Sorry about your bitterness trackmbe3, but you did have a choice after you graduated from Michigan. You could have stayed or become a permanent resident. You obviously chose to leave the state. Michigan has always charged considerably more for OOS students than IS. This is not new and certainly not a mystery. The university is not obligated to “give away” its highly sought after spots at a discount to just anybody; even children of alumni. Michigan charges, and gets, top dollar simply because it can. If and when the time comes that the university is not attracting top coeds and finds it necessary to “bribe” OOS students to attend, then you can make the statement that the school is indeed “weak.”
You are looking at it all wrong trackmbe. For OOS students, Michigan should be regarded as the university that it is; one of the top 20 universities in the world, with the resources, academic quality, faculty, department facilities, selectivity etc…that comes with such a distinction. In-state students definitely have an ideal scenario; a top 20 university at a mere $14k tuition annually. Admittedly, considering how little in-state students pay, they should make up 25%-30% of the undergraduate student body, not 50%, but there is nothing that can be done about that at the moment.
@Alexandre umich has the highest percentage of out of state students out of all the public elites, and since its a public university, it has to make sure it still serves michigan’s best and brightest students by keeping a constant presence of in state students that has declined from 66% to 56% over the years. uc berkeley, ucla, and uva are at least 70% in-state and their in-state tuition is less than umich’s in-state tuition, which is relatively expensive for a public university in the united states. so I don’t think the in-state percentage is the problem at umich since other public elites have cheaper in-state tuition but a higher percentage of in-state students than umich. as the population of michigan continues to decrease, the in-state percentage at umich will also decrease but they will never drop it suddenly to 25%, it has to stay proportional to educating the top 5% of students in michigan.
@Eeeee127 I agree with you to a point. Michigan has never pledged to educate the “top 5%” in a similar way to Texas’ 10% plan because Michigan legislators and university officials understand that not all schools are the same. You can be in the top 5% at one high school and not anywhere near that in another, more academically challenging one. Hence, class rank, like GPAs, must be considered in context.
@exlibris97 university of michigan does not consider class rank according to the common data set page 5.
http://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/cds/cds_2016-2017_umaa.pdf
it relies mostly on gpa and course rigor, then test scores to determine the best students in the state of michigan. even though its not a law to educate the top 5% in the state like texas or unc to keep 82% in state, it is a public university, so it still has to accept around the best students to continue serving the state as a public university is supposed to do. i know that ucla and uc berkeley consider class rank, which can be unfair since some high schools are less rigorous than others and they accept like the top % from each high school in california.
Eeeee127, my problem with the current situation is that the state is shortchanging the University. The state is currently contributing $300 million/year and but the University is enrolling 16,000 residents at a $31,000 subsidy (that’s the discount in-state students receive). If you do the math, those 16,000 undergraduate students are receiving a combined $500 million tuition break, In other words, the University is losing $200 million annually. Optimally, Michigan should cut 6,000 in-state students and replace them with 2,000 OOS students that are full pay. Obviously, this should be done over the course of 4-5 years. Or, the state could just increase funding to $500 million annually! 
^^^^The state of Michigan made a very good investment in its flagship. It is now reaping the benefit. even with a minimal amount of revenue. If things change, I’m certain the state would pitch in more than they do now. Remember, it behooves all of those students who graduated from the university to keep it a world class institution. That’s why fundraising got so large and why the university acts more like a private school with each passing year.
@Alexandre. But umich is a public university and it wouldnt be fair to do that to its michigan residents who have been paying in taxes. What umich lost in state funding, it made up in its increased endowment so it is not losing money. Umich does not need and should not cut in state percentages since its financially healthy enough. Umich has always had a large presence of oos student even when it was funded well by the state. Uc berkeley and ucla are financially struggling and depended on oos students for funding until their residents started to complain. Now the ucs are working towards enrolling more in state students despite their financial struggle and cutting oos financial aid out. Umich does not have that problem and will not reduce its in state percentage drastically since its a public university. It is still a state school no matter how prestigious or little state funding its gets. Also more oos students are applying and the class of.2020 is 50% out of state now. Idk what more u want umich to do Its totalnya unncessarily to drastically cut in state enrollment and would cause more.problems than help. ucla and Uc berkeley and uva and unc are more than 70% in state despite decreased state funding.
@Eeeee127 I think there are two distinct issues involved: should the State of Michigan seek to provide publicly supported higher education to all qualified residents; and do those opportunities necessarily have to be at University of Michigan–Ann Arbor. The answer is “yes” to the first question, and “no” to the second. UM Ann Arbor will in all likelihood enrol a majority slight majority of OOS undergraduates this coming academic year. The OOS percentage will probably continue to increase until it reach 60% or so (this based on what some officials have conjectured). This will generate much needed revenue for UM and alleviate pressure on the state (and the state doesn’t have much money to spare).
This doesn’t mean that Michigan residents will not be able to secure a place at another state university, or at another campus of the University of Michigan. That is the “commitment” the state has made to its residents.
I agree that other state universities enrol more in-state students. UM Ann Arbor has long been different in this respect. The other upside is that the State of Michigan hosts an internationally renowned university at a discounted cost and without denying qualified residents the ability to attend college.
@exlibris97 i agree that michigan does have good public universities, many who don’t get into umich go to msu, which is still a good school. but expecting umich to drastically drop in-state enrollment from 50% to 25% in the next couple of years is unnecessary and unrealistic for a state school and it wouldn’t be fair for michigan residents. even though it’s a prestigious university, it still has to remain reasonably accessible to around the top 5% of students in michigan just like the other public elites like uva, unc, uc berkeley, and ucla do.
^^^^Not only that Eeeee127, but Michigan needs to educate its brightest young people and hope they stay instate after they graduate. We can’t allow too many of the top students in this state leave for other universities because we aren’t taking enough of our own. While the state has quite a few fine public uniersities, none of them compare to U-M. The state is NOT losing population BTW, contrary to what some have said here on CC. What is happening is that it is getting older. Older people are more concerned about holding on to what they have, which honestly is only natural. For Michigan to take too few graduates from instate (25% is way too low!) in order to get more revenue from OOS full paying students , is a long term recipe for disaster.
yes, you are correct rjkofnovi. the population of michigan is not decreasing, instead it’s the number of high school graduates decreasing because many of michigan’s residents are older people.
@Eeeee127 You hit on the problem facing Michigan and the reason its OOS numbers will continue to grow. Older voters tend not to like to pay taxes for schools and colleges. And in Michigan’s case, the under-funding stems back to the late 70s/early 80s with Tisch. That kicked off the budget cuts which led to Michigan’s ‘virtual privatization’.
@exlibris97 but aren’t basically all public universities underfunded right now, not just michigan?
“If things change, I’m certain the state would pitch in more than they do now.” Why would you think so @rjkofnovi ?
^^^Just a gut feeling. Nothing based on current realities, unfortunately.
The State of Michigan actually gives more funding to the University of Michigan than the other public universities in Michigan even though Michigan State University has a lot more students. The University of Michigan is very financially healthy right now with a huge endowment, out-of-state population, and funding from the state even though it has decreased but it still receives more than the other state schools in Michigan.
Eeeee127, I have no objection to Michigan being public. I have trouble with the university admitting/enrolling so many in-state students. 4,000 freshmen annually is too much. 2,000-3,000 is ample for a tiny state like Michigan. Cal and UCLA do not even take in 4,000 residents annually, and that’s in a state with a population four times the size of Michigan. Virginia and North Carolina have similar populations as Michigan, and they enroll roughly 3,000 in-state freshmen annually. Why doesn’t Michigan? A university the caliber of Michigan should not be the default option for student state’s good students, it should be THE university of choice for Michigan’s exceptionally gifted students.
I guess it depends on our individual expectations. I would like Michigan to give its students the best possible experience. Considering its resources, faculty and financial, Michigan is currently enrolling way too many students. Michigan should ben enrolling 20,000 undergraduate students.
Cal and ucla have about the same number of undergrads as umich and 70% are in-state. Also, California has a huge UC and Cal State system with many schools and other prestigious private elites to make up for their large population. Umich admits and enrolls about the same number of in-state students as North Carolina and Virginia (Umich even has higher test scores and GPA). Umich Class of 2020 has 6689 students and 50% are in-state, so thats 3350 in-state students while unc has 3630 in-state students (82% of their freshman class of 4428). Virginia has a smaller in-state population in their freshman class, but the state of Virginia has many elite schools that other top students choose to enroll instead.
If umich only had 20,000 undergrad students, it would be at least 70% or even 80% in state students like uva and unc because it would still be accepting the top 5-10% of students in Michigan (which is around 4500 currently but in-state yield is around 66% so umich freshman class still only has around 3400 in-state students).
Umich’s large 28,000 undergrad population despite having a small state population allows it to admit so many out-of-state students that uva and unc cannot do. UNC and Michigan have the same state population and same number of in-state students, but umich is 50% out of state because it has a much larger undergrad population. North Carolina and Virginia also have multiple elite schools for their top students while Michigan only has one prestigious school so Umich will have a little more in-state students.
Most top students in Michigan go to the University of Michigan because of the in-state value (90% of students in Michigan stay in-state for college) but there are a few top students who go elsewhere because they get into even better schools, want a new experience, special programs and/or scholarships, etc.
As a matter of fact, no where does Michigan law or UM policy state that it seeks to admit the top x% of in-state applicants. That would be absurd. Moreover, there are many fine universities in Michigan and I’ve seen no evidence that highly qualified Michigan applications are not gaining admissions to a public university. The statement that “most top students in Michigan to the University of Michigan” is also doubtful. I’ve seen no evidence to support that claim. Many go to private universities or out of state, and many enrol at MSU.
The State of Michigan is unable to increase its financial support to higher education. It is likely to decrease. And University of Michigan will consequently continue to increase its OOS intake. That’s as it should be. In-state families are going to have to get used to the fact that a UM education is a privilege and not a “right”. Indeed, most have already come to this realization.