It would seem that Michigan has released some preliminary figures. The University received 55,500 applications, and admitted 16,100 of them, of which 6,600 enrolled.
As such, the overall acceptance rate was 29%, a slight increase from last year’s 26% acceptance rate. This is not surprising considering that the University increased the size of its freshman class by 10%. The yield dropped from 46% last year to 41% this year, which does not help matters. This could be a sign that the students admitted this year were stronger academically and that a larger percentage of those admitted this year were from OOS.
Furthermore, Michigan uncharacteristically broke it down further.
In-state applicants: 10,959 of which 4,511 (or 41%) were admitted.
Out of state applicants: 44,541 of which 10,815 (or 24%) were admitted
Of the 44,541 out of state applicants, 8,758 were international applicants, but the article did not specify the acceptance rate of OOS American vs OOS international.
I’ll be interested in final enrollment as the 6,600 does not include the “summer melt”. But apparently without any dorms being put out of service due to renovation the University felt they had the room to expand the class size some likely accommodating with increased faculty as well.
I would guess most of the increased enrollment is from out of state as those students bring in the dough.
@marfalights MSU received 19,091 in-state applications this year. However, the number of in-state applicants to UM this year isn’t much lower than previous years I think.
In-state students only apply to Michigan if they have strong credentials. The 41% acceptance rate is misleading. The majority of those 11,000 applicants are A students with solid standardized test scores.
I agree with @guitar321 and @blue85. Why do they do this? Michigan is clearly in league with some of the most selective universities in the world, yet is keeping its model of being an all-accepting state school when they have no reason to. It has the largest endowment of any public university, and barely any support from the state compared to other publics, meaning Michigan doesn’t have the same “pressure” to take in-state kids with lower scores–they can do what they want. I mean, if we were talking California or NY in-state students that’d be one thing, but the state of Michigan has a completely different population (a lot smaller), with lots of young people leaving the state anyway. Plus, Michigan State is a good state school itself, so we already have a model for a fair, quality in-state university system–it’s not like the state of Michigan is in dire need of a decent public school. What Michigan is doing makes no sense to me.
With only encouraging the top Michigan students to even -apply- (in contrast with UChicago mailing ads to everyone and their dog) and expanding their student body year after year, it’s like Michigan -wants- to increase their admissions rate, which is so out of tune with almost every university out there. I’d just like to understand the reasoning behind it.
eyo777, many Michigan residents want their cake, and eat it too!
Seriously, many residents want access to a world class university and are very threatened by any talk of scaling down the number of in-state students. Ironically, stubbornly clinging on to an outdated enrollment model is hurting the university. There is no upside to enrolling 28,000 undergraduate students. Michigan has the resources to make Michigan an unbeatable experience with 20,000 undergraduate students. Beyond 22,000, the ability to do so is seriously jeopardized.
Agreed, @eyo777. while a nearly 30% acceptance rate was selective maybe 5 years ago, things are changed now. American U–while a great school, but not comparable to Michigan–has an acceptance rate of 25%. UCLA and UCB, often compared to Michigan, have rates of about 17-18%. Michigan should focus on lowering it to remain competitive
guitar321, I am not concerned with acceptance rates. AU and UCLA may have lower acceptance rates, but Michigan has a stronger student body. My concern is with the undergraduate experience and resource allocation. I don’t see how Michigan can handle 28,000+ undergraduate students the way an elite university should. 20,000-22,000 is the limit as far as I am concerned.
Agreed @Alexandre, but I still think it’s possible. UTexas Austin, for example, is recognized as a top public school, and it has 10,000 more undergrad students than Michigan. Michigan is also among the top 10 colleges with largest endowments, which would surely make it possible to accommodate a larger class. Still, I agree; I think it’ll be difficult to have a greater number of smaller classes, and it’ll diminish individualized attention, etc
@Alexandre Re: In-staters feeling threatened about being cut off from a good in-state public U–why is the state of Michigan special? Don’t you think those in California, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, etc. feel similarly? Those flagships aren’t being “held back” (and whatever amount they still are being “held back,” it’s because they have more support from their respective states than Michigan does, meaning less autonomy!)
Like I said, Michigan State exists, and considering what a lot of other flagship state schools are like (e.g. New Jersey, Arkansas, Nevada, etc.) it’s actually a really good option.
I have to agree with the sentiment that Michigan is sort of shooting itself in the foot. With little state funding, Michigan should seek to reserve less seats for in-state, and increase outreach for all talented students, and provide means for them to attend. It is a great opportunity for the State of Michigan to bring talent into the state.
I think we’re at the point where even if Michigan gets like 3k more applicants every year the acceptance rate won’t go below 20% by 2020 whereas like Berkeley and UCLA are already at 14 and 17 this year
^^^^Who cares where the acceptance rate is? Honestly, there is no way Michigan is EVER going to have a sub 20% acceptance rate. The demographics of the state will not allow for it. Michigan is not California!
eyo, UNC actually has restrictions by the state. It used to be that only 18.5% of the student body could be non-residents. I am not sure if that figure this holds. Among UCs, Cal has the most OOS students, and they only account for 20% of the total undergraduate student body. Michigan’s 40%+ OOS population is actually excellent. But I agree that the University could justifiably flip the in-state vs OOS ratio if it so wished. But I am sure it would not be a popular decision.
My daughter is at Michigan right now for orientation and the openings in classes for the fall is really tight. The freshman writing seminars are almost completely full. I’m wondering what the kids coming in July and August are going to do.
That’s my concern blprof. I am not obsessed with acceptance rates. When it comes to admissions, as long as Michigan admits and attrats a highly qualified freshmen class, you are going to have an intellectually vibrant community, and that is all I care about in this regard.
But my concern is about resources. How do you ensure that freshmen (juniors and seniors have no problem with resources) are provided with an optimal classroom experience…one befitting an elite university such as Michigan.
While I agree with not wanting to increase class size, the link states the addition of resources. The freshman difficulty in registration is not new. New seats are periodically added over the registration period or you take 8 am classes / flexibility needed.
