Honestly, I think there is some truth to what @bearcats is saying.
The massive problem is when a family making $100,000 - $125,000 sending one student to college ends up subsidizing a family making $65,000. $100,000 is still middle class. When middle class starts subsidizing lower-middle class, we’re in trouble. This is when the state legislature will get involved or when legitimate court cases start going to the supreme court saying Michigan is discriminating.
I don’t know if we are there yet, but the education does not cost the full tuition. Part of the reason the tuition is so high is because Michigan wants to have the high income families subsidize the low income families. Maybe this is ok to a point, but a flat rate for tuition would be better.
Nothing good can come of Michigan pushing their luck too much, and motivating a court case or the state legislature getting involved.
There are a few things wrong about your statement.
It was done democratically. It was voted on by the Board of Regents, who are elected by the citizens of the state of Michigan and have the constitutional authority to make decisions related to the University.
Most of the University’s budget does not even come from tax dollars.
$100,000 - $125,000 families will not be doing the heavy lifting for this “Free tuition plan”.
If any family is subsidizing the families making less than $65k, then it was will be families in the $200k+ bracket which makes up a significant amount of the university at 34-35%, so they will be carrying the majority burden for this “Free Tuition plan”
$250k- $500k comprises about 14.3%.
$500+ is 10.2%
Those top brackets will receive almost zero aid.
$100,000 - $125,000 families still receive some amount of aid, but obviously less than those below $65k. Their tuition hike won’t be as drastic as those in the upper two brackets.
You might say this “Free tuition” will encourage the $250k+ and $500k+ to look elsewhere. However, this “Free tuition” is already happening at the Ivy Leagues (which is even more inclusive for those below $75k income) and at other public universities such as UC Berkeley and UCLA. So no, this “Free Tuition” plan most likely won’t change the yield rate for the upper-class.
25% of umich entering 2016 class males more than 250k while lead than 20% make lead than 65-75k. However, half of the families in state of michigan make less than 65k.
As long as this is true, I don’t think there will be court cases and I do not think the Michigan legislature will get involved. However, if this policy is implemented incorrectly, all bets are off. There may not be that much room for error. Honestly the Michigan legislature or people have intervened in two major ways that I know of relating to education at Umich.
Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI)...banning affirmative action. This was upheld by the supreme court 6-2...even Breyer (a Clinton appointee) let is stand.
The Michigan legislature banned graduate student research assistants from unionizing.
I’m just saying that Umich doesn’t have much room for error on this one.
@bearcats Once again, there is nothing in the state constitution to have direct administration control of the University of Michigan. It is not a state government institution. It is none of their business on the school’s decision on student body diversity or any administration policy. I wish the state government can do better job on their own business. If the state government is far worse in managing money than the University. Just think about the tax money wasted on the business that are no longer in Michigan. Look at what happened when the state took control of a bankrupted city. The will of the state government has been decreasing budget for public education and it seems that is what you are embracing. It is not the will of the people when the government is making education not affordable. Currently, the operating expenses come from the endowment is at the same level as the state appropriation. If the state government want to gain more control, they need to give more support.
Once again, the Go Blue guarantee of free tuition for lower income families is nothing new. It is really just a press release to let everyone know what the University already does. See below from the Michigan Daily:
University officials acknowledged the program simply institutionalizes an existing practice. Students under the $65,000 threshold—of which there about 3,000 currently on campus— already typically receive full aid.
“Students under that 65,000 threshold typically would get financial aid,” University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said. “One of the things we hope this will overcome is that perception that (the University) is too expensive, even though there’s this really powerful financial aid available. This takes away that barrier from the initial application.”
Regent Ilitch agreed Thursday’s rollout was all about “perception.”
Whether this is new or not, or whether other universities (such as in California) do something similar, is only so relevant to Michigan.
Michigan is a swing state. The politics of its residents are all over the map…from the very liberal in Ann Arbor to the very conservative in the upper peninsula. If there is a state that will challenge this type of thing (either through a voter referendum, a court case, or law in the legislature) it is Michigan.
Today, I read about a case going to the supreme court saying Wisconsin violated “equal protection” with extremely gerrymandered congressional distracts. What was new about this was that the case was not based on race. The “equal protection” thing is often used by liberals, but why couldn’t the “equal protection” be used for extremely unequal tuition costs at a public university.
As Alex said, for public universities Michigan’s out of state tuition is the highest (or close to the highest). If there ever is a real challenge to excessive tuition differences, it will come from Umich in Ann Arbor.
I was not trying to argue that UM should make school free for everyone. I was trying to point out, for those who believe that college should be free, that doing so is ridiculous.
I was not suggesting that the ACA was a crime - although I find it criminal. In healthcare, if you accept Medicare, you cannot charge patients differential rates based on the perceived ability to pay. I cannot charge someone I think is rich $200 and someone I think is poor $25 for the same service and bill each of those charges to the respective insurance companies. That would be considered fraudulent. But private colleges, which take a lot of federal dollars, charge differential rates based on finances. In fact many schools go to great pains to discriminate based on income via the financial autopsies of FAFSA and CSS Profile. It is a bizarre system couched in terms of “aid.” Why don’t they do the same at Starbucks and charge some students $50 for a cup of coffee and nothing to others?
UM is not private, but they are doing the same thing within their state - charging parents/students differential/discriminatory rates for the same product based on their measurement of family income/assets.
The big difference is that socioeconomic diversity is not the same as racial diversity. This policy helps a white kid from the UP as much a black kid from Benton Harbor. I would love to see more kids from Northern and Western Michigan instead of just Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw and Kent counties. The kids still have to qualify. Our state has fallen from the top tier of income in the past 50 years to below average. We cannot afford to waste the mind of a single intelligent and hard working resident because they could not afford to attend Michigan.
Let’s also not forget that every state resident attending Michigan is subsidized by that same endowment, whether their income is $50K , $150K or $500K. The undergrad from the resident middle class or wealthy family is still only paying $17K in tuition. State funds only cover about half of the tuition reduction from full price. Contrast that with $35-$60K for OOS and private schools. I don’t usually agree with the left leaning people on CC, but in this case it is a racially neutral, merit friendly, well thought-out policy.
@WISdad23 , I don’t think you can equate the ACA with the UM poicy. The ACA is coercive and has made health care unaffordable for full payers. That’s why it is in a death spiral. The Michigan policy has the net effect of subsiding some in-state residents a little less, but arguably, those funds would have never been donated if the intent was to subsidize every resident a little more.
“Our state has fallen from the top tier of income in the past 50 years to below average. We cannot afford to waste the mind of a single intelligent and hard working resident because they could not afford to attend Michigan.”
Very true. It’s too bad so many instate Michigan students leave the state after graduation. That is a problem that must be addressed by the state and university. The brain drain continues…
@rjkofnovi , Detroit has become attractive for young people, hopefully it won’t sink again, and pervasive charter schools in the region have improved the quality of education. Chicago is not as attractive as it once was because of crime, but I agree , we could do a lot more.
“I was trying to point out, for those who believe that college should be free, that doing so is ridiculous.”
Whether the concept of a free education is ridiculous or reasonable depends very much on the society that offers it. There are many countries that believe that education, along with healthcare, is a basic human right. Crazy notion huh? Their justification is simple; a highly educated population serves the entire collective, not just the individual. In such paradigms, it behooves a society to ensure that its brightest minds, regardless of socioeconomic origins, are given a clear path to college and graduate education.
Countries that follow such a model include France, Germany and the Nordics (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden). All 8 of those countries offer standards of living that are second to none, so clearly, free education is not ridiculous as far as they are concerned.
Ann Arbor is on its way to becoming a big player in entrepreneurship and tech. There are more reasons to stay than leave.
You’ve got Duo Security, FarmLogs, Notion, Accio Energy, Flex Dex, Deepfield, Clinc, TurtleCell, Lycera, and so much more.
Don’t forget Dominos is headquarters in Ann Arbor. You might be thinking, “Who cares about Dominoes?” However, Domino’s stock has outperformed Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon this decade.
Personally, I thought Chicago and NYC were overrated. Too loud and crowded.
But Chicago is a danger zone especially.
San Francisco Bay Area, the rents are way too high (seems more so than NYC) plus the gender ratio disparity is depression. It’s a sausage fest. They seem to have a bigger homeless population relative to the city than other places.
Seattle might be the only place which could rival Ann Arbor if you were a uofm grad in terms of experience. Vibrant alumni network over there.
However, different opinions for different tastes. Just my 2 cents.
Btw, I did move from Chicago back to AA (although with the same company since they had offices among both). Chicago seems to be the most popular destination from what I’ve seen.
Regardless of your political or social leanings, it seems to me that this is just an effort by UM to compete with its peer universities for coveted students. The reality is most other peer institutions are not showering affluent students with money. This is just competition for students that are getting money.
Moreover, there’s been a lot of debate in this forum about whether UM should adjust or maintain its in-state/OOS ratio. If UM doesn’t compete for enough qualified in-state students, UM will inevitably be dominated by OOS students whether you agree that’s a good thing or a bad thing.
Well I do not know where everyone is getting Umich financial aid info but the University of Michigan Grant is capped at $12,600 for the coming year according to the FA office. That is a little less than free for instate students and about $4400 short for upper div. student tuition/fees.
For families with income below $65K, there are various sources of aid including a UM Grant, Pell Grant, HAIL scholarship, and other grants and scholarships.
dtrain, thanks for the useful info. If I’m reading this correctly, I find it really troubling.
So a family making 125K gets only slightly more aid than a family making 180K. Both families pay about 70% of the tuition. However, a family making 90K might pay ~15% of the tuition.
How is this not middle class subsidizing lower middle class?
I don’t know how Michigan calculates expected family contribution, but families in the $150k-200k are often in a difficult spot if they haven’t saved for college. As far as who subsidizes the lower income student, it is the full pay out of state families that take care of that.
Yes, families who make more than 150k usually do not get financial aid at Umich. Even though middle class families do not get as good financial aid as poorer families, they are usually better off than those families who make less than 65k.