<p>I heard from many people that Public Universities will start to take more OOS students becasue of the economic crisis.</p>
<p>I would posit that families will not be willing to pay out-of-state tuition if there is a good, cheap in-state alternative. Given these rough financial times, it would not be rational to send your kid to an out-of-state public school when there are fine in-state options at a lower price.</p>
<p>^ Unless you get scholarships. Some in-state schools are real ****'s with merit scholarships, but these are usually just one or two schools with the rest being ok with that.</p>
<p>I'm going hopefully to a private school though</p>
<p>If the state universities are giving out-of-state merit scholarships, it would defeat the OP's premise (that public universities will take more OOS students to earn more money to support their school).</p>
<p>you guys arent answering my question.</p>
<p>I either wnat you to "debunk" or verify this rumor.. or say don't know lol.</p>
<p>All I heard is that since economy is going down, colleges need that extra money, so they are willing to accept more OOS students. Also, less OOS students are applying to OOS state for the reason stated above.</p>
<p>Yes OOS students pay more but might not the schools get more in-state apps because their families won't look at OOS?</p>
<p>It's all supposition. I'm sure the top publics (UVA, UMich) have unspoken quotas. Their finances are tied in heavily w/state subsidies and I doubt that they would alter admit rates year to year for revenue purposes.</p>
<p>UVA has a 2/3 in-state vs 1/3 OOS admit rate (I believe that is the ratio)-- that is why it is much harder for OOS students to get in.</p>
<p>IIRC, UCLA is something like 95% in-state.</p>
<p>hey im probably the only one but what are OOS??</p>
<p>ohh out of state lol. i just thought about it...and no i havent heard that.</p>
<p>It varies by school and by state. Some states like California and Texas put a strict legal cap on the percentage of OOS students; there's nothing the schools can really do about that. Other states don't impose a cap but have an implicit deal with the schools that legislative appropriations are contingent upon the schools making it their primary mission to educate state residents. Other states take a broader view and allow their public universities to admit the best students, regardless of their residency. That's why Michigan, for example, is about 35% OOS---extrtemely high for a public university. Some publics are actively seeking to recruit OOS students, not necessarily for the additional tuition revenue but to assemble the strongest student body they can. The University of Minnesota, for example, recently cut OOS tuition dramatically, to $4,000/year more than in-state tuition, because the university and the state see the university as a "talent magnet" that can draw bright and capable people from around the country and around the world to the Twin Cities and help build the knowledge-based economy of the future. Bottom line, I think any effort to generalize here will be wrong.</p>
<p>I think bclintonk is exactly right. It will vary all over the board. Some will take miore, others will want more spots for instate to keep college affordable in tough times. Most will do what they have always done which is all over the map.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some states like California and Texas put a strict legal cap on the percentage of OOS students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Virginia and North Carolina certainly do have legal caps on OOS students, but I've never seen such in print on the leftcoast. Do you have a link to California's law?</p>
<p>But, to answer the OP's question...there will be no need for sunbelt states (fast growing) to accept more OOS kids, bcos they have plenty of applicants already. OTOH, some rust belt states have been recruiting OOS kids for years, and this will continue. But, the costs for OOS are a huge barrier. UMich is a wonderful collegiate experience, but at the same cost as a private, or 2-3 times more than the instate public?</p>
<p>Most state universities are funded by the state budget/state taxpayers and have a legal mandate to educate state residents and they are limited as to the number they accept from out of state if it involves turning away qualified in-state applicants. Therefore, they are unlikely to be able to change the mandate due to an economic downturn. It would take the legislators being in session, proposing a bill to change the mandate, gaining support, passing the bill, and arranging a start date, which is usually in January or July in any given year after bills are passed. It would involve unions, lobbyists, governors, and concerned citizens coming together to agree on changing the mandate. I think it is probably NOT going to be a factor in admissions this year. Who wants to be the congress person up for re-election who sponsored a bill that turned away state residents from taxpayer supported schools? It could only happen in a state that does not have a robust in-state demand for higher education. What usually happens, especially here in CA, is that the budget shortfalls are passed along to in-state students in the form of fee increases.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to admit I've never seen such a law but I've always heard, including when I was a visiting faculty member a Berkeley, that there was a hard 10% cap on OOS enrollment at all the UCs. That may be a university policy rather than a statute, however. </p>
<p>The UC system is bound by a Master Plan for Higher Education under which the UC system pledges to offer admission at one of the UC campuses to all in-state applicants in the top 12.5% of public HS graduates in California, and to the extent additional places are available also to "graduates of private and out-of-state secondary schools" meeting "at least equivalent" standards. Under the Master Plan, the Cal State system pledges to take the top 1/3 of in-state public HS grads, and the community college system takes the rest on an open enrollment basis. The UCs also pledge to take a substantial number of upperclass in-state community college transfers, however, to the extent of promising a 60-40 upperclass/underclass ratio. See:</p>
<p>These in-state freshman and transfer admissions guarantees place a huge demand on available spaces in the UC system. It could well be that the 10% OOS "cap" developed as a policy to ensure that enough spaces would be available for in-state applicants meeting UC eligibility requirements, especially at the highly desirable flagship Berkeley and UCLA campuses. (In fact, current OOS enrollment at both Berkeley and UCLA is well under 10%). But perhaps someone else knows these details better than I. </p>
<p>Arguably, preferences for in-state students are shortsighted from an economic development perspective. A few publics like the University of Minnesota are now welcoming increased numbers of OOS applicants by cutting or eliminating the tuition differential between in-state and OOS students, on the theory that highly qualified OOS applicants will strengthen the school's student body and contribute to local and statewide economic development, with the school acting as a "talent magnet" to attract the best and brightest to the state where many will stay and go on to successful business and professional careers. Here's a link to an economic study suggesting that this "talent magnet" theory has the potential to add significantly to the state's tax coffers in the long run, because the choice of college strongly influences post-college locational decisions and the most highly qualified students tend later to earn more and pay more in taxes, more than offsetting any tuition revenue lost by eliminating the OOS differential:</p>