<p>I think this is what is skewing our university's ranking in U.S. News... why did we have close to a 50% acceptance rate last year? What is the deal behind this?</p>
<p>I thought there was a record number of applications...shouldn't acceptance rate have gone DOWN?</p>
<p>Lol yes the acceptance rate did decline</p>
<p>U-M's overall "selectivity" rank, which includes acceptance rate, has improved since the 2008 ranking. While acceptance has gone up a bit, so has selectivity and by USNews' system of weights, we're better ranked on this combined measure than last year. So it is not the case that this caused the decline.</p>
<p>That said, your original question is still a good one.</p>
<p>The primary reason is U-M's high acceptance rate is its public mission. In addition to changing the dynamics of selectivity (U-M draws most of each class from a limited pool of in-state applicants), it also means there is a steep tuition differential. This depresses nonresident yield. Lower yield means more admits to fill any given spot; more admits means a higher acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Yes, but how do you reconcile that with other public schools that have a similar mission? UNC has 83% in-state (thus making it ALMOST as hard to get into as Duke, from out of state). Cal takes 92% in-state and Virginia 72%. All these are more than U of M's 65%.</p>
<p>I wouldn't say that U of M draws most of each class from a limited pool of in-state applicants...I am from Michigan and EVERYONE I know applies to U of M as a default (because it is the best school in Michigan and the best public school in the Midwest). That, coupled with football, brings in a deluge of applicants every year.</p>
<p>The tuition thing is a valid point. However, it is only $3,500 more than places like Virginia and Cal (and, if you are able to scrounge up $30,000 for tuition...it's safe to assume an extra couple thousand won't kill you). Besides, cost of living at Cal will more than compensate for U of M's higher tuition number.</p>
<p>Part of the reason is that UMich has 10000 more undergrad students than schools like UVa. Another thing is the tuition.</p>
<p>But yet another thing is the competitiveness of high school students in Virginia and Cal as compared to Mich. Since all three schools have a large in-state contingent, the admission rate of public school depends strongly on how competitive their in-state applicants are. And whereas so many Californian students are ridiculously competitive (and you know this), and Virginia has private and public magnet schools such as TJ, Michigan doesn't have the resources to compete. That's the reason for the acceptance rate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wouldn't say that U of M draws most of each class from a limited pool of in-state applicants
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I would. And the numbers are right in front of me. Nonresident apps outnumber resident apps by almost 2 to 1.</p>
<p>Michigan's selectivity rank according to the USNWR is #18, higher than Chicago's, UVa's and Johns Hopkins.</p>
<p>Yeah Hopkin's is pretty surprising. UChicago isn't though...they are just a weird school ha. Their criteria is really different; but I guess it can do whatever it wants if it keeps popping out the greatest minds ever in Economics.</p>
<p>From an out-of-stater's point of view: Michigan is an attractive safety for competitive kids who are trying for an Ivy or a top-25. It's particularly attractive because it offers rolling admissions, lots of very good academic programs, great college town, and reasonable tuition (compared to similar-ranked private). If you come from a state without a great public college, are competitive for HYP, and want to knock a bunch of safeties off your list, applying to Michigan is pretty much a no-brainer. That's the story in November. Come April, things can look different, depending on how our hypoth-applicant does.</p>
<p>Obviously the factors that go into an in-state kid's decision to apply (and to accept admission) are wildly different. And last of all, I'm sure there's also a sizable set of out-of-state kids for whom Michigan is a top choice. But the first group must represent a pretty big slice of the out-of-state applicant pool, accounting for the relatively low out-of-state yield. I don't really hear about highly competitive OOS kids using UNC, UVa or UC's the same way. I think the biggest difference is the rolling admissions piece.</p>
<p>So then Michigan needs to increase it's retention rate. I guess it's good that there are "top students" applying here, but I don't like the mentality that they are applying here as a safety. I guess that's what happens with rolling admissions.</p>
<p>Retention is pretty good. Did you mean yield?</p>
<p>For every school (beyond the top echelon) there are kids applying for whom the place is a safety. But there are also kids who really want to attend. I think memake's post is pretty insightful.</p>
<p>Personally, I don't think Michigan should change a thing! Yield is over-rated as an indicator of quality, and schools (especially ones as big and powerful and full of all sorts of goodness as Michigan) should hold the line and refuse to let USNWR *****-slap them around. Michigan's strategy I think makes sense for Michigan - it certainly makes it an attractive place for my kids to apply.</p>
<p>Also, being a safety is the common lot of all schools except for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Curtis and Cal Tech. The question that's relevant is, "Who's safety?" The kids for whom Michigan is a safety are a good bunch, and some of them will in fact end up there, so don't sweat it.</p>
<p>Ok, how about like Berkeley and UCLA? They are public schools.. there are more students in California than Michigan and they are much more competitive as well... you don't see them with a 40-50% acceptance rate...</p>
<p>Obviously since there's more students in California the acceptance rate is going to be lower...</p>
<p>Ok, but how many students does Berkeley admit? Versus how many does UMich admit?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ok, how about like Berkeley and UCLA? They are public schools.. there are more students in California than Michigan and they are much more competitive as well... you don't see them with a 40-50% acceptance rate...
[/quote]
That's because the UC system makes it convenient and lets you apply to all the UC campuses with the same application. Thus with an extra $60 per school you can apply to all 9 UC campuses without any extra effort ... and many do. You can see that from the acceptance rates of the "lower tier" UC's:</p>
<p>UCB: 24%
UCLA: 26%
UCSD: 49%
UC-Santa Barbara: 53%
UC-Irvine: 60%
UC-Davis: 68%
UC-Santa Cruz: 80%
UC-Riverside: 83%</p>
<p>Imagine if Michigan would allow you to apply to U-M, MSU, Wayne State, Central and Western with the same application. I'd bet our in-state admission rate would drop by half!</p>
<p>So this whole admission rate criteria is very misleading huh? How many students does Michigan usually accept though for the freshman class? (accept total, not the number that actually enroll)</p>
<p>Also, one must remeneber that Cal and UCLA have MUCH smaller freshman classes. Michigan's freshman class generally hovers around 5,500-6,000 students. Cal's hovers around 3,500-4,000 and UCLA between 4,000-4,500. That's because Cal and UCLA accepts a great deal more of transfersfrom CA CCs, who are generaly not as strong as Freshman applicants. If you look at the quality of the students at Cal, Michigan and UCLA, you sould see they are roughly equal.</p>
<p>"So this whole admission rate criteria is very misleading huh?"</p>
<p>Boiling down pretty much any aspect of ranking colleges down to a single statistic will likely miss most of the big picture, which is why US News rankings fail so spectacularly. Admissions percentage doesn't account for ease of application (helps places like the UCs with common apps, hurts places like Chicago with the uncommon application), self-selectivity (Chicago gets relatively few applicants, but those who do apply are very capable...plenty of people just apply to Harvard for the hell of it), use of the waitlist (if you heavily use the waitlist, you have to "accept" less people to get a full class), and probably a couple more individualized things (like people applying to top privates using their state university as a backup...). Repeat for about 20 categories, add arbitrary weights to the boiled down statistics, and you get something that many people very sadly take as an authoritative guide on quality of undergraduate education.</p>