<p>After 5 years of missing on the high side, it looks like Michigan is going to make a serious effort to shrink the class. Like Alexandre (I believe?), I'd like to see the class size at around 4,500 (at most) or 4,000. Given the current level, they have a long way to go. The link to the article follows:</p>
<p>The Provost discusses over-enrollment, class size, adding class sections to accommodate the size of the class and, most interestingly: “"We're going to set a target that is well below our target (admittance). We're going to begin under-enrolling and go to a wait list after that," Pollack said. We're also going to admit a smaller proportion of the class in late-December to allow for more late-admissions.”</p>
<p>It is interesting how the article describe the numbers. First, UMich admitted 15,000+ students, not 6500+. It is the yield rate that brought it down to ~6700. Second, they did not find out there is not enough dorm space after the admission. They are all aware of that and they had a target of ~6200 in the freshmen class from the beginning according to previous news release. Although the yield rate has been around 40% in the recent years, but it still does bounce up and down by 1-2%. Having less EA admission but more RD admission may actually make the yield rate more unpredictable as RD applicants tend to have more pending applications to consider. I guess they just need to lower the admission rate a little bit and make use of the wait list when necessary. I don’t think it is realistic to shrink the freshmen class size to 4500.</p>
<p>1) I agree, they should use the waitlist (in prior years everybody not admitted, as a sop, was put on this list), which in the past has simply been a list of literally 15,000 kids from which no more than 40 were actually admitted in any year; they should target a yield of around 42% and if they miss on the low side use that list;</p>
<p>2) I agree that 4,500 is unrealistic, that is simply my take as to getting to a level where a higher quality class can be obtained. The entering metrics for the top 75% are quite strong and getting rid of the bottom 25% of the class would help the metrics considerably. The 4,500 level would be a level which would also reduce the size to something a bit more comparable to Cornell, albeit still larger;</p>
<p>3) From the Michigan Daily, they are adding classes and professors. It would be nice to see the class shrink but have the professors “stick” in order to reduce the ration:</p>
<p>"LSA added 41 class sections this fall and plans to add an additional 45 for the winter semester, mostly in popular core subject areas such as Spanish, mathematics and economics. The College of Engineering has hired new instructors to teach additional discussion sections for the college’s key first-year courses.</p>
<p>On top of the accommodations that have already been made, Pollack said the University is increasing funding by 10 percent for the faculty expansion program included in the fiscal year 2015 budget that was designed to keep class sizes small. Those faculty will be hired this year and arrive on campus next fall."</p>
<p>The over-enrollment does created many problems besides housing. I know a few students complaining cannot get the courses they want. They went to the later orientation sessions though.</p>
<p>The 4,500 Freshman class size I mentioned in the past was under the assumption that Michigan privatized, and the bulk of undergrads paid OOS tuition. </p>
<p>As a public university, a Freshman class size of 5,500 is optimal, and I believe that is what the University should aim for, not as a target, but rather, as an absolute ceiling. In other words, they should assume a higher yield rate than recently recorded, say 43%. In order to fill the class, the University would admit 12,800. A more likely yield would be 40%. So out of 12,800, 5,100 would enroll. The remaining 400 would be admitted off the waitlist.</p>
<p>This announcement seems like a new direction for the University (President Schlissel’s initiative perhaps?), which in past years seemed perfectly happy to over-enroll by hundreds of students annually. I have seen Michigan’s undergraduate student population grow from a barely manageable 22,000 when I was a Freshman in the early 1990s to a now completely ridiculous 28,000 undergrads today. I hope the university is serious about reducing the size of its Freshman class and undergraduate student body.</p>
<p>“This announcement seems like a new direction for the University (President Schlissel’s initiative perhaps?), which in past years seemed perfectly happy to over-enroll by hundreds of students annually. I have seen Michigan’s undergraduate student population grow from a barely manageable 22,000 when I was a Freshman in the early 1990s to a now completely ridiculous 28,000 undergrads today. I hope the university is serious about reducing the size of its Freshman class and undergraduate student body.”</p>
<p>1) Brown is known for the quality of its undergraduate teaching; it was my hope that Dr. Schlissel would bring a downsizing approach to the undergraduate population, so this annoucement may be the leading edge of a policy change; we can only hope;</p>
<p>2) Seconded as to your comment about a hoped for reduction.</p>
<p>UofM is pretty good at managing yield although the freshman class size has experienced “creep” over the past decade. The in-state portion is probably very easy to manage, it’s the out of state portion that probably makes it more difficult. It would probably be good for the university to stabilize the size of the in-coming class. The wait list can be used to manage any gap both financially and for filling seats.</p>
<p>It was a surprise to me that UMich admitted a little bit more students this year than last year. It was already over the target last year. That is even before they know the yield rate went higher. So they were not surprised with this over-enrollment problem.</p>
<p>It surprised me also. They have “said” for years they are trying to control the size of the freshman class…going all the way back to S1’s application cycle in 2007.</p>
<p>What is possibly wrong with 6000 - 6200 target with 45-50% OOS? More accessablity, more OOS tuition collected combined with improved aid. Everyone here seems to want higher selectivity after they enrolled. </p>
<p>At our GSI orientation, they informed us that they had the largest number of GSIs ever this year, by a substantial margin. Guess now I know why. </p>
<p>"…getting rid of the bottom 25% of the class would help the metrics considerably." Where might that 25% go to college instead? Would they then improve the stats of the next tier down? </p>
<p>^^^Some of those bottom 25% might be in majors where other talents trump high test scores. There are hundreds of students who are capable of achieving things that even the smartest kids cannot. </p>
<p>I really applaud this effort to reduce enrollment. Umich is a great and very packed place. Computer labs, libraries, classes, buses, recreation centers, etc are just packed. I’m surprised it took umich’s administration this long to curb enrollment.</p>
<p>To reduce the stress of over enrollment, sometimes it seems like people turn to stupid policies that I would have never seen 5 years ago. For example, go on North campus and 95% of the workstations have an “I” on them (for Instructional) meaning that only students in classes should be able to use them. This is new as of this year. This means that a Phd candidate, post-doc, staff member or faculty shouldn’t go to the duderstadt library and have a workstation available to them as they go thru bound periodicals or check out a book on reserve (often available for only 2 hours). Tuition is paid on behalf of phd candidates and umich literally takes half of the grant awards that post-docs and phd candidates basically run.</p>
<p>Maybe just my frustration…and not relevant to many CC readers. Anyway I applaud the decision to curb enrollment. Hopefully, this will eventually mean no more absurd solutions to mitigate the overcrowding. </p>