<h1>3 of alexander’s post is what is appealing to my Virginia girl. In her words, she said it seems like a school where its students have so much to be proud of, yet from what she has heard or can tell, they don’t seem to find the need to act “proud”. As a parent, I echo his last statement as well, but alas we don’t fall into that category! Oh well, we still think it is a great school! :)</h1>
<p>I’ll summarize this thread down in 1 sentence:</p>
<p>More OOS people attend Michigan because its peers (private or public) are almost twice as hard (if not more) to get into (more than half less acceptance rate) than Michigan so a lot of the time Michigan will be the best college the individual will be accepted into when shooting for other schools in Michigan’s tier. </p>
<p>For some reason, Michigan’s reputation does not match its acceptance rate. ~40% is just too low of selectivity for the #2 public school in the United States, and for that reason you’ll see a lot of out of staters who will go because it is the only “single digit” ranked college (on any reputable ranking) they were accepted to.</p>
<p>“For some reason, Michigan’s reputation does not match its acceptance rate.”</p>
<p>Can you please amplify exactly what you mean by the above statement?</p>
<p>rjkofnovi: What I meant by my statement is that Michigan has a very well regarded reputation for academic excellence (and rightfully so); however, its acceptance rate for undergrads is not what you would expect from such an esteemed university. All of Michigan’s peer institutions have anywhere between 15%-20% lower acceptance rates than Michigan. For this reason, you see so many people from other states going to Michigan because chances are, Michigan was the only esteemed university they were admitted to since it has very low selectivity for such a top tier school.</p>
<p>
Let’s see if you are right. According to the respective 2011-2012 Common Data Set, the acceptance rate for:</p>
<p>UVa = 37%
UNC = 33%
UCB out-of-state = 39.4%
UCLA out-of-state = 33.3%
Michigan = 40.6% (out-of-state should be more selective)</p>
<p>Wisconsin = 50.5%
Texas = 46.6%</p>
<p>For the Class of 2012, Michigan’s acceptance rate was 41% overall and 37% for out-of-state.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-michigan-ann-arbor/661309-u-michigan-acceptance-rate.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-michigan-ann-arbor/661309-u-michigan-acceptance-rate.html</a></p>
<p>Please note that that thread started over three years ago going back before the time Michigan joined the CA. So much for living in the past g0ld3n.</p>
<p>novi, Where did you get that out-of-state acceptance %? It doesn’t seem right. With out-of-state applicants out-numbering in-staters by more than 2 to 1, your figure implies that in-state acceptance rate was under 50%.</p>
<p>g0ld3n, If you look carefully, students admitted to Michigan and its public peers have similar stats so it is not at all clear that Michigan is easier to get into.</p>
<p>GoBlue81: If you check through that thread, you’ll find out by whom/how it was posted. I do agree with you though, it does seem too high of a percentage.</p>
<p>From Goldenboy “Michigan undergraduates do not enjoy anywhere near the same level of attention from professors as Northwestern and Duke students do. I have no affiliation with Northwestern so I can’t speak to the opportunities NU offers…” Huh? Then why mention NW?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.</p>
<p>Ok, let me rephrase what I said originally to better convey what I meant. I’m not trying to say U Michigan is not top tier because of its lower selectivity. Far from. I’m just saying that private and public schools that are in Michigan’s league (Cal, UCLA, USC, Notre Dame) all have acceptance rates in the low 20s or even lower in the case of USC so usually students shooting for that tier of colleges end up only getting into Michigan since compared to other schools in its league, it is indeed less selective. </p>
<p>rjkofnovi, I’m sorry you took offense to my post because I don’t live in the past. The fact that Michigan had a 50% acceptance rate two years ago meaning that those kids haven’t even left the campus and would contribute to the OP’s view that “there are a lot of OOS students here” means the 50% and 41% rates are totally relevant to our discussion and make my explanation very reasonable. Sorry you take offense to that, there’s not much I can do.</p>
<p>
Well, how do you explain that the same number (or more) of OOS students chose to attend U-M when the overall acceptance rate dipped to 41% last year and possibly lower this year. Besides, the acceptance rate for OOS has always been in the 30%+ over the years, same as Cal and UCLA.</p>
<p>Firstly, Cal and UCLA have only recently increased their OOS acceptance rate exponentially. It used to be even harder for OOS students to get in than in state so it is almost reverse of what it was at Michigan. At Michigan, only recently did the acceptance rate fall drastically from ~50%. In the UC’s only recently did the OOS acceptance rate approach and go over 30%, it used to be even harder than in state admission so your argument there holds no ground. </p>
<p>Also, I wasn’t trying to say the ONLY reason Michigan has such a large OOS population is because of lower selectivity. If I sounded like I was implying that I apologize. I simply meant to say it is a significant contributing factor.</p>
<p>
Overall admissions rate is irrelevant here since we are talking about out-of-state students. Michigan’s OOS acceptance rate has been around 30%+ for years while maintaining about 1/3 OOS in its student body.</p>
<p>Michigan attracts so many OOS students because it can. OOS applicants out-number in-staters by a factor of almost 2 to 1.</p>
<p>Alright ignore my previous argument completely…
If we are comparing general out of state admission trends then the UCs have always been low 20s and only very recently higher. So my point is that Michigan had a trend of significant higher OOS acceptance rate than its closest peers.</p>
<p>Location, location, location!</p>
<p>g0ld3n, although UCLA and Cal all have lower acceptance rates, the quality of the students admitted and enrolled is not higher. I can attibute this to a simple fact: California is a more popular desitination than Michigan, mainly because high school students find the West Coast more appealing than the Midwest.</p>
<p>According to the 2011 common data sets, below are the comparative stats of those three schools’ entering freshman classes:</p>
<p>AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATING UNWEIGHT GPA:
Cal: 3.83 GPA
Michigan: 3.78 GPA
UCLA: 4.22 (weighed)</p>
<p>MID 50% SAT RANGE:
Cal: 1250-1490
Michigan: 1250-1450
UCLA: 1170-1430</p>
<p>MID 50% ACT RANGE
Cal: 28-33
Michigan: 28-32
UCLA: 25-31</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aim.ucla.edu/CDS/cdsForm.asp[/url]”>http://www.aim.ucla.edu/CDS/cdsForm.asp</a>
<a href=“http://opa.berkeley.edu/statistics/cds/2011-2012.pdf[/url]”>http://opa.berkeley.edu/statistics/cds/2011-2012.pdf</a>
<a href=“Office of Budget and Planning”>Office of Budget and Planning;
<p>USC does not have a CDS, but I doubt their admissions figures are any different than Cal, Michigan or UCLA.</p>
<p>Exactly, Alexandre. I’m not necessarily trying to say UCLA’s student body is much better compared to Michigan. What I’m saying is, if you have the average stats of each respective school, it is much harder to still get into UCLA/Cal than Michigan. Michigan admits more kids as well. UCLA has the most applicants out of any university - Cal is somewhat close behind. If you have the average stats at UCLA there is a much higher chance that you can be rejected since there just isn’t enough room for everyone with the average stats leading UCLA/Cal/peer institution admission to be much more unpredictable for the “average stat” applicant and thus less of a safety than Michigan. In comparison, you can be much more sure of your admission if you meet the average stats at Michigan because there are not only less applicants, but more people admitted than UCLA/Cal as well. This causes Michigan to be a safety school much more than Cal/UCLA and other peer institutions - that’s one (not the only) reason why people end up taking the offer from out of state a lot. This isn’t to look down on Michigan or to lower its academic reputation which is outstandingly superb. I think most people were just misunderstanding what I was saying. I’m sorry for not being explicitly clear.</p>
<p>“This causes Michigan to be a safety school much more than Cal/UCLA and other peer institutions.”</p>
<p>By definition and for the vast majorty of applicants, Michigan is almost never a “safety” school. It is a match school for most top students. </p>
<p>[Match</a>, Reach and Safety Schools](<a href=“http://www.princetonreview.com/college/match-reach-safety.aspx]Match”>How to Choose Dream, Target, and Safety Schools | The Princeton Review)</p>
<p>You were clear Gold3n, but I disagree with your analysis. UCLA and Cal have more California residents applying that Michigan has Michigan residents applying. That is to be expected as California’s population id 36 million while Michigan’s is 9 million. You can be sure that the vast majority of students who apply to the UCs are IS. In the case of Michigan, the majority are OOS. As such, it is impossible to compare admission selectivty between UCLA and Michigan for OOS students. All that we can say is that the student bodies at UCLA, Cal and Michigan are roughly identical in terms of their academic credentials.</p>
<p>It also has something to do with the fact that you can apply to all the UC’s with the same application … and many do.</p>