<p>^ Certainly hope so. With 60% in state student but only 40% of all student with need fully met. The number still does not add up unless most of the in state students do not have need.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, Michigan meets full need for 76.8% of its freshmen determined to have need and 78.8% of its undergrads determined to have need, according to its most recent Common Data Set. This is fully consistent with the university’s stated policy of meeting full need for in-state students (about 60% of recent incoming classes, slightly higher for the undergrad student body as a whole), then doing what it can to meet need for OOS students with a goal of eventually meeting full need for them as well.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t trust Princeton Review on this. The only way that 40% figure could be anywhere near accurate is if they’re talking about the percentage of need met just by grants and scholarships, as opposed to the total FA package which in the Common Data Set includes federally subsidized loans and work/study in addition to need-based grants and scholarships. I’m not “assuming” anything. I’m just telling you what the university itself reports on its Common Data Set, and they’re in a better position to know than Princeton Review.</p>
<p>The PR book is based on the common data set but probably not the latest. I just go through the CDS for 2012-2013. It also shows an average of 85% need of each student was met. It does not distinguish in-state and oos students in Financial aid data and it also does not have the number for government loan and work study. So it still does not show if in-state students are 100% need met. However, it does show a better percentage of need fully met (1955 out of 2547 freshmen). That is a relief already.</p>
<p>billcsho or bclintonk, do either of you know when the 2013-2014 data set is released? My counselor said he received something “hot off the press” from Michigan but I didn’t have time today to see him. I don’t see it on the website, [Office</a> of Budget & Planning: Common Data Set](<a href=“Office of Budget and Planning”>Office of Budget and Planning), but maybe they send the info to college counselors first?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The release date on the last several has been in January so that’s when I’d look for it.</p>
<p>I just got a response from the financial aid office. They said they do provide 100% need to in-state students.</p>
<p>Yes, 85% of need is provided overall, and 100% is provided to resident students. U-M is the only university in the State of Michigan to provide full need for all instate students.</p>
<p>Just as a reminder, “meets full need” doesn’t always make it financially possible to go. Many (maybe most) families cannot afford their EFC- which is generally lower than what PROFILE schools calculate “need” to be.</p>
<p>If you can get in to Michigan, even IS, you can likely get very significant merit aid elsewhere. Graduating without debt is a very sweet deal if you can get it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, this is a valid point. Also, “meets full need” may include substantial loans and/or work-study, so some students may get a better financial deal elsewhere as the mix of grants, loans, and work-study offered by each school will vary. </p>
<p>On the other hand, a school like Michigan State “meets full need” for less than 20% of its students, so it seems certain that even a majority of in-state students with need are getting “gapped” there, meaning they receive FA offers (including grants, loans, and work-study) for less than the full amount of their calculated need. Some highly qualified applicants do get nice merit offers from MSU, but they’re a smallish minority of MSU’s entering class. And Michigan actually awards more than twice as much in merit scholarships as MSU ($46 million to $20 million in 2012-13, according to each school’s 2012-13 Common Data Set), though obviously the merit offers may be going to different groups of students at the two schools.</p>
<p>I think on the whole Michigan’s FA must work pretty well for most in-state accepted students given their high in-state yield, which I believe is somewhere around 60% if not a little higher. FA is much spottier for OOS students, however; they’re not at present able to commit to meeting full need for OOS, and a lot of OOS students with need end up going elsewhere, which pulls down Michigan’s overall yield. The flip side of that is that the OOS students who do enroll tend to skew pretty affluent. It’s kind of sad to see the number of OOS accepted students posting on the Michigan CC boards during admissions season, saying Michigan was their top choice but they’ll be going elsewhere because the FA just doesn’t work for them. As I understand it, the upcoming capital campaign will make filling that FA gap a major goal.</p>
<p>Besides need based aid, merit aid is also an important consideration particularly for those who do not qualify for any need. For example, UMich does not sponsor NM scholarship while many oos public may. Even those which do not offer automatic admission or full ride to all NMF, the amount of scholarship because of the NMF status can be substabtial although it may still be competitive.</p>
<p>bc, I never doubted that Michigan is the most generous IS school. MSU and others can’t come close to what Michigan offers financially due to lack of resources. That doesn’t mean that OOS schools can’t be financially more appealing than Michigan. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. What gives you that idea? First off, Michigan and MSU have very similar tuition rates so the COA is about the same. AFAIK, MSU is actually even a bit cheaper than Michigan. </p>
<p>Some schools will give top students merit aid to attract them but there is only so much aid to go around and there are a lot of students qualified for Michigan.</p>
<p>Is your question about oos school offering more merit aid or in state schools? It is a bit confusing and the response above is about other in state schools. There are oos schools which may offer more merit aids that may make the total cost lower than attending UMich. It really depends on what school and what major you want to study, and how much extra you are willing to pay to go to UMich. For most students that do not qualify for large merit aid from oss, financial should not be the reason for them to go oos. It may be the specific program/major, geographic, or other factors in their consideration.</p>
<p>It is too specific, but everything is possible. It is likely a lower tier in state school to offer more merit aid to a student who would not qualify for (or receive less) merit aid at UMich. If yo just want to see the average amount of merit aid received per student, you can find out from CDS or information on the web or those college guides.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reality is that not that many Michigan residents attend large OOS publics. The “terms of trade” tend to be pretty one-directional, with far more OOS students electing to attend the University of Michigan than Michigan residents electing to attend OOS public flagships. Here are some examples (figures represent enrolled freshmen in the fall of 2010, the latest data available):</p>
<p>California residents enrolling at Michigan: 297
Michigan residents enrolling at UC Berkeley: 15
Michigan residents enrolling at UCLA: 1</p>
<p>Florida residents enrolling at Michigan: 65
Michigan residents enrolling at Florida: 2</p>
<p>Illinois residents enrolling at Michigan: 319
Michigan residents enrolling at Illinois: 15</p>
<p>Indiana residents enrolling at Michigan: 31
Michigan residents enrolling at Indiana: 59
Michigan residents enrolling at Purdue: 69</p>
<p>Maryland resident enrolling at Michigan: 104
Michigan residents enrolling at U Maryland: 6</p>
<p>Massachusetts residents enrolling at Michigan: 80
Michigan residents enrolling at UMass-Amherst: 6</p>
<p>Minnesota residents enrolling at Michigan: 32
Michigan residents enrolling at Minnesota: 15</p>
<p>New Jersey residents enrolling at Michigan: 234
Michigan residents enrolling at Rutgers: 0</p>
<p>New York residents enrolling at Michigan: 361
Michigan residents enrolling at Stony Brook: 1
Michigan residents enrolling at Binghamton: 1</p>
<p>North Carolina residents enrolling at Michigan: 18
Michigan residents enrolling at UNC Chapel Hill: 2</p>
<p>Ohio residents enrolling at Michigan: 148
Michigan residents enrolling at Ohio State: 46</p>
<p>Pennsylvania residents enrolling at Michigan: 122
Michigan residents enrolling at Penn State: 27</p>
<p>Texas residents enrolling at Michigan: 78
Michigan residents enrolling at Texas: 7</p>
<p>Virginia residents enrolling at Michigan: 27
Michigan residents enrolling at UVA: 2</p>
<p>Wisconsin residents enrolling at Michigan: 24
Michigan residents enrolling at Wisconsin: 30</p>
<p>Indiana is the big anomaly here. Not sure what’s up with that, though Purdue has a terrific engineering school and gives out quite a few large merit scholarships, so a Michigan resident intent on engineering who doesn’t get into the University of Michigan might find Purdue an attractive alternative, especially with merit; and even some cross-admits might choose Purdue if the finances are favorable. Wisconsin also takes in a few more Michiganders than it exports Wisconsinites to Michigan, though I suspect some of that just reflects the fact that most of the UP is closer to Madison than to Ann Arbor. For most states, though, it’s pretty lopsided.</p>
<p>Michigan residents do attend some OOS MAC schools in large numbers, but probably most of these are not University of Michigan-caliber students: Toledo 327, Bowling Green 234, Miami U (OG) 98, Ball State 40. Toledo offers in-state tuition to residents of Monroe County, Michigan, which is right across the border and within easy commuting distance. Bowling Green offers automatic merit scholarships to any OOS student with a 3.0 HS GPA or a 20+ ACT.</p>
<p>It’s easier to get into Indiana that most of the other schools. Also, Bloomington is a very nice town.</p>
<p>^ Interesting stat. Indeed, very interesting. However, one need to pay attention to the size of the school also. UMich is very big, while some other state’s flagship public schools are not as big. This actually make the Purdue case more phenomenal. In addition, some states have multiple flagship schools like California that may diluted out the oos students from Michigan per school. Of course, the oos cost plays an important role there too. Most important, UMich has a higher oos student ratio than most public schools. So with 40% of undergraduates in a large school like UMich from oos, I would expect this kind of bias.</p>
<p>Indiana has a music school on a level par with UM (that would be outstanding.) Music students need to get over 2 hurdles- academic admission, and passing the music audition. Also fit is particularly important for music. Professor and student must work well together and music style, ensembles available all important. Guessing at least a few of those IU students either didn’t pass one of the hurdles at UMichigan and/or felt the vibe better for them at Indiana. Music schools generally relax academic admission standards somewhat for music students when necessary, but since IU’s regular standards are lower than UM, they probably can relax a bit more than UM.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought I had this in a previous post. In the Fall of 2010, 98 Michigan residents enrolled as freshmen at Miami U (OH).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some. Enrolled freshmen from Michigan, Fall 2010: Loyola (Chicago) 132, Notre Dame 92, DePaul 84, Northwestern 81, Dayton 80, Denison 49, Marquette 46, Penn 34, Cornell 32, Butler 32, Chicago 31, College of Wooster 30, WUSTL 27, Case Western 29, Harvard 26, MIT 24, Johns Hopkins 24, Oberlin 22, U Miami (FL) 22, Tulane 20, Princeton 18, Georgetown 18, Xavier (OH) 18, Duke 16, Yale 16, USC 16. No doubt I missed some, but you get the picture: the Chicago area and Ohio are fairly popular with Michiganders, relatively little beyond that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think size is much of a factor with most of these schools. Ohio State, Penn State, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas, and Florida all have more undergrads than Michigan–Texas and Penn State each have nearly 40,000 undergrads, Ohio State has over 43,000 compared to Michigan’s approximately 28,000. UCLA is about the same size as Michigan. The rest are smaller, but not by anywhere near enough to account for the difference in numbers of state residents going to the OOS flagship. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>California residents enrolling at Michigan: 297
California residents enrolling at Michigan State: 33
Michigan residents enrolling at UC Berkeley: 15
Michigan residents enrolling at UCLA: 1
Michigan residents enrolling at UCSD: 2
Michigan residents enrolling at UC Santa Barbara: 4
Michigan residents enrolling at UC Davis: 0
Michigan residents enrolling at UC Irvine: 1
Michigan residents enrolling at UC Santa Cruz: 1
Michigan residents enrolling at UC Riverside: 0</p>
<p>^That is very interesting. I am surprised when I compare the enrollment number between Purdue and UMich again. Disregarding the smaller size of the campus, the undergraduate body is about the same size.
I think we left out one important factor which is the population of each state. California has 38M while Michigan has less than 10M. I don’t have the numbers for high school graduate but I assume it should be more or less proportional. That may partly explain the unbalance between California and Michigan. Also, we should not leave out the privates in California that also attract many Michigan students while there is nothing near the level of UMich in Michigan. Do you have the numbers for USC, Caltech, Stanford, etc?
For neighboring mid-west states, there is some financial aids available for oos students. this may partly explain why there are more students going to Indiana for instance. Going to California is very expensive, no matter it is private or public.</p>