<p>What state are you all in… Assuming you’re all in Michigan, the 2nd guy is probably in, I’m doubtful that the first guy would, and a GPA of 3.5 or higher is too unspecific.</p>
<p>If your friends are in-state looks like most have a good chance of admission. Also my stats are below University of Michigan average, though since it’s my top choice I rather apply than not.</p>
<p>You’re leaving out some crucial information: How rigorous was their curriculum? Based on your info alone though, I’d saw the second guy has a good chance, but the other 2 are reaches. 25 ACT, and 3.5 gpa are really pushing it, and you probably need a good hook to get in.</p>
<p>At my school we have three basic levels of curriculum: regular, advanced/honors, AP/independent study.</p>
<p>Honors:First friend took honors physics, honors English, advanced math (AP Calculus next year), a lot of music classes (for an easy A all year to increase overall GPA). </p>
<p>Regular:Second friend took AP Computer Science (I think he might’ve got a 4, because only 1 guy got a 5 at my school), but not as rigorous curriclum compared to my friends (took all the required classes but no advanced: we have regular, advanced/honors, and AP) He’s sort of an underachiever because he never brings textbook or homework to study. Most of my other friends and myself took the advanced/honors and AP. He’s very into quantum physics.</p>
<p>Regular:Third friend took a regular curriculum. I really don’t know what his exact GPA is. But he is really bright (reads Nietzsche and Communist Manifesto). He’s sort of a philosopher ex-stoner.</p>
<p>32 on the ACT is very good. The second guy is a match and the third is a slight reach. The first guy is kind of strange with a very high gpa but lower ACT. I’d still say with that gpa he is a match. Music classes do not count in unweighed ratings. What is his uw gpa? Still with a 3.9 he must have done well in those classes too. Maybe you weren’t feeling well the day you took the ACT, can you retake it again? Get it up to a 27-28 and you definitely have a shot.</p>
<p>Friend 1: Took a few hard classes, but took mostly easy classes to improve his GPA (which won’t raise his UM gpa anyways) and also did pretty bad on the ACT. Far reach.</p>
<p>Friend 2: Did good on the act, but took mostly easy classes. Reach.</p>
<p>Friend 3: Good ACT, but took all regular classes and got a low GPA. Far reach.</p>
<p>I’ll be interested to see what happens with these guys yosup. Can you keep us informed? I realize, more than likely, that it’s going to be a few months before we hear anything.</p>
<p>I would say all three of them are in. Why do people think Michigan is impossible to get into? My buddy got into Engineering with a 24 ACT (28 on Math); he’s instate and a Caucasian male. My girlfriend got in with a 26 OOS. Actually not one of my friends met the Engineering median ACT of 30; most of them had 27-29. They’re all doing fine, though. Have a 26+ ACT, a 3.7+ GPA with a decent course load, have some sports and leadership positions and you’re set.</p>
<p>They have their 4.0+ and 36 ACT but what else do they bring to the table? A couple science competitions they did freshman year, maybe a sport or two but quit and didn’t end up lettering in it.</p>
<p>There’s more than just stats. Someone that is willing to do leg work and dedicated to something is a way better investment than someone who got a 35 on their ACT.</p>
<p>^
I don’t understand your point. A 4.0, 36 student will get into umich with their eyes closed… so what.
The bottom line is that even someone with good/great ECs, if their test scores and GPA aren’t strong (26,3.7) will not have a good chance for admission at umich. </p>
<p>Also, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “better investment”
Is this suppose to mean a better all-around student for the university?</p>
<p>Obviously not if there are kids on this board that have 30+ ACTs and 4.0s and are deferred but I personally know people that have gotten in with much, much lower scores than people on this board.</p>
<p>A college is a business. They’re going to “invest” in its student so when a student graduates, they will go off and do something productive. For example, the military academies will take a student that possesses many leadership traits so eventually they will become a future leader of our country. This makes these colleges look respectable. A kid that has aspirations and the willingness to be a future Astronaut looks better than the 4.0 nerd that smoked weed and played WoW all through college.</p>
<p>If I’m looking to hire someone, I will take the guy who was active and can lead people. They relate well to people above and below them. Not the 4.0 kid that can’t communicate with the human race worth a damn.</p>
<p>I like your post. I’ve never seen so many stereotypes per line.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, no. A public institution like UM is not a business.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People that smoke weed and play WoW all through college don’t get 4.0s. They fail out after a year or two. In fact, there’s an extremely tiny number of people that get 4.0s at UM. These people are always extremely hard workers. Often they’re brilliant individuals who’ll shake up the field they head into in the future. These are exactly the type of people that UM is proud to have as alumni.</p>
<p>By the way - the people who become astronauts are usually extremely successful academically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UM isn’t hiring people. It’s also not training people to be hired. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like you’ll have a company filled with leaders and talkers. That’s great, but at some point someone has to do the actual work, as the company can’t survive by having its employees lead and talk to each other. That’s where the “4.0 nerds” come in. You know, the people with strong work ethic and numerous skills who can actually get stuff done instead of smooching the boss’ ass all day.</p>
<p>Michigan is, too, a business. You pay for school don’t you? They try to recruit people don’t they? No, it’s not a General Motors or Lockheed Martin, but it is an institution that is looking to make a profit.</p>
<p>It’s amazing how you took my point so literal. You must be one of these “stats” kids. With regards to my last line, when did I ever say that my workers wouldn’t get anything done? I was saying they’d be more productive because they actually have a work ethic. To be successful in the work environment you need to be able to relate to people and have people skills.</p>
<p>Geez man, don’t get so offended, it’s just a school…</p>