Applications to U-M for 2012-13 are highest in school's history
Applications to U-M for 2012-13 are highest in school's history
By Deborah Meyers Greene
Public Affairs
For the sixth consecutive year, U-M received a record number of applications from prospective freshmen: 42,535 applications for academic year 2012-13, an increase of 7.5 percent over the previous year's record of 39,570.
As of the first week of June, 15,523 of the applicants were offered admission to the Ann Arbor campus, and 6,449 had paid the enrollment deposit, a 41.5 percent yield rate — the number of students who pay deposits as a percentage of those offered admission.
Enrollment deposits do not directly correspond to the number of students who enroll in the fall semester because some students ultimately choose not to attend. Approximately 6,000 first-year students are expected to enroll by the 2012 fall term.
Unfortunately, it seems that Michigan is following in Chicago's footsteps. I liked it better when Michigan was "accessible" to top students. At this rate, Michigan will have an acceptance rate in the 20%-25% in the next 3-4 years. Surprisingly, Michigan's yield rate has held. Most universities see a significant drop in yield when joining the common app. Michigan's yield has been in the 40%-45% for the last decade or so.
It appears that the actual yield rate will be quite a bit below 40% Alexandre. Remember that admissions is expecting approx. 500 students to ultimately not attend U-M.
The large increase in applications (and corresponding lower admissions rate) can be due to a number of factors:
1. More out of state applications of people with solid credentials.
2. More in state applications from people who would have prefered out of state or private but are hampered by the cost of a private education.
3. A lot more dreamers without the credentials but apply anyway because the common application is so easy to send.
One thing is clear, for the top students in the state of Michigan, the chances of getting in are as high as they have ever been. Assuming that you are just looking at in state students (which seems fairly constant betwee a 59% to 65% range), this means that Michigan will enroll between 3700 and 3900 in state students. With the yield rate of about 40%, this means that Michigan will accept about 9500 in-state students. Just looking at the ACT scores for the state (assuming for the moment that ACT scores are the primary measure of a successful application), there are only 1500 students who scored 33 or higher, 1000 who scored 32, and 1500 who scored 31. Given that these students will also likely have other options (the Ivys etc.), Michigan will have to reach considerably lower for in-state applications to fill their projected requirements. The would need to include every student 29 and above and half the 28s. Point is that good students (assuming the ACT scores are generally reflective of their overall application) should not have too difficult a time in gaining admission. As for out-of state applicants.......
Michigan will enroll between 3700 and 3900 in state students. With the yield rate of about 40%, this means that Michigan will accept about 9500 in-state students
Sorry Mekozak, the in-state yield will be much, much higher than the overall yield, probably in the area of 65%. Granted still easier to get in In-State than OOS.
how is it a negative to see lower acceptance rate? would that not be a good thing for the school and its image? stronger body and gives adcoms more power in their make up of the class. always thought a 50+ acceptance rate seemed kinda high for a school of michigans caliber.
hylyfe, I feel that exclusivity yields a certain degree of pretentiousness and attracts the "wrong" crowd. One of the reasons I chose to attend Michigan over several other schools is precisely the lack of pretention that comes with a school like Michigan. I am not saying that a lower acceptance rate is going to harm the university academically. It will not help it either. Selectivity does not determine quality...or reputation. The only element of society that is going to be impressed by a lower acceptance rate is the 15-25 age group. Unfortunately, selectivity could eventually harm the university's special campus environment.
Preliminary admission data were posted on the alumni network in 2008 and 2010. It was first reported by a cc poster. You may still be able to search for it ... otherwise you just have to take my word for it. Btw, in-state yield in 2008 was 69%.
Michigan's yield hovers around two thirds for in-state students and one third for OOS and international students. The overall yield hovers around 40%.
Novi, assuming 6,000 enroll (out of the 6,500 who paid their enrollment deposits), the yield is still 39%. As long as it remains in the 40% range, I am happy. As a relatively expensive university that does not provide good aid for OOS students and no aid for international students, Michigan's yield is impressive, even more so when you consider that Michigan does not resort to ED to help protect the yield. Heck, even a 30% yield under those circumstances would be impressive. Michigan's impressive yield in spite of its limitations is a testament to its popularity.
At any rate, over the next 5 years, Michigan is going to experience a surge in applicants from 43,000 in 2012 to ~65,000 in 2017. I do not foresee Michigan increasing its admitted pool much over 16,000. As such, in 5 years, Michigan's admit rate will probably hover around 25%.
Of course, should Michigan be in a financial position to meet 100% of demonstrated need for all students, and should it choose to adopt ED, Michigan's yield would increase from 40% to 50% or higher, meaning that it would admit 10,000-12,000 students instead of 15,000-16,000.
Pretty obvious that yield rate will be higher for IS, no way they admit 9500. It's the best deal by far in the state. As you can see, many OOS don't even realize they can't afford to attend until well after they're admitted, plus they have great alternatives for similar CoA, lowering the yield rate.
Alexandre has a point, this will really limit opportunity for those in small counties and such who are at a disadvantage on those tests plus fewer options for AP, ECs etc. Just being at top of the class or "working hard" won't always cut it anymore.
I think you're right about how selective it will be soon, but what can be done about it? Most of this is driven by population trends. If they increase OOS enrollment, like MSC alluded to, maybe they could meet full need for all in the near future. I'd think this would mean even less access for lower-middle class, but more funds for those who do get in. This is pretty much how Ivys can sustain no loans policies.
