<p>placed on the extended waitlist. any chance of being admitted eventually?!?!!!</p>
<p>how do you know u got placed on the extend waitlist?
you call them to find out?or by the mail?</p>
<p>last yr i was placed on highest priority waiting list
but they even dont admit people from there coz c/o 2008 is overenrolled</p>
<p>how do you know what level waiting list you got placed on?</p>
<p>according to their published Common Data Sets,</p>
<p>they admitted 5 last year despite overenrollment. As far back as I've checked, they've never admitted anyone in the prior years listed.</p>
<p>they told me when they sent the decision to me</p>
<p>i dont think i can recall another college that treats its applicants like that - a span of 3 years in which no waitlisted kids were accepted - i think that's almost immoral lol might as well not even have a list because you're robbing kids of valuable time and energy waiting for the decision</p>
<p>LOL agree!!!</p>
<p>Maybe it's time for Michigan to get real with their admissions procedures. Daughter applied in October, deferred in February, and waitlisted in April. Not exactly rolling admissions IMHO and they just string the applicants along...</p>
<p>I got placed on it as well... I wonder if there's any point in sending my first semester grades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i dont think i can recall another college that treats its applicants like that - a span of 3 years in which no waitlisted kids were accepted
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, shoot, I have to question your knowledge about the other institutions in the U.S., since as bianchi pointed out they HAVE taken students off the waitlist, as recently as last year. LOL Seriously, it was just a handful, but that contradicts a claim that the waitlist is some kind of "immoral" sham that is never actually used. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe it's time for Michigan to get real with their admissions procedures. Daughter applied in October, deferred in February, and waitlisted in April. Not exactly rolling admissions IMHO and they just string the applicants along...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am sure it seems like that to those students who fell into those admit ranges on the margins. They did have to wait a long time, and I know that's a tough process to go through. However, Michigan began sending decisions out in late October and continued to send decisions throughout the year. That's rolling admissions, by definition.</p>
<p>I know a casual applicant might not give a rip about Michigan's recent history, but I hope that most people remember that Michigan overhauled its application two years ago, along with completely revising its review process. Along with those changes came big changes in the applicant pool and yield rates, and that made it really hard to predict outcomes. Last year they blew it big time. They're trying to not repeat that mistake this year. </p>
<p>I know it is small comfort to people who were applying during these adjustment years, but it's not a matter of Michigan needing to "get real." There are some hard-working, committed, caring professionals working in Admissions. It's unfortunate (although understandable) that the process may come across as callous to some people.</p>
<p>"Well, shoot, I have to question your knowledge about the other institutions in the U.S., since as bianchi pointed out they HAVE taken students off the waitlist, as recently as last year. LOL Seriously, it was just a handful, but that contradicts a claim that the waitlist is some kind of "immoral" sham that is never actually used."</p>
<p>He didn't say the last three years; he said a three year span.</p>
<p>By the way, what happened last year?</p>
<p>
[quote]
He didn't say the last three years; he said a three year span.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I apologize for misunderstanding, futuretrojan. I guess my question becomes, how frequently must a college go to its waitlist to not be immoral? </p>
<p>What do you mean, what happened last year? You mean the numbers? Yields were higher than they've been in seven years or more. The freshman class ended up being about 500 students bigger than they'd had been aiming for. Oops</p>
<p>i turned them down and left a message on the paperwork: "the offer is JUST toooo slow and unacceptable, i sent in my application in like Nov, and u offered decision after april 15th, i'm sorry, there's no way."</p>
<p>Wait so does Michigan have different waitlists this year or is the extended one to only one?</p>
<p>Is Michigan expecting the same yield as last year or are they still treating it as a crazy fluke? If they're expecting the same yield, is it possible that last year actually was a crazy fluke and they take 500 off the waitlist?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is Michigan expecting the same yield as last year or are they still treating it as a crazy fluke?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, the hours spent wondering and worrying over this. Let's just say I can't wait until May 1 rolls around so we finally know once and for all. Obviously, and just like in any year, if yield drops below expectations, Michigan will go to the waitlist. I believe that Michigan has tried to be reasonable in its expectations.</p>
<p>"Obviously, and just like in any year, if yield drops below expectations, Michigan will go to the waitlist."</p>
<p>Not necessarily, hoedown. Check out 2002. UM under-enrolled by more than 300 v. the avg. of the prior 3 yrs. They had a then-record # of applications, and a still-record low admissions rate (which seems prudent to prevent over-enrollment), but then admitted no one from the waitlist to fill out the class.</p>
<p>It wasn't underenrollment, although the class looked smaller than previous years. They set the target lower for Fall 2002 and tried to recruit a smaller class, in part because they'd overshot the previous few years.</p>
<p>They could have done that this year, actually, but didn't. I think there are pressures from cuts in state funding, and the recent Cherry Commission report--the state wants more college grads. I don't think U-M wants to grow (no matter what the state may want) but this year was not the time to try to shrink. (This is conjecture on my part).</p>