<p>"Coleman said shed like to begin shrinking the size of the University."</p>
<p>Coleman:</a> 'U' must work to better control freshman class size | The Michigan Daily</p>
<p>More quotes from the same article:</p>
<p>"Weve been working on trying to shrink a little bit"</p>
<p>"We are planning to try to tighten up again"</p>
<p>She’s certainly off to a great start with this year’s record freshman class.</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>I don’t see why this is so difficult to accomplish. Michigan’s yield has ALWAYS been between 40% and 45%. I have been saying for years that Michigan should enroll much smaller freshmen classes. The University simply does not have the resources to handle 5,500-6,500 freshmen. At most, Michigan should enroll 5,000 freshmen, although ideally, it would enroll 4,000-4,500. Of course, as long as the in-state : out-of-state ratio remains 2:1, that will not happen, but 5,300-5,500 should be the limit. Obviously, should the university choose to enroll as many out-of-state students as in-state students, the University can then afford smaller classes. Ideally, I think out-of-state students should outnumber in-state students by a factor of 2:1.</p>
<p>The math is simple…REALLY SIMPLE. I honeslty don’t see why this is such a “big challenge”. Michigan always goes by the assumption that the yield will be at a record low. In other words, they operate on the assumption that the yield will be 40%. Most other universities operate on the premise that they will have a record high yield and should that not happen, dip into their wait list. Everybody else does it. Let us assume we shoot for a class of 5,300 next year (likely given the size of this year’s class). Michigan should admit 11,800 applicants. Not one student more. Should the yield for that particular crop be lower (say 40%), then Michigan would receive 4,700 enrollment checks. That’s where Michigan would dip into its waitlist and admit 800 or so students.</p>
<p>This woman does not deserve to be pulling in half a mil / year if she’s just figuring this out.</p>
<p>she doesn’t care about the admissions process. she’s more into the globalization, research side and the partnerships with other industries and regions.</p>
<p>I agree with kb. A university president’s job extends way beyond admissions. I have met Mary Sue Colemen and I think she is a good president. And the folks at the office of admissions are also very good. Ted Spencer is excellent at his job. The university’s main problem is courage. They do not have the courage to reject students. I think the last few years have taught them that they have no choice. Hopefully, they will turn this learning to action.</p>
<p>" Ideally, I think out-of-state students should outnumber in-state students by a factor of 2:1."</p>
<p>At this point it ceases to be a service for the people of Michigan, and becomes a business with the goal of milking money from wealthy OOSers. Maybe more financially sensible, but maybe the University of Phoenix model isn’t the way for everyone.</p>
<p>QwertyKey, I don’t understand your point. Is a private university a “business with the goal of milking money from wealthy OOers”? Are Cornell, Northwestern and Penn to be compared to the University of Phoenix? </p>
<p>Why should the University of Michigan be two-thirds in-state when the state only accounts for 13% of its operating costs? That’s not service, it is enslaving itself to a bunch of deadbeat, free-loading residents. The state residents should either pay higher taxes or accept that the University of Michigan can only take a limited number of students (1,500-2,000 annually). </p>
<p>Even the math does not add up. Michigan has 17,500 undergrads who are in-state residents. Their subsidy, on average, is $24,000 per student. That’s the tuition differential between full cost and in-state cost. 17,500 X $24,000 is $420,000,000. Michigan receives $310,000,000 from the state. There is a $111,000,000 gap that needs to be accounted for.</p>
<p>Why do you think the school has grown from 21,000 undergrads to 27,000 undergrads over the last 20 years when the state population has barely changed in that same period of time? The relative state contribution to the University’s budget has declined from over 30% to barely over 10%. </p>
<p>Michigan should do the following:</p>
<p>1) Increase the number of OOS and international students from 2,000 per class to 3,000 per class </p>
<p>2) Increase OOS tuition to match that of its peer institutions (Boston College, Cornell, NYU, Northwestern, Penn, USC etc…) from $36,000 to $40,000 or so</p>
<p>3) Decrease the number of in-state students from 4,000 per class to 1,500 per class</p>
<p>4) Keep in-state tuition the same</p>
<p>This would increase funding raised by tuition by 17%</p>
<p>5) Use that 17% increase in funding to meet 100% of demonstrated financial need to ALL students, including international</p>
<p>I don’t have time to really do a proper response right now, but to say something…</p>
<p>By University of Phoenix model, I meant admitting those who are under-qualified (or less qualified than current students), and charging them a heavy tuition. I say that because I remember seeing a study (someone posted it in this forum) that said that the average UG GPA of OOS students was only slightly higher than those for IS students. It would stand to reason that if the university doubled the number of OOS students and halved the number of IS students, the average OOS student would be less qualified than the average IS student. Comparing it to University of Phoenix was a half-joke comment, but that’s what I was thinking when I said it.</p>
<p>Also, the 110M gap is far over compensated by halving the number of IS students.</p>
<p>QwertyKey, although my plan calls for a larger ratio of OOS students, the number would not increase as dramatically (1,000 additional OOS students per class).</p>
<p>Furthermore, the added funding generated by the new model would allow Michigan to offer more generous aid and scholarships, thereby maintaining a high quality student body. Besides, over time, my model would make Michigan far more appealing to top students, as it would likely make the university appear far more selective than it is today.</p>
<p>Finally, I do not think that the $110,000,000 gap would be far over compensated by halving the number of IS students. Remember that:</p>
<p>1) My plan calls for further increase in the cost of OOS tuition, increasing the subsidy from $24,000 to $28,000</p>
<p>2) The annual budget from the state is likely to continue to drop</p>
<p>Alexandre, Usually I agree with your postings, and appreciate the time that you spend on them. However, my tailfeathers are ruffeled when you, who not only doesn’t live in MI, but lives in another country, suggests that MI residents pay higher taxes. When there are budget shortfalls, find ways to reduce spending.</p>
<p>rumandting, do you really want the University of Michigan to reduce spending? Where should they cut? Financial aid programs to make the university affordable only to the wealthy? Faculty headcount to make classes larger than they are? Perhaps cease renovating facilities so that in time, the university infrastructure starts falling apart? As our peer universities increase their budgets annually to attract more faculty, shore up their financial aid programs and build/renovate world class facilities, do you honestly believe that the University of Michigan is going to cost-cut its way back to respectibility?</p>
<p>In the end, Michigan will no longer be a world class university. Is that what residents of the state of Michigan really want? The slow decay of its flagship university into obsolescence? Cutting costs is sure to do that in time…and is not the answer in this instance. I believe Michigan has cut as much cost as it can over the last few years. Raising taxes, I grant you, is the the way to go either. </p>
<p>In my opinion, altering the makeup of the student body is the only viable sollution. There are way too many in-state students and not enough out-of-state and international students. In-state students are a financial liability and burden to the university. They receive way more than state funding covers. It is thanks to out-of-state and international students that the University generates sufficient income to keep going. Making Michigan’s undergraduate student body smaller with a higher percentage of students paying full OOS freight is the only way Michigan can maintain its competitive edge.</p>
<p>^^^
Sending more In-State students to Michigan State (or to other state schools that have lower tuition) would reduce spending.</p>
<p>OOS tuition is already way up there with its “peers” (the group you mentioned) - you think increasing OOS tuition to $40 will net the same OOS candidates? Eesh. At a certain point, you can’t just keep charging more without changing the fabric of a university. It’s peers are also Illinois, Penn St, Wisconsin depending on how you look at it, at least for engineering.</p>
<p>You are correct that eventually UM could raise OOS tuition to the point where fewer OOS candidates would apply. However, it should be relatively easy to determine that price point (and adjust OOS tuition accordingly) and also don’t forget that Alexandre suggested more FA for ALL students. Increased OOS FA for the highest achieving and needy OOS students would help the attractiveness and reputation of Michigan…IMHO. Certainly hasn’t hurt UVa or UNC(CH).</p>
<p>Financial aid-- I have no clue how this is actually handed out, it is a mystery to me. Unless you have to either be in state or from the slums. </p>
<p>I agree, cut down on the number of in state kids. No Free Lunch.</p>
<p>There are always places to cut costs. I would start with the elimination of positions such as “Diversity Peer Advisor” and “Diversity Education Assistant”. Just think of the money they could save on ink if they stopped shoving the word diversity down everyone’s throat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And how much money do you think that would be?</p>
<p>Not enough, but lots of small cuts can ad up. I live in Michigan and get tired of CC people frequently making it sound like the in state kids don’t deserve to be there. My son is there, and received some merit scholarship (admittedly, not much). Admissions should be by grades / test scores, not by residency, ethnicity, etc.</p>