<p>How great of a school is it compared to like usc, jhu, cmu, uw, etc? Do they have premed and do they have a good program for it? I just heard about it and am interested in applying. Im oos, 3.88 uw gpa w/o freshmen year(heard they dont count it), and 2070 sat.</p>
<p>Sent from my SGH-T959 using CC App</p>
<p>It is a peer of the schools you mentioned except it is held in higher regard than the University of Wisconsin if that is indeed what you meant by UW and in lower regard than JHU generally (except for engineering and business).</p>
<p>Michigan is a peer of all of the schools you mentioned. It has great undergraduate programs across a variety of fields. If you don’t mind the size of it’s student body and the cold and brutal weather during the winter, then I would suggest you apply. Your SAT might be on the low side for an out of state student since admission into the university this year was tougher than in recent years. It is a great school for premedical students and has great placement into some of the nations top medical schools. Michigan also has a preference for its own undergraduates at Michigan Medical School (50/170), which is ranked among the best medical schools in the nation. Premedical classes are sometimes cutthroat, but are manageable. If you are into sports (football, basketball and hockey to name a few), then I would suggest coming here. The city of Ann Arbor is ranked as one of the best college towns in the nation and the school pride here is crazy.</p>
<p>Michigan arguably has better programs in the social sciences, engineering (except biomedical engineering), business and architecture than JHU. JHU is a great university, but it’s mostly known for its programs in the hardcore sciences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>JHU has real breadth as well as depth. Its International Relations and Creative Writing programs are among the very best. The NRC ranks its graduate History program #1 in 2 of its 5 major categories. Hopkins spends ~$1.5B/year on research, by far the largest amount in the country (nearly 2x the #2 school).</p>
<p>As for Michigan, there could hardly be a better choice for a top student who is a full-pay Michigan resident. For an OOS student, it is not so clearly a good value (because it will be nearly as selective as private schools, which may be cheaper after aid.) But if you are a full-pay student, a top OOS flagship like UM could save you and your family about $15K/year or more over a selective private school like Hopkins.</p>
<p>If the out-of-pocket cost winds up about the same, the main advantage I see in a top private school over a top flagship is smaller classes (especially in the first 2 years or in popular majors). The top private schools also get a mix of highly qualified students from all over the country.</p>
<p>JHU is more selective than UMich out-of-state. I think the OP should apply first and weigh his options after.</p>
<p>I don’t see how it’s nearly double. Michigan spent $1.14 Billion last year on research and development. Michigan is ranked second in terms of research and development expenditures. Michigan also dominates the NRC rankings with Berkeley and Harvard claiming the top two spots in schools with the greatest number of top graduate programs.</p>
<p>But I do agree with you. As an OOS student myself, Michigan only gives us about $7500 in financial aid for the coming year. My family efc is greater than $25000. If there are cheaper options, the OP should consider them but overlooking Michigan would be a mistake even at the cost.</p>
<p>Sent from my iPhone using CC</p>
<p>Is it true that Michigan meets almost all your demonstrated need?</p>
<p>No, the school does not have the financial resources to do so.</p>
<p>If you are instate then yes, but If you aren’t then no.</p>
<p>Do they have premed and do they have a good program for it?</p>
<p>Virtually every college has “pre-med”…and what do you mean do they have a good program?</p>
<p>Pre-med isn’t anything “special”…it is list of regular chem, ochem, physics, and calc classes that all colleges offer. They are the same classes that other science majors take. </p>
<p>If a school is strong in sciences, then it’s fine for pre-med. If you’re asking about advising and such, then I don’t know if they do Committee Letters for med school applicants…many publics don’t.</p>
<p>*Is it true that Michigan meets almost all your demonstrated need? *</p>
<p>Absolutely not. It’s a public. Publics charge high OOS costs for a reason…it wouldn’t make sense to then cover it with financial aid. If so, they might as well not charge OOS fees. The only publics that are very generous with aid are UNC-CH and UVA…but since they only accept a small number of OOS high stats students, it’s essentially aid with a “merit” element.</p>
<p>Im oos, 3.88 uw gpa w/o freshmen year(heard they dont count it), and 2070 sat.</p>
<p>However, some publics (not UMich) might give you large merit scholarships for your stats. Your stats aren’t high enough for much/any merit from UMich, and the OOS cost is $50k per year…</p>
<p>How much will your parents pay?</p>
<p>What is your math + CR score for you SAT? Will you retest?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, this is a bit of an exaggeration, and in some ways downright wrong. According to its Common Data Set, Michigan meets full financial need for 90% of its students. Since about 35% of the student body is OOS, that must mean they’re meeting full financial need for a lot of OOS students. They show their average grant or scholarship award for OOS students as $14,628, which is not peanuts. And that doesn’t count “self-help” aid like work/study and loans, which OOS students are also eligible for.</p>
<p>The economics of this are not quite as simple as mom2collegekids would have you believe. Yes, schools like Michigan—and Virginia, which like Michigan has a substantial OOS population at 26% (not a “small number”)—use OOS enrollment as a moneymaker. But they also have other institutional objectives: admitting significant numbers of OOS students allows them to draw from a larger applicant pool and be more selective in admissions, boosting the overall caliber of their student body. They don’t want to drive top OOS applicants away by being prohibitively expensive. But even if they spend a substantial amount on FA for OOS students, it still benefits them financially. In the first place, a large fraction of OOS students, roughly 2/3, are full-pays. And keep in mind that it’s thousands of dollars cheaper to be a full-pay at Michigan than at an elite private institution, which makes it attractive to many people; also, because total COA for an OOS student at Michigan is lower than COA at an elite private, more people qualify as full-pays with EFC > COA.</p>
<p>Second, a large part of the FA they award comes from sources other than the university’s general fund. Pell grants and work/study are federal money that nominally goes to the student, then right back into the university’s general fund in the form of tuition; that costs them nothing, whether they award it to an in-state or an OOS student. Also, Michigan’s endowment includes dozens of separate funds dedicated to student scholarships; FA awards out of those funds again just go nominally to the student then right back into the university’s general fund in the form of tuition, so there’s the same revenue benefit to the university whether the FA award goes to an in-state or an OOS student. Finally, even to the extent FA for OOS students is partially funded out of the university’s general fund, they’re still generating a net tuition revenue gain relative to what they’d get from awarding that slot to another low-tuition in-state student. So bottom line, it just makes sense to award FA to OOS students to the extent it’s necessary to get the students they want, and the money is available.</p>
<p>It’s true, though, that Michigan doesn’t meet 100% of need for all OOS students, and even when they do meet 100% of need it often includes a “self-help” component like work-study and/or loans. (That’s also true at many, many private institutions, by the way). But because some OOS students will get 100% of need met, it may still be worth applying and see how the numbers shake out. And for full-pays, it’s an attractive and cost-effective alternative to expensive private institutions.</p>
<p>Michigan meets full financial need for 90% of its students. Since about 35% of the student body is OOS, that must mean they’re meeting full financial need for a lot of OOS students.</p>
<p>that’s not what that stat means… You can’t interpret it that way.</p>
<p>First of all, UMich does not meet 90% of need for ACCEPTED students. That figure is for **enrolled **students who could afford the school. Therefore, there are many low/medium EFC OOS kids who were badly gapped who didn’t enroll…and their numbers aren’t in those stats. So, your point is “downright wrong.”</p>
<p>Many OOS UMich students don’t have need or…or so little that it can be met or nearly met with a student loan. </p>
<p>The average FA package at Umich is…sadly…only $10,419. When you consider that a chunk of that is a STUDENT loan and work-study, and state aid for instate students, that means UMich isn’t giving much…and certainly isn’t giving much to OOS students. </p>
<p>Full-time freshman enrollment: 6,026
Number who were judged to have need: 3,093 **<<==== only half the UMich students have ANY need. So, that strongly suggests that many OOS have NO need. **</p>
<p>No OOS student who has high need and stats that aren’t super high should expect to have much need met. Someone with a 2070 SAT doesn’t have high enough stats to get the big merit from UMich to help meet need if there is high need. </p>
<p>There are many OOS kids who get accepted to UMich who get lousy FA packages that don’t enroll…and their numbers aren’t in those stats. To suggest that an OOS applicant will get 90% of his need met (when his need could be high) is misleading.</p>
<p>Any of those “need met” stats are grossly misleading when they are publics, and/or when they don’t reflect how they met the need for all accepted students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true. You simply can’t make that inference. According to figures reported in US News, Michigan’s AVERAGE scholarship or grant award to OOS students is $14,682—very comparable to Virginia’s at $14,264. And fewer kids get any need-based FA at Virginia–only 32%, as compared to 46% at Michigan. As for Michigan “not giving very much”: Michigan’s institutional contribution to undergraduate grants and scholarships (excluding athletic scholarships) was $112 million last year, dwarfing the state contribution of $2.5 million and the federal contribution of $28 million. Also, by the way, dwarfing the University of Virginia’s institutional contribution of $34.8 million, though Michigan’s a bigger school with a bigger endowment and a bigger budget, so in part that’s to be expected. Still, on a per-student basis, Michigan’s institutional contribution to grants/scholarships is about 75% larger than Virginia’s. It’s just that Virgina has more full-pays. </p>
<p>The main difference between the two schools is that Virginia meets 100% of need for 100% of its students (though 2/3 of them apparently have no “need”), while Michigan meets full need for 90% of its students, and less than that for the remaining 10% of students, bringing the average level of need met down to 90%. Of course, those are averages. All in-state kids and some OOS kids are going to have 100% of need met. Others will get less. You just don’t know until you see the numbers. It’s almost certainly true that some OOS kids who get “gapped” will decide not to attend. And it’s almost certainly true that some fraction of the kids whose need IS 100% met by the institution’s metrics will still feel they can’t afford it and decide not to attend. They don’t get counted in the final statistics, either. That’s true at any institution. But Michigan can’t be stiffing too many kids too badly. After all, 35% of their students are OOS. Granted, many of them are full-pays, but then, so are most of Virginia’s. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve seen a similar average need-based FA award figure ($10,432) in Michigan’s 2010-2011 common data set, but frankly it doesn’t entirely make sense the way you break it down, because they also report the average need-based scholarship or grant for those receiving one (1,656 of the 2,878 freshmen who received any need-based aid) was $10,482—or $50 more than the average total need-based FA package. How can that be? Well, it must be that 1,200 or so freshmen with some financial need don’t get any scholarship aid, only self-help (work/study and/or loans), but some of these kids are sufficiently low-need that their relatively modest self-help awards bring down the average total FA award. So you can’t just assume the $10,432 average aid award means X% scholarship, Y% work/study, and Z% loan for all students on FA; it will come in different mixes for different students. Still, to meet 100% of need for 90% of students, and to average 90% of need met, you’ve got to be putting a lot of money on the table, and it’s not all going to in-state students. [In contrast, a school like Wisconsin meets 100% of need for only 25% of its students, and only 77% of need on average, with an average scholarship/grant award of only $3,840].</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that at Michigan 2,214 entering freshmen, or 36.7% of the entering class, received merit awards averaging $5,075. [In contrast at Virginia only 12.2% of the entering class received merit awards, although the average award was bigger at $8,208; while at Wisconsin 23% of entering freshmen received merit awards averaging $1,933]. </p>
<p>Given that total COA at Michigan is about $8,000 less than many elite privates, and that well over a third of the class get merit awards, and that some fraction of OOS students are getting 100% of their need met and the rest can’t be too badly stiffed if the overall average is 90% of need met, there’s reason to believe Michigan would be affordable for a lot of OOS students, and not just full-pays. </p>
<p>But I agree that if your stats aren’t super-high and you have a lot of need, you’ll probably do better elsewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m going by the 2010 Washington Monthly figures, which show JHU as #1 at $1.554 B, Wisconsin as #2 at $841M, Michigan as #4 (after UCLA) at $809M. Perhaps we’re talking about two different accounting methods, or else one of these sources is plain wrong.</p>
<p>Once again the Washington Monthly spews inaccurate information. Not surprising considering how ridiculous its college ranking figures are. </p>
<p>[New</a> federal rankings: U-M first in research spending at public universities](<a href=“http://ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=8005]New”>http://ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=8005)</p>
<p>Michigan trails only JHU.</p>
<p>*But Michigan can’t be stiffing too many kids too badly. *</p>
<p>You have no idea since schools don’t have to publish the FA stats of all the kids that they accepted. </p>
<p>UMich has a 50% admit rate. Many admitted kids end up not enrolling. It is very reasonable to guess that many of the OOS kids who got lousy aid packages didn’t/couldn’t enroll. </p>
<p>*All in-state kids and some OOS kids are going to have 100% of need met. Others will get less. *</p>
<p>the fact that all instate kids get their need met and some (high EFC) OOS kids are getting all their need met, is going to skew the numbers. </p>
<p>*But I agree that if your stats aren’t super-high and you have a lot of need, you’ll probably do better elsewhere. *</p>
<p>Exactly. And, that’s why that 90% stat is worthless. It doesn’t reflect the % aid given to all admitted students with determined need. It only concerns itself with those who enrolled…which for OOS kids, could mean mostly high EFC kids.</p>
<p>Prospective students would have a more fair idea of what to expect if these schools had to show % of need met of all accepted students …and show percentages by EFC ranges. </p>
<p>that said…I still say that it’s too hard to use these stats for publics since most of their students are instate and have lower COAs. </p>
<p>I can tell you this…if the ivies suddenly became need-aware and cheap with aid, and they all decided to only hand out federal aid, their % of need met would still likely be high because the only people actually enrolling would be people who could pay full or near-full freight…and for ivies, those are a dime a dozen.</p>
<p>U Michigan is considered a good school with a decent reputation, which can most likely get you where you want to go, ie med school, business school, law school etc…however not many would say UofM is prestigious or like a top college. Its admit rate (50%) and such large student body (around 30,000) make the school not too selective. Barrons rates Michigan as highly competitive, wheras the ivys and selective private schools are most competitive (Notre Dame, Case Western,NYU, Villanova, Tufts, Georgetown, Emory, Vanderbilt, USC, Duke, Northwestern etc.) </p>
<p>Michigan has rather lower avg ACT scores 28-29 to make it a top college. For comparison the rankings would go
Johns Hopkins
USC
cmu = Carnegie Mellon?
U Michigan
Wisconsin</p>
<p>Nova. Michigan went to the common application this year. It’s admit rate is going to drop to around 40% just this year alone. Expect it to drop further in the next few years.</p>
<p>Wait UofM DOES count freshman year now right?</p>
<p>“U Michigan is considered a good school with a decent reputation…”</p>
<p>Thanks for your ringing endorsement.</p>