<p>tenisghs, I understand that U-M serves to serve the residents UNDER THE CONDITION that it receives appropriate funding from the state. After all, if it doesn’t get any funding, then its the equivalent of a private school and does not need to serve the needs of any group in particular.</p>
<p>And kmccrindle, I don’t have the time to pull the statistics right now but I’m sure Alexander will, as he is good at finding that sort of info. And the average statistics of out-of-state students is higher across the board in just about every category (% of students in top 10% of the class, SAT/ACT class, AP Credit). Furthermore, I have something more valuable: I’m actually a student there right now. I took more AP classes and exams (6 to be exact) my junior year of high school in Texas than the TOTAL number of AP classes offered at instate high schools that most of the people I know from instate Michigan went to. And I have friends from all over the state, from Charlevoix, to suburbs of Detroit, to Grand Rapids, etc. And like I said, personal experience and with having a wide network of friends…just about every kid I know with a 33+ ACT is out-of-state. And just about every out-of-state student I know came in with over 10-15 hours of AP credit. My instate ones? A lot of them came in with NOTHING. Now, it may seem like I only know the extremes but I assure you this is not the case.</p>
<p>And aglages, that’s the whole point isn’t it. They take in two-thirts of the class as in-state because they feel “obligated” to even though the state isn’t giving U-M funding worth ****. They don’t give 2/3 of their acceptances because in-state students are more qualified HA.</p>
<p>Actually I read that article wrong, sorry. 2/3 of enrolled students are in-state. That’s almost an irrelevant fact. Realize that most out-of-state students who get accepted to Michigan also get into other schools of high caliber. So, even if they are accepted, a lot of them do not end up going due to financial reasons (since U-M is so damn expensive for out-of-state that a student could go to an ivy league school for essentially at most, an extra 3-5 grand a year…that is, if they didn’t receive any scholarships from U-M or any financial aid from the Ivys)/going to another school. Personally, I was choosing between Michigan, UCLA, Berkeley, and Duke, and UT Austin (instate school for me), and ended up at Michigan because of academic scholarships and I wanted to experience something new. Was it a good decision? You bet it was. Probably one of the best I’ve ever made in my life.</p>
<p>I agree with Predator…to an extent. Like Predator and hundreds of other Michigan OOS students currently enrolled at the University, I too chose Michigan over other elite universities, including four Ivies, Cal, Chicago and Duke. For me, it was about the overall experience. I knew Michigan could provide me with an undergraduate experience that no other university I was admitted into could. And like Predator, I too feel it was one of the best decisions I ever made. </p>
<p>However, I found the caliber of in-state students to be very high too.</p>
<p>The University of Michigan will not approve of limiting the instate population for the sole fact that they love tradition. That being said, most of you OOS kids don’t know the first thing about this school until about Junior year of high school while many of us have wanted to go to this school since birth.</p>
<p>It’s not always about grades sometimes. No one gives a **** if you have a 33+ ACT once you get to college. I’ve seen people with 3.5s in HS graduate college with almost 4.0s and I’ve seen Valedictorians drop out and go back to a CC (my Valedictorian) or not graduate at all (don’t even bring up Bill Gates or Steve Jobs because they are definitely the exception…).</p>
<p>By the way Predator, just as you have pointed out that I make a generalization about OOS kids being much richer (spoiled?) than instate is about the same as you pointing out OOS kids are smarter than instate. Yes I know the statistics but sometimes you need to step back and look at the bigger picture and sometimes you’ll realize that those statistics are actually flawed.</p>
<p>I like how you blow off my post as a typical CC response but considering how your so worked up and aggressive in this thread makes you look real angry and disdainful of U of M. Maybe your just jealous because instate students get a reasonable bill for a world-class education and your not part of it? I don’t think anyone else is going to come to a different conclusion about you. </p>
<p>U of M is a state school. Guess what state schools were established for? To serve the students of that particular state. And considering how the state government requires U of M to admit a quota of michigan students, it only makes sense that any deficits of the school budget are slapped onto the tuition for OOS students. Thats the way it is for every other state school in the country.</p>
<p>That is actually probably true. I won’t lie and say I’m poor. I’d say my family is well off but still can’t afford $50,000 a year just for a kid’s college. But I’m not sure why you associate rich with spoiled. That sounds like a bit of jealousy there. You saying OOS students coming from wealthier families is probably very accurate. But, that doesn’t mean we don’t care about money nor does it mean that we were spoonfed. Don’t hold it against other people whose families might be able to afford paying $50,000 full for their child’s college education. You are in no position to judge. And you’ve seen a kid who got a 3.5 in high school get a 4.0 at a school like U-M? I highly doubt it. Maybe at a community college or a much lower ranked public/private university. Nice try.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ul>
<li>Everything you just mentioned was an exception too. I know plenty of valedictorians from high schools that did very well in college as well. The # of valedictorians/high performing high school students that actually fail college or end up in CC’s…so far, you’ve only proven that you know one, which happens to be your own class valedictorian. Nice try, but I hope you realize that kids who often do succeed really well in high school succeed in college because they have an inner drive, regardless of whether its high school, college, medical school, etc.</li>
</ul>
<p>But you are right… a 33+ ACT and other similar stats doesn’t guarantee anything, but it did get me over a $100,000 engineering merit-based scholarship from U-M (of course I actually had a live outside of school as well, so I’m sure that helped out too). So, I guess it counts for something, huh?</p>
<p>Yes I’ve seen someone with a ~3.5 from a Detroit public school graduate with a 3.8-3.9 here. I know because I work with the guy. Also, I have nothing against the rich or OOS kids but Michigan is known for having its fair share of pretentious kids.</p>
Good because that is the nature and quality of your posts. If you can’t/won’t contribute anything new or worthwhile, why bother to post your opinions of other posters character or motivation? It is childish and adds nothing to what in most cases was a civilized exchange of ideas/opinions.
Really? The state government requires a quota huh? And to think that other posts within this thread claim that the Board of Regents makes the determination of what percentage of OOS students are admitted. Did you not read the other messages or do you have some different information to share?</p>
<p>Your complaining about U of M’s treatment of OOS students that isn’t going to change in their favor, ever. Why? If enough people out of state are willing to pay 60k to have their kid attend U of M, U of M will raise OOS tuition to 60k. If enough people out of state are willing to pay 70k to have their kid attend U of M, U of M will raise OOS tuition to 70k. Everyone else is left in the dust, but thats what it comes down to: whoever has the most money. Whether or not its the rich people’s fault is up to your own judgement. How many times do people here have to say that U of M is a state school that primarily serves instate students? As long as there is OOS demand to attend U of M, they can do anything they want to the tuition price while leaving instate students relatively alone. Unless OOS tuition price reaches a point where U of M scares away everyone’s applications and application numbers significantly drop, U of M is going to continue to pile the bill on top of OOS tuition in order to pay for budget shortfalls.</p>
<p>OOS students get the short end of the stick, and its unfair, but thats the way it is across the whole country in every state school. Why you are complaining about a situation that isn’t going change in the near future and showing us all how much butthurt your getting from it?</p>
<p>And why are top OOS students willing to pay? Because Michigan ROCKS! ;)</p>
<p>Seriously, although I agree that Michigan is not cheap, let us be honest, peer schools are generally more expensive. Heck, schools like Northeastern, BU, GWU, Miami (FL) etc… are not nearly as good as Michigan and charge $10,000 more/year.</p>
We are in agreement. Please see post #5 on the first page of this thread. I clearly said that the reason UM charges more is because they can.
Again we agree. The difference IMHO is that UM is raping and abusing the system more than other state universities. Why? Because they can. Does it make it right, fair or morally just? Lets just agree to disagree.
What is with the "butthurt’ references? If you bothered to read the posts in this thread you’d know that UM’s financial decisions aren’t costing me a nickel. Based on your posts I would guess they are costing your parents some money but likely not you. </p>
<p>BTW - I’m still waiting on your state quota information (post #70).</p>
<p>Alexandre: While we agree that UM is a very good (great) school some of the articles that you linked earlier mentioned that their financial issues may begin to cost the university some of it’s professors. Passing on funding shortages to the OOS families might work short term but it may not address all the issues.</p>
Actually, I believe there is an agreement in place with respect to the state funding, Aglages, so I do believe this to be the case. In the past, Michigan has been penalized for falling below the quota, so they are very careful in their yield calculations – I think – Alexander could probably verify this.</p>
<p>Also, funding issues really are NOT costing the school presently. On the contrary, they’ve gone on a hiring spree, getting their hands on talented teaching staff from other well-ranked schools at a time when no one else is hiring. There was an article in the Detroit Free Press about it a month or so ago. They’re able to do so due to the health of their endowment.</p>
<p>Which sheds a different light on the whole undercurrent of this thread, doesn’t it: that being that Out of State students feel it was politically unjust that the OOS increase was double the rate of increase for in-state students. Clearly, they didn’t “NEED” to increase OOS by 3% if they can “afford” to be snapping up teaching talent from other prestigious schools. I think what you’re looking at is a business decision that went something like this:</p>
<p>A) We have an active target market of OOS students who are highly inclined to purchase our services; there is a surplus of demand
B) Our peer institutions are within the competitive range of tuition + residence net cost
C) Our slightly upmarket “competitors” charge about $9,000 more a year for tuition
D) Anything less than a 1.5% increase does not match the rate of inflation even during a recession and would reflect a reduction of services
E) We are given what amounts to Co-Op dollars (funding from the State of Michigan) that covers about 48% of our tuition “cost or expense” and are frequently criticized for being the most expensive in-state tuition for residents, with our instate ‘competitors’ beating us on price by at least 20% and sometimes as much as 40%.
F) To continue getting that 48% of tuition cost funding, and at the same time maintain the CALIBER of student, we need to continue to attract 65% of our population from a state residence pool that is highly price-sensitized in this recession, and since it’s 2/3rds of our pool, we need to compete to keep the best in-state talent when the ivies will give those same kids a virtual free ride if in need and other hungry privates that meet 100% need or give generous merit.</p>
<p>That’s just a hunch, but I am betting that forms a little insight into the variables of this decision. I don’t thinks it’s especially immoral or unethical to make a distinction in the application of a tuition increase between instate and out-of-state either. Here’s why:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Michigan commits to meeting 100% of In-State student demonstrated need, meaning it gives outright grants, loans, etc. in its packages. If half the students are getting aid (which they are) then a “hold-the-line” tuition position designed to be attractive to full pay in-state families is not really costing them as much in need funding, which comes out of endowment.</p></li>
<li><p>Michigan does not commit to meeting 100% of need of out-of-state students, which in turn means that its tuition, with a 3% increase is a) more accurate in terms of cost-of-delivery and b) still market competitive for that pool considering other options and c) not an insurmountable barrier for OOS families, who traditionally have faced 5-6% increases each year.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So – a .04 difference while AT UM would suggest that there is a fairly even distribution of talent across the entire admission pool, to my mind. Which means perhaps we should put to bed this notion that instate students are somehow academically inferior to out-of-state students. Let’s face it – the numbers would suggest that being less affluent does not necessarily make one less academically talented.</p>
<p>I say “butthurt” because it seems like you are a student or a parent of a student who badly wants their kid to go to U of M but are angry, maybe even jealous that instate students pay so much less to go to U of M. I’ve never seen someone so argumentative about a situation that has been in place for the most obvious reasons due to supply and demand and the fact that U of M is a state school.</p>
<p>As the parent of an OOS with no aid (just average middle-class, not rich), I’ll put in my 2 cents (or 3 percent). </p>
<p>It isn’t easy paying for college, but you do try to prepare to do the best you can for your kids. My H and I both strongly believe education is an investment, and budget accordingly…no new cars or extra splurges. I’m actually relieved to see 3 percent vs what it could have been given the state of the economy. I think U Mich does a decent job managing it’s resources to provide it’s students with a superior education.</p>
<p>D just completed her second year and we couldn’t be more pleased to see the return on our investment in her education there. I know she would have never had the opportunities at other schools that she has had at U Mich…from academic honors to fellowships abroad to experience as a lab manager to a paid internship in her field (very few are offered in it). Maybe she’s been lucky, but she’s had the most inspiring professors that have truly nurtured her academic interests and given her great opportunities. And I think there is truth to the article referred to about OOS students…D definitely feels she needs to work hard at her studies and grab every opportunity because we are paying so much for her to be there.</p>
<p>Also, coming from Florida where about 95% of the students at the state flagship, UF, are from instate…I think the greater percentage of OOS and international students is part of why U Mich is such a strong school. It makes for a much more interesting place!</p>