<p>This is not necessarily true – although it <em>may</em> be true in nine cases out of 10. Eg. this whole thread has been about a student who got into Harvard but not Michigan. So if you ask the OP, which is harder to get into, Harvard or Michigan, what would you expect the answer to be? ;)</p>
<p>While it’s true that that 20% of 50,000 (Michigan) represents more admits than 10% of 24,000 applicants (Dartmouth), Dartmouth does not have the exact same concerns that Michigan has due to self-selection.</p>
<p>Eg. Michigan has to apportion in-state and out-of-state. It is committed to socio-economic diversity. And it does not have a lot of OOS merit lying about. In fact, it relies on it’s rather hefty OOS rate for operating capital. Seems to me there might be a whole lotta metrics that go into the equation when all other aspects of applicants are equal.</p>
<p>I think the arrogance is all on the part of the OP who pretty clearly had a sense he was entitled to admission at Michigan. In my book, if that sense of entitlement came through in his essays or any other part of his application, it would be reason enough to reject him in its own right.</p>
<p>Every year there are stories of a few high-stats OOS applicants who aren’t admitted to Michigan. In many cases they express the same kind of stunned disbelief the OP here did. If Michigan had a strictly by-the-numbers admissions process, that reaction would be understandable. But their admissions process is more holistic than that; you can look at the actual rating form they use and see that it’s pretty complicated and goes way beyond grades and test scores. And beyond a certain point grades and test scores just become a minimum qualification, not a driver of the process, just as at any highly selective school. As Alexandre points out, especially for OOS applicants Michigan needs to be considered a highly selective school. If Alexandre’s figure of a 20% admit rate for OOS applicants is correct, that puts Michigan roughly in the same ballpark with schools like Williams, Middlebury, Cornell, and Johns Hopkins–schools where high-stats applicants get rejected all the time, and no one bats an eye.</p>
<p>It’s just a bad mistake for any OOS applicant to view Michigan as a safety, or to assume their admission there is (or should be) a foregone conclusion.</p>
<p>My issue does not revolve around acceptance rates, which many of you are hotly debating. Another student from my school was accepted, with significantly worse stats, this year RD. We both applied to the College of Engineering. Could the essay carry that much weight? I know he was accepted, he showed me the email.</p>
<p>EDIT:
I never viewed Michigan as a safety. I am strictly concerned with comparisons to peers who were accepted with (significantly) worse stats. I have mentioned that it was my top choice school, but never as a safety or backup.</p>
<p>But there is no indication that you treated it like a first choice school. Why, for instance, did you not apply EA? And some posters are telling you that there are more than stats. You sort of sold out your brother with his stats, with the implication that they were so much weaker than yours, but does you brother have any redeemable qualities that you don’t have? Every elite school takes kids with “weaker stats” and waitlists/denies kids with higher stats. Not unusual in the least. There are tons of kids with 2350-2400s who get rejected from Ivies while tons with 2150-2250 get in.</p>
<p>You apply to a school. College of Engineering, LSA, Kinesiology, Architecture, Business, etc. Later, during fresh/soph year, you choose a major based on your GPA and other prereqs.</p>
<p>Yes, it is unusual to get accepted to Harvard and not to UMi. I’ve known a few cases like that when it comes to specialty programs. When the seats are filled in a state university, Einstein can’t get accepted, because the doors are shut. I know two buddies who still have a standing joke that is now funny, but no so 40 years ago where one was turned down at State U for engineering and the other was not, but the one who got turned down ended up at MIT. It was a very long year for the one who got turned down while many of his classmates with stats not so great got accepted to State U for engineering. He did not get one of the spots. </p>
<p>I have a son who was turned down by UMi too, because he applied to their very selective MT program. Some of the kids who get turned down by these specialty programs that have only so many seats do get into top schools because of their unusual talent hook and great academics whereas for a program that is audition based, the academics are often reduced to a check mark as to whether they pass muster or not, and the rest goes on other attributes that might be top rung at any school but at one that has a conservatory or professional program.</p>
<p>Finally, I have a friend whose son was rejected from an aeronatical engineering program. The school itself accepts 90% of all applicants. bit the program to which he applied only had limited seats and it was a fierce competition to get any of them, with the acceptance rates worse than the inverse of that for the school in general.</p>
<p>So it can depend on how the admisisons are handled.</p>
<p>Well, yes, the essay could carry that much weight. If you look Michigan’s common data set, it tells you how they rank various admissions factors. The essay gets the same weight (“important”) as standardized test scores. Only “rigor of secondary school record” and “academic GPA” are more important (rated “very important”). So I’d say an essay they don’t like could easily trump top test scores, and an essay they do like could propel an applicant with slightly lower test scores ahead of one with slightly stronger test scores. </p>
<p>Also rated “important” are recommendations, character/personal qualities, and “first generation”–a signal they’re pretty committed to socioeconomic diversity, which they’re striving to address because state law now prohibits them from considering race. Somewhat less important (but “considered”) are class rank, ECs, talent/ability, alumni/ae relation, geographical residence, state residency, volunteer work, work experience, and level of applicant’s interest.</p>
<p>That’s what they say about it by checking boxes on the common data set form. In real life it’s a little more complicated than that. If you look at the rating sheet they use to evaluate each applicant, there are 47 distinct categories that they rate you on:</p>
<p>Most of these are “soft” variables. So it’s not just the essay; it really is a holistic process. They are not just looking for the highest grades and test scores, any more than Harvard is. Grades and test scores probably matter more further down the scale, where they may be disqualifying. But once you qualify on that front–and especially once you’re in the top quartile of their expected entering class in GPA and test scores–then it’s no longer going to be differences in grades and test scores that are going to be decisive. The difference between a 34 and 35 on the ACT means nothing to them; nor does, probably, the difference between a 33 and a 36, because all those scores are in their top quartile and have exactly the same effect on their medians. But we know that not every applicant with a 33 or higher gets admitted. In that range, it’s going to come down to soft variables like essays, recommendations, evidence of academic passion, and whether you’ve given them evidence of interest and a good fit. Just as at any other highly selective school.</p>
<p>One other minor point – when did the other student who you believe had a weaker application apply?</p>
<p>We (in Michigan highschools) hear about this happening a least once a year, where a Val from one of our best schools will not get in. Most times its has to do (at least according to our school’s gc) with applying regular instead of Early Response. I do suspect predicted yield and perceived interest is related as well. It also may be as simple as recognizing with your stats you’d be given great financial packages elsewhere where merit is more readily available. Middle income is tough because sometimes its not enough to afford Michigan, but too much to qualify for need-based aid. </p>
<p>Because Michigan’s EA is non-binding, I believe you can still apply while applying ED elsewhere. If you weren’t aware of this, you should perhaps let your guidance counselor know so that other qualified candidates do not make the same mistake.</p>
<p>^oops, sorry, I’d missed that part. My best guess remains likelihood of yield. I’ve no doubt you were in a “strong admit” pile, but that somehow through projections derived from your essays or history or some other metric the adcom divined it simply did not go your way.</p>
<p>It’s one thing to say that equal decision is given to regular apps, but when you have thousands and thousands of qualified apps on tap from EA who’ve been deferred, and thousand and thousands of qualified apps in hand, I think subconsciously an adcom might start to look for reasons of “non-fit” as the natural, human response to the fact there are only a few spots left with any earmarked, hooked applicants still to go. So I think in truth equal consideration does not really mean equal odds of getting a spot when push comes to shove.</p>
<p>After you graduate from Harvard, just for fun, you should write a grad application to Michigan describing the defining moment of your life as your Michigan rejection (Just kidding, sort of, but it would be kind of fun on a lark.) What I’m really getting at is that the universe is perfect and this bizarre occurrence will make for an interesting story one day for your grand kids, and you’ll look back and see all the opportunities that unfolded because of this one unexpected course adjustment, and usually find yourself grateful you we’re thrown the curveball. That’s how things work for me, anyway!</p>
<p>I’m guessing if I was an applicant, or if this story was my kid, that I’d be A LOT more focused on getting in Harvard than getting a waitlist from Michigan. Just sayin’. Maybe that was a more fortunate turn of events than the Michigan thing is unfortunate.</p>
<p>I finally received an email from the Admissions Office at Michigan. They said by the time they received my application, most/all the spots for CoE had been filled. </p>
<p>I am still confused as to why they have an application deadline if they are going to put the later applications at a disadvantage. Why not make the deadline January 1st instead of February 1st? Then, they could evaluate all of the applicants at once instead of choosing who they want as the apps come in. They also do not make it very clear that applications submitted later will be at a disadvantage. A deadline is a deadline.</p>
<p>The institution of rolling admission itself implies first-come first-serve. By definition, you have a better chance of admission with rolling admission if you apply earlier.</p>
<p>A deadline IS a deadline… your application wasn’t technically “late” so it DID still get reviewed. But you were reviewed with who knows how many others for a handful of the leftover spots, whereas my S was reviewed with who knows how many others for a majority of the spots. That’s why it’s called rolling… they review you as it comes in, and if it comes in last, it gets reviewed last. It IS confusing when every school seems to do things a little bit differently. But I guessed that was your issue, because your stats were certainly very impressive. Good luck at Harvard!</p>
(Just kidding, sort of, but it would be kind of fun on a lark.) What I’m really getting at is that the universe is perfect and this bizarre occurrence will make for an interesting story one day for your grand kids, and you’ll look back and see all the opportunities that unfolded because of this one unexpected course adjustment, and usually find yourself grateful you we’re thrown the curveball. That’s how things work for me, anyway!</p>