OOS Students and the Public State Universities

College Search & Selection
81

<p>Another way to compare the public universities is their blended rates for Tuition and Fees. </p>

<p>I weighted the T&F for the IS/OOS ratio and came up with a blended Tuition & Fees. Here are those blends:</p>

<p>1 , $ 17,924 , U Michigan
2 , $ 16,402 , Penn State
3 , $ 16,161 , W&M
4 , $ 15,282 , U Pittsburgh
5 , $ 14,984 , U Virginia
6 , $ 14,286 , Clemson
7 , $ 12,246 , U Illinois
8 , $ 12,236 , Rutgers
9 , $ 12,128 , U Wisconsin
10 , $ 11,714 , U Minnesota
11 , $ 11,471 , U Maryland
12 , $ 10,993 , UC Berkeley
13 , $ 10,135 , Ohio State
14 , $ 9,945 , Georgia Tech
15 , $ 9,512 , UCSD
16 , $ 9,397 , UC Santa Barbara
17 , $ 9,035 , UC Davis
18 , $ 9,010 , U Texas
19 , $ 8,936 , U Washington
20 , $ 8,269 , U North Carolina
21 , $ 8,181 , Texas A&M
22 , $ 7,948 , UC Irvine
23 , $ 7,824 , U Georgia
24 , $ 7,797 , UCLA
25 , $ 4,494 , U Florida</p>

82

<p>The UCs all seem very low. I am not sure if I understand what you are measuring Hawkette. Are you measuring the difference in cost of attendance at state universities between IS and OOS CoA?</p>

83

<p>This is a completely useless list. Please give me one real life example how any applicant can make use of this data. How is this info relevant to him/her personally?</p>

<p>And for the umpteenth time, it is a waste of time to compare tuition cost without considering the total cost of of attendance.</p>

84

<p>Alex,
Tuition & Fees are what I am measuring, but taking into account the numbers of IS and OOS students. </p>

<p>For a UC like UC Berkeley:</p>

<p>90% IS students who pay T&F of: $8932
10% OOS students who pay T&F of: $29,540
Blended T&F: $10,993</p>

<p>GoBlue,
I concur with your statement that these figures are not what a student would actually pay. I am merely making an institutional comparison. I think it is interesting and probably the better comparison of overall cost (for T&F) between these public institutions. </p>

<p>I would agree that, for an individual student, the more relevant statistic is the T&F or the COA although, as alexandre notes above, that is also subject to variation due to classifications and aid packages that are available.</p>

85

<p>Do these forums come with an "ignore user" or "ignore threads by this user" option? It would really help cut down on spam like this.</p>

86

<p>You can go to My Control Panel on the left side of the screen and click on it.</p>

<p>There will be a link that says edit ignore list.</p>

<p>I think you still see the poster has posted something but the post is blank.</p>

87

<p>Another way to look at this is to evaluate how generous the Financial Aid packages are at various public universities. </p>

<p>Using the USNWR-provided data on average undergraduate financial aid packages and the blended tuition & fees calculation, one can see which colleges provide the best levels of financial aid. Kudos to the UCs which claim 6 of the top 8 spots.</p>

<p>Rank , Coverage Ratio , Avg Fin'l Aid Package , Blended T&F , % of students on FA , Public University</p>

<p>1 , 279% , $12,528 , $4,494 , 40% , U Florida
2 , 193% , $15,075 , $7,797 , 51% , UCLA
3 , 178% , $14,129 , $7,948 , 49% , UC Irvine
4 , 162% , $13,215 , $8,181 , 36% , Texas A&M
5 , 158% , $14,818 , $9,397 , 46% , UC Santa Barbara
6 , 157% , $14,961 , $9,512 , 55% , UCSD
7 , 146% , $16,095 , $10,993 , 50% , UC Berkeley
8 , 146% , $13,159 , $9,035 , 54% , UC Davis
9 , 145% , $13,000 , $8,936 , 41% , U Washington
10 , 143% , $11,796 , $8,269 , 33% , U North Carolina
11 , 121% , $10,900 , $9,010 , 51% , U Texas
12 , 117% , $17,492 , $14,984 , 27% , U Virginia
13 , 112% , $8,750 , $7,824 , 27% , U Georgia
14 , 109% , $12,814 , $11,714 , 50% , U Minnesota
15 , 102% , $12,500 , $12,236 , 53% , Rutgers
16 , 101% , $9,999 , $9,945 , 33% , Georgia Tech
17 , 101% , $10,225 , $10,135 , 54% , Ohio State
18 , 87% , $10,700 , $12,246 , 43% , U Illinois
19 , 82% , $13,302 , $16,161 , 28% , W&M
20 , 82% , $9,939 , $12,128 , 33% , U Wisconsin
21 , 79% , $9,051 , $11,471 , 39% , U Maryland
22 , 70% , $10,057 , $14,286 , 40% , Clemson
23 , 67% , $10,197 , $15,282 , 55% , U Pittsburgh
24 , 62% , $11,174 , $17,924 , 40% , U Michigan
25 , 60% , $9,806 , $16,402 , 51% , Penn State</p>

88

<p>
[quote]
Another way to compare the public universities is their blended rates for Tuition and Fees...I weighted the T&F for the IS/OOS ratio and came up with a blended Tuition & Fees. Here are those blends:

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's absolutely useless, because there is not a single person on any of these campuses who would be charged that "blended" rate. It bears no relevance for residents (it's too high) nor for nonresidents (it's too low).</p>

89

<p>But it does give hawkette another opprtunity to spew nonsense hoedown.</p>

90

<p>Hoedown,
As previously stated (# 84), these blended comparisons are for an institutional measurement. Not for an individual. </p>

<p>If you would like to look at this in terms of cost to an individual IS student and cost to an individual OOS student, perhaps you will find the following to be more useful to an individual student.</p>

<p>IS Rank , Coverage Ratio Avg Fin'l Aid package , IS Tuition & Fees , State University</p>

<p>1 , 331% , $12,528 , $3,790 , U Florida
2 , 219% , $11,796 , $5,396 , U North Carolina
3 , 214% , $15,075 , $7,034 , UCLA
4 , 191% , $13,000 , $6,802 , U Washington
5 , 190% , $9,999 , $5,272 , Georgia Tech
6 , 188% , $17,492 , $9,300 , U Virginia
7 , 187% , $14,129 , $7,556 , UC Irvine
8 , 180% , $16,095 , $8,932 , UC Berkeley
9 , 173% , $14,818 , $8,573 , UC Santa Barbara
10 , 168% , $13,215 , $8,911 , UCSD
11 , 168% , $14,961 , $7,844 , Texas A&M
12 , 152% , $13,159 , $8,635 , UC Davis
13 , 145% , $8,750 , $6,030 , U Georgia
14 , 134% , $10,900 , $8,130 , U Texas
15 , 131% , $9,939 , $7,568 , U Wisconsin
16 , 130% , $13,302 , $10,246 , W&M
17 , 121% , $12,814 , $10,634 , U Minnesota
18 , 118% , $10,225 , $8,679 , Ohio State
19 , 113% , $9,051 , $8,005 , U Maryland
20 , 108% , $12,500 , $11,540 , Rutgers
21 , 101% , $11,174 , $11,111 , U Michigan
22 , 97% , $10,057 , $10,379 , Clemson
23 , 95% , $10,700 , $11,261 , U Illinois
24 , 75% , $10,197 , $13,642 , U Pittsburgh
25 , 72% , $9,806 , $13,706 , Penn State</p>

<p>OOS Rank , Coverage Ratio, Avg Fin'l Aid package , OOS Tuition & Fees , State University</p>

<p>1 , 88% , $12,814 , $14,634 , U Minnesota
2 , 81% , $13,215 , $16,274 , Texas A&M
3 , 59% , $12,528 , $21,400 , U Florida
4 , 59% , $17,492 , $29,600 , U Virginia
5 , 58% , $15,075 , $26,102 , UCLA
6 , 58% , $12,500 , $21,488 , Rutgers
7 , 56% , $13,000 , $23,219 , U Washington
8 , 54% , $16,095 , $29,540 , UC Berkeley
9 , 53% , $11,796 , $22,294 , U North Carolina
10 , 52% , $14,129 , $27,176 , UC Irvine
11 , 52% , $14,961 , $28,932 , UCSD
12 , 51% , $14,818 , $29,181 , UC Santa Barbara
13 , 47% , $9,999 , $21,386 , Georgia Tech
14 , 47% , $10,225 , $21,918 , Ohio State
15 , 46% , $13,159 , $28,656 , UC Davis
16 , 46% , $9,939 , $21,818 , U Wisconsin
17 , 45% , $13,302 , $29,326 , W&M
18 , 44% , $10,197 , $23,290 , U Pittsburgh
19 , 43% , $10,057 , $23,401 , Clemson
20 , 42% , $10,900 , $25,722 , U Texas
21 , 42% , $10,700 , $25,334 , U Illinois
22 , 39% , $8,750 , $22,342 , U Georgia
23 , 39% , $9,051 , $23,076 , U Maryland
24 , 39% , $9,806 , $24,940 , Penn State
25 , 34% , $11,174 , $32,401 , U Michigan</p>

<p>In any event, maybe you know of a better way to compare these state universities. If you think that my presented comparisons are improper, would you please suggest an alternative way of comparing the relative Tuition & Fees for IS and OOS students and the amount of Financial Aid that they offer? Thanks.</p>

91

<p>A better way to compare universities is to find universities that offer the experience you want, and find out how much each university is going to cost you.</p>

<p>You can't get that in the numbers you keep posting, Hawkette.</p>

92

<p>What's the significance of an institutional measurement? It's essentially a measure of potential maximum tuition revenue per student (with no aid), but what does that tell anyone? I can't think of a context in which institutions use the measure you propose. If it's not useful to students, and not useful to institutions, I'm not sure why CC readers would want to calculate it or develop a ranking based upon it.</p>

<p>The second ranking you propose doesn't seem that useful, either. Aid packages are based on cost-of attendance, so an "average" across students whose COA is so vastly different doesn't seem sound, particularly at a school like U-M which does NOT meet full need for nonresidents. </p>

<p>Perhaps this is one area where you cannot force a ranking. We don't have the data you'd need to completely separate resident aid from nonresident aid.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you think that my presented comparisons are improper, would you please suggest an alternative way of comparing the relative Tuition & Fees for IS and OOS students and the amount of Financial Aid that they offer? Thanks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No; I am not as interested in generating rankings (and ranking threads) as some readers. The absence of residency-specific data on aid would make the task impossible, in any event.</p>

93

<p>Alexandre:</p>

<p>two schools on your list (post #77) have gone no-loan (Dartmouth & Vandy), so any new ranking would show them at zero; in additon, Vandy offers merit money.. So, it is more than theory that says the private schools can be cheaper....</p>

94

<p>Of course, private schools can be cheaper. Out of state public schools can be cheaper. </p>

<p>It depends on the student and the student's family.</p>

<p>For example, the full payers at Harvard pay more for Harvard than they would oos at Michigan. How many are there? About 50% of the students? I forget. </p>

<p>Some students that are not full payers pay more for Harvard than oos students at Michigan.</p>

<p>But many students at Harvard pay less.</p>

<p>It depends on the student and the family.</p>

95

<p>
[quote]
What's the significance of an institutional measurement? It's essentially a measure of potential maximum tuition revenue per student (with no aid), but what does that tell anyone?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I find myself in the somewhat unusual position of defending hawkette's measurement here, but for reasons quite the opposite of those for which she advanced it. A school's potential maximum tuition revenue is relevant to evaluating its financial strength. Especially for public universities which as a group have smaller endowments than the elite privates, and as a group are heavily dependent on legislative appropriations and therefore extremely vulnerable in an economic downturn like the present one, the strength of the tuition revenue stream will be a critical determinant of how well the school is positioned to survive and thrive in the current economic crisis. So far from being a negative as hawkette seems to imply, a strong "blended" tuition revenue stream is actually an indicator of financial strength. The public universities that best weather the current economic crisis are likely to be those that are least dependent on legislative appropriations and/or in states with the least severe fiscal problems; those that can rely on diverse revenue sources including substantial endowments and strong research funding; and those with a strong tuition revenue stream, taking into account both in-state and OOS rates and the mix of in-state and OOS in the student body. </p>

<p>By all those measures a school like the University of Michigan would appear to be in far better shape than most state schools. It currently receives only 7% of its total operating budget form legislative appropriations, and despite Michigan's well publicized economic woes, the State of Michigan appears to be in better fiscal shape than places like California, Arizona, or Florida; Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm recently proposed a modest 3% cut in higher education spending, which for the University of Michigan should translate into a 00.21% (.0021) cut in its overall budget. Peanuts. Despite recent endowment losses paralleling those of the best-endowed privates, Michigan still has one of the largest endowments of any school, public or private, and is far stronger in that regard than almost any other public institution. It is rightly regarded as a research powerhouse, with research programs well funded by both the federal government and the private sector, and it appears to be well positioned to compete for new research dollars like the additional billions for NIH included in the stimulus bill, as well as new energy research expected to be forthcoming from the federal Department of Energy. And its "blended" tuition revenue stream appears to be among the very strongest of the publics, with a relatively high in-state tuition rate combined with a 35% OOS student body paying tuition at rates set competitively just below that of elite private schools. So Michigan would appear to be in very good shape indeed, arguably the strongest among the publics from a financial perspective.</p>

<p>Thanks, hawkette, for helping to make this clear!</p>

96

<p>I'm certain that the points and conclusions you deciphered from hawkette bclintonk were not what she had in mind. I'm waiting to read the rebuttal once again why U-M will be falling apart in the near future.</p>

97

<p>Bluebayon, post #77 proves beyond any doubt that in general, private universities are no better than public universities at offsetting financial burdens. Students graduate from private universities with as much debt as students from public universities.</p>

98

<p>Just to amplify the point in post #95 ^^, compare Michigan and Wisconsin. Both are large Midwestern public schools, each with outstanding faculties, each with outstanding and well-funded research enterprises. The faculties are almost identical in size but Wisconsin has about 17% more students, just over 30,000 undergrads compared to Michigan's 26,000. Michigan's endowment is several billion dollars bigger (though exact figures are either currently not available or currently not reliable). </p>

<p>But Michigan also hauls in far more tuition revenue, both because its in-state base rate and its OOS premium are significantly higher and because a larger fraction of its student body pays OOS tuition. (Hawkette, your "blended" rate for Wisconsin is erroneous---out of the roughly 34% of students listed as OOS, only 21% pay OOS tuition; the remaining 13% are Minnesotans who pay at an in-state rate)</p>

<p>School/Annual non-discounted undergrad tuition revenue</p>

<p>Michigan $466 million
Wisconsin $245 million</p>

<p>That whopping $221 million difference is the equivalent of the revenue stream from an additional $4.4 billion in endowment, and unlike an endowment it's probably not subject to such severe fluctuations in a recession. </p>

<p>The University of Wisconsin is also more dependent on legislative appropriations than the University of Michigan, and the State of Wisconsin is facing a bigger deficit for the coming 2010 fiscal year, a whopping $2.9 billion gap representing a full 20% of the state's general fund budget, which is certain to result in the University taking a beating. The State of Michigan, in contrast, is facing a much more manageable shortfall estimated at $1.6 billion, or 6.9% of that state's general fund budget. </p>

<p>State</a> Budget Troubles Worsen</p>

<p>The upshot: as between the two, Michigan is in far better shape financially, in no small part due to its stronger tuition revenue stream.</p>

99

<p>Having high tuition also has a cost both in financial aid and less service to the public. Also while UM is at the upper limit of what it can charge without losing customers, UW has lots of room to raise tuition without much problem. UW could increase tuition $1000 and still be lower than UM and many others. Right now UW gets about $100 Million more in state aid than UM. Not a small amount. It also gets far more for buildings $$$ (around $100,000,000/year) from the state while UM has to use much of it's fundraising and endowment to pay for new buildings.</p>

100

<p>.........and yet Michigan is still more desirable for top OOS students. Go figure?</p>