@corbett, I suppose that unless we worked in the admissions office or at the college board, we will never know why the in-state admission rate has dropped so much. UM says that around 4.5% of in-state seniors are admitted, and that figure has not changed in 30 years. I suspect it is a combination:
The quality of the upper slice of in-state seniors has improved. Michigan seniors are not only competing for admission to the top in-state publics , but for OOS schools, privates, as well and for scholarships. They 'know' that high GPA and an ACT composite score of around 34 is needed for scholarship consideration. The attitude of students has changed enormously over a generation (along with their helicopter parents). The number of kids with the highest ACT/SAT scores has been rising steadily; in 2009 663 kids had an ACT composite of 34-36, in 2016 it was 1298 even with a smaller graduating class. You can bet that 90% applied to Michigan.
Michigan primary/secondary schools have improved. The disaster that was DPS has given way to better charter schools and overall, the quality of graduates has improved. Those charter students are now working their way into college.
More in-state kids apply because Michigan is more affordable now due to better FA. More holistic admissions also encourage more students to apply rather than self-selecting to different schools.
More guaranteed admits through targeting programs like HAIL leaves fewer spots for others, reducing the overall admission rate.
Michigan underestimated the yield in previous years and is dropping the admit rate to compensate. Yield is probably rising because Michigan is a bargain compared to private and OOS peers.
More people hate MSU :) , and Michigan sports are fun again with Brandon gone.
This year, the instate admission rate may decrease further as they are reaching out to schools that are underprivileged and sent very little students to UMich in the past. The free tuition announcement is part of the effort. If this attract a few hundreds additional applicants, the rate will drop a few percent already assuming they are not lowering the admission standard.
@TooOld4School OK, those are all possible explanations. But let’s look at some other numbers that are associated with the exact same time frame as the post-2009 drop in in-state-acceptance rates:
In-state students in UM freshman class:
Fall 2009: 3,924
Fall 2017: 3,553
Net change: -371 (down by 9.5%)
Out-of-state students in UM freshman class:
Fall 2009: 2,155
Fall 2017: 3,294
Net change: +1,139 (up by 52.9%)
Meaningless coincidence? Or does it seem possible that a growing preference for out-of-state students during 2009-2017 could have also contributed to the falling in-state acceptance rate during 2009-2017?
Of course, this theory would only make sense if there was some compelling reason to prefer out-of-state students. Like if they paid more in tuition, or had higher stats. Or both.
@Corbett , The number of Michigan HS graduates dropped from 107,046 in 2009 to 97,146 in 2016, a 9.3% drop. Given that the trend continued in 2017, that accounts for more than 100% of the decrease in enrollment. It appears that a slightly greater percentage of in-state students are attending Michigan than in 2009. So I just don’t see preferences changing.
The State of Michigan’s population has remained roughly the same during the time period mentioned above, why are there less HS graduates? Is the population growing older and/or families with school-aged children not moving into the State?
population growing older and not much movement into the state, to answer the question above. Seems like that may have stabilized some.
I do think they’ll get some howling in state if their outreach leads to good stats instate kids getting turned down. It seems it is easier to grow the student population, even with some of the earlier complaints about UM getting too big.
@TooOld4School If your interpretation is correct (and it may be), then Michigan uses a “cap” in enrollment – but it is 180 degrees different from the enrollment caps used at other top state universities.
At the Universities of California, Virginia, or North Carolina, for example, there are formal or informal caps on out-of-state students, which are expressed as percentages of the total undergraduate enrollment. Conversely, there are no caps whatsoever on in-state enrollment, which is free to rise in either absolute or percentage terms.
At the University of Michigan, under your interpretation, there is an informal cap on in-state students, which is expressed as a percentage of total high school graduates. If the number of in-state graduates falls (as it has), then the enrollment of in-state students has to fall as well (as it has). Conversely, there appears to be no cap whatsoever on out-of-state enrollment, which is rising in both absolute and percentage terms.
It’s possible that you are right about this. If so, it supports the point I made previously in Post #20 above: UM may have significant advantages, in terms of both tuition revenue and selectivity, over other top state universities. A public university that caps in-state enrollment, without limiting out-of-state enrollment, will have obvious advantages over public universities that do the opposite.
@Corbett , I agree with you about the other states, but all of those states have rising numbers of HS graduates and significantly higher per student state aid. Michigan loses a lot more on every in-state student. The UC system has been stressed beyond the breaking point and is overloaded ; it takes 5 years to graduate for many students because spots are not available in required classes. Michigan has chosen to keep the average tuition higher both by enrolling more full pay and OOS students; that gives it the leeway to indulge in target programs for lower income families.
I guess if the state isn’t fully subsidizing the costs of in-state students – and I can see how this may be the case in Michigan – then there is a case for capping in-state enrollment (as opposed to capping out-of-state enrollment).
There are certainly strains as the UCs and CSUs try to accommodate more and more students, but the system hasn’t broken yet. Students aren’t turning away; on the contrary, new application records are set every year. The biggest complaints at most UCs are typically not about the availability of classes, but about the availability of affordable off-campus housing.
According to state projections, the high school population in California will also peak and then start to decline in another 10 years or so. So there are no plans to add any new UC campuses, although they will continue to expand some of the existing campuses where this is feasible.
The four-year graduation rate at top UCs is not markedly different from the rate at UM:
Michigan: 77%
Berkeley: 76%
UCLA: 74%
The rates are lower at less selective public universities in both states. UNC has a noticeably higher four-year graduation rate, at 84%, but I suspect that this is not so much due to better funding as to the lack of engineering programs, which are particularly hard to complete in four years.
Students are not turning away because the UC system is so affordable, and certainly so when compared to Michigan. UG tuition is around $14K/yr vs $16-20 at Michigan for in-state students. Applications should increase because the HS population in CA is still increasing, and OOS and international students like UCLA and Cal. I agree with you on housing though, the UC system needs to build a lot more dorms especially around the high cost UC campuses. Unfortunately CA is very expensive around the major cities.
I’m not sure that I trust the CA figures, they have a history of being skewed by political considerations. Unfettered illegal immigration could change those numbers rapidly.
Corbett, the University of Michigan is admitting 45% of in-state applicants. That is truly amazing. No university of Michigan’s calibre has an acceptance rates over 25%, let alone over 40%, and that includes the UCs (even in the case of their in-state students).
But I am not sure I understand the source of your misgivings. In-state enrollment has not declined. It has remaining fairly steady over the years (16,000-17,000). Any drop off in numbers has been completely insignificant and if anything, trailed the decline in college-bound in-state students over the years. Highly qualified in-state applicants are virtually guaranteed admission to the University of Michigan, and considering the quality of the university, I am not sure they should be admitting any student that is not stellar. Michigan residents have a pretty sweet deal if you ask me.
OOS and international students are not stealing the seats of in-state students. They are paying for the privilege of attending our great university without taking any seats away from its residents. The increase in the number of OOS students is in fact also improving the quality of the experience in an out of the classroom. It has been proven countless times that diverse groups function better than homogeneous groups. There is no doubt that students learn from each other, and the broader the spectrum of mindsets and opinions, the better the experience.
Back to my point, however. I never said that those who push back lack credibility. It is natural for people to want a great deal, and the residents of Michigan are no different. I said the reasoning behind the pushback lacks credibility, because it is not viable in the long term. If I was not clear on that point, I apologize. My concern is with the financial viability of enrolling in-state students at the current level without the financial backing from the state. Michigan with 20,000 undergraduate students is exceptional. Michigan with 35,000 undergraduate students is just another “State U”.
Like I said, the current trend is not sustainable. At the current rate, one of three things can happen:
The state of Michigan increases funding to the University of Michigan to cover the cost of enrolling 17,000 in-state undergraduate students, in which case Michigan can remain the same size or perhaps even shrink a little, but at the expense of geographic diversity, which is in fact bad for the classroom experience. Unfortunately, for that to happen, the State of Michigan will have to contribute almost double the current among ($500 million/year instead of $300 million/year).
The University of Michigan reduces the number of in-state students from the current 16,000-17,000 to a more manageable 9,000. This move would be in keeping with the funding provided to the university by the state. OOS enrollment would have to increase by 2,000 in order to make up for the 7,000 reduction in in-state students.
Things stay exactly as they are, in which case Michigan will be forced to add to its overall student count in order to fund operating costs. In the long term, the University of Michigan will be indistinguishable from Ohio State, Penn State or the University of Minnesota. That is what I meant when I said that if things stay the way they are, those in-state students who wish to attend a truly exceptional university will be hurt...because the University of Michigan will no longer be exceptional. In-state students are draining the university of its exceptional resources.
A state school in which only approx 33% of students are in state (your option 2) is not really a state school. I don’t know the exact wording of UM’s charter, but I’m guessing that would bring it into question.
There are a couple of problems with your argument about unsustainability in point 3. UM is different that the other schools you mention in a couple of key ways - the most important is probably endowment. It is just way more than the others. The second is its prestige is higher, enabling it to charge more per out of state student. It is also smaller even with its current numbers.
Universities are conservative in that they don’t change fast if they can help it. UM is already changing slowly - the drop in instate students has mirrored that of the instate high school population - it hasn’t been slower. They’ve added some OOS students to take advantage of the current numbers of really good students willing to pay high OOS prices. I don’t expect any of these to change drastically.
The core of the problem is the Michigan public school system is not producing enough high quality raw material for UM. For example, in 2006, the average ACT was 21.5. It dropped to about 19.6 and as of 2016 rose to 20.5. In 2010, only about 3% of the graduating HS class scored 30 or more on the ACT. By 2016 it had risen to 5%, which is an encouraging trend but still is not keeping up with the scores of OOS students applying. Only about 1% of the Michigan HS class scored 33 or above, which is the 75th percentile at UM where chance of admission is very high for in-state students.
So Michigan is faced with maintaining quality without an adequate supply of in-state students and insufficient support from the State of Michigan. If current trends continue, and the quality of students continue to improve and we should see the raw in-state numbers start to ratchet up a bit. With the increase in enrollment and dorm capacity I don’t see the percentages changing much.
The small downward trend of instate student quality may be reversed in recent years. If you look at the NMSF cutoff score, it has been climbing up steadily. Michigan was among the bottom 1/3 states and it is now among the top 1/3.
There is no evidence in post #52 that Michigan high school students are doing more poorly. It gives a picture of rising scores. The key is the statement that follows - the increases aren’t keeping up with the scores of OOS students. There is a combination of more students willing to pay OOS prices for UM and more HS students overall in the country, plus more international interest. Michigan high school students can be doing better than ever and still not keep with growing numbers and interest among OOS students.
UM administrators and regents have addressed this question, but the words they use are interesting in themselves. The phrase they use is “state assisted” university. They say they have a “commitment” to the state, but some have argued that having a first-class research university that attracts students, scholars and research dollars from across the country is more important than admitting a certain percentage of in-state students.
The university and regents also recognize that state money is scarce. For that reason, they have not sought to cap iOOS admissions and, in fact, have worked to dramatically improve OOS financial aid. Michigan’s FA program is now one of the best in the country, and they are one of the few universities that commit to meet the full need of OOS students with family incomes below $85-90k.
@turtle17 , HS averages really don’t matter to UMich because it is pulling from a very small subset of students. It’s the population of those students that matter. Based on the last year when all Michigan HS students took the ACT (they use the SAT now), only about 1% of them received the current Michigan admission average score of 33 or above. Now it about 4% who meet or exceed 33, but those are self-selected students (about 25% in number). It’s only the size of the that upper tail group that matters.
TooOld - I think we are in agreement that it is not the Michigan high school students who are changing, except for a modest decline of total numbers. As you note, the fraction meeting or exceeding specific high scores has risen, just as the fraction across the country has risen. The difference is in the pool of OOS students. Put differently, there is no evidence presented on this thread that the scores of Michigan high school students, either the median or the top few percent have changed compared to relevant national averages. Your numbers in post 52 bear that out. What’s changed over the decades is the pool of out of state students willing to pay out of state prices to go to UM. Secondarily there has been a modest decline in the Michigan high school population. But the real change over the years has been the number of top test scorers from other states who apply to UM