Medical School Acceptance Rate

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Michigan
41

<p>Oh really? So you are saying that the other Michigan graduate programs don't favor in-state residents? Is that right?</p>

<p>UM Law School:
"Q.How does residency affect my chances of admission?
A. Michigan residency is a factor in admissions..."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/Admissions/faq.htm#admission%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/Admissions/faq.htm#admission&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Hmmm, well that's interesting, Alexandre. I thought you said that it wasn't true that other than the med-school, Michigan graduate programs do not favor state residents. Yet what do I see in that UM Law School FAQ? Hmmm, very interesting. </p>

<p>Similarly, while I can't find any specific FAQ for the UM Ross School of Business about the impact of residency, I'll tell you what. If you want, I'll email the admissions staff at Ross and ask them whether state residency is a factor in admission to the MBA program. Then we'll see what sort of answer I'll get. Would you like me to do that? </p>

<p>Furthermore, you also talk about the graduate-schools in general. Michigan has lots of graduate students, and the vast majority of them are in PhD, MS, or MA programs. I thought we were talking only about professional graduate programs here. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter that most of the Michigan Physics PhD students probably come from other countries. It matters where the medical,law, and B-school students come from. And the fact is, a disproportionate number of them come from the state of Michigan. The majority? Of course not. The state of Michigan has a population of about 10 million, which while fairly large, is less populous than the greater NYC metro area. Even nearby states like Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have more people. Yet the fact remains that the UM graduate schools have a disproportionate number of Michigan state residents. </p>

<p>And I finally see that you concede point #3. But point 3 goes toward disproving your simple claim that pure numbers proves favoritism. The numbers do not necessarily demonstrate favoritism. The numbers can be explained by UM undergrads simply wanting to stick around by going to UM graduate school, and nothing to do with favoritism per se. </p>

<p>And that is why Michigan actually leaves PLENTY to the imagination. You still have not shown that favoritism is what is going on. You can talk about what administrators have told you until the cows come home, but it doesn't matter what administrators say, it only matters what they do. You have to show that UM grad admits more UM undergrads than would be explained by factors 1,2, and 3. That would be evidence of favoritism. Yet that remains to be proved.</p>

42

<p>Sakky, so what? The law school says it gets enough qualified applicants from Michigan. It doesn't say we don't get enough qualified applicants from Michigan; therefore, we will scrounge around and take unqualified applicants.</p>

<p>You don't go to Michigan so why do you care?</p>

43

<p>But Sakky, you do not know Michigan, I do...so you will have to take my word for it. Michigan favors its own students. </p>

<p>Residency does play a factor...as it does at any university, including private ones. Where one comes from always plays a part in the adcoms decision-making process. But the fact that Michigan graduate schools cost almost as much for in-staters as for out-of-staters already says a lot about the university. Michigan's graduate programs are simply not set up to favor in-state applicants...but they are designed to favor University of Michigan grads. But cost isn't everything. The most damning evidence is from themake-up of the student body at the graduate professional programs.</p>

<p>Only 25% of Michigan's law school are in-staters...of those, over 50% are university of Michigan grads. In other words, last year, Michigan's entering class had 390 students. Of them, 100 came from the state of Michigan and 290 came from out of state. Already, the numbers do not really scream favoritism for in-staters. I mean, let us face it, as you clearly and aptly pointed out, for grad school, most students like to stay near their college location. But if you look closer, it becomes even worse. Of the in-state students, a lot of them (roughly 55%) are graduates of the University of Michigan. I mean, roughly 70 Michigan grads join the Michigan Law school annually, so it is safe to assume that the tyical 2:1 undergrads in-state to out-of-state ratio applies here too. So of the 70 Michigan students who join the Law school each year, it is probably safe to assume that 55 of them are in-staters. That only leaves 45 non-University of Michigan grads that are in-staters. In short, of the 320 non-University of Michigan grads who joined the University of Michigan Law school last year, only 45 or so were in-staters. That's just 15%. Like I said, Michigan does not favor in-staters...it favors University of Michigan grads.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/Admissions/index.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/Admissions/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And like I mentioned above, Michigan does not give in-staters such an advantage where tuition is concerned. In-staters pay $32,000 (compared to the $36,000 that out-of-staters pay) or 90% of what out-of-staters pay. Again, that is not consitant with a school that is out to favor residents of the state. Some state schools charge more less than half fir in-staters. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/Admissions/financial.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/Admissions/financial.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In the case of the Business school..., it is even more lop-sided. Only 25% of Ross MBA students are from the Midwest. So probably only 10% of Ross students are residents of Michigan. And of those, probably 90% at University of Michigan alums. I would be urprised if more than 5% of non-university of Michigan grads attending the University of Michigan MBA program were in-staters. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.bus.umich.edu/Admissions/Mba/Profile.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bus.umich.edu/Admissions/Mba/Profile.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Again, the University of Michigan does not give in-staters such an advantage where tuition is concerned. In-staters pay $34,000 (compared to the $39,000 that out-of-staters pay) or 90% of what out-of-staters pay. Again, that is not consitant with a school that is out to favor residents of the state.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bus.umich.edu/Admissions/Mba/EstimatedCosts.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bus.umich.edu/Admissions/Mba/EstimatedCosts.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Like I said before Sakky, when it comes to professional schools, Michigan favors its own grads. When it comes to PhD candidates, it is an entirely different ball game. You will have to take my word for it.</p>

44

<p>Well, to dstark, I care because I want the correct information to be out there. In a nutshell, I don't want people going to UM for undergrad because they think that they are automatically assured favoritism to UM grad-school. This to me is still an unproven assertion. </p>

<p>Now, to Alexandre's points, I have to raise the following counterpoints:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>UM is the best overall undergrad school in the state of Michigan, and also the largest. Hence, you would expect that UM undergrads would be prevalent in UM grad-school simply because there are lots of UM students, and they are very strong, relative to the students at the other schools in Michigan. Michigan State is large, but its students are not as good, on average, as the UM students are. Hence, UM undergrad is SUPPOSED to dominate the UM grad in-state rankings. If it didn't, that would be a problem. </p></li>
<li><p>UM Law and UM Medical, while very strong, are not the strongest law/med-schools in the country, and furthermore, those Michigan HS seniors who leave the state of Michigan for college tend to be extremely strong students. </p></li>
</ul>

<p>I have always said that UM was a pretty good undergrad school, and if I was a Michigan state resident, I would go there unless I got into some top 10-15 program. I'm sure that many other people in the state feel the same way. Hence, the ones that tend to leave the state tend to be the ones that can't get into UM or Michigan State, or the ones who can, but also got into an Ivy, MIT, Stanford, or places like that (yes, of course, there are also some other people who leave for personal/cultural reasons, but they're in the minority, I'm talking about what most people do). If you're not good enough to get into UM or another Michigan public school for undergrad, then you're probably not going to be able to get into UM grad-school also, so I think we can safely put those people aside. So let's talk about those people who leave the state because they get into a super-elite school that is out-of-state. These people are high achievers and therefore have a greater likelihood to be competitive for the best professional schools - not just UM, but all the other elite med/law schools. For example, I think even Alexandre would have to agree that a randomly selected prelaw student at Harvard probably has a likelier chance of getting into Yale Law than a randomly selected prelaw student at UM. </p>

<p>Furthermore, the talk about the small state subsidy for UM grad school only pushes the very best in-state students to go elsewhere. Again, let's talk about the guy who grew up in the state of Michigan, then went to Harvard for college, and now wants to go to (and got into) Yale Law, and also got into UM Law. If the state subsidy were large, then that person might decide to go to UM Law over Yale just because it's cheaper. But if the subsidy is not large, then there is less of a reason to choose UM Law. </p>

<p>This has the net effect of driving out the very best in-state students away from UM graduate school. These students are already the cream and were already fairly likely to end up at a non-UM grad school anyway (or at least, more likely than the average UM undergrad would), but the fact that the subsidy is not large simply makes that likelihood even greater. That is why you don't really see that many non-UM in-state people in UM graduate school. It's not that UM is favoring its own, it's that the other people have other options and don't have all that much financial incentive to choose UM for graduate school.</p>

<p>*What does it mean to be local?</p>

<p>Again, I would point to the guy who grew up in the state of Michigan, then went to Harvard for undergrad. From a psychological standpoint, is Michigan still home to that person? Or more specifically, is Ann Arbor home? Probably not. I think that person would probably consider Cambridge, Mass to be home, or at least, more home-like than is Ann Arbor. On the other hand, a guy who went to UM for undergrad will consider Ann Arbor to be home. Hence, it is the latter person who will prefer going to UM for grad-school simply because Ann Arbor is home, more so than the person who went to Harvard for college, even though that Harvard guy is a Michigan state resident. </p>

<p>Hence, it doesn't surprise me that UM graduate school gets lots of UM undergrads, simply because lots of UM undergrads think that Ann Arbor is home and want to stay there. People who may technically be Michigan state residents, but who didn't go to UM for undergrad have few ties to Ann Arbor, and so aren't especially incented to go to UM for graduate school (at least, not much more incented to go there than going somewhere else for grad-school). </p>

<p>*The special case of Business School.</p>

<p>The Ross School has a special problem when you're talking about residency. The fact is, most B-schools, including Ross, admit people who have significant work experience, and hence will rarely take anybody below the age of 25. And the fact is, according to Michigan state law, if you are 25 or older, and you are not currently living/working in the state of Michigan, then you will probably lose your state residency status.</p>

<p>So, again, for example, a guy who grows up in the state of Michigan, goes to Harvard for undergrad, then goes to work in consulting (outside the state of Michigan) for a few years. Now, he's 25 wants to apply to B-school. He is now almost certainly going to be considered a non-resident for the purposes of Ross. </p>

<p>So, again, the point is that when you sit down and you look at the non-resident students at Ross, that will include students who were Michigan state residents at one time in their life, but who then left and so then lost their residency. UM undergrads, on the other hand, tend to work in the state of Michigan (at least, clearly, more so than Harvard graduates who come from Michigan), and so are more likely to retain their state residency classification for the purposes of Ross.</p>

<p>Look, all of this is not saying that there is no favoritism. There might be, there might not be. But the point is that there are many confounding factors here, and I still have not seen anything that convinces me that there is favoritism happening.</p>

45

<p>Sakky, I never told anybody that going to Michigan undergrad would give them a good shot at getting into Michigan Law or Michigan Medical. On the contrary, I told students to beware because competition at Michigan is fierce. I, like you, am out to make sure the students know the truth.</p>

<p>But there is no doubt that the University of Michigan favors its own. It is not written because it would be subject to legal scrutiny, but it is nevertheless a fact.Michigan could easily have a Law or Medical class made up entirely of top flight non-UM grads if it desired. But the fact is, roughly 20%-25% of those classes ar UM students. Like it or not, Michigan favors its own...and given your criteria Sakky, you CANNOT prove that any school favors its own, and yet we both know that many universities do favor their own. </p>

<p>This said, I will correct you on a couple of points:</p>

<p>1) You say that Michigan law and Medcine strong but not the strongest. Actually, since they are both ranked in or around the top 5 in both, I would say they qualify to be considered among the strongest. Obviously, in Medicine, you have Harvard and Johns Hopkins that are slightly better and in Law, maybe Harvard and Yale, although that is not nearly as well defined.</p>

<p>2) You say that if you were from the state of Michigan, you would only leave the state of Michigan for the top 10-15 universities in the country (which is fine)...and then, you went on to say that you think most Michigan residents think that way. Actually, most Michigan residents would pick Michigan over all but 5-7 universities in the country...the only 5-7 that are arguably better. Even then, last year alone (like any year), over 500 students turned down those 5-7 universities to attend Michigan. Michigan is one of the top 15 universities in the country, and given that fact, I have observed that most Michigan high school students (who come from middle income families and will not qualify for financial aid) would rather go to Michigan than waste money on an out-of-state college or university of equal caliber. Obviously, there are many Michigan residents who want to leave the state at whatever the cost and their parents are wealthy and supportive enough to let them...but those are a minority.</p>

<p>Like I said before, we cannot prove our cases, but the numbers support the contention that Michigan's graduate professional programs do in fact favor University of Michigan graduates.</p>

46

<p>Well, first of all, Alexandre, you are the way making the assertion that UM favors its own. I am not the one making the assertion, you are. The person who makes the assertion bears the brunt of proving it. And it still is an unproven assertion. </p>

<p>And once again, with the whole 20-25% thing? Again. once again, that could be easily explained with the 3 factors I mentioned before, and probably are. Like I said, UM is a huge undergrad program, and yet UM Law and UM Medical are 'normal-sized' law/med programs, so it really isn't all that hard to find a bunch of extremely strong UM undergrads to fill 1/4 of their class, simply because UM has lots of undergrads to begin with. And in particular, because of the in-state residency boost, as well as the simple fact that UM undergrads get used to Ann Arbor and want to stick around, and it is extremely easy to fill 1/4 of your class. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You say that Michigan law and Medcine strong but not the strongest. Actually, since they are both ranked in or around the top 5 in both, I would say they qualify to be considered among the strongest. Obviously, in Medicine, you have Harvard and Johns Hopkins that are slightly better and in Law, maybe Harvard and Yale, although that is not nearly as well defined.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet the problem is something you pointed out yourself. The state subsidy for UM Law or UM Medical really isn't that much. This is not like, say, UCSF Medical, where the state subsidy is substantial. This is not like UCBerkeley Boalt Law or UCLA Law, where the state subsidy is also rather substantial. At UM Med or Law, the state subsidy is not tremendously large, and you must agree that that reduces the attractiveness to Michigan state residents. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You say that if you were from the state of Michigan, you would only leave the state of Michigan for the top 10-15 universities in the country (which is fine)...and then, you went on to say that you think most Michigan residents think that way. Actually, most Michigan residents would pick Michigan over all but 5-7 universities in the country...the only 5-7 that are arguably better. Even then, last year alone (like any year), over 500 students turned down those 5-7 universities to attend Michigan. Michigan is one of the top 15 universities in the country, and given that fact, I have observed that most Michigan high school students (who come from middle income families and will not qualify for financial aid) would rather go to Michigan than waste money on an out-of-state college or university of equal caliber. Obviously, there are many Michigan residents who want to leave the state at whatever the cost and their parents are wealthy and supportive enough to let them...but those are a minority.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And what exactly is UM's yield rate? I don't remember either, but I know it is not as high as many if not most of the other schools in the top 15. Hence, that means that UM admits thousands of students every year who decide not to come. Most of those students who don't come to UM, I'm sure you would agree, don't come to UM because they got into a better school (or at least, a school that they think is better). The key question is then, if UM is really so good, then why isn't its yield rate higher?</p>

<p>The bottom line is that it is obvious that UM Law and UM Medical have lots of UM undergrads. As well they should - considering how many UM undergrads there are, that many of them want to stick around Ann Arbor, and that most UM undergrads are classified as state residents and therefore get an admissions boost. Is there favoritism on top of that? Maybe, maybe not. I maintain my position that I don't know.</p>

47

<p>Michigan's yield rate is 40%-45%, depending on the year. That is not much different than most universities in Michigan's peer group (Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn). But yield rate means nothing. Schools like UNC and Minnesota have yield rates in the 60s...higher than most Ivies. </p>

<p>Here are some figures for 2003 (I do not have the figures for 2004):</p>

<p>CalTech: 520 admitted, 190 enrolled. 37% yield
Chicago: 3,605 admitted, 1,155 enrolled. 32% yield
Cornell: 6,334 admitted, 3,135 enrolled. 49% yield
Dartmouth: 2,155 admitted, 1,077 enrolled. 50% yield
Duke: 3,873 admitted, 1,619 enrolled. 42% yield
Johns Hopkins: 3,032 admitted, 1,048 enrolled. 35% yield
Michigan: 13,814 admitted, 5,551 enrolled. 40% yield
Northwestern: 4,702 admitted, 1,941 enrolled. 41% yield
UC-Berkeley: 8,832 admitted, 3,653 enrolled. 41% yield</p>

<p>As you can see Sakky, Michigan's yield rate is not unlike those of other top 15 universities. But like I said, yield rate means very little. It is about as telling as % accepted. These are superficial measures to be sure. All that matters is pure, raw quality. The rest is just fluff. and in terms of raw quality, Michigan is anywhere between #8 and #17 in the nation...my guess would be around #10.</p>

48

<p>Actually Sakky, I just got the stats for the 2004 class. I found them in this site:</p>

<p><a href="http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/cool/index.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/cool/index.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It is the NCES (National Center for Education Statisitics). Here are some yield rates for 2004:</p>

<p>CalTech: 37%
Chicago: 35%
Cornell: 50%
Dartmouth: 50%
Duke: 43%
Johns Hopkins: 31%
Michigan: 45%
Northwestern: 41%
UC-Berkeley: 41%</p>

<p>H,M,P,S and Y obviously have yield rates significantly higher than 50%, but that is to be excpected from the "big 5". Penn and Columbia also have very high yield rates. Otherwise, most elite universities do not have a yield significantly higher than Michigan. </p>

<p>I consider all these schools listed above to belong to the same peer group... the top 15 or so universities in the country. </p>

<p>So I repeat, most in-state students would only leave the state of Michigan for one of the "big 5". Out of staters are another story altogether. Most out-of staters dream of NY or CA, so Michigan cannot compete...but it has nothing to do with quality of education and everything to do with popularity of the locale.</p>

49

<p>What the heck are you two argueing about for crying out loud? You both are posting like 1000 word responses on an issue thats pretty clear lol. no offense or anything, but can't we move to another topic rather than if michigan favors its own students? Either way, its still hard to get in Mich whether they favor its own candidates or not.</p>

50

<p>The yield rate jumps from 41% to 45% in UMich, brings in around 500 more "unexpected" freshman for Fall 2004 .
UMich might tighten the admission to stable this situation in the near future.</p>

51

<p>whats "unexpected" supposed to mean?</p>

52

<p>6K freshman in Fall 2004 but the projected # is only 5.5k.
UMich is getting more and more popular, is'nt it?</p>

53

<p>Alexandre, what I should have said is that we both know that Michigan's yield rate is pumped up by the fact that it is cheap for Michigan state residents - and if this subsidy was removed, I think we would all have to agree that the yield would plummet. Hence, a great number of Michigan students are there not really for the quality per se, but for the price. And I have always granted that Michigan is good value for the money if you're middle-class (although if you are truly poor, then places like Harvard would clearly be the best financial deal because of Harvard's extremely generous financial aid). </p>

<p>And again, not to bring back an old argument from before - but do you really think that Michigan is #10? Remember what we're talking about here - we're not talking about the entire school, we're talking about the undergraduate program specifically. Is that #10? Already, I think we can quickly name a bunch of undergraduate programs that are better - HYPSMC, Berkeley, the 3 elite LAC's (AWS). That's already 10 schools right there. And it is also entirely debatable as to whether the Michigan undergraduate program is really better than that of Northwestern, Chicago, Duke, Columbia, Penn, Wellesley, and several other places. But in any case, it doesn't matter - I've already named 10 schools that I don't think that even you would seriously dispute that from an undergraduate standpoint are probably better.</p>

54

<p>Sakky, I did not inlcude LACs. That would be comparing apples with oranges. I was merely talking about research universities. I can only think of 7 schools that are arguably better than Michigan. They are H,P,S,M,Y and Cal and CalTech. The remaining Ivies, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Chicago, Duke and Northwestern are roughly equal to Michigan. At the undergraduate level, Michigan is anywhere between #7 and #17 among research universities.</p>

55

<p>Yeah, well, then the question is why? Why exclude research universities? Are they really all that different? For the purposes of this discussion, we are talking about undergraduate education, and that is what the LAC's do (in fact, that is what the LAC's specialize in). So why shouldn't they be included? For the purposes of undergraduate education, the distinction between research universities and LAC's is completely artificial.</p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. Brown and Dartmouth are basically LAC's, that just happen to have a few small graduate programs. Brown is a LAC that also has some graduate programs and a small medical school. Dartmouth is a LAC that also has some graduate programs, a medical school, and the Tuck business school. But honestly, they are basically LAC's. {Princeton too is basically a LAC that also happens to have some very strong PhD programs}. And if Brown and Dartmouth were counted in the LAC ranking, which they probably should be, then I think they would be at least at the level of AWS, and I think we both agree that AWS are probably better than the Michigan undergraduate program.</p>

56

<p>No Sakky, I would not agree with you. ASW are not better than Michigan. Nor is Michigan better than ASW. They are all amazing undergraduate institutions. There are only 5 (H,M,P,S and Y) schools that are definitely better than Michigan...and two (Cal and CalTech) that are arguably better. After that, you have a bunch of schools (10 research universities and 10 or so LACs) that are equal but different. I will agree that in some ways, ASW are better than Michigan...but in other ways, Michigan is better than ASW. Overall, they are equal undergraduate institutions...depending on need and preference.</p>

57

<p>Then fine, then you have to concede that Michigan's true rating, at the undergraduate level, ranged anywhere from #8 to #28, when you include LAC's. So if somebody were to go around saying that Michigan is the #28 undergraduate program out there, you would have to agree that is statement that you could not seriously disagree with. Correct?</p>

58

<p>I do not believe you can mix LACs with research universities. They offer completely different types of education. I would say Michigan is one of the top 15 or so research univesities...(there is almost no difference between #7 and #20 really). </p>

<p>But if one were to list all undergraduate institutions in the same ranking, then yes, I agree, Michigan could be ranked anywhere between #8 and #30, depending on what it is you are looking for. Only H,P,S,Y and M would be ranked among the top 10 for sure. All other schools could be ranked anywhere within the top 30.</p>

<p>I mean, there are so many awesome LACs. Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Haverford, Middlebury, Oberlin, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wesleyan and Williams are all awesome.</p>

59

<p>As a student who is currently a senior at umich, I can tell you that getting good grades (esp in the sciences is not easy), however, the difficult material will help you prepare well for the professional exams that you will have to take. You will be used to the competition and know how to handle it on the exam. Yes your GPA won’t be as good as someone who went to Hope college, but chances are you will be able to perform better on the MCAT. Furthermore, if you don’t get into med school, you will have much better oppurtunities for employment if you go to a school like Michigan than Hope or Albion. </p>

<p>I think if you barely got into Michigan, and want to go to Med School, don’t come. You will find yourself studying a lot and not doing well. But if you weren’t too worried about getting in, you’ll find great research opportunities and awesome people. </p>