<p>this last admissions period. It is a little bit higher than I anticipated. I personally expected a 45% acceptance rate this year. However, this is a result of yet another incredibly high yield rate (47%). Michigan reportedly was shooting for a class of 5,600 but ended up getting enrollment deposits from 6,400. </p>
<p>The reasoning for Michigan's miscalculations is possibly due to its lack of faith in its own appeal. As Michigan gets more selective and accepts a higher calibre applicant, it expects those high calibre applicants to also get into other desirable universities and turn down Michigan at a higher rate. But somehow, even with the increased quality of our Freshmen admits, Michigan's yield rate continues to surprise. If Michigan started having a little more faith in its appeal, perhaps it could take a chance at admitted students with the assumption that the yield rate will hold and in the event it doesn't, then resort to the waitlist.</p>
<p>Wow, if this continues, North Quad is going to be packed when its finshed. </p>
<p>I also heard from my RA last year that there are a lot of vacancies in the dorms, and they were trying to push last year's freshmen to live in the residence halls again.</p>
<p>At parent orientation I read about North Quad and saw artist's renderings. Trust me, North Quad will be packed - it's going to be the nicest dorm, by a wide margin.</p>
<p>It's one thing to be off by a couple of percent, but they are 14% over -- that is really outrageous. It will lead to overcrowding throughout the Class of 11's years at Michigan. If my math is right, an admit rate of 44% and yield of 47% would have gotten the class size they were aiming for.</p>
<p>Two questions come to mind:
1. Was this really an accident or was the administration intentionally trying to bump up the class size for budgetary or other reasons?
2. Are they going to compensate by adding faculty members, advisors and other resources, or is the educational experience going to suffer?</p>
<p>Who knows what they were thinking. Michigan has missed the mark most years in recent memory. For some reason, Michigan does not want to resort to accepting waitlisted students. Somehow, each year, Michigan claims that they are aiming for a class of 5,300-5,600 but for some reason, each year, they end up enrolling well over 6,000 Freshmen. Last year was the exception. Personally, I would rather have Michigan have a class 14% smaller than expected than having it have a class 14% larger than expected. </p>
<p>As for your questions, Michigan I don't believe has the resources to increase the size of its faculty by 14%. In fact, I have often contended that Michigan currently has 9,000 undergrads more than it can truly handle. Given Michigan's resources, Michigan should strive for an undergraduate student population of 16,000.</p>
<p>We're not going to be 14% over. If we're 7% over target, I'll eat my hat.</p>
<p>There was no budgetary conspiracy to get a bigger class. Yield really was unexpected, and it came in a late surge (it wasn't predictable by trending, and it came after final admits went out). Other Big Ten schools reported a similar late rush in deposits, so it was something about the college admissions climate this year. </p>
<p>The overage this year is nothing like it was in Fall 04 and Fall 05. Those years, adding more faculty was a bigger issue and they had to scramble to make sure there were enough Chemistry labs and instructors in popular foreign languages. This year the issue is much smaller in scope, and trust me they're on it. Michigan stands to lose a lot if it doesn't address such problems, because it can hurt retention and time-to-degree. Those are both things Michigan takes seriously. The other issue that CAN be tough is housing, but because of a surplus of rental units in town, and all the conversions they did for the 04 and 05 classes, Housing has more than enough room.</p>
<p>I don't think housing will be a huge deal...Housing was thinking of closing down a few buildings of Baits this year because so many fewer students than usual are returning to on-campus housing in the fall.</p>
<p>Hoedown makes a good point. Many students who sent their enrollment deposits probably won't enroll. Michigan will end up with probably 6,000 Freshmen rather than the planned 5,600. </p>
<p>I agree with Hoedown that Michigan means well. But when it comes to admissions, Michigan seems to be slightly lackadaisical at times.</p>
<p>Alexandre, can you elaborate on this statement: </p>
<br>
<p>In fact, I have often contended that Michigan currently has 9,000 >undergrads more than it can truly handle. Given Michigan's resources, >Michigan should strive for an undergraduate student population of 16,000.</p>
<br>
<p>16,000 is 4,000 per class - why do you think that Michigan can't handle the extra students?</p>
<p>Nervousmommy, I don't think any university can handle 25,000 undergraduate students effectively. Michigan is resource-rich, has arguably the best academic facilities of any university in the country and a lot of campus/dorm/class space availlable, so it manages to maintain the highest standards. You really have no reason to panic. Michigan wasn't nearly as wealthy or well equipped in the mid 90s and still, I had an incredible experience. But I believe Michigan could be operating at an even higher level if it limited its undergraduate student population to a more manageable level.</p>
<p>
[quote]
hoedown, can you explain what you mean by "conversions"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They opened up certain sections of formerly married-student housing to upperclass undergrads who wanted to live on campus. That freed up more traditional residence hall space.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if they've had a consistently higher yield rate than expected, why would they accept so many people?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A college doesn't have yield figures until the end of the process. In the meantime, you go off of trending. Unfortunately for Michigan, there have been substantial changes in the application process which have made trending less reliable. When they added the essays, apps went way down, then recovered--it altered app, admit, and deposit patterns. Last year went fine. But then this year Prop 2 required a mid-year change in the process.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's ********. I want to transfer now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you're serious, here....I'm not sure exactly what you're upset about (admit rate? size of class?) but if it's the latter, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over rumors heard on a message board. Nothing's stopping you from looking into transfer, but to me it seems a little rash.</p>
<p>50% is really too high for Michigan given it's current stature. It shouldn't even have 5600 incoming freshmen, much less 6400. I think Michigan could get by easily on 35-40% acceptance rate and just letting in applicants from the waitlist if needed. Really, it would only increase the desirability of Michigan, like the way it's done for places like Washu.</p>
<p>Alexandre, what were the other numbers like for admits this cycle? I.e. sat scores, gpas, etc.</p>
<p>An important difference between WashU and U-Michigan, however, is that WashU isn't beholden to the public. </p>
<p>The People of Michigan feel that since they help support a world-class university, any bright, ambitious, or hardworking kid in Michigan should have a place at U-M. Even with a class of 5300-5600 and residents making up the majority of the class, a number of people are still disappointed every year. They tend to think U-M is doing its citizens wrong. I can't imagine the clamor if U-M got that much smaller, and told hundreds or even thousands more Michigan families "no" and turned away kids that everyone in their circle of aquaintance considers a superstar.</p>
<p>My concern isn't student quality or selectivity. Michigan's student body is extremely talented and compares favourably with the student bodies at schools like Brown, Columbia, Cornell and other elite universities. Last year, Michigan's entering Freshman class had a mid 50% ACT range of 27-31. Brown's mid 50% ACT range was 27-33, Columbia's was 28-32 and Cornell's was 28-32. At all of those universities, anywhere between 80% and 90% of the students graduated in the top 10% of their class and the average high school GPA is practically identical.</p>
<p>There tends to be a gap in SAT ranges, but that's due to how the students and universities prepare for and report the SAT.</p>
<p>My concern isn't about student quality, it is about managing with the availlable resources. Michigan owes its students more than it owes the state. Obviously, Michigan is wealthy and can manage, but it could be even better if it restricted its class size to less than 6,000 Freshmen.</p>