<p>They acknowledged underestimating yield last year; I don't understand why they wouldn't have tried to manage the process better this year, unless there's an undisclosed agenda to increase overall enrollment.</p>
<p>SOB man, i wanted a smaller class, like in the 5,000's not 6,000! Arg, more people to compete against</p>
<p>Oh man.... harder to get in selected majors...
Hopefully I'm not on the lower end of the spectrum.</p>
<p>At least I got my first choice for housing. :)</p>
<p>I like the bigger class, it means there are more top students and more to learn from fellow classmates. The competition is an encouragement for me.</p>
<p>I'm just glad that I got an early orientation so that I'll be more likely to get the classes that I want. Other than that, the class size doesn't bother me that much.</p>
<p>This actually bothers me a great deal. Most universities are actually holding their size steady to keep up with funding issues and to give their students the best possible undergraduate education with the limited resources availlable to them. And here you have Michigan, growing from 20,000 in 1990 to 25,000 today!!! That's a 25% increase. The next 2 years, Michigan should aim for classes of 4,500!!!</p>
<p>Hey, give us a break.</p>
<p>Last year's yield was the highest it had been in anytime in recent history.</p>
<p>Our assumptions for this year was that this yield could not possibly be repeated. Why? Michigan had more applications in the better tiers. And Michigan had more applications overall. Generally, top-quality applicants don't yield as high, and furthermore more applications usually means more students in the pool who aren't deeply interested in attending.</p>
<p>Early in the process, we had few indicators that yield would be the same as last year. I didn't say anything here (thank heaven) but I thought we'd likely be going to the waitlist. By the time we realized that yield was as high as last year, it was too late.</p>
<p>I don't know anyone at Michigan who thinks being bigger is better. I can state unequivocally that there is no secret agenda to grow. It's nice that Michigan is a hot school, and is seeing such high yields when some other public institutions in MI are struggling to maintain enrollment. But we didn't aim for this outcome.</p>
<p>And yes, Michigan will try to have a smaller class next year. If nothing else, they're taking MoJo offline for renovations, so there is no way to house that many freshmen.</p>
<p>heh, maybe they are trying to raise class size now in the hope of pushing the rate of acceptance lower in the future and increase the selectivity of the school even more. </p>
<p>which, not so coincidentally, would push their ranking in the us news report higher...</p>
<p>
[quote]
which, not so coincidentally, would push their ranking in the us news report higher..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it wouldn't.</p>
<p>Hoedown, I realize it is difficult to predict yield. But truly, this is hurting Michigan. We cannot give enough students aid, our classes are getting larger, professors cannot help students as much...and the quality of the student body is not as good as it can be. </p>
<p>It would be better to aim for a class of 4,000 than for a class of 5,500. You said it yourself, top tier students do not usually pick Michigan...the primary reason for this is that lovely 50%-65% acceptance rate of ours. How are we ever going to earn the respect of those impressionable high school students who think selectivity is so important if we keep welcoming record-sized classes. I hope you guys aim for a tiny class (4,000 or 4,500 max) next year. </p>
<p>Sin, % accepted is currently being removed from the USNWR ranking, so I do not believe Michigan is purposely enrolling large classes now to have smaller classes in the future. </p>
<p>Hoedown, on a lighter note, can you share with us the % who graduated in the top 10% of their class, mid 50% SAT and ACT scores of this last class?</p>
<p>Also, any luck finding those peer assessment scores of the 90s?</p>
<p>Hoedown, I have another question similar to Alexandre's. Do you know how many students were given offers of acceptance compared to the number that applied for this year? I'm just curious.</p>
<p>I absolutely 100% agree with Alexandre man. This new fact bummed me out. It will take much more effort, not that much more, but more effort to succeed at michigan. BAH! but hey still, go blue! lol</p>
<p>
[quote]
You said it yourself, top tier students do not usually pick Michigan...the primary reason for this is that lovely 50%-65% acceptance rate of ours. How are we ever going to earn the respect of those impressionable high school students who think selectivity is so important if we keep welcoming record-sized classes. I hope you guys aim for a tiny class (4,000 or 4,500 max) next year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To clarify, I didn't say those students "usually didn't." I said they have a lower yield rate. In some populations I guess it's accurate to say they "usually" go elsewhere. But not all, particularly not the top Michigan residents who apply.</p>
<p>I'm not convinced that a good strategy for enhanced "respectability" is to focus on selectivity. If it were, then why not suggest that U-M lower its application fee? They'd get even more apps (and could say no to more people). </p>
<p>The fact is, Michigan admits haven't changed anywhere near as much yield has. The phrase "welcoming larger classes" suggests Michigan purposely admitted a larger-than-normal class. But in fact, that's not the case. Michigan didn't try to admit a larger-than-normal class. Admits this year were below what we admitted in Fall 2003. (Yes, in hindsight, they should have been even lower!). Our target class for this fall was lower than Fall 2004 and Fall 2003, too (not that this does us much good now).</p>
<p>This seems convoluted, so let me just sum this up by saying Michigan doesn't want to be big. It wasn't aiming for a large class, and it didn't make admit decisions in an attempt to enroll a larger class. Our problem--and it's a serious one!--is that our best models don't seem to be good predictors of yield behavior post Gratz. You can blame us for figuring this out late, I guess, but you'd be wrong to think that Michigan has little regard for its own size or selectivity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hoedown, on a lighter note, can you share with us the % who graduated in the top 10% of their class, mid 50% SAT and ACT scores of this last class?</p>
<p>Also, any luck finding those peer assessment scores of the 90s?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Item 1, No, neither I nor anyone else here will release information like that until it's released publicly (except for the occasional numbers that admissions will release, such as the deposits numbers they gave to the media recently). That won't happen until numbers are finalized, usually after Official Third Week Count when we can also determine enrollment and final yield.</p>
<p>Item 2, Not a matter of looking for them--I know right where they are; it's just that I haven't had much chance to type them out. Since that particular "historical rankings" thread seems dead, I didn't think anyone was still clamoring for it.</p>
<p>reese, see my answer to Alexandre--it's not my place to divulge those numbers, at least not at this stage. I'm not being coy, I said the same thing last week to a guidance counselor who called, and to a colleague at Wisconsin who needed some data. I can't give out numbers until they are vetted and declared official.</p>
<p>Thanks anyway, hoedown.</p>
<p>Here's what i don't understand. I'm going to use very even numbers here for the sake of simplicity. Let's say uMich gets 20,000 applicants and they want to end up enrolling 5,000 when all is said and done. Let's say they expect a yield of 50%. It seems like what you guys are doing in this case is accepting 10,000 so that you get exactly 5,000 enrolling if your yield predictions are perfect. However, wouldn't it be safer in this case to accept 9,000 just in case your yield predictions are wrong, and as a worst case scenario you go to the waitlist rather than over-enrolling? To me, taking applicants off the waitlist is a far healthier practice than having oversized classes.</p>
<p>Frankly, that's pretty much what happened (though with some caveats). The thing is, that cushion gets eaten up pretty fast. Let's use your numbers, and assume Michigan did as you suggested (accepted 9,000 on a 50% yield assumption). That assumption would bring Michigan well under the target. But then whoops, yield ends up 60%! Suddenly you've got 400 students over target despite being conservative. It happens. </p>
<p>The caveat is that I don't think it's good for a school to plan to fill in the class by using 500 students that you waitlisted (which is what your scenario suggests, if successful). That's not how the waitlist is generally intended to be used. For smaller numbers, sure. Not 500 people, not 10% of your class.</p>
<p>Hmm.....using the waitlist to back-load a class if fairly common. I know Washington University does it; they wait-list huge numbers of applicants because their yield has been very unpredictable. From the viewpoint of the college, it seems like a fail-safe way to keep enrollment at optimum. It's awfully unfair to the kids on the waitlist though.</p>
<p>I don't see how overenrolling your freshman class by 500 students is any better than taking 500 off the waitlist. I think the university meets its own targets much better with the waitlist situation.</p>
<p>Same "problem" at Wisconsin. But we could use the extra tuition $$$$ this year. BTW target is 5500 freshmen.</p>
<p>"I would venture to say it will be an unusually large freshman class-could be 5,900 or more," Associate Director of Admissions Tom Reason said.</p>
<p>According to Reason, the overabundance of new freshmen is due in part to "overadmittance" by the department of Admissions, but has even more to do with the increased yield in terms of admitted students who opt to attend UW-Madison.</p>