<p>i disagree....</p>
<p>in my school, kids that really had very so-so stats, michigan is ALL sat scores, no matter how bad ur grades are, if u have a 1350 sat, out of state, and apply before Nov 1, ur in, in my book at least</p>
<p>i mean, it was a good safety for me</p>
<p>i got in november</p>
<p>Others are claiming otherwise on this thread. I'm not on the admissions committee so I can hardly verify your story. If we believe all the reports on this thread, the admissions committee is using multiple standards for admission. Somehow I seriously doubt it. I don't know. Perhaps the guy with the crappy grades but decent SAT's performed a sexual favor for one of the committee members. Anything's plausible at this point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
michigan is ALL sat scores, no matter how bad ur grades are, if u have a 1350 sat, out of state
[/quote]
This is absurd. The fact says just the opposite is true.</p>
<p>According to the infamous Michigan admission "points system" ... which is valid up to 2003-04:</p>
<p>GPA...Points
3.0 ... 60
3.5 ... 70
3.8 ... 76
4.0 ... 80</p>
<p>SAT I.........Points
1010-1190 ... 10
1200-1350 ... 11
1360-1600 ... 12</p>
<p>The freshman class of 2005 has a mid-50% range UW GPA of 3.6 to 3.9. 22% of which has a perfect 4.0 and 44.4% has 3.9 GPA or above. 90% were in the top 10% of their HS class. Now tell me about your schoolmates who got in with low GPA. Where do they fit in the above picture?</p>
<p>Case closed.</p>
<p>p.s. Michigan counts only UW GPA, not the convoluted weighed GPA system used in CA.</p>
<p>60% rate...seems like more than half could get in</p>
<p>'unless you have really great SATs and a very high gpa...." That is the point -- those high-stat kids are accepted into UMich but not Cal nor UCLA.....</p>
<p>i really do not buy that pt system b/c under that system a 3.8, 1580 kid, is the same a 4.0, 1050, and trust me, the 1050 kid wasn't getting in, dont kid yourself</p>
<p>The acceptance rate for out-of-state students is much lower than that for in-state students. If this guy is from CA that would make him an out-of-state applicant. Unfortunately, you can't believe everything you read on this board. I would even go so far as to say that some of these people claiming that they applied to Michigan never actually applied, and some who applied were actually rejected. Can we really verify any of these alleged accounts anyway? At the other end of the spectrum, have we seen anyone on this thread confess that they were rejected by Michigan? (LOL) </p>
<p>UCLA gets more applications than any school in the nation and has a 25.6 % acceptance rate. However, the avg. SAT at UCLA last year was 2010. Berkeley had an acceptance rate of 23.5% and an avg. SAT of 1359. The avg. GPA at UCLA was 4.27 while the avg. GPA at Berkeley was 4.17.</p>
<p>um....i promise i was accepted to michigan, i am current cornell student, i am pretty sure i am telling the truth, along with getting into northwestern and rice and emory, and a few others........</p>
<p>BBall, your observations about Michigan are incorrect. Most students who apply to Michigan with sub 3.4 unweighed GPAs are turned down, even those with SAT scores over 1450.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i really do not buy that pt system b/c under that system a 3.8, 1580 kid, is the same a 4.0, 1050, and trust me, the 1050 kid wasn't getting in, dont kid yourself
[/quote]
This is the "points system" published by Michigan admissions. You don't have to believe me. See for yourself:</p>
<p>It's well-known that Michigan used the points system for admission. In fact, a supreme court case was fought over that in 2002-03.</p>
<p>If you continue to argue against plain facts, there is nothing more I can do...</p>
<p>As far as accepting more "Out of Staters" is concearned, am I the only one who feels that a STATE SCHOOL that is funded mostly by state residents has an absolute responsibility to the citizens of it's own state first and formost?</p>
<p>Tomslawsky, the state of Michigan contributes only $300 million of Michigan's $4.5 billion operating budget.</p>
<p>goblue:</p>
<p>how many points does it take to be accepted?</p>
<p>The point system was discontinued in 2001.</p>
<p>U MICH is def not safety, its one of the top 25 schools in the country! Unless ur super ubber smart and plan on going to Harvard, UMICH is unpredictable and shouldnt be a safety for anyone.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, this has nothing to do with me personally. While I don't want to get into the details of my background, what I will say is this. Trust me, I have been educated at some of the most prominent research universities in the world. However, that doesn't detract from my respect for the LAC's. In fact, if anything, it actually increased my respect for the LAC's. I've seen how the research universities teach, and specifically, I've seen their problems, and I believe that, honestly, many undergrads would actually be better served at the LAC's. </p>
<p>Besides, I'll put it to you this way. Take a look at the matriculants at Harvard Law. I note that there are more students at Harvard Law than came from Williams or Amherst than came from Michigan. Now, I agree that there is some geographic skewing here (in that some Michigan students may prefer to stay in the Midwest, and Williams/Amherst grads may prefer to stay in the Northeast), I highly doubt that that can account for the fact that Michigan has more than 10 times the number of undergrads than Williams/Amherst does. </p>
<p>The same can be seen in the classcard information at Harvard Business School. There are about the same number of MBA students at HBS (in both class years) who did got undergrad degrees at Williams and Amherst as did so at Michigan (not counting those who, prior to HBS, got grad degrees from Michigan or those who attended Michigan but never got a degree because they transferred to and graduate from some other school). And of course there are many more Yale or Princeton alumni at HBS than there are Michigan alumni. True, again, there is geographic skewing, but certainly not enough to counteract the fact that Michigan simply has far far more undergrads than any of these other schools. Yet, like you said, Michigan has higher rated departments. So why is HLS and HBS admitting all of these students who got bachelor's degrees from lower-rated departments? The same can be seen if you look at the incoming students at Yale Law, Stanford GSB, Stanford Law, etc. So why aren't these elite grad schools admitting more students who came from Michigan? Are they being stupid? </p>
<p>One can also take a look at an LAC such as Harvey Mudd. Harvey Mudd has actually had the highest percentage of its graduates go on to receive doctorates in the physical sciences/engineering/math of any school in the country. Mudd doesn't have any highly ranked departments, because, as a LAC, it doesn't even have any graduate departments at all. Yet why is it that these doctoral programs are admitting and conferring doctorates upon so many Mudd grads? Are these programs being stupid? </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True indeed. And the information about the rankings of the LAC's and of other small LAC-like programs are also freely and publicly available. </p>
<p>Besides, I'll put it to you this way. Michigan often times has better departmental graduate rankings than Princeton or Yale does. Yet the fact is, I think we would all agree, even a Michigan proponent like Alexandre would concede that Michigan loses the cross-admit battle to Princeton and Yale. But why? Why would the majority of students be so willing to choose a school that apparently has lower ranked departments? Are these students being stupid?</p>
<p>Look, don't get me wrong. I don't think that Michigan is a bad school. Indeed, I think it is a very good school. But my point is, graduate departmental ranking clearly does not have a whole lot to do with undergraduate quality. Princeton and Yale are indisputably elite undergrad schools despite not having a huge slew of of highly ranked graduate departments. Let's be perfectly honest. A lot of students at Michigan would rather be going to Princeton or Yale, but didn't get in. Yet, very few students at Princeton or Yale would rather be going to Michigan but didn't get in.</p>
<p>Sakky, I agree with you, but I think another major reason people choose HYP over Michigan is because of their names, their storied traditions, and the fact that many people think ivy league degree = automatic success.</p>
<p>Drew00, exactly right, but that only proves my point even further, which is that clearly the ranking of the graduate department is not the main story here. There are clearly many factors that go into why students prefer one school over another. </p>
<p>For example, CUNY actually has a higher ranked Linguistics program than Harvard does. But I doubt that too many people at the undergraduate level, even those who want to study Linguistics, are seriously going to turn down Harvard for CUNY.</p>
<p>The reason for that is simple. Very very few people are actually going to take what they majored in during undergrad, and do that for a career. For example, very very few history majors will actually work as professional historians. Very few sociology majors actually become professional sociologists. Very few political science majors will actually become professional political scientists. Very few philosophy majors will actually become professional philosophers. The truth is, for the vast majority of people, an undergraduate major is simply something you do that allows you to explore your intellectual interests while getting you that all-important sheepskin, but is certainly not something you are going to pursue for a living. You're almost certainly going to end up doing something else for a living. Hence, for most people, the 'ranking' of their department doesn't really matter. After all, who really cares if you get a degree from the #1 ranked linguistics department if you're not actually going to work as a professional linguist? Just look around you, look at your parents, look at your parent's friends, and you will note that the vast majority of them wound up in jobs that are often times only tangentially related to what they actually majored in during undergrad.</p>
<p>This is doubly so if you are thinking about graduate school. After all, let's face it. If and when you go to graduate school, your old undergrad degree just doesn't matter very much. Hence, a lot of people correctly see that their undergrad degree is just something that they have to complete in order to get what they really want, which is entrance to graduate school. For example, a lot of poli-sci, history and English students actually don't care that much about what they are studying. They are just using it as a pathway to gain entree into law school. A lot of bio students actually don't care that much about biology, and if you ask them honestly, they will admit that they don't really care. They are just using it as a path to get into medical school. A lot of Economics students don't give a whit about Econ per se. They are just trying to set themselves up with a nice cushy banking or consulting job so that they can later get into a top MBA school. Right or wrong, this is how a lot of students think.</p>
<p>Drew00, exactly right, but that only proves my point even further, which is that clearly the ranking of the graduate department is not the main story here. There are clearly many factors that go into why students prefer one school over another. </p>
<p>Okay, what i thought you were saying is HYP have better undergrad programs than Michigan and Michigan's programs are almost all focused on grad studies. My mistake.</p>
<p>While I disagree with the notion that Ivy League degrees = automatic success, I do agree with what you said that a lot of people choose schools like HYP for the highly prestigious and selective brand-name. Nor is this wrong. Let's face it. By going to a school like HYP, you are signalling to the labor market that you were good enough to get into such a school. That reduces sorting costs for employers. For example, I agree that at Michigan, there are students who are just as good as the students at HYP. The problem is that, frankly, there are a lot of not-so-good students at Michigan too, and so an employer or grad-school adcom has to sort through the pile of students in order to figure out who are the good ones. Hence, they have to incur sorting costs. At schools like HYP, the students have basically already been presorted through a tough admissions screen, which saves those employers/grad-school adcoms the expense of having to do the sorting themselves. </p>
<p>To put it bluntly, the truth is, at Michigan (and at Berkeley and schools like that), the not-so-good students are hurting the good students. The good students at those schools are indeed very good, but they have the added task of having to differentiate themselves from the not-so-good students at their school. That's extra work that the students at HYP don't have to do (or, at least, have to do far less of).</p>