<p>^ slightly is definitely misused. Given the large sample size, 0.04 is a huge difference. Combined that with the fact that the ratio of OOS to IS students in COE (which has a much lower average GPA) is much higher than the ratio of OOS to IS students in LSA, if they had taken the proportion into account, meaning they maintain the proportion of COE and LSA students the same for both samples, the gap should be much wider.
Standard misleading using “statistics”</p>
<p>Hi bearcats. Hope you’re having an awesome year. I know you know that I am not statistician (and it was me who kept pointing to that article in various other threads.) But I can usually ferret out what the numbers “mean.” So, can we agree that while a .04 GPA differential is not “slightly,” it is also not “HUGE?” Afterall, we’re talking about the AVERAGE GPA of all IS and OOS students. </p>
<p>I think you would agree that the IS students would accordingly then represent many of the lower performing averages (eg. bottom 25%) by virtue of the fact there’s twice as many of them – ergo, good odds. Also, as I know you are keenly aware, there is indeed intense OOS competition for a place at Michigan, so it would be natural to assume that the OOS students attracted might be inherently more ambitious, and like yourself, come from rigorous GT schools where GPAs are not inflated.</p>
<p>So on one hand, those aspects explain that admission HS GPAs difference between OOS and IS, suggesting that the OOS talent pool is equally talented as the IS pool, (and yes, possibly moreso by a factor of 1/4 of a 1/4 of a lettergrade 
) And on the other hand, at at 2:1 ratio, it’s safe to assume there are some stellar IS students holding up the GPA “average” to 3.21 and also not at all surprising that the smaller population accounts for a higher GPA (less dead weight to average up.)</p>
<p>This is why I qualitatively suspect that the talent pool “on average” is “comparable”, with outliers on either end IS and OOS, and why I bristle at the suggestion that in-staters don’t deserve their places at their own state flagship. At the same time, expanding OOS would logically maintain (if not increase) the performance of the talent pool by virtue of a larger pool from which to select (best out of 9 million vs. best out of 330 million, minus the 40,000 or so spots taken up by the ivies plus a few others (Stanford, Chicago, Northwestern et al).</p>
<p>But you and I have been over this a few times now, have we not? Have an awesome year!
Cheers, K</p>
<p>It will never be put to rest. Maybe I shouldn’t send my public school football playing linebaker/left guard #3 there he might punch the lights out of some poor OSS kid spouting nonsense as a physics experiment. Force plus velocity and all that stuff…but then again I finally “learned” football under duress so I might enjoy the “Big House”</p>
<p>
Sounds like a good plan. Free up some room for the kids that can handle conflicts in a more positive manner.</p>
<p>" At the same time, expanding OOS would logically maintain (if not increase) the performance of the talent pool by virtue of a larger pool from which to select (best out of 9 million vs. best out of 330 million, minus the 40,000 or so spots taken up by the ivies plus a few others (Stanford, Chicago, Northwestern et al)."</p>
<p>That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. There is a larger pool to pick from, you can’t honestly say you could get the same amount of top talent from just Michigan vs the world. </p>
<p>Athletes getting in is a whole other story, lol.</p>
<p>Oh yes this thread needs alittle humor…3 (actually none of my boys) has ever “punched” anyone or even been in an altercation… he just likes football 
and we all know how kids like to generalize about big dumb football players. My H and I certainly never thought we’d produce a 6’4" 230lb. smart football player. One of his brothers writes poetry and the other loves painting so I have earned the right to “make humor.”</p>
<p>Just my opinion, BUT giving birth to three of anything does not earn you the right to “make humor” about one of your progeny punching “the lights out of some poor OSS kid spouting nonsense as a physics experiment”. Again, just an opinion…</p>
<p>People have all different types of humor. But I do apologize if I offended your sensibilities. I don’t have any bumper stickers on my Volvo.</p>
<p>So was the joke just sarcasm about how we were saying, or let me say you still think I was saying, OOS kids are smarter then IS kids. Not that funny really. And of course all football players aren’t dumb, not all nerdy looking kids are smart, but if I was a betting man I know what I’d guess.</p>
<p>Poetry and painting is funny though. That’s my engineering mentality though. </p>
<p>So this just sounds like a PC war between aglages and momofthree"equaly as smart as any OOS state kid any where, ever"boys</p>
<p>It was intended to poke fun at stereotypes. I get disturbed when people try to make generalizations about groups of people. No one “gets” accepted to UofM unless they are intelligent enough and have the potential to be successful at the university. It is silly to split hairs about fractions of a GPA. There are places where competitiveness is acceptable…like on the football field…and places where it’s simply boorish behavior…and places where competitiveness can drive a team or group of people to even higher achievements. That’s all I’m saying.</p>
<p>I don’t really care who is currently smarter, IS or OOS. My interest in this thread is primarily about how UM can financially continue to be a GREAT public university without adequate support from the state and taxpayers of Michigan. If that support has to come from OOS students…so be it. If IS students have to pay 3x more than they are currently paying…oh well. If the end result is that more OOS students enroll than IS…too bad. I’m fairly confident that there are enough IS & OOS students with stats at least as high as the current students that can pay the tuition neccassary to properly finance their education at one of the top public colleges in the U.S.A.</p>
<p>Clearly I agree with Alexandre that tough decisions are going to need to be made about the future quantities and composition (OOS & IS) of the entering freshmen. I’m sure that many Michigan residents are going to find these changes unpalatable. Hopefully UM has the strength of will to proactively do what is necessary instead of taking the “easy” way out and just allowing UM to slide into mediocrity to satisfy the political and current financial whims of Michigan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whims??? What an odd choice word.</p>
<p>In fairness to onlookers, I can see why some might interpret the actions of Michigan legislature as “whim-sih” insofar as every year in the education budget (especially k12, but colleges too) they announce cuts, then roll the cuts back, then come up with new cuts, always at the 11th hour and long after school budgets have been set, thereby causing mid-year turmoil, layoffs etc. Those of us who live here realize there is an ongoing struggle about HOW to sufficiently finance our infrastructure with declining revenues and at the same time foster efficiency in delivery of services in a challenged economy, and that there just is no bipartisan agreement about how to achieve BOTH aims, which are equally critical with such a reduction in revenues (compared to Michigan’s glory years, where it was at or near the top in terms of ed funding, etc.)</p>
<p>So, momx3, don’t take offense, I don’t think the poster was taking a shot at residents per se. People are legitimately concerned that the continued erosion of state funding will negatively impact UMich, particularly if it continues its “gentlemen’s agreement” of admitting roughly 2/3 IS. The erosion has been substantial over the last 15 years, and it is a very valid concern for ALL Umich supporters, whether they hail from In State or Out of State. The stakes are even higher for residents, because the world-class stature of the university undoubtedly stimulates the Michigan economy and attracts industry that is not otherwise incentivized to locate here.</p>
<p>^^^
Well said.</p>
<p>No, I didn’t take offense just thought it was an odd choice of word. Maybe irresolute.</p>