like BLM, people at the top like to hire from a small pool, and once you get your name in that pool they are inclined to keep you there (plus guys at the top tend to come up through the system and favor alumni).
I'm a little disappointed that the law school is tied for 10th with Duke. We have been consistently in the "Third Tier" of top law schools with UVa, UPenn, and Berkley, so this is a bit of a downgrade. Oh well.
You could certainly argue that we still are. Those three schools are the three ranked immediately above us, so there isn't any separation between M and that group.
Its a completely warranted drop though. Michigan Law's employment statistics have been 12th or 13th for the past couple of years now, sadly. It's actually a bit overranked at 10th.
I would disagree. There are several factors to be considered other than just employment statistics. And I would argue that while employment may be very, very important, the way it is calculated for U.S. News purposes is flawed, and therefore it's importance to the rankings is appropriately discounted. What counts as "post-graduate" employment for a law student is a very manipulable concept, and Michigan MAY be at a disadvantage in how it keeps track of the statistic due to the scrutiny it receives as a public university.
MLaw may also be at a disadvantage because a large proportion of its graduates stay in Michigan after graduation, which is not a red-hot employment market for lawyers - especially of the corporate ilk.
That stated, the placement office at MLaw has historically been weak compared to other top schools and hurts the school's rankings. (More importantly, it hurts the law students.)
Most of the other schools have a large home market (NYC, Chicago, Boston, DC, SF) that they can send grads too. Michigan only has Detroit, which most U of M grads don't want to work in anyway (only 12.5% of Michigan Law grads stay in Michigan)
I've heard the law school has recently made some efforts to reform the placement office. We'll see when the new employment figures come out in April if that worked.
the range Michigan is in.
At least, that's been my experience.
Oh and a major reason that only 12.5% of the students stay in state is because the vast majority of the students come from out of state.
It is, and is one of 17 or so schools with national reach.
However, it does appear to be performing a tad worse than its peers in the job numbers.
Getting into big law isn't exactly hard from Michigan, though.
I'm sure it's no different at any of the other schools in the top 13 or so.
"We'll see when the new employment figures come out in April if that worked."
Can't really judge the April numbers based upon any recent changes (unless by "recent" you meant three years ago), for a couple of reasons:
(1) the data that comes out in April is for December 2012 - July 2013 grads, and
(2) those classes were recruited by "Big Law" firms way back in August of 2011.
It takes a good three years for any major changes in "placement" to shake through and show up in a measurable way.
There are barely any Michigan law grads who work in Detroit. Most go to NYC, Chicago, DC or Palo Alto. Only 25% of Michigan law students are from Michigan, and yes, only 12.5% stay in Michigan.
The placement office does not directly affect your job prospects.
Most students get a 2L summer job through OCI or working their networks.
I want to add one additional fact that I feel like gets missed when comparing T14 law schools. If you go to Michigan law, you, honestly, only compete with a small subset of your law school who is applying to firms in your city of choice. E.g., only 20% of Michigan law students apply for jobs in NYC, whereas 90% of students at NYU apply for jobs in NYC. Therefore, it's easier to stand out. Just my two cents, but I think its worth noting.
being able to pay back your debt (i.e employment) is really the only figure that matters. USNWR's rankings are indeed flawed but their recent inclusion of employment numbers was a rare good move for them.
I mean, these are the top law schools in the county. They ALL get heavy scrutiny. And Michigan has lagged behind its peers in two very important catagories for several years now:
1. placement into long term, full time jobs for which a JD is required
2. placement into "big law" and federal clerkships, which are generally considered to be the most prestigious (and high paying) forms of legal employment.
clerkships than its peers (meaning the top half of the top fourteen schools).
(It's tied for 6th with 11.1 %. You'll notice that the schools with the highest percentages are relatively tiny schols, e.g. Yale/Stanford compared to Harvard. Michigan actually does extremely well in this category for being such a large school).
An additional 3.4 % got local or state clerkships, perhaps you saw the total number?
Gunning for dem federal clerkships is uphill sledding unless you attend a top six school in any case.
It's a 2013 comparison based on 2011 numbers (go figure).
I don't have access to the pay walled numbers because I'm well past that point in my career.
8.5% is extremely good for a school the size of Michigan.
Also, the state clerkship is basically a wasted stat for a school like Michigan. And no, I'm not going to go into why.
"and Michigan MAY be at a disadvantage in how it keeps track of the statistic due to the scrutiny it receives as a public university."
Whether true or not, starting next year every school will receive the exact same level of scrutiny when it comes to employment outcome reporting.
OK - here's the weird thing I saw on this, and maybe someone can explain it to me: On the list for Medicine - Primary Care, directly below us is MSU's School of Osteopathic Medicine (not the School of Human Medicine, which is their "regular" med school). It lists crazy tuition as well, notably the $82k/year out of state tuition.
Anyone want to clear any of that up for me?
those future NBA lottery picks this season.
First, MSU's osteopathic school has long been known as a top primary care institution in both the MD and DO world from what I know it is one of the most competitive and prestigious D.O. schools in the country.
Second, if you look at the methodology for the rankings it becomes a bit more clear why they are so high. 30% of the ranking is based on the percentage of students who go into primary care. MSU in general, and more specifically their D.O. school are huge primary care institutions. So by virtue of so many of their students going into primary care, they achieve a high ranking. Additionally, 20% of the rating is made up by peers assessing the quality of physicians that come from the school. As I said, MSU College of Osteopathic Medicine is reknown for the primary care docs that they produce. Those two categories alone comprise 55% of the total rating and those are things that they will score high in that has no regard to them being D.O. or M.D. The things that seperate the students (MCAT, GPA, Research etc) all comprise a very miniscule percent of the overall score.
Hope that helps
Only a little. Why do they have two med schools? Why is the osteopath school ranked and the human medicine school not? Why is the osteopath school so crazy expensive?
The only thing you answered was "why is the MSU school of osteopathic medicince" ranked highly, which I didn't even ask. I meant more of why is it ranked in place of what I thought was their actual med school.
Their out of state tuition is so expensive bc they highly prefer students that are from the state and likely will practice within the state, preferably in primary care fields. It's a part of their mission to provide the state with no shortage of primary care physicians, and they want to attract those students. Some med schools don't even accept applications from OOS students. A couple schools in California and Florida come to mind, with a similar thought process. The DO school in Ohio makes you sign a contract if you're an OOS applicant stating that you will practice in Ohio for at least 5 years after your post-graduate training. Same idea.
OK, but their in-state tuition is still over 40k per year, over 10k per year more than Michigan's med school.
I can't explain that one...because they can? Lol I'm not sure.
When I was there for law school, I had a couple of friends who went to/were with people going to the DO school. MSU charged that much because (a) they typically had good placement numbers, so people figured they would get a good job to pay it back, and (b) MSU wanted to charge that much because they found they still got high-quality applicants. To them, it really was as simple as people were willing to pay for it.
I'm a wolverine alum and long time mgoblog reader who is a current MSUCOM student. This is a helpful (although slightly immature) examination of osteopathic medicine in case you're interested: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ninjacowboy/osteopathic-medicine-does-exist-irad...
Long story short, both DOs and MDs are legit and MSU graduates a lot of the state of Michigan's primary care providers. There is an interesting history as to why MSU has two medical schools that is too long to tell in this space. Suffice to say COM graduates more in state primary care physicians than our counterparts in CHM which is one of many reasons for the higher ranking.
Should go without saying, but before I'm questioned about loyalties: Always and forever, Go blue!
Medicine's research ranking dropped four spots to 12 (if I remember correctly) , primary care ranking stayed the same.
If I remember it was part of a 4 or 5 way tie for 8th which we aren't part of anymore and dropped.
I was looking at them today as a prospective law student (not looking at any Tier 1 schools), but it's incredible to me at how many schools "tie." There are essentially sixty+ "Top 50 schools." That for one could be a reason law schools get such a hard time from outsiders.
Because it's more of an art than a science. The jist is "this group of schools are all about the same, so there's no reason to distinguish them, but they're all better than that next group." If there are 60 schools in the "Top 50" then just think of it as "top 60" or "top tier" if that helps you wrap your brain around it.
I find most of their rankings laughable. They have a set "methodology," but a great deal of it is flawed. But as was stated earlier, it's not an exact science. Personally, I think learning the law is learning the law. The program is going to be as good as you make it.
For example, if one goes to Memphis as opposed to going to Tennessee, you are going to learn the same thing. Both schools possess reputable judges, attorneys, and litigators as professors. Memphis has a newly renovated and state of the art facility. Memphis is a tad cheaper, but job placement is about the same. Yet, US news thinks Tennessee is a top 70 program and Memphis is in tier 4 - despite being in a better legal market than that of east TN. Their conclusion there makes very little sense to me, as I am sure it would if I looked at other states like Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
but Tennessee does place almost 10% more of its grads into full time, long term legal jobs, which is fairly substantial.
Not that either school is worth attending without a full ride and the desire to never work outside of Tennessee.
You don't go to law school to learn the law. If you wanted to learn the law, you can buy a set of used BAR/BRI books on ebay for 50 bucks and read it over a summer and learn enough of the law to pass the bar exam in any state of our great country.
The reason why you go to an elite law school is so that you can get access to top legal jobs, clerkships, academic positions, etc. If you don't care about any of those, then you probably shouldn't worry too much about where you go to law school.
That was my feeling when I applied to law school. I wanted to become a patent attorney, so I went where I could get a scholarship and not worry about being hundreds of thousands in debt. My motivation and level of intelligence is such that I was never going to snag a top-tier job anyway, so no need for the price tag. I definitely see a value if you are interested in that big-firm goal, but like business school you have to justify the price tag with your career goals.
That's really more of a reason to give U.S. News and World Report a hard time. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to give lawyers and law schools grief, but the U.S. News methodology and grading is to blame here.
Tiers matter for certain graduate discplines - Law and Business the two main ones that come to mind.
law schools are getting a deservedly bad rap because they collectively graduate 50k students per year when there are only around 25k legal job openings each year. So many law students are paying 40-50k to end up unemployed, or underemployed.
There are almost no law schools worth paying full price for outside of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. And probably only 25 or so law schools worth attending at all.
I'd say MLaw is worth the 50k price tag. Except for Harvard, it places around the country in big law better than any. As long as you can interview and get decent grades, there are so many awesome alumni around the country that those seeking out law firms / finance jobs do very very well out of MLaw. Most of the other top law schools tend to be regional heavy.
Big Firm %, Class of 2012
University of Michigan: 43.3%
Anyone wondering why Harvard, Stanford, and Yale do less well than expected should know that many of their students (especially at Yale) do equally prestigious Federal Clerkships/Legal Academia/other awesome things.
Michigan really only places better than Georgetown out of the T14
Michigan has a really high number of people who are looking to do things other than big law.
Stats are kind of screwy to be honest. Doesn't Michigan have a lot of kids go to fed clerkships? Why is that not explained in your disclaimer? If I clerk, then work at a big law job in year 2 or 3, then am I added back to the percentage (or am I still discounted because I had the good fortune to land a fed clerkship)?
Michigan, in my mind, is a 5-10 law school, year after year.
(Fed Clerkships using 2012 data)
Between this data set and the big law data set, the biggest takeaway is lol Gerogetown
I would also be curious as to actual #'s. As you may know, Michigan is a large law school, so it's probably harder to pull the same %'s given the fixed number of fed clerkship spots.
"they collectively graduate 50k students per year when there are only around 25k legal job openings each year"
It's not particularly accurate to say this from a practical standpoint. Even if it's true in the aggregate, the VAST majority of law hiring trends are state (and even more accurately market) specific. There are a number of markets that are absolutely tearing it up right now. The problem is, generally, that you need to have gone to school in one of those states/markets to take advantage (plus, people generally don't move too much after they finish law school).
And I don't think either one of us would say going to a top school in those regions (or a top X school with national reach) is a bad move, particularly with a scholarship
It's all the other schools that are the problem. Florida doesn't need 12 schools. Every school in Michigan except U of M (and maybe Wayne) does a horrendous job of getting their grads any kind of job, let alone a legal one.
From a perception standpoint, I agree about the 12 schools in Florida, but the fact is, law is a demand profession in Florida. That's with 12 ABA accredited schools and almost 4,000 new Bar admittees each year. That said, I would expect several of those 12 schools to not exist, or exist in a significantly different format, in a few years. Only 5 of those 12 schools made the US News top 100 (FSU, UF, Miami, Stetson, and FIU).
Michigan Law is the best law school ever. End of conversation. Thanks. Have a good night.
UMLS '05, smartest choice I've ever made in my life.
There are 50 schools that are in the "Top 50 (technically 49, I guess). If two schools are tied at 22, then the next school will be ranked 24. That's how ties work in school rankings.
But these rankings mean next to nothing. It's the top 14 + regionals. Ultimately, you go where you have connections. If you've got connections in Washington, then you should go to Washington, not some random higher-ranked school like GW or Emory.
As for Michigan's ranking, I'm surprised they didn't fall a tad more.
If you make an objective analysis based on subjective criteria, then it often leads to ties.
can someone please explain to me what on earth is the difference between med school (research) and med school (primary care)? if i wanted to be a doctor (it's probably a little late now, but bear with me), which ranking would i look to?
Are you looking to cure cancer, or are you looking to provide care to patients?
Research rankings are more or less based on the amount of grant money schools get from the National Institute of Health. More "important" research = more prestige --> more money, which is why the list is topped by schools like Harvard, Johns Hopkins, etc. The primary care rankings measure how good of a job schools do at preparing students for specialties like Family Medicine and Pediatrics, so they're more service-oriented.
thanks. but if you go to med school at harvard and then decide to become a PCP, it's unlikely that you'll be received less favorably than a candidate from the university of washington, the #1 ranked primary care school, right?
You wouldn't be received less favorably. You can get into any specialty and do well from any US medical school. And, you know, Harvard is Harvard.
was't true when i graduated and i doubt it is true now. i live in the SF bay region and came from UM class of 83, never left. Got into a good residency and fellowship in cardiology, both because i graduated from UM. Not many MSU grads here ( don' t know a single one out here) but lotsa top 10 or 20 med school grads. You want to get into a program where you want to live and where people want to live the competition is brutal. No way would i be living out here from MSU or WSU or OSU ( did know a OSU grad but he was older and retired out here after many years in the military. He paid his dues before landing here ) I'm sure you could get into a good training program from MSU med school but it would be very hard and you would have to be very special. People would then ask why you wasted your time there when you could have done better
I think you meant to agree with him. He was saying that going to a prestigious Medical School was as good, if not better, then going to a highly-ranked PCP school. You seem to be saying the same thing.
It is certainly easier to get into a top residency from UM than MSU. That being said I know first hand of several Derm, Orthopods, and Rad Onc docs from msu chm who subsequently matched at elite residencies in these pretty elite sub specialties. They all had very high board scores, aoa, etc. Several are in Cali, NYC, etc.
Medicine is different than many other fields. Prestige still means something, so it's not completely irrelevant...but as compared to business or law, you can be a highly desirable candidate for any residency program/job coming out of any med school in the country based off of board scores, rotation grades, and interviews.
Also getting in anywhere is really hard. They don't have online or diploma mill medical schools in this country.
Other UM Grad program rankings.
Nursing #6 - LINK
Chemistry #15 - LINK
Internal Medicine #8 - LINK
Pharmacy #7 - LINK
Psychology #4 - LINK
Math #13 - LINK
Public Health #4 - LINK
Library Programs #4 - LINK
Social Work #1 - LINK
Statistics #12 - LINK
Economics #13 - LINK
Education #8 - LINK
Computer Science #13 - LINK
Health Care Management #1 - LINK
Not bad, although probably a tad overrated because of Gordon "I Predicted the Higgs Mass, really, I promise I did" Kane still garnering WAY more prestige than he deserves. We're #2 in the B1G behind the Illini at #9, which strikes me as about right. They're legit.
Oh, so that's the rivalry Illinios keeps talking about.
You're right; it must be. And to think it was sitting there right in front of me this whole time.
general studies tho??
#1 in general studies. Everyone knows that. We invented the field.
Now there is an interesting idea….a master’s program in General Studies. We have a fair number of student-athletes at Michigan that graduate before their playing eligibility is expired. It seems they are clustering in Master’s program in Social Work. Why not create a Master’s degree in General Studies so they can have the freedom to choose the classes that would best suit their personal needs?
It's a high enough ranking to have some confidence, but not over-confidence. I still have a bit of a chip on my shoulder rather than feeling entitled, and that bodes well for the upcoming season.
Now let's go out there and engineer some things!
The problem is not that people look to stay in Michigan. That is a small portion that generally does well on the employment front. The problem (at least in regard to statistics) is that the law school self selects a higher proportion of public interest / government leaning people. This leads to 1) poor employment given government budget issues and 2) a higher proportion of anti-social holier than thou fartsniffers that can't tuck in their shirt and shine in an interview.
MLaw Grad in Big Law
However, I've met my share of big types who are equally anti-social. Sometimes more so. I don't think PI or big law people have a higher percentage of these types.
From the hiring side of this, I can definitely say you are right. That said, the person you were responding to was right on the money about the impact of the types of jobs. That's been a big issue for some other schools below Michigan who have slipped in ranking in recent years.
is, to what degree is Michigan Law's slightly worse placement due to less effective placement/reputation, or to self-selection into the less sexy PI jobs?
With how competitive the recruitment environment is, it absolutely makes a difference on the employer side, which effectively reduces opportunities for subsequent classes. If an employer experiences a school as not interested in placing it's graduates in their type of employment, there are more than enough other schools who are glad to have them on campus.
I disagree. I barely remember any hippies in the law school. It's a pretty straight edge place. Most of the kids worked hard to get good grades to get good jobs, etc. It's also a very affluent student body (and I'm a believer that wealth begets wealth; one way or another).
if it isnt ARWU, QS or Times Higher it doesn't matter
#4 in Political Science. We're slipping.
20 years of consulting with Federal agencies, almost everywhere I go, there is a Rackham social science grad somewhere at the table (besides me). Last week I was at DHS, of the nine parties, four had ties to Michigan. The one MSU economist said "goddammit, I hate blue and gold!" To which I replied, "it's maize, and we're equally fond of green, the color of envy and of that team we beat twice this season."
How did we do in the other grad programs like Pharmacy, dental, etc?
I have a good friend from college who coined an inimitable phrase that applies strongly to this thread.
Congratulations all! You are members of the "Michigan Self-Dick Sucking Club." This affliction affects students at every fancy pants university.
Apropos to nothing, the same buddy gave me his ID and allowed to party at Rick's from age 19. I've never recovered.
Yes, pride in ones school is just so terrible.
That means we are also likely #1 in length and #1 in flexibility...at least top 10 in each.
Did he also show you how to copy text directly from a Word file and add some fancy highlighter action?