Umich - why the BIG range?

@Rintu

Absolutely on the first part. They were very clear and informative in this regard, especially bclintonk.

On the second part, let’s be perfectly clear. Yield is not used at all in USNWR rankings, and admission rate (selectivity) is only 1.25% of the total formula. Hardly enough to move the needle. Comparing publics and privates using the same formula is very “iffy” stuff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/09/09/the-u-s-news-and-world-report-college-rankings-a-public-vs-private-dilemma/ Hot off the press.

@PurpleTitan

Absolutely.

@PurpleTitan State funding is one of the reason, but it also largely depends on the state constitution, codes, and laws. Look at Texas.gov that there are actually government codes on college admission and financial aid requirement that schools need to follow.
http://tea.texas.gov/Curriculum_and_Instructional_Programs/Graduation_Information/Automatic_College_Admission/
There is no such restriction in Michigan.

@billcsho, true. However, codes can be interpreted and laws can be repealed. As the percentage of funding drops to zero, expect publics to push for more autonomy. The less a state funds a school, the less leverage a state has over a school. For instance, the UC’s recently announced a cap on OOS at their top schools. If state funding for them was 5% of their budget, would they care so much what the state legislature thought of their admissions policies?

If the code or law is aligned with public interest, it would be hard to change. For instance, if UT Austin want to admit more OOS students, it would be hard to convince the legislature to change the law independent of how much the state funding is.

Perhaps, @billcsho, unless a cogent argument were made that OOS students bring in more revenue and that helps the in state students. Would potentially be a tussle.

So it still depends on whether it is the public interest.

“Perhaps, @billcsho, unless a cogent argument were made that OOS students bring in more revenue and that helps the in state students. Would potentially be a tussle.”

The state grants Michigan a subsidy in the ballpark of $280MM/year. Michigan, for its part, grants a $30,000 reduction from full sticker to in-state students. Which is roughly 28,0002/330,000= $560MM. So in very rough terms, Michigan gives in-state students a big break, and the state reduces the damage by 50%. Bottom line is that OOS students who pay more may be paying in excess of the “true price” or “true value” and the university is also providing a subsidy. In state students at UM are attending a globally ranked top 25 school for a pittance. Were UM private and charging a market rate, the endowment and research would be growing faster and the schools reputation would probably be growing in a similar fashion. The only mystery is why kids in Michigan don’t see the bang to buck ratio and apply in greater numbers.

At least in my high school, you really didn’t apply to Michigan unless you knew with almost certainty that you were going to get in. Otherwise, you applied to State, Eastern, and Wayne (and if you’re on the other side of the state, swap out Western for Eastern and Wayne).

Michigan does a pretty poor job of reaching out to low income students and explaining that the sticker price need not scare you. So it’s really no wonder that only approximately 11% of the incoming freshmen come from households of 50k or less.

I’d bet that if Michigan reached out to these lower income students and schools in a meaningful way, you’d see the numbers of applicants shoot up. But, this all assumes that Michigan wants socioeconomic diversity (which I doubt).

I don’t think this is a mystery. The number of HS graduates the state produces has been declining steadily due to changing demographics, mostly an aging population coupled with some out-migration. About 10% of the state’s annual crop of HS grads apply annually to the University of Michigan. I don’t know that they’re exactly the top 10% of the state’s HS grads, but I would guess most are in the top 10% at their schools, and most of the rest are close to that mark. It’s been known for decades in Michigan that you don’t have much of a chance of being admitted to the University of Michigan unless you’re in, or at least close to, the top 10% of your class. Every GC in the state knows it, and so they tend to steer most kids away from the school. This was true even way back in the Dark Ages, in the 1970s when I applied, and Michigan admissions have only become more selective since then.

I think that’s most of it; it’s simple self-selection, with an assist from HS GCs. There are some other dynamics at play, too, though I think they’re smaller factors. One is that the university’s student body skews wealthier than the state as a whole. That’s definitely true of OOS students, due to the university’s inability until recently to provide much need-based FA to OOS students, so those who enroll tend to be full-pays. But it’s also true to some extent of in-state students, a very large fraction of whom come from Oakland and Washtenaw Counties, two of the three most affluent counties in the state (the other is Livingston which has a much smaller population base). That creates a perception in some quarters in the state that Michigan is a “rich kids’ school,” with “rich” in this context meaning essentially upper middle class. Most Michigan HS grads are not upper middle class; the state is at this point well below the national average in median household income. Many of the state’s HS grads simply feel more comfortable at Michigan State, where the demographics don’t skew as affluent. The irony, of course, is that the University of Michigan meets full need for in-state students and MSU doesn’t, so for many low- and moderate-income students, Michigan might actually be the more affordable option. But perceptions can be a powerful barrier.

The other factor is geographic. The University of Michigan draws roughly 2/3 of its in-state students from just 4 Southeast Michigan counties: Oakland, Wayne, Washtenaw, and Macomb in order of raw numbers. Those counties represent less than half the state’s population. MSU also draws heavily from Oakland and Wayne, but loses most of the cross-admit battles from those places, MSU draws very few from Washtenaw (Ann Arbor & surrounding communities), but it outdraws Michigan in Macomb (n.e. suburban Detroit), which tends to skew more blue-collar. And in a broad swath of smaller cities from Port Huron through Flint, Saginaw, Bay City, Midland, Lansing, Jackson, Grand Rapids. Muskegon, Holland, and Benton Harbor, MSU rules. This is also substantially true in smaller towns and rural areas in the state. As a result, graduating HS seniors in those parts of the state are much more likely to have schoolmates, teammates, older siblings, cousins, parents, co-workers, and even teachers and GCs who attended Michigan State. Those networks matter. For some non-trivial fraction of those students, MSU is their first choice, even if they have the academic chops to be admitted to Michigan.

But I think self-selection based on likelihood of admission is the dominant factor. In 2014, only 15.9% of MSU’s enrolled freshmen had ACT Composite scores of 30+. At Michigan, the comparable figure was 67%. There’s no question that Michigan is picking off most of the state’s academically best qualified college applicants.

I agree that self selection (academically and financially) is the main reason for the relatively small in state applicant pool size. More in state applicants would only lower the admission rate. I doubt they will admit more from in state as the gap between in state and OOS is quite significant already.
Note that most of the in state students at UM are from the 4 SE counties but not really because of proximity. These 4 counties also have larger population, better schools, and families with higher household income, etc.

I notice that MSU also has a ton of honors colleges/programs. Much more than, say, IU or PU. Likely so that they can draw high-achieving kids from UMich.

@romanigypsyeyes Did you see this article yesterday in the Daily. How serious do you think U of M is in recruiting the lower income students going forward?

https://www.michigandaily.com/section/news/schlissel-details-planning-process-forthcoming-diversity-initiative

https://michigandaily.com/section/news/watch-live-schlissel-discuss-diversity-initiative-11-am

I’m not suggesting the 4 southeast Michigan counties are overrepresented because of proximity. It’s more just that’s where the university concentrates its recruiting efforts and has its strongest networks of alums, established “feeder” high schools, ties with HS GCs, etc. I’ll buy the “better schools” argument, but note that better schools generally go hand-in-glove with affluence. I don’t buy the “it’s where the people are” argument. Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, and Washtenaw Counties together comprise well under half the state’s population (42.6%, actually) but together account for 65.4%–nearly 2/3–of the university’s in-state undergrads. But there’s a distinct skew even within that 4-county region as to where University of Michigan undergrads come from.

Oakland County (median family income $84,783) comprises 12.2% of the state’s population but provides 30.4% of the University of Michigan’s in-state undergraduates (Fall 2014 figures). Washtenaw County (median family income $82,184) comprises just 3.5% of the state’s population but provides 13.1% of the university’s in-state undergrads. Those two affluent counties combined account for 43.5% of Michigan’s in-state students, despite representing only 15.7% of the state’s population. The statewide median family income, by the way, is just $60,341, a notch or two below the U.S. median of $62,982, so Oakland and Washtenaw Counties are well above both the statewide and national norm.

Wayne and Macomb Counties are actually slightly underrepresented relative to their share of the state’s population. Wayne County (median family income $52,946) comprises 18.4% of the state’s population but provides 16.7% of in-state undergrads. Macomb County (median family income $67,423) comprises 8.5% of the state’s population but provides just 5.2% of in-state undergrads.

Other big population centers are similarly underrepresented. Kent County (Grand Rapids) (median family income $61,097) comprises 6.1% of the state’s population but provides only 5.3% of in-state undergrads. Genesee County (Flint) (median family income $54,702) comprises 4.3% of the state’s population but only 2.5% of in-state undergrads. Ingham County (Lansing) (median family income $61,680) comprises 2.8% of the state’s population but only 2.4% of in-state undergrads.

There’s no doubt that the university is gunning for the state’s top students; that the top students tend to be concentrated in the top schools; and that the top schools tend to be located in the more affluent pockets of the state. It’s no surprise, then, that the university ends up with an in-state student body that skews higher SES and heavily southeast Michigan, especially heavily Oakland and Washtenaw Counties. And this, in turn, feeds the perception elsewhere in the state that Michigan’s student body is dominated by affluent OOS students and affluent students from the Detroit metro area, and that the university doesn’t care so much about even the very top students from places like Flint, Saginaw, Bay City, or Muskegon; or even, for that matter, from Macomb County. And all those places tend to be Michigan State country.

Forget about the small difference in percentages in some counties, it is well within the margin of error. It is certainly a mix of all these factors. Better schools is definitely a very important factor and those schools are more expensive (if private) or in the area with higher property value (if public). So better schools and higher household income go hand-in-hand. Clearly, the two counties with the highest median income have several times higher % undergrad population than the % population.
Perhaps I misunderstand your “geographic factor” which usually refers to location relative proximity. My first thought was Jackson county which is closer than some of the 3 counties you listed (excluding Washtenaw where UMich is located) but does not seem to be a feeder county.

Where do you find infor about “yields”?

@LanaHere Current one can be found on UMich’s website. You just need to do the calculation. Or you can look up Ann Arbor News or mlive.com. For last year and historical yield rates, search for almanac on UMich’s website.

Is U-M penalizing GPA of the student coming from one of those Feeder High School??? It doesn’t make sense to me, but that’s what I am hearing. If this is true, can some of you post a link where I can read on it? I thought the affirmative action took out those issues.

Absolutely right about Jackson County which is very close to Ann Arbor but is firmly within MSU’s orbit.

What I mean by “geographic factor” goes to two things: one, where does the University of Michigan invest most heavily in student recruitment, and two, how is that perceived in the rest of the state. The university is not a passive player here. It actively recruits, especially in the high-end high schools in the more affluent pockets of the Detroit metro region and Washtenaw County. And it draws its student body very strongly from those places, especially from the better schools in the more affluent pockets of Oakland and Washtenaw Counties. And I am asserting that this is perceived by at least some people in other parts of the state as an indication that the university is less interested in people like them—both less interested in students from less affluent backgrounds, and less interested in students, even highly qualified students, from outside the Detroit metro area. And so some of those students, even top students, gravitate more toward Michigan State, which is perceived as both a less metro Detroit-centric institution and a less high-SES-skewed institution.

I actually think this also plays out in athletic recruiting. Michigan is competitive with MSU for top athletic recruits coming out of the Detroit metro area, but Tom Izzo pretty much owns places like Flint, Saginaw, and Lansing.

Really? From my high school it wasn’t unusual at all to apply to Michigan with a back up of just going to WCC and transferring if you didn’t get in.

^ Yeah. It does not make sense. Considering the in state admission rate of near 50%, one should apply “unless you knew almost certainty” that you would not get in. Also, for those applying to other UM campus, the application fee can be waived. There is no reason not to apply to UM-AA as well.