<p>The legislature gives UMich only 16% of its funding. If they intervened in admission decisions, the university could ask them then for more funding, or as said before go private.</p>
<p>This is not only the case in Michigan, but also many other flagships. Some people think they are mostly funded by tax payers, that’s false. They are subsidized by OOS.</p>
<p>If Michigan went private, perhaps those miniscule state dollars could go to MSU and others so that they, too, could meet need for in-state students. That IS the leverage that the Michigan legislature could hold over Michigan’s head. There is no evidence that out of state students “improve” University of Michigan except in it’s money coffers and I’ll give you that one. Transparency would also help that “often” used excuse (that OSS are somehow academically better.)</p>
<p>I think a strong national student body enhances the value and portability of the UM degree so that instate UM grads can also get out of Michigan and find better jobs elsewhere with top firms. Does that help the state-probably not so much.</p>
UVa does not release data that differentiates instate and OOS applicants anywhere. It is very often asked for, but it is not something they release publicly.</p>
<p>
This is untrue. By the Va legislature UVa is required to keep at least a 2/3 instate: 1/3 OOS ratio. The 20,174 OOS applicants this year were competing for the OOS offers which were 4,934. The 8,831 instate applicants were competing for the instate offers which were 3,594. Why were more OOS offers made if the goal is only 1/3 of the class? Historically the yield is much higher for instate students then OOS so more offers are made to end up with the correct ratio. An OOS student never ever takes a spot from an instate student that was not accepted. The instate student who was not accepted was only in competition with other instate students for one of those 2/3 instate spots. </p>
<p>If you really want to get specific, there are ten applicant pools…instate and OOS for CLAS, SEAS, NURS, ARCH, and Kinesiology. Each of the five schools had an enrollment goal and then the 1/3 instate :2/3 OOS ratio.</p>
<p>And the fact that UVA has explicitly stated percentages is somewhat transparent and if information is available could be verified. Similar to Texas’s 10% rule. I don’t have a problem if a state wants to sell seats, as long as it is done in an equitable, fair manner for the in-state applicants and is a transparent method that is acceptable to the state and their taxpayers. Michigan does not have identified target percentages and is not transparent. And the relative “strength” afforded an university is predicated on those that are accepted and attend, not on those that apply.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with setting transparent targets. However, IMO, that’s much different than needing to tell each applicant why he/she is rejected.</p>
<p>If some selective public universities are ALREADY plotting their applicants on a scattergram or matrix of Personal Achievement (EC’s, leadership, essay) vs. Academic Achievement (GPA, SAT) , what is wrong with publishing the scattergram or matrix? </p>
<p>Confidentiality could be maintained, like in Naviance. Schools already have separate plots for different academic programs (e.i. engineering school), so the Academic Achievement expectation is not the same for aspiring STEM majors vs. aspiring liberal arts majors.</p>
<p>blueiguana is correct . In Virginia, the best instate kids are competing against each other for admission to UVa in the instate pool. Approximately 70% are instate -same with William & Mary and Virginia Tech. Virginia schools seem to attract many OOS applicants. I think having a mix of IS/OOS is good . Unfortunately though, that means some instate kids do not get into their first choice instate school and there are complaints to legislators and the Washington Post every year like clockwork.</p>
<p>the easiest way to BOLD the text is to use your cursor to highlight the text, then click ‘Ctrl’ key and ‘B’ key at the same time. Italicized text is ‘Ctrl’ ‘I’.</p>
<p>So if they send a letter out with scores for the various criteria, will they need to send out another letter giving the rationale for the scores for the subjective criteria if the applicant (or more likely the parent) is ticked off that Jimmy only got a 5 on his essay when the parent is absolutely sure it deserved a 9, especially given that Rodney,who they’ve known for years as clearly less qualified, got a 7?</p>
<p>I realize, and respect, the request to move back to the topic of transparency. I would like to quickly correct my obvious error at the end of post #264 which should read:</p>
<p>Each of the five schools had an enrollment goal and then the 2/3 instate: 1/3 OOS ratio.</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting op-ed piece a bookmarked in December. While it talks primarily about the shenanigans that go on to recruit diversity, the underlying opinion is that in the absence of some transparency the public universities will continue to find ways to workaround which to some degree I would guess is true - why would they not? It is blatant they they try to balance M vs. F so why not every other factor they find interesting.</p>
<p>Nrdsb4, I do think a lot of times the parents do get more “ticked off” than the kids. Most kids know where they stand in relation to their instate peers. There was a UVa dad of an applicant on the UVa forum a couple of years ago who was very angry that his daughter was waitlisted by UVa (with 1500 + SAT’s). He pretty much felt she was entitled to admission because of her scores and GPA. He admitted her EC’s were not phenomenal and she was waitlisted by a couple of other schools as well (Smith or Mt. Holyoke). The thread went on for weeks , he implied he was going to contact his legislator,etc. I can’t imagine his negativity was not difficult for his daughter. If a competitive school uses holistic admissions, some kids are bound to be disappointed with their results.</p>
<p>Not going to read 280 posts, replete with post police, but my opinion to the question asked- NO. If a candidate isnt offered a job, they rarely get an explanation… Sometimes, but not often. Is this some idea brought on by attorneys looking for work to do?</p>