<p>Michigan is one of the better schools in terms of need-based financial aid for in-state students (about comparable to VA and CA).</p>
<p>[Economic</a> Diversity | Rankings | Top National Universities | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity/spp%2B50]Economic”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity/spp%2B50) does not have Michigan listed. But [Report:</a> Pell Grant rates at ‘U’ fall in recent years - The Michigan Daily](<a href=“http://www.michigandaily.com/news/according-report-u-failed-increase-pell-grants-2008-2009]Report:”>Report: Pell Grant rates at 'U' fall in recent years) indicates that the percentage of students with Pell grants at Michigan was 12.8%, which would put it near the bottom in the USNWR list of national universities by Pell grant student percentage.</p>
<p>Of other good with in-state financial aid state flagships, we see the following:</p>
<p>Berkeley 38%
Washington 36%
Florida 34%
UNC-CH 21%
Virginia 13%</p>
<p>Interestingly, UIUC is at 21%, despite its poor in-state financial aid.</p>
<p>What can make a difference is the % of commuters. A lot of them at Berkeley and UCLA and UC San Diego. UWash is in a city, so the figure does not surprise me. It’s not as difficult to meet full need, if the kids are commuting. UMichigan’s commuting range does not include a lot pf low income areas, families and kids.</p>
<p>With income and stats for admission being highly correlated it is hardly surprising very selective schools will not have a high percentage of LSES students. Top schools scramble to attract the relatively few high ability LSES kids out there. Also many high ability LSES kids seem to shy away from the highly selective schools and tend to stay closer to home for many complex reasons.</p>
<p>Three factors play into this. First, about 35% of Michigan’s undergrads are OOS; recent entering classes have been more like 40% OOS. Michigan doesn’t meet full need for OOS students. Consequently lower SES OOS students either don’t bother to apply, or if admitted end up going elsewhere because the net cost at Michigan is prohibitive. The university is well aware of this, and somewhat cold-blooded about it. As a public institution, it feels no obligation to support lower SES students from other states. Consequently, the university’s OOS student population skews strongly toward higher SES. And the university needs those full-pay OOS tuition dollars, which collectively contribute substantially more to the university’s budget than in-state tuition dollars, both because in-state tuition is much lower, and because the university is committed to meeting full need for Michigan residents. So when you read that only 16% of Michigan’s undergrads are Pell Grant recipients, you need to consider that most, perhaps nearly all of those 16% are members of the 65% who are Michigan residents; if that’s the case, then something closer to 25% of Michigan residents attending the University of Michigan are on Pell Grants. (This could change: rumor has it that the central goal of Michigan’s next capital campaign will be to add enough endowment dollars to meet full need for all students, but for now, those are the cold, hard economic realities).</p>
<p>Second, despite the fact that the University of Michigan is the only public university in the state that meets full need for 100% of Michigan residents attending, the school still suffers a lingering reputation as an “expensive” school, even among Michigan residents. Some of this is just a marketing issue. Michigan State’s in-state tuition is now within a few hundred dollars of Michigan’s, and Michigan State gives pretty crappy FA, meeting full need for only 15% of its students (v. 90% school-wide at Michigan, 100% for in-state) and on average meeting only 62% of need (v. 90% school-wide at Michigan, 100% for in-state). Yet MSU draws 25% Pell Grant recipients, to 16% for Michigan. Michigan awards about 40% more in total institutional need-based aid and well over twice as much in total institutional merit aid as MSU, despite Michigan’s having a smaller undergrad student body (27,000 at Michigan v. 37,000 at MSU). So MSU students are collectively taking it in the shorts on FA, and many lower SES students at MSU are probably paying more out-of-pocket than they would at Michigan. Yet traditionally MSU’s sticker price and nominal total COA have been lower than Michigan’s. I think a lot of lower SES students are scared off by a higher sticker price or a reputation for higher cost, even though the reality net of FA may be much different. It’s the University’s job to educate people on this, and so far it’s done an inadequate job–or perhaps made a half-hearted effort, because as much as they support diversity in principle (and I believe they genuinely do), a rapid influx of lower SES students would leave their FA budget in tatters. At the end of the day, though, MSU is probably not even the main competitor for lower SES students. The state has an extensive network of community colleges and directional U’s, and as previous posters point out, it’s usually cheaper–or perceived to be cheaper–to commute to a lower sticker-price CC or directional U.</p>
<p>Third point: as the NY Times article points out, a large fraction of the Pell Grant recipients in the UC system transfer in from community colleges. The UC system is well geared for that, and I believe it guarantees a certain number of places for transfers from California community colleges. Michigan accepts a certain number of community college transfers, but neither the community colleges in Michigan nor the University of Michigan are set up for the same kind of en masse transfer-in. A lot of the Michigan community colleges seem to focus more on 2-year vocational training rather than general ed preparation for a 4-year degree, and the university doesn’t have places for large numbers of CC transfers. Whether expansion in such a direction is a good idea is debatable, but if it is a good idea, the state, not the university, should absorb the cost. So far, however, the state’s principal goal seems to be to de-fund the university as fast and as thoroughly as it can.</p>
<p>I agree that UM is viewed as an expensive school, even when the net cost might be less than other schools … and I think many low SES students who could get into UM choose not to apply because they think they won’t be able to afford it. Guidance counselors in schools with low SES populations do not seem to understand and/or communicate to students that they should apply and see what aid they will get. The top low SES students will generally qualify for great scholarships at schools like Wayne, Oakland, or Eastern - so you will see the low SES students who could go to UM at these schools, instead.</p>
<p>Also agree that the OOS numbers are diluting the Pell eligible % … the number of OOS students is rising, and those students are not going to be low SES unless they get big merit (not exactly easily done at UM).</p>
<p>Are they counting Asian first gen as socio minorities at UCs?</p>
<p>Michigan also requires the CSS Profile which increases EFC for divorced families. I think it is deceiving to say you meet 100% of need when it is based on different criteria than all the other schools in the state. I don’t know anybody whose net cost was cheaper at Michigan than any other state school. </p>
<p>As kelsmom noted too- the top low SES students get great scholarships at those other schools. Those other schools are are in commuting distance for a lot of them too.</p>
<p>They don’t get 'em 'cause they don’t want 'em. Winston et al. proved years ago that there are multiple times as many low-income students with grades and SATs high enough to qualify for even HYP, no less Michigan. If they want 'em, they go get 'em, and quickly (as Amherst did in one year in their so-called a-hem “need-blind” process.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They officially do not consider race, but it is widely thought that coming from a disadvantaged SES situation is looked upon favorably by UC admissions readers.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: Didn’t read the article</p>
<p>The majority of the good high schools in Michigan are in Washtenaw and Oakland counties, which are the “rich” counties of Michigan. A very large portion (perhaps not majority, but a lot of times it seems like it might be) of non-Michigan students come from China/HK and have crazy rich parents. A substantial portion come from Chinese ethnic families in Indonesia who are similarly crazy rich. The non-Michigan students from the US generally come from very rich New York/New Jersey families. </p>
<p>So, yeah. There’s not a whole lot of poor kids at Michigan. Michigan is built for the upper-middle class of Michigan, and the rich of China. That’s what they do. It’s Michigan’s speciality. I don’t think I’ve seen Michigan purport to be for the working class in any meaningful manner. This should not be a surprise for anyone.</p>
<p>Michigan knows what it is, what it’s doing, and where it stands.</p>
<p>Only 5% of UM’s incoming freshmen are from Foreign countries, so I wouldn’t think China/Indonesia plays much of a role. However, 34% are OOS, and that would act (as mention by others) to lower the pell grant %.</p>
<p>Even though UM has better FA than MSU, I’m sure what drives SES students to MSU is lower Admissions standards. </p>
<p>For example:
ACT 25% 75%
UM 27 33
MSU 23 28 </p>
<p>It’s simply easier for SES students (who don’t come from the best schools) to get into MSU (and the community colleges), than UM.</p>
<p>It seems to come down to a large OOS % and high admission standards. Lowering admission standards isn’t an option, so it comes down to a decease the number of OOS to increase the number of in-state students. But even this change wouldn’t be at a 1 to 1 ratio (Lower OOS by 5% doesn’t increase SES students by 5%).</p>
<p>There is no easy fix. Should supporting SES students even be part of UM’s core mission? Or is the State of Michigan better served by expanding access through it’s community colleges, making it easier to transfer to the 4 year public universities, such as UM (much like the California system), improving FA across all of the public universities and keeping UM’s it’s flagship school?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That seems low, but regardless, a very large portion of transfer students are foreign. Michigan has some transfer agreement with a university in China and I think it’s something like 100 or 150 that transfer from there every semester. A much larger portion than 5% of current students are foreign born.</p>