<p>ProudWolverine, like Alexandre so often points out, Chicago has an acceptance rate of around 40%, but its definitely one of the top 5-10 schools in the country.</p>
<p>Everybody else reports "admitted" SAT scores on their promotional material these days. For those schools without CDS, you don't really know what their enrolled scores are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MSU's selectivity rating, on the other hand, is probably not among the top 100.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, MSU's selectivity rank is 99th. </p>
<p>Selectivity is a non-starter. I don't think it's a good argument either for or against MSU in these circumstances. I don't think anyone really believes the schools are similar in this regard (except one person, who had incorrect info). There are plenty of reasons to pick MSU regardless of selectivity, and I think those are the issues that the OP is sorting out.</p>
<p>CCRunner, Chicago's acceptance rate used to hover in the 40%-50% for many years. Same with Johns Hopkins. That was up until 2003 or 2004. Howver, over the last 3-4 years, their acceptance rates have dropped annually. Last admissions cycle, both accepted 29%. You can expect Michigan's accetpance rate to continue dropping. I expect Michigan's acceptance rate to drop below 40% next year and to close to 35% in two years. And if Michigan finally joined the Common Application list, that acceptance rate would drop further.</p>
<p>I hope Michigan will consider joining the Common Application. Stanford did last year and Brown, Chicago and UVa joined this year.</p>
<p>I don't think Michigan will accept common apps anytime soon. There's no doubt it will receive far more applications than it does now, but I don't think the admissions office wants that many applications to deal with. Michigan has always seemed content with accepting the right students. When I was a student I've always wanted Michigan to become a common app school, so we don't have to deal with critics calling us "easy school to get into"anymore. But since graduating, I've realized it makes more sense for Michigan to reach out to the qualified students who truly want to be there/or be a good fit, instead of just "checking a box" and paying $50. </p>
<p>To the OP, I think this is situation, where you are better off in the long run if you just stay at Michigan and try to adjust yourself to the situation. It might be easier just to transfer to MSU, but I think you'll miss out on a lot of personal development and growth.</p>
<p>Michigan can easily handle 40,000 applicants if it wanted to. It would have to move the deadline from February 1 to January 1.</p>
<p>turns out the OP is a little sensitive and ended up sending me a nasty email telling me to "shove it" basically. umm... what did I say wrong? (First time I have ever received a hate email after offering some perspective as an Alumnus)</p>
<p>That's strange keefer. You never directed any of your comments at the OP. But then again, the OP has posted his message in several places, hoping to get some sort of positive response to transfering to MSU. So far, most people have discouraged him from doing so. Maybe he is just frustrated.</p>
<p>He or she may have confused you with someone else--or (oddly) thought your comments towards another poster were instead meant for the OP?</p>
<p>Maybe I should go check MY email, LOL. Some days you just don't feel the love in this forum.</p>
<p>Two more negative emails from the OP. dude, why do you keep on sending me PMs? That is what this board is for, and what did I ever do to you? Is there a way to block PMs? LOL.</p>
<p>"To the OP, I think this is situation, where you are better off in the long run if you just stay at Michigan and try to adjust yourself to the situation. It might be easier just to transfer to MSU, but I think you'll miss out on a lot of personal development and growth."</p>
<p>-This is all I wrote.</p>
<p>He/She didn't confuse me with someone else, this is what he/she was referring to. And out of respect for the private nature of PM, I didn't and won't post what you wrote. </p>
<p>There's plenty of students(I would even say most students) at Michigan who came to Michigan with no friends, they make friends in college. Just like when you start working, you make new friends wherever you are. I won't respond to any more of your PMs, you just do what you have to do, don't harass me anymore. PLEASE!</p>
<p>
What a load of BS. The PA isn't relevant to a school's prestige or type of learning environment it offers at all. I think there is a sizeable difference between MSU and UMich, just as there is a sizeable difference between Michigan and Penn. To state that Michigan is as good as half the Ivies is an outright lie. Show me ONE statistic where Michigan does better than ANY of the top 10 schools. It's not even close.</p>
<p>To the OP, I recommend you go with what's more comfortable to you. I would stay in UMich if things start to get better, but if not, I would pack my bags and head to Lansing. James Madison is TOP-NOTCH for international relations and other political fields. The faculty and students in the college are very dedicated to the subject matter and I think you'll find Spartans a little more approachable than the Wolverines, who come off as being very arrogant at times.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Show me ONE statistic where Michigan does better than ANY of the top 10 schools. It's not even close.
[/quote]
</p>
<ul>
<li>total number of departments ranked in the top 10 or top 15</li>
<li>breadth and depth of curriculum and courses offered</li>
<li>strength in engineering, business and medical related fields</li>
<li>undergraduate research</li>
<li>athletics and school spirit</li>
</ul>
<p>just to name a few.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Show me ONE statistic where Michigan does better than ANY of the top 10 schools. It's not even close.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lord. I'm not sure I agree with Alexandre, but this is a weird gauntlet to be throwing down. In addition to the things GoBlue81 listed, I'm pretty sure that oddball "grad performance over expected" that USNews loves so much is another. Michigan does very well on that. Actually, Penn State kicks every one of the Top Ten's butts in that. Yay ceiling effect, I guess.</p>
<p>I don't have all that stuff in front of me just now, but I'm pretty sure U-M is reasonably close in several of those other USNews "statistics" too.</p>
<p>keefer: </p>
<p>"Listen, the Michigan acceptance is 62.5%...Michigan State has an acceptance rate of 79.4%."</p>
<p>Umm.... NO. but good luck to ya. </p>
<hr>
<p>I guess my link got cut off.</p>
<p>College</a> acceptance rates: How many get in? - USATODAY.com</p>
<p>So, Um, yeah...Michigan has a 62.5% acceptance rate...Michigan is still a good school, but I always wonder why people that go there act like they are God's gift if they get accepted. It doesn't diminish the quality of education that you receive there, it is just not some holy grail to get accepted. It's not a huge deal for this person to leave for MSU. Good luck to ya...</p>
<p>jec, those data are from 2004. Michigan admitted 53% in 2005, 47% in 2006, 50% in 2007 and 42% in 2008. And low acceptance rate does not equate academic quality. As you can see on your link, the University of Chicago admitted 40% of its applicants. Nobody would question the quality of either Chicago or Michigan.</p>
<p>Michigan admitted 53% and 52% for 2003 and 2001 respectively. As you might recall, 2004 was the first year Michigan switched from the point-system to holistic admission, after the Supreme Court decision.</p>
<p>Acceptance rates are misleading because the applicant pool is often self-selecting. There is a vast difference in the quality of the student body of Chicago and Michigan. Chicago students have higher test scores, more impressive academic accolades and a greater thirst for learning than Michigan students. Comparing these two schools, and thus implying that they are peers, is a falsehood that could easily influence impressionable high school seniors.</p>
<p>2004 saw a drop is apps, as has happened to other institutions who added essays to the application. And as with other institutions, Michigan apps also bounced back after that year. 2004 was an unusual year; you can persist in using that year as a benchmark, but it would be at odds with college guidebooks and ranking systems, which update their statistics as new ones become available. </p>
<p>I think the best way for applicants to have context is to look both historical (over a period of years, to discern patterns and what's "normal" for the institution) and the most recent year. Together these give a better idea of an institution's admissions practices than picking one year from the past.</p>
<p>ring<em>of</em>fire, I agree that Michigan and Chicago aren't peers. Not because one is better than the other. Far from it. In fact, according to their "peers", those two schools are roughly equal in terms of quality. </p>
<p>However, they are vastly different institutions. Chicago's closest peers are Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, Johns Hopkins and Rice. Michigan's closest peers at Cal, Cornell, Northwestern, Penn, Texas and Wisconsin.</p>