Enrollment increases by close to 3%

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Michigan
21

The graph in the almanac is hard to read. Peak resident enrollment in 2010-2011 was actually 17.400. So it’s more like a 6% drop.
http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-sets-record-for-enrollment/

In any case, the trend is clear: if this pattern continues, UM will primarily serve non-Michigan residents in the near future. This will likely give UM an edge in selectivity over other highly ranked public universities (e.g. Berkeley, UCLA, UVA, UNC). It would be politically unacceptable for these other state universities to do what UM is doing. Berkeley and UCLA are formally capped at around 20-25% non-resident enrollment, while UNC is capped at 18%. UVA doesn’t have a formal cap at this time, but there have been several attempts to introduce one, and in practice they are constrained at the current level of about 33%.

22

In other states, the legislature limit the percentage of OOS students. It is not the case in Michigan. With the limited funding from the state government and a small pool of instate HS graduates, it is inevitable to admit more OOS students or they will have to shrink the size of the school significantly. From time to time, there were discussion on whether UMich should become private. Although it is not likely to take that route, it has been operating pretty much like a private school.

23

Each state mentioned above is different. UNC has a strict out of state cap that I believe is written into the state constitution. It definitely limits the selectiveness of the overall student body, although it is still an excellent school. However, UC Berkeley and UCLA are and will remain extremely selective even with a low out of state percentage simply because California has such a large population. UM is in a unique position - the actual act of becoming private would open up a huge legal can of worms, but it is in the position to act a lot like a private school.

24

For a long time, the UMich admissions model has been to serve as the university of choice for the top 5-8 % of Michigan HS graduates, as well as top academic students from around the country. Nothing has changed in that regard. The OOS applicant pool has been rapidly growing in numbers as in state applications decrease. Bottom line is the top 5 % of HS grads from Michigan still have the opportunity to study in Ann Arbor. The academic quality of both in state and OOS applicants is a big part is a big part of what makes Michigan stand out from other flagships. The state of Michigan funding for UM is less than 5 % of UM’s annual revenue. Much lower than UVa or UNC-Chapel Hill. As others have noted, UNC must have 82% in state students by state statute. UVa is 65 % by statute. The OOS tuition revenues at UM actually subsidize in state families costs, so I’m not sure why Michigan residents would be upset. They have MSU, WMU, CMU, GVSU etc as inexpensive options.

25

But not as selective as they could be. For example, UCLA had the following freshmen SAT ranges for Fall 2016:

CA Resident: 1670 - 2110
Average, All Freshmen: 1730 - 2150
US Out-of-State: 1960 - 2190
International: 2030 - 2220

http://www.admission.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/Frosh_Prof16.htm

So the CA Residents tend to have below-average SAT scores, while the non-residents tend to have above-average SAT scores. If UCLA dropped hundreds of lower-scoring in-state students from the freshman class, and replaced them with higher-scoring OOS/International students, then their average SAT scores would rise.

UM has effectively done just that over the past few years. UCB and UCLA can’t do the same.

26

No, something has changed. Historically, UM accepted most of their in-state applicants – over 60% in 2009, for example. Now UM rejects most in-state applicants – the in-state acceptance rate was down to 44% for 2017. You can see the downward trend in Figure 2.2.1 of the Michigan Almanac:

http://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/almanac/Almanac_Ch2_Sept2017.pdf

You would expect the in-state acceptance rate to fall, if the number of in-state applications was rising. This has happened at UC schools, for example. But if in-state applications are decreasing in Michigan – as you say – then that can’t be the explanation here. Something else must be going on.

Then why is the in-state acceptance rate so low by historical standards?

27

I think you can have multiple modest-size effects happening. You can get a lower in-state acceptance rate by increasing applications. You can also have the number of instate students at UM decrease by a little bit more than the state high graduating seniors. I’m guessing the instate acceptance rate is driven more by applications than the latter, but within small margins the latter may have happened.
If your kid gets into UM, you are subsidized to some extent by the OOS students. But everyone is also subsidized by the endowment. I think the main thing is political, which I think is the point Corbett is trying to make. UM has increased its numbers of OOS students, all very excellent in credentials, rather than focusing more resources on a smaller pool of instate students, or accepting in state students down a few more percentage points from the top. I haven’t seen signs of political pushback.

28

Michigan seems to be significantly less sensitive about this issue than certain other states. Nonetheless, I suspect that the UM administration is watching very closely for any evidence of pushback (e.g. if the “SUNY-Ann Arbor” jokes catch on outside of East Lansing, that would not be a good sign).

My guess is that the 50% in-state enrollment level will be a critical threshold. If there is going to be pushback, it will start happening if and when Michigan residents become a minority. On the other hand, if UM can dip below the 50% level without generating too much concern, then there’s no telling how low they might go.

29

Pushback from whomCorbett? Any pushback from the state would lack credibility. In-state students pay $33,000 less than OOS students to attend Michigan. Michigan receives $300 million from the state annually. That means Michigan should only enroll 9,000 in-state students. Anything over that number hurts the University of Michigan, and therefore the residents of the state who want to benefit from a truly exceptional public university. Currently, Michigan enrolls 16,000 in-state students, That is almost twice its threshold. Over time, ideally Michigan would substitute the excess 7,000 in-state students with 2,000 OOS and international students. That will enable the university to shrink back to a reasonable size (24,000 undergrads is better than 29,000).

30

This does not account for the large amount of infrastructure and previous investment paid for by the state of Michigan, (which is similar to why going private would be such a mess).
When there is pushback is as much a political question as an accounting question for these and other reasons.

31

Up to this point, the economic analysis is rational. If anything, it understates the problem, because it doesn’t even include the graduate schools, most of which offer significant in-state tuition discounts as well. There’s a valid case that UM is underfunded by the state – for comparison, the UC system has roughly 5.5 times the enrollment of UM (251,000 vs 46,000), but gets roughly 11 times the state funding (3.5 billion$ vs. 300 million$).

OK, this is where the analysis goes off the rails. Every one of those of those 7,000 enrolled in-state students that you regard as “over the number” is a “resident of the state who wants to benefit from a truly exceptional public university.” It may be true that their enrollment represents an uncompensated subsidy that hurts UM financially – but it is ludicrous to claim that a subsidized UM education “hurts” those students.

You are literally arguing that those 7,000 students would derive greater benefit from UM if they did not attend at all. If you actually believe this, then you should take out an ad in the Michigan Daily to make your case. If your argument is sound, then thousands of in-state students will voluntarily drop out, and your low enrollment goals would be reached painlessly.

From longtime Michigan residents who have supported UM all their lives, but now feel that they’ve been let down.

Michiganders who went to UM, whose siblings and parents went there, who loyally donated to the Alumni Fund for years – and whose in-state kid just got rejected, despite stats that UM would have happily accepted a generation ago. Michiganders who have just realized that UM has been quietly reducing in-state enrollment for years (particularly if UM follows your suggestion, and cuts 7,000 in-state slots). Michiganders who have discovered that their UM donations paid for a small army of admissions counselors in NYC, Chicago, LA, New Delhi, and Shanghai.

Those are the kinds of people that could potentially push back. And if they do, you might even run into them here on the collegeconfidential forums. I suppose you could tell could them that they “lack credibility” because their state taxes were too low.

32

@Corbett

44% in-state admission rate, with a yield around 80% is still very generous for a top tier university. A generation ago we didn’t have near the grade inflation of today (if any). So I take some exception to your comment about stats being different. They need to be normalized. The admission rate drop also reflects he current tendency to apply to 8-12 universities. Back in the day people only applied to 3-5 universities. Even OOS and private schools were affordable 25 years ago. Now they are a very poor value for the middle and upper middle income group (who comprise most top tier college students) compared to Michigan. Full pay private schools are pushing $70K/yr, twice the cost for a Michigan upperclassman engineering/CS student.

Michigan admissions are hardly opaque, high stat in-state kids applying EA are almost always admitted. Do you know of any in-state kid with a 3.9 UW GPA and a 34 ACT (or better) who did not get in? We don’t. Same with the feeder schools. At my son’s school admission rate was 90+% in EA.

Michigan has two excellent, large state universities. MSU has improved enough to be almost unrecognizable compared to a generation ago, making it a lot more attractive. Getting rejected from UM and accepted at MSU is not the devastating event of a generation ago.

33

@TooOld4School I do know a student with 3.85+ GPA and ACT 33 (which is right below the 3.9/34 mentioned above) from a local feeder school got deferred and rejected by CoE at the end a few years ago. My D’s school is among the top feeder schools (was the top feeder at least a few years ago). It has around one-third of the graduates attending UMich every year. Even counting those admitted and enrolled other schools at the end, the admission rate is far below 90% total (not just EA).

34

@billcsho , I used the Naviance figures at a private feeder from 2 years ago. I don’t have access to this years figures. Students applying RD had lower qualifications and the admission rate was just over 50%. The public schools, except perhaps for International Academy, generally have lower acceptance rates.

35

At my D’s school, most students apply EA as there is no reason not to. Those got deferred do have weaker stat and some of them got admitted in the RD round. That is totally expected. Only a very small portion of students did not apply EA but RD only. Note the Naviance data is not for the latest year. The admission stat has changed significantly in the recent years. Just look at the drop in admission rate even for instate students. It was over 50% a couple year ago and it is 44% last year.

36

Michigan’s ACT range has definitely gone up over the last decade, including for instate students from what I can tell. Whether that is the same population of students from a generation ago who simply prepped more, or whether UM has become more selective is hard to tell. Maybe the best indicator is fraction of the MI high school graduate population, in which case it is a combination of the two - a little bit more selective for in state students, a little bit higher test scores for the upper tier of the graduating seniors.

37
This is a familiar story to me, because the same thing is happening with University of California admissions. But in California, it's clear that the number of in-state applicants is climbing fast. At UCLA, for example, there were 63,516 in-state applications for Fall 2017, compared to 43,938 in 2007. So the number of Californians applying to UCLA increased by 45% over the past 10 years (without including any non-resident applicants). UCLA has not been able to rapidly increase its capacity to match the rapid increase in demand, so the in-state admission rate has fallen. Nobody likes this, but at least it's understandable.

Is UM getting similarly flooded with in-state applications – in a state where the number of high school graduates is falling? If not, then the decreasing in-state acceptance rates over the past 10 years may be harder to explain.

38

@TooOld4School I actually find UM’s admissions stats to be much more opaque than those at UC. Simple and relevant question: are in-state applications rising or falling? How many in-state applications this year, compared to 10 years ago? These kinds of numbers are easily available for UCLA, or any other UC campus. Maybe I am looking in the wrong places, but I couldn’t find the numbers for UM.

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/freshman-admissions-summary

39

@billcsho The UM Almanac doesn’t list the exact numbers, but you can see the general patterns in Figure 2.2.1:

  • The in-state admission rate was above 60% in 2009
  • It dropped below 60% in 2010
  • It dropped to about 55% by 2012
  • It dropped to about 50% in 2015
  • It is now about 44%

Seems fair to call that “significant change”, given that it happened in less than 10 years.

http://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/almanac/Almanac_Ch2_Sept2017.pdf

40

It is significant even from 50% down to 44%. It is more than 10% change. On the other hand, I don’t think the instate admission stat has significant changes but just a small increase. The overall increase in test scores is mostly driven by OOS applicants.