<p>Hopefully we start seeing some changes in the next decade or so. Hey, Alexandre, what do you think about our current president MSC? I mean I have heard quite a few complaints about her. I just never paid enough attention to see what they were all about. It seems like for such a shift to occur, the current admin naturally needs to be changed. Am I wrong?</p>
<p>I wouldn't knock MSC. She is credited with the very successful "Michigan Difference" fundraising campaign.</p>
<p>FUTBIL, Mary Sue Coleman has nothing to do with the University's antiquated treatment of in-state applicants the high percentage of the undergraduate student population they occupy. Michigan has been stuck in its current state of mind since the 50s. If Michigan is to change, it is going to take more than the actions of a president. Remember that a university president has limited powers, particularly at an insitution such as Michigan, where power is very decentralized. </p>
<p>Overall, I agree with GoBlue. MSC has done a good job raising funds for Michigan and she is activelly participating in the Life Sciences initiative.</p>
<p>The negatives on MSC as I understand, has to do with her strong opposition to Proposition 2... and her perceived maneuver around the law after it's been passed. I'm not sure she deserves that.</p>
<p>In general, I agree with the suggestions posted here - lower undergraduate population, higher aid to OOS (guarantee to meet 100% of need), etc.</p>
<p>My post was not meant to discount the role of OOS students at UM, but just to highlight the fact that no one is forcing an OOS to attend. Even given the financial restraints, many OOS continue to value a UM education at the current pricing level. If it is not worth that, OOS students who would be admitted to UM certainly have the stats to seek other desirable options.</p>
<p>I think MSC would be in a tough position if she forced a dramatic change in the IS/OOS proportion with the state legislature. Let's she went to 35/65 IS/OOS and lowered OOS tution by $10,000(I'm talking undergrad here). I did the math, and at current enrollment levels, total revenues from tution would be about the same as today. By sticking her thumb in the eye of the state legislature, she would risk her $320M state aid. That's a pretty tough position to be in.</p>
<p>I think MSC has done a good job. She did get a good raise from the Trustees and turned around and donated it back to UM. Nice touch.</p>
<p>"If it is not worth that, OOS students who would be admitted to UM certainly have the stats to seek other desirable options."</p>
<p>Absolutely SBDad. I got no aid or scholarship and I chose Michigan over 9 other top 20 universities, and I have absolutely no regrets. I would do it all over again if given the choice. </p>
<p>"I think MSC would be in a tough position if she forced a dramatic change in the IS/OOS proportion with the state legislature. Let's she went to 35/65 IS/OOS and lowered OOS tution by $10,000(I'm talking undergrad here). I did the math, and at current enrollment levels, total revenues from tution would be about the same as today. By sticking her thumb in the eye of the state legislature, she would risk her $320M state aid. That's a pretty tough position to be in."</p>
<p>Agreed...for now. However, at the rate Michigan's endowment and alumni donations are growing, in a few years (10-15), $300 will be peanuts. Furthemore, asuming Michigan goes to a 25/75 ratio and doesn't lower tuition rates for either in-staters or out-of-staters, the increase in the number of OOS students would probably more than make up for whatever funding the state choses to withold from the university.</p>
<p>Also, the whole issue of the historical support of the university by the state is not just an exercise in nostalgia. Thirty years ago, the state provided 70% of the funding for instruction at the AA campus, now it is down to less than 20%. Over the 190 years of UM's existence, the state has played an integral role in building the infrastructure, programs and reputation of the university. For MSC to now attempt to turn her back on the state is just not tenable.</p>
<p>Also remember that UM's tuition for ISS is the highest of any public university in the country, so the pain is being shifted to them also.</p>
<p>I think MSC has done a good job. She did get a good raise from the Trustees and turned around and donated it back to UM. Nice touch.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know UofM does provide some scholar ship to OOS, but it is need-based. Not merit based.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>FWIW, U-M provides both need- and merit-based aid to OOS students. Not as much as it would like, however. </p>
<p>Of course OOS students are valued for their contributions to the university's prestige and its academic quality--they're academically very qualified and offer unique perspectives. The idea that the high price is driving them away, however, is not supported by recent behavior or applicants or of admits.</p>
<p>One thing I reject is the implication that the University just sits around resting on its laurels, never questioning the challenges faced by families who have to pay tuition, never considering whether it might want a different kind of arrangement with the state, never pondering the costs/benefits of changing its admit practices or its size. Some of the regular strategic conversations had on campus would surprise a number of you. However, it's true that the University can't change overnight or overthrow tradition on a whim. And sometimes the decision to stay the course for the short or long term is a careful, strategic, and/or realistic one. I guess in the short run this doesn't matter to a student who wants change now, but it's incorrect to think that MSC, the Regents, and a lot of other people don't meaningfully wrestle with these issues.</p>
<p>Hoedown, that's good to know. I can't imagine it would be otherwise.</p>
<p>Wasn't accusing MSC of anything since I don't know really anything about her lol. I was just wondering if she had anything to do with the current system (regarding OOS/IS situation), which I guess she doesn't.</p>
<p>"U-M provides both need- and merit-based aid to OOS students. Not as much as it would like, however."</p>
<p>does anyone know when OOS students find out about merit-based aid?</p>
<p>also, what percentage of OOS students get merit-based aid?</p>
<p>(I apologize if these questions were answered earlier in this thread.)</p>
<p>We got a letter last year said they want us know UofM provide scholarship to OOS, shortly after that my kid got accept letter. But when I got through the that letter, it said was need based. ... since we diddn't qualify, so we diddn't bother. At that time I thought the tuition was $26k ish, and now I read here it is over $30k! .... anyway.</p>
<p>^what.....?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
The idea that the high price is driving them away, however, is not supported by recent behavior or applicants or of admits.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>High price is driving me away. And I have a friend in MA, who is class val, Nat'l Merit Finalist, etc., who didn't apply because it was so expensive OOS. </p>
<p>I realize that, as a public school, there is only so much the U of M can do. I'm not expecting them to compete with Harvard's finaid package. But it would be nice if they could really make an effort to make OOS students feel like they've earned a place there. For example, the Michigan Tradition award is supposedly given to those who "help maintain diversity," which I think is a great idea. But I have a friend who lives in Detroit, and she said there are over 10 kids from her school awarded that. I'm not one to judge whether they need it, or earned it, etc. If they got it, I'm sure they deserve it. But Detroit probably sends more kids to the U or M than any other city in the nation. And if 10 kids from one school are getting that award (it's an elite public school, btw), obviously a lot apply, and that hs is well represented at the UM. So how exactly is that "diversity"? Don't take this as me being bitter, bc I applied knowing I was going to get few scholarships, if any, from the U of M. Not to mention that CA sends about 200 kids per year to Michigan, and thus, my own "diversity" is questioned! But perhaps Mich needs to consider more carefully what those scholarships are for. They're using 400,000 dollars worth of awards (10k per year for 10 kids, times 4 years), to recruit 10 white kids from an elite public school in Detroit. I'm white, and I would NOT consider that "diversity." Using it to recruit a white kid from Montana, a rural, underrepresented high school student, a child of unique ethnicity, etc., fine, I can see that. But it seems either they aren't aware of who they're giving scholarships to, or they really aren't doing their best to get the OOS students who would be more than happy to attend the U of M, but can't due to cost. It seems to get any money OOS from the U of M, you either have to be genius (even their Regents-level scholarship, from what I've heard, is only around 1.5 k per year), or be dirt poor (please don't take offense to that term, but I don't know how else to describe it). Everyone else is expected to either pay the entire 43k or take out tens of thousands of dollars per year in loans.</p>
<p>Sorry, please don't take this as me not liking the university; I love Michigan, and if I had it my way, I would attend in a heartbeat. But it's just too bad that such a grand, influential place can't take the next step forward due to high tuition.</p>
<p>anotherNJmom, Michigan's tuition was $26k back in 2004-2005. In 2005-2006 it was $27.5k, in 2006-2007 it was $29k and this scholastic year, it is $31k.</p>
<p>"This said, I agree that the state is currently providing only a small fraction (15% or so) of Michigan's operating budget and the University should respond by decreasing the in-state population from 65% to a figure that is more reflective of the state's contribution to its current operations. I think a 25% in-state population would be fair. Today, 75% (not 35%) of Michigan's undergraduate student body should be OOS/International."</p>
<p>If you base this off of proportionality, you haven't even considered the fact that IS students pay 1/3 the tuition of OOS students. That alone deserves 28% IS student representation. Coupled with the 15% contributed by the state, 42% of the university's funds are accounted for directly or indirectly by in-state students. Given that this is a state university and not a private university as you seem to want it to be, I would say an additional 23% representation is about right.</p>
<p>"The idea that the high price is driving them away, however, is not supported by recent behavior or applicants or of admits."</p>
<p>Agreed. It always surprises me that there is so much crying about the OSS costs at Michigan. You just don't see these posts about other state schools. If price is a factor for OSS potentials, as has repeatedly been pointed out there are many other options for an equally excellent undergraduate experience. There is no sense of entitlement with U of M about anything - ask the legacy kids who have been rejected. Accept it or go elsewhere. In general Michigan college costs are higher on average than other states,. It is what it is. Frankly, on a lighter note, but with a serious undertone...if you cut the number of in-state students, many will migrate to Lansing which is already significantly raising it's stats and is an excellent and often overlooked Michigan school because of the attention given U of M. Then we can really have a Michigan State, Michigan argument LOL. (and I come from a 3 generation U of M family). Agree also with the posters regarding decreasing IS percentages. With all the upheaval in Michigan, the downward pressure on the housing market, the declining union, the dismal state budget...I'm guessing the populace would be not at all receptive to a "state public university" making it even more difficult for their children to gain entry ...not a good time politically to pursue this line of thinking regardless of the actual contribution the state makes to the school. As one poster said "it's the heritage of building the institution" that will take precedence in the minds of the taxpayers.</p>
<p>Financially, with its 6th largest endowment in the nation, U of M is financially capable of being independent of the state, specially with the increased revenue if everyone's charged OOS tuition. The state should be the thankful ones, not the university, especially with its pity funding. please do not get the concept reversed. plus if U of M goes private, the calibre of student body would significantly improve.</p>
<p>It is entirely credible to me, even without running the numbers, that students from a high school in Detroit would profile as underrepresented at U-M. Even if 10 of them from the same school get admitted. U-M has a relative dearth of kids from lower-income families, from inner cities, from rural areas....it's not how many from a particular school (or neighborhood, county, or family type) apply or are accepted in a given year--it's how many students like them are typically enrolled at Michigan. </p>
<p>I feel compelled to add that my comment about it not scaring away applicants was not meant to be snotty. It's just borne out by the numbers. Although OOS tuition surely does dissuade some really desirable students from enrolling (or even applying), overall app numbers are rising, not falling, from nonresidents, and yield remains strong. U-M cares about price sensitivity and related issues--but there is not an enrollment crisis or quality crisis yet.</p>
<p>If you cut the number of IS students at UM that would only improve the status of UM compared to that of MSU since majority of the students at AA would be OOS/International (who have substantially better stats than IS students both as an applicant and as a student at UM). No matter how many qualified IS students go to Lansing, their stats won't be comparable to those of the OOS students that decide to attend UM.</p>