<p>Aim on business fields and a possibility go for engineering, I recommand two(2) schools to my S ( Not 20s) back on his HS senior year.</p>
<p>Those two are UMich and CMU. He only apply UMich.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Barrons, where is the data to support your assertion? What is the admission rate for OOS apps at UMich?</p>
<p>Yeah, I mean engineering (not comp sci). Thanks oldolddad.</p>
<p>ooops, my bad, barrons. I see where you previously posted that UMich does not break out acceptance rates in in-state or OOS.</p>
<p>oldoldad,
I am not an engineer and I will defer to your greater knowledge of the field. Like U Michigan, I think UC Berkeley has many highly regarded engineering programs and someone interested in engineering would likely have a good experience at either school. I’m not meaning to knock U Michigan above, only trying to flesh out the acceptance numbers that show that it is not that hard to gain admittance to U Michigan as an OOS applicant.</p>
<p>Some schools attract lots of applicants due to location–not all of them are very good. Look at Northeastern and some similar schools with low stats for SAT and gpa. Getting applicants is partially a game and marketing. See Wash U.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No problema, let’s take out the minimally-qualified applicants. ELC students, i.e., the top 4% per high school class, only have a ~60% rate of admission to Cal-Berkeley, which is LESS than the TOTAL in-state admission rate for UMich. </p>
<p>All data indicate much more competitive admissions on the leftcoast.</p>
<p>The definition of top 4% in California strains statistical accuracy and there are plenty of schools there where top 4% means you can read. The proof is in the results and they are very even. You can’t compare grades or class rank very well from state to state.</p>
<p>even the word “inferior student” is obnoxious and rude, one’s stats do not mean a superiour student, that one word is very telling, and snobbish</p>
<p>barrons:</p>
<p>if you can’t compare grades, class rank etc, across state lines, then how can YOU unequivocally state that “UM OOS is about the same as UCB instate”.</p>
<p>What do you base that on? Either you have the data to support your thesis or you don’t. (All available data indicate the contrary to your position. And of course, every assumption you make about applications to a UC are equally valid with UMich, i.e, UM-Flint apps throwing one at Ann Arbor to win the lottery, or to % of kids in Detroit “who can read.”)</p>
<p>Quite frankly, I’m rather surprised since you are one of my favorite posters. :)</p>
<p>Look at the SAT scores and the ACT scores. Average UW gpa. Class rank is not a very solid number as no two schools even calculate it the same way. You must admit California public schools overall are not great–not as good as Michigan even with Detroit. Also you need a separate app for Flint or Dearborn–no boxes.</p>
<p>bbayou,</p>
<p>UCs have very large transfer students population. So, just comparing freshman admission acceptance rate can not give us a real clear picture.</p>
<p>The top 3 UCs typically have 20-30+ % transfer students population compare the UMich’s 7-8%. There are the data I got from US news website.(for Fall 2005)</p>
<p>The 1st number is the # of Transfer admissiom students enrolled.
The 2nd number is the # of Freshman admission students enrolled.</p>
<p>UCB (1997/4101)
UCLA (3150/4422) (Do you believe?)
UCSD (1680/3720)
UMich (909/6113)</p>
<p>I do’nt know how the UCs could take so many transfer students? Do the UCs reduce freshman admission # to have those spaces for transfer students?</p>
<p>ibdad:</p>
<p>sorry, but this post is about Frosh admissions, not transfers.</p>
<p>Barrons, I would caution against focusing on test scores unless one is willing to adjust for the wealth of the population. Cal has ~33% Pell Grantees, with is more than 2x that of UMich. And, of course, CB’s own data show a high correlation between test scores and income, or, alternatively low test scores with low income. The UCs have a lot of low income, low scorers accepted by design (holistic admissions). Adjust for that cohort, and the average UC test scores would increase.</p>
<p>Moreover, why not exclude UW gpa, too. If Calif schools are “not great” what’s the point?</p>
<p>bbayou,</p>
<p>UCs (include the top 3) is easier to get in than you think if you count the Big “Back Door” call “Transfer”.</p>
<p>^^ just what I was going to say. UCs go much easier on CC transfers. They’re designed that way.</p>
<p>As an added note, Berkeley and other UCs stress GPA much more the SAT, as evidenced by their averages (even at UCR, only some 8% had below a 3.0). And they don’t superscore, either (I dunno whether UMich does, though).</p>
<p>^ I kind of think that the 8% below a 3.0 at UCR has to do more with the fact that you need a 3.0 minimum to even be considered UC-eligible. I don’t know how people get in with less… maybe people who were homeschooled and technically don’t have GPAs and become eligible by standardized testing. I remember hearing something like that at a guidance presentation.</p>
<p>ibdad:</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with your point #214. Several top jucos have 80% transfer rates to Cal & UCLA. But, the focus of this thread is on Frosh admissions bcos IvyParent, whose D is in HS, asked why a Calif resident would apply to UMich.</p>
<p>Barrons prefers to use the SAT as the only data point for comparison, and with that I will agree to disagree.</p>
<p>If UCs could accept 90+% students populatiom right out of high schools,the acceptance rate comparison will be more “telling”.</p>
<p>But, the acceptance rate is NOT always “telling” the truth. The U. of Chicago always have the 35+(40?)% acceptance rate and it is a great school! Schools have a more “self-selected” application pool always have a higher acceptance rate.</p>
<p>ibdad:</p>
<p>I’m rather slow and don’t understand your IF statement…pls elaborate.</p>
<p>blue,
I think he means that the comprehensive admissions + diverse population + UC mission makes the applicant pool less self-selected than for UChicago. (So you’ll get more variation in qualifications, among the pool). Just a guess.</p>