A study published this week by The New York Times found that the University of Michigan has one of the highest percentages of wealthy students, with 66% of those enrolled in the top 20% income bracket. This places Michigan at number one for median family income when compared to other highly selective public colleges, at $154,000 per year.
What are your thoughts on this? is anyone surprised that it’s in the state of michigan, which isn’t a wealthy state? I thought it would be uc berkeley or some university in a richer state.
@Eeeee127 As a Michigan alumni from out-of-State who has not saved enough or wealthy enough to be able to afford “full pay” to send my high stat students there (both were accepted) let me share my perspective: I am not surprised at all. Mostly all the families that can afford Michigan from out of state --at $58,000 to upwards of $60,000 per year are full-payers, with high income and assets. And these students comprise roughly half of the entire student body. Michigan has more than enough out-of-State applicants several times over who can be full pay, so there is no need for Michigan to offer merit aid. Michigan knows where the affluent pockets of wealthy families, including Alumni, are located (both at public and boarding/prep schools) throughout the country and it does a fantastic job in targeting its recruiting there, as they have a loyal base of families from these areas who’s children attend feeder schools that send lots of high stat full pay rich kids to Michigan year after year. In fact, almost every legacy I know with high stats and a well rounded application who expresses strong interest to attend will typically get in before other applicants who don’t have any connection to the school. So Michigan acts just as the Ivy League schools do, providing preference to legacies, who are mostly wealthy enough to afford to attend. This promotes mutual loyalties between the school and the wealthy out of state alumni families, which constitute a large segment of donors as well. Michigan needs to rely on full pay out of state students and their wealthy families to help defray the lack of State funding and the rising costs and subsidize the in-State population, which pays only about $25,000 per year.
Going to UMich from out of state is an item of consumption. It’s the complete package. The sports teams, the rah-rah spirit, the location in Ann Arbor, the academics, strong traditions, strong alumni network, proximity to a major airport. The OOS students who are equally strong students but can’t afford Michigan will go to SUNY Binghamton, Rutgers, Maryland, UCLA, and UICU. Some will go to Tulane or UMiami because of generous merit. Going to Michigan from out of state is like buying the lowest trim-level Acura instead of the highest trim-level Honda Accord.
So is umich wealth primarily coming from out of state students then? Why isn’t uc Berkeley the richest? Don’t California ppl have higher household incomes than Michigan ppl? Uc Berkeley has a lot of out of state and international students too and has the highest cost of attendance in public universities out of state.
@brantly I agree. But I would add Ohio State as another school that strong students from the NYC metro region attend who can’t afford Michigan, as its tuition for out of state is half that of Michigan, and it provides a lot of merit aid for high stat kids also, to make the costs comparable to an in-State school. Ohio State has a lot of the same sports, spirit, Greek life, academics, strong alumni network and modern facilities. It’s NOT Michigan, but imitation is the greatest form of flattery!
Interesting data. No surprises about Michigan #s though. Brantly makes the point…affluent OOS families are willing to pay elite, private school level of tuition because Michigan is one of a dozen or so schools in the country that offer the full package…elite academics, elite sports/school spirit, attractive physical campus and a great college town. Many schools have 2 or 3 of these attributes, but only a small group (USC, UNC, UVa, Stanford, UCLA, Northwestern and a few others) have all 4.
“They take on proportionately fewer OOS students than does Michigan.”
Actually brantly, that is only part of the reason why Berkeley’s student population is not as wealthy as Michigan’s. Another reason is the socioeconomic makeup of in-state students. Among California residents, there is a negative social stigma attached, as well as a general reluctance, to sending one’s children to the UCs, mainly because among state residents, the they are considered financially strained. Those who have the means would rather send them to elite universities in other states. That is not the case with Michigan, where even the wealthiest families are perfectly content sending their children to the University of Michigan. Just look at how many Californians attend elite universities outside of California as opposed to Michiganders. At Penn, you have 250 California residents as opposed to 30 Michigan students. If you adjust for size, California resident outnumber Michigan residents by a 2:1 margin. I have noticed similar numbers at most elite universities. Possibly the strangest figure is the number of Michigan residents at UCLA or Berkeley vs the number of California residents at Michigan. There are currently 1,500 California residents at the University of Michigan.
Why wouldn’t they want to send their kids to uc Berkeley though? It’s an amazing school and a great value for in state residents. @Alexandre uc Berkeley is the same if not better than Michigan and is cheaper for California residents.
Eeeee17, Cal and UCLA are indeed both amazing, and a great value for CA residents. I was referring to wealthy Californians, not all Californians. Like I said, there is a negative social stigma attached to the UCs among California’s wealthier families, mostly due to the perception that they lack adequate financial funding and resources. It is also partly cultural. In the Midwest, upper income families do not look down on public universities like upper income families in other parts of the country do.
wow i never knew that uc berkeley would have a negative stigma in california among wealthy families even though it’s a world renowned school. yes, in michigan, many students who come from wealthy families go to umich. michigan’s public universities are better than its privates.
I doubt UCLA/UCB have negative stigma with any class of Californians. Perhaps only among few very rich in LA area who traditionally have been sending their kids to USC…and among those is more of a rivalry tradition (with UCLA) than anything else ! Perhaps similar rivalry exists between UCB and Stanford (though to less extend).
uclaparent, I am merely expressing what I have seen over the years. Not many upper income families choose to send their children to UCs if they can send them to more desirable alternative institutions. I am not going to give anecdotal examples, and I have many, but I will point out the obvious; how can there by 1,500 California residents enrolled at the University of Michigan, most of which are full pay? It is safe to say most of those students were admitted into UCLA or Berkeley or both.
The capacity to admit all eligible top Californians is very limited for top UCs … so there is a huge overflowing to other top state schools such as Michigan.
(I am not implying that Michigan is less competitive but there are many cases which a student get admitted to a more competitive school but not to a less competitive one, as the criteria for admission differs)
uclaparent9, I am sure that may happen on occasion, but I doubt that it happens at the rate of 400 students annually. And there are another 250 or so who enroll at Penn, and another 300 or so who enroll at Cornell, and another 200 who enroll at Northwestern etc…
When you have public universities like Cal and UCLA, there is no excuse for so many top students defecting to peer OOS institutions. Like I said, even when you factor in the difference in population (CA is four times more populous than MI), CA residents at all those universities outnumber Michigan students by a hefty margin. That is not an indication of quality. Cal is at least as good as Michigan, if not better. UCLA is as good as Michigan too. But there are subtle differences that makes California’s wealthier families lean more toward schools like Michigan and its private peers.
I second uclaparent9 especially when it comes to Berkeley. Both UCs are 10 percentage-point lower in their admission rates when compared to Michigan’s. Also, UCs put more weights on GPAs so there are enough quality rejects with high test scores, especially those from competitive HS.