<p>Maize, unfortunately, you’re making a fantastic case for why there should be less OOS students at Michigan. Michigan’s priority is to Michigan residents, not Minnesota’s. </p>
<p>There are spots for OOS kids- at private colleges. </p>
<p>I’m one that supports bringing in talent to our universities, but I do it for far different reasons than you’ve laid out.</p>
<p>^The State of Michigan’s priority is to educate its residents. It can do that at any of its schools. The mission statement of the University of Michigan “is to serve the people of Michigan and the world through preeminence in creating, communicating, preserving and applying knowledge, art, and academic values, and in developing leaders and citizens who will challenge the present and enrich the future.” I don’t see there where umich is giving express priority to in state students and their education over students of “the world.” Only 7% of UM’s general budget is supported from state appropriations. UM certainly doesn’t need to only look out for the needs of in state students when they could easily survive without the state and, in black and white text, look to educate and support both Michigan resident and non-resident students.</p>
<p>Small point, but it’s not that one likes lacrosse and another doesn’t. It’s more often about the quality of the writing and what comes through about the student, his level of judgment, thinking skills- not the subject matter, itself. </p>
<p>I think many are just fine allowing high school teachers to have authority over a kid’s grade on a written assignment, final say over what he produced. Or peers declare him BMOC. (How are those not subjective?) Now you don’t know who will read and assess the college app writings, activities, etc, from that college’s perspective, on behalf of that college. I think many fears emanate from that and the possibility your activities, writing, popular standing, and what comes through, isn’t as grand as your hs thought. Even suggesting the point of multiple reviewers is to avoid “capriciousness” reveals fears.</p>
<p>Yes it is a perk, but what if you are cool with paying more because that is where you want to go? Can you be considered with the OOS group?</p>
<p>maizeandblue is pointing out what I did pages and pages back. In most states it is the mission of the SYSTEM to educate the state’s residents, not the mission of a particular institution within that system. Note that almost every single one of the highly respected flagships attract a national and international student body, and those with “small-time” reputations don’t to the same degree. There are economic benefits to a state to have a world-class research university within its borders, including research dollars rolling in and public-private partnerships with businesses domestically and internationally.</p>
<p>^completely agree and I support students like Maize attending UMich (I live in Mich as well – my oldest will likely apply there in 2 yrs). I firmly believe UM’s ability to attract top OOS and Int’l students is part of the dynamic which keeps it near the top of public universities in the US. I don’t presume to know the exigencies behind the Trustees’ decision to allocate quotas to OOS and Intl – but a tribalistic antagonism against OOS & Intl applicants isn’t a stance we should take, IMHO.</p>
<p>sally, in this case, the University of Michigan’s MISSION is to the people of Michigan. Not just the university system.</p>
<p>I support bringing in OOSers and International students. I just wish they would come with the intention (whether or not it happens is another matter) of staying in Michigan (or whatever state they’re being educated in). JMO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me preface this by saying that I am infact a Michigan resident, but I think it’s really hard to argue that Michigan’s first priority isn’t to Michigan students. It’s why resident students have a ridiculously low tuition (at least relative to being what’s spent on them), and why Michigan’s financial aid is extremely generous to instate students (meeting 100% need). The University of Michigan has also ensured that residents have had a 25 percentage point higher admission rate despite the fact that the instate applicant pool is slightly less competitive. Finally Michigan’s first priority also explains why UMHS has donated over [$200</a> million of free medical service](<a href=“http://www.uofmhealth.org/news/archive/201303/growing-commitment-community-u-m-health-system-donates-over]$200”>http://www.uofmhealth.org/news/archive/201303/growing-commitment-community-u-m-health-system-donates-over) to Michigan residents each and every year. You’d have to give me something awfully telling to have me believe that UofM’s first priority isn’t to Michigan and it’s citizens.</p>
<p>Let us not get confused though. There’s a difference between a first priority and an only priority. Yes, U-M’s first priority is to Michigan residents, but UofM has several other priorities as well (just like every other flagship university). The biggest of which is providing educational opportunities for the entire world. I don’t know about you, but to me, a university mission that has an emphasis on the progression of all states and countries seems more noble than one which emphasises barring all those who are unfortunate enough to have ties to a different piece of land just because they’re “taking spots” from less qualified resident students.</p>
<p>And I just want more transparency about who they do accept. They have maintained the size of the freshman class relatively for at least the last 3 years, but have diminished seats for in-state kids by at least 15%. Who are they accepting and what is the criteria…outside of some vague reference to holistic and subjective ECs. The university says they want money, want full pay internationals and full or almost full pay OSS kids, but that says nothing about what state kids need to bring to the table and no guidance to in-state kids except that they might have a shot at acceptance and they should be strong students. Then they choose a few, defer the rest, then dribble in some more acceptances and then waitlist a boatload of kids even though they haven’t taken anyone off a waitlist in several years. Their Pell numbers are very low so aren’t drumming up many of those either. And they are not very forthcoming about parsing the numbers other than in broad strokes. And rumors are they are “oversubscribed” this year. It’s a ridiculously bad system with zero accountability to anyone other than themselves.</p>
<p>
You’ve picked a poor analogy. For a job, the employee is rendering a service to the university in exchange for pay. A student is receiving a publicly subsidized service. But apart from that bust, here are some other reasons the two activities are inherently different.</p>
<p>In your example of 1000 online resumes, there is a tremendous difference in the THRESHOLD FOR PARTICIPATION by online job seekers vs. university applicants. </p>
<p>If a candidate is not a credible job candidate, the university does not waste the candidate’s time or money. It costs nothing for the applicant to submit an online resume. It take the candidate 1 second to upload a resume that he/she already has (your example was of a mid-level mgr, not a new grad). The university will specify the job requirements: college degree, years of experience, area of expertise, specific skills. Then based on the criteria, the hiring body will do an initial cull of the resumes to eliminate the ones which do not meet the threshold criteria. For those that make the cut, afterwards the university will invite those finalists for an interview. If the interview goes well, then the university might request supporting documentation, e.g., a list of professional references to contact. Compared to college admissions, there is a low BS factor.</p>
<p>In college admissions, there is a non-trivial cost for the application fee up front, submit ALL supporting documentation up front. Write an essay(s) up front. Submit teachers recs up front. The applicant does all this without specific information about what the needs are for the next year’s class: tuba player vacancy? male swimmer vancancy? </p>
<p>There is also a FREQUENCY difference between the event of selecting 5 mid level mgrs vs. the event of selecting 20,000 undergraduates. </p>
<p>The hiring of a mid level mgr is an infrequent event for an unique job role. That vacancy could be occupied for 20 years. </p>
<p>The task of selection of 20,000 undergraduates is an annual event. The AO’s do it so often that they have to set guidelines to make their selection.</p>
<p>There is a big SAMPLE SIZE difference. </p>
<p>5 selected people are not enough to comprise a statistically meaningful sample. If there is bias in hiring 5 employees, it will be difficult to discern (unless it’s egregious) even if you have the data.</p>
<p>20,000 admitted undergraduates are a statistical meaningful sample. If there is bias in how applicants are selected, you will see the outliers in the data. </p>
<p>
The HR dept doesn’t have an obligation to report to the applicants who were initially culled because their resumes was not a match with what was in the job description. Emailing a resume is a very low level of skin in the game. </p>
<p>The candidates who were called in for an interview and rejected do deserve the courtesy of some objective feedback—that’s what my employer does.</p>
<p>Look, I have zero interest in changing Michigan’s admissions policies. I’m speaking solely from an opinion stand point. Just a personal opinion. That’s all.</p>
<p>
Fair enough.</p>
<p>he biggest of which is providing educational opportunities for the entire world. I don’t know about you, but to me, a university mission that has an emphasis on the progression of all states and countries seems more noble than one which emphasises barring all those who are unfortunate enough to have ties to a different piece of land just because they’re “taking spots” from less qualified resident students.</p>
<p>Seriously, give me a break.
The taxpayers of Michigan decide on elevating U of M was a priority over expanding affordable opportunities for their own students?
U of M the only school out there that attracts international students or did they want to add to their coffers for other reasons?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.minnpost.com/learning-curve/2013/01/president-kaler-responds-press-allegations-u-m-bloat[/url]”>http://www.minnpost.com/learning-curve/2013/01/president-kaler-responds-press-allegations-u-m-bloat</a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While off-topic if Michigan, my gripe about OOS’er taking spots at the UC flagships is that your parents, maizeandblue21, and their elected legislators have chosen NOT to fund/build a world-class institution. That is/was their choice. So, IMO, no, you have no “need” to attend another state’s flagship.</p>
<p>^So aren’t you admitting that the OOS students help make Michigan “world-class”?</p>
<p>And I would disagree that Minnesota is not after the same thing…they are just not as far along that path at this point.</p>
<p>bluebayou:</p>
<p>I don’t even think you truly believe what you just wrote. For one, the state of Minnesota gives more money to its U of M than the state of Michigan does. State funding alone does not build a world-class instituation, nor does it attract the top students. My parents and their parents could have elected, time and again, legislators that poured as much money as they could possibly afford into our Universities and Minnesota would still not have a better academic reputation than Michigan. Michigan’s budget is almost all endowed from donors such as Stephen Ross, who gave $100 million to the business school a few years ago. The University of Minnesota doesn’t have that kind of prowess and didn’t suit my needs so I needed to find a school that did. Michigan fit the bill perfectly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They could, but the job applicants haven’t paid for this service like college applicants do.</p>
<p>When we pay for a building inspection, we get the evaluation results, not just a pass/fail. When we pay for a driver test, we get the scores back, not just a pass/fail. Why are we okay with the government taking our money to evaluate us for a college seat, but not giving us our evaluation/scores back?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you truly that arrogant to tell me what I believe? Seriously? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps they are after the same thing. But at this rate, they’ll never get there. (The top 3-4 publics have been the top 3-4 publics for decades.)</p>
<p>
Exactly. So how does my parents trying to elect a different set of legislators change that? And why should I suffer from attending a lesser academic school because of where the top publics are located?</p>
<p>U could go to a private school</p>