<p>Little do we know that there's this underground group of about 2000 students who are just accepting admission at every major research university in the nation and it just APPEARS to be high yield. I mean, i get the feeling of "where do all these people come from?"</p>
<p>I have heard of some kids submitting multiple reservations--it usually only takes $100 or so, and then trying to negotiate better aid deals and such.</p>
<p>hoedown,</p>
<p>I can readily accept that 2004 was an aberration, with yield jumping from 40% for fall '03 to 45%; although the first reported admissions from the waitlist suggest someone was not content with the class size.</p>
<p>However, on the heels of a 500 student overenrollment, I would think UM would have been extremely conservative for '05, assuming the highest expected yield. In the event of a lower yield, to the extent of 500 students you offset the prior year excess, if more you go to the waitlist. To the extent that UM offered admission to more than 12,222 (5500/.45), I would suggest there may be a further agenda.</p>
<p>You have hinted at such an agenda: intentional over-enrollment in 2004 & 2005 to compensate for planned under-enrollment in 2006 & 2007 as dorm's are taken off-line for renovation, and prior to North Quad being brought on-line in 2008. If this is the case, I feel it is unfair to students in all of the affected classes: 2004 & 2005 have to deal with impact of 10% over-admission, 2006 & 2007 students will have to deal with higher admission standards (a la 2002, as you have pointed out).</p>
<p>Personally, my child turned down merit scholarships to UM to attend another school, and with this news I am now fully at peace with that decision.</p>
<p>I have no idea what 'agenda' you are talking about. I could not have "hinted at" one because I have no knowledge of one.</p>
<p>If there is an agenda at the higher levels, they have kept it well hidden from those who try to admit the right class. </p>
<p>If you had access to the yield model, I think it would lay a large part of your admonitions about Michigan's lask of yield conservatism to rest. </p>
<p>I do my worthy colleagues here a real disservice if my words have led you to believe that Michigan acts duplicitously with little regard for its prospective students. What a shame. However, if believing that has made you even more content with your child's enrollment choice, I'll call that a silver lining! </p>
<p>Everyone knows college choice can be agonizing, and I believe that conjuring up something ugly about the place you said "no" to can provide some assurance. I indulged in the same thing myself. But I must say, I'd be better pleased if you kept that triumph to yourself, because in sharing it I believe you are spreading misleading information. That seems to come with the territory on these boards; I should get used to it! LOL :)</p>
<p>Hoedown, as you know, I am quite possibly the most vocal supporter of Michigan on this forum, sometimes to my own detriment. I nevertheless accept the consequences. But even I find it highly irregular that Michigan has overshot the mark by 25%. Is it possible that after a class of 6,000 in 2004, Michigan was aiming for a class of more than 5,000 this fall? If not, how did Michigan manage to get checks from 6,500 students. Clearly you are not to blame. There are dozens...if not hundreds of people involved in the admissions process at a university the size of Michigan. But something has to be done. At this rate, Michigan is going to become another Minnesota or Indiana. There is no way Michigan can afford to remain an elite university with such huge entering classes. Aven with class sizes averaging 5,000, Michigan is hurting itself. A university with Michigan's resources has no business having more than 20,000 undergrads. But at 6,000, Michigan is destroying itself. I hope Michigan aims fo a class of 4,500 next year, and accepts no more than 8,000 students to see to it that a class of less than 5,000 commits.</p>
<p>I am sorry, I never meant to imply that Michigan was aiming for 5,000. I think I used that number when someone else supplied it as a round-number "for example." Michigan was aiming for a little over 5,200 for Fall only. What's a little confusing is that the deposit count also includes 200+ Summer deposits. </p>
<p>If it's any reassurance, Michigan is not "well on its way" to being something other than what it is. I mean, god forbid, I suppose there is a chance I'll be here next Spring having a panic attack and prematurely grey, LOL. But BELIEVE ME, Michigan doesn't want or need to be so big. I love your loyalty to Michigan; rest assured people here love it for the same reasons and don't want it to change in the wrong ways. </p>
<p>Caveat: I suppose the new provost might feel diferently, but I'd be surprised.</p>
<p>I confess, we were naive to think that the highest yield in over 7 years could be repeated in a year when apps went up over 10%. Even conservatism will not save you when students behave so differently than in the past. It's clear after a year of missplaced skepticism: Michigan's applicant pool is a different sort of animal now. </p>
<p>In response to an earlier note, I'd be well pleased if it turned out a lot of people DID double-deposit and follow their heart elsewhere. We track summer "melt" each year (melt being people who send a deposit but over the summer tell us they've changed their minds). Thus far it hasn't been bigger than previous years. But I'm still crossing my fingers!</p>
<p>And I want to repeat something that struck me again upon rereading:</p>
<p>
[quote]
intentional over-enrollment in 2004 & 2005 to compensate for planned under-enrollment in 2006 & 2007 as dorm's are taken off-line for renovation, and prior to North Quad being brought on-line in 2008.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have not have said any such thing, because this is the first I've heard of such a scheme (a "scheme" which I also believe is pure fiction).</p>
<p>I did note that next year's class must not be as large because MoJo is going offline. Housing has been able to reconfigure things to accommodate an unexpectedly large class the last two years, but they could not do the same thing in Fall 2006. That is true. </p>
<p>I have never stated, however, or hinted, that U-M "intentionally overenrolled" in 2004 and 2005 to make up for future renovations, or for any other reason.</p>
<p>I'm being quite firm about this, because a newcomer unfamiliar with prior discussions may believe that this misattribution is truth. Perhaps someone else implied that the overenrollment was planned, but it couldn't have been me (because I know otherwise).</p>
<p>Thank you for your patience and for humoring us Hoedown. You have been a good sport. By the way, the assumption that Michigan was aiming for a class of 5,000 was my own. If it is any consolation, I think that 2 of the 16 students from the UAE who sent their enrollment checks to Michigan are probably going elesewhere. I will keep you posted for more!</p>
<p>I feel like a jerk saying I wish students were no-shows. I mean, obviously anyone we admitted is someone we believe would be a fine addition to the campus. It's just -- well, you know where I'm coming from. LOL</p>
<p>And you're generous to say I'm being good-humored. In truth I'm being too crabby. It's a personal affront to me, actually, that the class was so big, even if it's big for what we'd probably say was the right reason (i.e. fabulous yield). I don't need to take it out on you fine folk, however.</p>
<p>Honestly, I thought we were going to the waitlist this year. Things changed fast.</p>
<p>Woah, nice edit, Hoedown! No need to get defensive, I was just getting ready to thank you for your kind wishes! </p>
<p>I meant to include "possible" with agenda, so consider my comment edited as well. Here is your quote, by the way: "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." Almost suggests they didn't try this year.</p>
<p>My additional comfort with my child's decision reflects solely the knowledge that he/she will not have to deal with the added stress on all aspects of university life created by an additional 1000 students beyond normal capacity. I have not "conjured" anything, nor have I made any misleading statements.</p>
<p>As far as whether "Michigan acts duplicitously with little regard for its prospective students", I didn't state that, but I call your attention information you provided previously: "They set the target lower for Fall 2002 and tried to recruit a smaller class, in part because they'd overshot the previous few years." And from the Record, "The first-year student enrollment of 5,187 reflected a planned decrease in the freshman class in order to create a stable undergraduate student body for the 2002*03 school year. " The '02 acceptance rate was 49%, the lowest on record; how fair was that for '02 applicants?</p>
<p>Bianchi, I am pretty sure that 49% wasn't the lowest acceptance rate on record. Michigan used to routinely accept 40% of its applicants in the 80s. And this year, despite the huge class, Michigan accepted only 12,500 students (out of 24,000 applicants). I also expect an acceptance rate of just 40% the next two years. I personally think Michigan will accept 10,000 students from application pools of 25,000 or so each of the next two years. Michigan is on the brink of an interesting era in terms of selectivity. More and more students are picking Michigan over Ivies and schools like Chicago, Johns Hopkins and Northwestern. The yield rate is not an isolated incident. I think it will stablize at 55%. </p>
<p>Admitedly, if more than 6,000 students actually enroll, the Freshmen are going to be in a very bad situation. But I believe that roughly 10% of the kids who paid the deposit will be no-shows. </p>
<p>Just the same, it is time for Michigan to think like an elite university and expect a yield rate of 60%. If the class falls short, it can dip into the wait list or better yet, have a smaller class than expected for a change!!!</p>
<p>"Michigan used to routinely accept 40% of its applicants in the 80s."</p>
<p>That seems unlikely, Alexandre. The earliest figure I've seen is 1989: 10,061 offers to 16,833 applicants, or ~60% acceptance rate. To achieve 40% would require substantially more applications or Ivyesque yields. If you have a data source, I'd be interested in seeing it.</p>
<p>I remember seeing some college guides in the 80s (Barrons in particular) that use to say that Michigan's acceptance rate was roughly 40%.</p>
<p>Alexandre-</p>
<p>You also state they accepted 12,500 this year. Where did you see that figure? Hoedown stated earlier that it was not yet available.</p>
<p>I do wish your offspring well--that was a goof to not include it with the edit. I acted on an impulse to vent my spleen, but I didn't mean to eliminate that altogether.</p>
<p>I apparently misunderstood you on a few items, so thanks for the clarification. I also apparently wasn't very explicit in earlier discussions, as I've been misunderstood as well. Some people seem to regard U-M with suspicion, and I'm quite frustrated that I seem to have contributed to that view. </p>
<p>Addressing a few things:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Almost suggests they didn't try this year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that's not how I would read that. </p>
<p>With Mojo offline, things will be different. It's the difference between whether the people in Housing are tearing their hair out (Fall 2004 & 2005) or jumping off buildings (Fall 2006, if we overshoot again). </p>
<p>Needless to say, we try hard to have neither happen.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"The first-year student enrollment of 5,187 reflected a planned decrease in the freshman class in order to create a stable undergraduate student body for the 2002*03 school year"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is true that in the past Michigan has shrunk when they needed to stabilize the student body. But that doesn't mean to imply that the converse is true--that is, that the University inflates the class prior to planned shrinkage (and more on "planned shrinkage" in a moment!). To my knowledge, they've never done that. Isn't that what you meant when you said:</p>
<p>
[quote]
intentional over-enrollment in 2004 & 2005 to compensate for planned under-enrollment in 2006 & 2007 as dorm's are taken off-line for renovation
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or did I misinterpret?</p>
<p>Back to Fall 2002. Yes, in Fall 2002, it was harder to get in (due to a lower target). I am sure that doesn't seem fair to those who applied and weren't accepted. But neither is it fair to U-M students, (or to faculty, to the State of Michigan, to other constituencies) to pay no attention to enrollment blips and not act responsively to try to correct such unplanned growth (or unplanned declines, when they happen). Obviously it would be better for everyone if we didn't have these aberrant years. No argument there.</p>
<p>I don't know what Michigan will do next year. Will they try for a lower target, as some (like Alexandre) have called for? Or will they keep the same target (but take draconian steps not to overshoot it)? This is where I should address the idea of "planned underenrollment" you mentioned in post #23 (quoted just above). It was my understanding that with MoJo offline, Michigan can't repeat the last two years (hence the accurate term "smaller class"), but I didn't think that means Michigan must have an smaller target than normal. At any rate, I don't think those conversations have happened yet. If I said we planned to underenroll, then I misspoke myself and I apologize. </p>
<p>Finally, thanks for the clarification--I completely understand being glad your child isn't going to be in a packed class. I misinterpreted your comments utterly (that you were glad your child wasn't attending a school which you believed acts capriciously and in bad faith). </p>
<p>I am sorry. I inserted considerable ill-will in this thread with that error.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Alexandre- You also state they accepted 12,500 this year. Where did you see that figure? Hoedown stated earlier that it was not yet available.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, the numbers aren't released yet--not sure where A's getting 12,500, but it's not the right number.</p>
<p>Thanks, Hoedown. My apologies as well: I should have made it clear that the "enrollment manipulation" theory was pure speculation on my part. However, given the budget issues it does not seem that far-fetched.</p>
<p>I actually pulled that # (12,500) out of my behind! I was hoping that Hoedown would correct me by giving out the actual number. Thanks for foiling my plot Bianchi! hehe </p>
<p>Actually, I estimated 12,500...but it could be a little more. I mean, Michigan was aiming for a class of 5,200 or so. And the admissions office probably expected a 40% yield. So Michigan probably accepted 13,000 or so. But that is a wild guestimate...and Hoedown simply won't budge! LOL</p>
<p>Because fall 2004 and 2005 are expected to be about 500 over the typically 5500-range, won't they <em>need</em> to have smaller classes to balance it out--especially as MoJo and Stockwell will be closed in the 2006 and 2007 years, respectively.</p>
<p>On a related note, I am a UM student who wants to stay in the dorms. Last year I was a first-year student in a learning community and I am returning to it next year (the UIR, now MRC, located in MoJo). While I expect they will keep the program, albeit at a different dorm (I've heard Couzens, possibly West Quad, etc.), how difficult would it be for me to secure a space in a dorm (i.e. Bursley, as I'd be in my third year as an engineer) being an upperclassmen. I've heard they wanted the upperclassmen out to make room for the record freshman classes who are guaranteed housing. My last bet is to get a position, such as being an RA, to ensure I can stay in the dorms, but it'd be comforting to know how easy it is to stay in the dorms if you're not part of the staff or in a learning community.</p>
<p>Matthew, it's not that they "wanted upperclassmen out." Michigan wants to be able to house upperclassmen who wish to stay in housing. I think in a typical year there's something like 1000 juniors & seniors who live in campus housing. </p>
<p>You're right that there's less room for upperclassmen when the freshmen classes are so large, but they wouldn't ever push out ALL upperclassmen. Generally the way they handle an overage is to advertise housing availability less aggressively, and then to allow upperclassmen out of their contracts without hassle or penalty (there are always a few who sign up for housing but change their minds). Last year they also moved some people around (with their blessing) such as letting some upperclassmen move into unused family housing apartments.</p>
<p>In short, they always try to have some availability for upperclassmen. If you want to stay in housing as a junior, my best advice is to make sure you get your application in well before the deadline.</p>