<p>I understand all of the different opinions here, but i have one big question since it seems like there are some folks actually from the state of Michigan. In my part of town it is a really big deal to get into the University of Michigan, like a REALLY big deal. Only the top students and the ones who have taken the most vigorous HS courses get into UM and even then sometimes they don’t. Are you saying that UM instate is not a big deal, that it’s just an ok school with kids that don’t graduate at the top of their class??? Just curious, cause that puts a new spin on everything. People on the east coast think UM kids are really smart kids, smarter then the average.</p>
<p>UM’s common data sets are here: [Office</a> of Budget & Planning: Common Data Set](<a href=“Office of Budget and Planning”>Office of Budget and Planning)</p>
<p>Section C11 of the most recent one says that:</p>
<p>69% of freshmen had HS GPA of 3.75 or higher
24% of freshmen had HS GPA of 3.50-3.74
7% of freshmen had HS GPA of 3.49 or lower</p>
<p>Average HS GPA is 3.79.</p>
<p>Section C9 of the most recent one gives the middle 50% test score ranges as:</p>
<p>SAT CR: 600-700
SAT M: 650-750
SAT W: 620-720
ACT composite: 28-32</p>
<p>You can compare with common data sets of other schools.</p>
<p><a href=“Office of Budget and Planning”>Office of Budget and Planning;
<p>This will also give you a breakdown of in-state vs. out of state. Ratio of in-state has dropped slightly over the years ($ talks). </p>
<p>Its assumed on average the admissions requirements of in-state is easier because the admissions rate of in-state is higher. But, it is also assumed the difference is not large. Data is not released on this. I have seen a data set of enrollment by state.</p>
<p>Looks like the numbers of IS vs. OS aren’t so drastic like some other state schools. There is just over a 1000,00 person difference which seems really fair to me (not like some other Universities like Florida and UNC where it’s like 90% in state). So if it is somewhat easier to get in to Michigan in state, it still makes for a pretty smart population given the IS vs. OS stats.</p>
<p>It’s a big deal to get accepted if you are a resident too. Only the best of a class with a competitive schedule get accepted. It’s about $25,000 - $30,000 for instate kids, but Michigan will meet need so there has to be a very compelling reason not to attend if you are at the top of the class. Many Michigan public schools are not grade inflated because papa UofM is always watching. Our district, which sends a higher % of the top of the class to UofM never weighted grades because Michigan only looked at unweighted grades. Kids that don’t want a huge school but are competitive for UofM head for LACs where they are welcomed with open arms. </p>
<p>It has become more competitive and there have been many lengthy arguments on CC around whether out of state kids (particularly from the NE) are “smarter” than the instate kids that get accepted. But once they all hit campus they are all starting from ground zero so it’s all kind of relative. UofM has been very loyal to the state and recruit and look for students in pockets of high schools where kids do not have the opportunities of the wealthier school districts. </p>
<p>Michigan has a very strong international reputation so if one were planning a career over seas the Michigan degree would have a definite value. It’s such a big school and has been a relatively big school for generations so there is a huge alumni population coast to coast that bolsters the “name.” It’s also a university that historically has had a strong recruiting schedule from the region and more importantly companies outside the region which is appealing. The number of UofM alumni is probably staggering. And alumni have children eventually. All those things add to it’s desirability for a broader audience than kids in the state of Michigan. All that said, it has been pointed out that other Big 10 colleges have historically had majors that are equal to better than some majors at Michigan or have majors that are not offered at Michigan. Selecting a college always has to be more about the whole package and not just it’s broader image or reputation.</p>
<p>Beware of the statistics regarding “enrolled” students - they could be significantly different from those of “accepted students”, especially when the yield is lower than 35%. Especially among many OOS applicants, for whom UM may often have been a “safety”. In other words, it might be the case that to be an accepted student requires a higher gpa/sat/act than those of enrolled students might suggest.</p>
<p>Yes and Michigan has done a pretty good job of maintaining it’s yield percentage even in light of the check the box common app change last year.</p>
<p>All I can say is UM is really really competitive to get into from my neck of the woods. So many really smart kids got deferred this year from fine HS’s in and around Philadelphia and New York. My daughter was 1 out of 3 that got in from her public highschool. Not sure if UM looks at how many kids they will accept from 1 HS, I feel like it’s too big of a school to be doing that, but the parents of kids who were deferred or rejected seem to think that the more that apply from 1 HS, the less of a chance more kids have to get in. Not sure if it makes the parents feel better about the fact that their kid didn’t get in to think that way, or if that is a fact. Just curious what the opinion is on this?</p>
<p>As a UM alum, I of course, will have some bias (ha,) but I am in education (my career) and also spent the last 9 years living in Florida, so I think I have some perspective on your situation. </p>
<p>To me, The University of Michigan is on par with UVA, Berkeley, Penn, Duke and even the Ivies. We have really excellent academics, world-renowned faculty, and a school spirit that is hard to beat. When our marching band takes the field at a football game, I swear it’s almost a religious experience. I know some will really laugh at this, but when you are sitting with 115,000 other people, all cheering for the band, or the players, or whatever, it can really choke you up. However, I met a Medical student the other day whom had never been to a game. Just wasn’t his ‘thing’ so to speak. So we do have all types in Ann Arbor, not just flag-waving Wolverines :). </p>
<p>I can also measure Michigan’s ‘merit’ so to speak, when I participate in our alumni gatherings, bowl-game trips, etc. The people you meet are movers and shakers. One of my former classmates worked on the invention of Skype. Another invented Google (well he did at Grad School in Stanford, but his Undergrad was with me! ha) And of course we boast one President (even if he did fall down a lot 
) many congressmen, and CEO’s of just about every type of corporation including All State Insurance. All State is particularly cool because we just competed in and won the “All State Sugar Bowl.” How neat the the CEO handed the trophy to our winning coach and said “I’m a Wolverine too!” ha! </p>
<p>Michigan has the most living alumni in the world, and it shows. You can not really go anywhere in the world without finding a UMich alum to connect with. That alone can make a HUGE difference in career networking, finding a job, etc. etc. </p>
<p>Now, as for Florida. Having lived and worked as an educator in the State of Florida for 9 years, I can tell you, I’m not impressed. The U of Florida is getting better, every year, but they are still not on par with the big Northern Universities in many areas. I know some Gator Alums will be mad at me for this opinion, but I can only say that I speak honestly. Florida public schools (many, many of them) are at LEAST 2 years behind schools up North. When you feed these smart, but not ‘as well’ prepared public school students into your public universities, you get Universities who are behind as well. </p>
<p>Granted, this is only my opinion and take it as such. If you have any further questions, please feel free to private message me. I will be as honest with you as I can. </p>
<p>If I were you - I would send her to Ann Arbor, post haste, and know that the money you spend on her education is only going benefit her for many many years to come.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm, do the alumni from larger schools like Texas, Ohio State, or Arizona State die earlier? (Then again, if you mean “in the world”, there are also places like Ramkhamhaeng, Pune, Buenos Aires, UNAM, etc.)</p>
<p>^^^ I don’t have a dog in the race, but of two equally large schools, one may have experienced much more recent growth. Arizona State was not a gigantic university in the 50s; Michigan was already big.</p>
<p>Yes, Hanna is on the number with what I meant. 
</p>
<p>Michigan has been so big, for so long, that even though there are some schools that graduate a bigger class each year, the amount of people we have ~previously~ graduated can compare to no other school world-wide. Therefore our total alumni world-wide is tops (for now…)</p>
<p>
This sort of a huge alumni network is a double-edged sword. It helps internationally perhaps where there will be a solid contingent of Michigan alums in every country but has little benefit here in the States where there are so many alums from a school like Michigan in a major urban area so the value of the network is rather diminished. I noticed that with the multiple Michigan and Texas grads at my start group at work that they had little in common besides cheering for the same football and basketball team.</p>
<p>At the elite private schools, you tend to have a core liberal arts curriculum where every student will have taken a class or two with a large majority of classmates at some point so that helps build a sense of unity. Shared campus traditions are also a bigger emphasis and the smaller private schools and LACs.</p>
<p>The universities with the 5 best alumni networks I’ve observed personally and professionally first-hand here in the U.S. are Princeton, Dartmouth, Duke, Notre Dame and Williams College. Of the state schools, UVA and UNC take the cake. A smaller schools tend to lead to more connected and hence loyal alums. They are part of the “chosen few”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This might be true at places like Chicago and MIT, but some elite private schools, like Brown and Amherst, have nothing that resembles a common core curriculum (liberal arts or otherwise).</p>
<p>On the other hand, there are certain courses, like introduction to economics and general chemistry, that are popular enough that a large percentage of students at many colleges have taken them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to politely disagree that this is fair. How much did someone from Florida pay in taxes to Michigan to help support the school? This has always seemed like a dilemma to me, if even one in state student with equal or greater credentials, or even slightly lesser credentials, was not accepted compared to an OOS student. Every state has their own school. Granted few are of Michigan’s caliber, but that is not Michigan’s (or their taxpayers) problem. Just saying. Not that it will change, of course, but I think that is exactly why some states (I think Texas and UNC are included in this group) cap the percentage of OOS allowed. At least that is what I have read on other forums.</p>
<p>The funding model for UM and similar schools is BASED on a large out of state full pay enrollment. Mich only provides UM a tiny $300 million of its budget or about 10% excluding the hospitals. 10% does not earn you that many slots. Mich residents are already getting far more seats than they really deserve. UNC gets FAR FAR more state funding than UM. Texas is closer but they got oil wells from the state.</p>
<p>We have decided as a family that my daughter will attend the University of Michigan. She has gotten into every other school she applied to, including UF, but after some very serious considerations, and some changes in my daughter’s projected major, the University of Michigan is the all around best choice for her. This is where she wants to be, she has worked really hard to earn her spot in the class of 2016. To make things easier for my husband and I, we let Florida know she will not be attending, so no need to wait for $$$ to come or not to come, we took it off the table, this way we won’t be second guessing our decision. We are over the sticker shock, that’s not to say we won’t be making sacrifices, but in the end, in our opinion, a sacrifice worth making. Thanks for all of the advise.</p>
<p>barrons - If that is the case, and given how strapped the state of Michigan is for cash, UM should just give up all state money and be a private school. Sounds like it is almost there anyway. The Michigan State network could represent the in-state system.</p>
<p>My point is either you are a state school or you are not. If you are, then state residents should always get preference. Otherwise why does the state have a roll in it at all? If you are not, then don’t take money from the state. It really is quite illogical to be a “state school” but have policies that are far more like a private school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Either you are or you aren’t”? Why be so rigid about it? Michigan—and UVA, for that matter–represent a hybrid model that many people think is probably the future of public higher education, that a lot of other state universities are going to find themselves emulating. In both cases the state legislature reduced its financial commitment to the university many years ago, and the university responded, sensibly enough, by diversifying its revenue base. I’m less familiar with UVA’s finances, but for Michigan that meant beefing up its endowment (currently around $7 billion), being even more aggressive in pursuing outside research grants (primarily federal, but also some corporate- or foundation-sponsored, now bringing in about $1 billion/yr), generating income streams from university-owned intellectual property, and shifting its student body composition to bring in more full-pay OOS and international students. By doing that, it was able to continue to deliver a high-quality educational product to Michigan residents at a substantially lower cost than private or OOS public alternatives.</p>
<p>I think that’s a great deal for Michigan residents; it was in my day when as a Michigan resident I got to attend a great university at a relatively low cost, and it is today for the Michigan residents fortunate enough to attend. And the state’s taxpayers are getting a great deal, too. If the roughly $38,000 Michigan now charges an OOS student in tuition represents the full cost of educating that (or any other) student, then the discount on in-state tuition ($38,000 “full cost” less $13,000 charged = $25,000 discount per in-state student) for the roughly 17,500 Michigan residents currently attending the University of Michigan as undergrads is worth approximately $440 million—money that state taxpayers AREN’T spending to support the cost of educating Michigan kids at the University of Michigan. because the university is making up the difference from its own endowment, from research funds that are picking up a large share of the administrative overhead, and a variety of other sources that the university has cobbled together, including OOS tuition. And for an investment of $300 million a year, the state is getting a great return: $440 million of tuition discounts for Michigan residents at one of the best universities in the world, and (most people believe) a preference in admissions insofar as it’s easier for a Michigan resident to get admitted than an OOS or international student with comparable stats. And that’s before you even start to count financial aid, which further tilts the financial advantage in favor of in-state kids</p>
<p>There actually has been semi-serious talk in the Michigan legislature about cutting financial ties to the University of Michigan completely. I don’t think the state can do that under the present state constitution, but even if it could, would Michigan residents and taxpayers be better off? I don’t think so. I think the university would just charge everyone the same tuition ($38,000), and probably reduce its class size to allow it to be even more selective, have lower s/f ratios and smaller classes, have more endowment per capita, and on and on. Think about it this way: it now takes approximately 3 full-pay in-state kids to produce as much tuition revenue as a single OOS full-pay. If the university charged a uniform “private” tuition of $38,000, it would get as much tuition revenue out of a student body of 12,000 as it now gets out of an undergrad student body of 26,000. From a certain perspective the university would be better off: its student-faculty ratio would go to about 7:1, its endowment per capita would be higher than many leading privates, the $180 million it annually awards in need-based and non-need-based grants and scholarships could be concentrated on a much smaller student body, and so on.</p>
<p>But where would Michigan residents be? Well, their best low-cost in-state option would be gone. The stats of Michigan State students would no doubt go up, but probably not to Michigan’s level (Michigan competes effectively against elite privates for a lot of top-end in-state students; MSU wouldn’t compete for that pool as effectively). A lot of the weaker students at Michigan State would be crowded out there and end up at lower-tier state schools. The legislature could redirect the $300 million/year it now gives to Michigan to MSU, though politically there would be a lot of pressure to divide it up more widely and/or simply to save some or all of it; and even if MSU got the lion’s share, it wouldn’t buy as much because at Michigan it’s leveraged with a ton of other financial and academic assets that the university brings to the table. So probably little or no cost savings to the state, and Michigan resident students would pay a tremendous price in lost educational opportunities.</p>
<p>But here’s the thing: the university doesn’t WANT to go private. It’s proudly been a public institution since its founding in 1817, long before there ever was a state of Michigan. It wants to continue to provide relatively low-cost, high quality educational opportunities to Michigan residents, and it will do so substantially out of its own coffers if the legislature continues to pony up its $300 million cost-share per year. I think that’s actually a phenomenal deal for Michigan taxpayers and Michigan residents. And it represents a hybrid public-private model that a lot of other heretofore more purely public institutions are going to need to emulate as state legislative commitments to public higher education continue to falter. The University of Michigan has a huge advantage, however, in that it’s been building toward this model for at least 40 years now, since the 1970s auto industry crisis, when the state began to shrink its commitment to public higher education; so that by now, the University of Michigan has its financial house pretty well in order.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, the “cash-strapped” State of Michigan is currently running a $457 million budget surplus, partly because excessively deep cuts were made in the state budget and partly because the U.S. auto industry is selling lots of cars, raking in record profits, doing lots of hiring, and placing large orders for parts and supplies, much of it from Michigan sources.</p>