MI Standards Order Form State of Michigan Michigan

It depends on how much they want you. All colleges will throw buckets of merit money at you if they want you to enroll badly enough. Public universities have less money to throw than private colleges and universities but they can still make things happen if they need to.Getting in-state tuition is golden, because Michiganders pay 1/3 what out-of-state students pay. Unlike other state universities, Michigan does not allow you to switch from out-of-state to in-state tuition just by living there for a certain period of time. If you came to Ann Arbor to go to school, you will never be in-state. Even though I lived and worked in Michigan for six months before I enrolled, they never gave me in-state tuition.There are some small scholarships available to in-state students but the vast majority of the scholarships offered are available to every one. You can see them here: About ScholarshipsIf you are from a nearby state, you should look into reciprocity agreements. These agreements between states mean that, for the purposes of tuition, you are considered an in-state student if you live in a reciprocity state.

If you've ever lived for any signNow time in Michigan, you'd realize that Yoopers (those that live in the UP) basically consider themselves separate from those that live in the Mitten.You'll hear people whisper about this every so often. There's one huge problem which is why it will never happen: The UP has virtually no economic output. Outside of some big Indian casinos, there are no big businesses.No one complains though. Yoopers enjoy the economic strength of the Mitten. Those from the Mitten like me enjoy the natural beauty of the UP, especially in the fall.The UP during the fall is one of the most beautiful places on Earth in the autumn.(I can't seem to copy and paste URLs on mobile. Just Google “Michigan Upper Peninsula Photo Gallery”

It depends upon your personality and areas of interest. They are both great schools and I took classes at both schools. The atmosphere and culture at UM is very different from MSU. I have many friends whose children are attending one or the other and little has changed in the intervening 50 years. MSU has it’s roots in applied sciences like agriculture and chemical engineering. UM is grounded in medicine and law, in both of which it is superior. Subjectively. UM comes across as an Ivy League wanna be. MSU make no such pretensions. I had a full ride at UM and no offer at MSU. It was the only school I applied for which did not make a financial offer. I had to go there and I have never regretted it.UM and it’s student body talk a great deal about all things liberal (in my time, it was Vietnam - UM had riots. MSU had some crankiness.) Today they talk about inclusivity, oppression and acceptance where there is little to be found on the campus. The student body and faculty have zero tolerance whatsoever for differing viewpoints. MSU was diverse in 1965 and it is now. It’s not a big talking point because it is ingrained in the culture and can be seen all over the campus. MSU has had a major international presence since they end of WWII and they have built facilities and dorms specifically to accommodate international scholars.MSU is a self contained campus whereas UM is spread out all over Ann Arbor. That may be why Ann Arbor seems to have better private entertainment facilities: clubs, restaurants, etc.I do not know anything about the UM Honors program, but I’m told that MSU’s is still excellent in humanities and math. While there, they created a cross discipline course specifically for me with the top professor in one of the disciplines as the evaluation leader. Similarly, I was allowed to take a Astronomy course for which I did not have all the prerequisites and given the extra help I needed to overcome the deficiencies. It was also helpful that I largely was surrounded by other students with great knowledge and passion for different subjects than those with which I was familiar.

It's not clear yet what kind of impact the new legislation will have, particularly given the structural problems associated with Michigan (state)'s heavily manufacturing-based economy.There's no question that "Right to Work" laws, by design, weaken Labor Unions' influence. But how unions' influence impacts workers is a narrower question than how the new law will affect the state's economy.Unions have many impacts on workers, including maintaining strong protections for incumbents and accompanying hostility to new entrants. While it might be true that average wages in right-to-work states go down, as Dave Hogg outlines, it's also true that the "average wages" statistics don't account for workers that are unable to find jobs - and that's a particularly bad problem in Michigan now, as it is in most of the rest of the U.S. To the extent that the new law encourages employment in Michigan, it's definitely a good thing.Don't believe me? Here's Google's Unemployment Rate chart for Michigan and for the U.S., from 2000 to the most recent data (Note: I didn't pick 2000 for any reason aside from showing some context for the current numbers):Michigan's been hit hard by the The Great Recession (2007–2012), and still has an unemployment rate higher than the rest of the U.S. And this isn't a problem that's going to be fixed easily given its large manufacturing industry - mass-employment manufacturing is difficult to maintain in the U.S., and we have a long-term economic trend of offshoring that kind of work to cheaper locales. That's not going to change, not in this global economy, no matter what unions do.Further, if unions raise average wages at the cost of higher unemployment rates, that's a public policy problem that this law will arguably address. Unemployment, particularly in the long-term, is insanely harmful to workers, and I'm not convinced that it's a better outcome to have union members enjoying relatively higher wages while non-members face higher unemployment rates. (I'm also well aware that the comparison between alternatives is never that stark, but that's why this is a particularly difficult policy issue: if it was easy, we'd have solved it).Some obvious drawbacks to the law include reduced union influence (though to the state legislators, that's obviously a feature, not a bug), and possibly lower wages, on average. But even the Washington Post article that Dave linked suggesting that result (also available here: What do ‘right-to-work’ laws do to a state’s economy?) says as one of its major points that "The broader economic effects of right-to-work laws are often difficult to disentangle." And this is true of much economic policy making: the The Economy of the United States of America is so big and so complex that it's a rarity that a given economic result may be attributable to a single cause.I think Michigan's problems are much bigger than union membership, and we'll have to wait to see definitively what happens as a result of this new law. But I'd suggest that any apocalyptic political rhetoric you're hearing is way overblown. If this change is truly a bad outcome, the voters will elect representatives that will vote to reverse it. (Democracy works!)

The Atlanta Journal Constitution published a list of SAT score gaps between athletes and the student body at large. The data only exists for public schools, but is fascinating nonetheless. Fun facts, plus the schools mentioned in the question:Michigan: Average SAT of student body - 1264Average SAT of football players - 997Gap - 267UCLA:Average SAT of student body - 1275Average SAT of football players - 930Gap - 345Cal:Average SAT of student body - 1298Average SAT of football players - 967Gap - 330Texas:Average SAT of student body - 1230Average SAT of football players - 948Gap - 281Nationwide, football players average 220 points lower on the SAT than their classmatesGeorgia Tech’s football players had the nation’s best average SATscore, 1028 of a possible 1600[ Of the schools surveyed, presumably ]The biggest gap between football players and students as a whole occurred at the University of Florida, where players scored 346 points lower than the school’s overall student body. That’s larger than the difference in scores between typical students at the University of Georgia and Harvard University.[ Unclear how they got the Harvard data, given that it's not included in the chart ]UCLA, which has won more NCAA championships in all sports than any other school, had the biggest gap between the average SAT scores of athletes in all sports and its overall student body, at 247 points.http://www.ajc.com/homefinder/co...http://www.ajc.com/sports/conten...

Seriously, it depends on the individual. If you're basically a normal guy and above the averages (say, 31+ on the ACT and a GPA >3.85) you'll probably be okay. Or maybe you're a four-star football recruit, then if you can sign your name and understand multiplication you'll probably be alright (if you only have three stars, you might need division under your belt as well).Or maybe you started a billion-dollar company that monopolized your time, causing your GPA to tank and not allowing you to study for the tests. They'd probably let you in, but might wonder why you're bothering with college at all.I, for one, am in-state with a 3.5 GPA and a 36 on the ACT and an 800 on a couple subject tests. I think that's a pretty unique combination: half the people I know think I'll be a shoo-in, my counselor thinks I don't stand a chance. Hopefully your situation isn't as...special as mine.

It depends on what school you’re coming from and what extracurriculars you’re participating in. That’s a good GPA, but if that’s all you’ve got with no work experience or clubs or orgs it may not be very likely.