@waynandgarth. What is typical number of " summer melt" if you know
6269 enrollment. That’s still too high!
Good job this year. With 6269 students paid deposit, the final enrollment should be ~6000-6100. Last year, around 200 students accepted from waitlist somewhere else and forfeited the deposit.
^^^If it winds up around 6000, then I agree.
“The 30-34 ACT was where the average Ivy interquartile range was 1 to 2 years ago.”
blue85, according to last year’s Brown and Cornell CDS, their interquartile were:
ACT:
Brown (2014): 29-33
Cornell (2014): 29-33
Michigan: 2015: 30-34
SAT:
Brown (2014): 1330-1550
Cornell (2014): 1330-1510
Michigan (2015): 1350-1550
That being said, I think the interquartile ranges provided above are for admitted students, not for enrolled students. I say this because although the one point increase in the ACT is perfectly normal, the 70 point increase in the SAT CR+M is, in my opinion, suspiciously high. And that is why I like to wait for the CDS to come out before quoting data. But if those figures are indeed for enrolling students, then Michigan’s interquartile ACT/SAT ranges will be identical to those are some of the Ivies.
Still, the admit figure (52,000 applicants for 13,500 admits (26% acceptance rate) is most likely accurate.
http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000563.pdf
http://www.brown.edu/about/administration/institutional-research/sites/brown.edu.about.administration.institutional-research/files/uploads/CDS_2014-2015_0.pdf
We usually have >200 summer melt, so it’s reasonable to expect around 6,000 coming in the Fall. It’s not really their fault as no one would expect the yield to be as high as 46%.
The 46% yield is consistent with the trend. Michigan’s yield will continue to rise as it is perceived to be an increasingly selective university. Also, with improved FA, Michigan’s yield could ultimately top the 50% mark in the future.
The yield increase is consistent with the trend but still higher than expected. It went up around 0.5% per year in the last few years and I expect it to be 43-44% this year. Now it jumped >2% this year.
@billcscho. Did you expect admission rate to be as low as 26%? My daughter saw the stats and she keeps saying “I can’t believe I got in!” She’s at the bottom 25% score wise though we have learned that’s not atypical for nursing ( where her score puts her in the top 25%)
@maya54 It was actually expected to be around 27% (assuming 50,000 applicants) according to what Admission Office said in October. Now the numbers actually match pretty well with their plan (~13,500 admission). So they actually did a great job this year. It is the yield rate this is unexpectedly high leading to little room for waitlist admission.
If yield is calculated after a summer melt if about 200, the yield will end up between 44-45%. Still a nice increase from about 42% last year. Admission’s yield management efforts are certainly working well.
Does anyone have a rough estimate of what the out of state acceptance rate would be?
“the 70 point increase in the SAT CR+M is, in my opinion, suspiciously high.”
check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan#Student_body
There seems to be an even more dramatic year-over-year increase at the bottom of the SAT range (subject to your caveat about admitted versus enrolled). If the numbers are indeed up near those levels, and the yield is indeed up several percent it may be that this is indeed quite a strong class: large schools can sport a very solid top quartile…it is the bottom quartile which makes filling a large class with uniformly high achievers difficult. If the bottom edge has indeed bumped up to that extent, it should presage further future rises. The only fly in the soup is that the number of applicants, which received a nice bump from Common App, seems to be tapering to some limit. I was hoping for more applicants. That said, the school is improving financial assistance so that may add a bit of propellant in future years. It would also be the case that if the school gets more aggressive about trimming the class size, as they should, all of the metrics will improve.
@illinoisgolf It would be near 20%. Around 5000 of the 13555 admitted student would be from in state, the remaining ~8500 should be from OOS. OOS applicants number should be around 42000 (~10000 from in state).
“The only fly in the soup is that the number of applicants, which received a nice bump from Common App, seems to be tapering to some limit. I was hoping for more applicants.”
blue85, most universities that experience a drastic drop in admit rates as a result of joining the Common App see it happen in two waves. The first is the one we have witnessed between 2010 and now. It is directly linked to having joined the common app. The second wave occurs once the university’s admit rate drops below 25% and the university is all of a sudden considered “exclusive”.
@blue85 I found the table on the wiki you linked to be inaccurate. At least, they are not comparing apple to apple. The admission stat for 2014 posted at this time last year for admitted student (not enrolled freshmen as reported on CDS) should have ACT mid 50 30-33 and SAT 2040-2260. It is actually only a moderate increase from last year. I am sure the number for 2015 will come down when the CDS is out.
Another error on the Wiki is they calculate the SAT composite mid 50 by adding the 25th percentile section scores together and 75th percentile section scores together. Note that if one get 25th percentile in each of the 3 section, it would be below the 25th percentile in composite score. So that part is totally wrong. The actual 25th percentile composite should be 30-50 points above the summation of 25th percentile from each section.
"The second wave occurs once the university’s admit rate drops below 25% and the university is all of a sudden considered “exclusive”.
Given the improvement in the various metrics, it would seem Michigan in on the cusp of the 2nd wave…it would be nice to see some of these numbers flow through to the undergraduate ranking. Unfortunately, many of the subcomponents of the ranking are less “quality” indices than they are “wealth” indices…to that extent, an improvement in the ranking may depend upon and may be bound by the school’s/students’ wealth.
"I found the table on the wiki you linked to be inaccurate. At least, they are not comparing apple to apple. "
Of the four columns in the table, 3 of the 4 are supported with citations directly from the University’s CDSs. I suggest you correct the wiki and then contact the university and advise them that their computations are incorrect, that would kill 2 birds with one stone. As to the 4th column, that is based on a university page which is probably an estimate pending the release of the CDS for the current year…in that case, I suggest you correct the wiki (possibly by deleting any data points which you find to be erroneous) and wait for the official university CDS. The wiki is freely editable and has a talk section. I suggest that you use both facts to improve the article. The Michigan article is pretty solid but I’m sure it can be improved and your contributions in that direction would be welcome.
@blue95. That’s interesting. What do you mean by “wealth indices”?
“Unfortunately, many of the subcomponents of the ranking are less “quality” indices than they are “wealth” indices…to that extent, an improvement in the ranking may depend upon and may be bound by the school’s/students’ wealth.”
While I agree that Michigan’s increased selectivity will not have a significant impact on the rankings, I do not think the problem is not based on the school’s/student wealth. Michigan is one of the wealthiest universities in the nation, even on a per capita basis…as are its students and alumni. The problem lies in the way the data is reported by universities, and the overall methodology of each of those indices. Until the rankings properly audit data for accuracy and consistency, and until the methodology reflects the actual “quality” of those indices, the rankings will be flawed.