Anonymous wrote:What door(s) does Michigan close?

Yes. 2 Brown graduates have won Nobel prizes, whereas 8 UM grads have won. Michigan does not seem to have closed many doors for them.

The difference becomes even more dramatic if one includes faculty nobel laureates. Clearly UM is much bigger and has more of a research focus, so this is not meant to belittle Brown, just to show that UM is a fantastic school that will never hold anyone back.

has the child in question already been accepted to both schools? because if not this is a stupid conversation. i wouldn't waste a lot of sleep asking these questions until your child already has both acceptances in hand.

What door(s) does Michigan close?

Anonymous wrote:Goodness, I'd never call Michigan a safety school. And I'm from Ohio with an inborn dislike of the place. (Go Buckeyes

There are students for whom UM is a safety school (usually in-staters). For those students, it makes sense to consider a top-tier private school where they might also be among the top of their peers. I personally don't think Brown competes academically with HYPMS, but it does offer advantages that make it worthwhile. I also think it's easier to get a top notch education at Brown than at UM, where you have to work a little harder to choose the right classes and cultivate relationships with the right faculty.

Anonymous wrote:Whether you want to believe it or not, going to UMich immediately closes some doors. Going to Brown doesn't close any doors.

Bingo.

Whether you want to believe it or not, going to UMich immediately closes some doors. Going to Brown doesn't close any doors.

I worked at JHU too. It could be a great place for a certain kind of undergrad (future academic), but the student body as a whole wasn't that type (more pre-professional).

The idea that Michigan is comparable to an Ivy is laughable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College rankings take in so much that has nothing to do with the quality of a student's undergraduate experience. In the US News rankings that came out yesterday, they included a list that I find interesting every year: Best Undergraduate Teaching
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching

As the parent of kids heading for college, this is what matters most to me: the schools that are renowned for actually teaching undergrad students. Interesting that both Brown and Michigan rank well. Also interesting that Harvard, Chicago and Hopkins are not in the Top 20. All are known for incredible graduate/professional schools, and all are known for providing less than stellar undergraduate experiences.

1. Princeton
2. Miami of Ohio
3. Yale
4. Brown
5. Rice; Wake Forest
7. Dartmouth; Michigan; Notre Dame
10. Stanford; Vanderbilt
12. William & Mary
13. Purdue
14. Duke; Georgia State; Wisconsin; Washington U. in St. Louis
18. Cal-Berkeley; UMBC; WPI

Actually, Harvard, Chicago, and Hopkins can be great places for undergrads who are very academically-oriented. They're really exciting intellectual environments and faculty are often quite supportive of smart kids who share their interests/enthusiasms.

PP here. I used to work at JHU, during the time they devoted a year to trying to make the undergrad experience not so bad. Don't take it from me, here's a blurb from the report the President's committee published:

Notwithstanding the many positive aspects of our undergraduate programs, students’ current levels of satisfaction with both their academic and social experiences at Johns Hopkins are lower than we should find acceptable and do not reflect the educational experience that the University can and should provide. In terms of institutional reputation and our own values, we cannot afford to continue business as usual. Ours is an institution that accepts excellence as a threshold criterion for any undertaking. We expect to be competitive for the very best faculty and students. We expect to engage in world-class research. Our goal should be to offer the very best quality undergraduate experience.

To meet this goal, we have work to do and needs that must be addressed. The single most important undergraduate need at Johns Hopkins is to strengthen the sense of community. The second is the need for
better integration of the elements of the undergraduate experience and for a healthier sense of balance. A third need around which many of the recommendations cohere is the need for undergraduate education at Hopkins to be more personal. There is also a need to reconcile the gap between the perception of not caring and the reality that many do indeed feel passionately about the satisfaction and success of
undergraduates. And, finally, the need to be more intentional about undergraduate education is a fifth need and the focus of many of the recommendations.

Great for JHU to acknowledge this, but very telling they know how inferior their undergraduate experience is.

Anonymous wrote:College rankings take in so much that has nothing to do with the quality of a student's undergraduate experience. In the US News rankings that came out yesterday, they included a list that I find interesting every year: Best Undergraduate Teaching
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching

As the parent of kids heading for college, this is what matters most to me: the schools that are renowned for actually teaching undergrad students. Interesting that both Brown and Michigan rank well. Also interesting that Harvard, Chicago and Hopkins are not in the Top 20. All are known for incredible graduate/professional schools, and all are known for providing less than stellar undergraduate experiences.

1. Princeton
2. Miami of Ohio
3. Yale
4. Brown
5. Rice; Wake Forest
7. Dartmouth; Michigan; Notre Dame
10. Stanford; Vanderbilt
12. William & Mary
13. Purdue
14. Duke; Georgia State; Wisconsin; Washington U. in St. Louis
18. Cal-Berkeley; UMBC; WPI

Actually, Harvard, Chicago, and Hopkins can be great places for undergrads who are very academically-oriented. They're really exciting intellectual environments and faculty are often quite supportive of smart kids who share their interests/enthusiasms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people still think elite colleges have individual character anymore. They're all full of ambitious gunners who applied to 10-20 of them and go to the (highest ranked) one they get into.

This is so true.

Not true of the kids from DC's private who actually got into the most elite colleges. They typically applied to 2 or 3 and their preference wasn't always for the top-ranked one -- which makes sense because differences in prestige/educational quality among the top schools are minimal, whereas lots of other factors (environment, requirements) can vary significantly.

College rankings take in so much that has nothing to do with the quality of a student's undergraduate experience. In the US News rankings that came out yesterday, they included a list that I find interesting every year: Best Undergraduate Teaching
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching

As the parent of kids heading for college, this is what matters most to me: the schools that are renowned for actually teaching undergrad students. Interesting that both Brown and Michigan rank well. Also interesting that Harvard, Chicago and Hopkins are not in the Top 20. All are known for incredible graduate/professional schools, and all are known for providing less than stellar undergraduate experiences.

1. Princeton
2. Miami of Ohio
3. Yale
4. Brown
5. Rice; Wake Forest
7. Dartmouth; Michigan; Notre Dame
10. Stanford; Vanderbilt
12. William & Mary
13. Purdue
14. Duke; Georgia State; Wisconsin; Washington U. in St. Louis
18. Cal-Berkeley; UMBC; WPI

Anonymous wrote:I love how people still think elite colleges have individual character anymore. They're all full of ambitious gunners who applied to 10-20 of them and go to the (highest ranked) one they get into.

This is so true.

Anonymous wrote:Michigan is a safety school - - - I wouldn't want it on my resume/LinkedIn for the rest of my life.

Ugh.

Anonymous wrote:I work in the District Mon-Thurs and our main residence is in Metro Detroit. Daughter likes UMich but believes too many students from her h.s. matriculate so it ends up being h.s. 2.0. She plans to specifically target Brown and would attend UMich if rejected. But if she's accepted to both, is Brown worth the extra $120K? I'm on the fence.

Are you completely crazy or unmentionably wealthy? If you have thousand dollar bills lining your litter box, then OK, spend the change on Brown. But if you are more or less middle class and would feel that $68K every year, send your kid to UMich, which is a great and huge school, BTW. Your child won't see her HS classmates there unless by some weird chance they are enrolled in the same sports and classes. Even then, her HS classmates will be diluted by all the new kids from all over the country.

I went to an Ivy and I would never send my children to one. I wouldn't even let my child apply to the one I attended. A friend who graduated from Harvard has been visiting schools with his daughter and says most of the "lesser" schools he's looking at have better teaching than he experienced at Harvard. My children are at schools that are sneered at by this board, but we're paying in-state tuition, and they are getting a fabulous education, equal to or better than the education I received at my Ivy. The difference is that the "lesser" schools are more like high school was for my kids: they were in the top tier at their high schools and they are in the top tier in their colleges. Were they at an Ivy, they'd be in that hyper-competitive atmosphere where everyone is clawing for the top. I loathed that competitive "win at any cost" mindless amosphere at my Ivy, but if your kid wants it, and you can afford it, go for Brown! I'd go to UMich, given what I know now.