<p>I hear that it costs somewhere from 30 000 to 40 000.
that's a ridiculously high sum and im not sure if i'd be able to afford the tuition if i get in.
how do students deal?</p>
<p>Correction: its 40K for freshman/sophomores and 42K for juniors and seniors. These are the tuition rates right NOW for OOS students. Expect it to increase next year, the year after and the year after that.</p>
<p>okay, WHY are tuition rates OOS so high? I mean that seriously. Last year Michigan set a record for the most expensive public school for OOS students in the country. There are tons of schools with Michigan's caliber that never go above 38k in tuition, R&B, etc. It kinda annoys me.</p>
<p>This link contains the tuition information for 2007-2008 year, and I would expect this will go up a bit for 2008-2009. The tuition for Fr/So is $31,302, and $33,500 for Jr/Sr. $42,512 and $44,710 are total cost of attendance for Fr/So and Jr/Sr respectively. For all intents and purposes, it is a private school tuition for OOS students.</p>
<p>University</a> of Michigan Office of Financial Aid: Cost of Attendance</p>
<p>Yes, the OOS rates are comparable to first tier private schools. Since the State of Michigan supports UM financially via taxes from Michigan residents, in-state students pay less.</p>
<p>I understand why in-state pays less and have absolutely no problem with that. But asking 10k more from OOS students that other top publics (eg UCB, UCLA, UVA, Wisconsin, etc) is simply unfair. Tuition alone is one of the main reasons top students turn Michigan down in favor of Ivys and top privates. Because those schools give better aid, and don't give all their scholarships, grants, etc. to in-state students. If Michigan truly wants to take the next step academically, it needs to make tuition more affordable. </p>
<p>And I agree with VC: WHY is tuition so high? So MUCH higher than other public Ivies?</p>
<p>Part of the reason is that the State of Michigan does a poor job of funding our universities. We are one of state that spends more on prisons that colleges. Funding has been almost static the last few years. However this year they have reccomended a 5% increase in state funding. Let's see if it passes.</p>
<p>I agree that it's high, but I don't see how it's unfair. Nobody is making you either apply or attend. If those other public universities are such a better deal, then why not just choose one of them? Apparently Umich has no problem attracting top students from OOS and having them attend. So why should they lower tuition?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
So why should they lower tuition?
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Because it shows a pathetic lack of effort on their part. It shows that UVA, UCB, etc. care more about pursuing quality students that UM does. Apparently "The Michigan Difference" in this case is the difference in effort between UM and competing schools. I love the university and the people, but I'm very disappointed in their efforts to lower OOS tuition. To depend in a large part on OOS students to raise the statistics of admitted students, to broaden their alumni base, etc., and then turn around and charge them way more than a fair price is not only immature, it's unethical.</p>
<p>OP: Consider applying elsewhere as Michigan is expensive for out-of-state students and , as cost is a primary factor for you, Michigan is not a match.</p>
<p>blame jennifer gratz</p>
<p>"I understand why in-state pays less and have absolutely no problem with that. But asking 10k more from OOS students that other top publics (eg UCB, UCLA, UVA, Wisconsin, etc) is simply unfair."</p>
<p>Michigan tuition may be higher than UCB or UCLA, but unless you intend on living on the streets, the cost of living in Berkeley and LA should more than make up for it. The cost of attendence is roughly the same for Cal, Michigan and UCLA. UVa is not that much cheaper...perhaps $5,000 less when all costs are included. Wisconsin is $10,000 cheaper, but then again, Wisconsin is not in as much demand as Michigan. </p>
<p>Here's a look at the cost of attendence (tuition and R&B) at some state schools:</p>
<p>University of California-Berkeley: $43,000
University of California-Los Angeles: $41,000
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign: $36,000
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: $42,000
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: $30,000 (good buy)
University of Texas-Austin: $35,000
University of Virginia: $38,000
University of Wisconsin-Madison: $32,000 (good buy)</p>
<p>And none of those schools are as expensive as their private peers, all of which cost over $43,000 except for Rice University, which is another good buy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To depend in a large part on OOS students to raise the statistics of admitted students, to broaden their alumni base, etc., and then turn around and charge them way more than a fair price .....
[/quote]
They did just that. .... Then why waste so much money to send all those commercial materials to OSS? What's the big difference that $42k (UofM for oss) to $50k (ivies? and you might have better chance to pay way less like 10% of family income to some of top ivies.)? I'm wondering how many OSS end up in UofMich's Honor program, where they claim all admitted students have the similar stats as top ivy?</p>
<p>
[quote]
..... is not only immature, it's unethical.
[/quote]
I'll leave this to others to judge.</p>
<p>I think Michigan is a bargain. Academically and reputationally, it is on par with schools like Cornell, Northwestern and Penn, but it costs roughly $8,000 less to attend.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It shows that UVA, UCB, etc. care more about pursuing quality students that UM does.
[/quote]
What do you mean? Do they offer more scholarships for OOS?</p>
<p>Learnmestuff, your post is very poorly thought out.</p>
<p>"Because it shows a pathetic lack of effort on their part. It shows that UVA, UCB, etc. care more about pursuing quality students that UM does."</p>
<p>I am not sure what you mean. Cal, Michigan and UVa cost roughly the same and give out roughly the same in terms of scholarships and aid.</p>
<p>"To depend in a large part on OOS students to raise the statistics of admitted students, to broaden their alumni base, etc., and then turn around and charge them way more than a fair price is not only immature, it's unethical."</p>
<p>Why is it "immature" and "unethical"? Michigan is still cheaper than most of its peers.</p>
<p>"I am not sure what you mean. Cal, Michigan and UVa cost roughly the same and give out roughly the same in terms of scholarships and aid."</p>
<p>Might want to do a little more research...</p>
<p>(Average) Out-of-State Costs After Aid...
UVA- 24k
Michigan - 32.5k
Cal - 31.5
UNC -21.5k (I thought I'd add one)</p>
<p>Kiplinger.com[0]=ALL&myschool[0]=none&outputby=table</a></p>
<p>UVa has need blind admissions and meets 100% of "demonstrated" need. </p>
<p>[url=<a href="http://www.virginia.edu/accessuva/learn.html%5DAccessUVa%5B/url">http://www.virginia.edu/accessuva/learn.html]AccessUVa[/url</a>]</p>
<p>crs, I have inside information on UVa. Their claim that they meet 100% of "demonstrated" need is correct, but their definition of "demonstrated" need is extremely loose, particularly for out of state students. Same goes for Cal and Michigan. State schools offer too much of a discounted rate for In-State students to be able to meet 100% of demonstrated need of their OOS students. </p>
<p>And thanks for sharing the tuition fees of UVa and Cal. You just proved my point. There is practically no difference in cost. Cal is slightly more expensive than Michigan and Michigan is slightly more expensive than UVa. So I was spot on when I corrected learnmestuff. Cal and UVa aren't cheaper (cal is more expensive when you consider room and board) and they aren't more generous.</p>
<p>Here are some numbers to back my point above:</p>
<p>UVa cost of attendance: $38,000
Tuition</a> & Fees: Facts at a Glance: University of Virginia</p>
<p>University of Michigan cost of attendance: ($43,500
University</a> of Michigan Office of Financial Aid: Cost of Attendance</p>
<p>UC-Berkeley cost of attendance: $45,000
Tuition</a> Costs & Fees</p>
<p>Like I said, the three schools are roughly equally as expensive. </p>
<p>I don't have have financial aid figures, but I am pretty sure that none of those three universities are known for their generosity toward OOS students. As it stands, they are already cheaper than their private peers, and unlike their private peers, those schools must provide their in-staters (who make up anywhere from 65% of the total undergraduate student population in the case of Michigan to 90% of the total undergraduate student population at Cal) with ridiculously discounted tuition rates.</p>
<p>IMHO all of those costs are way pricey. Wealthy colleges need to shell out a bit more of the endowment cash. Harvard and a couple of others just started doing it b/c congress said if they keep raising rates and not forking out the dough they will lose their tax exempt status. </p>
<p>Rich kids can do it and poor kids get aid. Everybody else gets left out in the cold, or in serious debt.</p>