Anonymous wrote:Come on. Are people really that unaware of how public schools are funded?

What's funny is that the state legislators rant so hard about out-of-state students "taking our spots" and yet they never talk about increasing funding so the schools don't have to chase that higher out of state tuition.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Somehow North Carolina and University of Virginia remain world class with 80% and 75%, respectively, in-state.

UT Austin is 90% in-state.

Anonymous wrote:University of Michigan has always been prestigious because of engineering, research, and all the state's automotive and manufacturing fortunes from 1900 to 1980. Detroit was basically Silicon Valley of the early and mid 20th century. The college's reputation has literally nothing to do with full-pay New Jersey, Long Island and DMV kids. And if 40% of them disappeared tomorrow, the university would remain top rung.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep. This complaint has been leveled by state residents there for years before I started there in the 80s.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!).

You can add to that list Virginians who can't get into UVA or VT! Over 60 TJ kids enrolled at U-M this fall, for example. Many of them would have gone to UVA or VT in previous years, but didn't because of the FirstGen/URM/non-NOVA kick or whatever you want to call the current priorities of UVA and VT's admissions offices.

Anonymous wrote: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.