Why does UMich seem like a safety for everyone here?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>Bluebayou, I have no objection to the notion that Michigan is a safety school for top students. I only object to the notion that it isn't a top university. The two are not mutually exclusive. Michigan is one of those "safety" schools that students love and often chose to attend over more selective schools.</p>

<p>A word of caution however. Michigan is not as easy as some may think. The last couple of years, I have seen students who were admitted into the likes of Chicago, Cornell, Duke and Penn but were either turned down or wait-listed by Michigan. In that sense, Michigan is seldom truly a safety. Of course, to valedictorians with near perfect test scores and excellent ECs who take the Michigan application very seriously, Michigan is a safety. But to most top students, it is more of a safe match.</p>

22

<p>Above 1300 was the avg. score for all entering freshmen at Michigan. The engineering school had a much higher avg. by itself. I believe the students in the honors program have scores comparable to that of the Ivy applicants. Michigan is a large public school, so I seriously doubt that its overall admission standards will ever be as high as those at the Ivy League schools unless it drastically downsizes & goes private (fat chance!). The same applies to other top public schools like Cal & UVA. Obviously, public schools have many, many more slots to fill as well as a different mission than the Ivy League schools. However, many of the depts. & programs at Michigan are just as strong or stronger than those at many of the Ivies, and Berkeley has more top ranked & highly regarded depts. than every school in the nation.</p>

23

<p>Stats for the 2005 freshman class (enrolled):</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Historically, Michigan gives more weight to class rank/GPA than test scores (you can tell from the old points system). A lot of in-state students know that. There is less incentive to take the SAT/ACT the second time if the first one is decent. That may explain why the test scores are a bit lower.</p>

24

<p>everyone here is aiming ivy and stuff..</p>

25

<p>id love for you to explain how i am living in the past when the acceptance rate is 57% and I can name multiple cases of kids getting in with simply good gpas and sats and nothing else.</p>

26

<p>i love how i have crappy ECs and recs just because my essays sucked. lol. Michigan was my first school i sent in my essays to so of course it's the worst. I did a lot more revisions afterwards because i had the time. My statement means what it means. Don't think further about it trying to overgeneralize or broadly interpret it. I only say what i say.</p>

27

<p>The very fact that most of the posters on this thread are comparing Michigan to the Ivy League schools is quite telling. However, it's not all that surprising since the top public universities such as Michigan, Cal, & UVA were originally designated as "Public Ivies" due to the perception that they offered an education comparable to that of the Ivies. When a school is labelled as a "safety school", the students of the target school are normally inclined to take offense, especially when 3rd tier schools from the USN&WR ranking are normally referred to as "safeties". </p>

<p>Yet, is it so bad being labelled as a safety school for the Ivies? It's all relative. This idea of "safety school" is purely subjective. I can only speculate that most of the posters referring to Michigan as a "safety school" are members of Mensa and are Ivy League material. More power to you. Believe it or not, Michigan is also a first choice college for many applicants who aren't fortunate enough to have SAT's in the 1500's. </p>

<p>However, more importantly, many of you need to start asking what the prospective schools will be able to offer you in return for your sky high SAT scores. Michigan has more highly regarded depts. & programs than quite a few of the Ivies. Just take a peek at the NRC Report rankings. Sorry, but Ivies like Dartmouth & Brown just don't have as much to offer.</p>

<p>Apparently, most of you have ultra high standards. As you've argued, Ivy league schools are most selective. Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to believe that you're all Harvard grads. Unless you hold a degree from Harvard, you aren't all that IMO (LOL). So please do us a favor and get off of your pedestals (LOL). Like I wrote, it's all relative. Come on now. Even George W. Bush and Pat Robertson managed to earn Ivy League degrees for God's sake.</p>

28

<p>Michigan now admits about 35% from out-of-state. That's not bad compared to UCB/UCLA at less than 10% and the rest of UC's at 5% or lower.</p>

<p>Sakky is right that politically it is not feasible for Michigan to bump up the OOS percentage. And I'm not sure I want them to.</p>

<p>I do like to see Michigan reduces its class size to around 4500 or less. It's too large right now.</p>

29

<p>imiracle, I was merely pointing out that the essay is not necessarily the deal breaker. The adcoms taking a holistic approach can tell what kinda person you are by looking at other evidences like your EC's and teacher's references. The fact that you got into Columbia suggests that you got a lot going for you besides your grades and test scores.</p>

30

<p>bob,
Michigan has changed to holistic admissions several years ago, and they hired quite a number of extra staffs/readers to handle the extra workload. If they were still admitting based on numbers, they wouldn't need the extra help.</p>

<p>So you know several kids getting in with good GPAs and test scores. How do you know they have nothing else? Did they not get admitted into any other good schools besides Michigan? I can also cite a number of cases here where two students with similiar grades and test scores, one got in and the other didn't. Clearly the other qualities matter.</p>

<p>Btw, you don't need a lot of ECs. I have one student here who got into WUSTL with only one significant EC.</p>

31

<p>Bob, Michigan accepted 45% of its applicants this year, down from 62% two years ago. This is primarily thanks to:</p>

<p>1) improved yield (from 40% to over 45%)
2) smaller classes (Michigan is aiming for smaller classes because their last few classes were much larger than expected due to the increase in yield and also because Michigan is shutting a couple of dorms for renovation)
3) Larger applicant pools (up to 25,000 from 21,000 three years ago).</p>

<p>So GoBlue is correct when he says that the 60% acceptance rate is a thing of the past...recent past to be sure, but I think the days of Michigan accepting 60%+ are long gone. Next year, I expect to see Michigan's acceptance rate dip into the low 40% range...possibly even into the high 30% range.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
IMO, every school in the country is a "safety school" for Harvard which pretty much tops every academic poll in the world. Well, maybe Princeton may top Harvard at times in the USN&WR undergrad poll.</p>

<p>However, Harvard pretty much is accepted as the consensus no. 1 institution of higher learning worldwide. In reality, Harvard is the only school exempt from "safety school" status IMO. Ie. If I was accepted to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, I would easily select Harvard over the other 2. And if you had your choice of these 3 schools, then you're probably a future Nobel Laureate or Albert Einstein (LOL).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The differences in acceptance rates and pollings are so minute that it would be fallacious to consider any non-Harvard school a safety, even for the best student the world has ever seen ever.</p>

<p>By your logic, If I'm the best student ever and I apply to Stanford, Yale, and Harvard, Yale and Stanford are safeties--or just schools I can fall back on if I'm rejected from Harvard.</p>

<p>You're right in that Harvard tops polls and hits the number 1 rank worldwide, but that can't make all other schools capable of safety status. I think Yale would be a great example--less selective than Harvard, but still so incredibly selective that it can't possibly be called a safety unless your the black-genius-2400-4.0-South Dakota residing-somewhat Hispanic-nobel-prize-winning-Julliard-attending-cancer curing-son-of-God. Though one might choose Harvard over Princeton and Yale, there are also factors in people's choices that make comparison of Harvard to other top 15 institutions even more difficult--the departments that a person may want to major in. While Harvard trumps other schools in polls and rankings, I'd pick Stanford any day for my aeronautical engineering major.</p>

<p>On topic, I submit, this is not.</p>

33

<p>Michigan's acceptance rates for the last four years:
2002-03 49%
2003-04 53%
2004-05 62%
2005-06 57%</p>

<p>The figures for the last two years were skewed. The adcoms were adjusting to the new admission process and were surprised by the increased matriculation rate. They ended up overshooting the target by 600 students two years in a row. The acceptance rates would have been around the low 50's otherwise.</p>

<p>Besides, acceptance rate by itself is not a good indicator for selectivity. For example, UCB accepted around 25% and yet their GPA and SAT ranges were about the same as Michigan. Surely you are not gonna say that UCLA(23%) is more selective than Cornell(29%). On the other hand, Chicago has an acceptance rate of 40% and no one would argue that Chicago is not selective.</p>

<p>My comments on bob's post is just that: Michigan's admission is no longer strictly stats driven. I've definitely seen a difference this year, and it's gonna be even more so in the future.</p>

34

<p>Murasaki, my point is that not everyone defines "safety school" in the same manner that you and many Ivy Leaguers may define it. One of my friends actually was accepted to the Big 3. This guy is truly brilliant. Yes, he chose Harvard as it was his 1st choice all along. He was the one who claimed that every school is a safety school for Harvard. Yes, I can see the humor in it, but I get his point. </p>

<p>As the saying or adage goes, Harvard is the academic measuring stick. Harvard sets the standard. Not only is Harvard highly selective, but it's at the top or near the top of almost every academic discipline. You may consider this guy to be an arrogant shmuck (he is), but he's not much different from some of the posters on this thread. His standards just happen to be even higher. Like I wrote, this concept of "safety school" is relative.</p>

35

<p>Well, I guess if it's all relative . . . </p>

<p>But my argument mainly rests on the fact that this genius getting accepted to Yale and Princeton (I don't know this person, so I could be wrong), was not a sure thing--and unless it was (which would make you the cancer-curing-2400-yatta-yatta-yatta-son-of-God), then it can't be a true safety. I agree again that Harvard tops lists in many disciplines, but there is a reasonably sized group of aspects that Harvard doesn't top. I just think that compared to other top 10 or top 5 institutions the things that it's ranked better in are minutely different to the point that assuming Harvard would be a better college eduation for everything 100% of the time would be splitting hairs . . . What I mean is, Harvard's place at the top is a ranking can leave a lot out about tangible experience. Example: I'm a kid that likes the faculty at Yale better than Harvard's. What gives me the better experience, getting an education that's ranked 1 to 3 spots higher, or spending four years with faculty I can better connect with. (I don't know jack about Yale or Harvard's faculty, I'm just making an example.)</p>

<p>Of coursek, anyone's college choice/designation i strictly their own business, but I still don't think it makes sense for my reasons above.</p>

<p>On topic, I submit, this is not.</p>

36

<p>GoBlue81, you're absolutely correct that acceptance rate alone doesn't tell the entire story in regard to selectivity. Avg. SAT's or the SAT range actually tell us more about the quality of the entering class. If the applicant pool is high caliber, the avg. SAT's or SAT range as well as avg. GPA's will be relatively high regardless of a high acceptance rate. Normally a higher acceptance rate leads to a significant drop in the numbers if you're most other schools. </p>

<p>However, Michigan should benefit from a major downsizing of its entering classes. On the other hand, that would mean less revenue for UM. The Univ. will have to make up for the difference somewhere, right? I got it. Raise tuition yet again (LOL). BTW, the mid-50% SAT range for entering freshmen was 1240-1450 according to the Wikipedia. I also read that greater than 70% of UM's 200 programs, depts, and schools are ranked in the top 10 nationally, and more than 90% of programs & depts are ranked in the top 20 nationally. What a "safety school", right? (LOL)</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
Just take a peek at the NRC Report rankings. Sorry, but Ivies like Dartmouth & Brown just don't have as much to offer.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The NRC rankings have to do with graduate programs. They are most relevant for people who are getting their PhD's. However, they are far less relevant for people who are just getting their undergrad degrees.</p>

<p>After all, look at it this way. What are the NRC rankings for, say, Williams, Amherst, or Swarthmore? Can't find them, right? That's because they don't have doctoral programs. The LAC's are instead focused on undergraduate education. </p>

<p>And the fact is, Dartmouth and Brown are basically LAC's. They are LAC's with some graduate programs, but at the end of the day, they are basically LAC's. They, like Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore, are mostly focused on undergraduate education. They offer the intimate undergraduate experience that the LAC's do. Dartmouth and Brown have far far more in common with the LAC's than they do with schools like Berkeley or Michigan. </p>

<p>That's why I have to deeply object to the characterization. Some people will turn down Michigan or Berkeley for Dartmouth or Brown for the same reason that some people turn down Michigan or Berkeley for Williams, Amherst, or Swarthmore. Nobody expects the LAC's to do well on the NRC rankings, so why should we expect Dartmouth or Brown to do well in those rankings, when Dartmouth and Brown are essentially LAC's? This all gets down to a matter of personal fit. Some people do far better in an intimate and personal environment. </p>

<p>The quality of a school is far more than just about having lots of highly ranked departments. Like I said, the LAC's seem to be doing just fine despite not having any highly ranked departments. It doesn't seem to hurt its graduates. For example, in some of my old posts, I was able to infer that in some years more people were admitted to the PhD programs at Caltech came from one of AWS than came from MIT, despite the fact that MIT has far more undergrads studying technical subjects (and would therefore be interested in getting a PhD at Caltech) than AWS combined do (as a lot of AWS grads study the humanities and would thus have no interest in going to grad school at Caltech). So Caltech seems to not have a problem in admitting students from schools that don't have high-ranked departments. This either means that Caltech is being stupid in admitting poorly educated students, or that the education you can get at an elite LAC is pretty good, despite not having high-ranked departments. The same can be said for Dartmouth and Brown. I believe that the education you can get at Dartmouth and Brown is excellent despite their not having highly ranked departments, because Dartmouth and Brown are LAC's in everything but name. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky is right that politically it is not feasible for Michigan to bump up the OOS percentage. And I'm not sure I want them to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would simply point out that most of Michigan's doctoral students are not from the state of Michigan. A significant portion of them are foreign nationals. Many of the rest come from the other states. Michigan shows no preference, and certainly no quotas, to favor in-state students for its doctoral programs. I suspect there are entire departments at Michigan that don't currently have a single in-state doctoral student. </p>

<p>I've always found it interesting as to why the politics of admissions always seem to be the most prevalent when it comes to undergrad admissions, but almost never when it comes to PhD admissions. I don't think anybody would seriously advocate that UM ought to start reserving 65% of its PhD slots for Michigan state residents.</p>

38

<p>'safety' is a relative term, as others have noted. But, one thing I do see at our local SoCal high schools is that kids are accepted to Michigan but not Cal nor UCLA. Thus, in that sense, it is a safety for top kids in our state. Instead of the state flagships, the Calif residents are accepted into UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara and UC Davis.</p>

39

<p>Sakky, I think we've been through this time & again before. It's fruitless to continue any further discussion of the NRC Report. You can continue to believe what you want. I don't really care. All of the information regarding the numerous highly ranked depts. & programs at Michigan can be found in the Wikipedia. </p>

<p>I don't care to engage in any further discussion of the LAC's either. They're top notch little schools that have very little impact on the world. You can't compare them to world class research institutions. Is there any wonder why the LAC's remain relatively obscure throughout the world as well as in this country? I can understand why you're proud of your LAC education, but your peers are the other small liberal arts colleges, not the major research institutions. There's really no comparison.</p>

40

<p>It's quite difficult to gain admission to the top UC schools as it's very competitive. Many of the applicants to Berkeley & UCLA also apply to Michigan. Michigan has a rolling admissions policy which is more convenient for most students. Just because it's more convenient for you, I wouldn't exactly refer to Michigan as a "safety". Michigan only accepts 35% out-of -staters, and your credentials must be superior to that of the in-state applicants. Unless you have really great SAT's and a very high GPA, I wouldn't consider Michigan a "safety". You may be setting yourself up for an unpleasant surprise.</p>