michigan: unpredictable?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Michigan
1

<p>I know getting into a lot of colleges are a crapshoot, but this year, it seems michigan is really unpredictable when it comes to acceptances.</p>

<p>So many people that I thought would, without a doubt get in, got deferred or rejected. Everyone from the [3.9 GPA, 30 ACT] to the [3.7 GPA, 34 ACT]. </p>

<p>Then I see people with [3.6 GPA, 30 ACT] get in. But thats not it. More people with 3.7 and below got in than people with 3.8 and above. I know so many people with 3.4's and 3.5's that got in. I know so many people with 3.8's, 3.9's that got rejected.</p>

<p>This leads me to believe that EC's and Essays really make a difference in your Application?</p>

<p>Despite everyone saying test scores and GPA are 80% of your application?</p>

<p>Is this common or is it just this year? Keep in mind most of these kids didn't have anything "amazing" in thier application. (ie: URM, financially, EC's, etc)</p>

2

<p>Just curious. These people you mentioned ... are they from the same school? Do they have similar curriculum in terms of AP/honor courses?</p>

3

<p>I agree completely: essays DO make a difference. When considering an application, the adcoms read the essays FIRST. In my opinion, this is huge. A poorly written essay could easily leave a bad taste in the adcoms mouth, while a good one could make a good impression. Also, I'm convinced the essays contributed to my acceptance, as my stats were well below the umich average.</p>

4

<p>34 ACT man must have really messed something up to get deferred.</p>

5

<p>GoBlue: yea, all from the same school. I don't know the exacts when it comes to classes taken, but I know the kids with the lower GPA actually took less intensive courses than the ones with stronger GPA's.</p>

<p>Which confuses me.</p>

6

<p>hoedown could tell you accurately all the factors that go into admission at umich. but no admission process is actually crapshoot, it just looks like that to people on the outside. There have been plenty with 34 on the ACT that have gotten rejected to Michigan. The Daily has put out articles on people like this. Most of them didn't take full advantage of what was offered them in high school. Of course, poor essays and complete lack of EC's or typical EC's could do this too. It's not like adcoms reject an applicant and are like, oops, what was that person's GPA? 4.3? Oh, I heard 3.4. Oops. The people with higher GPA's possibly had lower test scores, poorer essays, or crappy EC's. I doubt there was an accident. hoedown would certainly know more.</p>

7

<p>I find this kind of ironic as, at least at my school, all of my predictions have been right so far (at least as far as I know). The best way, in my opinion at least, to find out is to check out the old point system and assess people based upon it. Sure, they eliminated it, but it still works in most cases when seeing whether or not someone gets in. Although, it's hard to believe that they rejected someone with a 34 and a 3.7 without some kind of weakness outside of those stats.</p>

8

<p>Actually, I can't tell people everything that goes into it. I'm not an admissions reader, and I didn't sit in on the training they gave admissions readers. I know some anecdotes, I know what Michigan says it looks for, I know what sorts of students rougly get what rating. However, the process is not transparent.</p>

<p>That's the thing with a "holistic" system. You can't figure out the formula because there isn't one.</p>

<p>There may seem to be similarities with the old points system, but to my knowledge the admissions readers are new to the job (new two years ago, that is) and were not a part of the admissions office when the index/points system was in place. They may make similar decisions because Michigan's values haven't changed that much since then, but they're not (say, subconsciously) using the old system.</p>

<p>On the overall "unpredictability" thing--there are two places where unpredictability can come into play, because admissions is a two-stage process. One is how people are rated. That is, what admissions readers decide after they read your application, how to they rate each candidate? Is this student an Admit, an Admit Plus, a High Admit, etc? U-M works hard to make sure that doesn't vary wildly from year to year. </p>

<p>The second stage is enrollment management, which is deciding what to do with all the people in a certain rating group, and when. This is driven by admissions targets (which can change each year, overall and by residency), yield (which also can change each year) and app volume (which, you guessed it, can change each year). This is where you are seeing most variability. In one year they may have said "go ahead and take some students rated Admit" in November, and in another year they may have said "Only High Admits" in November.</p>

<p>I realize that to most candidates, these two stages don't matter--you will never see what your rating was, and the only thing that matters is what leads to the decision you get (the second part). But it's important to realize that admissions can be doing everything pretty much the same as they did in previous years in terms of reading your app--but things can look very different to YOU because of the enrollment management aspect.</p>

9

<p>I believe that my admissions offer was based upon the holistic approach hoedown refers to. As an OOS with slightly below average SAT Michigan OOS #s and a solid GPA, I believe my essays and recs were definitely read and played a role in the process. These were quite strong in my opinion. The strength of my HS program must also have been considered.</p>

<p>It must be difficult for a large university to personalize the application process. Unlike many state universities, I believe that Michigan gives each application more than a rapid review. Perhaps this demonstrates the reputation of the student body.</p>

<p>I doubt I would have been accepted within 1 month if the above were not considered in the admissions process. In other words,standardized tests and grades are important but not the sole factor in admissions.</p>

10

<p>Are "high admit", "admit", "admit with reservation" strict groups or is there variation within each? Essentially, are all high admits treated the same? Or are there essentially high high admits and just high admits? If they say "take some of the admits", do they take some randomly or based on geographic region or do they have a more accurate ranking within the "admits" that puts you toward the top of the pile so to speak?</p>

11

<p>I completely agree with what everyone said so far.</p>

<p>Personally, I'm glad that colleges look at an app as a "person" instead of just bunching people into categories based on numbers. At least this is what they say they do.</p>

<p>Its just that people, based on past results, that should have gotten in got rejected or defered this year. Maybe it has something to do with the downsizing of the freshman class, but then again all these people applied in state.</p>

12

<p>UM does look at the "whole person". If you're seeing great differences in students admitted from the same school, it can almost positively be attributed to their chosen curriculum. Keep in mind that, even for local schools, admissions professionals don't know who the "tough" teachers are -- all they can see for the difficulty of classes is if it's AP or advanced.</p>