<p>I'm not making this up.</p>
<p>For domestic students applying to Michigan for freshman class of 2008:</p>
<p>Instate-Accept Rate: 57.5%
Instate-Yield: 69%</p>
<p>Out-of-State-Accept: 37%
OOS-Yield: 28.1%</p>
<p>^kb10,
What's your source for these figures? They really don't add up. This much we know:</p>
<p>category: yield, apps, admits, enrolled</p>
<p>Overall: 43%, 27,471, 13,826, 5992
Instate: ?, ?, ?, 4418
OOS: ?, ?, ?, 1574</p>
<p>Now, applying your acceptance rates and yields and applying straightforward math to fill in the blanks, we'd get the following figures:</p>
<p>Instate: 69%, 11,135, 6402, 4418
OOS: 28.1%, 15,137, 5601, 1574<br>
TOTAL: 50% 26,272 12,003 5992</p>
<p>But that leaves us about 1,200 short of the actual total apps; 1,800 short of the actual total admits; and with a total yield of 50% instead of the actual 43%. So mathematically speaking, your numbers can't possibly be right. I think you ARE making this up.</p>
<p>go on the alumni website, with the volunteer section/recruitment information, it's an excel sheet with yield from every state. </p>
<p>domestic application total is lower than the number you cited.</p>
<p>Here:</p>
<p>hmmm, it looks like somewhat WAS making numbers up, perhaps due to blue blood. :D</p>
<p>Reports of such things might often differ. Some include all apps for year vs just fall. The alum reports do not include international apps.</p>
<p>I wouldn't necessarily trust numbers provided by the alumni association to be complete; indeed, by their own admission they aren't complete because they don't include internationals. The numbers may be in the ballpark, though theyre hard to square with other published figures. I will admit to being hugely surprised that the University of Michigan gets only about 10,000 instate applications and far more OOS applications (over 16,000 domestic OOS applications alone). So Ill give hawkette credit: her estimates on the sources of applications were pretty close to the mark. But the OOS yield figure is much closer to alexandres 30%+ figure than to hawkettes 22% estimate. And the OOS yield is almost certainly even higher if you add in internationals.</p>
<p>The office of admissions reports for the 2008 freshman class a total of 29,105 applications, 11,953 admissions, and 5,710 enrolled, for a 41% admit rate and a 47.7% yield. </p>
<p>Office</a> of Undergraduate Admissions: About Michigan</p>
<p>The figures from the alumni office spreadsheet show a total of 26,499 "domestic" applications, 11,824 admissions, and 5,633 enrolled. That leaves 2,606 applications, 129 admits, and 77 enrolled unaccounted for. As Barrons rightly points out, the numbers from the alumni association are "domestic" applications only. If the unaccounted for are all internationals, then we'd get a total of 2606 international apps, an international acceptance rate of only 0.5%, and an international yield of 59.7%. Thats a plausible number of international applications (UC Berkeley reported 3208 international apps to its 2008 entering class, and youd expect Berkeleys number to be a little higher). However it would be an improbably low international admit rate (UC Berkeley admitted 22% of its international applicants for the 2008 entering class). On the other hand it would be a plausible international yield (Berkeleys corresponding yield figure was 56%). Suppose, for the sake of argument, we take those figures at face value. Then we'd get total OOS (domestic + international) applications at 19,262; total OOS admits at 6,293; and total OOS enrolled at 1810. Thus the total OOS admit rate would be 33%, and the total OOS yield would be 29%. But whether the total OOS admit rate is 28% or 29% is quibbling. Either way, it's very much in the ballpark with schools like Emory, WUSTL, Carnegie Mellon, and Vandy.</p>
<p>Interesting to compare the largest sources of Michigan’s OOS applicants, admits and enrolled students by state, as reported by the alumni association. A few observations:</p>
<p>1) Contrary to hawkette’s earlier suggestion that Michigan’s OOS applicants are mostly from nearby states, in fact they’re mostly from the coasts; among neighboring Big Ten states, only Illinois and Ohio crack the top 10 as sources of OOS applicants. </p>
<p>2) Coastal state yields are pretty consistently high with the exception of California (probably a lot of cross-admits with the excellent UCs, much cheaper instate than Michigan OOS) and the District of Columbia.</p>
<p>3) OOS admit rates are definitely lower than instate, but not by as much as popular lore would have it. For the 2008 entering class, applicants from the District of Columbia had an admit rate that matched the instate rate. Applicants from New York, Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, Florida, Wisconsin, Missouri and Washington State were all at or above 40% (i.e., barely below the University’s overall admit rate), while Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Georgia were all within a point or two of 40%. Applicants from California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Texas, and Virginia didn’t fare as well </p>
<p>Applications to University of Michigan by state, ranked by # of applicants:</p>
<p>Rank, state, applications, admits, (admit rate), enrolled, (yield)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Michigan 9843, 5630, (57%), 3900, 69%</p></li>
<li><p>New York 2452, 1022, (42%), 283, (28%)</p></li>
<li><p>Illinois 2230, 888, (40%), 248, (28%)</p></li>
<li><p>California 1798, 529, (29%), 129, (24%)</p></li>
<li><p>New Jersey 1437, 460, (32%), 152, (33%)</p></li>
<li><p>Ohio 1008, 441, (44%), 138, (31%)</p></li>
<li><p>Pennsylvania 800, 308, (39%), 85, (28%)</p></li>
<li><p>Massachusetts 767, 226, (29%), 64, (28%)</p></li>
<li><p>Maryland 707, 316, (45%), 85, (27%)</p></li>
<li><p>Florida 568, 250, (44%), 74, (30%)</p></li>
<li><p>Connecticut 530, 172, (32%), 48, (28%)</p></li>
<li><p>Texas 449, 137, (31%), 40, (29%)</p></li>
<li><p>Virginia 373, 101, (27%), 27, (27%)</p></li>
<li><p>Minnesota 361, 139, (39%), 30, (22%)</p></li>
<li><p>Indiana 291, 102, (35%), 28, (27%)</p></li>
<li><p>Georgia 281, 107, (38%), 33, (31%)</p></li>
<li><p>Wisconsin 262, 116, (44%), 29, (25%)</p></li>
<li><p>Missouri 221, 93, (42%), 19, (20%)</p></li>
<li><p>Washington State 262, 116, (44%), 29, (36%)</p></li>
<li><p>District of Columbia 199, 113, (57%), 26, (23%)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Rank by # of enrolled students:
1. Michigan 3900
2. New York 283
3. Illinois 248
4. New Jersey 152
5. Ohio 138
6. California 129
7. Pennsylvania 85
7. Maryland 85
9. Florida 74
10. Massachusetts 64
11. Connecticut 48
12. Texas 40</p>
<p>Bc,
For the record, using the now available data on IS/OOS application/admits/yield as a guide, I calculate U Michigan’s OOS yield to be 25.6% for the class entering Fall, 2007. This was the year that I referenced in making my estimate and is the only year for which I have full information for all of the referenced schools. </p>
<p>Btw, for that same year for the schools that you mentioned, their yields were:</p>
<p>39% Vanderbilt
34% Wash U
30% Emory
25.6% U Michigan OOS
23% Carnegie Mellon</p>
<p>When comparing based on yield rate, I think you can make a strong argument that U Michigan’s yield is competitive vs CMU (which I didn’t include in my analysis in # 197), but alex and you did). I’m less convinced vs Emory and Wash U and I would definitely place Vandy’s performance in a different, higher tier. </p>
<p>As for the source of applications, accepts, and students, I stand by my earlier observation (# 209) about the impact of Midwestern applicants on U Michigan results. They represent a third of the acceptances and deliver a 28% yield.</p>
<p>If anyone has access to more Naviance or other data that shows yield trends involving U Michigan and/or any other top public university, I would enjoy reading it.</p>
<p>how did you do the math?</p>
<p>I find it amusing that you refer to Michigan as "U Michigan", i have honestly never in my professional career ever heard anyone write this or say it this way.</p>
<p>nyccard, I didn't mean to say that Michigan does well vs MIT and Stanford. I hope I made it clear that along with HYP, MIT and Stanford almost always win cross admits vs Michigan and all other elite universities. If I did not make that clear before, let me make it clear now. Michigan does not win many cross admits vs HYPSM. Those five universities will win over 90% of the cross admits vs all universities, including the remaining 5 Ivies and other elite universities.</p>
<p>Hawkette, unless you can prove that Michigan's yield for OOS students is 25%, I suggest you stop publishing it as if it were fact. It is your opinion, based on assumptions, that Michigan's yield rate for OOS students is 25%.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the record, using the now available data on IS/OOS application/admits/yield as a guide, I calculate U Michigan’s OOS yield to be 25.6% for the class entering Fall, 2007.
[/quote]
You have no basis for your extrapolation. And there is no need to extrapolate as the alumni site posted Michigan's OOS yield as 28.1% for the class entering Fall, 2008.</p>
<p>Emory, Vanderbilt and CMU have all posted their CDS for 2008-09. The yields for the class starting in Fall, 2008:</p>
<p>36.6% Vanderbilt
28.6% Carnegie Mellon
28.1% Michigan OOS
28.0% Emory</p>
<p>I would say Michigan compares very well with this group, if not better, considering the Michigan allocates most of its financial aids to in-state students.</p>
<p>We must all remember that at most private elites, like Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Northwestern, Penn, Rice, Vanderbilt and WUSTL etc..., a significant portion of their class is made up of Early Decision applicants. Those are binding and universities can really make it easy to predict the size of their entering class and dramatically improve their yield rates. Obviously, it would be unfair to compare yield rates, or make assumptions on cross-admit rates between schools that have ED options (like themajority of private elites) and schools that do not (like the majority of public elites). </p>
<p>For example, Cornell's overall yield is generally close to 50%. However, for regular decision applicants, the yield rate is more like 35%. </p>
<p>Most universities do not publish the yield rates for regular admits, but it is fair to assume that regular admit yield rates at universites that have ED options will be significantly lower than their overall yield. If one is to compare yield rates between public and private, it should be purely for regular admits.</p>
<p>@hawkette: I would hope that you would accept Ga Tech engineering as a peer school to U Michigan engineering. Georgia Tech is over $11,000 cheaper per year for OOS students. </p>
<p>Hawkette, I think your post is very useful. Thanks for posting it. Everyday that the stock market goes down, the above comparison becomes more and more relevant. So I for one will vote that hawkette's post was of use to me. Thank you.</p>
<p>
That's simply a false statement. First of all, Duke, Northwestern, Wash U and Chicago are "elite" private schools while JHU, Emory and Rice are simply "good" private schools. You can't group these schools together as if they are all equally desirable. MIT, Stanford and HYP are MUCH MORE DESIRABLE than the remaining Ivies.</p>
<p>Out of the remaining Ivies, I would say that only Columbia has more national appeal than Duke or Northwestern for instance. Heck, most students haven't even heard of Penn, Cornell or Dartmouth. The reason these bottom feeder Ivies have such high yields is because they get bombarded by applicants who live in the Northeast that have a strong bias towards these schools. Applicants from California will view Duke and Penn equally I believe.</p>
<p>There is no way Michigan is even close to matching the profile of the "elite" private schools. It is definitely on par with the "good" private schools like Emory, Vanderbilt and JHU because those schools are just as expensive as NU and Duke, but don't give out financial aid packages that are nearly as good.</p>
<p>For an OOS student, Duke is more affordable, has higher national prestige, better job opportunities, is located in a stronger job market, has better weather, has a more aesthetically pleasing campus, has more research/study abroad/civic engagement opportunities, has a stronger student body and offers a more intimate undergraduate experience than Michigan. UMich has a better college town. The quality of academics and athletics are a wash at both places. The same argument could be made for Northwestern or Wash U.</p>
<p>Why on earth would a student choose UMich over these "elite" private schools?</p>
<p>wait a minute.... you just called Wash U "elite"?</p>
<p>wow.</p>
<p>How in the world is Wash U elite whilst JHU and Rice aren't???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, hawkette, your innumeracy is staggering. By far the dominant source of Michigan's OOS applications and acceptances is the Northeast, and more broadly the "coastal" U.S.
(Northeast + Pacific Coast).</p>
<p>University of Michigan APPLICATIONS as % of total domestic OOS</p>
<p>Northeast (Maine through Virginia) 7,585=46% of domestic OOS
Midwest (OH,IN,IL,WI,MN,IA,ND,SD, NE, KS,MO) 4,613=28% of domestic OOS
Pacific (CA,WA, OR) 2,095=13% of domestic OOS total
"Coastal" (Northeast + Pacific Coast) 9,680=59% of domestic OOS
Southeast (though Texas) 1,771=11% of domestic OOS</p>
<p>University of Michigan ACCEPTANCES as % of total domestic OOS</p>
<p>Northeast 2,818=46% of domestic OOS
Midwest 1865=30% of domestic OOS
Pacific 625=10% of domestic OOS
"Coastal" (Northeast + Pacific) 3,443=56% of domestic OOS
Southeast 678=11% of domestic OOS</p>
<p>University of Michigan enrolled OOS students, class entering 2008
Northeast 798=46% of domestic OOS
Midwest 511=29% of domestic OOS
Pacific 167=10% of domestic OOS
"Coastal" 965=56%
Southeast 204=12% of domestic OOS</p>
<p>Bottom line, the University of Michigan student body is a little under 2/3 Michiganders and the rest a cosmopolitan mix of people from all U.S. regions, with Northeasterners, Californians, and Chicagoans making up the predominant OOS groups. Among the 30% or so of OOS from the Midwest, Illinoisans---predominantly Chicagoans---comprise nearly half (48% of Midwestern OOS applicants, 48% of Midwestern OOS acceptances, and 49% of Midwestern OOS enrolled students).</p>
<p>"on par with the "good" private schools like Emory, Vanderbilt and JHU"</p>
<p>You make it sound like JHU would be a safety school or something and isn't that great of a school. For most of the country, that school is AMAZING and they wish they could get in.</p>