<p>For now, maybe. Who said 18 year old people are rational? I have said UM has been better at tooting its own horn.</p>
<p>LOL. Touche barrons.</p>
<p>The genesis of this thread was an article from Inside Higher Ed about the affordability of public universities and how, in order to compensate for lost revenue (from declining state funding, lower endowment income generation, lower general gifts to school schlorship funds, etc.) in this tough economic time, they may take more (higher-paying) OOS students than they have historically. The conclusions offered by bclintonk are in sync with this as it recognizes that OOS students pay a higher cost and thus are more profitable to a school. I would agree that U Michigan is maximizing its revenue stream by charging a comparatively high price for both IS and OOS students while offering a discounted level of financial aid. From a business standpoint, this is a good job of getting the most money possible from your customers. </p>
<p>The flipside to this is the lack of room which U Michigan has to further grow its revenue stream from OOS students. Presently, the school has a higher % of OOS students than most publics and its OOS cost is higher than all other publics. Is this sustainable? I don’t know, but I very strongly doubt that they have nearly as much flexibility to expand their revenue stream as do many of the aforementioned publics. </p>
<p>So, where will additional money come from to help U Michigan keep up with their public and private competitors? Not from the state which is perhaps the most depressed economy out of all 50 states in the USA. And not from the endowment which has seen its value crash by one-third or more since 6/30/08. I don’t expect anything too dramatic or a meltdown to occur at U Michigan, but anyone that’s not a complete homer for the school can see that significant financial challenges lie ahead and that traditional sources of greater income for the school may already be tapped out. Something’s gotta give. </p>
<p>As for how the school compares with the private college universe, the similarities in cost and the differences in financial aid packages are striking and bode ill for U Michigan. There are 34 private universities in the USNWR Top 50 that offer an average financial aid package of $30,171. The worst of these 34 privates is NYU at $22,207. U Michigan’s OOS students fall below even that level at $20,971. Here is the full comparison: </p>
<p>Rank , Coverage Ratio , Avg size of Financial Aid package , Tuition & Fees , National University</p>
<p>1 , 99% , $35,831 , $36,173 , Harvard
2 , 98% , $36,257 , $37,005 , Vanderbilt
3 , 98% , $34,744 , $35,300 , Yale
4 , 98% , $33,565 , $34,252 , Case Western
5 , 96% , $34,600 , $36,030 , Stanford
6 , 94% , $34,195 , $36,504 , Cornell
7 , 94% , $32,160 , $34,290 , Princeton
8 , 90% , $33,289 , $36,915 , Dartmouth
9 , 90% , $32,866 , $36,390 , MIT
10 , 87% , $32,720 , $37,740 , USC
11 , 86% , $32,239 , $37,632 , U Chicago
12 , 86% , $29,533 , $34,437 , Caltech
13 , 85% , $31,820 , $37,526 , U Penn
14 , 84% , $33,064 , $39,326 , Columbia
15 , 84% , $32,302 , $38,664 , Tulane
16 , 83% , $31,014 , $37,525 , Duke
17 , 82% , $30,285 , $36,847 , Notre Dame
18 , 81% , $30,588 , $37,718 , Brown
19 , 81% , $23,529 , $28,996 , Rice
20 , 80% , $29,143 , $36,336 , Emory
21 , 79% , $29,498 , $37,550 , Lehigh
22 , 78% , $29,600 , $38,122 , Georgetown
23 , 77% , $28,725 , $37,248 , Wash U
24 , 77% , $28,668 , $37,250 , U Rochester
25 , 76% , $28,765 , $37,700 , Johns Hopkins
26 , 75% , $27,936 , $37,125 , Northwestern
27 , 75% , $27,709 , $36,975 , Wake Forest
28 , 74% , $23,903 , $32,094 , Yeshiva
29 , 73% , $27,810 , $37,990 , Rensselaer
30 , 73% , $27,315 , $37,294 , Brandeis
31 , 72% , $27,828 , $38,840 , Tufts
32 , 72% , $27,395 , $37,950 , Boston Coll
33 , 64% , $24,724 , $38,844 , Carnegie Mellon
34 , 59% , $22,207 , $37,372 , NYU
Avg , 82% , $30,171 , $36,705 , AVERAGE</p>
<p>?? , 65% , $20,971 , $32,401 , U Michigan OOS students</p>
<pre><code> U Michigan average Financial Aid package is only 70% that of the average for the 34 privates in the USNWR Top 50
U Michigan Tuition & Fees is 13% lower than the average of the 34 privates in the USNWR Top 50
</code></pre>
<p>Like the comparison with the top privates, I think that many of the public school comparisons in this thread highlight the relatively high cost and relatively weak financial aid of U Michigan. IMO, if this were a stock, the facts would seem to recommend a classic paired trade of buy Top 50 ABC Public or Private and sell U Michigan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
post #77 proves beyond any doubt that in general, private universities are no better than public universities at offsetting financial burdens.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Woah. It doesn't prove anything of the sort. It is just data, pure and simple.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hawkette,
You keep repeating this as if a mantra. Yes, Michigan is economically depressed. As anyone who's been there knows, it has been for the past 30 years. That's why the University of Michigan is far less dependent on legislative appropriations than perhaps any other public university, to the tune of 7% of its budget. And despite Michigan's terrible economy, the State of Michigan is actually not in terrible shape fiscally. In fact, only 7 states are projecting a smaller FY 2010 budget deficit (as a percentage of the state's general fund) than Michigan. Its 6.9% shortfall is quite mild in comparison with Wisconsin's 20%, Florida's 23%, New York's 24%, California's 26%, Arizona's 30%, Nevada's 30%. That's why Michigan's governor is proposing only a modest 3% reduction in state aid to higher education, a cut that will make a barely perceptible dent in the University's budget---in a year where higher education cuts are likely to shape up as a real bloodbath in the aforementioned states and the 17 others projecting double-digit budget shortfalls. True, there's little reason to expect a growth in state aid to the University of Michigan; but in terms of weathering the current economy, it's in far better shape than schools that receive more aid from states that are going to need to take a far bigger whack out of higher education spending.</p>
<p>As for Wisconsin's capacity to increase tuition-- yes, certainly, it's got some room, and it's likely to happen. But as I look at that looming 20% state budget deficit, I suspect Wisconsin is going to have to whack its students with a massive tuition hike just to partially cushion the blow from lost state aid. As between the two, I'd much rather be in Michigan's shoes than Wisconsin's when it comes to financial stability over the next couple of years of very rough sledding. In the end, though, I think a whole lot of public universities are going to find that this is the decade in which they need to follow Michigan's lead into substantially privatizing public higher education. Wisconsin is probably better positioned that most to manage that transition; but they're just a couple of decades behind their cousin to the East.</p>
<p>hawkette: your #'s above confirms previous suspicion (backed by personal observation)that the large majority of OOS Mich students are "rich kids"....</p>
<p>Hawkette, I would suggest that to the extend there is a large shift to more OOS, some chancellors will get their heads handed to them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think a whole lot of public universities are going to find that this is the decade in which they need to follow Michigan's lead into substantially privatizing public higher education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>BC: I don't quite follow your logic. But, more importantly, raising OOS rates has to get to a point of diminishing returns. </p>
<p>Higher rates works for UMich bcos it's one of the world leaders in higher ed. (And, it could probably work for Cal and perhaps UCLA.) But there is a reason that neighbors want to attend UMich -- they prefer it over THE Ohio State University, and IU, and.....</p>
<p>If every public raised its OOS prices, they ALL could not be better off. If the good folks on cc who live in NJ do not want to send their kid to Rutgers at instate rates, why would a neighbor state's kid want to pay OOS rates to drive across the border?</p>
<p>
[quote]
U Michigan average Financial Aid package is only 70% that of the average for the 34 privates in the USNWR Top 50
U Michigan Tuition & Fees is 13% lower than the average of the 34 privates in the USNWR Top 50
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Honestly, it's like comparing apples and kumquats.</p>
<p>Is UM's average aid lower because its aid is (to quote you) "Weak?" Or is its average aid lower because almost 2/3rd of its students qualify for instate tuition? Or is its average aid lower because it tends to enroll wealthy students who don't qualify for any aid? Or could each of these play a role? It's hard to compare average aid between any two schools, but it's especially problematic mixing publics and and privates. U-M has its own unique factors, and so do other publics, which might have different demographics, different state aid programs, a different public funding philosophy, and so on.</p>
<p>Exactly correct bluebayou. That is why Michigan is uniquely positioned as compared to most other large publicly controlled universities. People like hawkette just can't accept this fact and keep spewing their drivel predicting it's inevitable demise.</p>
<p>Bc,
I’m not presenting the Michigan economic situation as new news that U Michigan is not aware of and just now trying to overcome. My point is that the state’s precarious position further diminishes the option of appealing to the state as a source of funding to make up for financial shortfalls brought on funding cuts/losses in the endowment. Such cuts/losses are certainly not unique to U Michigan, but many of those states have far fewer numbers of OOS students, not to mention the fact that their OOS tuition rates are considerably lower than is available at U Michigan, and many likely have more scope to raise OOS rates. </p>
<p>Kayf,
I would agree that, in addition to state funding pressures and decimated endowment funds, many State U chancellors don’t have many appetizing financial choices. Increasing OOS enrollment in an economic downturn is a loser at the polls. </p>
<p>Hoedown,
In response to #109’s questioning the inclusion of comparisons to private universities, I presented comparisons of U Michigan to privates because other posters brought it up. The numbers that I posted for U Michigan in # 103 are the OOS numbers (USNWR provides a detailed breakout for IS and OOS financial aid). </p>
<p>Maybe there is other institutional data that I am not seeing or valuing properly and that is why I asked you for suggestions on other ways to compare institutional financial aid. </p>
<p>Unless there is other data, the conclusions on U Michigan’s financial aid look pretty clear to me:<br>
1. When compared to USNWR Top 50 privates, U Michigan financial aid is very weak (see post # 103)
2. When compared to the 25 most highly ranked state universities, U Michigan’s financial aid to OOS students is the weakest in the group (# 90).
3. When compared to the 25 most highly ranked universities, U Michigan’s financial aid to IS students is in the bottom quintile (# 90)</p>
<p>Will such comparisons hold true for all U Michigan applicants for all comparisons with ABC State U or XYZ Private? Of course not, but it’s not like I’m making the data up. If you or other U Michigan partisans have another way of presenting the data (vs either/both state universities and/or privates), then please present it.</p>
<p>.........And yet with all of your negativeness The University of Michigan still has no problem drawing top students from OOS who often times pay top dollar to attend there. Sort of gets into your craw doesn't it hawkette? Why else would you post this over and over again? Geez!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. And my point is that you're talking about a fact the University of Michigan came to grips with 3 decade ago, and most other state schools are going to slam into like a brick wall in the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years: state aid is no longer a reliable source of funding for public universities because the states just don't have the money, so they're going to have to go down Michigan's road and develop a new financial model that is far less reliant on state subsidies. I don't say they all should, can, or will raise OOS tuition and increase OOS enrollment; most probably can't, at least not very much, because the perceived value isn't there and they'd quickly price themselves out of the market if they tried. </p>
<p>Schools like UC Berkeley and UCLA could, but probably won't, at least not very much and at least not for a while, for fear of political backlash that could jeopardize what remains of their state subsidies, on which they are inordinately dependent. Wisconsin probably could raise OOS tuition but it can't increase its OOS student count very much as it's already very high. Minnesota is going the opposite route and actually cutting OOS tuition to make itself more competitive among cost-conscious OOS students, looking to drive up its OOS applications and selectivity in the process; an interesting gambit that just might work as it's currently only 26% OOS and over half of those are from reciprocity states and therefore paying in-state tuition. That leaves plenty of room to expand the number of non-reciprocity OOS in the student body, and probably recoup or exceed the total OOS tuition it was taking in prior to the price reduction by making it up on volume. </p>
<p>But whatever the particular privatization strategy best suited to the school, they're all going to be going a long way down the privatization road, following Michigan's lead---either that, or watching their faculties, infrastructure, and selectivity crumble under dramatically diminished state subsidies. In that environment, Michigan---with STILL the strongest endowment among the publics, one of the best-funded research enterprises, the strongest stream of in-state and OOS tuition revenue, and relatively modest but comparatively stable state funding, has to be financially among the very strongest public universities financially in this time of economic crisis. Accept it or not, but Michigan looks to be sitting pretty right now in comparison to the bloodbath we're gonig to see in other states.</p>
<p>Bc,
I concur on the need of public Us to fundraise at a significantly higher pace than historically. A few (especially U Virginia and U Michigan) have done so for many years and this certainly gives them a larger endowment to draw on. But, as the list below shows, all of the publics are bit players when endowment is measured on a per capita basis. Also, the data below clearly shows that the vast majority of publics have not yet raised large endowments.</p>
<p>One could argue that this is not an issue for these lower endowment State Us because they have never learned to rely on the endowment monies to fund themselves. I would demur as who wouldn’t like to have more resources to draw in good times…and especially in bad times. And raising money in bad times is never easy and will be slow going for years to come. </p>
<p>Finally, don’t forget the great publics in Texas when talking about large and well-managed endowments. Among public universities, U Texas has the largest endowment per capita and by total size in the USA.</p>
<p>Rank , Endowment Per Capita , School , ( Rank in Total Assets ) Total Assets , Total Enrollment</p>
<p>1 , $2,227,979 , Princeton , ( 4 ) $16,340,000,000 , 7,334
2 , $1,996,682 , Yale , ( 2 ) $22,870,000,000 , 11,454
3 , $1,898,323 , Harvard , ( 1 ) $36,556,000,000 , 19,257
4 , $1,159,664 , Pomona , ( 33 ) $1,794,000,000 , 1547
5 , $1,012,463 , Amherst , ( 38 ) $1,706,000,000 , 1685
6 , $985,225 , MIT , ( 6 ) $10,069,000,000 , 10,220
7 , $947,686 , Swarthmore , ( 47 ) $1,413,000,000 , 1491
8 , $889,964 , Grinnell , ( 44 ) $1,472,000,000 , 1654
9 , $887,014 , Caltech , ( 31 ) $1,892,000,000 , 2,133
10 , $883,675 , Williams , ( 32 ) $1,808,000,000 , 2046
11 , $879,268 , Rice , ( 18 ) $4,610,000,000 , 5,243
12 , $869,477 , Stanford , ( 3 ) $17,200,000,000 , 19,782
13 , $676,891 , Wellesley , ( 41 ) $1,611,000,000 , 2380
14 , $625,748 , Dartmouth , ( 20 ) $3,660,000,000 , 5,849
15 , $537,613 , U Chicago , ( 11 ) $6,632,000,000 , 12,336
16 , $530,640 , Notre Dame , ( 13 ) $6,226,000,000 , 11,733
17 , $484,266 , Bowdoin , ( 79 ) $831,000,000 , 1716
18 , $465,198 , Claremont McK , ( 104 ) $528,000,000 , 1135
19 , $450,360 , Duke , ( 14 ) $6,124,000,000 , 13,598
20 , $445,680 , Haverford , ( 105 ) $521,000,000 , 1169
21 , $445,677 , Smith , ( 49 ) $1,366,000,000 , 3065
22 , $435,402 , Emory , ( 15 ) $5,473,000,000 , 12,570
23 , $401,819 , Northwestern , ( 8 ) $7,244,000,000 , 18,028
24 , $399,791 , Wash U , ( 17 ) $5,350,000,000 , 13,382
25 , $373,184 , Bryn Mawr , ( 89 ) $668,000,000 , 1790
26 , $363,735 , Hamilton , ( 88 ) $670,000,000 , 1842
27 , $354,000 , Middlebury , ( 73 ) $885,000,000 , 2500
28 , $346,531 , Vassar , ( 77 ) $849,000,000 , 2450
29 , $346,354 , Macalester , ( 90 ) $665,000,000 , 1920
30 , $341,530 , Harvey Mudd , ( 131 ) $250,000,000 , 732
31 , $336,354 , Brown , ( 24 ) $2,747,000,000 , 8,167
32 , $329,665 , W&L , ( 83 ) $719,000,000 , 2181
33 , $329,509 , U Penn , ( 12 ) $6,233,000,000 , 18,916
34 , $323,192 , Carleton , ( 93 ) $648,000,000 , 2005
35 , $321,371 , Colby , ( 95 ) $600,000,000 , 1867
36 , $321,128 , U TEXAS , ( 5 ) $16,111,000,000 , 50,170
37 , $315,471 , Columbia , ( 9 ) $7,147,000,000 , 22,655
38 , $299,283 , Davidson , ( 107 ) $501,000,000 , 1674
39 , $297,459 , Vanderbilt , ( 22 ) $3,524,000,000 , 11,847
40 , $274,333 , Oberlin , ( 81 ) $761,000,000 , 2774
41 , $271,970 , Cornell , ( 16 ) $5,385,000,000 , 19,800
42 , $247,800 , Colgate , ( 85 ) $704,000,000 , 2841
43 , $211,545 , Yeshiva , ( 50 ) $1,345,000,000 , 6,358
44 , $202,359 , Wesleyan , ( 92 ) $652,000,000 , 3222
45 , $200,960 , U Tulsa , ( 78 ) $837,000,000 , 4,165
46 , $188,523 , U VIRGINIA , ( 19 ) $4,573,000,000 , 24,257
47 , $185,451 , U Rochester , ( 37 ) $1,731,000,000 , 9,334
48 , $184,738 , Wake Forest , ( 56 ) $1,254,000,000 , 6,788
49 , $184,494 , U MICHIGAN , ( 7 ) $7,572,000,000 , 41,042
50 , $179,399 , Case Western , ( 34 ) $1,766,000,000 , 9,844
51 , $164,646 , Lehigh , ( 62 ) $1,127,000,000 , 6,845
52 , $160,843 , Bates , ( 129 ) $267,000,000 , 1660
53 , $148,186 , Tufts , ( 46 ) $1,446,000,000 , 9,758
54 , $145,362 , Texas Christian , ( 54 ) $1,260,000,000 , 8,668
55 , $143,075 , TEXAS A&M , ( 10 ) $6,659,000,000 , 46,542
56 , $133,508 , Brandeis , ( 84 ) $712,000,000 , 5,333
57 , $127,932 , Johns Hopkins , ( 25 ) $2,525,000,000 , 19,737
58 , $126,235 , SMU , ( 48 ) $1,367,000,000 , 10,829
59 , $118,852 , Boston Coll , ( 40 ) $1,631,000,000 , 13,723
60 , $108,645 , Rensselaer , ( 80 ) $793,000,000 , 7,299
61 , $107,429 , USC , ( 21 ) $3,589,000,000 , 33,408
62 , $101,782 , Carnegie Mellon , ( 63 ) $1,068,000,000 , 10,493
63 , $98,488 , Tulane , ( 66 ) $1,036,000,000 , 10,519
64 , $92,615 , Worcester , ( 118 ) $385,000,000 , 4,157
65 , $92,324 , Pepperdine , ( 86 ) $700,000,000 , 7,582
66 , $87,850 , Clark , ( 127 ) $282,000,000 , 3,210
67 , $86,380 , U PITTSBURGH , ( 28 ) $2,334,000,000 , 27,020
68 , $83,843 , U NORTH VAROLINA , ( 27 ) $2,359,000,000 , 28,136
69 , $74,714 , Baylor , ( 65 ) $1,059,000,000 , 14,174
70 , $74,407 , WILLIAM & MARY , ( 97 ) $580,000,000 , 7,795
71 , $71,711 , GEORGIA TECH , ( 51 ) $1,344,000,000 , 18,742
72 , $71,492 , St. Louis Univ , ( 74 ) $880,000,000 , 12,309
73 , $71,429 , Georgetown , ( 64 ) $1,059,000,000 , 14,826
74 , $68,100 , U DELAWARE , ( 52 ) $1,340,000,000 , 19,677
75 , $59,235 , NYU , ( 26 ) $2,475,000,000 , 41,783
76 , $57,647 , Clarkson , ( 133 ) $170,000,000 , 2,949
77 , $56,243 , U WASHINGTON , ( 29 ) $2,262,000,000 , 40,218
78 , $54,065 , U MINNESOTA , ( 23 ) $2,751,000,000 , 50,883
79 , $53,149 , U NEBRASKA , ( 58 ) $1,221,000,000 , 22,973
80 , $51,614 , Syracuse , ( 69 ) $985,000,000 , 19,084
81 , $50,084 , George Washington , ( 55 ) $1,256,000,000 , 25,078
82 , $49,185 , Howard , ( 108 ) $498,000,000 , 10,125
83 , $47,641 , U Miami , ( 82 ) $736,000,000 , 15,449
84 , $44,397 , PURDUE , ( 35 ) $1,736,000,000 , 39,102
85 , $42,634 , U KANSAS , ( 59 ) $1,218,000,000 , 28,569
86 , $41,269 , U WISCONSIN , ( 36 ) $1,735,000,000 , 42,041
87 , $39,651 , INDIANA U , ( 42 ) $1,546,000,000 , 38,990
88 , $39,492 , OHIO STATE , ( 30 ) $2,076,000,000 , 52,568
89 , $39,070 , U ALABAMA , ( 68 ) $998,000,000 , 25,544
90 , $38,906 , Colorado Sch Mines , ( 134 ) $165,000,000 , 4,241
91 , $38,611 , U OKLAHOMA , ( 60 ) $1,155,000,000 , 29,914
92 , $37,614 , U of Dayton , ( 117 ) $391,000,000 , 10,395
93 , $37,299 , Northeastern , ( 91 ) $658,000,000 , 17,641
94 , $35,994 , U MISSOURI , ( 67 ) $1,025,000,000 , 28,477
95 , $35,722 , Boston University , ( 61 ) $1,145,000,000 , 32,053
96 , $35,721 , PENN STATE , ( 43 ) $1,545,000,000 , 43,252
97 , $35,714 , U of San Diego , ( 128 ) $268,000,000 , 7,504
98 , $35,156 , U KENTUCKY , ( 71 ) $909,000,000 , 25,856
99 , $34,494 , U ILLINOIS , ( 45 ) $1,460,000,000 , 42,326
100 , $34,410 , American U , ( 116 ) $394,000,000 , 11,450</p>
<p>P.S. I didn't have the individual school breakdown for the UCs and thus they are not included here. My apologies to the UC folks and please provide numbers if you have them.</p>
<p>P.S.S. Apologies as well to the U Wisconsin fans. I know that there are other endowment assets that are not reflected here. Please provide updated numbers (as of 6/30/08) and I will amend my spreadsheet.</p>
<p>Finally, much has changed in the financial markets since 6/30/08. No doubt that the numbers for all are lower and, in some cases, much, much lower. We'll have to wait and see just how bad the carnage was/is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought we were comparing publics to publics, hawkette---that was the game you set up here, right? In any event, it's certainly no surprise to anyone, least of all me, that Michigan's endowment is not on the same scale as the very top publics and when calculated on a per capita basis it's well down the list. But $7.5 billion is no trivial sum (or whatever it is now, but they're all way down in the current market). That's no "bit player." It's only a decade or so ago that Yale and Princeton got to that level, and more recently that MIT got there. some other leading privates like Chicago and Northwestern aren't there yet.</p>
<p>Any public university, except I guess Texas (a special case due to its oil holdings), would be delighted to have Michigan's endowment. They don't. It does. And at that level it's more than twice as much per capita as schools like UNC Chapel Hill and William & Mary; more than three times as much per capita as U Washington and Minnesota; more than four times as much per capita as Purdue, Indiana, and Ohio State; more than five times as much per capita as Penn State and Illinois. At $7.5 billion and a 5% annual drawdown Michigan's endowment would have been producing an annual revenue stream of $375 million/year or about $14,400 per student, considerably more than the $320 million or so Michigan has been getting from its legislature. Sure, Michigan's endowment is certainly down like everyone else's, and even calculating the payout on a 3-year or 5-year moving average as most schools do, there will be some reduction in the payout as early as next fiscal year. </p>
<p>But seriously, would you rather be in Michigan's shoes, looking at a gradually declining payout from an endowment that is still enormous relative to almost all other top publics, coupled with a 3% reduction in a legislative appropriation that represents a mere 7% of your annual budget---but on the other side bolstered by probably the strongest stream of tuition revenue of any major public university? Or would you rather be, say, UIUC with an endowment less than 1/5 the size, a legislative appropriation that represents a much larger fractional share of your total budget (I don't know exactly how much, but I think we can safely stipulate it's larger) in a year when your legislature may be looking at a 15% budget shortfall (that's about average for all the states; Michigan's 6.9% is actually less than half that figure), and a far weaker stream of tuition revenue with 90% of your students paying the in-state rate? I honestly don't think that's even a close question.</p>
<p>Oh, one last thing, hawkette. I don't think you get to argue on the one hand that Michigan is weak financially because compared to the top privates its endowment isn't very big; and on the other hand that Michigan is weak financially because compared to other publics its endowment IS big and therefore leaves it more vulnerable in the current economic retraction. That's talking out of both sides of your mouth. I said I was going to stop imputing motives to people on CC and I will refrain from doing so here. I'll just say that that sort of inconsistency might reveal more about the person making the attack than about the institution she's attacking.</p>
<p>Bc,
I post the public school data…I get attacked. </p>
<p>I post the private school data…I get attacked.</p>
<p>I post data for both…I get attacked.</p>
<p>Look, I think you and I are in agreement on about 90% of this stuff. I think we both understand U Michigan’s endowment position in relation to both privates (ok, but nothing special) and publics (darn good). </p>
<p>I think we agree that U Michigan’s high mix of OOS students paying a premium price benefits the school financially to a degree that is better than nearly all other publics in the land. </p>
<p>I think we also agree that U Michigan’s OOS cost is competitive with most privates, but not with most publics. </p>
<p>I’m less sure, but I think we agree that U Michigan’s degree of Financial Aid, particularly as it relates to the Tuition & Fees, is not as substantial as most privates nor as good as any of the 25 most highly rated publics. </p>
<p>I don’t know if we agree on the running room that U Michigan has at this point to either increase further its mix of OOS students or its ability to further increase their Tuition & Fees. I would posit that it’s not great and probably less than many of its State University competitors.</p>
<p>I don't agree with your comparison of Michigan's OOS FA to other top publics. I have a completely different set of figures, and I have to say they're so very far off from yours that I have to wonder what we're even talking about here. I'm looking at the 2009 online edition of US News, where there are school-specific FA statistics. For Michigan they report the following numbers under the heading "2007-08 Aid awarded to in-state and out-of-state students":</p>
<p>Percent of out-of-state, freshman students receiving need-based aid awards: 40%
Average need-based aid award to first-year, out-of-state students: $16,335</p>
<p>Percent of undergraduate, out-of-state students receiving need-based aid awards: 39%
Average need-based aid award to all undergraduate, out-of-state students: $20,971</p>
<p>In other words, US News is reporting an average financial aid award for OOS Michigan students that is almost twice as large as the figure you report ($11,174) in post #90. If the US News figure is accurate, that would cut the gap between Michigan's OOS tuition and fees and its average need-based FA award to roughly $12,000, very much in line with the figures you cite for other top publics. Except I think your whole table in post #90 is flawed, because for most schools you're using the same "average FA award" for in-state and OOS (though you're not even consistent on that, as for some schools you cite different averages for in-state and OOS). In fact almost every public school will have different average FA packages for in-state and OOS because almost without exception OOS students are charged more, and therefore those with financial need will on average have greater need.</p>
<p>But US News goes on to cite further interesting statistics for Michigan:</p>
<p>Percent of out-of-state students receiving non-need based gift aid: 42%
Average non-need based gift aid awarded to out-of-state students: $11,461</p>
<p>Wow! So nearly half of out-of-state students at Michigan are receiving NON-need-based aid. Presumably these gifts aren't included in the "need-based" category which is listed separately. Some students may be receiving merit money on top of need-based aid. Others may be getting non-need based grants in lieu of, or partially in lieu of need-based aid, depressing the reported need-based aid figures, both as to the percentages of OOS students receiving need-based aid and as to the average size of the need-based award (a lot of OOS scholarship athletes, for example, are probably in this category, simply not even evaluated for need-based aid because they're getting full-ride athletic scholarships; same with the winners of the big academic scholarships). And still other recipients of non-need based aid may be students who would otherwise be full-pays but are getting some merit money.</p>
<p>With 40% of Michigan OOS students getting an average of $21K in need-based aid, and another 40% of OOS students (possibly partially overlapping) getting an average of $11K in non-need based aid, that sounds like actually a rather substantial sum of money going to OOS students. It paints a far different picture than that one gets from reading your grossly misleading statistics.</p>
<p>oh oh, looks like someone was just busted. I hope all CC readers take heed to what bclintonk is stating and use a large degree of skepticism when reading hawkette's biased remarks based on unfactual and manipulated information.</p>
<p>Hawkette, looking at FA data is certainly interesting, but it is not telling. As Hoedown points out, different student bodies have different financial needs. Graduation debt, on the other hand, is not open to interpretation. You can shower this thread (and forum for that matter), with a lot of noise and random data, the bottom line for most of us is clear; graduation debt. Show me the money! Michigan students do not graduate with more debt than students at most of its peer universities, private or public. The average student graduates from Michigan with $23,000 of debt. Students at Cornell, Northwestern, Penn, UT-Austin, UVa, Wisconsin-Madison and most other elite universities graduate with debts of $15,000-$35,000. You can count on two hands the elite universities that graduate their students with an average debt below $15,000. They are:</p>
<p>California Institute of Technology
Harvard University
Princeton University
Rice University
University of California-Berkeley
University of California-Davis
University of California-Irvine
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Yale University</p>
<p>That's it. All other universities graduate students with more than $15,000 of debt.</p>
<p>So now using the figures compiled by US News I'll compare Michigan OOS to Northwestern.</p>
<p>Michigan:
tuition & fees: $32,401
room & board: $8,190
total: $40,591
% of OOS receiving need-based aid: 39%
average OOS need-based aid award: $20,971
% of OOS receiving non-need-based aid: 42%
average OOS non-need based aid award: $11,461
net after need-based aid: $19,620
net after non-need based award: $29,130</p>
<p>Northwestern:
tuition & fees: $37,125
room & board: $11,295
total: $48,420
% receiving need-based aid: 42%
average need-based award: $27,936
% receiving non-need based aid: N/A
average non-need-based award: $2,092
net after need-based aid: $20,484
net after non-need based aid: $46,328</p>
<p>So bottom line, for the more than 50% of students who are full-pays, Michigan OOS is about $8,000 cheaper than Northwestern. Michigan OOS is on average $17,000 cheaper for the 42% of Michigan OOS students who get non-need-based aid. And for OOS students with financial need (a very similar percentage at each school), Michigan is slightly cheaper, by about $800. One important caveat is that more of your FA award at Northwestern in likely to be in grants rather than loans, but that will vary with individual circumstances.</p>
<p>Bottom line, though, NO, hawkette, I absolutely DON'T agree that Michigan is falling behind its private rivals in affordability. Unless the numbers in US News are just wildly off-base, which I very much doubt.</p>