The Midwest states had a declining population of high school aged students compared to places like California and Texas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need the out of state money.

It’s why you see school in white wealthy areas sending a ton of kids to Michigan. FULL PAY.

Parents from Northern VA actually sued the state for taking out of state students and they won.

This is the same b.s. argument Cal tried to use. The public university system is supposed to serve in-state students. I assure you 10,000 more Michigan (and California and everywhere else) families care far more about their teen getting admitted than the state's flagship university slipping a few spots in a fake magazine's fake rankings.

I concur. It’s a grift.

Anonymous wrote:They need the out of state money.

It’s why you see school in white wealthy areas sending a ton of kids to Michigan. FULL PAY.

Parents from Northern VA actually sued the state for taking out of state students and they won.

This is the same b.s. argument Cal tried to use. The public university system is supposed to serve in-state students. I assure you 10,000 more Michigan (and California and everywhere else) families care far more about their teen getting admitted than the state's flagship university slipping a few spots in a fake magazine's fake rankings.

The State of Michigan has plenty of universities. Michigan State is actually bigger than U o M. Michigan Tech would love more students. As would Central Michigan, Western Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Northern Michigan. And that's just some of the publics. Plenty of space for their Michigan residents.

State funding has declined from 80% of annual budget in the 1960s to only 13% today:

https://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-issues/tuition/general-fund-budget-tutorial/

During that same period, tuition went from 20% of annual budget to 80% today.

With the state's economy and demographics, plus U-M's traditional (and quite honorable) role of taking in good students that others don't want (Jews, Asians, Californians who can't get into one of the prime U-C campuses), the result is a very high OOS percentage there (and very high OOS tuition too!).

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's a way to ensure it remains a world-class institution whose reputation transcends its location. Not every state has the same profile as California.

And that its tuition for in state kids remains manageable.

Most public schools are mandated to take at least 25% of in-state students. 50% in-state students for UMich is very generous allotment. Especially for a school with such a stellar reputation.

Agree it's got to be the full pay OOS kids. I know a girl going there and her financial aid package was something hilarious like $200.

This is from another thread about U-M:

Much of this is attributable to U-M's being a large public university. However, it can also be attributable to U-M not getting much funding from the state of Michigan and thus often operating as if it is a private university (as compared with the Cal schools, Texas or even UVA, VT and UMCP, which give more preference to in-state applicants, unlike U-M).

It's been like this forever, whether the government was run by D's or R's. Now what the Michigan state government did do was beef up spending at Michigan State and the directional Michigan schools so that the Michigan residents who didn't get into U-M would still be well-served and get preferences in those schools. Something similar is going on in Virginia whereby UVA is becoming less accessible for Virginia residents, and even VT as well, so the Virginia state government is beefing up GMU, JMU, VCU, CNU, etc. The question is whether the Virginia residents will accept this going forward.

They need the out of state money.

It’s why you see school in white wealthy areas sending a ton of kids to Michigan. FULL PAY.

Parents from Northern VA actually sued the state for taking out of state students and they won.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's a way to ensure it remains a world-class institution whose reputation transcends its location. Not every state has the same profile as California.

Are you kidding me? What a flyover comment. The feds started slashing money to colleges and universities, starting under Reagan. State governments have followed suit. The Michigan legislature is controlled by the GOP and, similar to Wisconsin, they have nothing but disdain for the state's higher ed institutions, even if the latter brings accolades to the state.

Plenty of smart students in state, but the university has decided that OOS money is the way to maintain their high profile.

Because some state prefer the money that OOS students provide while other states focus on educating their own kids. The UC system accepts fewer OOS kids because that is what the California legislature mandates

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's a way to ensure it remains a world-class institution whose reputation transcends its location. Not every state has the same profile as California.

This. Obviously.

Maybe it's a way to ensure it remains a world-class institution whose reputation transcends its location. Not every state has the same profile as California.

Apparently UMich at Ann Arbor is well over 50% out of state students if you factor in the graduate students. The Cal System was sued for this and it wasn't anywhere near this bad – it was merely creeping up to 25% out of state at some of the campuses. Now Berkley and UCLA are less than 20% out of state. UNC is 18% out of state. UVA is 30% out of state. Seems like Michigan has allowed its flagship they built up over 200 years to be subverted and stolen out from under them.

WSJ: University of California to Admit Fewer Out-of-State Students
UCLA, UC Berkeley and UC San Diego to reduce out-of-state enrollment to 18% from nearly 23%
https://www.wsj.com/articles/university-of-california-to-admit-fewer-out-of-state-students-11624923789