Why does the State of Michigan allow its flagship UMich to be 50% out of state students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan matriculates over 3000 in staters every year. With an average instate acceptance rate over 40%, I’d say that a pretty generous offering. For example in 2018, Michigan had approximately 12,500 students submit applications with about 5100 acceptances. Approximately 3100 ultimately enrolled. That’s about a 60% instate yield. Considering that Michigan has about 100,000 high school graduates each year, and shrinking, a 5% overall instate admit rate among all high school graduates is right in line with other top notch public universities in this country, including UVA

? you just said it was a 40% instate acceptance rate. They can't accept people who don't apply

Sorry for your confusion. I should have said 5% of all high school graduates in the state of Michigan end up in Ann Arbor so it wouldn’t cause you too much confusion.

?? They can only accept the ones who apply. The acceptance rate for Michigan students who applied for admission is 40%

No kidding! Let me simplify it for you

40% of high schoolers who applied to Michigan from inside the state were accepted.

That is equivalent to 5% of the total number of high school graduates instate. This percentage includes all students who graduated from high school instate, whether they applied for admission or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan matriculates over 3000 in staters every year. With an average instate acceptance rate over 40%, I’d say that a pretty generous offering. For example in 2018, Michigan had approximately 12,500 students submit applications with about 5100 acceptances. Approximately 3100 ultimately enrolled. That’s about a 60% instate yield. Considering that Michigan has about 100,000 high school graduates each year, and shrinking, a 5% overall instate admit rate among all high school graduates is right in line with other top notch public universities in this country, including UVA

? you just said it was a 40% instate acceptance rate. They can't accept people who don't apply

Sorry for your confusion. I should have said 5% of all high school graduates in the state of Michigan end up in Ann Arbor so it wouldn’t cause you too much confusion.

?? They can only accept the ones who apply. The acceptance rate for Michigan students who applied for admission is 40%

No kidding! Let me simplify it for you

40% of high schoolers who applied to Michigan from inside the state were accepted.

That is equivalent to 5% of the total number of high school graduates instate. This percentage includes all students who graduated from high school instate, whether they applied for admission or not.

Fine. But why is that a relevant statistic? What difference does it make to consider people who dodn't even apply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If California law requires all of their top campuses to be over 80% in-state, why doesn’t Michigan do similar for their Ann Arbor flagship?

Because California has more than 3.5 times the population of Michigan. They also have a huge Asian population that, on the average, places a higher emphasis on getting top grades than any other state. They also fund their campuses much better than Michigan. Residents will not accept 50%, or anywhere near that, for their top schools. Michigan residents can complain, but because the school is controlled by the publicly elected regents, the state can only threaten to cut back on funding. Michigan get so little from the state anymore, the school doesn’t care.

Again with your malarkey. We're not talking about merely Berkeley, the UC System is now forced to keep *all* Berkley, UCLA, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Irvine, and Davis 80-plus percent in-state. So that's six UC campuses, yet in your eye, one-third the size Michigan should be forbidden from keeping their one flagship campus 80% in-state?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hmmm... because they don't have enough in-state Michigan H.S. grads to fill more of the spots?

Virginia doesn't have this problem. U.Va. could be filled and then some just with smart NOVA grads

Virginia’s flagship has close to 40% fewer undergraduates.

If you people knew anything about UVA you would realize it is at capacity, maybe a few thousand more but expanding beyond that is not going to happen unless the state pours a ton of money into it including buying up private property off of grounds. Nothing wrong with that, a lot of good schools in Virginia, if UVA is a no than go to another school. There are plenty of worthy kids outside of NOVA that deserve to go to UVA, this NOVA "No UVA" trope is tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If California law requires all of their top campuses to be over 80% in-state, why doesn’t Michigan do similar for their Ann Arbor flagship?

Because California has more than 3.5 times the population of Michigan. They also have a huge Asian population that, on the average, places a higher emphasis on getting top grades than any other state. They also fund their campuses much better than Michigan. Residents will not accept 50%, or anywhere near that, for their top schools. Michigan residents can complain, but because the school is controlled by the publicly elected regents, the state can only threaten to cut back on funding. Michigan get so little from the state anymore, the school doesn’t care.

Again with your malarkey. We're not talking about merely Berkeley, the UC System is now forced to keep *all* Berkley, UCLA, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Irvine, and Davis 80-plus percent in-state. So that's six UC campuses, yet in your eye, one-third the size Michigan should be forbidden from keeping their one flagship campus 80% in-state?

You stated top campuses, not all UC campuses. The only two campuses that stack up to Michigan are UCB and UCLA.

[Anonymous]

WSJ reports Berkeley dropped their OOS over 20% overnight (23% to 18%) and has suffered zero loss of prestige. If UMich cut their OOS by 20% overnight, that would be another roughly 1,000 freshman seats offered to in-state students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If California law requires all of their top campuses to be over 80% in-state, why doesn’t Michigan do similar for their Ann Arbor flagship?

Because California has more than 3.5 times the population of Michigan. They also have a huge Asian population that, on the average, places a higher emphasis on getting top grades than any other state. They also fund their campuses much better than Michigan. Residents will not accept 50%, or anywhere near that, for their top schools. Michigan residents can complain, but because the school is controlled by the publicly elected regents, the state can only threaten to cut back on funding. Michigan get so little from the state anymore, the school doesn’t care.

Again with your malarkey. We're not talking about merely Berkeley, the UC System is now forced to keep *all* Berkley, UCLA, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Irvine, and Davis 80-plus percent in-state. So that's six UC campuses, yet in your eye, one-third the size Michigan should be forbidden from keeping their one flagship campus 80% in-state?

You stated top campuses, not all UC campuses. The only two campuses that stack up to Michigan are UCB and UCLA.

Articles and common data sets confirm all six UC campuses are now 80% or more in-state.

And no, you're wrong. According to your Bible, US News, all six of these UC campuses are within the top 10 of public universities. And everyone knows the California kids who end up at Michigan are UC system (Cal, UCLA, SD, SB) rejects.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If California law requires all of their top campuses to be over 80% in-state, why doesn’t Michigan do similar for their Ann Arbor flagship?

Because California has more than 3.5 times the population of Michigan. They also have a huge Asian population that, on the average, places a higher emphasis on getting top grades than any other state. They also fund their campuses much better than Michigan. Residents will not accept 50%, or anywhere near that, for their top schools. Michigan residents can complain, but because the school is controlled by the publicly elected regents, the state can only threaten to cut back on funding. Michigan get so little from the state anymore, the school doesn’t care.

Again with your malarkey. We're not talking about merely Berkeley, the UC System is now forced to keep *all* Berkley, UCLA, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Irvine, and Davis 80-plus percent in-state. So that's six UC campuses, yet in your eye, one-third the size Michigan should be forbidden from keeping their one flagship campus 80% in-state?

The state of Michigan doesn’t fund their universities nearly as well as California. The regents at UMich are voted in by residents. The regents at the UCs are selected by the governor. The regents at Michigan don’t have to answer to the governor or anyone in the legislature. If residents were truly unhappy with Michigan, they could and do simply vote out the regents they don’t like when they are up for re-election. Michigan has never been close 80% instate in modern history and there are no requirements that it has to be. It has a huge endowment, funded by many happy Supporters, that allow it to be pretty much independent from the whims of the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If California law requires all of their top campuses to be over 80% in-state, why doesn’t Michigan do similar for their Ann Arbor flagship?

Because California has more than 3.5 times the population of Michigan. They also have a huge Asian population that, on the average, places a higher emphasis on getting top grades than any other state. They also fund their campuses much better than Michigan. Residents will not accept 50%, or anywhere near that, for their top schools. Michigan residents can complain, but because the school is controlled by the publicly elected regents, the state can only threaten to cut back on funding. Michigan get so little from the state anymore, the school doesn’t care.

Again with your malarkey. We're not talking about merely Berkeley, the UC System is now forced to keep *all* Berkley, UCLA, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Irvine, and Davis 80-plus percent in-state. So that's six UC campuses, yet in your eye, one-third the size Michigan should be forbidden from keeping their one flagship campus 80% in-state?

You stated top campuses, not all UC campuses. The only two campuses that stack up to Michigan are UCB and UCLA.

Articles and common data sets confirm all six UC campuses are now 80% or more in-state.

And no, you're wrong. According to your Bible, US News, all six of these UC campuses are within the top 10 of public universities. And everyone knows the California kids who end up at Michigan are UC system (Cal, UCLA, SD, SB) rejects.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public

Top ten publics? Lol. Who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If California law requires all of their top campuses to be over 80% in-state, why doesn’t Michigan do similar for their Ann Arbor flagship?

Because California has more than 3.5 times the population of Michigan. They also have a huge Asian population that, on the average, places a higher emphasis on getting top grades than any other state. They also fund their campuses much better than Michigan. Residents will not accept 50%, or anywhere near that, for their top schools. Michigan residents can complain, but because the school is controlled by the publicly elected regents, the state can only threaten to cut back on funding. Michigan get so little from the state anymore, the school doesn’t care.

Again with your malarkey. We're not talking about merely Berkeley, the UC System is now forced to keep *all* Berkley, UCLA, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Irvine, and Davis 80-plus percent in-state. So that's six UC campuses, yet in your eye, one-third the size Michigan should be forbidden from keeping their one flagship campus 80% in-state?

You stated top campuses, not all UC campuses. The only two campuses that stack up to Michigan are UCB and UCLA.

Articles and common data sets confirm all six UC campuses are now 80% or more in-state.

And no, you're wrong. According to your Bible, US News, all six of these UC campuses are within the top 10 of public universities. And everyone knows the California kids who end up at Michigan are UC system (Cal, UCLA, SD, SB) rejects.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public

If I lived in California, I would attend any of those UC schools you mentioned over Michigan. Michigan loves UC rejects. Bring your smart students and your money to Ann Arbor. We have room for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WSJ reports Berkeley dropped their OOS over 20% overnight (23% to 18%) and has suffered zero loss of prestige. If UMich cut their OOS by 20% overnight, that would be another roughly 1,000 freshman seats offered to in-state students.

But why should they? Out of state tuition money beckons and almost nobody instate cares. I’m not sure why you even care tbh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan matriculates over 3000 in staters every year. With an average instate acceptance rate over 40%, I’d say that a pretty generous offering. For example in 2018, Michigan had approximately 12,500 students submit applications with about 5100 acceptances. Approximately 3100 ultimately enrolled. That’s about a 60% instate yield. Considering that Michigan has about 100,000 high school graduates each year, and shrinking, a 5% overall instate admit rate among all high school graduates is right in line with other top notch public universities in this country, including UVA

? you just said it was a 40% instate acceptance rate. They can't accept people who don't apply

Sorry for your confusion. I should have said 5% of all high school graduates in the state of Michigan end up in Ann Arbor so it wouldn’t cause you too much confusion.

?? They can only accept the ones who apply. The acceptance rate for Michigan students who applied for admission is 40%

No kidding! Let me simplify it for you

40% of high schoolers who applied to Michigan from inside the state were accepted.

That is equivalent to 5% of the total number of high school graduates instate. This percentage includes all students who graduated from high school instate, whether they applied for admission or not.

It wouldn’t matter if 100% of Michigan high schoolers applied — U of M ain’t admitting more of them. 50% of the seats in each class are RESERVED for non-residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan matriculates over 3000 in staters every year. With an average instate acceptance rate over 40%, I’d say that a pretty generous offering. For example in 2018, Michigan had approximately 12,500 students submit applications with about 5100 acceptances. Approximately 3100 ultimately enrolled. That’s about a 60% instate yield. Considering that Michigan has about 100,000 high school graduates each year, and shrinking, a 5% overall instate admit rate among all high school graduates is right in line with other top notch public universities in this country, including UVA

? you just said it was a 40% instate acceptance rate. They can't accept people who don't apply

Sorry for your confusion. I should have said 5% of all high school graduates in the state of Michigan end up in Ann Arbor so it wouldn’t cause you too much confusion.

?? They can only accept the ones who apply. The acceptance rate for Michigan students who applied for admission is 40%

No kidding! Let me simplify it for you

40% of high schoolers who applied to Michigan from inside the state were accepted.

That is equivalent to 5% of the total number of high school graduates instate. This percentage includes all students who graduated from high school instate, whether they applied for admission or not.

It wouldn’t matter if 100% of Michigan high schoolers applied — U of M ain’t admitting more of them. 50% of the seats in each class are RESERVED for non-residents.

Tell the state of Michigan to pony up more money towards Ann Arbor so they can raise instate levels. Otherwise you are correct, it ain’t going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan matriculates over 3000 in staters every year. With an average instate acceptance rate over 40%, I’d say that a pretty generous offering. For example in 2018, Michigan had approximately 12,500 students submit applications with about 5100 acceptances. Approximately 3100 ultimately enrolled. That’s about a 60% instate yield. Considering that Michigan has about 100,000 high school graduates each year, and shrinking, a 5% overall instate admit rate among all high school graduates is right in line with other top notch public universities in this country, including UVA

? you just said it was a 40% instate acceptance rate. They can't accept people who don't apply

Sorry for your confusion. I should have said 5% of all high school graduates in the state of Michigan end up in Ann Arbor so it wouldn’t cause you too much confusion.

?? They can only accept the ones who apply. The acceptance rate for Michigan students who applied for admission is 40%

No kidding! Let me simplify it for you

40% of high schoolers who applied to Michigan from inside the state were accepted.

That is equivalent to 5% of the total number of high school graduates instate. This percentage includes all students who graduated from high school instate, whether they applied for admission or not.

It wouldn’t matter if 100% of Michigan high schoolers applied — U of M ain’t admitting more of them. 50% of the seats in each class are RESERVED for non-residents.

Tell the state of Michigan to pony up more money towards Ann Arbor so they can raise instate levels. Otherwise you are correct, it ain’t going to happen.

Why should the state be subsidizing kids from upper middle class families who are going to go on to earn significantly more on average than high school graduates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan matriculates over 3000 in staters every year. With an average instate acceptance rate over 40%, I’d say that a pretty generous offering. For example in 2018, Michigan had approximately 12,500 students submit applications with about 5100 acceptances. Approximately 3100 ultimately enrolled. That’s about a 60% instate yield. Considering that Michigan has about 100,000 high school graduates each year, and shrinking, a 5% overall instate admit rate among all high school graduates is right in line with other top notch public universities in this country, including UVA

? you just said it was a 40% instate acceptance rate. They can't accept people who don't apply

Sorry for your confusion. I should have said 5% of all high school graduates in the state of Michigan end up in Ann Arbor so it wouldn’t cause you too much confusion.

?? They can only accept the ones who apply. The acceptance rate for Michigan students who applied for admission is 40%

No kidding! Let me simplify it for you

40% of high schoolers who applied to Michigan from inside the state were accepted.

That is equivalent to 5% of the total number of high school graduates instate. This percentage includes all students who graduated from high school instate, whether they applied for admission or not.

It wouldn’t matter if 100% of Michigan high schoolers applied — U of M ain’t admitting more of them. 50% of the seats in each class are RESERVED for non-residents.

And yet twice as many Mich in state students are admitted compared to out of state students. Also U Mich OOS percentages are lower than many of their state universities especially the UCs …

There is unnecessary and misleading focus on blaming OOS students for wider issues related to funding for public universities being at historic lows and not keeping up with tertiary public education demands. Public universities have to rely on OOS tuition income to fund needs of instate students. Further, it is generally far more competitive for OOS slots so it helps keep their selectivity rankings elite and enhance their academic reputations. US has a far younger population spread than most Western countries so the need to invest in public higher education is higher than in most OECD countries …