These discussions pitting middle class vs poor are always quite disturbing. I’m sure the poor would gladly switch places with the middle class and upper middle class without concerning themselves with who they are supposedly subsidizing.
Yes, you are misreading. The quoted figures are average effective tuition levels (net of FA) within a given income band. So when it says the average net tuition for students form households in the $125K to $150K income range is $10,695, it doesn’t mean that a family at $125,001 can expect to pay $10,695. Their net tuition would be lower than that average figure, while those closer to $150K would pay ,ore than the $10,695 average for that income band. And similarly, the family at $124K would pay more than $7,385, which represents the average for everyone in the $95K to $125K range.
As for the “middle class subsidizing lower middle class,” I’d question your use of that terminology. As of 2015, 80% of Michigan households made less than $95K per year. Only 5% made more than $168K. So who’s “middle class”? If we take the middle 60% of households, i.e., everyone except the top quintile and the bottom quintile, we’re talking about households making between $20K and $95K per year. I’d call the top quintile–those making more than $95K per year—the “upper middle class,” except for the top 5%—those making $168K or more. I’d call this top 5% the “affluent,” though at the very top end this bracket also includes the “wealthy” and the “downright stinking rich.” Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with having the affluent, the wealthy, and the downright stinking rich subsidize the middle class, including the lower middle class, the true middle ($38K to $60K), and those parts of the upper middle class who don’t count as affluent, wealthy, or downright stinking rich (i.e., up to the 95th percentile in household income, those making $95K to $168K). You, of course, may see it differently.
It’s too bad they don’t break things down by in-state and OOS. That would give a much clearer picture.
@bclintonk, you make a good point about the differences in net tuition within/between income ranges. I also agree that terms like “middle class” "upper middle class ", and “affluent” mean different things to different people. However, I don’t think it is useful to draw comparisons based on “Michigan household” income data. University of Michigan families have an income profile very different from the state of Michigan as a whole. Per a recent (2015) study on college and socio-economic mobility, the median family income for University of Michigan students is $154,000. A third of UM students have family incomes in the top 5% of all households with children. 9.3% of UM students have family incomes in the top 1% (defined in the study as more than $630,000). Yes, these #s are skewed somewhat by OOS students, but the reality is less than 10% of UM families have household incomes below $65K. Most of these families already get need based financial aid at or above the in state tuition rate. I have no problem with these students receiving “free tuition” since all top universities (public and private) should seek to attract smart, lower income students.
Yes, I’m well aware that the Michigan student body skews heavily toward those from more affluent families. That’s precisely why FA programs like the “Go Blue Guarantee” are so necessary. Michigan is still a public university, despite now receiving only a modest level of support from legislative appropriations. As a public university, it has an obligation to serve all the citizens of Michigan, including capable students from lower SES brackets who may be deterred from even considering the school by the sticker price. As a number of other posters have pointed out, the university’s existing FA policy is to meet full need for all Michigan residents and for all OOS students from households with up to $90K income, which likely means that most of those with family incomes up to $65K are already receiving grant aid equal to or greater than full tuition—though not necessarily entirely out of the university’s own funds, since Pell grant-eligible students would be awarded those federal grants before getting an additional award from the university. To that extent, the “Go Blue Guarantee” looks mainly like a marketing ploy, to make students from low- and moderate-income households aware of the FA that is available to them. Nothing wrong with that; in fact, it’s long overdue. If there’s one area where the university can be faulted, it’s in its failure—whether through lack of effort or lack of creative marketing—to successfully recruit the most capable students from lower SES backgrounds who often tend to see the university as aloof and elitist, not just in an academic but also in a social class sense. The Go Blue Guarantee hangs out a big welcome sign for these students.
What much of the discussion on this thread seems to overlook is that much of the university’s FA budget comes from endowment funds and annual giving specifically earmarked for that purpose. These are not funds the university could simply re-channel into other uses even if it wanted to do so. And I don’t mind saying that as a proud alum, I chose to have my contribution to the university’s recently completed $4 billion capital campaign go 100% to FA ,so as to strengthen the university’s ability to meet full need even in the face of rising costs.