<p>I raised the demographic statistic a few years ago on cc, and was pilloried by the then, Old Blues (who could not accept that their University was now in the position of needing to accept those pesky OOS’ers, many of which hail from Columbus!). :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, relatively few hail from Columbus. In a typical year, Michigan’s largest sources of OOS students are, in order of declining magnitude, New York (361 enrolled freshmen in 2010), Illinois (319), California (297), and New Jersey (234), with Ohio (148) a distant 5th, just slightly ahead of Pennsylvania (122) and Maryland (104). We do get some excellent athletes out of Columbus (2012-13 college basketball player of the year Trey Burke comes to mind), though perhaps more from Cincinnati (e.g., 12-time MLB all-star shortstop and 1995 NL MVP Barry Larkin) and Cleveland (e.g., 1991 Heisman Trophy winner and Super Bowl XXXI MVP WR/return man Desmond Howard), or any number of smaller Ohio towns (e.g., 1997 Heisman Trophy winner and 8-time Pro Bowl CB Charles Woodson, who hails from Fremont, OH). We’ve also gotten some decent coaches from Ohio, including Bo Schembechler and Brady Hoke.</p>
<p>More to the point: I don’t think the University of Michigan has ever made a secret of the fact that enrolling OOS students was an integral part of a financial self-sufficiency strategy necessitated by the State of Michigan’s decision to de-fund the University, which dates back to the 1970s. In fact, the University has from time to time held itself up as a pioneer in developing a new, quasi-privatized, substantially self-sufficient model of public higher education, one that will be increasingly emulated in an era of declining state aid to public higher education. </p>
<p>I think it’s a bit misleading to suggest this means OOS students are subsidizing in-state students, however. OOS tuition is a critical part of the University’s financial model, but only because OOS students, and especially full-pay OOS students, come closer to paying the full cost of their education than do in-state students, whose lower in-state tuition, even combined with the entirety of the legislature’s annual appropriation, doesn’t come close to paying full cost. But OOS students aren’t paying full cost, either. The difference is made up from payouts on the University’s nearly $8 billion endowment, “indirect cost recovery” on roughly $1 billion in annual research grants, intellectual property royalties and licensing fees, annual alumni giving, and various other pots of university (i.e., quasi-private, not taxpayer-generated) funds. Precious few public universities have such strong and diversified finances. Almost none are so little dependent on state taxpayer subsidies. But there’s no question OOS tuition dollars are an essential part of the mix. Without that revenue stream, it’s doubtful the University of Michigan could afford to provide undergraduate education at anywhere near the scale and with anywhere near the quality it now does, so to that extent, in-state undergrads are among the principal beneficiaries.</p>
<p>I think many residents of State universities have a distorted view of oos students taking their seats. The University of Delaware has such a huge % of oos applicants that State politicians started to prepare legislation to combat it. If I recall correctly they backed off when the school showed them records that 98-99% of in state kids that applied were accepted.</p>
<p>It is a lower # than I recalled-<a href=“Facts and Figures”>http://www.udel.edu/IR/fnf/admis.html</a>. But still very high % of kids get accepted.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Determining full cost is hard. Here are some 2011 GASB per-FTE costs for Michigan:</p>
<p>Instruction expenses - $19,719
Student service expenses - $1,991
Academic support expenses - $6,796
Institutional support expenses - $3,690</p>
<p>Sum = $32,196</p>
<p>Published OOS tuition/fees were $36,001.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>Determining the “cost” of educating a student at a college is a tricky process requiring lots and lots of assumptions and some tricky transfer pricing related to overhead costs. GASB is not truth, it is merely imposing some consistency in assumptions across institutions.</p>
<p>UMass announced plans to double OOS enrollment, while keeping IS enrollment constant, years ago:</p>
<p>[UMass-Amherst</a> targets out-of-staters to boost profile, funding - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/10/11/umass_amherst_targets_out_of_staters_to_boost_profile_funding/]UMass-Amherst”>http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/10/11/umass_amherst_targets_out_of_staters_to_boost_profile_funding/)</p>
<p>UDelaware has been targeting full-pay internationals, particularly China:</p>
<p><a href=“The China Conundrum - The New York Times”>The China Conundrum - The New York Times;
<p>Etc.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s exactly a secret that schools are lusting for those OOS dollars.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s a secret either, but if state public universities have as their core mission to educate the state’s best and brightest and instead decide it is their primary mission to educate the world’s best and brightest than they need to change their mission statement and state legislatures should devote what little dollars they have toward schools who do have as their core mission to educate the state’s best and brightest.</p>
<p>They are doing it because the state isn’t giving them enough money any more. So you have three choices: lower the quality of education, charge in-state students more, or find an alternate source of funding like OOS students.</p>
<p>Do you think Michigan residents would rather pay twice as much for UM, or expand to have a few thousand more OOS students?</p>
<p>Given the choice between a crap shoot admittance to UofM or going to MSU with their need met, I imagine many would choose MSU with their need met as long as it was a major MSU also had and keep the MSU COA under $30,000. Some of the majors are not duplicated.</p>
<p>It doesn’t take long in the common sense museum to remember that if you have some customers who pay more than others, you prefer those higher paying customers, ceteris paribus</p>
<p>You guys realize that state universities have an obligation to educate their state’s students right? That’s the point of a state school. OOS and international students have to provide a net benefit to the state school of either A: being really bright students whose future work could add to the prestige of the university or B: providing the university with a net amount of money that is greater than the cost of educating said student so they can use the money to increase the quality/prestige of the school or provide aid for in-state students.</p>
<p>Unfortunately not all state schools are equal (Props to you if your from California or Michigan)</p>
<p>Only when states meet their obligation of significant state funding. Currently in many states that number is below 20% of the budget. How many spots should you get for that? 20%, 50%, 100%</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you’re setting up a false dichotomy here, because Michigan State generally doesn’t come close to meeting full need, while Michigan does meet full need for in-state students. According to its most recent Common Data Set, MSU meets full need for only about 15% of its undergrads with need, and on average it meets only 61% of need. That means most kids with need get “gapped” at MSU, often by a substantial amount.</p>
<p>That said, I have no doubt some in-state families find the net cost of MSU lower, especially those who are full-pay at either school, and some who win big merit awards at MSU. Sticker prices are now sufficiently similar, however, and Michigan’s FA is so much better funded, that most students should find the net costs comparable, or Michigan actually a little lower. The main complaint in-state residents have about Michigan is that it’s hard to get in. But that’s always been true, even when OOS students were a smaller fraction of the (then smaller) student body.</p>
<p>Mission statement of the University of Michigan, straight from their website: “The mission of the University of Michigan is to serve the people of Michigan and the world through preeminence in creating, communicating, preserving and applying knowledge, art, and academic values, and in developing leaders and citizens who will challenge the present and enrich the future.”</p>
<p>I posted this in the last thread momofthreeboys went complaining about all those pesky smart OOS kids coming into one of the worst economic states in the country and sustaining its top university, but again, nowhere in the mission statement does it say Michigan residents have express priority to a UM education over nonresidents. They are serving both the people of Michigan and the world, and given the extremely low percentage of the budget that is actually state subsidized, they have every right to up the percentage of extremely qualified, full pay OOS state students. It only makes total sense. MSU’s failure to guarantee need for IS students should have ZERO affect on anything UM does whatsoever. Nothing MSU does should ever affect UM. Want to know where a lot of the money that is used to make sure UM can actually meet all IS students’ needs comes from? Donations from very smart, successful OOS grads. IS students are perhaps the single biggest beneficiary of the presence of OOS state full or near-full pay students that subsidize the world class education that they get for a reasonable price.</p>
<p>Re: UM vs. MSU financial aid.</p>
<p>Using a hypothetical Michigan-resident family of 3 with 1 in college and $20,000 income, the net price calculators give:</p>
<p>University of Michigan: $6598 - $9798/year
Michigan State University: $11327/year</p>
<p>I’m also a Michigan resident and am very glad that UMich takes so many OOS students. It keeps the quality of the school worth every penny. Not only that, but without the OOS tuition, I can’t imagine what it would cost for in state residents to attend assuming the quality is kept where it is. Anybody who is qualified to get into UMich would get a large merit award at MSU. Mine was offered full tuition, but we gladly payed for him to attend UMich instead. </p>
<p>I, too, believe that Umich is meeting their mission by making it a top ranked university. I would much prefer that to just another state school. We have enough of those.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s my point exactly. I’m beginning to believe that if UofM continues to raise it’s OSS kids there is a point where I think their measly 10% of whatever the state is contributing should be redirected to MSU so that MSU can meet need for their students. Right now, I absolutely believe that in-state qualified kids are being squeezed out of seats that several years ago they would have had. My kids’ high school knows it. My friends and neighbors know it. If they want to remain in-state their next best choice outside of in-state privates is MSU and MSU absolutely can cost MORE than UofM. I do NOT buy the argument that the in-state kids are still served in the same numbers as even 5 years ago. Don’t buy it…Michigan has not raised freshman enrollment for several years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Be very careful what you wish for. I don’t think anyone disputes how lucky the state of Michigan and its residents are to have such a world-class public university availible to them in-state. If the legislature actually decided to reallocate UM’s appropriations to MSU because of the growing OOS population (which they would never do), UM would obviously go private and within four years the acceptance rate would plummet again and the in-state population would go the way of Upenn (16%). That is not in the best interest of the state of Michigan. What is in the best interest of the state is keeping UM affordable for in-state students while maintaining its reputation as an elite school, and UM is doing just that the only way they know how.</p>
<p>Michigan instate tuition is 13,000, compared to 39,000 for out of state students. The instate tuition is a screaming bargain. Especially if you are affluent and won’t qualify for financial aid at HYP. </p>
<p>As far as whether instate students are being displaced, this isn’t a question of “buying it”. Its a simple question of fact. The data are there for someone to look up. If instate enrollment is declining as a % of the total, then they are being displaced. If not, they’re not.</p>
<p>I agree with poetgrl #17 comment. If you don’t like it, advocate for more state funding to the university.</p>