<p>This morning's Wisconsin State Journal has a front page article titled "UW ADMISSIONS Half who applied accepted at Madison (followed by) The rate is the lowest in at least 20 years:</p>
<p>Other highlights:</p>
<p>An increase in applicants has caused UW-Madison to become more selective.</p>
<p>Data available from 1989 - forward shows that this year's acceptance rate of 50.5% is the lowest during that time period. (Data before 1989 not available)</p>
<p>The previous year's acceptance rate was 56.5%</p>
<p>There were 28,949 applicants</p>
<p>179 students were admitted off the waitlist of 1,365 hopefuls</p>
<p>Average ACT score has increased from 26.9 (2001) to 28.3 (2010), the ACT score for 2011 is not yet available</p>
<p>The admit rate varies depending on residency as follows: Wisconsin residents - 63%, Minnesota residents - 53%, everyone else - 43%</p>
<p>CHANGES for 2011-2012:</p>
<p>Director of Admissions Adele Brumfield states that it was really hard for [her] staff to absorb those applications, so she plans to lengthen the window of time her staff has to make admissions decisions:</p>
<pre><code> Students who apply by Nov 1 will hear by late January (instead of Jan 15)
Students who apply by Feb 1 will hear by late March or April 1 (instead of Mar 15)
</code></pre>
<p>UW-Madison?s</a> freshman admission rate the lowest in 20 years</p>
<p>And the morons are out in force in the comments section.</p>
<p>I’m confused. Isn’t the acceptance rate <em>expected</em> to go down each year at a school like Madison? I’m applying this year and was told the acceptance rate would be under 50%…?</p>
<p>The newspapers in Wisconsin are not that up on national college trends.</p>
<p>
Not only expected but usually preferred–at least at most schools. More selective admissions is supposed to mean higher quality student body. It is irritating but not surprising that some would be critical of this and the press uncritical of their criticism.</p>
<p>And barrons is right–the commenters who say the budget should be cut because not enough in-state residents are getting in have it precisely and stupidly backward. The more OOS full-pays, the less money needed from the state or from in-state tuition.</p>
<p>Oh, I see. I just hope my 31 ACT and 4.0 uw makes the cut. Will Walker’s budget cuts have sizeable, negative impact on in-staters applying this fall? Please excuse my ignorance on the subject.</p>
<p>^*a negative impact</p>
<p>The same approximate percentage of instaters will remain. They might try to squeeze in a few more out of staters. Each extra 100 means $2.6 million or so in revenue.</p>
<p>This is good news as it will help UW in rankings that take into account admittance rate.</p>
<p>A few years ago too many freshmen matriculated (they misjudged how many accepted students would actually come) so they are very conscience about making sure the numbers remain low enough for students to get their classes. It’s about more than the money.</p>
<p>With the new self-determination they got in the new budget it will be much easier to create new positions on short notice in reaction to changes in enrollment. System might still steal some of the extra tuition money to send to the poorer campuses but it’s going to get harder as their positions are phased out and System Admin becomes just a shell figurehead with Reilly and an assistant to get his coffee. They lost about one-third of their positions in this budget so Walker has his knife out for them.</p>