<p>Interesting. For UM, not likely a move toward eventual privatization but kind of that direction. The other Michigan universities may have a difficult time getting more OOS.</p>
<p>That would make sense. Not only will it help the universities financially, but it would add diversity on campus.</p>
<p>I completely agree with Mary Sue Coleman/UMich regarding their recruiting of OOS students. That is one of the big reasons why U of M has such a good reputation is the amount of out of state students. I do know that my undergrad, Grand Valley State University, is recruiting a lot more out of state students. Also, I’m pretty sure that MSU is recruiting a lot more international students. It will take more time to get more OOS students from other Michigan schools besides U of M, but it will help the institutions in the future.</p>
<p>"That would make sense. Not only will it help the universities financially, but it would add diversity on campus. "</p>
<p>Oh, so a public universities responsibility to educate its states citizen should take a back seat? It’s not like Michigan is one of the more financially troubled states or anything. I think this is a prime reason why many student coalitions are fighting for increased state funding.</p>
<p>MSU definitely has an overabundance of international students. Their TOFL requirements are a joke.</p>
<p>In any case, I agree Michigan should be bringing in more OOS students. In my opinion, admitting instate students does much less for the Michigan economy, especially since many instate students leave the state after graduation.</p>
<p>A public university has a commitment to educating its state’s citizens, but as state funding declines, that commitment declines, IMO. </p>
<p>Umich and some other “publics” are more like private when you look at where their revenue comes from. So I have no problem with attracting more OOS.</p>
<p>"Oh, so a public universities responsibility to educate its states citizen should take a back seat? "
A public university should be obligated to admit up to the % of the students the state funding subsidizes the incremental difference between in-state and oos tuition for, which is about 20% for michigan. So the right mix of IS/OOS should be 20/80 for michigan.</p>
<p>^Bearcats, sadly, you’re not far from wrong ;)</p>
<p>Sneakerhead, if Michigan (the state) continues the abject bloodletting in terms of funding education at all levels AND especially at the university level, it will get what it deserves.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, my fellow taxpayers and the bozos who represent them don’t appear to be well enough educated to comprehend the connection between higher education and the economy. Sigh.</p>
<p>Funding to UMich and other universities in the state has eroded dramatically over the last few decades. Mary Sue is not wrong - sad but true.</p>
<p>Michigan has done a superb job of education some of our nations most talented students. Unfortunately, the majority of them are leaving the state upon graduation. The brain drain continues. :-(</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue that it should be close to but not quite equal to that amount, as being a public university in Michigan makes it attractive to students in Michigan in a way that it would not be if it weren’t public. But regardless, it’s fair.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An absolute lie. It’s about 50%, I don’t remember what exactly but I calculated it before. I can find the numbers again later.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please do, because otherwise I’m inclined to believe Bearcats. And even if it’s not 20/80, 30/70 still seems overwhelmingly plausible to me.</p>
<p>University of Michigan state appropriation: $269,000,000
Source: [Michigan</a> universities see shrinking state appropriations](<a href=“http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/state-universities-rely-more-on-tuition-dollars-than-ever-before/]Michigan”>Michigan universities see shrinking state appropriations)</p>
<p>Assumptions:
- 27000 Michigan undergrads
- 13000 Michigan grads, of which 30% are covered by grants (9100 need to pay tuition)
- Grad students tuition differential is fully funded
- Grad students IS/OOS ratio is 35/65
- 25% of the university students take spring term classes
- For undergrad, we will use LSA upper division rate as our calculation (fair since the tuition difference is middle of the road, not as high as engineering upper division difference but more than LSA lower division difference)</p>
<p>First we fund the grad student tuition differential:
35%<em>(9100</em>(18863-9333) [fall] + 9100<em>(18863-9333) [winter] + 0.25</em>9100*(18863-9333) [spring/summer])
=**$68,294,362.5
**
Remaining state appropriation for undergrads = 269000000-68294362.5 ~ $200,000,000</p>
<p>Differential in cost per undergrad:
(18794-6220) [fall] + (18794-6220) [winter] + 0.25*(18794-6220) [spring/summer]
=**$28291.5
**
Remaining state appropriation pays for:
$200,000,000/$28291.5 = 7069 undergrad students.
7069/27000 = 26.2% of the undergrad body</p>
<p>Now this is not even taking into account the fact that Michigan matches 100% financial aid needs of IS students but not 100% financial aid needs of OOS students using money that comes partly from the federal government and endowment, so you can further reduce the % funded.</p>
<p>My calculation is conservative and used middle of the ground numbers, I could have been a lot more aggressive with my assumptions. </p>
<p>You could argue that grad students differential is not fully funded but you would just be robbing Tom to pay Sam since any change in that assumption will mean an underfunding in a different area. The point remains that the state is grossly underfunding what it’s receiving from the university and michigan should just cut what the state gets. You get what you paid for.</p>
<p>Now please show me your calculation.</p>
<p>It is not often that I agree with Bearcats, but his calculations are pretty accurate. The University subsidizes Michigan residents significantly more than the state does. I have said for some time now, Michigan should switch to 30 (IS)-60 (OOS) -10 (international) ratio. This will allow the University to shrink to a more manageable size (20,000 undergrads as opposed to the current 27,000) while providing better financial aid to all US citizens and residents who need it without reducing tuition-generated income.</p>
<p>Can’t just do the math for this year. The State of Michigan has been supporting the University for 200 years.</p>
<p>I have a dog in this race because I am both a Michigan taxpayer and have a son attending UMich. Believe me, I feel fortunate to be in this position. And while I am happy to exploit the current situation, it’s actually not ‘right’ that we do. It’s even less ‘right’ that many do not appreciate the opportunity having UMich in-state represents, or treat UMich admission like some god-given entrenched right by virtue of residency. </p>
<p>So, seaslipper, just how long do state residents get to rest on the laurels of “supporting the university for 200 years?” If the university were not diverse, well-endowed, and funded by outrageously high OOS tuition right now, we’d see the kind of program gutting that we’ve witnessed at other local universities, particularly in elite or small group programs such as music. </p>
<p>It would take less than a decade for the rigor and quality to drop like a stone. The key elements of UMich’s continued success in attracting students from around the world is the fact that it ranks among top programs across a BREADTH of programs with a DEPTH of rigor. To do so requires the infrastructure and operating budget to maintain that caliber.</p>
<p>The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the taxpayers and elected officials here and elsewhere who have become accustomed to riding “virtually free” in terms of actually supporting Umich in a meaningful and sustainable way.</p>
<p>But this attitudinal problem is not just limited to UMich funding – that just happens to be where it’s noticeable because of the standard maintained and offset by OOS. The attitude pervades public funded educational institutions throughout the state (and among many other states, I’m sure, which is likely why we’re 25th worldwide in Math!)</p>
<p>Apparently folks would rather have a little movie and popcorn money in their pockets than pay a few extra bucks to live and work in an adequately educated community, and apparently they’re not really interested in how the less fortunate fare in terms of realizing their respective potentials.</p>
<p>It’s a level of self-absorption that is noticeable to people who hail originally from other countries that operate within a more “socialist” educational framework, and while there’s much to be desired in said other countries, I find the miserly attitudes I regularly encounter here to be shameful, despite my perhaps contradictory vigorous participation in our free market ;)</p>
<p>"Can’t just do the math for this year. The State of Michigan has been** funding the benefits its instate students receive** for 200 years, and at a much lower level than it should be in the past decade and probably longer "</p>
<p>Correction for you</p>
<p>bearcats was being way too kind. He has only counted pay-for-use. He hasn’t counted the tremendous benefits of having a world-class research university to the state’s economy.</p>
<p>According to a recent study (“Empowering Michigan”) by Anderson Economic Group on the University Research Corridor:</p>
<p>"In FY2009, the URC’s operations contributed $14.8 billion to the Michigan economy. This was due to expenditures by the URC universities on non-payroll items (such as supplies and equipment) by the employees, students, and alumni …</p>
<p>In addition to new earnings, 72,042 jobs in Michigan were directly and indirectly supported by the URC’s operations in the state in FY2009. This job figure includes 10,912 faculty members and 39,265 staff directly employed by the URC universities, and 21,865 indirectly generated jobs in other industries in the state …</p>
<p>In 2009, we estimated that $2.8 billion in wages of URC employees and over $4 billion of the $26 billion in URC alumni earnings in Michigan were caused by the URC by keeping more college graduates in Michigan’s labor force and by helping URC graduates earn more than they would have otherwise. We estimate that the tax revenue the state received because of these earnings, that otherwise would not exist in the state, is $401 million …"</p>
<p>In other words, higher education is good investment for the state of Michigan. It has taken 200 years to build Michigan into a leading world-class research university; it’s sheer shortsightedness to keep trimming back the state support.</p>
<p>I think the bearcats analysis omits the most important consideration. The governing Board of Regents is elected by citizens of the State of Michigan and as such owes a duty to the constituency that elects them. As a public university, its primary objective is to provide a premier caliber of education at an affordable cost to the residents of the State of Michigan. It owes no such duty to residents of other states. Students from other states are admitted because the geographical balance enhances the educational experience. </p>
<p>It seems perfectly reasonable for the University to charge out-of-state students what the market will bear and to subsidize the tuition of residents to the extent possible. If you don’t like the out-of-state tuition, your family could have moved here and enjoyed the benefits afforded Michigan residents.</p>
<p>In addition, taking a look at operating statements overlooks a number of imputed costs. For example, the operating budget does not include a line item for rental value of various real estate and other assets funded by the State of Michigan over the years or the value of governmental services provided at no cost to a tax-exempt entity.</p>
<p>For as much as he complains, bearcats doesn’t appear to have suffered as a result of his U-M experience.</p>
<p>“As a public university, its primary objective is to…” Is UM really a public institution, or should it be called quasi-public like some governmental bodies that also charge fees (like a commuter train)? As opposed to a Public high school, where almost all funding comes from taxpayers, most public universities receive majority of funding from attendees. I think that changes their primary objective. </p>
<p>As far as property taxes, most private universities are nonprofit, and also tax exempt, I believe.</p>
<p>This discussion applies to many other flagships as well. The recent NYT article about OSU says they only get 7% of funding from the state, which I believe is similar to UM.</p>