<p>I can't help but feeling that Michigan's facilities, professors, endowment, and general academic experience is unparalleled outside the Big 5. My question is this: why can't the same be said about the student body? Our school has by no means a weak student body academically, but I can't help but thinking they dont do any justice to everything else the school offers. Schools like the University of Illinois, University of Florida, and Berkeley are nowhere near the level of Michigan in terms of endowment etc, yet since Illinois has far better public schools, Florida offers huge scholarships for national merit semifinalists, and Berkeley is actually selective (they're twice as picky with applicants), their students bodies could easily outstrip Michigan's academically. I just feel like Michigan has so much more potential but the quality of student is deterring from that. I just think that our lack of selectivity makes top students nationwide glance past us.</p>
<p>Illinois and Florida outstripping Michigan academically? I highly doubt it.</p>
<p>Michigan is the best school in the state. Illinois isn't. Florida is probably the best, but that isn't saying a lot given the terrible reputation of Florida public schools.</p>
<p>Detroit and Chicago both have some great suburban schools. No matter where you go, kids are going to want to head to Ivy League caliber schools. So these students are skimmed from the general population. But since Michigan is top dog in the state, it really doesn't have to worry about losing many other students. Illinois, on the other hand, has to contend with Northwestern, Chicago, nearby Notre Dame (VERY close to Chicago).</p>
<p>I won't disagree with Berkeley though. They have their pick of probably the largest high-quality applicant pool in the country.</p>
<p>chibearsfan, Michigan's student body is actually as good as Cal's, if not better. It is true Michigan is not as selective. How can it be? Cal services California...a state with a population close to 40 million and rising. Michigan services Michigan, a state with fewer than 10 million and declining. Right there you can see why Cal has 4 times more applicants! But look at the average SAT scores and class ranks. The schools are almost identical. Cal's mid 50% SAT range is 1200-1450 and Michigan's is 1240-1400. The mean at Cal is 1330 and at Michigan is 1320. In terms of class ranks, 98% of Cal students graduate in the top 10% of their class. 90% of Michigan students graduate in the top 10% of their class. But California high schools are ranked among the worst 10 in the nation, whereas high schools are ranked among the top 15 in the nation. </p>
<p>I would love for Michigan to have a slightly more selective approach to admissions. In fact, I openly wish for Michigan to turn things around. Michigan could easily accept 25% of its applicants and have a student body equal to Columbia's or Duke's. All it needs to do is:</p>
<p>1) Improve its yield rate by more effectively courting students with more constant mail and better merit aid. Massage student egos and make the price tag irresistible.</p>
<p>2) Reduce its in-state enrollment from the current 16,000 to 8,000 while keeping its out-of-state population at 8,000. Then, Michigan could actually limit its incoming Freshman classes to 4,000 rather than 6,000 and decrease its acceptances from 12,000-13,000 to 8,000-9,000. If that happened, Michigan would have more resources per student, a lower acceptance rate, better students and in no time, its applicant pool would probably explode. </p>
<p>But that's not going to happen. Not anytime soon anyway. But at least, Michigan's programs and faculty continue to shine, its resorces, facilities and endowment are improving at a very impressive rate and its students reaimin very talented and capable. It is just not possible to have 25,000 undergrads and expect the quality of students to be on par with an academic peer that has only 6,000 undergrads.</p>
<p>Well said Alexandre. Nice speech.</p>
<p>I have the same vision for Michigan you do, Alexandre. The only problem is that it could never happen because the state of Michigan is breathing way too heavily down the backs of the university to accept MORE in-state students. To me they seem greedy for dollars pouring into the state rather than furthering a better academic experience for the global community. We should expect that from politicians though. I just can't see our ideal Michigan materializing soon. And in response to dsmo's post, I'm from Illinois and I'm still good friends with a lot of the state's most courted students from the class of '05 and University of Illinois' price tag is still VERY PERSUASIVE in light of Notre Dame or Northwestern or University of Chicago for most of the state's most top students. You can say I'm narrow-minded, but I think a good indicator of the top student talent in a state is the amount of USAMO qualifiers. Illinois had 17. Michigan had 3. Now tell me that Detroit's suburban schools are as good as Chicago's. Those numbers are beyond statistically signifcant, they're astronomical. This isn't a great indicator, but it does say SOMETHING. I know a lot of Illinois' amazing math students and they just went to UIUC because the price was right. The same happens in Michigan, only with a smaller pool of very talented students.</p>
<p>There is nothing much wrong with the UI. It's a little better in engineering and holds its own in sciences. Even the B school is pretty good. The facilities and libraries are pretty equal. It would be pretty dumb for an Illinois resident to pay all the extra $$$$ to go to UM in any of those areas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now tell me that Detroit's suburban schools are as good as Chicago's. Those numbers are beyond statistically signifcant, they're astronomical. This isn't a great indicator, but it does say SOMETHING.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It says that Illinois has Chicago and specifically IMSA. Michigan's math community is building, but it's slow, and we don't have the advantage of a tremendous program with almost unlimited resources. Give us a magnet and we'll give you USAMO qualifiers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To me they seem greedy for dollars pouring into the state rather than furthering a better academic experience for the global community. We should expect that from politicians though
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think this is quite right. If they were so greedy for out-of-state dollars, they'd want U-M to increase its nonresident students. The resident students that Michigan denies (doesn't have room for) probably aren't leaving the state in large numbers. Mostly, they're ending up atMSU, Wayne, Western, Tech, etc. Or Hope and Albion and so on.</p>
<p>It's true that generally the legislature gripes about the nonresident percentage, and they'd like to see more residents at Michigan. But not for the reasons you are citing--it's not greed for dollars staying in the state. Rather they hate to have their constituents' children pushed out of the best public university in the state by students whose parents don't live here. I agree with you that this is shortsighted--obviously there are numerous benefits to having nonresident students, and not just monetary ones!</p>
<p>Chibearsfan, the State of Michigan cannot really pressure the University of Michigan to take more in-staters, and given the amount of money the state currently gives the University, I would say that the University will be able to dictate terms if they so chose. I think it is a question of loyalty.</p>
<p>oh chibearsfan.....how i feel your anguish. No insult to the general UM student body, but so much of this university is wasted on them. Regardless of what the "statistics say", I get the subjective impression that the UM student body at large is academically....underwhelming. And indeed the point has been made that it doesn't really make sense for Illinois kids to come to UM...I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE. Why would you spend TWICE as much money to come here as U of I when you can get pretty much the same academic experience. Even further, in comparison to private schools' aid packages, even they represent a better deal than UM OOS, depending on your income. If I didn't have my LSA scholarship at UM, Dartmouth and WashU would have been HALF the price. I seriously have no idea why this university is so expensive. And whatever it is that they're buying with all that money, they may be wasting it on a student body that largely doesn't have the academic prowess that people like me and chibears would like to see. Perhaps they could take some of the 36K they are siphoning off of OOS students and use it to recruit some more academic heavyweights. UM isn't a bad school...but the land of milk and honey it is not.</p>
<p>but nonetheless..hail to the victors</p>
<p><em>descends soapbox</em></p>
<p>KB</p>
<p>KB, you would have found a similar situation had you gone to Dartmouth or Wash U. You are the type of person who expects a certain level of academic intensity that cannot be found at most universities, save perhaps CalTech, MIT, Chicago and a sellect few LACs like Swarthmore and Harvey Mudd. I have a friend similar to you who felt that he made a mistake of chosing Stanford over MIT because the students at Stanford were academically underwhelming. </p>
<p>Clearly, Michigan is no Harvard. And if you want a school were 75% of the students are incredibly gifted, Michigan is not the place for you. Michigan has 25,000 undergrads. A school cannot find 4,000+ little geniuses annually. Mega-selective schools (like PRinceton and Yale) have trouble finding 2,000 such specimen on an annual basis. But that is not to say that Michigan is not the land of milk and honey. I challenge you to name one school that is better or more well rounded than Michigan. Such a school does not exist. But Michigan, like any university, is not for everyone. I remember your case from a year ago. If I recall, you were dreaming of Dartmouth, but Dartmouth would have cost you like $45,000/annually compared to Michigan's $20,000. When a person must pick a school that they do not particularly care for over a school they dream of, purely for financial reasons...well, I guess it is bitter pill to take.</p>
<p>I don't think this is quite right. If they were so greedy for out-of-state dollars, they'd want U-M to increase its nonresident students. The resident students that Michigan denies (doesn't have room for) probably aren't leaving the state in large numbers. Mostly, they're ending up atMSU, Wayne, Western, Tech, etc. Or Hope and Albion and so on.</p>
<p>From the articles I've read in the Daily, the state reps are saying that they want Michigan to increase in-state acceptances so that the kids in state get the best possible education and therefore the state can have a more educated workforce and more dollars. Maybe they were lying and they really vote on what you say hoedown.</p>
<p>I stand by Michigan's value for the price, even though I could have gone to UIUC for about a third of the price. As I said earlier, Michigan's academic programs (especially honors math and economics) are truly stellar. Their faculty in those fields are truly great; they're names I read about in high school. For this reason, I stand by my choice for the money. I'm still disappointed in the selectivity around here though. We could really start a great trend by becoming more selective. I truly think in the end we would have more amazing applicants from out of state because they are drawn by the selectivity, and that increase in apps will offset the added selectivity to keep class sizes basically constant. What a U of M we could have.</p>
<p>No, that's incorrect. I don't require an MIT-like environment...but when I go to a GSI for an appointment and the previous student is asking questions like "how do I write a thesis" and "what is an argument" IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SEMESTER...I'm sorry, but that's rather unacceptable. I don't ask everyone to be a Stephan Hawking...I am FAR from that level. But basic competance at least. And competance is a trait sorely lacking in an unacceptably high number of my classmates.</p>
<p>You're recap of my situation from last spring is incorrect. I was deciding b/t an out of pocket cost of about 20K at dartmouth w/ some loans and work-study versus getting a refund at UM. If i weren't on scholarship, UM would be more expensive b/c they don't guarantee to meet the need of OOS students.</p>
<p>I second kb. I met a girl who took calculus for 2 years in high school, got a 100% in her class, and got a 1 on the AP test. Yeah, Michigan suburban schools sure are great....good thing AP scores arent used for admission...</p>
<p>KB, Chibearsfan, like I said, you do not know what students at other schools are like. Over the years, you will realize that all schools have sub-par students. I have met real boneheaded undergrads when I was a grad student at Cornell. I also met very mediocre students when I visited friends at Princeton and Stanford. Like I said, at schools like Harvard and MIT, 75% of the students will be really gifted. At schools like Duke and Penn, 50% will be really gifted. As schools like Michigan and Cal, I would say 25% of the students are really gifted. At schools like Harvard and MIT, probably only 5% of the students are mediocre, compared to 15% at schools like Duke and Penn and 25% at schools like Michigan and Cal. So there is obviously a difference. It is not possible for a school that has 25,000 undergrads to have the same student body as a school that has 5,000 undergrads. That is why I think Michigan should limit its incoming Freshman class to 4,000. But that's not going to happen. As you say Chibearsfan...what a UofM we could have! hehe Like you, I also wish Michigan would fix its weaknesses. But the University will not change. </p>
<p>However, I do not see why you guys take it so personally. The fact is, there are currently over 5,000 students at Michigan that graduated in the top 1% of their HS class, got straight As and a bunch of 5s on their multiple APs, breached the 1400 on the SAT and are very capable of competing with you guys academically.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe they were lying and they really vote on what you say hoedown.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>?????</p>
<p>I wouldn't accuse them of lying. </p>
<p>I was led by your comment (this one: "greedy for dollars pouring into the state") to believe you meant tuition dollars. It was the "pouring into" that misled me. </p>
<p>I do not believe legislators are "lying" when they say they support the Cherry Commission report (or whatever else), and the desire for more college grads for the economy. They are hoping for the effect that you identify--more grads, a different sort of economy driven by high-tech industry. I don't think of that as "money pouring in", but maybe that's semantics. You misunderstand my meaning--which is perhaps inevitable, since I apparently misunderstood you and based my comments on the error.</p>
<p>What we largely agree upon is the flaws in this reasoning. U-M is not going to solve the state's need for more college grads. It's not as if the students Michigan turns away never go to college, never get a degree. If the state is really serious about increasing the number of college grads, schools are going to have to get bigger, especially the schools that service students on the margins. I don't see the state being willing to pay for that, so in some sense they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Not exactly lying, but they aren't able to act on their intentions. To gripe about the nonresidents at Michigan is somewhat misguided of them.</p>
<p>As for the complaints from constituents, the sad truth is that this really is a factor in legislative attitudes! Our Gov't Relations people deal with this all the time, some rep saying "I can't believe this GREAT kid from Novi High School got turned down...." Lansing has watched the nonresident percentage for decades, and we've wrangled with them about it off and on. Long before the Cherry Commission was even formed. FTR, it's not anything they're voting on. It's out of the appropriations boilerplate for now, and the new formula funding crap the House passed doesn't pay more for residents... so right now we're in okay shape. But it's always a potential issue.</p>
<p>If your just comparing University to Florida to Michiganstraight up, it's no contest, of course. Florida is just another impersonal overcrowded underfunded state U with a better than decent rep.</p>
<p>But if however, you are one National Merit Finalist who knows how tonavigate their way through their impossibley early application and housing deadlines its a whole other story that leaves Meeeshigan in the dust.</p>
<p>First it's free. Housing and tution. For in-staters that is.Out-of-staters pay little more than chump change. Second, if you get into the honors program, you live in first class digs(Hume Hall) and get a whole different treatment. While the rest of the freshman class is taking Chem 101 watching a course tape with 600 students in alecture you're in a seminar with 18 honorsstudents and a tenored faculty prof. You take thesame final thepions take and go in the same curve, so who do think gets the A's. It doesn't stop there. You're on the inside track for all the combined degree programs(i.e. BA-MS,Med school, etc.) and get automaticfund for research and study abroad programs. You know, a term at OXford here, year at the sourbonne there. All paid for. In simple fact, the lions share of the University's resources are diverted to the 200 or so NMF,s they recruit each year. From start to finish.Quite a deal if you're oneof the chosen.</p>
<p>AHHH..why didn't i go.</p>
<p>lol.</p>
<p>kb. When you look at the number of students from U of F that goto Harvard law, Med, NYU Med, etc. the numbers are far from impressive. But when you take a second look and see that they nearly all come out of thehonors program and take them as a stat out of THAT pool. It's a wholedifferent story. Face it, anyone can afford to go to Med orDental school if you're comming out of undergrad debt free.</p>
<p>that's interesting....you should know that i'm not paying for UM in any respect. So i suppose the same argument applies...but for the vast majority of my honors bretheren....not so much.</p>
<p>My one complaint with honors is that i dont' think there's the same sort of treatment that honors kids at other universities get. We don't get priority registration or choice of dorm (there is honors housing..but that's only in SQ). We get graded on separate honors curves that remove part of the incentive to accept the difficulty of honors in the 1st place etc.</p>
<p>I would argue that a lot of universities clean UM's clock when it comes to honors programming....chibears may be able to weigh in..but i'm not feelin' the love.</p>
<p>KB</p>