It will be interesting to see if we see similar numbers with the Third Wave months end.
It might suggest the tendencies of out of staters to use CC on a higher percentage basis than local or instaters to share information on schools at some distance.
In particular being accepted into various programs as an OOS’er. Based on instate Magnet schools in my home state and others reporting here on CC it seems that many IS kids appear to take it for granted that a certain number of kids will automatically “get in”.
Also as an OOS’er the acceptance rate is often more a challenge hence the anxiety and excitement levels are clearly higher on several fronts. From getting accepted through receiving scholarship monies to make it affordable. So this too might account for a higher level of OOS’er reporting and posting.
@J123D123, Yes, the odds of getting in are higher for in-state students. But, they are not so high that any of us take admission to UM for granted! Each year, there are lots of students from my daughter’s school with stats similar to the means @sushiritto just posted, who are denied admission.
The one thing that I should mention is that I didn’t include any Ross decisions and there were several. I couldn’t tell if I was going to double count those who were accepted into LSA (or other college) and also then receive a preferred Ross admission in either the 2/1 or 3/1 waves. So I excluded any Ross decisions.
My decision tab has just disappeared within the last day or so (I checked a bunch on Friday and Saturday and it was still there), and I am wondering if this has happened to anyone else?
On a scale I think most instate kids perceive that it’s easier to get accepted at their state school over similar state schools they might choose to apply to as an OOS’er and it’s typically likely based on the higher number of in state admits.
Taking it “for granted” outright was a bit harsh maybe but I would still argue on scale the anxiety for OOS’ers is much higher across the country when it comes to applying to out of state schools and likely contributes to the higher reporting at CC.
The results here are impure and I believe this to be one contributing factor.
@Mich_NY… Interesting…let’s see by responses if it’s a pattern.
@sushiritto… I am just speculating but do you have a third sense if maybe more people actually committed during the EA phase compared to prior years? The responses overall just appear to be much lighter then last year but maybe it’s an illusion.
@sushiritto Thanks for the 2/1 and 3/1 stats for comparison. Have you looked at the 2018 vs 2019 numbers for the EA releases? I know that’s a bigger task, but I’m wondering if this years EA numbers are smaller, especially since they deferred everyone else. Would that suggest that they ran out of time? They have a very thorough 3 step review process, which is great, but it also seems like if they had fully reviewed the EA group, there would have been at least some that were eliminated at that stage. I know they have to keep more than they need, but keeping everyone through RD doesn’t seem logical either. Is this typical of them to not deny anyone during EA? Thanks.
Higher OOS Tuition increases over time outpacing income and affordability alone would contribute to that trend all other things remaining equil.what has the cost for OOS tuition been over the same set of years.
In 2017, in-state apps increased 5% over 2016. And in 2018, in-state apps increased 9% over 2017.
In 2017, OOS apps increased 10% over 2016. And in 2018, OOS apps increased 12% over 2017.
And I read on another thread that 2019 apps may near 70,000. IMO, OOS apps are less influenced by tuition increases. Many OOS families might consider $2,000-$3,000 bumps a “rounding error.”
More OOS apps, increasing at a faster rate than in-state, but decreasing OOS admissions rate. As I said, is there a trend? I dunno.
@Knowsstuff Honestly, I don’t know if there’s any difference between this year and last, except:
The Year 2000 was the Year of the Golden Dragon, so the Class of 2022 was supposedly a year phenomena. However, as I mentioned above, a couple of students who came back from a recent Campus Day posted that UMich said they received “nearly 70,000” apps this year or about a 5-6% increase.
OTOH, the UC system saw a DECLINE of 3% in apps for the Class of 2023. Weird.
Admissions rate…vrs those who enroll. Granted maybe the increased number of applicants is offsetting the affordibility differential it still has a certain fallout. Maybe the slight erosion in OOS enrollments.
2016 47%
2017 46%
2018 45%
Ok if after OOS apply increasingly because U of M is perceived as #1 and does so exponentially. You assume rationality by all applicants. It costs x and we can afford x. Or that U of M will give y a full ride. So applicants go up and the number of reality check enrolled goes down. By some small percentage ( 1% ) maybe your cause and effect trend.
I don’t think U of M is only applied to by people who think that $2,500 more per year or three years later it’s $7,000 to $8,000 more to go there is a rounding error. It’s expensive and becoming more so and without assistance fewer can enroll OOS as compared to instate counterparts who are getting instate tuition.
So yes it’s likely contributing to your trend or is it a rounding error?
I heard from a friend who is teaching at a near by state that there were talks about UMich going private. Apparently there were complaints about high cost for in-state students (they don’t care about OOS, cost is fine). A lot of in-state kids can’t afford UMich b/c of high cost.