Not sure about Virginia, but Michigan’s Pell grant figure is skewed by the fact that the university hasn’t met full need for OOS students who comprise roughly 40% of the student body, with the result that an overwhelming majority of OOS students are full-pay. Low- and moderate-income OOS admits usually decide they need to go somewhere more affordable. I believe it’s partly to redress this inequity that the university os now committed to a goal of meeting full need for all OOS students. That should move the needle on socioeconomic diversity.
The University of Minnesota made a conscious decision about a decade ago to set OOS tuition at a few thousand dollars above the in-state rate, hoping to attract highly qualified OOS students and thereby strengthen the student body while also strengthening tuition revenue. They met one goal but not the other. Middle 50% ACT scores are up from 22-25 in the fall of 2000 with only 11.9% scoring 30+, to a middle 50% of 26-31 in the fall of 2015 with 36.2% scoring 30+. That’s a pretty dramatic improvement. But OOS enrollment has remained more or less constant, at 25% in 2000 and 26% in 2015. They’re getting more highly qualified OOS students, but not more sheer numbers of OOS students, and on top of that, a large fraction of the OOS students are from Wisconsin with smaller but non-trivial numbers from North and South Dakota and Manitoba, all jurisdictions that enjoy tuition reciprocity. All this has led the current administration to conclude they’re probably leaving too much money on the table by offering bargain-basement OOS tuition. They’re now committed to gradually raising OOS tuition to a point just shy of the median for Big Ten schools in order to capture more OOS tuition dollars. But they’re nervous about scaring off OOS applicants and admits, so they’ll raise tuition in increments over a period of years.