UW Madison horribly underrated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It accepts 1/2 its students and is an easy admit. It is ranked #35 by US News — about 20 spots too high. It is overrated, not underrated.

Compare OOS to in-state for admissions and you will come to a different conclusion.

You really want to go there? Texas is #32. Compare their oos rates and you will come to my conclusion. More importantly, the fact that Wisconsin accepts basically all of its in-state students does not speak highly of the school at the undergraduate level; it means, once again, that it is overrated.

Wisconsin’s in state acceptance is high because they have dozens of campuses. Only the top students are accepted to Madison.

Wrong. Madison has a 49% acceptance rate overall. Just Madison. The in-state acceptance rate is much, much higher…
If Wisconsin in-state students are getting in at a rate of 2 in 3 (or higher), might I suggest you revise your notion of “top student” a tad downward?

Might I suggest that you come down off of your snobby perch and revise your notion of your self-proclaimed superiority?

^^^a tad downward

As should Wisconsin and it’s backers!

Yeah, we’re good, thank you.

“Good” is not the word you are looking for: you do not have to be a “good” student from Wisconsin to get into Madison. Maybe you’re “OK”?

You don’t really have to be that much better to get accepted to Michigan from in-state. They are state schools for a reason.

The difference is that Michigan undergraduates are only about 1/2 instate. Wisconsin and Minnesota make up about 2/3 of freshman admits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Michigan is by far the better school because it has rich people. No one cares how smart the Wisconsin kids are, they are from rural farms mostly. Michigan kids however come from the east or wealthy suburbs, meaning they can actually have respectable jobs( like finance) and have meaningful lives. Sure wisc has more Nobels, but does that matter if you’re stuck on a farm??

This has to be a sarcastic comment from a Wisconsin booster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It accepts 1/2 its students and is an easy admit. It is ranked #35 by US News — about 20 spots too high. It is overrated, not underrated.

Compare OOS to in-state for admissions and you will come to a different conclusion.

You really want to go there? Texas is #32. Compare their oos rates and you will come to my conclusion. More importantly, the fact that Wisconsin accepts basically all of its in-state students does not speak highly of the school at the undergraduate level; it means, once again, that it is overrated.

Wisconsin’s in state acceptance is high because they have dozens of campuses. Only the top students are accepted to Madison.

Wrong. Madison has a 49% acceptance rate overall. Just Madison. The in-state acceptance rate is much, much higher…
If Wisconsin in-state students are getting in at a rate of 2 in 3 (or higher), might I suggest you revise your notion of “top student” a tad downward?

Might I suggest that you come down off of your snobby perch and revise your notion of your self-proclaimed superiority?

^^^a tad downward

As should Wisconsin and it’s backers!

Yeah, we’re good, thank you.

“Good” is not the word you are looking for: you do not have to be a “good” student from Wisconsin to get into Madison. Maybe you’re “OK”?

You don’t really have to be that much better to get accepted to Michigan from in-state. They are state schools for a reason.

The difference is that Michigan undergraduates are only about 1/2 instate. Wisconsin and Minnesota make up about 2/3 of freshman admits.

At least do you homework. At Wisconsin, this year’s freshman class was less than 1/2 instate. As this thread drones on, I am more and more convinced that most of the “smart people” in the DMV are really just intellectually challenged people with fancy masters degrees in public policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It accepts 1/2 its students and is an easy admit. It is ranked #35 by US News — about 20 spots too high. It is overrated, not underrated.

Compare OOS to in-state for admissions and you will come to a different conclusion.

You really want to go there? Texas is #32. Compare their oos rates and you will come to my conclusion. More importantly, the fact that Wisconsin accepts basically all of its in-state students does not speak highly of the school at the undergraduate level; it means, once again, that it is overrated.

Wisconsin’s in state acceptance is high because they have dozens of campuses. Only the top students are accepted to Madison.

Wrong. Madison has a 49% acceptance rate overall. Just Madison. The in-state acceptance rate is much, much higher…
If Wisconsin in-state students are getting in at a rate of 2 in 3 (or higher), might I suggest you revise your notion of “top student” a tad downward?

Might I suggest that you come down off of your snobby perch and revise your notion of your self-proclaimed superiority?

^^^a tad downward

As should Wisconsin and it’s backers!

Yeah, we’re good, thank you.

“Good” is not the word you are looking for: you do not have to be a “good” student from Wisconsin to get into Madison. Maybe you’re “OK”?

You don’t really have to be that much better to get accepted to Michigan from in-state. They are state schools for a reason.

The difference is that Michigan undergraduates are only about 1/2 instate. Wisconsin and Minnesota make up about 2/3 of freshman admits.

At least do you homework. At Wisconsin, this year’s freshman class was less than 1/2 instate. As this thread drones on, I am more and more convinced that most of the “smart people” in the DMV are really just intellectually challenged people with fancy masters degrees in public policy.

Wisconsin and Minnesota residents pay the exact same tuition rates at Madison. So in reality, it’s all instate. If you dug in a bit deeper you wouldn’t have made the disparaging comment above. You would have also realized that my statement was correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It accepts 1/2 its students and is an easy admit. It is ranked #35 by US News — about 20 spots too high. It is overrated, not underrated.

Compare OOS to in-state for admissions and you will come to a different conclusion.

You really want to go there? Texas is #32. Compare their oos rates and you will come to my conclusion. More importantly, the fact that Wisconsin accepts basically all of its in-state students does not speak highly of the school at the undergraduate level; it means, once again, that it is overrated.

Wisconsin’s in state acceptance is high because they have dozens of campuses. Only the top students are accepted to Madison.

Wrong. Madison has a 49% acceptance rate overall. Just Madison. The in-state acceptance rate is much, much higher…
If Wisconsin in-state students are getting in at a rate of 2 in 3 (or higher), might I suggest you revise your notion of “top student” a tad downward?

Might I suggest that you come down off of your snobby perch and revise your notion of your self-proclaimed superiority?

^^^a tad downward

As should Wisconsin and it’s backers!

Yeah, we’re good, thank you.

“Good” is not the word you are looking for: you do not have to be a “good” student from Wisconsin to get into Madison. Maybe you’re “OK”?

You don’t really have to be that much better to get accepted to Michigan from in-state. They are state schools for a reason.

The difference is that Michigan undergraduates are only about 1/2 instate. Wisconsin and Minnesota make up about 2/3 of freshman admits.

At least do you homework. At Wisconsin, this year’s freshman class was less than 1/2 instate. As this thread drones on, I am more and more convinced that most of the “smart people” in the DMV are really just intellectually challenged people with fancy masters degrees in public policy.

Wisconsin and Minnesota residents pay the exact same tuition rates at Madison. So in reality, it’s all instate. If you dug in a bit deeper you wouldn’t have made the disparaging comment above. You would have also realized that my statement was correct.

People are either Wisconsin residents or they aren’t, so you still aren’t correct.

[Anonymous]

I recruit for finance and am familiar with both universities so I think I have good perspective. In terms of academics, I’d give Wisconsin the edge because they’d had some superstar professors and alumni, JP Morgan’s economist Stephen Roach and Dean Corbae who’s very famous in the finance world. Older people tend to respect Wisconsin more. However, in terms of job prospects Mich is simply the better school by a long shot. We recruit Umich because massive numbers come from Phillips Exeter, Bronx High school of science, and Harvard Westlake. They’re wealthy and know their stuff about finance and that’s what we want to see. I’ve never recruited a Wisc kid, and probably never will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recruit for finance and am familiar with both universities so I think I have good perspective. In terms of academics, I’d give Wisconsin the edge because they’d had some superstar professors and alumni, JP Morgan’s economist Stephen Roach and Dean Corbae who’s very famous in the finance world. Older people tend to respect Wisconsin more. However, in terms of job prospects Mich is simply the better school by a long shot. We recruit Umich because massive numbers come from Phillips Exeter, Bronx High school of science, and Harvard Westlake. They’re wealthy and know their stuff about finance and that’s what we want to see. I’ve never recruited a Wisc kid, and probably never will.

Ouch. Truth hurts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It accepts 1/2 its students and is an easy admit. It is ranked #35 by US News — about 20 spots too high. It is overrated, not underrated.

Compare OOS to in-state for admissions and you will come to a different conclusion.

You really want to go there? Texas is #32. Compare their oos rates and you will come to my conclusion. More importantly, the fact that Wisconsin accepts basically all of its in-state students does not speak highly of the school at the undergraduate level; it means, once again, that it is overrated.

Wisconsin’s in state acceptance is high because they have dozens of campuses. Only the top students are accepted to Madison.

Wrong. Madison has a 49% acceptance rate overall. Just Madison. The in-state acceptance rate is much, much higher…
If Wisconsin in-state students are getting in at a rate of 2 in 3 (or higher), might I suggest you revise your notion of “top student” a tad downward?

Might I suggest that you come down off of your snobby perch and revise your notion of your self-proclaimed superiority?

^^^a tad downward

As should Wisconsin and it’s backers!

Yeah, we’re good, thank you.

“Good” is not the word you are looking for: you do not have to be a “good” student from Wisconsin to get into Madison. Maybe you’re “OK”?

You don’t really have to be that much better to get accepted to Michigan from in-state. They are state schools for a reason.

The difference is that Michigan undergraduates are only about 1/2 instate. Wisconsin and Minnesota make up about 2/3 of freshman admits.

At least do you homework. At Wisconsin, this year’s freshman class was less than 1/2 instate. As this thread drones on, I am more and more convinced that most of the “smart people” in the DMV are really just intellectually challenged people with fancy masters degrees in public policy.

Wisconsin and Minnesota residents pay the exact same tuition rates at Madison. So in reality, it’s all instate. If you dug in a bit deeper you wouldn’t have made the disparaging comment above. You would have also realized that my statement was correct.

People are either Wisconsin residents or they aren’t, so you still aren’t correct.

Well duh, of course that’s true. It’s also true that I said Wisconsin and Minnesota make up 2/3 of the freshman class and pay the same rates of tuition. I never separated the two. Anyone attending Michigan from OOS, unless on some type of scholarship, is paying the full OOS rate.

[Anonymous]

Is this all one person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recruit for finance and am familiar with both universities so I think I have good perspective. In terms of academics, I’d give Wisconsin the edge because they’d had some superstar professors and alumni, JP Morgan’s economist Stephen Roach and Dean Corbae who’s very famous in the finance world. Older people tend to respect Wisconsin more. However, in terms of job prospects Mich is simply the better school by a long shot. We recruit Umich because massive numbers come from Phillips Exeter, Bronx High school of science, and Harvard Westlake. They’re wealthy and know their stuff about finance and that’s what we want to see. I’ve never recruited a Wisc kid, and probably never will.

You give Wisconsin the edge in academics because you personally believe they “beat” Michigan in a few areas, but sill won’t hire their graduates. You think that’s a ringing endorsement for why Madison is horribly underrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recruit for finance and am familiar with both universities so I think I have good perspective. In terms of academics, I’d give Wisconsin the edge because they’d had some superstar professors and alumni, JP Morgan’s economist Stephen Roach and Dean Corbae who’s very famous in the finance world. Older people tend to respect Wisconsin more. However, in terms of job prospects Mich is simply the better school by a long shot. We recruit Umich because massive numbers come from Phillips Exeter, Bronx High school of science, and Harvard Westlake. They’re wealthy and know their stuff about finance and that’s what we want to see. I’ve never recruited a Wisc kid, and probably never will.

Ouch. Truth hurts

Oh, wow, one rando on the internet says he won’t hire WI grads. The University should just admit defeat and close up shop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recruit for finance and am familiar with both universities so I think I have good perspective. In terms of academics, I’d give Wisconsin the edge because they’d had some superstar professors and alumni, JP Morgan’s economist Stephen Roach and Dean Corbae who’s very famous in the finance world. Older people tend to respect Wisconsin more. However, in terms of job prospects Mich is simply the better school by a long shot. We recruit Umich because massive numbers come from Phillips Exeter, Bronx High school of science, and Harvard Westlake. They’re wealthy and know their stuff about finance and that’s what we want to see. I’ve never recruited a Wisc kid, and probably never will.

Ouch. Truth hurts

Oh, wow, one rando on the internet says he won’t hire WI grads. The University should just admit defeat and close up shop.

That same “rando” also states that the overall academic edge belongs to Wisconsin, which he bases on a few areas of academics. Your point is well taken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recruit for finance and am familiar with both universities so I think I have good perspective. In terms of academics, I’d give Wisconsin the edge because they’d had some superstar professors and alumni, JP Morgan’s economist Stephen Roach and Dean Corbae who’s very famous in the finance world. Older people tend to respect Wisconsin more. However, in terms of job prospects Mich is simply the better school by a long shot. We recruit Umich because massive numbers come from Phillips Exeter, Bronx High school of science, and Harvard Westlake. They’re wealthy and know their stuff about finance and that’s what we want to see. I’ve never recruited a Wisc kid, and probably never will.

Ouch. Truth hurts

Oh, wow, one rando on the internet says he won’t hire WI grads. The University should just admit defeat and close up shop.

That same “rando” also states that the overall academic edge belongs to Wisconsin, which he bases on a few areas of academics. Your point is well taken.

Well, I was more responding to the “truth hurts” person than the rando.

[Anonymous]

This is a regional school. No one cares about Wisconsin outside of Wisconsin.

[Anonymous]

Wisconsin is neither over nor under-rated. Stop trying to make the school into something it's not. It just makes you look thirsty.