<p>This is a link to an article from yesterday's USA Today about the issue of whether some state universities are admitting too many out of state students, while excluding students from the home state. I thought it would be of interest here.</p>
<p>I don't believe it's a fundamental right if you're in state to "deserve" to get into a school any more than any other student. Yes, you pay taxes, but an out of state person also forks over extra because your tuition is low. With fewer out of state students, your state education would cost more, which people would also complain about.</p>
<p>As an out of stater at UVM, the school central to the article, I was kinda turned off by the wait listed kid's attitude. There's no right to go to the school of your choice, whether you happen to live there or not. It was harder for EVERYONE this year to get into UVM. Had I applied this year, I probably also would have been at least wait listed. The stats jumped, there was a much larger pool to choose from at a time when the university is really dedicated to bringing up its status. He needed to be just as good or better than the rest of that pool. It's not like there was an arbitrary reason that he was rejected because the school has some bias against the state. In fact, if he was accepted easily to UMass Amherst, which is far easier to get into than UVM, he may not have been as strong a candidate. </p>
<p>I can't believe people threw such a fit that the school had to offer january admission. It's college, and people get accepted, rejected, and waitlisted every day. UVM is very close to being a private school at this point (I believe there have even been recent discussions about it). Your residency status shouldn't guarantee you a spot at any university, anywhere, but in vermont, the higher education budget is TIGHT and very little tax money pays for the school. Especially here, merit should be what counts, and not your mailing address.</p>
<p>There is the opposite situation as well- some state schools admit almost no out of state students. That stinks for them on the other end of the spectrum too. But it seems to be a fact of the state university system.</p>
<p>There is an incredible sense of entitlement among some families--it isn't just related to the number of out-of-staters. </p>
<p>Some families believe that if their child gets a certain GPA and test score, they deserve a spot at the flagship public university. It's hard for some families to accept that even public universities may be selective, and may want to have criteria other than some set of minimum qualifications (and by minimum, I don't mean non-challenging--I just mean a set of qualifications which if you can present, you are in, no other consideration needed). </p>
<p>Of course, having some number of nonresident students makes spots that much more competitive.</p>
<p>Mother of 2, thanks for the link. The USA Today list of high/low population publics is helpful to college planning for many CC'ers!</p>
<p>With state funding at many state universities dropping to subsistance levels, they have some gall even considering themselves public universities. I am certain that the additional tuition from OSS's help maintain the level of instruction at a satisfactory level.</p>
<p>I think I read somewhere that UVa receives less than 20% of its operating budget from the state government. Perhaps they would be better off refusing the money altogether, change the name to Jefferson U and raising tuition to $30,000 for all students! Only kidding.</p>
<p>^^^Haven't you heard that Wm and Mary, UVa and VATech are trying to just that? Except they want the funding but not the responsibility of answering to the state legislature.</p>
<p>I know a lot of people in this commonwealth would gladly see the rankings go down if it meant there was a cap put on OOSers. UNC Chapel Hill is only a couple of spots behind UVa and it's ahead of W&M and Tech and the NC legislature limits OOSers to between 15-18% of the student body.</p>
<p>In this article, we have finger pointing as to whom is at fault. It is my opinion that a state university system's first role is to serve and educate its state residents. In today's job market, access to higher education is crucial. If you have two students exactly the same, except one is in-state and one is out-of-state, whom do you think will get accepted? We see cases all the time wherein it is all about the money. That is bunk about their reasoning that an out-of-state person will stay and work after graduating; therefore, isn't the university "wonderful" that they are bringing in new potential residents to the state. I don't know about Vermont; however, job prospects in places like Grand Forks, North Dakota, are very limited. Better public disclosure of a university's stats on their decisions and more oversite is needed.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, as many private colleges exceed $40,000 per year, more and more middle-class families do need to rely on the state university systems. I personally know an honor student that graduated with my son who was waitlisted at our state university. She had good credentials and the family simply could not afford the tuition at the private schools where she was accepted. She is now attending a branch of the university and hopefully will be able to attend the main campus in her junior year. State universities are often funded through residents' taxes so there should be some allegiance to well-qualified state residents.</p>
<p>Don't worry folks, dear old 'state U' is not going to become private anytime soon. The Virginia Military Institute trustees and alumni looked into it during the gender discrimination litigation and discovered that privatization was too costly (obviously) at this late date.</p>
<p>As to the orginal post, I do believe that state colleges should provide some "bias" towards applicants whom are state residents. How little or how much is an open debate.</p>
<p>I'm not sure how I feel about this issue. As a Pennsylvanian we have many good public schools that are fairly affordable. My son was accepted at Millersville University of PA, Towson (U of Md.) and waitlisted at UVM. I would not want to dilute the admissions criteria at our PA schools just so even more PA students are accepted when right now the overwhelming majority is PA students. In fact that was a big negative for both my kids - why go to a college that is filled with kids just like them? When I think of someone going to UNC - Chapel Hill I automatically think more highly of them if they are not NC residents. </p>
<p>BTW, three of the colleges with high percentage of out of staters have good explanations for their oos rates. Delaware and Rhode Island are both so tiny that many oos students probably live within an hour of the schools, so it's more like their own local U. West Virginia (my husband's alma mater) is very close to the PA border and easier to get into then Pitt or PSU, and well priced. I'm not sure the academics there are any easier once you get in, but it's admission stats are lower.</p>
<p>Plus, you need to start now and ensure that the legislature in your state has in place a law that says (see Virginia) once a student graduates from a community college, that student is entitled to admission to the State University so that s/he can continue education without disruption. (I am sure there is more wording, such as required GPA, etc.) Parents with children in college (helicopter parents, we are called so that we "simmer down"), need a voice that is not tied to a state's revenue basis or those funding student loans.</p>
<p>I'm firmly in the camp of state univeristies whould serve state residents first.</p>
<p>Having said that, however, one size does not fit all states. University of Vermont is in a very different situation than Maryland College Park or Auburn or UVa. Vermont may need the tuition of the OOS to maintain the in-state tuition rates, and they could probably admit all qualified in-state students, with little crowding. The article does not say WHEN the waitlisted students applied, it implies that they were solid, but not stellar candidates, you don't know if they applied late in the year, or if the university just got "greedy" and didn't reserve enough spaces for in-state students. Some might be surprised to see Auburn on the list, but it is almost in Ga, and sometimes it seems every 3rd person you meet in Atlanta is an Auburn grad - with OOS costs at about $25000, it looks cheap.
The Va schools are the ones who seem to be in a bind over this, particularly UVa. As an outsider, it appears that James Madison, VCU, Old Dominion, George Mason, Mary Washington are filling the niche of serving the state residents first - maybe VaTech, too, because it has some special programs - and UVa and W&M are acting more like private schools. Folks in Va may not like it, but can they really change it??</p>
<p>We were discussing this issue on an earlier thread about the University of Illinois. IMHO, greater specialization of the non-flagship campuses in a state can be a big help. Instead of having one flagship campus that's the be-all, end-all, it's healthy for a state to have a good tech school, urban-experience school, LAC-feeling school, etc. California does a great job with this. Everyone knows Berkeley is Berkeley, but students can and do choose Cal Poly for architecture, UC Santa Cruz for the residential colleges and laid-back vibe, etc. There's still a pecking order among campuses, but there's a spectrum with good choices at every point. You don't have the poisonous situation of Illinois, where people perceive one great university alone at the top and then a bunch of last-resort campuses clustered at the bottom. (Imagine how much worse the Virginia problem would be if there were no W&M.)</p>
<p>How very shortsighted.</p>
<p>First off, let's understand what a large state school actually is from an educational standpoint. In most cases, it's a means of improving human talent in the state. Better, more educated talent will attract better jobs. States are in competition with each other. This is why Clemson University has gained a lot of attention for trying to convince the SC legislature that having a recognized elite public in the state will provide economic benefits many times over. They are having mixed success at that.</p>
<p>State with really elite public schools often have no idea what a goldmine they have on their hands. Some companies that have tried to move operations to lower-cost labor states have found that they could not because they could not get enough plankholder employees to come with them. Having an elite university system tends to improve the selling points to current employees.</p>
<p>Elite public universities lure talent from elsewhere, and much of that talent stays around. I have no doubt that California, Michigan, Virginia, N. Carolina, and Texas have benefitted greatly from having elite public institutions.</p>
<p>Of course, Viginia is about to ruin its system. UVA should be mostly OK with its large endowment, but we will probably see W&M and Virginia Tech decline as state funding drops off as a percentage of operating costs. The clamor within Virginia will also lower admissions standards, reducing institutional rank and reducing the number of really talented, out of state kids who want to attend. </p>
<p>Whenever there's a goose that lays a golden egg, our first instinct, it would seem, it to kill it.</p>
<p>Virginia actually gave all the colleges a nice funding increase this year and will continue to so long as the state has the money.</p>
<p>Glad to hear that about funding in Virginia. According to my sources there, funding for UVA had fallen below 10%.</p>
<p>I am always amused by those who still believe that out-of-state students subsidize in-state tuition at a public university. Even in VA, where the state funding is less than 20%, this is not the case. And in NC, where the state funding is at 40%, it is the NC taxpayers who subsidize the out-of-state tuition. Let there be no doubt.</p>
<p>kathiep: I found your comments, ". . . Why go to a college that is filled with kids just like them? When I think of someone going to UNC - Chapel Hill I automatically think more highly of them if they are not NC residents," both mind-boggling and very telling. </p>
<p>You should know that NC is a large state, stretching all the way from Murphy to Manteo. And the people who live here are as multi-faceted and as varied as their landscapes. In more populated areas, such as the Research Triangle area (also home to many colleges and universities, including the three big ones: NC State; UNC-CH; and Duke), you would be hard-pressed to find a native North Carolinian. We are fortunate to have people from other states and from all over the world here, including many from China; Japan; Great Britain; France; Russia--and yes, even some from NC--which makes this a wonderfully interesting and diverse place to live. </p>
<p>The in-state students who <em>choose</em> to attend their flagship university here are not all the same. They come from many and varied backgrounds and, like the out-of-state students who choose to attend, bring much to the university campus. </p>
<p>I would hope that the out-of-state students at UNC-CH do not share your same view and are, in fact, much more open-minded about <em>all</em> students, regardless of their home region, and view each and every one as unique individuals. And, after seeing the stats for 2005 incoming freshmen, I feel sure that the out-of-state students who do attend UNC-CH will certainly be intellectually and academically challenged by their in-state peers. :)</p>
<p>"Elite public universities lure talent from elsewhere, and much of that talent stays around. I have no doubt that California, Michigan, Virginia, N. Carolina, and Texas have benefitted greatly from having elite public institutions."</p>
<p>I agree with this sentiment....but I don't know if Texas will benefit much longer. UT-Austin is approaching 80% freshman enrollment of state-mandated in-state auto-admits under the top 10% law. The remaining 20% is for kids who are not in the top ten percent but are at high performing schools, kids at privates that don't rank, and oos applicants. UT-Austin does not have the option to accept an in-state applicant but place that student at one of it's other campuses either. If an instater is in the top ten percent, regardless of the quality of their education or high school, and they want UT-Austin, Austin has to take them. As a direct result of this law, graduation rate over a SIX year period is about 40%, which is eroding that prestige factor. This is why my d is an oos student in honors at UNC-CH, rather than an instate student in honors at UT-Austin or Texas A&M. She went for the more prestigous school. Furthermore, there are no caps on the top ten percent law, so conceivably, UT-Austin and other state universities in Texas could eventually be forced to reject ALL oos students. Probably won't happen at the lower-tiered schools, but UT-Austin and Texas A&M will most likely be faced with this at some point.</p>
<h2>There is a fine in that state universities have to walk...between serving their state's youth and maintaining prestige. Merit must be a strong factor in admissions. In the case of UT-Austin, the graduation rate tends to imply in-state students were accepted who may have benefited from a year or two at CC or a smaller less rigorous university working on basics.</h2>
<p>Crossed posts with jack. I want to add another facet to what was said there. At UNC-CH, my daughter has found that the in-state students are DELIGHTED to have them. As I mentioned in another post, in-state kids from her floor came running into her room as soon as we walked in with our first load of boxes...they were excited to meet 'the girl from Texas'. One girl told me she was so happy when she found out her dorm assignment because she knew she would get to room with oos kids. My d has detected no resentment. And in the case of UNC, because the school is not constrained by laws like the top ten percent law, the quality of in-state students is NOT materially different than that of oos students. I think that is something that has been exaggerated.</p>
<p>Idmom, in your evaluation (opinion?) regarding the graduation rate at UT-Austin, aren't you omitting the critical fact that the Austin campus has one of the largest student populations in the nation? With such great numbers it's no surprise that the number of students who don't graduate (in a timely fashion) is similarly notable.</p>
<p>There are many excellent points in this thread already and I am reluctant to add my opinions at the moment, which I hope you all will understand. I will say that having worked exclusively at private institutions prior to arriving at UVa, I had much to learn about state university systems and my opinions on certain issues evolve as I learn more. </p>
<p>We get 8.5% of our budget from the state. If you look at the academic division only, the figure is 14.5%.</p>
<p>From</a> the budget office:
[QUOTE]
Major Sources of funds for the University are:
- Patient Revenues 44.1%
- Tuition & Fees 15.5%
- Grants & Contracts 14.1%
- State General Fund Appropriation 8.5%
- Gifts & Endowment 7.8%
- Auxiliary Enterprises 7.5%
- Other 2.5%
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Major Sources of funds for the Academic Division are:
- Tuition & Fees 28.0%
- Grants & Contracts 25.8%
- State General Fund Appropriations 14.2%
- Gifts & Endowments 14.2%
- Auxiliary Enterprises 13.2%
- Other 4.6%
[/QUOTE]
The academic division's budget increased by 6% this year.</p>