<p>@maizeandblue: Right. And there’s another advantage to drawing a more diverse student body (geographically and otherwise). Not only do the in-state students benefit from different perspectives, they also develop connections with people in a broader network. This is especially important for states like Michigan and Wisconsin that have been losing jobs for years (Michigan is doing better than Wisconsin now, but still). What is the point of a great university system if there are no jobs for the graduates? That is pretty much the situation in Wisconsin right now. Good thing UW has an incredibly strong national alumni network.</p>
<p>Going to a lower ranked school is “suffering”? Oy vey.</p>
<p>
I also wanted a large research institution (I did research during my freshman year) with a football team, a good college town, and greek life. At Michigan: check, check, check, and check, along with being one of the best in the country in my major. Should out of state students just not be allowed to go to public schools? UM is 40% OOS. It wouldn’t be as strong academically without the OOS presence. Having top students from around the country really provides a lot to the academic and social environment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure it would and I’m guessing most state publics would. Michigan has said there is no appreciable difference in gradepoint between in-state and out-of state students during their tenure at Michigan AND Michigan students drop out less frequently than out of state. So I personally don’t “buy” that Berkeley, or UCLA, or Virginia or Michigan etc. are “academically stronger” by virture of accepting hords of out of staters. These colleges were strong decades and decades before it became the fashion to accept large numbers of out of state kids. For that matter when my father was at University of Michigan in the '40s he said there were quite a few New York students so there are been out of state kids at least at Michigan for a couple generations. See,if universities were required to be more transparent about their acceptances, you might have enough data to make statements like you have.</p>
<p>Not only is there almost certainly not enough academic depth in Michigan high schools to match the quality of students the other 49 states provide to the OOS population at UM, but the University couldn’t afford to have the academic offerings it does now if it only took in state kids. UM effectively offers a half scholarship to every admitted in state student. If it needed to offer that same scholarship to the 40% of students that don’t get it, they would need to take away from other areas to find the money. And having large OOS populations for what you believe to be at least 70 years at Michigan only supports my point further.</p>
<p>I agree with romanigypsieyes. Going to a lower rank school isn’t sufferting.</p>
<p>That’s what some people call a “first world problem”</p>
<p>Okay “suffering” isn’t the best descriptor of what I was trying to get at. More like “not being afforded the same opportunities as Michigan students.” If I had stayed in state I simply wouldn’t have the same post grad job opportunities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It could be if you have to pay more for it because the “lower ranked school” doesn’t meet need.</p>
<p>Michigan doesn’t meet need for oos students. That’s a good argument against oos students as Michigan students “suffer” from losing their meets full need seat to an oos student.</p>
<p>MaizeandBlue I’m not sure where you are getting your info, but this thread is not about any of this it is about transparency in admissions. My concern is that there may not enough transparency in UofM admissions. Something that if existed might prove or disprove your assertions.</p>
<p>I took a mini course last semester with the provost and vice provost of UM finances on the university’s budget and how it spends it’s money. Phil Hanlon, the next Dartmouth president, was one of the professors and he explained the in state/out of state difference in that manner. He basically said every in state student, for all intents and purposes, gets a half scholarship. The full cost of putting a student through a year at Michigan is what an out of state student pays. He admitted that the university would save a lot of money if they went private but, and I agree with this, it is in their best interest to remain a public institution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At UVa, test scores for the median OOS student are better than those for the median IS student. Regardless, OOS students are taking spots that would otherwise be occupied by IS applicants who were denied admission. It is hard to imagine that UVa can replace one-third of its student body with IS students who were denied admission but who happen to be stronger students on average than current IS UVa students. </p>
<p>The same point should hold at Michigan. Even if the current distributions of OOS and IS students are identical (e.g., test score percentiles are the same), shutting out OOS students means going deeper into the distribution of IS applicants.</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with student stats. It has everything to do with balancing the budget. If the OOS full payers are better students that is just gravy.</p>
<p>
[quote=emeraldkity4
]
</p>
<p>Seriously, give me a break.
The taxpayers of Michigan decide on elevating U of M was a priority over expanding affordable opportunities for their own students?
U of M the only school out there that attracts international students or did they want to add to their coffers for other reasons?</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.minnpost.com/learning-curve/2013/01/president-kaler-responds-press-allegations-u-m-bloat]http://www.minnpost.com/learning-cur...ions-u-m-bloat[/url”>President Kaler responds to press allegations of U of M 'bloat' - MinnPost]http://www.minnpost.com/learning-cur...ions-u-m-bloat[/url</a>]
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait a second, did you just try to debunk that argument about the University of Michigan with stats from the University of Minnesota? I think you lost me…</p>
<p>I feel as though I’m repeating myself, but let me make a couple of facts extremely clear. Michigan meets 100% financial need for all instate students. The tuition for Michigan residents is subsidized by over $6,000 from non-resident revenue. The average cost of an education at Michigan for a Michigan resident is less than both Michigan State and Michigan Tech. Michigan residents have a 25 percentage point higher admission rate over nonresidents.</p>
<p>
I have no idea what you meant to say here.</p>
<p>What Barrons said. The same thing is true at UVA.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, it’s all about money not the quality of the kids being shipped in. They are of fine quality but so clearly are the kids that are no longer being accepted at Michigan because there is no longer room for them. </p>
<p>In 2008: ACT range 27-31, average GPA 3.75 % OSS 23%
In 2012 ACT range 28-32 average GPA 3.8 % OSS 43%</p>
<p>I’m guessing you’d find similar situations at most of the large publics - that there is not an appreciable difference in base statistics when the colleges were strongly populated by in-state…</p>
<p>Once the school and the legislature decide on the target number of OOS, the die is cast. Yes, maize, you took a seat at another state’s flagship. There is a fixed number of seats. Yes, it is legal. But were it not for you and other OOS in those seats, they might be filled with in-staters. Calling your stats or worthiness- or program needs- into play doesn’t change that you are in that seat, not a Mich kid. Saying he could go elsewhere is “Let him eat cake.” As someone said, you could have gone private. (Don’t fall over GMT, that I partially agree with you.)</p>
<p>But, I don’t really have an opinion on whether schools should do this or not. Budget messes make it attractive.</p>
<p>And I would have loved for my kid to go to UVA. OOS or not. Or, to be frank, my godsons- who are IS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And Kron this is what totally p**sses me off. It can cost MORE for instate students with need to go to Michigan State or Michigan Tech simply because our public flagship has decided to replace seats that could go to Michigan students with out of state students that are not necessarily contributing more to the university except for paying higher tuition. There is no transparency so no one can “prove” or “disprove” anything other than systematically the university has held enrollment flat, yet increased the out of state seats almost 20% decreasing in-state students into other in-state public colleges THAT COST MORE.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maizeandblue21 has been arguing that OOS students make Michigan a stronger institution. He is correct about that. Why the school admits so many OOS students (and why the legislature allows it) is a separate point.</p>
<p>
The Michigan legislature has zero leverage over the university. It gives the school an extremely low amount of money compared to what they’re working with in total and if they tried to significantly change UM’s admissions it would go private in a second because it could, easily. UM, while still giving 60% of its seats to Michigan residents and thereby serving Michigan residents, is doing what it needs to do to remain a top university. If the state made it mandatory for 80 or 90 percent of students to be in state Michigan would simply go off on its own and be better for it.</p>