Why would Sasha Obama attend University of Michigan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]Harvard lists Michigan as a peer institution.[/b] https://faculty.harvard.edu/diversity-peer-institutions

Stop trying so hard

Who cares what some list says? I assure you no one considers Michigan to be a peer institute to Harvard.

It's not "some list." It's literally what HARVARD SAYS.

But who cares, right? All that matters is what an internet forum thinks -- not what Harvard says are its peer institutions. Of course, if Michigan wasn't on that list, you'd be touting it as evidence that Michigan is nowhere near Harvard's quality.

My husband works in higher education, as does my sister (the latter as a professor). I can assure you people in academia absolutely consider Michigan and Berkeley peer institutions to Harvard. UVA is more dependent on discipline. UChicago is also considered a peer institution to any Ivy League school. When Ivy League professors look elsewhere for jobs, Michigan is absolutely on the table. Same for UChicago -- I know a political science professor there who recently went to Michigan.

These divisions you all like to pretend exist among these schools really aren't real.

Exactly. With Michigan's endowment, they can get just about anyone they want. But it has always been the graduate schools that have made its reputation. Go to any department ranking and Michigan is up there with the Ivy League.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s being reported that that’s where she will be attending. Sure it’s a great school for us mortals. But it is rather odd that a president’s child would attend a school ranked #27.

Too many useless Ivy lawyers in her family?

They may be useless Ivy lawyers, but one was president and one was First Lady. They have amassed a significant amount financially, and their kids have access to an Ivy League education if they want it. They are also able to pay for that education without blinking, and have incredible contacts that will benefit their kids upon graduation. Can you say the same?

What's your point?

My point is you should stay away from calling people useless. It's gratuitous meanness. Also, even if they aren't currently using their
Ivy law degrees, those degrees opened doors that otherwise wouldn't have been open to them.

+1 Especially as African Americans who had their credentials questioned every step of the way. And there are millions of Americans who would never call either Obama "useless".

+2.

Many well-educated AAs seem to come from more humble backgrounds (understandably given American history) and go into traditional, high-earning fields--lots of doctors, lawyers, etc. among my HBCU classmates, neighbors, and friends. Wouldn't it be great if she doesn't feel compelled to go into a "practical" field, and instead decides to pursue physics, history, the arts, or other fields where AAs are traditionally even more underrepresented?

Best of luck to her in carving her own path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Possibly the same reason why Jenna Bush chose Texas while her sister went to Yale? It could be down to grades/scores, wanting a bigger school, wanting a different vibe?

She choose that before her father was elected President. There’s a good chance she wouldn’t have been accepted.

She chose UT Austin after her grandfather was President and Vice President and her father was running for President after he had been Governor of Texas. I think she probably just wanted to go there. She's done pretty well since then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]Harvard lists Michigan as a peer institution.[/b] https://faculty.harvard.edu/diversity-peer-institutions

Stop trying so hard

Who cares what some list says? I assure you no one considers Michigan to be a peer institute to Harvard.

It's not "some list." It's literally what HARVARD SAYS.

But who cares, right? All that matters is what an internet forum thinks -- not what Harvard says are its peer institutions. Of course, if Michigan wasn't on that list, you'd be touting it as evidence that Michigan is nowhere near Harvard's quality.

My husband works in higher education, as does my sister (the latter as a professor). I can assure you people in academia absolutely consider Michigan and Berkeley peer institutions to Harvard. UVA is more dependent on discipline. UChicago is also considered a peer institution to any Ivy League school. When Ivy League professors look elsewhere for jobs, Michigan is absolutely on the table. Same for UChicago -- I know a political science professor there who recently went to Michigan.

These divisions you all like to pretend exist among these schools really aren't real.

Exactly. With Michigan's endowment, they can get just about anyone they want. But it has always been the graduate schools that have made its reputation. Go to any department ranking and Michigan is up there with the Ivy League.

The graduate programs make the reputation of the vast majority of universities (except for those that have fewer graduate programs and focus more on undergrad education, like Princeton).

Harvard's undergrad program would be ranked significantly lower than it is if it wasn't attached to a university with dozens of lauded graduate programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]Harvard lists Michigan as a peer institution.[/b] https://faculty.harvard.edu/diversity-peer-institutions

Stop trying so hard

Who cares what some list says? I assure you no one considers Michigan to be a peer institute to Harvard.

It's not "some list." It's literally what HARVARD SAYS.

But who cares, right? All that matters is what an internet forum thinks -- not what Harvard says are its peer institutions. Of course, if Michigan wasn't on that list, you'd be touting it as evidence that Michigan is nowhere near Harvard's quality.

My husband works in higher education, as does my sister (the latter as a professor). I can assure you people in academia absolutely consider Michigan and Berkeley peer institutions to Harvard. UVA is more dependent on discipline. UChicago is also considered a peer institution to any Ivy League school. When Ivy League professors look elsewhere for jobs, Michigan is absolutely on the table. Same for UChicago -- I know a political science professor there who recently went to Michigan.

These divisions you all like to pretend exist among these schools really aren't real.

Universities like Michigan and Berkeley are constructed differently to a school like Harvard or Princeton. They have much larger undergraduate programs, which to a considerable extent support the graduate and research programs, which get a lot of the focus. At a graduate and research level, Michigan and Berkeley can go toe-to-toe with top notch privates, but they have a lot more undergraduates. Michigan has about 30K undergraduates, which are 2/3rds of overall enrollment. Harvard has only 6.7K undergraduates, which are about 30% of overall enrollment.

UVA doesn't rise to the level of Michigan and Berkeley across all graduate fields and in research, but you might argue it is more undergraduate focused than those two schools. It is certainly smaller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]Harvard lists Michigan as a peer institution.[/b] https://faculty.harvard.edu/diversity-peer-institutions

Stop trying so hard

Who cares what some list says? I assure you no one considers Michigan to be a peer institute to Harvard.

It's not "some list." It's literally what HARVARD SAYS.

But who cares, right? All that matters is what an internet forum thinks -- not what Harvard says are its peer institutions. Of course, if Michigan wasn't on that list, you'd be touting it as evidence that Michigan is nowhere near Harvard's quality.

My husband works in higher education, as does my sister (the latter as a professor). I can assure you people in academia absolutely consider Michigan and Berkeley peer institutions to Harvard. UVA is more dependent on discipline. UChicago is also considered a peer institution to any Ivy League school. When Ivy League professors look elsewhere for jobs, Michigan is absolutely on the table. Same for UChicago -- I know a political science professor there who recently went to Michigan.

These divisions you all like to pretend exist among these schools really aren't real.

Universities like Michigan and Berkeley are constructed differently to a school like Harvard or Princeton. They have much larger undergraduate programs, which to a considerable extent support the graduate and research programs, which get a lot of the focus. At a graduate and research level, Michigan and Berkeley can go toe-to-toe with top notch privates, but they have a lot more undergraduates. Michigan has about 30K undergraduates, which are 2/3rds of overall enrollment. Harvard has only 6.7K undergraduates, which are about 30% of overall enrollment.

UVA doesn't rise to the level of Michigan and Berkeley across all graduate fields and in research, but you might argue it is more undergraduate focused than those two schools. It is certainly smaller.

You can't put Harvard and Princeton in the same category when you discuss the structure of the universities. Princeton doesn't have nearly the number of graduate programs Harvard does; it doesn't have a medical school or a law school, for example. Princeton is a much better example of an undergrad-focused school than Harvard, despite the fact that Harvard is smaller than Michigan or Berkeley.

[Anonymous]

She wants to go there.
Is that a crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]Harvard lists Michigan as a peer institution.[/b] https://faculty.harvard.edu/diversity-peer-institutions

Stop trying so hard

Who cares what some list says? I assure you no one considers Michigan to be a peer institute to Harvard.

It's not "some list." It's literally what HARVARD SAYS.

But who cares, right? All that matters is what an internet forum thinks -- not what Harvard says are its peer institutions. Of course, if Michigan wasn't on that list, you'd be touting it as evidence that Michigan is nowhere near Harvard's quality.

My husband works in higher education, as does my sister (the latter as a professor). I can assure you people in academia absolutely consider Michigan and Berkeley peer institutions to Harvard. UVA is more dependent on discipline. UChicago is also considered a peer institution to any Ivy League school. When Ivy League professors look elsewhere for jobs, Michigan is absolutely on the table. Same for UChicago -- I know a political science professor there who recently went to Michigan.

These divisions you all like to pretend exist among these schools really aren't real.

Universities like Michigan and Berkeley are constructed differently to a school like Harvard or Princeton. They have much larger undergraduate programs, which to a considerable extent support the graduate and research programs, which get a lot of the focus. At a graduate and research level, Michigan and Berkeley can go toe-to-toe with top notch privates, but they have a lot more undergraduates. Michigan has about 30K undergraduates, which are 2/3rds of overall enrollment. Harvard has only 6.7K undergraduates, which are about 30% of overall enrollment.

UVA doesn't rise to the level of Michigan and Berkeley across all graduate fields and in research, but you might argue it is more undergraduate focused than those two schools. It is certainly smaller.

You can't put Harvard and Princeton in the same category when you discuss the structure of the universities. Princeton doesn't have nearly the number of graduate programs Harvard does; it doesn't have a medical school or a law school, for example. Princeton is a much better example of an undergrad-focused school than Harvard, despite the fact that Harvard is smaller than Michigan or Berkeley.

This kid doesn't care about any of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]Harvard lists Michigan as a peer institution.[/b] https://faculty.harvard.edu/diversity-peer-institutions

Stop trying so hard

Who cares what some list says? I assure you no one considers Michigan to be a peer institute to Harvard.

It's not "some list." It's literally what HARVARD SAYS.

But who cares, right? All that matters is what an internet forum thinks -- not what Harvard says are its peer institutions. Of course, if Michigan wasn't on that list, you'd be touting it as evidence that Michigan is nowhere near Harvard's quality.

My husband works in higher education, as does my sister (the latter as a professor). I can assure you people in academia absolutely consider Michigan and Berkeley peer institutions to Harvard. UVA is more dependent on discipline. UChicago is also considered a peer institution to any Ivy League school. When Ivy League professors look elsewhere for jobs, Michigan is absolutely on the table. Same for UChicago -- I know a political science professor there who recently went to Michigan.

These divisions you all like to pretend exist among these schools really aren't real.

Universities like Michigan and Berkeley are constructed differently to a school like Harvard or Princeton. They have much larger undergraduate programs, which to a considerable extent support the graduate and research programs, which get a lot of the focus. At a graduate and research level, Michigan and Berkeley can go toe-to-toe with top notch privates, but they have a lot more undergraduates. Michigan has about 30K undergraduates, which are 2/3rds of overall enrollment. Harvard has only 6.7K undergraduates, which are about 30% of overall enrollment.

UVA doesn't rise to the level of Michigan and Berkeley across all graduate fields and in research, but you might argue it is more undergraduate focused than those two schools. It is certainly smaller.

You can't put Harvard and Princeton in the same category when you discuss the structure of the universities. Princeton doesn't have nearly the number of graduate programs Harvard does; it doesn't have a medical school or a law school, for example. Princeton is a much better example of an undergrad-focused school than Harvard, despite the fact that Harvard is smaller than Michigan or Berkeley.

This kid doesn't care about any of that.

How do you know what Sasha Obama cares about? When I was applying to colleges I absolutely thought about how undergrad focused the schools were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s being reported that that’s where she will be attending. Sure it’s a great school for us mortals. But it is rather odd that a president’s child would attend a school ranked #27.

Too many useless Ivy lawyers in her family?

They may be useless Ivy lawyers, but one was president and one was First Lady. They have amassed a significant amount financially, and their kids have access to an Ivy League education if they want it. They are also able to pay for that education without blinking, and have incredible contacts that will benefit their kids upon graduation. Can you say the same?

What's your point?

My point is you should stay away from calling people useless. It's gratuitous meanness. Also, even if they aren't currently using their
Ivy law degrees, those degrees opened doors that otherwise wouldn't have been open to them.

+1 Especially as African Americans who had their credentials questioned every step of the way. And there are millions of Americans who would never call either Obama "useless".

+2.

Many well-educated AAs seem to come from more humble backgrounds (understandably given American history) and go into traditional, high-earning fields--lots of doctors, lawyers, etc. among my HBCU classmates, neighbors, and friends. Wouldn't it be great if she doesn't feel compelled to go into a "practical" field, and instead decides to pursue physics, history, the arts, or other fields where AAs are traditionally even more underrepresented?

Best of luck to her in carving her own path.

+3.

[Anonymous]

Curious question. Would any university, Ivies too, admit a child of a President? Regardless of scores? Prestige and all, right? Even if that kid has worse grades than their regular admitted students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious question. Would any university, Ivies too, admit a child of a President? Regardless of scores? Prestige and all, right? Even if that kid has worse grades than their regular admitted students?

Read Daniel Golden, the Price of Admissions and learn. HYP were fighting to have Lauren Bush granddaughter of Bush I and niece of Bush II, even though she wasn't an outstanding student, had relatively low SAT scores for a HYP admit and submitted her applications one month past the deadline.
http://archive.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2006/10/25/detailing_bias_in_college_admissions/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I entered Mich. in the mid-late 80s, it was ranked 8th in the country, even ahead of schools like Penn.

https://publicuniversityhonors.com/2017/09/13/u-s-news-rankings-for-57-leading-universities-1983-2007/

In the late 80s, US News changed their methodology and it dropped to the 20-25 range. That said, it’s still ranked very high in the London Times survey, which actually is based on peer rankings.

That’s just to say it once had/maybe still has a reputation of being one of the best schools in the country. It was also one of the best sports schools in both football and basketball back then, which might have helped bolster its popularity.

But also back then, schools like Tulane, UCLA, USC were not as high rated as they are today. It seems students (and perhaps faculty) are increasingly attracted to an urban experience rather than heading off to an idyllic college town for four years. Things change.

Sasha doesn’t have to go to a school to open doors. I can understand her wanting to be with people she trusts in an environment big enough that she can blend in.

The acceptance rate for in state applicants is 44.5 percent. The school takes about half of a class from out of state now. That’s why the overall acceptance rate is pretty low.

It's 41% and a very self-selected group. U of M has been concerned for a while that not enough Michigan residents are applying because they think there is no chance of getting in. Therefore, some very qualified kids wind up at Michigan State, which has an overall 79% acceptance rate.

[Anonymous]

Security question and sure Jenna Bush had the same issue at Texas. How in the world does the Secret Service protect these children of Presidents? If Sasha is walking through the Diag or pops into Zingerman's for a sandwich, how can they watch her? Wouldn't it be easier at HYP or Stanford based on size?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Security question and sure Jenna Bush had the same issue at Texas. How in the world does the Secret Service protect these children of Presidents? If Sasha is walking through the Diag or pops into Zingerman's for a sandwich, how can they watch her? Wouldn't it be easier at HYP or Stanford based on size?

They protected Melania and kid in NYC for 6 months. They can handle Ann Arbor. The Secret Service are professionals. It just costs more if you need more of them because of a location's difficulty.