<p>
The state of Michigan doesn’t have the money to increase funding for basically anything, let alone give a meaningful increase to UM’s multi-billion dollar annual budget while still looking out for the other in-state public schools.</p>
<p>Under the heading, Facts Are Stubborn Things:</p>
<p>[Office</a> of Budget & Planning: Common Data Set](<a href=“Office of Budget and Planning”>Office of Budget and Planning)</p>
<p>The raw number of in-state Michigan undergraduates has been going up over the last four years. Going through the above CDS data (every other year):</p>
<p>Fall 2012 Total Undergrads: 27,979 OOS %: 34% Total In-State Pop: 18,466
Fall 2010…27,027…32%…18,378
Fall 2008…25,954…35%…16,896
Fall 2006…25,555…32%…17,377
Fall 2004…24,828…31%…17,131
Fall 2002…24,287…32%…16,515</p>
<p>As Michigan has enrolled more students the raw number of Michigan students has also increased. Frankly the percentage of OOS has stayed in a fairly narrow band. Perhaps the lesson is not that Michigan is rejecting “qualified” kids that it used to accept but that highly qualified in-state residents who used to consider other options have chosen to apply and stay in-state.</p>
<p>P.S. maizeandblue21, the UPenn comparison doesn’t work. Penn has always been a private university. The state flagship of Pennsylvania has always been Penn State.</p>
<p>Also interesting to look at scores of 25th to 75th percentiles from CDS. Quite a jump. Wonder what other schools look like.</p>
<p>2001</p>
<p>570-670 verbal
610-710 math
25-30 ACT composite</p>
<p>2013
610-700 verbal
650-760 math
28-32 ACT composite</p>
<p>About 60 percent of the student body at our state flagship, West Virginia University, is OOS. They go there because the OOS tuition is less than their in-state and/or because they can’t cut it at their own in-state schools. I only wish we made them pay for the priviledge like other states do, because we certainly need the money. As for my family, we all either graduated from or are attending Marshall University - The University of West Virginians.</p>
<p>WVU instate is 6,090 tuition only, while out-of-state is 18,868. I’m not sure I’m aware of any instate tuitions that are that are in the 19000 range. </p>
<p>[10</a> Most Expensive Public Colleges for In-State Students - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/06/14/10-most-expensive-public-colleges-for-in-state-students]10”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/06/14/10-most-expensive-public-colleges-for-in-state-students)</p>
<p>One of the problems that schools have, like every enterprise, is competition and supply and demand. You can rest assured that every school is charging out-of-state students what the market will bear (taking into consideration demand, and student quality).</p>
<p>maizeandblue21 It does if it increases state taxes or tuition for instate students. That is the dilemma.</p>
<p>Edited to add: I haven’t seen vinceh post #42. I hadn’t noticed people were thinking UPenn is a state flagship. In that case, the analogy most definitely doesn’t hold.</p>
<p>I knew Upenn was a long time private but for some reason I thought they started public and converted. My mistake. And I just don’t think the Michigan legislature has much, if any control over UM at all. UM has its own publicly elected regents which serve as its governing body and it could easily sustain itself as a private univeristy. Not a whole lot of leverage on the state’s side.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the article:
That’s a $10,000/student subsidy for each in-state student. MSU looks similar.</p>
<p>Michigan’s income tax rate is about 4%. If your family makes $100K, and you send two kids to college in Michigan, you’ve received subsidies equal to almost every penny you’ve paid in state income tax over your kids’ entire lives. </p>
<p>That’s not a bad deal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are, of course, welcome to believe what you want to believe, but the facts are otherwise. According to the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Office of the Registrar, more in-state freshmen (3,542) enrolled in the Fall of 2012 than in the Fall of 2002 (3,360), even as the percentage of Michigan residents in the freshman class fell from 64.8% in 2002 to 57.4% in 2012. That’s because the freshman class grew from 5,187 in 2002 to 6,171 in 2012, while the total full-time undergraduate student body grew from 23,267 to 27,046 (+16.2%) over that same period. </p>
<p>The overall trend over this period has been for the number of in-state students to stay roughly constant while the number of OOS students has grown gradually, resulting in overall growth in the student body and a declining percentage of in-state students in the freshman class and in the student body as a whole. The Fall of 2008 and Fall of 2009 were aberrational years in which the number of OOS freshmen fell (in-state percentage spiked to 66.0% in Fall 2008 and 64.6% in Fall 2009 before falling back to just under 60% in Fall 2010 and subsequent years) and the number of in-state freshmen spiked (totals reached 3,818 in 2008 and 3,924 in 2009), both phenomena probably the result of the economy being in a free-fall at the time. Apart from those aberrational years, the number of in-state freshmen has hovered in a narrow band between roughly 3,500 to 3,700 students each year over the past decade. Which makes sense, given that the number of Michigan residents graduating HS has remained steady or declined slightly over this period.</p>
<p>In answer to a question above, U. of Penn has always been private. U of Pittsburgh started out as a private u. and then became state-related in the 1960s.</p>
<p>UVa is going through some of the same debates. UVa and UNC-chapel hill are the only two public universities that meet 100% of need of in-state and out-of-state US students. UVa’s out of state undergrad tuition is now $39K to $44K a year. UVa’s board is entirely appointed by the Governor, and at least one member has pushed to cut out of state aid in order to avoid increases to in-state tuition. Meanwhile, the state is paying only about 8% of UVa’s academic budget. For the last few years, the UVa health care system has been subsidizing the in-state students in the university. UVa’s out of state enrollment has been capped for decades at 30 to 35% of undergrad enrollment.</p>
<p>UVa’s academic reputation was built with the help of very affordable out of state tuition in the 1970s and 1980s, which raised the academic standards and selectivity. Now, if they wanted, UVa could fill all of those out of state slots with full pay students from Asia.</p>
<p>
The nice thing about facts is that they are true whether or not you believe them. </p>
<p>**Fall 2008: <a href=“5%20years%20ago”>/b</a>
Total resident U-M undergraduates:16,808
Total resident U-M professionals/graduates: 6,048
Total resident U-M students: 22,856</p>
<p>**Fall 2012:<a href=“most%20recent%20data”>/b</a>
Total resident U-M undergraduates: 17,174 (+2.2%)
Total resident U-M professionals/graduates: 6,921 (+14.4%)
Total resident U-M students: 24,095 (+5.4%)</p>
<p>As it’s been said many times before; Yes, Michigan has increased non-resident enrollment, but this increase in non-resident enrollment has not taken away seats from instate students.</p>
<p>Imagine for a minute that you were in complete control of the University of Michigan. What would you have done differently? Do you honestly think that you would been able to do better than the current administration? They dealt with a 50% cut in state allocations over just 10 years while simultaneously struggling with the truth that Michigan has been graduating less and less high schoolers. The fact of the matter is that the policies and decisions made by U-M’s administration were able to spectacularly combat these monumental challenges while also increasing resident enrollment, meeting full financial need for instate students, strengthening the academic prowess and reputation of the university, [making</a> absolutely massive investments into Michigan](<a href=“http://www.uofmhealth.org/news/archive/201303/growing-commitment-community-u-m-health-system-donates-over]making”>http://www.uofmhealth.org/news/archive/201303/growing-commitment-community-u-m-health-system-donates-over), and [url=<a href=“http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/budget/documents/Affordability-and-Value032113.pdf]decreasing[/url”>http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/budget/documents/Affordability-and-Value032113.pdf]decreasing[/url</a>] the cost (after inflation) that a typical Michigan family will have to pay for an education at UofM.</p>
<p>Don’t complain for the sake of complaining. If you think you could have done a better job, I think we all would love to hear how you would have done it.</p>
<p>For in-state students, this really is a blessing. </p>
<p>I read today that U of M is increasing in-state tuition by 1.something percent whereas Oakland University is increasing by 3.75% (while keeping OOS tuition the same), Wayne State by almost 9%, Ferris State by 2.75%…</p>
<p>Our state is really going through a hard time university-funding-wise (like most states, I’d imagine), so at least UMich (and I think MSU) students can get a bit of a break this year.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<hr>
<p>I agree. I have seen the same thing. </p>
<p>This is a state that doesn’t have a lot of money to spare, but we never supported higher ed well enough even when we did have more money. Once the economy tanked (before the rest of the country, by the way), it just got worse.</p>
<p>Full-pay to full-pay, in-state vs out-of-state is $25,000 per year different. There are about 9,000 out-of-state students. </p>
<p>Thats about $225 million in revenue that needs to be made up if you go to all in-state. And the scores and overall quality will fall as well (acaemically and athletically). Doesn’t necessarily sound like a great move to make.</p>
<p>If you spread the increment over the 27,000 total enrollment, it would mean raising instate tuition by about $8,400 per student (including the new instate admits). So, at the extreme of no out-of-state, other things equal, instate tuition rises from 13,000 to 21,000 plus. Its not hard to see the real advantages to a university to being attractive to out-of-state full tuition payers.</p>
<p>Indeed, dadx.</p>
<p>I actually don’t know if what UMich is doing in the best alternative or not. I just know you cannot have it all. If you want less out of state students you have to a) Increase instate tuition to compensate for the losses (the $8400 per student), and/or b) Increase taxes and funding to the university to compensate for the same losses.</p>
<p>Otherwise the university would have to reduce quality (salaries for staff and faculty, dorms, etc) to make up the losses. And nobody here is arguing for that.</p>
<p>As I said, I really don’t have a dog in this fight (I don’t live in Michigan). But I would find the position of those that are complaining about the out of state students more valid if they said: I want UMich to accept more instate students, so I am willing to pay higher tuition/taxes. Until they do that, it sounds to me like they want to have their cake and eat it too.</p>
<p>Or not meet need for in-state students, like MSU and other Michigan publics operate.</p>
<p>True momofthreeboys, that too. Although, it might not be enough to compensate for the $8400 in lost revenue per out of state student since not all students get need based aid.</p>
<p>
That doesn’t solve your original complaint at all. Now you’re unhappy that UM is meeting need? Your main original problem with the OOS percentage is that Michigan students were being forced to go to MSU that are qualified enough to go to UM (very debatable) and not being able to afford it (although if a student were that qualified they’d probably see some merit money at MSU). I officially don’t see your point anymore.</p>
<p>
Maybe they want UMich to reduce expenses.</p>
<p>No maizeandblue my PRIMARY complaint here and always has been is that qualified students who aren’t accepted will in all probability pay MORE to go to MSU. As the two flagships, ultimately I think both MSU and UofM should meet need to in-state students or Michigan should maintain a better balance between IS and OSS so that our in-state kids get a better shot at an education they are qualified for AND have their need met which right now means UofM. I’d feel differently if MSU met need.</p>