<p>hmmm i was talking to people/reading what people were writing on cc and realized that no one could give a definite answer. i was just wondering if getting into umich is easier if you are instate or oos. thank you in advance for responding!</p>
<p>Yes getting in in-state is easier if you have lower than average/borderline stats thats why im freaking out</p>
<p>They give preference to in-state kids (as in, if everything else is identical the in-state applicant would be accepted before the out-of-state). However if you applied early and have decent enough stats you shouldn’t have a problem.</p>
<p>Yes it is much easier to get in if you are instate. Michigan is first and foremost a university dedicated to the students of Michigan (until they go private, which I believe is inevitable).</p>
<p>Since University of Michigan is a public school, they are required to accepted more instate student than out of state student. This means it is easier to get into UM if your in state.</p>
<p>
Accepted into the 2014 class.</p>
<p>haha yes i also saw that on the decisions thread and was quite surprised and felt that it was slightly unfair… oh well.</p>
<p>I am surprised people are asking this basic question. It is common knowledge that public universities give preference and favor in-state students. At some schools (like UNC, Texas-Austin and the UCs) the difference in selectivity is immense whereas at other schools (like Michigan and Wisconsin), the difference is mild, but the approach will generally be the same; in-state students will be given preference.</p>
<p>aglages and jestergirl, applicants with sub 3.6 unweighed GPAs and sub 27 ACT/1200 SAT scores are almost always rejected, whether they are in-state or not. There are exceptions of course, such as highly recruited athletes, exceptional artists/musicians, students from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds, children of prominent alums etc…, but by and large, a 3.4 student with a 25 ACT score will be rejected 99 out of 100 times, whether they are in-state or out-of-state.</p>
<p>
Does this actually help the students from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds?</p>
<p>aglages, extremely disadvantaged backgrounds include first-generation students, URMs, underserved communities (rural areas, Upper Peninsula), students from families below the poverty line, etc…</p>
<p>If a student comes from a single parent home, is the first member of the family to go to college, had to work 20 hoursper week to help the family sustain itself etc…, then yes, such a student does, and SHOULD, be given credit. I would pick such a student (assuming they are qualified) over ten students like me, who were born with a silver spoon.</p>
<p>But does it really help them if they don’t have the academic ability to do college-level work? Who does it help to have students in a college math class who can’t even do basic high school algebra?</p>
<p>^ Then they probably wouldn’t have gotten a 25 on the ACT unless it broke down to 30 E, 30 R, 30 S, 10 M (extreme but you get my point). And considering I believe UMich requires 3-4 years of math in high school (is this correct?), I seriously doubt kids are making it through 3-4 years of high school math without basic algebra skills AND keeping a 3.4 GPA.</p>
<p>I was talking in a more general sense about students from “disadvantaged” backgrounds being given preferences; I wasn’t talking specifically about Michigan.</p>
<p>^^ I highly doubt U-M admits students who do not meet minimum admissions requirement. </p>
<p>I am an URM. I was admitted to U-M in 2002, and I had 4 years of core subjects (English, math, science, social studies, etc.), AP credits, Michigan Merit Award recipient, etc… Most of my peers who were admitted to U-M AND came from disadvantaged backgrounds had similar statistics.</p>