<p>one of my friends is going to Ann Harbor next year and he really likes the university. i live in cali, and i know that schools like UCLA and UCB are TOUGH to get into when you're out of state.</p>
<p>is it just as hard to get into Michigan from cali?</p>
<p>No, not really. The standards are just as good, but the % accepted is much higher. Think about it, Cal and UCLA are 10%-5% out-of-staters. Michigan is 35% out-of-staters. That means that Cal and UCLA only enroll about 400 out-of-state students annually, compared to Michigan which enrolls closer to 2,000 out of staters annually. I would say Michigan accepts roughly 30%-50% of the out-of-state students compared to Cal and UCLA which accept more like 20% of out of state applicants.</p>
<p>the advisor told me (i'm from out of state and got into michigan) that they judge EVERYONE as equal. the only difference to make it a public institution is that they advertise more heavily in michigan</p>
<p>i don't know if that's true or not, but you should have a very good chance of getting in</p>
<p>no way, they have to accept a certain number of instate students. it's much more difficult out of state</p>
<p>I've heard that the limit is by percent of out-of-staters (which would probably be 35%?). Could someone confirm it one way or the other?</p>
<p>Basically this means that if 15,000 in-staters and 15,000 out-of-staters applied with equal stats, it'd be much easier for in-staters to get in--simply because they can accept roughly twice as many in-staters as out-of-staters.</p>
<p>Yeah, the university tries to keep overall undergrad enrollment at around 35%. We have a "gentleman's agreement" with the state that we won't go over that.</p>
<p>That doesn't mean that the freshman class will be right at 65-35, though. It's an overall target we're looking at, and since nonresident tend to graduate a little faster (I think the higher tuition is incentive) the nonresident population is a little less among upperclassmen. It can also vary by school. Music has a higher percentage of nonresidents, for example. Other units balance it out.</p>
<p>Yield is different for the two groups (instate and outofstate) so Michigan actually has to admit many more nonresidents to fill 10 nonresident spaces than it needs to admit residents to fill resident spaces.</p>
<p>I do not know why Michigan is engaging in that "gentelman's agreement". The State has been nothing but! Michigan deserves to get at least $700 million from the State of Michigan for the education it is giving its student. Instead, it is only getting $300 million. I think Michigan should put its foot down and drop its in-state population from 65% to 40%. If the state doesn't like it, they can increase their commitment to the school.</p>
<p>To the original poster-it's Ann ARBOR, not ann "harbor"</p>
<p>Well, there is a long history on this sort of thing. It's been in writing in the past, and is no longer. I am sure there are people who feel as you do.</p>
<p>Probably more so with the people who have called for U of Michigan to privatize.</p>
<p>Matthew, I am not one that thinks Michigan should go private. I for one respect the fact that Michigan is a state university and that it is obligated to the state of Michigan. </p>
<p>But let us face it, Michigan's operating expenses is roughly $2.5 billion (not including the Hopsital, which costs another $2.5 billion) and the University only gets $300 million from the state. In other words, the University must generate over 90% of its revenues on its own!!! So I definitely think Michigan should remain the same in every aspect but one...it should recude the number of incoming freshmen in-state students from 4,000/year to under 2,000/year. </p>
<p>I am a strong believer that Michigan should have 16,000 undergraduate students, not 25,000. The university simply does not have enough professors, dorms, classrooms or money to accommodate more than 20,000 undergrads. Oh well, here's hoping.</p>
<p>I'm as quick as anyone to gripe about how little we get from the State but recall that we also get some capital outlay support, and some financial aid, in addition to the operating appropriation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The university simply does not have enough professors, dorms, classrooms or money to accommodate more than 20,000 undergrads. Oh well, here's hoping.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know if that's the case. They still manage to house many upperclassmen. We have square footage galore (one of the biggest physical plants in the nation) and I don't think we have a faculty shortage. Some things are tighter (chemistry labs, for example) but I don't know what evidence suggests U-M can't accommodate more than 20,000 undergrads.</p>
<p>Heck some of the scheduling problems would be considerably alleviated if students (and faculty!) weren't so averse to Friday afternoon classes. Hee.</p>
<p>I know Hoedown. I am often amazed at how well the university runs. I never missed a class I wanted because of overbooking and most of my classes were relatively small (fewer than 30 students). But I want Michigan to be the best it can be. ;)</p>
<p>Is Michigan engineering as cutthroat as MIT or CalTech? Do you have to work hard and get no sleep?</p>
<p>No way. MIT and CalTech are in a league of their own when it comes to toughness. I would not describe any Engineering program as cutthroat though. I have often observed that Engineering students are team players. </p>
<p>At any rate, Michigan Engineering is tough, and you will have to work hard. However, you will also have time to relax and enjoy your education.</p>