<p>Do state universities have the right to be selective? I mean, they run on state money which the tax payers pay...but then they feel it's okay to reject sometimes more than half of their applicants, most of which are in-state students.</p>
<p>Do you think state universities owe it to the citizens of that state to provide a way for their children to go to college? Should state uni's get out of the USNWR rankings rat race?</p>
<p>Er, of course they do. Think about it: any university – any institution, really – has a size limit. When there is more demand for the university than the university can support, it must be more selective. It’s still supported by the state, yes, but only the students qualified to attend (given the size constraints) will get in. </p>
<p>If state universities let in everyone who applied, schools like Berkeley would be insanely huge – which would you rather have a degree from: Berkeley or Cal State Humboldt? So yes, state universities definitely have the right to be selective.</p>
<p>Agreed with Kyle. </p>
<p>Besides, many state universities, like Cal, Michigan and UVa, have been shortchanged by their respective states. At this stage, those universities are responsible for 80%-90% of their non-research, non-medical facility operational costs. Their states are only covering 10%-20% of the costs. </p>
<p>Finally, state schools are holding their end of the deal by charging in-staters highly discounted tuition rates. In-staters pay, on average, $60,000-$80,000 less than out-of-staters over a 4 year period. Do the residents of any state ever contribute that much (in form of education tax) toward state-school funding in a lifetime? I highly doubt it.</p>
<p>jason:</p>
<p>what is the alternative? Accept 100% of all applicants? Where would they put them?</p>
<p>The impracticalities of it aside, I understand OP’s frustration. Some very good in-state students are shut out of a great deal in terms of cost and quality, and must look out-of-state (or to privates) for quality u’s at outrageous prices.</p>
<p>(Banning the admission of OOS seems righteous in this regard.)</p>
<p>State Universities are meant to offer an inexpensive education to residents of the state. TRUE. This should include anyone who might want to go to college. TRUE.</p>
<p>However, as long as the state provides at least one school that anyone can get into (i.e., some of the satellite campuses, etc.), I see no reason why the flagships can’t be selective - after all, the flagships are usually the better schools academically. </p>
<p>It might suck, but like anything else in life, if you want to get into the “better” public, you have to earn it. Don’t think you have the “right” to get into Michigan, when you only have the grades for CMU.</p>
<p>Most state university systems provide colleges that take nearly all applicants. You can go to a state college–just not your first choice if you don’t work for it.</p>
<p>Of course I know there are issues of space, and issues of prestige…but I think state uni’s on the whole need to be accomodating of the IS students whose parents, in part, fund the school and the people who are the brick and mortar of the school.</p>
<p>I live in Georgia (which is why I mention UGA a lot in these kinds of issues). UGA is a big football school. They bring in $64M a year in football revenue alone. And yet, the school is almost entirely represented by the upper-middle class white kids in ATL and the other OOS students lucky enough to get in. </p>
<p>What about all these people with high school aged kids who go up to Athens and tailgate and buy tickets and buy those ‘G’ hats? They’re just working class people for the most part, and UGA is telling them their kids can’t get in because they want to up their statistical ranking.</p>
<p>And while Georgia is a very populated state, it’s still very rural, and in many cases, very broke. White kids in Alpharetta and Buckhead go to schools where they offer AP and honors courses, and their parents are involved with them. But what about white kids in southern Georgia that use out-of-date books, the school doesn’t have a ton of money, they can’t offer advanced courses, and the people are, for the most part, broke?</p>
<p>I think schools, yes even flagship schools, need to be where the smart, determined kids get to go to at least a semi-prestigious education. Why work your butt off for four years like you’re trying to get into Harvard or some other prestigious private university, when you have to struggle just to get into your state flagship school? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.</p>
<p>ETA: And I didn’t even mention minorities and the huge disparity in opportunity there. I know there are plenty of African-American students in the ATL and elsewhere that just don’t have the same opportunities. And Latino students have not only the poverty issue, but also the language barrier. I know this firsthand.</p>
<p>Yes, they do. Unlike primary/secondary schooling, a college education is not a universal right. College admission should be always based on merit, regardless of whether the university is privately or publicly funded.</p>
<p>Elite universities in other countries, like Oxford and Cambridge in the UK for example, are also funded by the government (although, unlike some state universities in the US, the government does not actually own their assets). Nevertheless, they are very selective. Ditto for most top Canadian universities (like Toronto or McGill, also publicly funded but selective, though not as selective as Oxbridge).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, then how to do you accommodate both these aims?</p>
<p>Even within public schooling at the primary level, there is a separation in ability - kids are identified in kindergarten as “gifted,” or get put in “Bluebirds” reading group instead of the “Cardinals.” So, restricting educational opportunities starts immediately in many schools. There is no reason to think that discrimination on the basis of ability or past performance would not be legitimate in college too.</p>
<p>Penn State has several satellite branches which students attend before moving up to the Main Campus. Only the top freshmen and sophs. can go to State College for their first year studies. Also, PA has a number of state Us with essentially open admissions - some better than others… even those have honors programs etc., which are restricted to better students.</p>
<p>The government probably has an obligation to educate our best and brightest for us as a society.</p>
<p>I used to have this discussion with friends from out-of-state when I was a student at UVa: many of them argued that a higher percentage of openings should be made available to OOS students, while I (somewhat to get under their skin I admit) would argue that I didn’t really care if they let nobody in from out of state, for the very reason that kids of state taxpayers who were otherwise qualified for admission should not be displaced. I think in reality though that the state should have the flexibility to define some requirements and conditions for out of state students, with the understanding that they will also provide options/alternatives for the overhwleming majority of in-state students who can benefit from a college education. Also, I believe the OOS students should be charged tuition more in line with private schools (right now it seems like typical OOS students pay anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of what privates charge). This is not to exact punishment on anybody but to try to ensure that the state’s taxpayers aren’t subsidizing out-of-staters, which doesn’t seem quite fair.</p>
<p>At most of the more popular OOS schools the tuition charged far exceeds the direct cost of the students and represents a substantial profit center for the school. That is precisely why Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado and a few others have so many high paying OOS students and limited fin aid for them.</p>
<p>I loved the note about how UGA is poplulated by white kids from the Atlanta area. The white kids from the Atlanta area hear that their high 2000+ test scores don’t help because UGA needs a balance from around the state and 2000+ test scores from around Atlanta are too numerous to let them all in. The courts have ruled that UGA cannot favor minorities in their admissions process. My understanding is that they work very hard to make sure that all minorities who are eligible for admission apply.</p>
<p>Well, they really don’t. They say they do, but they don’t. UGA wants to keep Athens as white and drunk and partying as possible, at the risk of sounding racist. The only time they really target minorities is when recruiting for the teams.</p>
<p>I think one way to accomodate all the students is by setting a benchmark like what they have in Texas, where all students who graduate in the tenth percentile of their class can get into any state-funded institution. </p>
<p>UGA received a little over 17k applications for this school year. From those, they accepted over 9k, and from that only about 4k actually wound up attending. Now, again, I understand space and all that, but…what about all those students, especially IS students, that they denied. I haven’t worked out all the kinks yet, but they should admit some of the better applicants they denied in the pursuit of being competitive with other universities. </p>
<p>The other thing, and I know this might sound wrong, but I think they should start using race as part of the admissions process. I mean, I know people have their own opinions about AA and all that, but this isn’t some idea that’s based solely on speculation. This is the REALITY for thousands of students who have the potential, but don’t have the opportunity. Being poor, disenfranchised, victim of circumstance – that shouldn’t still be an idea one has to “sale” to people. Sure, there are some who rise above the odds…but there are plenty who can’t, and don’t.</p>
<p>barrons:</p>
<p>I think UVa does dole out good finaid to kids from OOS. Of course, the others do not.</p>
<p>jaso9n, would you want race to be factored in the admissions process if you were a shoe-in? think about that. also, your argument is flawed in that you blindly equate minorities with economic struggle. many minorities have all the opportunities everyone else does, and whites live in poverty as well. what about them?</p>
<p>Maybe I’m missing something here, but aren’t there something like 20 or more state-funded colleges in Georgia? Is the OP saying that Georgia students are being turned away from every one of them, or only the one(s) that they’d prefer to attend?</p>
<p>A few decades ago, the Ohio State U. and a few other major state universities had “non-competitive” admissions. In other words, they took everybody who met some very modest criteria. I think U of Kansas was another non-competitive school. All of them seem to have dropped the policy in favor of a more Darwinian competitive system. Anybody know the reason?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, I don’t think a shoe-in should be rejected just for one sub-par student who ironically meets your quota. I’m talking about the overarching trend here, not one or two cases. Secondly, it’s a little stupid to suggest I’m saying only minorities are the only ones who face economic troubles, when in post #8 I specified white kids in southern Georgia who suffer the same fate as other minorities. Read thoroughly next time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the OP is saying the state schools that use state money shouldn’t be super selective just up their statistical ranking. If that’s the flagship uni, then I’m talking about that one. If it’s GSU or Georgia Southern, I’m talking about those.</p>