Interesting little item on Michigan admissions

Submitted by karpodiem on
http://www.admissions.umich.edu/gpa/ "After careful consideration, the University of Michigan will no longer recalculate grade point averages for freshman and transfer applicants to the University." Rather interesting. My interpretation is that Michigan can now let in students who previously it would have paused on, as the average freshman GPA is no longer recalculated, and will (probably) remain the same as what they've reported historically. Sooo, artificial inflation of the avg. gpa of the incoming freshman class? Yes/no?

08mms

January 25th, 2010 at 8:06 PM ^

Thats garbage. Its just a boon to schools that offer absurdly inflated GPAs or students who don't challenge themselves w/ AP classes.

mejunglechop

January 25th, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^

I don't see why we should consider their own explanation suspect.
Why the change in policy? The University determined that the margin of difference in the grade point average recalculation is not significant enough to continue to sustain the effort. The time that can be saved by eliminating this step can be better utilized to focus on the review of applications and recruitment of students.

karpodiem

January 25th, 2010 at 8:35 PM ^

Counterpoint - In theory, this new policy allows Michigan to allow a greater number of students who, with a "non" recalculated GPA, it would not have previously considered. This allows Michigan to generate a greater amount of revenue and is inconsequential to the GPA it reports for its incoming freshman class, it is would most likely remain at the same level as it has reported historically, using this new policy.

ZooWolverine

January 25th, 2010 at 9:22 PM ^

I would be very surprised if the goal was to let in more students by pretending that a non-recalculated GPA is the same as a recalculated GPA. I think this is an indication that Michigan is just not putting a lot of emphasis on the single number of the GPA and is putting a lot more emphasis on individual grades and courses. Nobody is going to suddenly be a much more attractive candidate--it's not like course difficulty wasn't considered before or won't be in the future.

kmd

January 25th, 2010 at 9:42 PM ^

No, that idea doesn't even work in theory. Do you really think that some arbitrary GPA cutoff is the limiting factor in how many students the University takes? Every year the University ends up with as many students as they can handle (occasionally more), and as many out-of-state students as they can without pissing off the state, with hundreds (if not thousands) of qualified applicants getting rejected.

karpodiem

January 25th, 2010 at 10:15 PM ^

I'm just saying it's a new tool they have in their toolbox, that if they wanted to use, they could. I don't believe there is a clear GPA-cutoff, nor has there ever been one. Once all the dorm renovations are done (I'm guessing they are going to keep going through all the dorms, with North campus/West/South quad being last), plus North Quad, how many incoming freshman could they take? Not sure off the top of my head. Totally agree with you on them packing in as many out of state kids as they can without it being too obvious.

Engin77

January 26th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^

For the long term, the University needs to select incoming students who will succeed and donate back to the University. Admissions has the data from which they can determine the correlation of HS freshman grades to college academic success. I'm guessing its not the most reliable indicator.

AKWolverine

January 25th, 2010 at 8:24 PM ^

...doesn't claim it is more intensive. It claims that the GPA recalculations didn't make that big of a difference, and that the time they were spending on it could be better used elsewhere. It doesn't matter if it took far less time than reading essays; the university is only claiming the time wasn't worth it.

ZooWolverine

January 25th, 2010 at 8:16 PM ^

I think you're right about this; recalculating the GPA is a left-over from several years ago when admissions was determined by a formula. If the GPA wasn't recalculated, then the formula comes up with wildly different results for two student who are essentially the same but from schools with different ways to calculate GPA. Now that the university has a much more time-intensive and individualized system, there's really not much of a benefit to this and it sounds like it takes a lot of effort to maintain. Essentially what the university is saying is they're no longer using the GPA as a single number, they're spending a lot more time looking through your actual grades and your actual classes. I believe the old system was actually "beneficial" to students who did not take challenging classes because the recalculation removed the automatic GPA-inflation some schools gave to those harder classes (computing a B in an AP class as if it were an A in a nother class, etc). I think that benefit was balanced by another category which considered class difficulty.

mwolverine1

January 25th, 2010 at 10:18 PM ^

This is huge IMO. My school did not provide a weighted GPA, so students from my school would be at a huge disadvantage compared to other schools that give weighted GPAs. I know that there's some schools that grade out of 5.0 for AP and 4.33 for Honors and others that grade out of 6.0 for AP and 5.0 for Honors. I think the best way to do it is to take the unweighted core GPA and take into account the difficulty of the classes. In addition they should take the number of AP and Honors classes offered by the high school into account and look at the major you're going into (i.e. if you want to major in Physics, then you should be taking AP Physics and Calculus if they are offered at your school).

jrt336

January 25th, 2010 at 8:51 PM ^

OK, I went through this this year and this is my take. Michigan will still see class rank, so it's not a huge deal. I have a 3.85 unweighted, but a 4.53 weighted because I have had 3-4 AP/honors classes every year. A kid with a 3.9-4.0 from another school who has no AP or honors classes would look better in the old system. So, for me it's good. But it could work the other way around for some kids. But Michigan will still see class rank and your schedule, so it's really not a big deal. Michigan was one of the only schools in the country to reweight grades, and they're not anymore. It'll save the some time. I just think the old system was bad because it didn't give kids with harder classes more points towards their GPA. The admissions people had to look at the schedule and then take into account the toughness fo their schedule.

letsgoblue213

January 25th, 2010 at 11:49 PM ^

I also am a student who takes a lot of difficult classes and I agree that this system is better. The only problem I see is inconsistency with grade boosts. My school only offers grade boosts for AP classes and it's a .5 boost per AP class. I've heard of other schools who offer much larger boosts and/or offer them for Honors/IB courses as well. I think this system will be somewhat flawed until there is some sort of consistency on this matter, but at least this system gives students like us who challenge ourselves an advantage over the students who skim through easy classes.

Tacopants

January 26th, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^

1. The admissions system doesn't hand out points anymore, they reformed the system after the Supreme Court cases. 2. Course difficulty and challenge is a separate factor and has been for a long time. Recalculating GPA was done to keep students on the same playing field, IE one school issues 5.0s while another only gives out 4.0s. If 2 students took the same classes at otherwise identical schools, one would look better than the other. I take this as them saying that GPA just isn't going to be a major factor anymore.

WreckingCrew

January 25th, 2010 at 8:52 PM ^

As a student here, I think re-calculating GPA's for applicants is a great move. I graduated HS with a 3.6, which isn't that great for a public school GPA. However, I did very well on my ACT and took every hard class possible. I know a lot of kids who graduated with a 3.8 or above who didn't even dare apply here because they took cream-puff classes like journalism, forensics, or commercial foods. Instead of taking AP Lit, they took Creative Writing, etc. Those kids drown when they get somewhere like here. Rewarding kids who challenge themselves is essential. ... What's that? Am I bitter that I didn't graduate with a 4.0? NO!....Maybe... But here I am.

ZooWolverine

January 25th, 2010 at 9:30 PM ^

Michigan never gave greater weight to harder classes in the GPA calculation (in the admissions decision, yes, but not in the GPA calculation) so this decision wouldn't have hurt you in any way if you were applying now. In fact, they previously undid the boost that some schools gave to students taking harder classes.

scottcha

January 25th, 2010 at 10:14 PM ^

This was always my assumption. GPA is just a number that's becoming more and more arbitrary (I've seen high-schools weight A's in AP/Honors classes as high as 5.0) while a glance at a transcript is a lot more substantive (and is pretty time-intensive to process as well). Admissions always seemed like a black box to me, though. If dropping what U-M deems an unnecessary step is something that they feel the need to do, I'm fine with it as long as the big picture isn't ignored.

WreckingCrew

January 26th, 2010 at 1:32 AM ^

Yes I did get in. I'm a sophomore now. And the decision to not weight GPA would have affected me: high school students with "cheaply" inflated GPA's would be less encouraged to challenge themselves. They would take more frivolous courses because UofM would give them GPA credit for their non-core subjects.

Geaux_Blue

January 26th, 2010 at 10:11 AM ^

this action by UM means they're no longer hindering the GPAs of kids who took AP courses and got the boost. before they would recalculate so that my 3.9 including AP boost was a 3.8 using the B in chemistry as a 3.0 and not a 4.0. thus, they're assisting students like you who took AP Lit instead of Creative Writing. etc.

Mr. Robot

January 25th, 2010 at 9:29 PM ^

I think this is a positive move. The University seems to care more about the wasted resources, but I didn't really like the way they did it before. There's a difference between not challenging yourself and not having the availability to be challenged. Admissions will swear up and down that if a school doesn't have AP classes to offer they don't hold that against the applicant, but I don't buy for a second that they don't misunderstand or screw something up along the way with that at some point. My high school only had 3 AP classes (Lit, Chem, Physics AB) until I was a junior, despite being the largest one in our area. Furthermore, my high school did a fabulous job making sure Physics and Chem were the same hour every year, making it impossible to take both of them without skipping a few classes (Granted they were a huge waste of time if you were good enough to handle an AP class, but it still required going through a bit of red tape to make it happen) or testing out of them (A good way to ruin a summer if you don't get the B you need on an exam to do so). Furthermore, they didn't weigh your GPA, and I know several people in front of me who didn't even make Top Ten despite being way smarter than the valedictorian because they dual enrolled in community college to actually challenge themselves. Its situations like that I think will be avoided completely with the new admissions. Again, I know they promise to consider all that, but as many applications that have gone through them over the years, I'm sure somebody got screwed somewhere (Shoot, back in the day that could have been a deal breaker if you were white, lol). On top of that, since most of the students come from Michigan, I'm sure the new state-mandated high school graduation requirements that put a stranglehold on electives helped make the choice for them as well. Since students are FORCED to take at least mid-level classes now, the odds of getting an applicant with a 4.0 on absolutely nothing for classes is near zero. For the record: There were 5 AP classes my junior year, of which I took one (AP Language and Composition, which replaced Honors 11). My senior year they went crazy and added a bunch of them, of which I took Calc, Lit, and Physics AB (Would have taken US History, too, if I didn't have 3 first hours at the beginning of the year. Thank you counselors, for assuring me everything would be alright in the fall and sending me to waste hundreds of hours and $50 of my summer reading history books I wouldn't end up needing). Only regret there was not taking Chem instead of Physics AB, which turned out to worthless for college credit. Literally all of my top classmates also took as tough a schedule as they could (Had like 4 or 5 classes with some of them senior year, lol), so not quite hitting 4.0 didn't destroy my ranking, either. In other words, I wasn't actually one of the kids screwed by my doomsday scenario, I just could have been... They also started weighing the GPA starting with the kids graduating this year, FWIW.

scottcha

January 25th, 2010 at 9:58 PM ^

Brian defines the blog as "a somewhat comprehensive Michigan sports blog that promises to cover football, hockey, basketball, baseball, and all other Michigan sports in various levels of detail," so you could make the argument that admissions is more off topic than Michigan football recruiting, but less off topic than Kentucky basketball. That said, I totally agree with you, just playing devil's advocate. EDIT: The "OT" is gone now. Carry on.

Seth9

January 25th, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^

Michigan generally places a much bigger influence on the classes you take than your GPA, as I understand it, so I doubt this will affect admissions that much. That said, I think this could be a major development for athletics admissions. As I understand it, a number of recruits over the years have had GPA issues with the admissions department, as their recalculated GPA didn't meet a certain standard. This may be much less of an issue if borderline athletes get their freshman grades and non-core classes grades included in their GPA.

conordog

January 25th, 2010 at 10:39 PM ^

proliferation of the high school GPA arms race. i went to one school where A+/A/A- in honors was 5.0/4.5/4.0. another where A+/A/A- was 4.33/4.00/3.66. whats the point? soon high schools will be giving out an 8.0 for a A+++ in special honors program that youll need to pay 20K to be in in high school. just so you can have your 8.0 GPA and be better than the neighbor's kid. what a world we live in. please dont neg me for this rant.

notetoself

January 26th, 2010 at 7:00 AM ^

i'm going to assume that you also have to provide the scale of your GPA e.g. they're not going to assume two students with a 4.0 GPA and a 7.4 GPA are both on an 8 point scale. it's the university of michigan. they're not stupid.

letsgoblue213

January 25th, 2010 at 10:43 PM ^

...At least for me. I plan on applying at Michigan next year and I've been taking a lot of more challenging courses in high school. It's good to know that my AP grade boosts will apply in the GPA Michigan uses.

notetoself

January 26th, 2010 at 7:05 AM ^

this probably means that GPA will be weighted lower in the admissions process overall, increasing the weight of standardized tests, extracurricular activities, and essays. the quality of high schools across the country vary so much it's nearly impossible to use a simple number system to indicate how smart a student is anyway. i mean, does a 4.0 from a high school in rural idaho mean the same thing as a 4.0 from an inner city chicago high school? who the hell knows. so does it really matter if it's a 4.5 out of 5.0 from rural idaho vs. a 3.6 out of 4.0 from inner city chicago? methinks not.

Ezeh-E

January 26th, 2010 at 8:02 AM ^

and we don't recalculate GPAs. There are schools in TX and MA that don't even give numbers, they use HH, and Hon, and various other letters. My guess would be that they are now going to use class rank more extensively. Most high schools, even if they "do not rank" will let you know roughly where in the class the student falls. If you then take the class rank and the rigor of the school into account, you'll get a better indication of how good a student is. My 2 cents.

Happyshooter

January 27th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^

The way the system worked before was students at Grosse Pointe or Detroit Country Day might only have an A- or B+, but took some darn hard classes and really deserved to get into Michigan. They also tend to be the 'wrong' color for the admissions people--white and yellow (actually yellow, then white). These wrong color students doing well in harder schools is evil racist, after the people of the state of Michigan voted to make racial admissions boosts illegal. It meant that a B- from Ann Arbor schools was worth a A+ from Ypsi--with all the race results that brings. Now, Detroit students with an A will get in, Cranbrook with a B will not, even though the Cranbrook student is really better educated than most people just finishing their freshman year of college and an A from Detroit is like an A 8th grader from Grosse Pointe. However, it will boost up the brown and black admittees, so the admissions folks and Mary Sue will look good on their next job application to Columbia or Yale.

Feat of Clay

January 27th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^

Inflammatory language aside, I think you have this reversed. Recalculated GPA--if it were a big factor in admissions, which it isn't, see my other comment--worked against the people who went to fancy schools with weighting schemes. The bonus 4.3 a student had from his school, for taking all APs and getting straight As? That was shaved back down to a regular old 4.0 when GPA was recalculated. I mean, not that a 4.0 is anything to sneeze at--it's just the easiest example.