Was UM, UVA, and UW Madison considered more “prestigious” back in the day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanderbilt:

Acceptance rate: 6.2%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1510 - 1560
ACT: 34-35

Michigan:
Acceptance rate: 18%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1350 - 1530
ACT: 31-34

Not close.

On the academics, academic experience and college factor, it isn't close either.

Michigan hands down.

In other words, all the objective metrics are worthless and your own subjective ratings are all that matter.

Objective metrics that favor Michigan are of course completely valid and absolutely determinative of Michigan's superiority. Metrics that do not favor Michigan are worthless. Subjective ratings all favor Michigan and this point is of course unquestionable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanderbilt:

Acceptance rate: 6.2%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1510 - 1560
ACT: 34-35

Michigan:
Acceptance rate: 18%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1350 - 1530
ACT: 31-34

Not close.

You could fit 4 Vanderbilts into one Michigan. It's not surprising the stats are different.

People who argue so much for the importance of higher stat distributions are usually just revealing they don't want their kids around "the poors" unless those kids are beyond exceptional.

SATs are valid as a metric but top scores are strongly related to the fortunate educational and parental advantages of the children who get them. I live somewhere now that's kind of in a time warp. Kids don't prep very much for SATs. The ones who do well are children of public school teachers. So there are lower SAT scores here but not necessarily less intelligent people than other places I've lived. I remember my "W" feeder middle school was a mean and stressful place. The parents on here remind me of those kids.

Above poster even cited that the students are richer as an advantage. That's pretty tacky. "State flagship people" aren't so concerned with that. Having money doesn't make you a good person or a happy person...we all come to know this one way or another. Sometimes kids with the most money get into the biggest trouble (drugs, hotel room trashing, etc.).

Richer per student meaning the schools have more money per student. Many of the privates have 20%+ on pell grants. They might in fact have higher socioeconomic diversity than michigan.

Michigan is a decent school. It just doesn't win admits out of state (check its yield and admission rates) vs top privates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanderbilt:

Acceptance rate: 6.2%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1510 - 1560
ACT: 34-35

Michigan:
Acceptance rate: 18%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1350 - 1530
ACT: 31-34

Not close.

On the academics, academic experience and college factor, it isn't close either.

Michigan hands down.

Ah yes, academics and academic experience with its larger class sizes and lower 4 year graduation rates. Impressive.

[Anonymous]

Michigan graduates an impressive 77% of students in 4 years. Vandy - 91%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Michigan graduates an impressive 77% of students in 4 years. Vandy - 91%.

Source, please.

The following current source has Michigan at 81% along with many top tier schools in the 80s as well. Double majoring along with minors may account for what you have determined as low 4-year graduate rates.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/highest-grad-rate

[Anonymous]

And I neglected to mention your Vandy is at 89%.

[Anonymous]

^ graduation not graduate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I finished high school in the late 1980’s. UVA was considered a very good school back then. Michigan was probably a little lower. Wisconsin wasn’t even close to the other two.

Notre Dame was a tough admit unless you were a child of an Alumni. And those were the ones who really wanted to go there. Vandy was a good school but behind UVA, Michigan, Notre Dame.

Times are different now. Kids love the public schools.

Michigan was only slightly lower than UVA at USNWR. That mistake was corrected a few years ago. In terms of overall academics, Michigan has always been ahead of UVA.

Do Michigan baccalaureate graduates know more, reason and write better, accomplish more? I doubt it.

They are also taller and more attractive.

Yes on Michigan.
Finance. 6'5" Trust fund. Blue eyes. Finance.

Funny, half the guys I’ve met from Michigan are short and have dark hair with a Block M baseball cap practically sewn into it.

[Anonymous]

Imagine paying out of state tuition for michigan. Few if any with a top private option do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan graduates an impressive 77% of students in 4 years. Vandy - 91%.

Source, please.

The following current source has Michigan at 81% along with many top tier schools in the 80s as well. Double majoring along with minors may account for what you have determined as low 4-year graduate rates.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/highest-grad-rate

Go UVA at 91%!

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe this p*ssing match is still going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine paying out of state tuition for michigan. Few if any with a top private option do so.

Source? That is not supported by the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine paying out of state tuition for michigan. Few if any with a top private option do so.

Source? That is not supported by the data.

Show me data otherwise. UMich has bad yield and even worse freshman stats. Lower aid vs top privates for out of state too. You go if you were a reject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine paying out of state tuition for michigan. Few if any with a top private option do so.[/


if you mean HYPSM, I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine paying out of state tuition for michigan. Few if any with a top private option do so.[/


if you mean HYPSM, I agree.

i mean ivies and other top privates as well

michigan’s out of state yield is piss poor