<p>1337hax0r, if you read my posts above, you would see that I mentioned several times that teaching and advising at MIT is very poor. My uncle, Antoine Naaman, is a professor of Civil Engineering at Michigan but he did his studies at MIT. He told me a lot about Michigan, as did a couple of my better friends from high school who had the priviledge of studying there. So I know all about MIT's weaknesses. But I still think it is an awesome university and you are right to have them high on your list.</p>
<p>MichWoman, <strong><em>ing about college is what college students do. People sometimes get defensive if they think you're running it down (hence the arguments in this thread), but general griping is totally normal. I completely understand *</em></strong><em>ing about something in one breath and being sorry to leave in the next. Your gripes may be more numerous than the average student's, but I don't think anyone would find it incongruous that you can both be *</em>ed off about the place and like it at the same time. You've said in many posts the things you find good about it.</p>
<p><a href="said%20by%20KB">quote</a> They want as many high qualification kids as possible to drive down admissions rates
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Gotta nitpick here--this isn't entirely correct. They do want high-qual kids, because they up the stats, accomplish great things, are inspiring for faculty to teach, and so on. But they don't drive down admissions rates. </p>
<p>Michigan would have a lower admissions rate--that's right, I said lower--if they rejected all the top kids outright and admitted everyone out of the pool of their average applicants.</p>
<p>Why? Because high-calibre kids yield at a lower rate. They've got admissions offers from great schools, and great scholarship offers from good schools. Michigan is neither the best nor the cheapest place they'll get into. Not so for a more average applicant, where Michigan may be the best school they get into.</p>
<p>To enroll 100 students (for example) you may have to admit 300 of the best applicants. But you might only have to admit 130 of your middle-of-the-road applicants to land 100 of them on campus.</p>
<p>Small point, but nitpicking is my forte.</p>
<p>actually thats not correct. 100/130 is high yield even for the lower end. 100/300 for the best students is a really good yield. a lot of good schools have around 25-30% yield. The school isn't doing much to attract top applicants, if there is enough applications for michigan to be selective then, admissions rate will go down despite a low yield, over time, a lower admissions rate will appeal to top applicants and Yield will go up as well. (WUSTL, Upenn)</p>
<p>Hmm...that's an interesting thought hoedown. I wasn't taking yield into account. I STRONGLY believe that UM needs to do a better job of getting its top admits to matriculate. When competing w/ Ivies etc...that usually means $$$.</p>
<p>Have there been any discussions about increasing merit-based aid at UM???</p>
<p>
[quote]
actually thats not correct. 100/130 is high yield even for the lower end. 100/300 for the best students is a really good yield. a lot of good schools have around 25-30% yield. The school isn't doing much to attract top applicants, if there is enough applications for michigan to be selective then, admissions rate will go down despite a low yield, over time, a lower admissions rate will appeal to top applicants and Yield will go up as well. (WUSTL, Upenn)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What's not correct? I was pulling those numbers out as examples, to illustrate that it's harder for a school to yield their best admits. I'm not going to publish Michigan's actual yields for its best high admits; I used made-up numbers to show the perverse but very real fact that if you want to admit fewer and have more come, you go for the lower-quality applicants. It's that simple. And of course no institution would do this because it's not sound policy. But it's useful for people to remember how the numbers work in admissions, because actions don't always have the effect you think.</p>
<p>I strongly suspect that even Penn and WUSTL have a higher yield with their own "average" applicants than they do their best applicants. However, it's unusual for institutions to publish their numbers broken down by "app quality" (although I'm certain they look at them).</p>
<p>You're right, however, when you say that a school which is perceived to be better quality will increase its yield on its best students. That would happen over time. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Have there been any discussions about increasing merit-based aid at UM???
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh yes. Rogel beats that drum at every campaign event he's at, I'm sure--it's certainly highlighted in campaign literature. Merit aid is a specific targeted area.</p>
<p>Michigan's got a lot of places it could increase aid. It could increase grant aid to all aid students (reducing loan), it could increase aid to nonresidents (reduce the gap between aid and need), and it could increase the number and amount of merit scholarships. It is being talked about, believe me, but it's hard to shake GF dollars loose for this. That's why they want more gift funds in these areas.</p>
<p>Jeffl, Washington University's yield rate is actually quite low, around 35%...so is the University of Chicago's (30%) and CalTech's (40%).</p>
<p>I was THIS close to matriculating at WashU. The school has the same problem that UM does...its applicants are being wooed by schools that the applicants perceive as being more prestigious. If I had won the full Ervin scholarship at WashU...i would have been in a tough spot, b/c then WashU and UM would have been roughly the same cost (I most likely would have chosen WashU). But I am in the rare spot where UM bested another school's merit aid offer. And so here I am....</p>
<p>I'm gonna go ahead and guess that WashU's yield for its entire applicant pool (35%) is very similar to UM's yield for its top students. I think we're talking about the same set of students here. Same deal for Uchicago....Caltech...etc. I think if the school offered more merit aid, UM's yield for high-performing students would go up (i.e more people would choose UM b/c it is cheap/free). </p>
<p>So here's my new question, if UM does offer more merit based aid (which I think is the best way to get that high-performing yield up), what happens to the overall acceptance rate? Hoedown, let's say the high-performing yield at UM goes up from the hypothetical 35% (same as WashU's) to a more competitive 50%. What happens to the admissions rate then? I would think it'd go down. If a higher yield for highly qualified students caused the acceptance rate to go down, then wouldn't that open the university to political attacks that its catering to the elite, endangering the money that it gets to offer merit aid. I guess I'm asking if there is politics involved here.</p>
<p>wustl's yield has gone up in recent years, so did its ranking in usnews from where emory/vanderbilt is now to top 10. Michigan has to start playing this game better.</p>
<p>Jeffl, last year, Wash U admitted 4,100 students of which 1,500 enrolled. I'd say that its yield rate is still on the low end. But I agree, Michigan should play the game better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What happens to the admissions rate then? I would think it'd go down. If a higher yield for highly qualified students caused the acceptance rate to go down, then wouldn't that open the university to political attacks that its catering to the elite, endangering the money that it gets to offer merit aid. I guess I'm asking if there is politics involved here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Astute question. Yes, if yield goes up (on our best admits or overall) we'd admit fewer to get the same class. More students at the lower end would therefore hear "no."</p>
<p>Politically, the key factor is nonresidents. The crankypants in Lansing gripe when solid Michigan kids get squeezed out by nonresidents. The argument that nonresident students are higher quality (as they on average are) is probably what keeps their worst ire at bay. U-M's good reputation is good for the state. As support from the state drops, it also gives them less room to complain (although it doesn't silence them).</p>
<p>They wouldn't complain if Michigan started to retain more of the state's best residents. They'd be thrilled if Michigan could keep more of them at home instead of headed off to Princeton, Stanford, etc. They could live with the more-average kids in their district getting pushed out by some homegrown Ubergenius. </p>
<p>The residency thing is another reason why gift funds are so important for aid and merit scholarships. Michigan has always had a better deal for residents than nonresidents when it comes to financial aid. Politically this is important. Yes, we spend general fund dollars on nonresidents BUT they don't get the full-need-met aid that residents do. Lansing really cannot complain when we're meeting the full need of appicants who get in. If some wealthy donor (like Rogel) wants to give multiple millions to endow a scholarship program for nonresidents (or a residency-blind award that goes to anyone), what can Lansing say? Nothing. It isn't their money. </p>
<p>If the State got very hostile about nonresidents, U-M would probably start working other angles, like the number of nonresidents who stay after graduation and work in our economy, stuff like that. U-M's relationship with the state is complex, and I only know the merest tip of the iceburg.</p>
<p>What if there was a substantial scholarship for non-residents that required them to live in Michigan after they graduated for x number of years. Something like Teach for America....but more open to other occupations and specific to the state.</p>
<p>It caters to gifted non-residents, giving them more incentive to matriculate, while at the same time making the political case that the money is going to bolster Michigan's brain trust.</p>
<p>I'm finding the governmental relations bit rather interesting. AND I have a 5 hour train ride coming. hehe. >-D</p>
<p>i have a final in 1 hour. :(</p>
<p>That would certainly have some fans.</p>
<p>There'd probably still be editorials in the Free Press, saying "where are the scholarships for OUR OWN residents, our own sons and daughters?" and people would also worry that these graduates would "push out" jobs for native graduates. </p>
<p>But importing out-of-state talent--and getting them to stay--is a compelling way for U-M to up the number of college grads in the state. That's something the Cherry Commission has said is important.</p>