<p>Hi, I am just a little bit puzzled. How does a school like the University of Michigan have such strong departments, top top, ranked so highly, and such but it is SO easy to get in?! I mean, I am out of state and people with horrible stats from my school get in.. WITH merit money! I don't understand.. Michigan seems not competitive at all to get into yet its ranked SO HIGHLY. any thoughts.. idk i just wanted to get that out</p>
<p>I think it’s harder to get into than you think… or maybe you just have very skewed ideas on what “horrible stats” are. It’s generally a pretty selective school.</p>
<p>To start, it has 26,000 undergrads so that is gonna raise the acceptance rate.</p>
<p>haha well by horrible… i mean like compared to the other schools its “tiered” with… much lower…</p>
<p>Ny0rker, merit money is seldom given out at Michigan. Most students who receive merit scholarships have 3.8+ GPAs with 2200+ SATs/33+ ACTs. </p>
<p>At any rate, Michigan is not as easy to get into as you think. Is is one of the 25 most selective universities (LACs not included) in the nation. It is obviously not as selective as the Ivies, but it is not much easier to get into.</p>
<p>■■■■■…If you have nothing factual to say don’t waste everyone’s time with ridiculous claims.</p>
<p>^^ Michigan’s acceptance rate is 42%. Is that really among the top 25 universities in selectivity? In prestige, in quality, yes; but pure selectivity? Really? (I haven’t done the requisite research, so perhaps it is, but I’d be surprised that 24 or fewer universities in the world admit <42% of applicants.)</p>
<p>Maybe your university is very rigious because acceptance at Michigan is difficult.</p>
<p>I think it depends on where you compare it to. It is harder to get into then Arizona State, but not NYU (as an example).</p>
<p>I absolutely fell in love with Michigan when I visited schools. I did a very extensive, fun, and unbiased college search last summer…and I liked the Ann Arbor experience best! …Well I had a 3.7 unweighted gpa, a 31 act score, and a ton of AP credit hours, and assumed I’d get in no problem, but I actually got waitlisted, and never got accepted…so as much as I would have loved to go to Michigan, at least for OOS, they are very selective.</p>
<p>Selectivity can be a function of size, location and a number of other factors not really important to quality. Virtually all public schools are large and will be less selctive than some small privates. Then there is the lemming aspect. It seems young people with little real world knowledge or experience are easily swayed by “popularity” and mistake that for real quality. NYU got popular by connection to a TV show and the rise of the popularity of NYC. In the 70’s NYU was just a commuter school that advertised for students on the subway. Nobody wanted to go to NYC. Then they cleaned up NY and there was Felicity and all of a sudden lots of people wanted to go to NYU. In reality NYU was not that much better a school. It still releid on mostly adjuncts to teach and has a very small endowment. But it became the next hot thing and the rest is history.</p>
<p>NYU has a $2.5 billion endowment… which is by all means, plenty sizable. Not to mention dozens of Pulitzers, off the top of my head. You didn’t go to Columbia, did you?</p>
<p>The strength of departments is determined by research–something primarily performed by professors and graduate students, not undergraduates. The fact that it is a huge public school located in the Midwest has contributed to this higher acceptance rate. Imagine it being in California or New York, the rate would be in the low 20’s at most. </p>
<p>This is one reason why I love those excellent Midwestern universities: world-class excellence without the ultra-elitist feel of a small, top private school. It makes students who are not wealthy and white feel just a bit more comfortable.</p>
<p>i think the people u know confusing financial aid with merit aid. Like people who say “I got a full ride to Harvard” which translates to really… I had 100% of my financial needs met. (ie. grants and loans)</p>
<p>The NYU-Michigan comparison is a pretty revealing one. Both are large schools (Michigan 26,000 undergrads, NYU 21,000). But NYU gets about 25% more applicants (36,809 for the Fall of 2008 at NYU, to 29,105 at Michigan). And NYU accepts a somewhat lower percentage of its applicants (25.3% at NYU for the Fall of 2008, to 41.1% at Michigan). Yet the entering classes come out with very similar statistical profiles—similar SAT/ACT middle 50%, with Michigan just a tad stronger at the top end and NYU just a tad stronger at the bottom end (SAT middle 50% NYU 1300-1440, Michigan 1270-1480; ACT NYU 28-31, Michigan 28-32). Michigan somewhat stronger on average HS GPA (3.6 at NYU, 3.8 at Michigan) and Michigan significantly stronger on percentage of entering freshmen in the top 10% in their HS class (94% at Michigan, to 72% at NYU).</p>
<p>So how can it be that NYU gets so many more applicants and accepts a smaller percentage of them but Michigan comes out with a marginally stronger class? Well, obviously popularity is not the same as quality. As Barrons correctly points out, New York City has become an extremely popular location, and NYU now attracts applicants not only from the enormous NYC metroplitan region, but from all over the country and all over the world. But just because it attracts more applicants doesn’t mean it attracts (or ultimately lands) better applicants. </p>
<p>NYU’s admit rate is also held artificially low because unlike Michigan, NYU uses binding Early Decision to fill a little over a quarter (26.9%) of its entering class. For that quarter of the class, the admit rate is closer to 40%, but yield is virtually 100%. With that many seats filled at the ED stage, NYU can afford to be more selective at the RD stage, admitting only 24% of the RD applicants, of whom 38% ultimately chose to enroll.</p>
<p>But the biggest difference between these schools has nothing to do with how many students apply, how many are accepted, or what percentage of those offered a place ultimately decide to enroll. Nor is it based on small differences in the stats of the admitted students. As anyone in academia will tell you, Michigan has a far stronger faculty, with top programs in just about every field imaginable. Not that NYU is bad; it’s got some very strong programs, too, but they’re spottier, and overall NYU just can’t match up with Michigan faculty-by-faculty, program -by-program. The only place that crucial difference is reflected in the U.S. News rankings is in the Peer Assessment ¶ rating, Michigan 4.4, NYU 3.8—a pretty fair characterization of the difference between the two schools, both definitely in the “strong” (4) area, but Michigan decisively tilted toward the “distinguished” (5). Now there are those on CC who want to dismiss the PA rating as just so much subjective hooey. But in so doing, they’re in effect saying the quality of the faculty doesn’t matter. To me that’s a little like saying we should measure the strength of an orchestra by the size of its budget, the dimensions of its performance hall, the plushness of the seats, and the size and musical credentials of its audience, without regard to the quality of the musicians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What are you implying?</p>
<p>omg. bclintonk, you are so smart and articulate, well said. Please tell us where you went to school?</p>
<p>Well said. I think it depends on the department though too. Tisch and Stern would beat out U Michigan’s programs in those departments.</p>
<p>wait, i am not a ■■■■■. i do not have anything against michigan. i think it’s a great school actually! very well-rounded and provides a great experience! i was just puzzled as to why it was not as competitive to get admitted to as compared to the schools its “tiered” with… no need to freak out hahaa</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe they are implying that the midwest, namely Michigan, is not as populated as California or NY, and if a school the caliber of UMich were in a heavily populated state like NY or CA, it would have a lower admit rate…</p>