<p>^ as I explained in another thread, I think dropping OOS tuition could asctually produce a net revenue gain for Minnesota. The schools is now about 26% OOS but about 60% of that is from reciprocity states, so only about 10% pay OOS tuition. They recognize the in-state applicant pool will decline over the next decade, but they’re committed to continuing to take roughly 1 in 10 Minnesota HS grads. But that would let the in-state student body decline to about 65% of the total—about the same level as Michigan. Dropping OOS tuition by about $7K means they’ll get less tuition revenue from the 10% of the student body that currently pays non-resident tuition. But it should also mean a huge boost in the OOS applicant pool who will be competing with reciprocity students for the OOS slots. Over time the weaker reciprocity students will be displaced by stronger OOS and international applicants from farther afield, possibly enough to push non-reciprocity OOS up to 25% to 30% of the student body, each paying $4K/year more than in-state and reciprocity students for a net revenue gain over the status quo. Brilliant! Revenue neutral or a slight revenue gain, more applicants, higher selectivity, a better qualified student body—it’s a winner all around. </p>
<p>But because Wisconsin’s student body is structured differently, they can’t replicate it on the same terms. For Wisconsin, dropping OOS tuition would inevitably mean a huge revenue loss for reasons I explained in an earlier post.</p>