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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you been to Michigan? It’s a craphole. The in-state kids are dumb as rocks. State is losing population left and right. They need smart out of state kids with $$$ who can boost up Meatchicken’s rankings.

Tough but fair. And the state legislature is all nitwit hacks who went to Michigan State University and directional university. Too dull to realize or care their state flagship in Ann Arbor was stolen from taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you been to Michigan? It’s a craphole. The in-state kids are dumb as rocks. State is losing population left and right. They need smart out of state kids with $$$ who can boost up Meatchicken’s rankings.

Seriously? Are you ten years old? I can only imagine you were jumping up and down stomping your feet when you wrote this post.

I am originally from Michigan. The state is not a “crap hole.” Instate kids who aren’t top students typically will not even apply to the school. They know they will not get it in. The state is not losing population, it’s just not growing compared to others in the south and west. “Meatchicken’s rankings?” That is a line used often by the Ohio State University fandom. Are you one of those people?

[Anonymous]

Michigan has a 42% acceptance rate for instate applicants. As stated above, most instate students who aren’t qualified will not bother applying to the school because they know they will not get in. If Michigan shrunk its class down to UVA level, the percentage of instate students would rise dramatically. It’s a very large school and fills up its classes with excellent students from all corners of the earth. That’s the way they want it in Ann Arbor and that’s the way instate residents of Michigan want it. There are many public schools to chose from instate that give Michigan residents ample opportunity for a quality education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you a Michigan resident? What exactly is your beef, here?

It's just astonishing a state flagship has been stolen from residents. State flagships are cultivated over centuries for residents, not carpetbaggers. It does not benefit the state of Michigan what-so-ever to give 25,000 seats at the undergraduate college to non-residents. 99% of these 25,000 flee the state immediately after graduation.

And spare me the ranking B.S. Nobody but pathetic insecure strivers give a darn about fake U.S. News rankings. And were UMich to become 75% in-state instead of 50-50, it wouldn't fall but a handful of spots. The university's power and clout is not dependent on obnoxious frat boys from Long Island and New Jersey.

Hyperbole much? Undergraduate matriculants are about 15,000 out of state. That means 15,000 students are instate. UVA, for example, has only 17,000 undergraduates in total. In reality, Michigan educates its highest achieving instate students much better than UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you been to Michigan? It’s a craphole. The in-state kids are dumb as rocks. State is losing population left and right. They need smart out of state kids with $$$ who can boost up Meatchicken’s rankings.

Tough but fair. And the state legislature is all nitwit hacks who went to Michigan State University and directional university. Too dull to realize or care their state flagship in Ann Arbor was stolen from taxpayers.

Umm, as mentioned several times by different people, U Mich AA admits twice as many in state as out of state students and the percentages for out of state students are either lower than, or comparable to, many other state flagship universities. Plus U Mich has many other state universities to choose from.

There may be well a problem it’s state universities in general relying too much on out of state students to stay afloat financially. However, this is not unique to Michigan. Further, U Michigan has by far the highest financial reserves of any public university in the US (US 12 billion) so they suggests they are unlikely to be recruiting out of state students purely for profits, which they are not in dire need of.

I do wish they would pay their post grad students better stipends though.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/out-of-state-public-university/

https://www.collegexpress.com/lists/list/percentag...ts-at-public-universities/360/

[Anonymous]

Illinois, Ohio, Indiana is just over the line. No reason to think these students will necessarily leave Michigan after graduation. Many will stay in the area, especially suburban Detroit. But even those who leave Michigan for Chicago, and you can't fault them for that, the whole mid-West benefits from the strength of the labor market there.

[Anonymous]

“ There may be well a problem it’s state universities in general relying too much on out of state students to stay afloat financially. However, this is not unique to Michigan. Further, U Michigan has by far the highest financial reserves of any public university in the US (US 12 billion) so they suggests they are unlikely to be recruiting out of state students purely for profits, which they are not in dire need of. ”

Those OOS student are a huge reason why Michigan’s endowment is so large. While they might not live instate after they graduate, they still support their alma mater big time financially. This isn’t much different than many other elite private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you a Michigan resident? What exactly is your beef, here?

It's just astonishing a state flagship has been stolen from residents. State flagships are cultivated over centuries for residents, not carpetbaggers. It does not benefit the state of Michigan what-so-ever to give 25,000 seats at the undergraduate college to non-residents. 99% of these 25,000 flee the state immediately after graduation.

And spare me the ranking B.S. Nobody but pathetic insecure strivers give a darn about fake U.S. News rankings. And were UMich to become 75% in-state instead of 50-50, it wouldn't fall but a handful of spots. The university's power and clout is not dependent on obnoxious frat boys from Long Island and New Jersey.

Hyperbole much? Undergraduate matriculants are about 15,000 out of state. That means 15,000 students are instate. UVA, for example, has only 17,000 undergraduates in total. In reality, Michigan educates its highest achieving instate students much better than UVA.

Such an amateur tactic. You sound quite juvenile and your motives are obviously suspect. U-M is a very large school, as all Big 10 schools are, so why are you comparing its enrollment to a relatively small flagship like Virginia? Berkley is also very large, at over 31,000. California taxpayers didn't care that, well, technically there are still more in-state students at Berkley than at smaller UVA. California taxpayers said make our flagships 80+ % in-state, period. Just as Wisconsin and Michigan taxpayers ought to do. 50-50 is a scam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ There may be well a problem it’s state universities in general relying too much on out of state students to stay afloat financially. However, this is not unique to Michigan. Further, U Michigan has by far the highest financial reserves of any public university in the US (US 12 billion) so they suggests they are unlikely to be recruiting out of state students purely for profits, which they are not in dire need of. ”

Those OOS student are a huge reason why Michigan’s endowment is so large. While they might not live instate after they graduate, they still support their alma mater big time financially. This isn’t much different than many other elite private schools.

You have no evidence to support this outside of pointless anecdotes you'll pluck from high profile donors. The biggest donor, fyi, was born in Detroit (Stephen Ross). And again, a state taxpayers' flagship campus isn't cultivated over centuries to serve and build a scheming hedge fund investment arm endowment — it's to educate and elevate the state's teens.

[Anonymous]

At $156M pledged, UMich's #2 donor, late shopping mall titan Alfred Taubman, was also born in Michigan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: There is nothing "world class" about UVA. Check any world ranking.

unless you count it as white middle class favorite safety

[Anonymous]

Because Michigan can't afford it without the OOS tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA boosters are desperate as ever. No one cares about your silly state school outside of Virginia, seriously.

Tell that to Oxford and Cambridge. Lots of UVA graduates are there. My DD joins them at the end of this month. Also UVA has produced more Rhodes Scholar than any other public university. Two Rhodes were awarded this year. Also it’s law school is now the no. 1 public in the nation.

elitist much? tattoo that to your forehead!

Quality of post-graduate education at Oxford

In 2007, an op-ed in The Harvard Crimson by two American Rhodes Scholars[81] caused an "international row over Oxford's status as a top university"[82] when they criticised the university's post-graduate education as "outdated" and "frustrating" in comparison to their education in the United States, specifically pointing to the perceived low quality of instruction and an insufficient scholarship stipend for living expenses. They also criticised the Rhodes application process itself, arguing that potential applicants should not apply unless they are "ready to study and live in Oxford."[81][83]

The original op-ed[81] spurred responses on both sides of the Atlantic.[84][85][86] Other students criticised the authors for their tone of "ingratitude and entitlement," while The Sunday Times noted that it fuelled the "long rivalry between Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford" and existing concerns about the quality of British graduate education. In response, the Rhodes Trust released two statements, one to The Sunday Times saying that "the criticisms ... are unrepresentative of the vast majority of Americans" studying at Oxford,[87] and another as a reply to the original op-ed arguing that "false expectations," particularly for those uncertain about their degree choice, and going to Oxford for the "wrong reasons," could contribute to dissatisfaction.[88]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you a Michigan resident? What exactly is your beef, here?

It's just astonishing a state flagship has been stolen from residents. State flagships are cultivated over centuries for residents, not carpetbaggers. It does not benefit the state of Michigan what-so-ever to give 25,000 seats at the undergraduate college to non-residents. 99% of these 25,000 flee the state immediately after graduation.

And spare me the ranking B.S. Nobody but pathetic insecure strivers give a darn about fake U.S. News rankings. And were UMich to become 75% in-state instead of 50-50, it wouldn't fall but a handful of spots. The university's power and clout is not dependent on obnoxious frat boys from Long Island and New Jersey.

Hyperbole much? Undergraduate matriculants are about 15,000 out of state. That means 15,000 students are instate. UVA, for example, has only 17,000 undergraduates in total. In reality, Michigan educates its highest achieving instate students much better than UVA.

Such an amateur tactic. You sound quite juvenile and your motives are obviously suspect. U-M is a very large school, as all Big 10 schools are, so why are you comparing its enrollment to a relatively small flagship like Virginia? Berkley is also very large, at over 31,000. California taxpayers didn't care that, well, technically there are still more in-state students at Berkley than at smaller UVA. California taxpayers said make our flagships 80+ % in-state, period. Just as Wisconsin and Michigan taxpayers ought to do. 50-50 is a scam.

Amateur? Virginia and Michigan are fairly close in population. California has over three times as many residents. Michigan is better than all other B1G publics, so that comparison isn’t valid. Michigan serves its elite students better than UVA. It’s that simple. Elite students instate are for the most part not being denied admission to Michigan. Can you say the same for UVA? Virginia deliberately has made its flagship small compared to the big three rated ahead of it. Don’t blame Michigan, or hold it against them, that they chose to educate more out of state students. It’s to their benefit, and those elite instate students that are overwhelmingly admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ There may be well a problem it’s state universities in general relying too much on out of state students to stay afloat financially. However, this is not unique to Michigan. Further, U Michigan has by far the highest financial reserves of any public university in the US (US 12 billion) so they suggests they are unlikely to be recruiting out of state students purely for profits, which they are not in dire need of. ”

Those OOS student are a huge reason why Michigan’s endowment is so large. While they might not live instate after they graduate, they still support their alma mater big time financially. This isn’t much different than many other elite private schools.

You have no evidence to support this outside of pointless anecdotes you'll pluck from high profile donors. The biggest donor, fyi, was born in Detroit (Stephen Ross). And again, a state taxpayers' flagship campus isn't cultivated over centuries to serve and build a scheming hedge fund investment arm endowment — it's to educate and elevate the state's teens.

Being born instate means nothing when it comes to donations. Ross hasn't lived in Michigan for over 50 years. I never said all endowment money came from out of state, another hyperbolic comment from you. Michigan will never go private. It will always be a state controlled university run by regents who are VOTED in by the electorate. No one, with a semblance of intelligence, is complaining instate that Michigan has so many out of state students. Michigan residents don’t care, as long as the university maintains its lofty status and matriculates most of its top students.