<p>^^^Please tell us where your high school is located?</p>
<p>I am always suspicious of first time posters that write such a targeted and critical post as in #20.</p>
<p>I got a 33. OOS. Unweight GPA of 3.9, weighted GPA is around 4.4</p>
<p>1390/2040, 3.87/ 4.35, OOS - full pay</p>
<p>I got into LSA with 35 ACT, 3.99 GPA, instate.</p>
<p>Approximately 25 kids from my school got in- most had 28+ and 3.8+ with Honors and AP classes, good involvement, etc. </p>
<p>I think it also varies by what school you apply to within Michigan</p>
<p>By the time I graduate highschool I’ll have taken 7 AP classes and I also take honors for all the other classes where it’s available(except Spanish II sophomore year).</p>
<p>Alexandre, before you attack me for being a first time poster, i would like to point out that I have been a faithful follower of college confidential for a long time, but i now feel like it is time to respond. I would also like to point out that I am a devout Michigan fan as I was born and raised in Ann Arbor.</p>
<p>However, I believe that you too often misinterpret questions. Many times, people are asking about the undergraduate school, yet you seem to instead talk about the university as a whole. I do believe that Michigan’s grad programs are phenomenal; however, there has to be a distinction between a great graduate program and a great undergraduate school that does not only have lots of opportunities and good professors, but also has the best of the best in terms of students. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is, the quality of the whole student body is important. Michigan is not at the level that you seem to think it is. Compared to the Ivies, and even other D1 schools like Northwestern, Duke, and Vanderbilt, Michigan does not have a top to bottom outstanding class. Those schools do not have the pitifully stupid athletes, they do not have thousands of average scoring ACT students. While the top students at Michigan can compete with any school, the whole student body is rather unimpressive.</p>
<p>Finally, as someone mentioned earlier, it is rather easy to get in especially if you are in-state. I do not know about the stats of all instate students but Hundreds of kids get in from AAP and AAH each year. And about 60 some get in from Saline per year. To be a very competitive applicant at Saline, one only needs about a 28 on the ACT and roughly a 3.75 GPA (which puts you well outside the top 25%). To be assured admission, all you need to do is bump up the ACT by a point and get your GPA up a little which can be done by taking easier classes. </p>
<p>In essence, I love Michigan; however, to be respected one must look at the opposing viewpoint on occasion.</p>
<p>“Finally, as someone mentioned earlier, it is rather easy to get in especially if you are in-state.”</p>
<p>Sorry, but you completely lost me there.</p>
<p>"Finally, as someone mentioned earlier, it is rather easy to get in especially if you are in-state.</p>
<p>“Sorry, but you completely lost me there.”</p>
<p>How is this confusing? It’s definitely easier for in-state applicants, and the sheer reality of this is visible in the student-body. An overwhelming amount of students here are average in-state minds who put in just enough effort to pass colorfully the watered-down public curriculum that is currently elementary education. These are the same people you spot on campus trying to study for philosophy with note-cards and highlighters… </p>
<p>Trust me… I know this. I tutor A LOT of them.</p>
<p>P.S. Just for the record, I’m in-state myself. So there’s no external bias or pretension.</p>
<p>rjkofnovi, what do you not understand. Most of the instate 28 students would be automatic rejects at schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Caltech, Chicago, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Wash U, etc, etc, etc. Even at peer D1 schools such as Northwestern, Duke, and Vanderbilt these 28 ACT and average GPA average extracurricular applicants would be laughed at and struggle immensely. Now I know you will come back and say how all of these schools have some low scorers, and I recognize this, because unlike you and Alexandre, I am able to be objective. However, the low scorers at these schools are extremely talented in other areas. They may be exceptional dancers, or they may have founded some organization. The low scoring average instate Michigan students simply are just that average.</p>
<p>Even though its grad schools are better than its undergrad, a Michigan student is far from ‘average’. The average US ACT score is a 21.</p>
<p>“Now I know you will come back and say how all of these schools have some low scorers, and I recognize this, because unlike you and Alexandre, I am able to be objective.”</p>
<p>I am not able to be obective? Any other fascinating insights into my being?</p>
<p>“However, the low scorers at these schools are extremely talented in other areas. They may be exceptional dancers, or they may have founded some organization. The low scoring average instate Michigan students simply are just that average.”</p>
<p>I suppose the “low scoring” students enrolled at Michigan’s school of Music or Art are not talented. Nor are Michigan’s varsity athletes. </p>
<p>“Most of the instate 28 students would be automatic rejects at schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Caltech, Chicago, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Wash U, etc, etc, etc”</p>
<p>Brown and Cornell both have a mid 50% ACT range of 29-33 (Michigan’s is 28-32). Their SAT ranges are ~30 points higher per section, which could well be attributed to super scoring. </p>
<p>“I do believe that Michigan’s grad programs are phenomenal; however, there has to be a distinction between a great graduate program and a great undergraduate school…”</p>
<p>You believe wrong. The gap between undergraduate and graduate quality is negligible at a university with sufficient resources. Michigan is the 6th wealthiest university on the planet and has the resources to make the undergraduate experience as unique and potent as the graduate experience. If you include annual state appropriations and funding and adjust for economies of scale and efficiencies, only half a dozen universities in the US are better off, even on a per capita basis. </p>
<p>Besides, I have never claimed that Michigan’s undergraduate programs are identical in quality to their graduate counterparts. Some of them (such as Engineering, Econ, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Business, Anthropology and Philosophy) are, but others are not. Overall, Michigan’s graduate programs are among the top 5 in the US while its undergraduate programs are obviously among the top 20 but definitely not among the top 5.</p>
<p>I think it’s also important to mention that not everyone comes
Into high school with the mentality of “I have to do well to get into a good college”.
I know personally, I slacked off severely freshman year, and that hurt my admissions as a senior, but I 4 pointed my toughest (junior) year. Basically don’t judge an entire schools intellect based off of their high school gpa and test scores, as I know at least for me, it isn’t an accurate representation of my true capability.</p>
<p>Jared, you’re so right that test scores and GPAs do not fully reflect a person. Unfortunately, the one thing my son learned this year, having slacked off sophomre year, is that for the top colleges (top 30) the two most important things are your GPA and test scores (the numbers) and they both need to be as high as possible in this competitive environment. The rest (ECs, community service, awards, leadership) are all icing on the cake, so to speak, and enhance your application, but you gotta have the numbers.</p>
<p>Oh I completely agree. Thankfully my numbers were good enough to get into Michigan and a few other schools. It just bothers me that the one poster on this thread is judging the entirety of the Michigan student body based on their high school credentials.</p>
<p>Right, Jared, because even with those numbers, there’s no guarantee of getting in! So will you be a freshman this Fall? In what school?</p>
<p>Concerning the admissions process at Michigan, what prospective students should know is that GPA really means everything, especially if you are OOS. Even if you have an extremely strong extracurricular profile, great test scores, take an extremely rigorous course load, and have great recs, if you have a sub 3.7 UW GPA, you don’t stand a good chance of getting in. </p>
<p>I applied EA to Michigan this year, was deferred, and then waitlisted RD. I have a 33 ACT, I hold about 6 leadership positions, SGA president, editor in chief of newspaper, captain of cross country, and others, I take the most rigorous curriculum possible, but my UW GPA is about a 3.55. Obviously Michigan only cares about your UW GPA and nothing else, because while I was denied from Michigan, I was accepted into schools much more selective, such as Vanderbilt, Tufts, USC, etc (I will be attending Vandy next year). So prospective students, please be aware that if you would like to go to Michigan, your GPA is all that matters, nothing else.</p>
<p>Alexandre, every time somebody criticizes Michigan you skirt around the criticism and then just talk about how good Michigan is. That is why i say that you are not objective. And trust me, I am not a Michigan hater, I just would like to help people see the reality of the student body at Michigan because you fail at doing so. </p>
<p>Secondly, the “average” students that I was talking about were the 28 ACT students who didn’t do community service, were maybe only in one club, and maybe played a varsity sport or two. At Saline, AAP, and AAH, there are numerous students with that ACT score who are accepted who were not even in their school’s respective NHS. Now i know that NHS is not that impressive of a club. However, at the truly elite schools, belonging to NHS is pretty much a requirement. Not being in it is a red flag.</p>
<p>Jared, numbers should be the most important thing in college admissions. And out of the numbers, standardized test scores are the most, because they are objective. GPA is not objective however, because schools and classes are completely different. A 4.0 from one school could be a 3.2 from another. And also, lets be honest. The students with the high scores have planned ahead and participated in numerous activities. In order to get accepted into a top university, one has to have some sort of local, state, or national recognition in athletics, academics, the arts, or community service. So, if a kid slacks off, it is their fault. If a kid is not good at tests, it may sound harsh but there really isn’t much to say. Because the top scorers are more than just a score, they are likely locally, state wide, or nationally recognized in some extracurricular activity</p>
<p>Danders, I could argue the opposite…son also applied EA at U of M, was deferred and ultimately accepted in early April, after getting his 3rd semester of 4.2 GPA. He was rejected from Vandy and a few other highly selective schools, with his cum 3.78 (uw) and 30 ACT. However, he’s a leader, done tons of service work with special needs kids and hospice patients, he’s an amazing athlete - state and national championships, and lastly, he’s also editor of the paper, has won several national writing awards and he’s a published author and poet. We feel like U of M is the only top school to give him the credit he’s earned as a whole person, not just based on his the numbers.</p>
<p>Shrimp101 I agree that to get in to a top school one can’t slack off in high school. All I’m trying to say is that just because a student slacks off in high school doesn’t mean they are stupid, it just means they didn’t have their priorities straight when they were 14 years old. There are smart people that didn’t score 34+ on their sat. Numbers are a lot, but they aren’t everything. Think of all the people that have stellar numbers but no social skills? Employers would rather have someone who is well rounded.</p>