It really depends on one’s definition of the term. When I applied to college back in the early 1990s, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, JHU, Northwestern and Penn all had acceptance rates in the 40%-50% range, and they were considered very selective. Chicago and JHU had acceptance rates were over 40% until 2005, and they were considered selective then too. By CHD’s definition, none of those universities were selective until recently, and Michigan is merely lagging by a decade or so.
At any rate, whether one considered Michigan selective 5 years ago is irrelevant. Since joining the Common Application in 2010, Michigan has experienced one of the largest leap in selectivity in the nation, a trend that will likely continue well into the future.
What a coincidence! I am in the same boat - deciding between UNC and UMichigan… I plan to major in the Business field but I am not pre admitted to Ross or Kenan-Flagler… I know KF has a higher acceptance rate for BSchool but how is their Economics major (that’s my backup plan at Michigan and UNC)
Michigan is considered stronger in both business and economics. UNC is a less expensive for OOS/International students. The Michigan degree however does carry a higher cache, especially in business.
So, being careful to choose the best is our measure?. Let’s take a case: I have two applicants, both applicants have a 4.0 gpa, both applicants have a 1400 on their SAT (old scale) or perhaps a 31 on their ACT (98th percentile). If I choose only one, I would evince 50% selectivity. Would anybody say that a school following that process is not selective? No. That would be a really, really stupid argument.
Now, assume that the numbers are 25,000 applicants, the class size is the same, and the GPA is 3.75 and the ACT is roughly 29. If I select 50%, is that selective? Well, given those metrics, the students are all pretty well qualified (at least 2 standard deviations above the mean). Now flash forward a whole 5 years or so and the GPA is 3.8 and the ACT is 31 and I select 33%. Is that selective? Well, guess what…the GPA is about the same, the boards are higher and the selectivity has barely dropped. This is a very well qualified student body, yet the metrics have barely changed and the selectivity has dropped, but not by much.
Likewise, the Ivy League schools have seen huge increases in applicants, and as a corollary have seen huge drops in the percentage admitted, yet the incoming class metrics have barely dropped. The “most selective” schools have seen their ratio drop, with barely any visible movement in the student qualifications.
As a result, a school could let in 9 out of 10 applicants, or 1 out of 20, and it tells you less than nothing about selectivity. To believe that the percentage admitted somehow bears on selectivity is a form of innumeracy/illiteracy that seems endemic to college board discussions. What matters at Michigan is that they get a class composed of people who they want to matriculate. Selectivity is a statistic which is about as useful as “games over five hundred”…utterly meaningless, but a fragile buoy for those adrift is a miasma of illiteracy and innumeracy with few landmarks to latch unto.
^I disagree. I think blue85 is making an invalid argument.
Words have specific meanings. The post evaluates a school in the context of selectivity.I don’t think the example in the post applies in that context. The argument that the strength of the school’s students’s is extremely high would apply, as could other arguments regarding the quality of a school and the education students receive there.
I understand that applicant pools can be self-selecting, and schools can be forced to reject applicants with strong numbers in order to qualify as selective - and that maybe being selective is thus inconsistent with increasing the quality of an admitted class. But its just bizarre to make the argument that the percentage of students a school “selects” has nothing to do with selectivity.
Most important, you will be able to achieve your goal (whether it’s working in investment banking for a bulge bracket or in top-tier management consulting) at either of the universities. Ideally, if money is not a factor, you should visit both the schools and - to some extent - go with your gut, because the differences between the two are negligible.
Although Michigan may have a higher rank by a couple spots or greater international prestige, you have to consider that there are significant regional biases. For example, where I grew up (Maryland), short of attending an ivy-league, the dream is to attend Duke, UVA, or North Carolina - and this years Valedictorian is attending UNC post-graduation. A lot of prestige is based off of biases. However, on the flip side, I’m sure that students in California would be shocked that UNC is on-par with UCLA. Additionally, there are metrics you could use to argue that UNC is superior, such as that we’ve had 43 Rhode Scholars versus 29 for Michigan, etc.
Also, I don’t know if this is the same for Michigan, but at least for UNC, and UVA too, being an out-of-state brings a lot of prestige. Many employers recognize this- if you get into to UNC out-of-state, you have to be a strong student.
Lastly, I’m biased, but RTP and the coordination between UNC, Duke, and NC State presents a great deal of opportunities (which you may be able to find in Ann Arbor too–not sure).
Regarding Kenan-Flagler, in my experience, most OOS students are admitted. Also, if you’re not admitted, you can re-apply. I have friends who were not admitted the first time, and they allow you to schedule an appointment with somebody in admissions, and they’ll tell you why, etc. In my experience, my friends who have gone for the feedback appointment and improved their application were admitted.
CHD, Michigan’s student quality is pretty high if you ask me. It terms of ACT/SAT ranges, in the same ballpark as Brown, Cornell and Penn (still lagging by the smallest of margins, but quickly catching up).
@Alexandre - I totally agree. My point was simply about using the term selectivity in the proper context. And I think the argument about Michigan’s student quality is weakened if at the same time we are arguing that 90% admittance could still be selective as we saw in post 45.