OOS Students and the Public State Universities

College Search & Selection
121

<p>
[quote]
I think we also agree that U Michigan’s OOS cost is competitive with most privates, but not with most publics.

[/quote]

I thought someone already pointed out on page 1 that the top 4 publics all charge higher OOS tuitions as they are able to charge market price.</p>

<p>The two largest variables in Cost-Of-Attendance are tuition/fees and room/board. Not sure why you insist on just comparing tuitions & fees, as both figures are just as readily available from USNWR.</p>

<p>Now let's compare Michigan's COA(= tuitions&fees + room&board) for OOS students with some of the more expensive publics:</p>

<p><public rank=""> < School > < tuition/fee+room/board ></public></p>

<h1>01 UC-Berkeley....$44,034</h1>

<h1>02 U of Virginia....$37,420</h1>

<h1>03 UCLA.............$39,753</h1>

<h1>04 Michigan........$40,591</h1>

<h1>06 William & Mary $37,356</h1>

<h1>09 UCSD.............$39,752</h1>

<h1>13 UCSB.............$41,666</h1>

<h1>14 UCI................$37,442</h1>

<p>This clearly shows that Michigan is not the only expensive public school for OOS.</p>

122

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, thankfully bclintonk DID have other data. I wasn't aware USNews asked for a breakdown of financial aid by residency; I'm certainly glad they do (that data is handled by the office of financial aid directly). Given your familiarity with USNews data, I question why you elected to ignore that comparison and instead use a less robust method. Why was that?</p>

<p>But I want to get back to your habit of issuing these challenges, which I disagree with. </p>

<p>To hear you tell it, no one should dispute your facts and assertions UNLESS they are willing to start a ranking system of their own, or force comparisons between schools they believe are too different to compare properly. </p>

<p>I saw a movie last night--I suppose I can't critique it unless I'm willing to pick up a camera and shoot an entire movie myself?</p>

<p>I provide information when I think it is helpful or when I feel data has been distorted. Someone doesn't have to join in your fondness for rankings to contribute here, or point out problems with assumptions.</p>

123

<p>Well said hoedown. I hope hawkette gets the message. I think she might have already. I notice she stopped posting on this thread.</p>

124

<p>
[quote]
You can count on two hands the elite universities that graduate their students with an average debt below $15,000.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nice, but gotta add in some toes. Vandy and Dartmouth are now no-loan, so it's up to 11. :D</p>

125

<p>Didn't Anne Bolelyn have 11 fingers? So technically it is possible to do it. :-)</p>

126

<p>Bluebayou, do you care to wager? I think Dartmouth and Vanderbilt are going to revisit threir policies now that their endowments have shrunk by more than 20%.</p>

127

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

I'd like to see how much Texas' endowment fund dropped. Oil now at $36/bbl vs. $147/bbl at the peak...I wonder if they've marked to market their oil leases. Look at T. Boone Pickens wealth. Poor OK State...</p>

128

<p>I thought Pickens' money went primarily towards OK State athletics anyway.</p>

129

<p>
[quote]
I think Dartmouth and Vanderbilt are going to revisit threir policies now that their endowments have shrunk by more than 20%.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Methinks every college (but H) is revisiting EVERY policy that they have; and I have no doubt Mich will do the same. But, both Vandy and Dartmouth have publicly announced that they are keeping their no-loan policy (for this year). (Dartmouth is also maintaining need-blind status for internationals.)</p>

<p>Can it, will it change next year? Entirely possible. But, for now (assuming your list is accurate), the number is 11.</p>

130

<p>Whether it is 9 or 11 does not matter. The point is, very few universities, only half of which are private, are significantly more effective at offsetting debt than Michigan. The notion that private universities are somehow cheaper and provide better financial aid than publics is a myth. The actual numbers to not support that notion in the least.</p>

131

<p>Bc,
1. For financial aid to OOS students at U Michigan, I referenced the $20,971 in my comparisons with private universities (# 103). </p>

<ol>
<li><p>The measurement in # 90 was the average financial aid package for all undergraduate students at each of these state universities. </p></li>
<li><p>As for the measurement for non-need based gift aid, I’m not entirely sure what this is. The numbers for this for U Michigan are interesting, eg, 94% of IS freshmen receive this type of aid according to USNWR. Can you or someone else explain what this is? </p></li>
<li><p>My statement in # 116 was about U Michigan’s weak FA offering compared to those offered by privates. Any public school should be at a substantial cost advantage over a private. It’s a PUBLIC school and theoretically intended to be available to a large number of people. </p></li>
<li><p>Re your comparison of U Michigan to Northwestern, I looked at the Cost of Attendance on the respective websites. It’s $44,883 at U Michigan and $51,720 at Northwestern. Applying their average FA packages ($20,971 at U Michigan and $27,936 at Northwestern) brings the net cost to essentially equal. Also, Northwestern’s average financial aid is the 2nd lowest of any Top 20 private (only Rice with its already low tuition rate is lower). So, a non-Michigan student would likely see an equal or lower cost at the Top 20 private. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>Hoedown,
I don’t understand your post. I am posting data collected from a third party source about a variety of state Us. I respectfully ask for any suggestions from you or others on whether I am properly representing the data, eg, </p>

<p>(# 90): “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>

<p>and </p>

<p>(# 111): “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….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>These are not “challenges” but rather requests for clarifications or other information in the event that I am not properly comparing this group of 25 State Us and/or some of the privates.</p>

<p>Ideally, a large part of what is posted on CC is part of a discovery process that will benefit the college applicant and his/her family. I think that objective data can go a long way to illuminating differences among school and even more so can separate out reality from hype. </p>

<p>Alex,
Your speculative comments on Dartmouth and Vanderbilt need substantiation. Without it, your comments are misinformation, if not slander. If someone (like me!) stated (without any proof) that U Michigan is going to revisit its financial aid policies due to endowment declines, you and the rest of the U Michigan pack would be howling about it.</p>

132

<p>Hawkette, I said I "think" D and V are going to revisit their FA policies. I didnot say they "are". I do not need to substantiate anything. Opinions do not need to be substantiated, especially in the current climate where many universities have already stated that they are going to revisit their FA policies. </p>

<p>And so what if Michigan is as expensive as top 20 private universities? Michigan is as good as top 20 private universities, so it stands to reason that it can charge such prices.</p>

133

<p>


</p>

<p>You can't do this hawkette. It's dirty pool and you know it. The average need-based FA packages I was quoting and that you reproduce here are figures for the 2007-08 academic year, based on need calculated against 2007-08 COA. The COA figures you're quoting from the two schools' websites are for the 2008-09 academic year. Presumably both schools have adjusted their FA to account for higher COA and, with incomes overall stagnant or declining, likely higher demonstrated need in 2008-09 than in 2008-09, meaning the average FA should also be higher. But we don't have numbers on the average FA packages for 2008-09. Comparing 2007-08 FA to 2008-09 COA is utterly meaningless---comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't work like that and you know it. </p>

<p>

[/quote]
As for the measurement for non-need based gift aid, I’m not entirely sure what this is. The numbers for this for U Michigan are interesting, eg, 94% of IS freshmen receive this type of aid according to USNWR. Can you or someone else explain what this is?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I don't know all the details, but the University's Office of Financial Aid administers dozens and dozens of separate scholarship funds with specific requirements, some need-based, some merit-based, some a combination. I imagine if there's a need component they'd list it as "need-based" aid, but for many of these there is no need component. Most don't require a separate application; the Financial Aid people just match up admitted students with the eligibility criteria. Many are quite small; others, like the Shipman Scholarship, are very large, relatively few in number, and highly prestigious. I believe the Regents Scholarship (for "high achieving" in-state freshmen only) is one of the most common scholarships for entering freshmen to receive, but some are renewable for four years. Most in-state students get at least a little something, and apparently a substantial fraction of OOS students get on average rather substantial merit awards.</p>

<p>University</a> of Michigan Office of Financial Aid: OFA Scholarship Listing</p>

<p>Various schools and colleges within the University, alumni clubs around the country, and the State of Michigan also have their own scholarship funds:</p>

<p>University</a> of Michigan Office of Financial Aid: General Information</p>

<p>So I think the numbers in U.S. News are for real. Merit scholarships are alive and well at Michigan. Don't expect full tuition or anything like that; but enough merit money is passed around to take the edge of that COA even for a lot of people who otherwise would be full-pays.</p>

<p>The University also helps to administer several state-sponsored merit scholarships.</p>

134

<p>I'm not sure I understand what you are objecting to. If you have 2007-08 COA, then use those figures to compare with the USNWR-provided Financial Aid numbers. I don't care what sets of figures, just so you're consistent across institutions in making the comparison. I'm not sure why you think that this is a big deal as I would expect the numerical relationship between FA and COA to be relatively constant year to year. What am I missing here? </p>

<p>As for your comments about U Michigan's awarding of non-need based gift aid, am I reading you correctly that you think that 94% of U Michigan's IS students receive merit aid? Are you claiming this with a straight face? :)</p>

135

<p>
[quote]
</p>

<h1>01 UC-Berkeley....$44,034</h1>

<h1>02 U of Virginia....$37,420</h1>

<h1>04 Michigan........$40,591</h1>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would attend any of these schools for the quality of education they provide and for the prestige thing.</p>

136

<p>Hawkette, I am waiting for a response to your insinuation that Michigan is not worth paying for as much as top 20 private universities.</p>

137

<p>Alex,
That's easy. </p>

<ol>
<li>Lower quality average student body</li>
<li>Larger average class sizes</li>
<li>Less acclaimed for Classroom Teaching Excellence vs most Top 20 privates</li>
<li>Lower financial resources per capita </li>
</ol>

<p>Choose the private you want to compare against and I'm happy to have that debate.</p>

138

<p>
[quote]
3. Less acclaimed for Classroom Teaching Excellence vs most Top 20 privates

[/quote]

Ha! This is truly precious. You mean that 1995 survey?! The one that was conducted in the same manner as the PA? Hawkette, you're giving that ancient survey more credit than I give the PA.</p>

139

<p>
[quote]

  1. Lower quality average student body
  2. Larger average class sizes
  3. Less acclaimed for Classroom Teaching Excellence vs most Top 20 privates
  4. Lower financial resources per capita

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I seriously find these 4 reasons quite superficial. </p>

<p>I can attend a small liberal arts college that has all these criteria but I am not assured if I would get the same academic quality that I would get should I attend UMich.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Choose the private you want to compare against and I'm happy to have that debate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Top Tier Educational Services ranked UMich #20 or above several schools that you're supporting. Here's the ranking:</p>

<ol>
<li> Yale</li>
<li> Princeton</li>
<li> Harvard</li>
<li> Williams</li>
<li> Amherst</li>
<li> Stanford</li>
<li> Massachusetts Inst. of Technology</li>
<li> California Inst. of Technology</li>
<li> Columbia</li>
<li> Penn</li>
<li> Chicago</li>
<li> Northwestern</li>
<li> Cornell</li>
<li> Swarthmore</li>
<li> Johns Hopkins</li>
<li> Brown</li>
<li> UC Berkeley</li>
<li> Duke</li>
<li> NYU</li>
<li> Michigan</li>
<li> University of Virginia</li>
<li> Wellesley</li>
<li> Dartmouth</li>
<li> Pomona</li>
<li> Smith</li>
<li> Univ. of Southern California</li>
<li> Barnard</li>
<li> UCLA</li>
<li> Vasser</li>
<li> Wesleyan</li>
<li> Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li> Emory</li>
<li> Bowdoin</li>
<li> Rice</li>
<li> Notre Dame</li>
<li> Cooper Union</li>
<li> Harverford</li>
<li> Scripps</li>
<li> Smith</li>
<li> Bryn Mawr</li>
<li> Vanderbilt</li>
<li> Bates</li>
<li> Harvey Mudd</li>
<li> Georgetown</li>
<li> Middlebury</li>
<li> University of North Carolina</li>
<li> Tufts</li>
<li> Tulane</li>
<li> William and Mary</li>
<li> U.S. Naval Academy</li>
</ol>

<p>Source: College</a> Rankings</p>

<p>I can show another ranking where UMich performs better than some of the schools that you're supporting. My intention of bringing that up is to show you that USNews isn't absolute, and so it's just fair for everyone to consult other ranking bodies with different methodologies, cause after all, not all rankings are accurate.</p>

140

<p>


</p>

<p>I'm not claiming anything except that US News reports that 94% of in-state FRESHMEN at Michigan receive non-need-based FA. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this, as this figure is not out of line with many other public flagships, and as probably the strongest public from a financial perspective, you'd expect Michigan to rank toward the top of this sort of list.</p>

<p>Percent of in-state freshmen receiving non-need-based aid (per US News):</p>

<p>Clemson 100% (average $7,656)
University of South Carolina 98% ($6,702)
University of Florida 98% ($5,348)
Florida State 97% ($4,131)
University of Michigan 94% ($4,078)
Michigan State 89% ($3,637)
Ohio State 79% ($3,980)
University of Georgia 75% ($5,838)
Georgia Tech 65% ($6,486)
University of Wisconsin 64% ($3,296)
Miami U (OH) 62% ($1,442)
iowa State 56% ($2,309)
University of Colorado 51% ($834)
University of Alabama 50% ($3,792)
Purdue 49% ($3,994)</p>

<p>In light of that list, hawkette, do you still find the idea so preposterous that you need to sneer at it? Or do you think they're ALL lying, perhaps? (And if they ARE all lying, why wouldn't they all claim to be in the 90+ percent range)?</p>

<p>I think you have a thing or three to learn about how public higher education works in this country.</p>