<p>UofM versus the big 5 sounds predictable. it would be interesting to see the results against other top 25 schools. perhaps the thread `what are you choosing michigan over?' later in the year is in order.</p>
<p>Pretty consistently, the kind of student who applies to Michigan will lean towards the school with the higher perceived quality. Among the Top 25, we hold our own against Wash U, Emory, and Carnegie Mellon, but otherwise the Top 25 win out. Not every time, of course, but by a big margin. </p>
<p>Say, with Brown (admittedly a very different place from Michigan....). If we share 100 admits with Brown, maybe 10 will come to U-M, and 50 will go to Brown. The remaining 40 will head somewhere else. With Northwestern, the ratio isn't so extreme. Among 100 shared admits, 18 will come to Michigan, 30 will go to Northwestern, and the other 52 will go somewhere else.</p>
<p>Wow, didn't expect such a big margin. I figured the in-state factor will help bring us more even, not with the big 5, but with the likes of Brown, Hopkins, Rice or even Cornell.</p>
<p>10 to 50 is a hugh margin. So even Michigan residents would rather pay the extra $100K to get a Brown education! I can't figure that one out.</p>
<p>GoBlue, in most of those cases, you have one of two reasons:</p>
<p>1) Kids from poor families who get a lot of aid from private schools like Brown etc...</p>
<p>2) Kids from wealthy families who want to be as far away from home as possible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow, didn't expect such a big margin. I figured the in-state factor will help bring us more even, not with the big 5, but with the likes of Brown, Hopkins, Rice or even Cornell.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That may be somewhat the case if those figures were looking at only state residents. But that's the entire admit pool, which has almost twice as many nonresidents as residents. </p>
<p>
[quote]
10 to 50 is a hugh margin. So even Michigan residents would rather pay the extra $100K to get a Brown education! I can't figure that one out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's only true for people who qualify for no financial aid. Not every family is going to be paying $100,000 more to attend Brown. People who won't get aid, and for whom cost is still such a deciding factor, may not have applied to Brown in the first place. I know there are families in Michigan who won't consider private tuition because of the quality available via U-M. So really, these families are making the "cost decision" before even applying, instead of after being admitted.</p>
<p>It works the other way too--students continue to choose quality over cost even when Michigan is the pricier choice. For example, many, many residents also apply to MSU--but very few who are admitted to both places enroll at MSU over U-M, despite the cost difference, despite the fact that at MSU they may qualify for juicier scholarships.</p>
<p>But Hoedown, the reason why people chose Michigan over MSU is because Michigan is one of the top 10 universities in the nation, MSU is not even close to the top 50. The reason students pick Brown over Michigan is because they want a change of scenery or because of fit (as you point out, Brown and Michigan are very different). But academically, Brown does not have an advantage over Michigan. I have known about a dozen people who have gotten into Brown and Michigan over the last 15 years...and 100% of them chose Michigan. But they were mostly international students, in internationally, Michigan is more highly regarded than Brown.</p>
<p>Well, Alexandre, MSU was an excellent "for example" because the number of cross-applications is overwhelming, I can compare resident fees and KNOW which is cheaper (and can safely guess that scholarships would be hefty for U-M calibre kids) and, finally, our yield advantage over them is staggering. But the same would be true for other places considered "lesser" in quality. </p>
<p>We've looked at this, and students who apply to Michigan generally choose perceived quality over cost, wherever Michigan falls in that comparison (more prestigious or less, cheaper or more expensive). There are exceptions, but the trend is generally that Michigan applicants will pay more to go to the place they think is better.</p>
<p>And the truth is, here in the U.S., some people do believe Brown is better than U-M. For one thing, they believe it is more selective. That's why it's appropriate to use it as an example as a more prestigious place (although it's also a unique example because of the overall differences between it and U-M).</p>
<p>Hoedown, perceived quality is meaningless is the real world (graduate school adcoms and corporate recruiters). I know what you are trying to say and you are right. High school kids do not understand what a good university is. To them, % accepted is more important than quality of education or job placement, which is arguably better at Michigan than at Brown. </p>
<p>But you are right, for some reason, many of the top 25 universities in the nation are somehow perceived to be better. But Michigan can change that within a couple of years if it really wished to. Annually, Michigan haphazardly aims for a class of 5,500 and gets 6,500 as a result of its lack of proper planning. And then, Michigan wonders why schools that have more responsible admissions standards get the sought-after students. Until Michigan realizes that a university with an acceptance rate over 25% will not be taken seriously by the majority of top students, it is going to struggle to get top students to think of it as a university of choice. As long as Michigan has too many students to manipulate its "faculty resources" and "financial resources", again, Michigan is going to hurt. Michigan should limit its class to 4,000 students, 50% in-state, 40% out-of-state and 10% international. In other words, Michigan needs to half its in-state acceptances. </p>
<p>It breaks the heart because so many high school students are sadly mistaken when they think Michigan is not as good as Brown or Northwestern. Michigan is, without a doubt, one of the top 10 undergraduate experiences in the US. Luckily, my parents and advisors made that clear to me. But most students do not have the sort of informed advisors that I had. </p>
<p>In some ways, Michigan turns its back and sometimes truly harms its alums and the top students who do chose it over other schools in order to support a state that is milking it and lower tier students who really do not belong in a quality institution.</p>
<p>Alexandre, you rock. Thanks for all the insightful info you post in here.</p>
<p>hoedown -- do you have a list of cross-applicant data against other top schools like chicago, cornell, georgetown, etc? </p>
<p>your numbers make sense. i saw many wealthy students who attended UofM because they didn't get into their first choice. there were also students who transferred from MSU or community colleges. still, i did meet some michigan students who had gotten accepted to schools like duke, cornell, dartmouth and harvard. most were upper middle class, some OOS. </p>
<p>alexandre -- the michigan brand as a whole gets a great deal of recognition overseas. however, that's probably because of the grad schools, especially law and business. as long as those programs are managed right, UofM's brand abroad will stay strong. </p>
<p>it does stink when michigan's undergrad rep slides in the states, though. berkeley improved its brand over the past 10 years. michigan should do the same.</p>
<p>Hillstreet, another reason why Michigan is so well regarded is thanks to its undergraduate and graduate Engineering (which is very important to international students) programs and Business school (which is also very important to internationals). Both Engineering and Business are top 5 in the US. Furthermore, with over 4,500 international students, the reputation of Michigan is very prominent internationally. Do you know that roughly 40,000 Michigan alums live outside of the US?</p>
<p>And Hillstreet, in the last 10 years, Michigan has actually gained on Cal in many ways, especially in terms of keeping classes smaller and in terms of improving its financial stability. Do you know that in 1990, Cal's endowment stood at $800 million and Michigan at $500 million. Today, Cal's endowment is roughly $2.5 billion and Michigan is well over $4 billion. So Cal's endowment has grown by roughly 300% compared to Michigan's which has grown by 800%. At this rate, Michigan is going to be able to do things Cal cannot. </p>
<p>But the problem is not resources or reputation. Michigan is and will remain at the top of the academic world as far as the intellectual, academic and professional world are concerned. </p>
<p>What Michigan needs to do is improve is its image among high schools students. It can do that easily by lowering its % accepted. Michigan could lower it to 40% without even blinking. This year, I spoke to 31 UAE students who were accepted by Michigan. 16 of them picked Michigan, half of them over schools that are considered as good (like Cal, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn). But when I spoke to some of the students who turned Michigan down, it was mostly not for academic reasons, but simply because they could not understand how a good university could accept more than 25% of its applicants, let along 60%. Some chose for financial reasons and 2 chose Stanford for obvious reasons, but at least 6 or 7 picked schools like NYU (for Biology, not Business or Econ or Drama mind you), Dartmouth (for Engineering, which is weak at Dartmouth), Pepperdine (that sudent told me that since Pepperdine accepted only 25% of its students, it HAD to be much better).</p>
<p>
[quote]
hoedown -- do you have a list of cross-applicant data against other top schools like chicago, cornell, georgetown, etc?
[/quote]
.</p>
<p>Yep, though not for the classes since the app changed. It's an older study. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Annually, Michigan haphazardly aims for a class of 5,500 and gets 6,500 as a result of its lack of proper planning.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I get where you're coming from, but it's somewhat chafing to hear you say that. I don't think many people on here know about the planning process that Michigan goes through in admitting each class. No one who did would call the process "haphazard." </p>
<p>First of all, it's overstating things. Annually? This has happened for only two years. And Michigan has never been over by 1000 students as you claim. </p>
<p>Second of all, "proper planning" was a hard thing under these circumstances. You know what happened after the Supreme Court decision. New app, new process, startling change in app numbers. But did Michigan plan? Was it haphazard? </p>
<p>Michigan contacted every single AAU institution who had changed its app in recent years to see what effects they saw. They modeled yield as carefully as they knew how given historical data. But Michigan ended up with the highest yield it has had for seven years in Fall 2004--there was lots of planning, but that was beyond prediction. Never thought it could happen again for Fall 2005, but Michigan modeled all admits as if it would happen. Everyone thought is was unrealistic but properly conservative. But in March 2005, deposits were running behind and all indications, looking at admittees behavior for the last seven years, suggested that yield would be 4% lower than last year. At that point, Michigan thought that relying on the previous model wouldn't make its class. </p>
<p>I do think Michigan suffered for not being a bigger user of the waitlist. That was a mistake. But in carefully reviewing what has happened the past two years (and Michigan is doing that-- it's part of what "proper planning" includes), one thing that is pretty consistent is that this unprecendent yield was mighty hard to foresee (or plan for) in either year. </p>
<p>I could go on for paragraphs and bore the crap out of everyone (oh, let's face it, I already succeeded there), but my point is that this isn't a reflection of haphazardness or an absence of planning. It was a screw-up, oh yes. But not for the reasons you indicate. Michigan is a hot school. Michigan didn't know it, and logic and modeling and historical comparisons (all of which were used!) didn't tell Michigan, either. Just trying to fight some ignorance here, a la Cecil Adams.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What Michigan needs to do is improve is its image among high schools students. It can do that easily by lowering its % accepted. Michigan could lower it to 40% without even blinking....they could not understand how a good university could accept more than 25% of its applicants, let along 60%.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Michigan would benefit in some ways from dropping its acceptance rate, sure. But I am not sure that this is what Michigan "needs" to do.</p>
<p>First of all, you're essentially saying that Michigan needs to kowtow to the misperceptions and ignorance of certain students. These are students who would apparently choose Pepperdine over the University of Chicago, too. What is the value to playing to people's ignorance? Mightn't there be other and better ways to improve its image? </p>
<p>And how do we know that % accepted is the magic bullet for converting all those Ivy-bound students? We know that people on this message board find that a big deal, and apparently some of the UAE students feel that way, but the applicant pool is much bigger than that. Shouldn't "proper planning" include a serious inquiry into how important that is? Wouldn't a truly "un-haphazard" process suggest that Michigan would do more than just slash its acceptance rate "without blinking?" </p>
<p>Also, how do you know what this would do to yield? Presumably Michigan would be slashing from the bottom, its bread and butter students who yield well because Michigan is among the best of their choices. As a result, the final yield will likely go down. Will the people who use yield as a measure of quality be counterbalanced by the people who will be awed by the decrease in acceptance? Will the net effect in perceived quality be the same? </p>
<p>What about the smaller class it would yield? I know you want Michigan to be smaller, but shouldn't a decrease be accomplished over several years, preferably with some planning and transitioning? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, here. You bash Michigan for being "haphazard" but then you say Michigan needs to do something pretty haphazard and could do so without "blinking an eye." LOL</p>
<p>Finally, you have to remember that Michigan is not just accountable to the population of high school students, or to the folks at U.S. News. As a public institution, Michigan has to pay attention to how it is serving the state and the state's brightest students. Rejecting a bunch of great, well-prepared, gung-ho, well-rounded state residents who are a perfect fit for Michigan? That has consequences, too.</p>
<p>It all ain't so simple. But it sure makes many people's jobs interesting, mine included!</p>
<p>Well, typing all that gave me something to do this morning. LOL</p>
<p>I hope you do not take anything I say personally Hoedown. I personally really appreciate and enjoy your posts. I guess it is impossible not to take some of what I write personally since you are involved in the admissions process. Well, if anything, I got you do do something interesting on your Friday morning! hehe And I found nothoing boring about what you wrote above. </p>
<p>I agree with much of what you say, but I disagree with some of it. </p>
<p>1) The University of not obligated to the state in any way. The state is actually holding Michigan back. If the state were serious about education, it would give Michigan over a billion $ annually instead of the $300 million and steadily declining joke of a contribution. In order for Michigan to function proprerly, it has to find over $4 billion on its own each year. Obviously, more than half of that is for the hospital which generates its own income, but it still has to fend for itself. But Michigan is stuck spending $60,000 a year on each student rather than $80,000/$120,000 a year that its peers do because Michigan is too large or Michigan does not get enough money. </p>
<p>2) I did not suggest that Michigan should merely decrease the % accepted, I was talking about Michigan decreasing the size of its student body so that it can give its students more resources and smaller classes, something students seem to equate with good education. A class of 4,000 or less rather than a class of 6,000+. </p>
<p>I am not talking about Michigan increasing its yield rate. I am talking about changing its "bread and butter" from students who cannot get into other good universities to students who to get into other top universities but chose to attend Michigan. Michigan can accomplish that by ceasin to be a "safety school" to becoming a "match school".</p>
<p>I agree that to many students, % accepted means nothing...and that's as it should be. But to most students, the need to feel like their hard work has paid off is primal and as such, they are reluctant to share their university with students who slacked off for 4 years of high school. And Chicago, although it accepts a lot of students, is still significantly better off. For one thing, accepting 40% is better than 60%. And the mean SAT score at Chicago is a whopping 1450, compared to 1330 at Michigan. </p>
<p>Personally, I think Michigan needs to do one thing, decrease its in-state pool from roughly 4,000/class to 2,000 per class. Is that so bad? Is it really so unreasonable? For the decent students who would not get into Michigan as a result, they can still attend Eastern or Western or MSU. We aren't talking about the end of the world as we know it. </p>
<p>You say Michigan is a HOT SCHOOL?! Damn right it is. I would hope the University figures that out in time and uses it to its advantage. I pray that this year, instead of accepting another 13,000 students by March, that Michigan opts to accept just 10,000 students and put an additional 1,000 on waitlist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1) The University of not obligated to the state in any way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This I might agree with if I didn't spend the other half of my job working on Government relations. LOL </p>
<p>The State irks plenty at time, and it would be nice if they better funded higher ed. But I'm proud to be a state university, too. It's one of the things that makes us unique, really. How many of those top 25 schools made that list and are public? Not many! The State both helps and hinders Michigan in its excellence, but being public is who we are.</p>
<p>I know you weren't talking about yield rate, but yield rate would change, at least in the short term, if Michigan changed the population of students it admitted. Admit more non-residents, and yield will go down. Admit fewer of those great bread-and-butter students, and yield will go down.</p>
<p>I think you'll be happier with this year's results. Not that they'll cut the class down drastically, or reduce the residency mix to 50%--that's not in the cards. But it is likely going to be somewhat tougher to get in this year, and the waitlist may figure much more prominently in shaping the class.</p>
<p>Or, next May I may be in here with my head in my hands wondering what the heck happened. LOL</p>
<p>I am with you Hoedown. I love the fact that Michigan is a state university. I would never want Michigan to lose that. But I would like Michigan to give back to the state as much as the state puts into Michigan. 65% out of state is a little higher than I like. I would like Michigan to cut its class by 2,000 students, all from the in-state bracxket. Of course, I know that's not in the cards, but it doesn't hurt to hope for it does it?</p>
<p>I agree that for the first 2 or 3 years, Michigan's yield rate would drop from the current 40%-50% to 30%-40% if Michigan were to change the composition of its freshman class, but in 5 or 6 years, Michigan's yield rate will get back to the usual 40%-50% and the calibre of the student body will be much improved. </p>
<p>I also agree that Michigan's acceptance rate this year is going to be lower than usual. In fact, I have a feeling Michigan is going to accept under 50% of its applicants this year.</p>
<p>Anyway Hoedown, I hope you are never put in a situation where you have your head in your hands. I guess we are both working toward the same goal, so that makes us allies.</p>
<p>I hope that these drops in acceptance rates don't hurt me :(</p>
<p>i'd be nice if michigan was ranked the best STATE school in USNWR. call me superficial, but that's what most people look at. #25 is too close for comfort!</p>
<p>It'd be nice if people didn't care one bit about rankings and made decisions on schools based on where they truly want to go.</p>
<p>I agree A2Wolves, and like I said, in the eyes of the acsdemic and professional world, Michigan will always be one of the top 10 or top 15 universities. A Michigan applicant to any top graduate school will always be taken seriously and corporate recruiters from every company imaginable will always come to Michigan looking for talent. From experience, I can tell you that Michigan is one of the 4 or 5 State schools (and 30 or so colleges and universities) that is considered "strategic" in terms of recruiting.</p>