OT: Michigan Admissions much tougher than 20 yrs ago?
Last month, I combined a scheduled day off from school for my daughter with a Michigan football game. It was fun, and great for her to experience the Big House for the first time. Was a long time since I walked parts of the campus, and was pleasantly surprised by the new buildings, etc. Great to go to Zingerman's, to see some of the dorm renovations, to see things that never change.
However, it seems to me that admissions standards have risen significantly since I came to AA in the late 70's. I have my doubts as to whether or not my progeny would be accepted. That's ok - as much as I love Michigan, it is awfully hard to justify the expense when you are out of state. The cost would be more than half my annual salary. (the downside of not being a lawyer /doctor /engineer /business tycoon.) But wow, the current student body must be awfully bright, with an avg. HS entry GPA of 3.9 on a 4.0 scale.
Is my perception on increased admissions standards correct?
October 24th, 2009 at 3:37 AM ^
my application would be looked at now.
October 24th, 2009 at 3:40 AM ^
The cost is what kept me from attending (or applying, actually). I think I would have gotten in, but the price is awfully steep for out-of-staters, especially those of us from a state with a pretty good university itself (ex. WI, where I'm from).
When my dad attended U-M 30+ years ago, he was admitted with something like a 3.2 GPA. Granted, he went to a good HS, took difficult classes, and probably did well on the SATs.
But since then, a number of things have changed: more people attend college, which has made public universities more selective. Also, people generally seem to apply to more colleges than they used to; my parents applied to two or three, whereas I applied to eight. This has to drive down acceptance rates.
Also, nowadays a lot of kids' high school GPAs are inflated by weighted grading, where an A in an AP/IB/advanced class receives a 5 on a 4.0 scale, a B a 4, and so on. I'm not sure if the statistics Michigan puts out are re-calculated so that's not a factor, but that could contribute.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:43 AM ^
Good lord, that is a lot of weight for an AP class. My high school multiplied your grade point from an AP class by 1.1 (so a B was a 3.3 instead of a 3, etc.) I can't imagine that boosting it by an entire point is all that widespread, I've never heard of that before.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:57 AM ^
My school was on the weighted to a 5 scale. I graduated ~80 out of ~990 with a 4.29 due to those weighting. Our top 10% was 4.12-ish for the cut off. I think that's pretty common for many state of Texas schools.
My thought on why they do that here is to really reward the kids who do the AP/Pre-AP courses. Texas rewards the top 10% with admission to whichever state university the kid wants (they instituted a limit this year because UT was starting to be forced into expansion). So to make sure they really do get the cream of the crop at many schools, they needed to weight the scores a bit higher.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:20 AM ^
I know that when I applied back in fall of 2003, they unweighted high school GPAs to recalibrate inflation. In short, your GPA is calculated with A = 4, B = 3, and so on.
During my journalisting years during college, I followed admissions. While a number of facets of the process have been revamped, I believe their GPA recalibration is still in place. That said, its role in predicting admissions in the era of "holistic" reviews of application is sort of unclear.
October 24th, 2009 at 3:59 AM ^
Got wait-listed three times before I went elsewhere: 3.7 GPA at a prestigious college-prep high school in Chicago, 28 ACT, 1270 SAT... not that I'm bitter or anything, lol.
(For the record, I graduated high school in 2004.)
October 24th, 2009 at 9:25 AM ^
mich admissions can be weird. I went to huron high in a2 and graduated about the same time you did. Almost a third of my graduating class were accepted to michigan. but it was weird who did and who didnt. i knew a kid who had a 3.9 and did extremely well on his standardized tests and also had numerous extracurriculars on his application. he didn't get in. Then my friend who had a 3.2, average test scores, and average EC's got in. so, who knows?
October 24th, 2009 at 4:35 AM ^
Even in the span of time since I entered, in 2005, it has risen exponentially. I don't know if I would get in now.
But to answer your question, yes, it's a lot toughter. Students achieve much more in high school these days.
October 24th, 2009 at 5:23 AM ^
Students have to look more impressive to get in, but I don't think they've gotten considerably brighter. A lot of things that go into being a desirable college applicant have more to do with putting in time and being a good student than being "intelligent". I think if anything, a lot of bright people that don't focus their talents into being a good student are getting the shaft, and people that aren't as bright but know how to cram and take tests are being rewarded.
And FWIW, Michigan recalculates everybody's GPA with their own system. Non-academic classes (gym, music, etc) get thrown out. Then any flavor of A (A+/A/A-) in any level class is a 4.0, any flavor of a B is a 3.0, etc. They do still holistically look at how difficult your schedule was, and have information about how difficult of a school you went to.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:06 AM ^
This was just changed this week actually. They don't recalculate it anymore.
October 24th, 2009 at 7:01 PM ^
Link? Was there an article about it? I don't understand why they would stop recalculating it.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:04 AM ^
I didn't apply because I knew I was going elsewhere in the area (Not [NAME REDACTED]) but hopefully getting in for grad school isn't ridiculously hard.
When my dad went through years ago, he had a plan set up where he did three years at one college and then finished off his engineering undergrad and masters in three more years at Michigan. I'm curious what the admission process was for something like that. (I could probably just ask him. I'll do that sometime soon.)
October 24th, 2009 at 7:47 AM ^
I have a friend who worked in admissions during and after undergrad, and things have gotten tougher even in the last 6-7 years than when I applied (for 2000). The affirmative action fight had a lot to do with it. The number of applications rose significantly after that (I think he said something about tougher standards making more people apply), and the application itself got much longer. Many factors go into admissions though, like geographic area, so I wouldn't discourage her from applying.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:55 AM ^
"Many factors go into admissions though, like geographic area"
I'm from the U.P. and was told this as well back when I was applying in '99.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:13 AM ^
People study for the ACT/SAT much more now and get higher scores. So at UM, and just about everywhere else, ACT/SAT scores have gone up so applicants have to have higher scores. I think the average for the entire school is around 3.8 (from the now old way of recalculating GPA-enginneering was closer to 3.9) and an ACT of around 30. They still admitted 50% last year, and closer to 60% instate kids. So it's still not that hard to get in, especailly if you are in state. The out of state kids bring up the averages.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:13 AM ^
I agree with what you're saying, but I hate it when people think that studying for the ACT does any good. Coming from the American school system that glorifies the standardized test, if you can't take one by your junior year in high school, you probably don't deserve to go to UM.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:20 AM ^
Word. It's such a fucking racket that kaplan and princeton have going on.
October 24th, 2009 at 7:19 PM ^
*OT*
Pacquiao is gonna get killed by Cotto
your avatar picture is the result of getting hit by a guy with plaster inside his wraps. Margarito is a cheater.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:36 AM ^
Studying for the ACT does help. There were actually a few things I thought of while doing practice tests that probably ended up changing my ACT socre by 1-2 points, which is pretty good. People didn't retake the ACTs in the 70s either. Some kids do now 3 times. The ACT is a pretty big admissions factor. It carries a lot more weight than it did 30 years ago.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:43 AM ^
Wow, I never retook it. Our school had mandatory ACT prep classes ~3 or 4 times, and they did nothing to help me. But I had a 33 my first time, and I figured with GPA, extra-curriculars, and UM parents that I didn't need any more to get in. Luckily I was right :)
October 24th, 2009 at 11:58 AM ^
Studying for the ACT helps you with the timing, which is the only real challenge.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:17 AM ^
I don't know how bright people were when you were at U-M, but I'd find it hard to believe that the average was considerably less intelligent. It seems like for every halfway intelligent person I meet, there are 2 or 3 dumb ones. Given, that's anecdotal and even those that appear dumbest can actually be really smart. In the classroom especially. Also, I'm LSA, so take that for what it's worth. I've also met a few brilliant people here.
If it's of interest, I got in with a 4.0 weighted, with 6 semesters of APs, so probably about a 3.7 without that. 34 ACT and extracurriculars that averaged about 3 hours a weekday after school, all Saturday and half the summer. Talking to other people freshman year, I got the feeling that my numbers were slightly higher than the average, but not a ton. Similar GPAs (if not a little bit higher), lower ACT (around 30) and they got to enjoy their Saturdays in high school.
Analysis: I would say it's not the intelligence that's changed, just the numbering system. I bet State sounds harder to get into now too and almost every college in the country. GPA especially is subject to gross inflation. Especially considering that many schools give out the extra "AP point" in the GPA to to just AP classes, but also honors, advanced, intensive etc. courses that they feel are harder than those taken by the general student body to help pump up those GPAs so people that may not be quite that intelligent can get that 3.9 and get into U-M. It's all relative. Adjust the numbers for inflation and you'd probably find them nearly identical.
Conclusion: Your perceptions on increased admissions standards, RELATIVELY to the way things are done now, are most likely incorrect. As is (probably) the assumption that current students are smarter than past students.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:17 AM ^
Much of it is the numbering system, people taking those stupid SAT/ACT prep classes, etc., but the admissions standards have gone up significantly. More applicants means higher standards. But yeah, students probably aren't smarter, they just try harder or know how to play the game.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:23 AM ^
i agree
October 24th, 2009 at 9:11 AM ^
As much as it sounds like med school applications, a big part is extra-curriculars. I had one friend who went to an average public school (Flushing, MI), got a 27 on the ACT,and had a 3.6 GPA, but was accepted because of his involvement in music, choir, and marching band (he plays snare at UM now). My other friend, who went to the same school and got a 35 on the ACT and a 3.9 GPA but wasn't very involved, wasn't accepted.
It's not really that hard if you're worried about your kids; just make sure they do all the National Honors Society, band, sports, or whatever there is in high school where you are, and you'll be fine.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:18 AM ^
One of the biggest factors influencing the student body right now is the fact that, for in-staters, it's still less expensive than attending an Ivy League school. When I was in high school, I missed this economic down turn. Many of my classmates went to Ivies and they loved it, but paid exorbitant amounts of money to do so for an education that isn't all that much better (depending on what you go into, blah, blah, blah...) However, my friends little siblings almost all went to U of M because, frankly, their parents wouldn't/couldn't pay for an Ivy League school anymore. So, there are more "smart" kids staying in state and going to U of M than in years past. The percentage of in staters hasn't really changed that much, but the quality has.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:14 AM ^
This was exactly the case when I enrolled in 1980 (during another recession).
October 24th, 2009 at 2:15 PM ^
Well.. to be honest.. I'm pretty damn sure the student quality of the OOS students is a few notches above the instate kids.
I might get negbanged for saying that but.. I graduated a year ago and the difference was very clear to me. It's much easier for in-state kids to get in. Most OOS students have the numbers to go to Ivies when they apply..
October 24th, 2009 at 5:10 PM ^
There's also a lot of in-state students that turn down/don't even bother applying to those schools because Michigan is just as good (if not better) and a lot cheaper. There were only a few schools that I thought were significantly better than Michigan at what I wanted to do and were worth applying to, and it retrospect, I'm not sure if any of them would've been worth the price tag. Also, I know I would've put a lot more effort into crap like leadership activities, getting a high GPA, studying for the SAT, etc. if I didn't have a school like Michigan to fall back on.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:23 AM ^
my hs gpa was under a 3.3 (forget real #) and my act wasnt earth shattering either, but i somehow got in (2001).
i did take almost all aps jr and sr year, and went to a top pub hs though.
i had a scoresheet from i think the daily that broke down the standards. the sheet would be outdated now, but the jist was you needed i think 120 pts, a 4.0 was worth like 40, a 36 act also 40. so you needed other stuff regardless. a good hs was worth 5 pts, schedule 5, under represented area worth 5, scholarship athlete worth 20 etc. im pretty sure, by design, gpa is not the end all be all of an application.
sounds like out of staters have it tougher. but realy, unless your going bschool, you should probably hold off on UM til grad, if you go.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:56 AM ^
The University was using the infamous “point” system, where applicants got so many points for high school grades, activities, strength of high school, 10 points for being a Michigan resident, points for coming from a under represented Michigan County, and 20 points for being black or Hispanic. 20 points was one heck of a lot, and the US Supreme Court said that was unfair.
The U then adopted the “reader system”, where they hired a bunch of folks to read each application, and admit those with good scores with an eye to a “critical mass” of blacks and Hispanics. (The US Supreme Court had ruled in the Michigan law school case that it is okay to have a soft quota for black and Hispanics as long as you didn’t give a hard defined boost to them and as long as your stated reason for the quota was to have a critical mass to cause debate in the classroom.)
Michigan voters struck down any racial boosts in the University system, so now the U has even more readers and has introduced “short essays”.
[A] Describe a setback that you have faced. How
did you resolve it? How did the outcome affect
you? If something similar happened in the
future, how would you react?
[B] Discuss an issue of local concern. Why is this
issue important to you? How do you think it
should be addressed?
[C] Tell us about a book you have read that you
found especially challenging, stimulating, or
provocative. Explain why it made an impact on
you.
Blacks and Hispanics are expected to answer A or B in a way that makes their application stand out for a “critical mass” diverse viewpoint quota (ie. My bother and father were in prison; or there is a lot of violence in my streets; or it was hard to be one of the few black students at Detroit Country Day. Something that flags their application.)
Because of this, the actual standards are not published. What is published are the grades the readers assign each area defined as high school grades, high school strength, recommendations, activities, and the essay answers:
Outstanding
All of the applicant’s materials exemplify superior and/or exceptional characteristics that contribute to the specific evaluation categories.
Excellent
The applicant’s materials illustrate extremely strong, but not exceptional, characteristics. The reviewer may have a reservation, but there are enough redeeming features to compensate for, or outweigh, the reservation.
Good
The applicant’s materials demonstrate competitive average characteristics in most of the criteria, but may be particularly strong in one or more areas. The reviewer may have reservations about the applicant’s academic competitiveness.
Average/Fair
While the applicant’s materials are competitive in each of the criteria, the reviewer has substantial concerns about the overall strength of the application and may have reservations about the applicant’s academic competitiveness. The applicant does not stand out.
Below Average/Poor
In the applicant’s materials, the reviewer detects serious deficiencies in most of the evaluation criteria in comparison to other applicants. In addition, several of the evaluation criteria may not be met or may not have been addressed in the applicant’s materials.
The reader and the committee assign an overall grade leading from High Admit down to Deny. The grades are not assigned based on a combo of the area ratings. The readers are encouraged to take into account strong essays that show a “different viewpoint” on the part of an applicant, and assign the HA based on those essays.
That means there are no published standards, but these were the published results for the 2009 Freshmen class:
· 29,965 Applications
· 14,970 Admissions
· 6,079 Enrolled
· High School GPA:
o 27% of students with a 4.0 GPA
o 51% of students with a 3.9 GPA or higher
o 66% of students with a 3.8 GPA or higher
o 85% of students with a 3.6 GPA or higher
· High School Class Ranking
o 27% in top 1%
o 77% in top 5%
o 94% in top 10%
o 99% in top 20%
· Middle 50th Percentile of the Admitted Class:
o ACT Composite of 28–32
o ACT English of 28–34
o ACT Math of 27–33
o ACT Combined English/Writing of 26–31
o SAT Total of 1940–2190
o SAT Critical Reading 620–730
o SAT Math 660–770
o SAT Writing 630–730
o HS GPA 3.7-4.0
The U refuses to publish the lower class admissions (the cut-off for publishing the high school GPA is the 15% who had under a 3.6, and they refuse to publish test scores under the middle of the class).
Cynical viewers, like myself, feel that is because the bottom 15% were most likely critical mass admittees, which would lead to another set of law suits.
October 24th, 2009 at 12:58 PM ^
It's amazing to me that even now, fewer than half of all admittees choose to enroll.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:24 AM ^
As others have noted, I think that today's high school applicant is quite a bit different than even a decade or two ago. When I applied in '99, I had good grades and ACT scores, plus a couple of extra-curriculars, but nothing to write home about. I got into the engineering school, and noticed that most of the kids around me were about the same as me in terms of preparation and academic resumes.
Now I have younger cousins applying to school, and the list of groups they are in, course loads, and test preps would put mine to shame. Until the recent downturn, there was an arms race to go to the best schools so that you could go to the best grad schools (business, law, medicine) or straight into a high-paying job working in an office in a major city. People honestly thought that your life was defined by what college you attended, and the school districts followed suit. Thus the huge grade inflation, the increase in AP classes (which were really not that hard - they just were for people actually willing to study), and the myriad of ECs that look good on applications but rarely amount to much. People today are not demonstrably more intelligent than they were 40+ years ago, but how schools measure that intangible "smartness" has changed dramatically. Throw in the insanity that is USNWR, and you have a system wherein admission to a top school is a "win" for everyone involved, except perhaps for the student.
Finally, a major factor is that far more people are going to college today than even 20-30 years ago. Before, people who went to college did so because they had some burning desire to do so, to study a particular field in an academic setting. You could make a fine living in a trade or working for a company out of high school, so most of the kids who actually applied to college went for a purpose and probably had options. Thus, universities had less applicants to consider, and those they did were far more interested in the material and had a set plan. Today, you have kids who are applying because it is the only game in town in terms of making good money, not necessarily because they even want to go to college. There are precious few jobs for high school grads, and even those require additional studying via trade schools and apprenticeships. I went to college because I wanted to study engineering, and I never really wavered in that focus (switched concentration to CE, but started ME). Most of my classmates seemed to feel the same way, and talking to my parents they entered college with clear goals in mind. Today, I've noticed that far more kids are applying with the hope that they'll discover what they want to do in school. While that is certainly one of the joys of college life, when you are paying $30k+ a year, it becomes an expensive exploration, and one that parents are less likely foot.
Bringing it all together, I think the actual quality of students has not changed immensely over the years (sure, maybe a few more Ivy-types stay home, but not in vast numbers), but the metrics for how we measure this quality have.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:32 AM ^
I'm one of the smartest people I know. But I would have been laughed at if I applied to UM because of a high school GPA that was somehow hindered by a lot of sleeping during class, skipping, and deciding that since I would graduate from HS in 1981, 1987 would be a great time to start turning my homework in. Oh, and the ACT? Being bored and just coloring in whatever box would get me through it in time to go out drinking that Saturday afternoon helped me nearly ace it with a 23.
Point is (well, there really is no point)--my lifelong dream of going to Michigan fell just short, and I totally SALUTE those who worked hard enough even to have the guts to apply, and expecially those who got, and get, in--and enjoy the shit out of it and graduate.
Had I gone, I would have been the guy who changed majors 67 times and lived in the dorms until I was 49, or slept on the living room floor of a house near campus on a huge spot on the carpet that was a dried up mixture of jizz, beer, barf, and bong water.
Back when I would have been a student, the life would have been getting high, studying, listening to Steely Dan, and RAGING against supply-side and "trickle down" economics along with wearing parachute pants and shirts with 58 zippers in them. And oh--the Bird Hair!
I really don't understand the hoity-toity attitude of colleges and universities. Hey, if a kid is that fucking dedicated to academics that he or she amassed a GPA of nearly 4, scored high on those silly fucking standardized, culturally biased tests--and wanted to go into the kind of debt that would make the US Government feel good about itself--they should GET IN. Hell, what's ten or twenty more hung over kids sleeping through another Econ 201 lecture and buying term papers from older students to turn in?
But anyway, to those of you going now (or during the internet age)--I don't know whether to tell you that you are lucky (although plagiarism is so much harder these days--all we had to do back then was pick up an encyclopedia and copy away) because of all the research (LOLZ I KNOW!) tools and the social networks, or that it does seem somehow harder--because plagiarism is so much harder these days.
I think the silly competitive nature of it boggles me the most. I'm a middle-aged college student, and the kids nowadays are a sickening combination of "contacts," Human Resumes, and Test Scores that you really wonder if anybody just likes education for real personal growth and yeah, even though it's expensive, education just for the hell of it.
I want to be Michael Douglas' character in Wonder Boys when I grow up. Except for the banging the chick from Fargo--she is fucking hideous.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^
"...the ACT? ... nearly ace it with a 23."
Unless things have changed quite a bit, 36 is a perfect score. If someone said they nearly aced the ACT I would have thought they got at least 32,33...
October 24th, 2009 at 11:06 AM ^
Uh, satire is not exactly your bag, is it?
October 24th, 2009 at 12:15 PM ^
A 23 ACT, surprisingly, is probably good enough to get you in at a few Big Ten schools. It places you in the 70th percentile of all ACT takers.
October 24th, 2009 at 12:43 PM ^
Your words of comfort mean so much in these troubled times.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
Well, the schools in question were Indiana and State so don't get too excited.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:10 AM ^
a sophomore now ... so this was correct at least 2 yrs ago
I can tell you that every single in-state high school has a "admissions expert" from Michigan for it. This guy generally has a certain area (my guy had my county and a little more iirc). He or she generally is at each high school about twice a semester to check up on it and to give the propaganda speech. They do this to basically know what each high school offers. For instance, while i did have a 4.0 on a true four point scale, I had no APs. However, this did not hurt me cause he knew my school only offered one AP class period. Also, they take an "underrepresented" high school very seriously so I got a boost from being the only kid from my high school who went to michigan.
Furthermore, the ACT and there prep stuff is not all that difficult. I never did an out of the class room prep and never did a retake yet I was able to get a 32. Furthermore, the importance of your ACT depends on where your applying. My scores across the board were about even (very solid for LS&A). However, for engineering they only look at your math and science composites. For instance, i have a buddy who got in with about a 25 and only a 15 in english (in his defense he is a german national) but h got a 36 in math and a 34 in science.
Finally, extra stuff really matters. Play sports, join the band, be in nhs (this is about the easiest thing i ever did), join an easy club like SADD, tutor kids, w/e. It all helps and it all looks good.
October 24th, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^
I had a weird experience with M when I was applying back in 2004. They wait-listed me early, then sent a letter say I was more or less admitted, but if I could just wait until after people they had admitted earlier indicated they weren't enrolling, at that time they could admit me.
That's when I said blech and went to Bowling Green. Much as I love all my friends from BG, I do often look back and wish I had been a bit more patient.
October 24th, 2009 at 12:53 PM ^
I believe the school has done away with rolling admissions, which used to make it somewhat easier to get in if you applied at the beginning of the school year. Now there's early and late admissions, as at many other prestigious schools.
Still, the overall acceptance rate is 50%, and your daughter's chances will be boosted a little by the fact that she would be a legacy student.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:51 PM ^
SAT: 1580
ACT: 32
GPA: Somewhere between 3.5 and 3.9, I don't remember exactly. I think it was 3.95 in junior year and then I coasted once I got my admissions letter...
Extracurriculars: Amnesty International and snow shoveling for old people
AP classes: Government, English, Calculus, and Chemistry. 5 on English and Government, 4 on Calculus, 2 on Chemistry.
Other intangibles: I had a National Merit scholarship for my SAT score, which probably looked good.
I'm also a pretty good writer, and applied to the Engineering College - I wouldn't be surprised if the essays were what made me stand out. (The standards for writing are embarrassingly low for engineers, the only one I know of that can write worth a damn is Brian.)
There's also the question of "diversity" - one of the essays I had to write was related to how accepting me as a student would contribute to the diversity of the student body, or some crap like that. Key point there is that it doesn't have to be racial diversity - I talked about how I'm a non-practicing Protestant but went to a Catholic high school.
Also - according to this, the rolling admissions still exist - they've just added an Early Response program to guarantee a response date if you get your application in by November 1. Applying early will still give the best chance to get in. I don't remember exactly when I turned mine in, but it was only a few weeks into my senior year.
What all that means for your daughter, I don't really know for sure - but if you want her to get in, have her work on writing, take AP classes, do some service work, and apply early. That should give her the best chance to get in.
EDIT: Oh, and if at all possible, try to get her in two years of foreign language, and get through calculus (or at least pre-calc) by the end of high school. And take a Kaplan course if you're worried about ACT scores - they work, well enough that some people are calling for colleges to stop using standardized tests because it gives kids that can afford it an advantage over kids that can't.
October 24th, 2009 at 3:08 PM ^
I got in to Michigan after a good HS career... then 1 good year at Henry Ford (cause I had no money) and 1 good year at CMU...I think I had something like a 3.7GPA at both schools.... and I applied to Michigan and got accepted. I dont know if that would happen today.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:43 PM ^
I applied as a white male with a 3.5 GPA in the Fall of 2003, at the peak of the affirmative action controversy, with no backup plan. It was Michigan or... I didn't think that far ahead.
Longest 2 months of my life waiting for the big envelope to come. And, thankfully, it did.
Listening to my dad's story about how he got accepted to Michigan in 1970, yeah, I'd say applying to Michigan is a lot more complicated, competitive, and in-depth than it used to be.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:53 PM ^
I actually just got accepted into Michigan last Thursday. I got into Engineering school with a 32 ACT (all I did to study was take 1 practice math test), 4.112 weighted GPA(4.0 when unweighted according to how UM does it), and my EC's were NHS Treasurer, Band, Basketball, and Golf. So yeah, I wasn't really worried about getting in, especially since a kid from my school last year got in with a 26 ACT and very few EC's.
I spoke with admissions director a few weeks ago and he said that starting las year UM started admitting a few thousand more students because of the economy. They want to keep the incoming freshman class at a steady number so they admit more knowing that some can't afford it.