Your assertion is completely inaccurate. I’m the father of a senior in HS who has applied to 2 schools. One of them is UM. She had my full support in that decision. Also, I lived in Birmingham for 1 year and at the time my sister was a UM grad student. I went to Ann Arbor every week and loved the town. Its still one of my favorites anywhere in the country. I read this forum to stay up-to-date on issues that may be very relevant to my family soon.
The reason I speak up on this forum has nothing to do with a preference for another school. Its because I’m a big fan of UM and I think there are some on this forum who do it a disservice when they make inaccurate comments with the intent of aggrandizing the school.
Others do it a disservice by making inconsistent arguments over time, taking different sides of the same issue, as long as they can end up with an argument which makes UM look better relative to its competition.
UM is done a disservice when people here admit they’re more interested in propping up the school than addressing the facts, because that’s what this forum is for, as I’ve been told.
I think UM is done a disservice when a thread is created about problems with the school, the OP in general terms takes a position that there are no problems that are important, and then shoots down people who actually answer the question in the post’s title.
UM is a great school. Just like anything else in this flawed world it has problems. When a group of people associated with the school try to sugarcoat the truth, it can make discerning people question everything else associated with that issue.
So now that you know my motivations, I appreciate the acknowledgment in post 33 that the offending statement was not accurate. And sorry, but next time I’m here, reading about a school that I may pay $55k next year, I may speak up again if I see a comment that I consider misleading.
^We’ve been through this before, I’ve listed several examples of my issues above and I’m afraid we’re getting off topic. You’re the moderator though (I think anyway). If you are and you really want me to list some particulars, let me know.
Our OOS son applied last year from an elite NE prep school, top stats/scores, Eagle Scout, full pay, multi-generational legacy (including both parents) and was deferred. His CC had warned us that UM had communicated this new paradigm and not to be surprised if this happened.
Ding ding…enough with getting personal and unpleasant…back to the UM topic…(and PS, 2 app total is not uncommon in the “flyover” world most of us pretend is not there…doesn’t make it wrong. I’m from there. I applied to, gasp, one. and bill is right, they have plenty of time to apply to more if EA doesn’t work out!)
Oh, and one more thing. My daughter is OOS ES LSA, so I’m very interested in this topic and agree with @HRSMon, let’s get back to the topic (sorry for my contribution to being off topic).
This article gets at Michigan Admissions looking to reduce the % of total applicants accepted through EA by increasing deferrals and using the wait-list more extensively.
But worst of all, efforts to project yield and hit enrollment targets were largely unsuccessful. For fall of 2014, the freshman class over-enrolled by 307 (early action*) and about 500 students overall for a record-breaking class totaling 6,505—4.5 percent more than the previous year.
“We have been over-enrolling every year for the past five years and we have to stop this,” University Provost Martha Pollack explained to the Michigan Board of Regents, last September. “I’m not happy about it.”
Speaking candidly to the NACAC audience, Lindsley admitted, “Early action is more of an art than a science.” And Michigan needed to bring their program under control.
To accomplish this, Lindsley outlined plans to curb over-enrollment which echoed what Pollack presented to the Board of Regents.
Early admissions would be reduced from about 65% under previous plans and 37.5% for the Class of 2018, to a figure closer to the target goal of 33% overall.* As a result, counselors could expect to see “several thousand” students deferred to regular decision.
“We will be more judicious in what we look for,” explained Lindsley.
It didn’t take long for students and their counselors to see the impact of the change in policy on early admissions to the Michigan Class of 2019.
^ That is nothing new. They did accept less students this year and planned to use the waitlist more. However, the yield rate went up higher that they did not need to use the waitlist much at the end.
With the current number of applicants, they would have to defer over 20,000 applicants from EA, not just “several thousands”. The admission office has posted on their website about this in October 2014. They pretty much followed what they said for the admission goal and enrollment goal. It is just he unexpected jump in yield rate to eliminated the use of waitlist at the end.
Historically, Michigan worked on a rolling admissions basis; first come, first served, with the majority of acceptances made early on and diminishing odds of admission the later you applied. This system worked well because more than half of the applicants were in-state, and the yield for in-state students was, and always will be, very high.
All that changed a decade ago, when the University switched to an EA/RD system. Initially, Michigan maintained a similar approach, admitting a large percentage of applicants who applied early. However, a factor that changed significantly was the makeup of the applicant pool, from over 50% in-state back in the 1990s to over 80% OOS last year. As a result, Michigan noticed that the dynamics had shifted, accepting many students early did not have the desired outcome; being able to estimate the freshman class early in the admissions cycle. Many of those OOS EA applicants did not consider Michigan their top choice. They simply wanted an acceptance from a top university in December while waiting for other top universities to respond in March. This became evident by 2013, when Michigan shifted its paradigm.
Which begs the question why Michigan does not embrace ED. I’ve never understood the advantage that EA gives to a school whereas binding ED enables them to assess a smaller pool where they really lock-in the students that fit their profile.
^^^^Perhaps Michigan doesn’t feel it’s right to FORCE a student to make a choice of schools to gain an advantage in their admission chances over other worthy candidates. That’s something too many private colleges thrive on.
That is right HRSMom. I hear that Michigan would actually favor ED, but it feels it would be inappropriate to do so as long as most of its public peers do not follow suit. As it stands, the SUNY system and Virginia Tech are among the very few public universities that offer ED.
I do not see an advantage of Michigan offering ED as an option over EA. ED might discourage the very best candidates from even considering an application to Michigan knowing that their chances at a perceived safety school had been greatly diminished. The best way Michigan can increase its yield, not that it is that low anyway, is to offer guaranteed aid to all students who matriculate. Michigan is well on its way to offering this type of aid thanks to the Victors for Michigan campaign which is well on its way to being a success. Perhaps a way to do that is to make a student sign a binding commitment to the school within a 60 days of acceptance or a firm deadline of March 1st, giving them a chance to consider attending or not. This cutoff date for guaranteed aid would allow those students who are serious about attending Michigan a chance to really think it through, while not becoming stuck attending a school that might otherwise not be their top choice.