Primarily about out of state and international students making it harder for in-state students to get in (specifically discusses the UCs, Alabama, Michigan and Wisconsin), and also about rising tuition costs especially for low income students.
From the NYT article, this is a somewhat separate statement I found provocative:
…but makes sense as so many more kids attend publics than privates?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/public-colleges-chase-out-of-state-students-and-tuition.html
Not a surprising result of states cutting state university budgets.
It’s also arguable whether it really is harder for in-state kids to get in, at least in some states. MI has a shrinking HS population, for instance. In-state slots could actually decrease at UMich and MSU yet it wouldn’t be tougher for MI kids to get in.
Even CA HS enrollment has plateaued or is falling slightly while I believe that the UC’s have kept CA enrollment level or even increased it so it’s hard to argue that the UC’s are decreasing opportunities for CA students.
This is the problem with articles with an agenda.
Some of the stories seem a little entitled. The final quote:
“In my case, three generations of Michaels have supported and funding the U.C., and the same is true for my wife’s family,” he said. “And then, when it comes time for our children to go, there’s no room."
According to the story, Michael’s son was rejected from “several” UC campuses. His parents may have attended UCs, but not every CA resident has a right to admission at Berkeley.
I do think there’s a problem with funding at state universities, but accepting fewer OOS students won’t solve the problem.
And one of the top-rated comments complains that qualified MI students are being rejected from UMich because they’re the “wrong color or socioeconomic class.” It’s not as of Mich is paying for low income OOS students to attend. Sometimes you’re white student from a wealthy suburb is just plain rejected, and it didn’t have to do with their wealth or skin color.
So why complain about the out-of-state students?
^ People are tribal and prefer to scapegoat an out-group rather than examine the real reasons for a predicament.
Bad example! I would not go to Berkeley over Yale.
Re: #7
The article does not say what “her desired program at Berkeley” was. It could be something that is widely seen as stronger at Berkeley than at Yale (e.g. EECS).
Seems like Brown’ granddaughter took some poor advice from a college admissions adviser who greatly overstated the claims made in the auditor’s report. If the student were at the top end of the range (i.e. with a reasonable chance of admission to UCB and UCLA), she would almost certainly have gotten into some other UCs. If she were at the lower end of the UC admissible range for California residents (3.00-3.39 HS GPA, realistically probably may only be admitted to UCM), then she would not be admissible at all if she were a non-resident (which requires a minimum 3.40 HS GPA).
Many taxpayers mistakenly assume that their tax dollars are subsidizing the education of OOS students, not recognizing that their tax dollars pay a small and declining share of public universities’ bills. At the University of Michigan, for example, state subsidies now represent something like 5% or 6% of annual operating costs. The rest comes from non-taxpayer sources, like payout on endowment (thus ultimately from private contributions); annual giving by alumni; competitive research grants won by university faculty and research staff; intellectual property royalties and licensing fees; revenues from the university’s health and hospitals system; and tuition. The student body is about 2/3 in-state and 1/3 OOS, but OOS tuition is about 3 times as much as in-state tuition, and in addition the university guarantees it will provide FA to meet full need for in-state students but not for OOS students. As a consequence, most OOS students are full-pays, while a substantial fraction of in-state students are on university-provided FA. It’s hard to calculate exactly, but my guess is something like 2/3 to 3/4 of the university’s tuition revenue (net of FA) comes from OOS students. So Michigan residents aren’t subsidizing OOS students; the reality is that OOS students are effectively subsidizing in-state students, because without that OOS tuition revenue the university would be forced to dramatically increase in-state tuition, sharply cut back need-based aid for in-state students, make deep cuts in academic programs, or perhaps all three.
The article is written as if generating revenue from OOS tuition is somehow an illegitimate objective. But that’s being done not to turn a profit or line anyone’s pocket, it’s being done to pay the bills and keep the university operating. And at least in Michigan’s case, it’s not as if more highly qualified in-state students are being turned away in favor of less-qualified but higher-paying OOS students. In the last admissions cycle, Michigan had about 10,000 in-state applicants, of whom 50% were accepted, while only about 20% of its 40,000+ OOS applicants were accepted. If anything, the OOS applicant pool was on average more qualified, as were in all likelihood the OOS admits. If Michigan were to stop admitting OOS students and replace them with a like number of in-state students, it would not only blow a giant hole in the university’s budget, it would sharply lower admission standards and diminish the quality of the student body. All of that would be a huge disservice to the very large number of Michigan residents who under current policies are able to attend a world-class university at an affordable price.
No, I disagree. Those students with $100K debt are likely attended NYU than CUNY or SUNY. 4 years of CUNY or SUNY do not cost $100K!
SUNY can cost close to $100K for all four yers if you include room and board and fees. And remember, a large portion of students take 5-6 years to graduate. The tuition hasn’t gone up as much as the room & board etc. My feeling is that the pricing is pushed more toward R&B+fees and away from tuition in order to claim a low rate of tuition rise. I was shocked to find out how much the total cost can be for in-state SUNY if you include all expenses. People really cannot afford it. The CUNY system is cheap as far as tuition goes (6K per year, but you’d need to be careful about housing in the city. If you can find a decent share or live at home, CUNY is a real bargain.
“Bad example! I would not go to Berkeley over Yale.”
Depends on the price. Plenty of parents would pick full pay Berkeley in-state ($25k) over full pay Yale ($65k). Which is sort of the whole point, right?
The CA math whiz (who is smart enough to get into Yale) isn’t offered a $25k seat at UCB. Because UCB wants to sell that seat to an OOS-er that will pay $55k.
@northwesty, actually, we don’t know why the math whiz was rejected by Cal. Some majors at Cal are extremely difficult to get in to.
No one bats an eye when someone who gets in to Yale is rejected by ND. Why the conspiracy theory when it’s Cal instead of ND?
Also, I don’t believe the number of places at Cal for CA residents has decreased that much if at all. Some majors at Cal simply are very difficult to get in to.
Also, most people with those giant student loans racked them up during grad school. They should put a limit on Federal loans for grad school just like they do for undergrad.
However, many public universities have mostly commuter students. The flagships and other more selective ones may be more residential, but most traditional residential students live in the dorms for only the first year or two before moving off-campus. Of course, room and board costs can vary widely for off-campus living, and may be higher or lower than in the dorms. Such costs may be mainly based on the local rental real estate market.
I believe for-profit schools are by far the worst for student loan debt but public 4 year institutions aren’t far behind, on a per-student basis.
Actually, per-student private non-profit school borrowing was the highest, since per-student private for-profit school borrowing had fallen (see table 1 and figure 1 in the linked report). However, private for-profit schools had the highest percentage of students borrowing. The private for-profit schools generally had the students with the lowest EFC, according to figure 2. Other demographic comparisons are shown in Table 2.
Of course, the educational value gotten at many private for-profit schools can be dubious.
I think when we’re speaking of a societal issue like “the student loan crisis” we are more interested in the totals borrowed than the per-student amounts, which I didn’t see in that report but I didn’t get to go all the way through before I posted it.
I haven’t been able to find what i was looking for, which was the flat “what is the total amount owed by public vs private nonprofit vs for profit” figures. (back in the OP the assertion was that it was public but I haven’t been able to find out one way or the other).
Total (as opposed to per-student) student loan debt by sector (public, private non-profit, private for-profit) is obviously going to be much higher for the public schools, since the public schools enroll far more students. See figure 4 of http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp . In 2014, there were 13.2 million undergraduates at public schools, 2.8 million in private non-profit schools, and 1.3 million in private for-profit schools.