I’d really question how much that’s the case in Michigan. You certainly don’t see much of that kind of griping on CC. The school has always been selective, and while it’s gotten more so, I’m dubious that many people fault OOS students for that development.
Michigan’s in-state admit rate is still close to 50%, while its OOS admit rate is now below 20%. Yet admissions officers insist their in-state admits are as strong as the OOS admits. I think that reflects a lot of self-selection among in-state applicants who usually have a pretty good idea where they stand in the pecking order, and HS GCs in the state reinforce that by steering weaker applicants away from Michigan. That leaves a fairly small in-state applicant pool that skews toward the highly qualified, and I think Michigan doesn’t turn away many of the state’s top students—though they do turn away many highly qualified OOS applicants. In-state applicants who would be borderline at Michigan but don’t make the cut can usually get into Michigan State or Michigan Tech (an excellent engineering school) and most seem pretty content with that. In fact, some prefer Michigan State which is a pretty good school in its own right and gives some nice merit awards to top students. And the state also has a fairly strong network of “directionals.” In my experience, in-state applicants who aren’t admitted to Michigan usually assume they just didn’t meet its admission standards, rather than blaming “OOS interlopers.”
At the end of the day this whole issue just becomes a math problem.
The administration at all State flagships need to show improvement or at least being as good as they were last year and before. Good or bad one way to judge this is US News ranking. We all know one of the major factors in that ranking is average ACT/SAT or middle 50% of the class. So how do you improve or at least stay the same is by getting kids with higher scores. In a state that has a low population you just won’t have enough in-state kids with high scores to move the needle. So start enticing OOS kids with merit money. Those kids bring up the average, but the school has to deal with the cost because we know they only have a finite amount of money.
Two states that are on the opposite sides of the spectrum are CA and MS. You can be the highest scoring kid around but if you are OOS for CA you just aren’t going to get much money. Conversely if you have a 34 ACT the COA for Ole Miss will be under $12K most likely. Along the way you have other states that aren’t as far on the edges of the spectrum. But the biggest factor usually is population.
Everyone in IL knows that if you have like a 33 ACT you can go to Alabama cheaper than UIUC. There tons of IL kids at Bama. We can argue all night about which school is better, but money is still a huge factor.
So in the end if you want to go to college on the cheap be a smart kid in a small state. If I would have had my daughter live with her grandparents for senior year HS in Oklahoma and get residency she would have saved $5-6K a year for college.
It all comes down to supply and demand, as @gpo613 says. If you’re in a large state with a lot of student applicants there’s going to be ample supply and the state isn’t going to make a ton of effort to lure in outsiders. If you’re in a low population state, or one with bad secondary schools, then there might not be a decent supply of good students so buying some top test scores might be a good investment. In a smaller university it doesn’t take that many to move the needle a little, which is why MS and AL and UT and SD and OK and a bunch of others are all throwing around pretty good money to bring in excellent students and hopefully make them residents.
“The 2 states where the OP will have the most success finding gripers will be California”
While Cal parents may be the loudest on c/c, CA’s freshman enrollment of in-state is 81%, the griping happens more on not getting into the UC you want as opposed to being totally shut out, which maybe is what the OP is looking for. States that have already been mentioned, along with PSU (43% OOS at main campus) are probably going to have a lot more gripers, at least on a relative scale.
Well, those big states still like the OOS tuition money. California, Colorado, Washington, Oregon still have a lot of OOS attending the flagships with little or no financial aid.
I don’t think the large state-small state formula holds water. Pennsylvania is the 5th largest state in population, and Penn State’s undergraduate student body is 34% OOS, according to its latest CDS. Michigan is the 10th largest state by population and the University of Michigan’s undergrads are 41% OOS. Virginia is the 12th largest state and UVA’s undergrads are 28% OOS. Nor do these states have “bad secondary schools”; they’re all well above the national average in HS seniors’ ACT scores.
And far from “buying . . . top test scores,” many top public universities use OOS students as a cash cow, charging them higher OOS tuition while providing less FA to the OOS students. It’s a combination of academic quality and the campus culture that attracts large numbers of OOS applicants. It may not be “state” policy to “lure in outsiders,” but all the schools I mention operate with a high degree of autonomy from their respective states’ political branches, including setting their own admissions policies. They have multiple reasons to welcome OOS students, including shrinking legislative appropriations—in some cases now less than 5% of their operating budgets—as well as an interest in recruiting the academically strongest class and adding geographic diversity, both of which enhance the learning environment.
It’s all a business. In Illinois(UIUC) they had a target goal of 20% Asian and had recruitment centers in China etc. This International full pay model money didn’t happen by accident. We Ilinoisans complained loudly and a few years ago UIUC starting taking 70% instate compared to what they did prior. But since our Governor at the time didn’t care no Maps money and basically no scholarship money. $500 for a 35 Act is a joke. So yes, Alabama starting giving 2/3 - full rides to get these high stats kids. I think I saw that like 80% of kids accepted to UIUC as freshman go OOS. Not the article I was looking for but :https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20180223/ISSUE01/180229949/why-so-many-undergraduates-leave-illinois
Calling Illinois the most recruited state.
People in Georgia had the same problem when their tip top kids couldn’t get into Georgia Tech. They changed that by accepting more instate due to parental pressure.
Michigan is a very unique Public. Besides being a top university that has draw power. They have one of the highest family incomes at something like $156,000 avg OOS family and the top 9% of families make $650,000. The school runs more like a private school and the rumors are out there. They do definitely take instate kids with lower stats but can only or only want to go so low. Their Senior high school population is down in state and if they don’t have the scores, they won’t be accepted. Yes, The state of Michigan has lots of options. Many kids just apply to Michigan, Michigan State and Wayne/Grand Valley /Oakland University.
So our instate Illinois kid is at Michigan since UIUC gave no money at all. I talk to parents daily that can’t believe their sending their kids to Alabama or the like. But here’s the real problem for Illinois besides losing kids that might not move back. The kids at schools like Alabama “Really” like the school /culture etc then tell their younger friends in high school. They are getting great internships since Alabama went out of their way to make sure that Microsoft, Google, Amazon Etc were on board.
Not sure how long they can keep it up but it’s a business model that other states will soon adapt to. The first doing something like this are usually the most successful.
Not entirely unique. UVA has a similar academic profile and like Michigan, it leans heavily on OOS tuition to compensate for almost vanishingly small legislative appropriations.
Average OOS family incomes at Michigan skew high in part because until recently they didn’t provide much FA to OOS students (while meeting full need for in-state students), making it cost-prohibitive for many middle-class OOS families, let alone low-income OOS applicants… That’s likely to change somewhat after their recent successful $5 billion capital campaign which will allow them to provide more generous FA to OOS students, with a stated goal eventually to meet full need for all students…
“Lower” is, of course, relative. They’re reporting middle 50% ACT of 32-35 for their 2019 entering class. That’s the same as, e.g., Princeton. A 32 on the ACT is 96th percentile nationally, and given that over half the entering class is in-state, mathematically it must mean that over half the in-state freshmen are at or above that level. That still leaves a quarter of the class below a 32, but you can’t assume they’re all in-state. It likely includes a fair number of recruited athletes and many students admitted to schools like Art & Design or Music, Theatre & Dance that are less concerned with academic stats than with evidence of talent and accomplishment relevant to those fields. That said, it probably is true that an in-state applicant with, say, a 30 on their ACT (93rd percentile) has a better shot at admission than at OOS applicant at the same level—but the in-state applicant at that level is no shoo-in, either.
It’s true that the state of Michigan’s high school-aged population is declining, as it is in many Northeastern and Midwestern states. But Michigan high schools still graduate around 100,000 students annually. Only about 10,000 of them apply to the University of Michigan. Far more apply to Michigan State which is about 85% in-state and gets roughly 35,000 applicants, the bulk of whom must be in-state. So it’s not as if there’s an absolute shortage of in-state college-bound students. As I said before, there’s just a lot of self-selection. Most Michigan residents know (and are told by their HS counselors) that they’re not likely to be admitted to Michigan unless they have pretty outstanding credentials—and not just GPA and test scores, because they also weigh essays and other holistic factors pretty heavily. So most don’t even bother to apply. And some just prefer MSU or some other school for various reasons.
There are many variables to attracting kids both in-state and OOS to a college. Some formulas are clear and some aren’t.
For example, the population of Oklahoma is about 4M and the population of Alabama is 4.9M. Similar states. My D19 had a COA at AL for ~$19K and at OK for ~$27-28K. AL has a larger enrollment by about 6-7K. Exactly why AL was cheaper than OK I am not sure. Either way both were cheaper than UIUC.
But @Knowsstuff is correct the high stats kids leave IL. You can get a better deal at many places. The mid-stats kids stay and some high stats kids still go there for eng. The word does travel from kid to kid quick and UIUC get bad mouthed like crazy for no money.
I would love to see a break down of kids with a 33+ or equal SAT and see which states are net importers and which are net exporters of those kids.
The problem with UIUC is that our previous Governor didn’t even know it was a top engineering university. Can’t find the article with his quote. The new governor has lots of friends in Chicago in the tech sector. There will be no empty seats at UIUC but incoming freshman I think has been down for a few years. Engineering is self sufficient but other programs are not.
The main problem is, is that Illinois will lose top talent to come back to Illinois.
With regards to University of Michigan, I think it has been a very calculated move for a long time to take OOS kids. Michigan State as great of a school that it is doesn’t have the elite feel to it to draw kids that also Apply to Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Berkeley etc. These tend to be kids from wealthier families.
There is no question in my mind and being on the Michigan threads that Michigan is aiming to increase their stats to further compete with the top elite schools. As stated above with the stats stated. Their LSA is literally the same as THEIR engineering GPA /Stats. It has inched up yearly. So their LSA students GPA /Statwise are as competitive as students applying to some of the best engineering schools in the country. It’s just a different culture and feel. Not better then… Just different.
In Wisconsin, 60% of in state applicants are accepted. Definitely more competitive for out of state students though I cannot find the data published on that now.
I know 2 midwestern kids (not from MI) act 34/35 carrying 30+ college credits with a 4.0, deep extracurriculars who were waitlisted last winter applying EA and then encouraged to apply as transfer students to UMichigan. I absolutely think it is harder to get into these school from OOS and I wish these schools would publish data on that. They aren’t getting amazing in state apps across the board and mediocre out of state apps. I’m not saying they don’t have strong instate apps. I think like every school doing holistic app review they are looked at through a different lens. And I’m not complaining. It makes sense that these state university colleges serve their own populations first. I know students from MN who felt shut out of Madison this year with very good apps/stats as well.
We were told from Illinois when applying that University of Wisconsin for OOS was getting harder each year, especially engineering. It appears that like every school is getting harder to get into. Probably why schools like Alabama are becoming almost the “go to” schools that I hear about daily in Illinois. 2/3 - full merit scholarships, great spirit, kids getting quality internships /jobs, warm weather and nice campus… What’s not to like? ?
Schools of Business, Engineering are particularly selective at flagship universities. Many kids in PA and Virgina did not get into the programs they wanted, and ended up at other state schools.
A friend’s son started at Alabama and then transferred to Purdue. He had been shut out of his major preference coming directly out of highschool. It was with some regret he left ‘Bama. Did it primarily because it was The Plan from the onset.
The year my son applied EA to UMichigan. he was the only one accepted at that time; the others were all deferred. He was also the only LSA applicant. No business school involved either. Classics major. I think that had a large part in a lot of his acceptances as it did several other students I knew from prior years with their acceptances. He also was the one with the lowest test scores submitted— just that ACT. It always puzzled me how my one child with very low (1000 combined SAT1) was accepted to several state flagship universities that tend to auto admit and reject according to grades, test scores and application date.
You missed (and made) my point: those states don’t offer much aid to out of state students because they have plenty of in-state kids with high scores and quite enough OOS apps. There’s no challenge filling those schools with outstanding students.
For us I don’t think it was an unfair item that had S choose an OOS school. He transferred from private to a top public school after freshman year. The way they did rankings put him lower on the scale and he ended up top 11%, meaning not auto-admit in TX for the big public he would have chosen. Sure he could have upped his ACT score 1 point and been auto admit but he decided that the fact they didn’t want him because he was top 11% (would have been top 5% if he had stayed at the private school) just sat wrong with him and he chose not to even apply. He found a great deal OOS that made tuition cheaper than in state, a better program for his major and hasn’t looked back. I think TX colleges drive some really good kids away and drive parents to game the system (sending them to rural schools or easier high schools to easily make the top 6 to 10%).
It’s particularly interesting to compare Michigan to some of the other top public universities like UNC Chapel Hill.
Michigan and North Carolina have roughly equal populations (~10 million), and Michigan and UNC have very similar numbers of in-state undergrads – 16,559 and 15,732 in 2018, respectively. The difference is that Michigan has four times as many non-resident undergrads (13,759) as Carolina (3,385).
Yes and this is just one thing that makes them unique
They can easily take 60-70 % instate with their very large and growing by the minute endowments. But it’s a business play that they don’t. Someone stated about them giving more money to OOS kids. With my son being one will have to make some calls to capitalize on that.
LOL ?.
UT-Austin does lose out on some great in state catches with their top 6% auto-admit that leaves them with fewer spaces for other highly qualified students. My nephew was one of them. Came in just over the cut off; being at an excellent small private school hurt that numbers game. Went off to an east coast school that took him gladly. Not in Texas anymore. The brothers who were not close to auto-admit are staying in state and getting the lower in state tuition because it’s the best deal they could get.
It’s partly a “business play,” but there’s more to it than that. The University of Michigan is deeply committed to excellence in all regards, and to academic excellence in particular. It’s just deep in the university’s DNA, and it pervades the culture. They know they have a duty to the people of Michigan, but they see their unique role in that regard as providing the best possible educational experience to the state’s top students, in part by bringing in the strongest possible entering class. Going back generations, they’ve done that in part by admitting each year a very strong cohort of OOS and international students. That approach also adds geographic diversity and a diversity of perspectives to the student body, and that’s a hugely important part of the learning experience for Michigan residents.
That approach might not work so well if Michigan State wasn’t standing there 65 miles away, a fine alternative for any in-state applicant who might prefer Michigan but isn’t admitted—as well as the destination of choice for many, including some of the state;'s top students. To that extent, Michigan needs Michigan State. And the relationship is symbiotic; it also helps Michigan State by giving them an in-state rival they can excoriate as “arrogant” and “elitist,” which certainly fuels their athletic teams and fans, but also becomes a selling point in recruiting in-state students.