Big variations in state universities' in-state net prices for middle income student

Parent Cafe
41

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think that’s a good analogy at all. Cornell is clearly a private institution that operates some programs under contract with the state of New York. Penn State is clearly a public institution–it says so itself. Granted, it’s a public institution with a peculiar governance structure, but it was founded by the state legislature and from the outset funded with state money. The Governor and several other state officials sit on its Board of Trustees ex officio, and the Governor appoints a substantial number of Trustees. The rest of its Trustees are elected through a unique corporatist interest-group representation model: a certain number of alumni, a certain number representing state agricultural societies, a certain number representing the state’s dominant industries. It’s not a governance model followed by other public universities, but it’s certainly not a governance model followed by any truly private institution, either. It’s clearly intended to be “public,” i.e., to represent Pennsylvania-specific interests. But unlike private colleges and universities, the school has been subsidized by the state from its outset. It’s a public university through and through, albeit one with a fair amount of fiscal and operational autonomy and an unusual governance structure. It’s not “owned by” the state, but that’s also true of many other state flagships.</p>

<p>A better analogy, I think, is the University of Michigan, which was founded in 1817, twenty years before Michigan became a state. It was nonetheless founded as a public institution, intended to serve the people of the state (just as Penn State was). The University of Michigan is not a creature of the state legislature, and it is not under the control of the legislature, the Governor, or any executive branch agency. The state of Michigan’s original 1837 state constitution recognized the University as an autonomous institution, and provided for direct public election of its governing body, the Board of Regents, who are consequently state constitutional officers in their own right, not beholden to the Governor or the legislature. The University’s only formal tie to state government, apart from state constitution’s recognition of its independent status and provision for its governing body, is that the state constitution instructs the legislature to contribute to its funding. That’s it. Neither the legislature nor the Governor nor any executive branch agency has any say in the University’s budget or its educational policies and priorities. To that extent, it’s even more autonomous than Penn State, which has the governor, several Cabinet-level state officials, and a number of gubernatorial appointees sitting on its board. But like Penn State, the University of Michigan now gets an almost trivial fraction of its budget from legislative appropriations, about 6%. It raises the rest of its money through tuition, private contributions to its endowment (which actually dwarfs Penn State’s), annual giving, competitive research grants (largely federal, some corporate or foundation-related), intellectual property royalties and licensing fees, and other “private” revenue streams over which the state legislature and governor have absolutely no control.</p>

<p>To characterize Penn State as a “private” or “semi-private” institution is just a category mistake. It is no more autonomous than any number of public flagships, and it was founded and initially funded by the state, not by a religious society or by private philanthropists as truly private institutions were. It is a public institution through and through.</p>

42

<p>fflmaster – here is a link to other state schools in PA. Tuition at these schools is about 7K (room and board plus tuition is about 17K, but these schools are located all over the state, so many kids live at home).</p>

<p>[Welcome</a> to the PA State System of Higher Education](<a href=“http://www.passhe.edu/Pages/default.aspx]Welcome”>Home | PA State System of Higher Education)</p>

<p>Also, you should be aware that in addition to these schools, Penn State has many satellite campuses, which can allow your student to start at a campus near home, and transfer, relatively seamlessly, to PSU.</p>

<p>In addition, Temple and Pitt, like PSU, are state supported schools. While I think they are more expensive than the schools in the top link I sent, they may work for your child as a commuter. </p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

43

<p>

</p>

<p>Any of the 14 true PA state schools are less expensive than Penn St. See the link to them that I provided or do a google search for PA State Schools and get the link there.</p>

<p>Of the state related schools, Pitt and Temple both provide better aid than PSU, but none are super with it except for those with high stats. I haven’t seen PSU be good even with high stats, but there could be exceptions.</p>

<p>Generally, a student with high stats can do better (financially) than publics in PA. Ditto that for students needing significant need-based aid (if they can get in to schools offering better aid). State schools seem to work the best for those not qualifying for much in need-based aid and/or without the scores to get into better merit option schools. They also work for athletes as they provide athletic scholarships.</p>

<p>As a personal anecdote, Pitt ended less expensive for my high stat kid than U Alabama (well publicized on cc for good merit aid). We didn’t even try PSU or Temple as Pitt was the better option for his plans (pre-med/neuro). Kiddo ended up going private though (U Rochester) as that not only was his first choice, it was also the least expensive for us due to their adding in need-based aid. The overall difference was only a couple grand per year though (per school, so about 4 grand between UR and UA) - not super significant, but nonetheless, don’t discount the privates. As mentioned above, if in a high need situation, Dickinson or Franklin & Marshall could be good in state (but not public) schools to try.</p>

44

<p>I agree that all loan and work study packages are hardly what one can call meeting full need, but it is done all of the time by many illustrious schools. If you have need that can be wholly met by the Staffords and work study with a small grant thrown in, that 's all you’re going to get from a lot of schools. Many of the ones who don’t stick loans in the package for high need kids or cap them will stuff packages for those with low but some need kids unless they are highly desireable. </p>

<p>What is particularly concerning about this practice is that 1) kids are getting a lot more than the Stafford limits each year in loans without even going to private loans 2) Kids whose families can just afford a school according to the EFC and other calculators are getting their Staffords and work hours used up by financial aid leaving them little leeway to help with the family EFC. I’m seeing an awful lot of packages with over $8K of self help in them. Bear in mind that the family still has to come up with the EFC. </p>

<p>I saw a package on the board here that included $5K of Perkins loans. I always thought those were loans that were supposed to to those who are the most needy. I also never saw an amount that big, and the full Staffords were also included in the package. That’s over $10K in loans freshman year.</p>

45

<p>Penn State, Pitt, Temple are all decent deals for OOSers but they are expensive for those who are PA residents in terms of being a state school. PSU and Pitt had the ignominy of coming in first and second on the list of the MOST expensive state schools in the country for its own state residents. Whatever the structure they have of not being true state schools, that really is the best way to categorize them The same goes for UMich, Wm &Mary, and UVA, but those schools have kept costs down for their own residents though they charge the whazooie out of anyone from OOS. </p>

<p>PA is miserly with education monies anyways, so those schools could not operate with the budget scraps that the state throws them. I believe Pitt was once private. I know it has a lot of private funders and it once gave some of the most generous merit money to those with the right stats. They’ve cut that drastically now, but there is still more merit to be found than at PSU. Also there are programs to help pay for Pitt if someone lives in the city of Pittsburgh and is low income which does bump up the need met numbers for Pitt. If you live in Pittsburgh, they are pretty much the only game in town when it comes to a 4 year degree at state prices, which can make it tough. You either have to drive aways upping those commuting costs drastically to find anything else or commute and pay the Pitt tuition to get your BA if you live in Pittsburgh, as your lowest cost options if you don’t get merit money or financial aid. I 've known a number of families in that situation. Actually Duquesne University does not charge a whole lot more than Pitt and with some awards, and they give many, can cost about the same or less. </p>

<p>The same goes for living in Philly and the situation with Temple. it is not an inexpensive school tuition wise.</p>

46

<p>BClintock – I suspect part of why UMichigan dwarfs PSU in fundraising is that Penn State allows/encourages the students to approach alumni and friends for “Thon”, the IFC charity fundraiser. This started out as a minor school fundraiser, but now raises over $10Million per year. I question why/how the school allowed this to happen. The money that alumns and friends would normally give that would be used for financial aid and/or endowed chairs goes to outside charities, which are likely worthwhile, but I question this decision.</p>

47

<p>Is the discrepancy $10million a year between the schools (PSU and UMI)? Never knew THON had such an impact on the PSU budget. OSU is starting something like that, I have heard.</p>

48

<p>CPT – I can not figure out what the UMich or PSU numbers are in total for alumni giving, maybe BClintock will come back. The THON numbers are public. Also public, the UMich alumns sponser 75 scholarships annually. Technically, THON does not impact PSU budget. As a practical matter, I suspect many alumn/supporters will give to THON in luie of alumni drives. I think OSU needs to sit and talk to whomever wants to sponser their THON .</p>

49

<p>They are talking. I do know that the colleges, all private, to which i have had some dealings regarding fundraising for outreach or ANY reason has to go through development and they jealously guard the alumni lists and have very narrow channels one can use to ask for money. They are rabid in protecting their territory to the point that it becomes ridiculous </p>

<p>Right now my son’s high school is associated with a college and it shares many of the alums, and this is truly an issue for any fundraising efforts. We have to get our lists and clear everything through them and believe me, they go through it all with a fine tooth comb, nixing a lot of things that we then have to appeal. Really crazy. I guess they don’t want anything to get so big that it takes away from them. I always thought it was because these schools are private and so guard every penny of donation money and donor sources.</p>

50

<p>I don’t know if PSU has OOS quotas–I do know that they are no less generous in terms of merit money (not saying much since they don’t give much) for OOS applicants. This year, in particular, some kids whose stats are not really way up there, got a few thousand in merit money, renewable for PSU and they are OOSers. Pitt also seems to give without much regard to whether one is in state or not. Though in the financial aid department, neither meet need for in state or out.</p>

<p>But,Michigan is bound by the 1/3 rule, or something like that in terms of how many OOS kids they can have enrolled. Some years ago, they accidently went afoul of that percentage when audited, and were severely penalized for that transgression. They do accept right up that mark. However, UMI does meet full need for instaters, and gives “squat” to OOSers is what I have noticed. With its OOS price tag edging into the private school territory, it has become a viable option only for those OOS kids who are from full pay or close to it families, because there is not much in terms of aid or merit pickings from there, and the sticker price is very high. If you have financial need and can get accepted to UMI as an OOSer, you will likely get into private school that will meet your full need and be a far better deal financially.</p>

<p>UVA meets need for everyone now, I have read, on this board. They too, for all the banter I’ve heard in the last 15 years, from them and W&M about going private are also bound by the 1/3 rule in terms of accepting OOS kids, and they too charge them a premium, a hefty one. over in state costs. VA college costs are very low, and, I assume, subsidzed and regulated by the state.</p>

<p>So for all the talk of UMi and UVA about being independent of the state and getting only a pittance of state support, they do have to goose step to the tune their states play. Penn State and Pitt, charge quite a bit to their instater, more than any other state schools in the country, in fact, but their OOS surcharge is not so bad.</p>

51

<p>Penn State main campus is 1/3 OOS. They say there is no advantage in the admissions process to being in-state - everyone is treated the same as far as residency.</p>

<p>In the past, there were comments on this site that Pitt seemed to be directing much of their merit aid to out of state students. The rationale is that in-state students were already getting a bargain, but that top OOSs wouldn’t pay Pitt’s list price for out of state tuition.</p>

<p>Penn State’s main merit program has been entry into the Scheyer Honors College - which is around $4K a year. This year they added additional merit scholarships, which may have occurred after a drop in applications. Many of those new merit scholarships are only for 2 years.</p>

<p>The THON fundraising goes directly to programs inside Penn State’s own Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. That huge hospital was built using land and money that was diverted from the trust for orphans that was set up by Mr. Hershey, the founder of the Hershey Corp.</p>

<p>UVa will never ever ever go private. First, the state will never give such a valuable resource (they own the land and buildings), and second, everyone inside UVa knows it would conflict with Mr. Jefferson’s wishes. </p>

<p>UVa did receive more independence from the State in its operations a few years ago. The standard that 65 to 70% of undergrad students at UVa must be in-state residents has been in place for many decades. It is a delicate balance between competing interests, but I expect it will continue. </p>

<p>UVa made a deal with the Governor that they will increase undergrad enrollments in phases for both in-state and out-of-state students if the state provides sufficient funding to pay for the additional in-state students. The ratio would stay the same. UVa openly admits that the full pay out of state students subsidize the in-state students, because the state aid has been decreasing. The huge increase in non-US students (who are not eligible for most UVa aid) helps to keep the system working financially.</p>

52

<p>Charlie, the move for higher enrollment came from the state and wasn’t to increase OOS revenue. It was part of the Governors push to produce 100,000 additional degrees within Va in the next 15 years. As a result of increasing Va enrollment, OOS enrollment is increased by the same ratio that has been mandated by the state for years, 2/3:1/3. The increase is incremental and I believe the final number of additional students is 1,500 over 15 years. The Governors office has promised funds to assist with the additional costs associated with the increased enrollment.</p>

53

<p>Do Pitt and Penn State have any quotas or is that 1/3 a natural happening for them that is consistent enough that they do not have to worry about going far over that? I know that with Michigan and UVA it is a delicate balance for them to maintain. </p>

<p>I know several PSU kids accepted from this area this year, and they all got merit money, and it is renewable for 4 years. I don’t know anyone who has been admitted to Schreyer yet, though from this board I can see that the acceptances have been issued, and I don’t know if those kids applied to the honors college much less get accepted to it. We don’t have many kids apply to PItt from here, but quite a few to PSU, and yes the numbers dipped by half. Some of the luster was off the school due to the Sandusky issue. I didn’t know that this was a trend overall, but having read about these new one time awards, apparently it hit the admissions hard, and my suspicion is that the OOSers are where a good part of the dip occurred in apps. Makes sense because for in state, scandal or no, PSU is still the best bang for the buck for a rah rah school. Not so for OOS kids who can look at OSU or UMD or other like schools if PSU doesn’t give a feel good glow. </p>

<p>I don’t believe Pitt, PSU, UM or the VA schools will go public. International students are includied in the OOS count, are they not? I know that Pitt seems to have an extraordinary number of international students and UBuffalo as well. In fact, if internationals are included in the OOS count, they probably make up almost all of it for UB.</p>

54

<p>Charlie, I never meant to imply that the THON money did not go to a good cause. I was just answering BCLintock’s point as to differences in UMich and PSU alumn giving, and its effect on scholarships.</p>

55

<p>

</p>

<p>No, not true, there is no rule, formal or informal, that limits Michigan’s percentage of OOS students, which is why it’s always had among the highest percentages of OOS students among the top publics. For many years it was about 65% in-state, 35% OOS, but in the last several years it’s been more like 60-40, and there is no “penalty.” Who would penalize them? The state legislature knows Michigan residents are getting a great deal as the University discounts tuition for in-state residents by a far larger amount than the state contributes in annual subsidies. The University is, in effect, subsidizing the state’s residents, and not the other way around.</p>

56

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The difference is that Michigan has an endowment of $7.7 billion, while Penn State has an endowment of $1.8 billion. That’s more than 4-to-1 in favor of Michigan. At a standard payout of 5% on endowment, Michigan would generate $385 million a year from its endowment, while Penn State would generate $90 million from its endowment. In that context, the $10 million raised annually by THON is more or less chump change. </p>

<p>If THON adversely affects Penn State’s own fundraising, it would much more likely be in annual giving (which goes directly into this year’s operating budget), not in endowment. Like most universities, Michigan and Penn State aren’t very transparent about how much they generate in annual giving, but there doesn’t appear to be much difference between the two schools on that score. US News reports Michigan’s average annual giving rate is 17%, #61 among national universities, while Penn State’s annual giving rate is 16%, good for #71. Neither school does particularly well in that regard, but no surprise there; public universities generally don’t do terribly well in annual giving, partly because they have such huge alumni bases, partly because they don’t have the administrative machinery to cultivate annual alumni giving, partly because the cultural norm, especially among older alumni, is that this is something the state should pay for, and “I already paid through my tax bill” (even though states have actually drastically cut back their subsidies of public higher education).</p>

<p>Michigan also brings in about 60% more in federal research dollars than Penn State-- roughly $750 million annually for Michigan v. about $465 million for Penn State. Most of that money is spent on research, of course, but that funds a portion of faculty salaries and student research assistantships, and on top of that universities typically take a cut known as “indirect cost recovery” to pay for part of their general overhead.</p>

<p>Because it has a stronger and more diversified financial base, Michigan has been better able to weather the reduction in state funding. That also explains why Michigan is able to give out about $135 million annually in institutional need-based and merit aid, while Penn State gives only about $42 million to a substantially larger undergraduate student body (about 39,000 at Penn State v. 28,000 at Michigan).</p>

57

<p>Actually, Penn State has something like 70,000 undergrads if you count the branch campuses.</p>

<p>Kayf: I was simply adding a bit more information, not being accusatory.</p>

58

<p>Bclintock, Michigan may no longer have the ratio, but it did and got into trouble from the state some years ago for going over. It was a big deal, and I was following it at the time.</p>

59

<p>

</p>

<p>No, I don’t think that’s right; you may be thinking about some other state and some other school. I grew up in Michigan and attended the University of Michigan as an undergrad, and have closely followed the University as a loyal alum ever since. There was never an OOS quota back in my day, and there never has been since. Over the years, the percentage of OOS students has continued to drift upward, in large measure because the University has been attractive to highly qualified OOS applicants, and partly, frankly, because the University nets more revenue per student from OOS students than from state residents. Fortunately for the University, these two things have tended to work in tandem: the OOS students it lands tend to be slightly better qualified and, on average, more affluent than the state residents it gets. There have been occasional statements from the admissions office about “targets” for the percentage of state residents it would like to achieve, but those have never been hard quotas, and when push comes to shove they have always gone for the strongest class they can get, so the “targets” end up being pretty meaningless, and the actual freshman class composition often varies from the “target” by as much as 10% (that’s 10% of the freshman class, not 10% of the target, so, e,g, an announced “target” of 70% in-state might yield a freshman class that is 60% in-state). </p>

<p>There may also have been the occasional loudmouth state legislator who grumbled about the percentage of OOS students, though to be honest I can’t even recall any of that, and there’s certainly been far less of it in Michigan than in places like California or Wisconsin. And given the University’s governance autonomy, there’s not much the legislature could do about it anyway, except to cut state funding even further. But because state funding is already down to 6% of the University’s budget, that doesn’t seem like much of a threat. In fact, many people think if the legislature were to cut off funding altogether it would be a great boon to the University, because then they could charge state residents the same as OOS students and dramatically cut their class size while retaining the same level of tuition revenue and substantially improving selectivity. Since the big losers in that scenario would be Michigan residents, no legislator wants to go there. </p>

<p>For the most part I think both major political parties in the state have been content to let the University go its own way, recognizing that it brings enormous prestige to the state, is a great boon to Michigan residents who are fortunate enough to attend, and is a major engine of jobs and economic growth even when the rest of the state’s economy is struggling, as it often has in the recent past. And it does all this at minimal cost to the state and to the taxpayers of Michigan, who pay per capita about $30 per year to fund the University, making it one of the best bargains ever for state government and for state residents. If, in order to maintain all that, the University deems it prudent to admit a high percentage of OOS students, Michiganders and their elected representatives have always been ready to go along with the program.</p>

60

<p>It’s interesting to compare ucb’s numbers to Kiplinger’s
([Kiplinger’s</a> Best Values in Public Colleges-Kiplinger](<a href=“http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/college/T014-S001-kiplinger-s-best-values-in-public-colleges/index.php]Kiplinger’s”>Best College Values, 2019 | Kiplinger)).
In a couple of cases, ucb’s net cost is lower; more often, Kiplinger’s net cost (col. 8) is lower.</p>

<p>State … ucb’s net … Kiplinger’s net
NC: 8272 6035
FL: 9287 8740
WA: 9384 10587
CA: 11506 12835 (Berkeley)
MI: 9578-12778 11606
MN: 15718 14784
NJ: 16490 16380 (CNJ)
NY: 16845 14312 (SUNY Binghamton)
OH: 18616 13247
TX: 22526 13681
IL: 23223 14988
PA: 24176 21240 (Penn State)</p>

<p>Why is the Kiplinger net cost usually lower? In many states, the average family with need presumably does not match ucb’s hypothetical case (e.g. it has lower income or more kids). However, the Kiplinger numbers do illustrate the same large spread as ucb’s (and the rank ordering is similar).</p>