Agree with both the above posts! One clarification as I mentioned before - what is lower income? Family of four making 150K in Chicago suburb of Napeville, is middle-middle income - do not think they can afford U of M with the home prices in Naperville!
Question: When I went to Undergrad & Grad School - most number of high achievers in the class then and even now (based on my son’s school - Top 10 ranked HS in US almost all of last decade!) - are more from the middle-middle class or lower-middle class! If U of M is attracting mainly OOS, kids from upper class families, won’t the standards go down if 46% of the undergrads are from OOS per another poster?
Another part of the puzzle, these OOS kids from upper class families most likely do NOT have the numbers to get in to Ivies and settling for U of M, right? Then, how does and how will - U of M maintain its reputation as the One of the Top Public University (may be 2nd only to UC Berkeley?) if the Top Kids in the country from middle-middle class go to Ivies due to better scholarships and Top kids from private schools go to Ivies too? Something for U of M administrators to think about?
150-200k/year is not “middle-middle” class no matter how you cut it. Being able to live in one of the best neighborhoods in one of the best suburbs is a privilege.
With that income, you are able to send your children to the best private or public schools, pay for standardized test classes/tutoring, not have to worry nearly as much about violent crime - you cannot expect to have the same amount of assistance as families in more modest situations. This is coming from someone who comes from a household near that relatively high income range and grew up in one of those cozy suburbs.
Does Michigan have a long way to go in expanding out-of-state aid? Yes, especially for international students. But progress for non-international out-of-state students has been very promising and I am a huge proponent for reaching parity with the Ivy League in terms of financial aid.
However, the argument that people in the 150-200k income level (assuming normal assets) are being boxed out is very silly. Michigan already has too high a proportion of students from that income level. It does more harm than good for the cause of reaching financial aid parity with the Ivies.
As a UofM alumni, and a resident of Ann Arbor, MI,my opinion is that I doubt UofM really cares about attracting middle class white kids from OOS. They have plenty of those kinds of applicants. Who they are trying to recruit is students of color, lower income students, transfer students from community colleges, and 1st generation college students. They want to increase those types of diversity, not just geographic diversity. Those students get plenty of aid.
Yikesyikesyikes - 150-200k - being middle-middle class in true for some suburbs - with a family for 4! Just dd the calculation for FAFSA, CSS, etc. - the cost of attending U of M is higher because private schools are much more generous - as OOS!
BTW, 150K in Bay area (tons of friends and relatives) would put you in a lower middle class!!
Both yikes and 4forpru - are not addressing my question - the kids attending U of M are NOT middle class in my opinion since it is not possible to pay that type of out of pocket expenses since FAFSA does not take into account cost of living index in the calculation!
Do some back of the envelope calculation for monthly expenditures …with no scholarship, it is more than 5K per month after taxes - Federal, State and City, and not including property tax etc. Do you guys have any ideas on the tax rate for families with the income 125-150K?
^ why are you assuming the cost would be paid entirely out of current income? You do realize some save for college right?
4torpu - Do agree with your statement - about U of M not trying to attract middle class?
My question was how do they attract middle-middle class students for OOS since according to another post - 46% of students are OOS. Also, do not think U of M gives in-state tuition to contiguous states?
Wondering how they are able to attract top oos students --either their parents take loans or or those kids are more upper middle class? That was crux of my question.
yikesyikes - you changed the income to 150-200K instead what I said! Yes, if you live in a nicer suburbs for the sake of good public high school - you pay more for the home and of course, higher property taxes! You created straw amn about moderate and low income – nobody is comparing them to middle-middle class! In fact, if you are below certain income levels, Ivies (UPenn and Princeton, I know) pay for living to in addition to tuition.
Was asking about about how the middle-middle and lower-middle class are able to afford - you yourself acknowledge that you are from the upper class - that is exactly my point! Was trying to find how the middle class students among the 46% OOS students afford - it was matter of fact question, not a complaint or whining! Stick to information exchange not go in to motives or holier than thou comments!
First, the 46% figure for OOS students is per the UMich CDS for first-year first-time students. Second, the OOS acceptance rate for UMich is 19%. The overall acceptance rate (with in state students included) is 23.5%. Thus, the OOS students raise the level of the admission statistics (“standards”), not lower them.
Maybe they have a large number of middle class students in their in-state pool, so they don’t necessarily need to attract that group in their out of state pool.
Middle class is 45 to 125k. They attract kids from the middle class by offering scholarships for admitted applicants whose incomes are 45-95k. .(Median income for a family of 4 in the US is about 62).
That leaves a gap for 95-250k families but they have plenty of upper middle class students from Michigan.
Some OOS parents may take loans but many kids simply attend elsewhere.
As for families that earn more than 250k, regardless of cost of living they have choices. They may well be in the same boat as the 150k families who live elsewhere, but they can find colleges that work for their kid’s scores and their finances. Michigan is thrilled if one suxh family sends their child but they’re really not hurting for students in that income bracket.
Without going through a lot of personal detail, my daughter is a freshman. We are OOS and are Caucasian with an income of close to 100K. We got offered $3,000 work study, $24,000 grant and $12,500 merit scholarship directly from UM. Daughter was also fortunate to get a few outside scholarships too. All said and done we got a financial aid package of $54,0000 first year. That does include the basic $5500 federal loan. We are paying a little over $10K out of our pocket to send her there. Looks like she will basically have a car loan after graduation. I am only writing this because we did not think we could afford a school like UM last year and it worked out. Still apply and don’t give up.
What do you mean I changed my numbers from what you said? Refer to your post #17 - you clearly try to push the hyperbole that 200k in San Francisco, a city with an average household income in the ballpark of 100k, makes you “middle-middle” or even “lower-middle” class. This is objectively false when your income is twice the average household. I get that the Bay Area is expensive - I have tons of personal connections there. However, this kind of hyperbole really hurts credibility for those invested in affordable housing efforts there.
Also, I am not sure if you read my reply completely. I implied that the fact you are able to live comfortably in one of the best neighborhoods in one of the best suburbs already disqualifies you from being what you call “middle middle class”. To call a household making 200k “middle-middle” class is pretty ridiculous. With that income, you can live pretty comfortably in Beverly Hills. You cannot possibly call someone with that income “middle middle” class.
And… Michigan’s student statistics do not lie. We have a disproportionate amount of students in this pretty high income category (including myself - I grew up very comfortably in a nice NJ suburb). Although financial aid expansion is important, it should be prioritized in other areas before catering to the upper middle class and upper class - such as true middle class OOS and international students (40-120ish k household income with normal assets in the US) and lower class OOS/international students.
This is not about sounding “holier than thou”. This is about using the right terminology to maintain credibility in the efforts involved towards making Michigan more affordable (which I have been very involved in personally).
Well, yes, but Penn and Princeton are private schools…UM is not.
^ this is is crucial distinction. UMichigan is the university for the people of Michigan, paid for by the people of Michigan + alumni (both instate and oos). It’s a public university.
Their first mission is to admit qualified instate residents, making it financially affordable for them.
They’ve then decided to help non residents, which very very few public universities do (UVA and UNC I think that’s it), and focused on middle class (under 95k) families. It’s very generous of them.
There’s a gap for 95-125k, absolutely. So, there probably aren’t many students from families earning that bracket.
125k in coastal California is indeed not what it is in Nebraska or Georgia, but California happens to have world class public universities and excellent financial aid that takes local COL into account (ie., 85k is a limit for financial aid where elsewhere it’s often 45 or 65k).
Each family needs to make the choices that are reasonable for them. It does mean many kids miss some college opportunity. And they get back on their feet and do they best they can, wherever they land.
$100-200k in SF is definitely middle class. If you make less than $78k you quality as low income.
I think to be upper middle class in the suburbs of SF you need at least $250-350k (and in SF proper you need more like > $400k) unless you bought your house 15-25 years ago, then you might only need the $100-150k.
@yikesyikesyikes what do you mean you can live comfortably in Beverly Hills on $200k? what do you mean by that? like you can buy a house and live there? ummm……no you can not.
Yes you can… average household income in BH is less than that level.
By live comfortably, I mean something along these lines:
afford a mortgage for an average home, meet life necessities (food, health insurance, utilities, etc.), afford two modest cars and replace every 8-12 years, be able to eat out like every other week, and go on a 2 week family vacation every year while still saving towards retirement.
I know media coverage might make it seem like some crazy rich place (and it sure has its fair share of celebrity mansions), but hard census and realtor data contests that this is the norm, even in BH.
https://www.point2homes.com/US/Neighborhood/CA/Beverly-Hills-Demographics.html
@yikesyikesyikes ok, well average income in BH is about $200k. You can only live there at a middle class lifestyle if you bought your house at least 20 years ago…
Well, maybe rent. Beverly hills is not all movie stars and limousines. And there’s a big difference between 100k and 200k.
But is this thread getting a wee bit derailed?