<p>None of that nonsense about how much they’re actually spending matters at all…</p>
<p>The only thing that matters is what money do they lose if every student who was paying instate tuition were to pay out of state tuition, and how much of that is covered. And in fact about 81% of it is covered. I’m sure you can figure out the math yourself if you took an Algebra I course, but incase not I’ll explain it.</p>
<p>(sate contribution)/(OOS tuition - IS tuition)<em>(# of undergrads)</em>(proportion of undergrads)*(2 semesters) = percentage of IS students subsidized by the government.</p>
<p>I’m just going to go with LSA lower division to make things simplier. It will not change much if you weight it by college and division. I’m also assuming 65% of undergrads are instate. </p>
<p>320,000,000/(17374 - 5735)<em>(26083)</em>(.65)*2 = 81%</p>
<p>When I previously said 77% I think I was using old data or something… now my answer is more favoring my position. </p>
<p>And this is not to mention the huge benefit of the lower tuitions. They get a huge applicant pool from Michigan, they allow themselves to be more selective, and they will always be guaranteed to have a full capable entering freshman class, regardless of the economy. </p>
<p>One more thing, I would be very willing to bet that instate students on average take fewer credits than OOS students, making it cheaper to have enrolled instate students than OOS.</p>
<p>Any 7% of endowment figure is completely irrelevant and misleading.</p>
<p>And yosup, the thread has been hijacked, now it’s about the state of Michigan’s contribution to the University.</p>