<p>University</a> of Michigan looks to out-of-state students to subsidize low in-state tuition increase</p>
<p>A couple of years ago didn’t the California legislature mandate that the UCs increase their total number of accepted OOS students for the very same reasons? Makes business sense to me.</p>
<p>Despite the article I don’t foresee any reduction in threads asking “what are my chances of getting good FA from UMich OOS”.</p>
<p>“U-M’s resident tuition has grown 60.2 percent over the past decade. Its non-resident tuition has increased 55.2 percent”</p>
<p>In my opinion, it is fair and just balancing the percent increases over the last decade. However, I am a biased in-state resident…</p>
<p>60% of 5000 <<<<<<<55% of 20000 in real dollars. Beware the base.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What would be your opinion should you or your kid not get accepted to Mich so the college could let in wealthy OOS’ers instead? :D</p>
<p>why should it differ? An applicant should be fully aware of what makes UMich great – that includes OOS students and the tuition model. If a person is going to apply , get in, and enjoy those benefits, ought they also not be a “good loser” if the get rejected?</p>
<p>That’s like my saying the recruited FB player takes my kid’s spot. Ludicrous.
"</p>
<p>I think they need to get to a percentage that the taxpayers/legislature are comfortable with and then the UofM needs to be transparent about the students they are admitting with regard to breaking out the data in more than lumped figures. If the U isn’t willing to do that and continues to increase the OSS seats at the expense of seats for in-state kids then the state should encourage MSU to meet need for in-state students and “help” MSU achieve this with a bump in their funding (and let UofM keep increasing their OSS kids to make up the difference).</p>
<p>Frankly I’m not comfortable with 60/40 at the only in-state uni that meets need. I was comfortable with 70/30. Maybe the rest of the taxpayers are comfortable, who knows. The U is lying through their teeth if it says they can’t find enough “qualified” in-state kids. Over the last 3-4 years I’ve seen way too many qualified kids turned down or sent to “wait list” exile which is meaningless since they take less than a handful off the wait list. They have also not increased freshman seats for several years and their admissions process is abominable and only exists so they can cherry pick the kids they want. It’s sorta kinda a hybrid rolling EA thing where qualified kids get left in the lurch until mid-April from September applications. The only increases have occurred because UofM says they are “over subscribed.” The reality is they ARE increasing OSS at the expense of IS students since they aren’t increasing the overall seats in the freshman class. </p>
<p>I’d also love to know the percentage of IS vs. OSS in the various admit colleges: Engineering, Ross, MT, Architecture, etc. My family has 3 generations of UofM engineering but I just don’t like what’s been happening over the last decade. And as the article points out, UofM is proud of what it’s doing. The “good thing” is that for the cross-over majors (those available at Michigan and MSU) basically the same recruiters recruit at both - they are only an hour apart driving time - so the kids displaced from Engineering and several other programs aren’t losing anything other than financial aid. MSU is stronger than UofM in some majors like Physics so in the end nobody loses except the kids that need financial aid and would get their need met at UofM (who don’t at MSU) and kids that don’t have a choice because UofM is the one that has their major (Architecture etc.) and get bumped out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Michigan has been a “great” university for far, far longer than a decade. That is why it has an international reputation. I think OSS students “over rate” their diversity “greatness” sometimes. There have been east coasters at UofM since the 40s…just not in the abundance of these days and if they can’t get in at Michigan, alot of 'em end up at Indiana :-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because the magnitude differs. Michigan recruits what 20-30 FB players each year, but thousands of OOS kids. The former aren’t even a rounding error, but the latter displace in-staters who may have been long-term taxpayers.</p>
<p>The football thing is a strawman argument at best. I believe Michigan football is one of the most profitable in the nation eclipsed perhaps by Texas. The athletic department can afford it’s 20-30 freshman football recruits and they aren’t displacing anyone, plus historically a good number of them are impressive, articulate young men.</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/understandingtuition.html]understandingtuition[/url”>http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/understandingtuition.html]understandingtuition[/url</a>]</p>
<p>Given that the state support for the university has dropped to approximately 17% of the annual budget (question 4 above), you have to wonder why they haven’t gone fully private.</p>
<p>Why haven’t they gone private? They want the 17% because it will be gone if they go private. They might have to restructure all their employee health and retirement plans. It’s possible there are tax benefits afforded to them that would then need to be paid. I don’t know who owns the land. It might need a state constitutional amendment…I don’t know. I don’t know much about the “business” but these are things I could imagine.</p>
<p>I guess I don’t understand why this is news. Isn’t it common knowledge that OOSers subsidize ISers at public colleges? I thought U of M was always pretty upfront about that.</p>
<p>The number is out of state is rising quickly. Michigan Tech has the 2nd highest out of state population and is at 20% so Michigan going over 40% is an eye opener for interested parties who watch such things. Michigan is not “upfront” about the number of in-staters they will take in any given year, but Michigan has been upfront about saying they “want more of them.” I wonder where the ceiling will be and what the numbers that will be released in fall will report and if they will hold at 40% for a year or so or nudge it up again the following year.</p>
<p>IMO, it’s going to be up to the legislators to cap the OOS enrollment. Michigan won’t do it voluntarily. </p>
<p>Though I don’t see anything productive getting done with Michigan’s government any time soon so…</p>
<p>I usually agree with momofthreeboys and this is no exception. 40% is very high. I can’t see going higher than that and still being a State University. But, at the same time, I think state legislatures and voters need to step up in the Midwest flagship states and start advocate for more taxpayer funding for higher ed.</p>
<p>JMO</p>
<p>The danger comes after UMich gets addicted to the revenue of OOS students and has to drop their OOS enrollment standards to keep “the high” rolling. Then listen to the whine of IS students parents as their high stat kids are displaced by loaded OOS students.</p>
<p>OOS students can always “vote no” with their pocket book.</p>
<p>UM is much less controlled by state due to constitutional foundation. Al state can do is cut money. Already not much by BIG stds. Wisconsin-Madison gets nearly $500 Million/yr. And that is still a small portion of budget. (16% without hospitals)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think the state legislature has authority to set enrollment caps for the University of Michigan. The university is created by the state constitution, not by the legislature. It has its own, constitutionally-created, democratically elected governing body, the Board of Regents. The state constitution is clear that the Board of Regents has exclusive governing authority over the university. The only role the state constitution gives the legislature with regard to the university is the obligation to appropriate funds for its support–something the legislature has been doing a poor job of in recent decades, with state appropriations now down to approximately 6% of the university’s operating budget. I suppose the legislature could try to attach strings to that 6%, but at that point the university might well be better off simply cutting ties with the legislature and going its own way. Which under the state constitution, it would be perfectly within its rights to do, IMO. </p>
<p>There’s also a misconception on this thread that OOS admits “displace” state residents. Not true. It’s not a zero-sum game. The University of Michigan has had a substantial OOS enrollment at least since the 1920s and 1930s, when it attracted large numbers of OOS Jewish students, especially from New York and Chicago, at a time when Ivy League schools had quotas and/or quota-like policies aimed at limiting Jewish enrollment. OOS enrollment has increased over the years, but almost entirely through increases in the size of the student body, not by shrinking in-state enrollment. In very recent years, however, the in-state applicant pool has shrunk by an amount roughly proportional to the declining number of in-state HS graduates, the result of an aging in-state population, slow or negative in-state population growth, and a generally poor HS graduation rate in the state. Meanwhile, OOS applications are surging, making the university more selective than it has ever been for OOS applicants. So to some extent, OOS admits are now picking up the slack created by declining in-state applications.</p>