<p>My point re: tuition is that Virginia is a better deal for residents. According to USNews huge college guide (the thirty dollar guide), state residency is "very important" as a U. Virginia admissions factor, but only "important" at Michigan. I deal with law schools a lot, which is where Michigan's tuition is about the same for both residents and non-reidents. Undergraduate === Tuition in-state at Virginia= $7,845 Michigan in-state=$11,713 comparing the same year. Thus, Virginians would be less likely to go out of state.</p>
<p>Hawkette, how do you figure that UVa's OOS acceptance rate is 10%-15% lower than Michigan's? Michigan does not publish OOS acceptance rates. One can only speculate. UVa's OOS acceptance rate is 32%. Michigan's overall acceptance rate is 47%. So unless it is as easy for OOS applicants to get into Michigan as it is for IS applicants, one has to assume that Michigan's OOS applicants are accepted at a lower rate than the overall acceptance rate.</p>
<p>U Virginia discloses their data for OOS applicants, including # of applications, acceptances, and yield. As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, U Michigan does not provide this level of detail, but "if you use similar assumptions for U Michigan," then you get an OOS acceptance rate of about 40-45%. Play with the numbers in the U Michigan CDS for applications, acceptances, and enrollees and you will see how I got to this estimate.</p>
<p>Icy, Michigan is generally only slightly more expensive than UVa.</p>
<p>In-State undergraduate Tuition:
Michigan: $10,500
UVa: $8,500</p>
<p>Out-Of-State undergraduate Tuition:
Michigan: $31,000
UVa: $28,000</p>
<p>In-State Law School Tuition:
Michigan: $40,000
UVa: $35,000</p>
<p>Out-Of-State Law School Tuition:
Michigan: $43,000
UVa: $39,000</p>
<p>Either way, when factoring cost of living, books, medical insurance etc..., Michigan ends up being 5%-10% more expensive.</p>
<p>Actually Hawkette, most estimates (based on the # of OOS applicants and yield raes for OOS students) place the Michigan OOS acceptance rate at about 35%-40%. But since Michigan does not publish those numbers, it would be mere speculation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UVa superscores but Michigan doesn't, so it is not really possible to compare exactly, but suffice it to say, both schools have impressive SAT ranges given their size.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know, I've seen this bandied about a lot, and I've never seen a shred of evidence that this is true. Oh, it may well be true that, when evaluating applicants, UM doesn't superscore and UVA does. But it does not follow that, when reporting for the common data set, UVA reports in superscore and UM does not. There's no clear logic chain there.</p>
<p>why does this have to become such a d*ck wielding competition. all these flourishes of numbers and statistics--jeesshh.</p>
<p>UVa and Michigan accept similar caliber students. UVa has a lower % admitted because it gets more applications per spot than Michigan. Therefore, for equally qualified students, there is less of a chance of getting admitted at UVa than at Michigan. this isn't that big of a deal.</p>
<p>and tarhunt, i agree with you on that little observation.</p>
<p>alexandre,
I have never seen published rates for OOS yields at U Michigan. If you have them, then one could do a more precise analysis. What number have you seen used to arrive at your estimate? </p>
<p>Also, for the OP, here are the costs according to the respective websites:</p>
<p>U Virginia (Arts & Sciences)</p>
<p>IS: $8508
OOS: $27,758 </p>
<p>U Michigan (Art & Design, Business, etc)</p>
<p>IS: $10,258
OOS: $31,112</p>
<p>Difference for an OOS student = $3,354 per year</p>
<p>Univ. of Virginia is required to have at least 67% state residents per class, according to their head of admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But it does not follow that, when reporting for the common data set, UVA reports in superscore and UM does not. There's no clear logic chain there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it can be assumed that the CDS would report it in the same way that the university collects the data. Thus, the CDS will reflect it, the College Board's data will, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it can be assumed that the CDS would report it in the same way that the university collects the data. Thus, the CDS will reflect it, the College Board's data will, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see at all why that should be assumed. I regularly report out financial data in more than one way, meeting my school's requirements for a certain kind of reporting and my own requirements with a different kind of reporting. I know firms that do internal reporting that doesn't meet accounting standards, then changing that data for shareholder reports that do meet accounting standards.</p>
<p>I can't assume anything about UM's reporting. Why don't one of you alumni check it?</p>
<p>I think it'd be even more illogical to assume that one source has it superscored, while the other doesn't. Plus, if the ranges are identical, and we know one isn't superscored, then can't we assume that the other (namely, from the CDS) isn't superscored either?</p>
<p>Give me proof.</p>
<p>What a stupid debate. Both are good schools with UM better in the sciences and engineering and a push in liberal arts for undergrad. UVa has found beefing up the sciences very difficult while UM is already there. </p>