<p>I intentionally left Michigan out of this because I didn’t want it to become a p***ing match, but since you brought it up:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Michigan spends more institutional funds on both need-based grants/scholarships ($88.1 million) and merit aid ($46.7 million) than tOSU ($84.0 million and $43.7 million, respectively), even though tOSU has 53% more undergraduates (OSU 43,058, Michigan 27,979).</p></li>
<li><p>As a consequence, Michigan meets 100% of need for in-state students. OSU does not even come close, meeting full need for only 16.4% of its students, 88% of whom are Ohio residents.</p></li>
<li><p>Neither school meets full need for OOS students. Michigan says it meets 90% of need, on average, for its students with need. Since roughly 2/3 of its students are in-state and 100% of their need is met, that must mean the figure for OOS must be closer to 70 to 80% of need, on average. That’s a problem, Michigan recognizes it as a problem, and there is serious discussion about making FA the centerpiece of the university’s next capital campaign, with the goal to raise enough additional endowment to meet 100% of need for all students with need. If they’re already at 90%, that’s certainly doable. Total FA at Michigan from all sources–federal, state, local, institutional, and private, including both merit and need-based but excluding athletic scholarships–now totals about $289 million annually. Assume that represents 90% of what would be needed to meet full need; then you’d need $321 million to meet full need (the true figure is actually a bit less, because some of the merit aid goes to students without demonstrated financial need, but there’s no way to make that calculation). That would require an additional annual revenue stream of $32 million, which you’d get from an addition to endowment of $640 million. Eminently achievable.</p></li>
<li><p>OSU is not even close. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you get what you pay for. Maybe that’s why, in the fall of 2010, 148 Ohioans elected to become Wolverines by enrolling in Michigan’s freshman class, while only 46 Michiganders returned the compliment and became Buckeyes.</p>
<p>*That’s $50 million more for 4 years = $12.5 million more per year for Ohio State, which would be very significant imho.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At any rate, it was a simple question of whether Mary Sue stopped the tuition raise for the students or not given Michigan’s higher tuition and 3X endowment than tOSU. Also, Michigan is not our main target state in terms of recruiting the OOS students - it’s not even in the top 3 based on the recent enrollment. However, the scale continues to be tipped as Michigan’s COA set to break $50k and Ohio State raised its “National Buckeye Scholarship” from $8k a year to $12k. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>P.S. National Buckeye Scholarship can be combined with any other merit scholarships, as long as the combined total does not exceed the total cost of an Ohio State education. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, I reckon there is still a long way to go for Ohio State to reach the premier academic standing of say Michigan or Berkeley, but the gap continues to narrow as we speak. As a matter of fact, I am intrigued to see the most recent data for the incoming freshman class this fall as the school had received more than 25% increase in application. But I will have to wait… lol</p>
<p>Oh, no, my numbers aren’t “old.” Every figure I cite in post #1461 is from Ohio State’s own 2012-2013 Common Data Set, or from Michigan’s Common Data Set for the same period. Those are figures put together by the universities themselves in the fall of 2012, reflecting data for the 2012-2013 academic year which was just completed in the last few weeks.</p>
<p>You link to an article from April, 2012, talking about (at the time) FUTURE increases to OSU’s FA budget; increases that are already reflected in the 2012-2013 Common Data Set. And sure enough, if you look back to OSU’s 2011-2012 Common Data Set, they were providing only $69.4 million in need-based FA in that academic year, compared to $84.0 million in 2012-2013. So they met their commitment, and a little more; need-based FA actually increased by $14.6 million, not $12.5 million as promised. Good for them.</p>
<p>But you don’t get to double count an increase that’s already been made. And it still leaves them meeting full need for only 16.4% of their students with need, and on average meeting only 69% of need, for the most recent (2012-13) academic year. Those are tOSU’s figures, not mine.</p>
<p>^^ Fair enough, bclintonk. But do you also realized that nearly half (43%) of Michigan’s undergrad student body are from out of state (a whopping 20% more than Ohio State) and are been charged with over $50k COA which is comparable to some of the most expensive private schools in the nation. Therefore, I don’t believe it is fair to compare the two schools’ financial aid package with the same figures provided above. After all, with 53% less student body as you have alluded, Michigan still made roughly $1 billion in revenue from tuition alone last year which is equivalent to Ohio State.</p>
<p>More importantly however, unlike Berkeley, less than 10% of Michigan residents are now applying to UofM, the school (sorry to say) is essentially a fail in terms of providing higher education as the flagship public institution for the state of Michigan imho. </p>
<p>@Sparkeye7 I’d have to disagree. While the state of Michigan’s population has been steadily decreasing, the University of Michigan has continued to enroll over 16,000 Michigan residents every year in their undergrad programs, just as it has been for decades. Sure, the percentages might be a little odd, but you have to look at the actual numbers to get any meaningful data. Anyways, it’s not like the percentages are at all a surprise. Of Michigan’s 50,000 applications this year, only a little over 10,000 of them came from instate students. The fact that Michigan retains an extremely high 60% instate ratio is a minor miracle in itself, and is only due to the fact that instate students get a very significant advantage in the admissions process (some ~25 percentage point higher admission rate according to the most recent data). </p>
<p>You also mentioned that only 10% of Michigan residents were applying to UofM. I’m not exactly sure why you would consider that a bad thing. The fact of the matter is that students apply to where they think they have a chance. When you consider that Michigan’s average accepted ACT and GPA is a 31 and a 3.85 respectively, you have to realize that this will instantly discourage the vast majority of students. Especially when you consider that Michigan requires 3 essays in it’s admission process, it’s just a fact that many potential applicants who know they don’t have a chance will chose to not waste their time. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s just self selection pure and simple. It happens at every top university, and it’s just par for the course. What’s much more informative to look at is yield rates. In this area Michigan does extremely well. Of all instate students who are accepted to Michigan, 70% of them will end up attending. This is much better than either MSU or OSU, and one area where they don’t even come close.</p>
<p>No, I said less than 10% as the article stated and it also stated that roughly 66-67% for in state and 21-23% for OOS yield for Michigan. Apparently, if it were a good thing, Michigan would not have drummed up its recruiting trail across high schools in the state this past year. So, you may want to give Mr. Spencer a call for a real answer.</p>
<p>Gee has raised $1.6 billion thus far of the $2.5 billion in total fundraising goal, roughly half of the $500 million for “The Ohio Scholarship Challenge” has been raised at this point. Go Bucks! lol</p>
<p>Barrk and Poetgl, you’re missing the forest for the trees!</p>
<p>My tongue is firmly in cheek with the point that the ACC’s master plan to enhance revenue by expansion has not gone as planned. Remember, expansion was driven by FOOTBALL, and in football the relatively new ACC championship game brings in nowhere near the revenue of the SEC title game. As I said before, I was in Atlanta a few years ago during the week when both leagues’ championship game was played in the Georgia Dome. Boy, the difference in enthusiasm and in the crowds roaming around town from the respective conferences was night and day.</p>
<p>And why don’t you ask U of Maryland about their feelings about the ACC right now? And hey, I enjoy LAX, but college expansion is not about Lax, or swimming, or womens’ softball, or golf, or wrestling. College expansion was never completely about the quality of competition. It was and remains…about revenue. I’m sad this day came, but it’s been coming for a while and it is certainly here now.</p>
<p>Lake Washington, I see both the forest AND the trees. It’s just quite possible that I believe the more important work is happening in the classroom itself.</p>
<p>Look, I’m a tarheel, my husband is a tarheel, my father in law is a tarheel and my daughter will be a tarheel in August. </p>
<p>I’m not all that interested in the huge model ESPN and congress (who really has better work to be doing) are attempting to impose on college football. The B1G is not ever going to catch up to the SEC in football, and Maryland never fit with the ACC anyway. Why don’t you ask the ACC teams how they feel about losing Maryland? Nobody cares.</p>
<p>I know this is a B1G focused thread, so I will let the OSU and Michigan haters carry on. It’s fun to watch. It’s almost as fun as Duke v. UNC.</p>
<p>No, you’re misquoting the article again. Over 60% of Michigan’s undergrads are in-state. The 42.6% OOS figure is for the freshman class entering in the fall of 2012. But generally, it is true that the trend has been toward slightly greater OOS enrollment.</p>
<p>In part, that’s because the annual production of in-state HS graduates in Michigan is shrinking quite rapidly (the article you cite also mentions this, if you had bothered to read it), and the university is not going to compromise its admission standards to keep in-state numbers artificially high. In part, it’s because the university is seen as so desirable by OOS applicants that it can easily fill those seats with highly qualified OOS students. Michigan and Ohio State are different in this regard. Michigan’s goal has always been to educate the top in-state students, not the broad run of in-state students; that’s Michigan State’s job. Ohio State tries to do both. That’s fine, it’s just a different model. But because the Ohio State model results in certain compromises in quality, Ohio also loses more of its top students to OOS and private institutions. </p>
<p>Look, Ohio’s a slightly bigger state than Michigan in population, by about 17%. Let’s assume Ohio also produces proportionately more HS grads. But Ohio sends 71% more students to the University of Chicago; 74% more to WUSTL; 330% more to Duke; 394% more to Vanderbilt; 425% more to Emory; 80% more to Stanford; 52% more to Notre Dame; 600% more to Rice; 620% more to Carnegie Mellon; 83% more to Georgetown; 50% more to the 8 Ivies. “Good for them,” you might say. “Those Ohioans must be pretty smart.” Well, yes, but they’re no smarter than the top Michiganders. The difference is, in Michigan most of the top in-state students stay in-state and attend the University of Michigan, while in Ohio, Ohio State tries to be all things to all people and loses a large fraction of the state’s top students to OOS schools, because it’s just not offering them a compelling product. A fair number of Ohioans opt for the University of Michigan; very few Michigander opt for Ohio State. In fact, Ohio sends well over twice as many students to OOS Big Ten public universities as Michigan does.</p>
<p>That says something about which university is “failing.”</p>
<p>Not quite true. Indiana has two–Indiana U and Purdue, both public. Illinois has two–the University of Illinois and Northwestern. Although Northwestern is private, the largest fraction of its undergrads come from Illinois, especially from suburban Chicago. Iowa doesn’t have two in the Big Ten but it has two major public universities of roughly similar size and stature, the University of Iowa (Big Ten) and Iowa State (Big 12). Similarly, Pennsylvania has Penn State and Pitt, again not in the same sports conference but otherwise major competitors.</p>
<p>But you’re absolutely right that Michigan State “takes up the slack.” Michigan mostly draws its in-state students from the top 10% in the state. Michigan State gets some of those as well, but not nearly as many, and as the bigger of the two schools it draws a healthy share of the second and third deciles. That’s clear from the stats on 2012 enrolled freshmen in the two schools’ Common Data Sets.</p>
<p>% scoring 30+ on ACT: Michigan 58.4%, Michigan State 14.0%
Average unweighted HS GPA: Michigan 3.80, Michigan State 3.61 </p>
<p>% in top tenth of HS class: Michigan 90%*, Michigan State 27.3%
% in top quarter of HS class: Michigan State 64%
% in top half of HS class: Michigan State 94.4%</p>
<ul>
<li>Michigan no longer reports these figures in its Common Data Set, but the 2011-12 CDS stated that 90% of entering freshmen were in the top decile, and entering class stats in 2012 were stronger than in 2011.</li>
</ul>
<p>I did read that, bclintonk. But the fact of the matter is that most of the Midwest populations (or high schoolers in this case) are in decline (Ohio included). And my take is always that you take what the school adms or journalists say with a grain of salt. The fact remains that it’s all about: Balancing the budget based on inflation!! And in Mary Sue’s mind, she went for the quick fix by raising OOS enrollment instead of working with the state/local governments to revitalize Detroit’s economy in a long term win-win financial strategy. After all, it is my opinion (a former Michigan resident) that UofM owes Michiganders for providing at least 80% tuition subsidy for over 150 years. Even though the state support is down to roughly 16% these days, as an institute pride for its long history and raised in the shadow of Motown’s glorifying past, you simply do not turn your back on your own people when the money is no longer there. </p>
<p>Furthermore, my point in response was also attempting to point out that most metrics do not base solely on “selectivity” as the only means to define a school’s overall academic reputation / standing. In fact, can anyone tells me how many % is selectivity weights on the popular USNWR rankings? Is anyone telling me that UofM was never as highly rated or academically prestigious as the more selective Michigan today?? In short, using selectivity or ranking as an excuse in order to rack in more profit by admitting more OOS students for the school is a moot point in my humble opinion.</p>
<p>Once-successful Big Unit Model In Detroit Is Now Bankrupt</p>
<p>By MICHAEL BARONE
Posted 06/04/2013 06:04 PM ET</p>
<p>Yeah, I don’t really care that much, but I knew I would get it cleared up.</p>
<p>The problem with the Illinois example is that when I talk about MSU, I’m talking about a school where kids with lesser stats can attend. MSU is this school.</p>
<p>But, it’s unimportant to me, honestly.</p>
<p>I like UMich, for a big ten state university. The students at UMich and UNC are similar. Lots of OOS cross admits, except in engineering.</p>
<p>I did my graduate work at Northwestern, and the lack of powerhouse athletics is a standard fact around here. </p>
<p>Sorry to say that it is precisely this mentality from UofM people over the years which led Detroit to its current delipidated state of bankruptcy. Columbus would not be the Columbus today if Ohio State adms had shared the similar belief. In fact, Columbus, Ohio was not much better than Detroit economically speaking as little as two decades ago, but the school opted to work with the city and the state officials in developing a plan in an attempt to revitalize the city. Lo and behold, decades later, it is now one of the fastest growing cities in the Midwest.</p>
<p>Well, both of these states have empty cities.</p>
<p>That was a very strange experience in Ohio, during the travel soccer tournaments and AAU basketball tournaments. Some seriously empty cities. Very odd.</p>
<p>@Sparkeye I really don’t know why you’re trying to tie Detroit’s condition to the University of Michigan. Surely you realize that there really isn’t much of a link between the two outside of being located in the same state. Detroit’s decline was due to a a couple of unusual and unfortunate sequence of events starting with the racial tension in the 60’s leading to the incompetent and corrupt city officials of more recent times. That said, U-M, and U-M students still seem to value Detroit, as the university established, runs, and maintains the Detroit Center. The Detroit Center engages students, faculty and the community to help revitalize Detroit through programs and initiatives such as “Semester in Detroit”, “Taubman College’s Detroit Community Design”, “Michigan Engineering Zone (MEZ)”, “Concert of Colors” (with cooperation from MSU), “Detroit Hot Topics” and “Project Healthy Schools”, all of which have significant impact on the local communities.</p>
<p>With regards to your opinion that the University of Michigan was turning their back to Michigan residents because the state cut funding to the university, you’re dead wrong, no other way to say it. Michigan has historically enrolled 16,000 resident undergraduates, and they continue to do this today despite the decreasing number of Michigan high schoolers and the significantly cut state funding. To add on to that, Michigan has been keeping instate tuition artificially low by using out-of-state students to subsidize the learning expenses of resident students to the tune of over $6,000 per resident student per year. If that wasn’t enough, you really mustn’t forget the huge economic benefit of the university. Right now, Michigan operates the largest budget of all universities in the US (not all of it is academic of course) which in turn provides a whopping $12,000,000,000 of economic activity per year which is directly responsible for 40,000 Michigan jobs and indirectly responsible many many more (> 100,000). I find it very hard to believe that they “turned their back to Michigan”, when all of their actions show the opposite.</p>
<p>Oh, please. This is just getting wildly hysterical. Detroit fell apart because the University of Michigan left in in 1837? Give me a break. In 1837, Detroit was just another market town and minor Great Lakes port with a population of around 9,000. Take your meds, now, Sparkeye, and calm down.</p>
<p>p.s. “delipidated”? As in, they have no lipids?</p>
<p>p.p.s. And what, pray tell, did Ohio State do for Cleveland?</p>
<p>p.p.p.s. And come to think of it, what did your other alma mater, Michigan State, do for Detroit? These are just wild, flailing arguments you’re throwing out there.</p>