When it comes down to it, this is a non issue, students will go universities for reasons whatsoever, the author just needed something to write about.
3
I see a few errors with this article.
First, take Minnesota and Wisconsin for example. Both states have reciprocity, which means that students in either state can attend either flagship public school for the instate price. This likely explains Minnesota's arrow (exchange) with Wisconsin; in fact, no other such arrow pair exists on the map. So it's a little misleading to give Minnesota (which has a relatively cheap instate tuition) the second largest arrow on the map and leave it unexplained.
Second, an example like Michigan raises a few eyebrows. Out of state students attending University of Michigan do not go there because of "rising instate tuition" and "cuts." UMichigan has a out of state COA of $57,432, and none of the instate COAs where Michigan's incoming arrows originate come CLOSE to a COA that high. Therefore I would hope you would eliminate students that did not apply for financial aid at all (leaving more students from places like Michigan State, with much lower COA).
Third, very populous states like as California are more likely to "export students." Sure, California schools are very expensive, but that doesn't mean California's less populous neighboring states aren't sending any students at all. A better graphic/chart would show the rate of outgoing students vs instate students for each state. Similarly, Minnesota (which has reciprocity with all its neighbor states) appears to send out so many students because it has so many students to begin with.
First, take Minnesota and Wisconsin for example. Both states have reciprocity, which means that students in either state can attend either flagship public school for the instate price. This likely explains Minnesota's arrow (exchange) with Wisconsin; in fact, no other such arrow pair exists on the map. So it's a little misleading to give Minnesota (which has a relatively cheap instate tuition) the second largest arrow on the map and leave it unexplained.
Second, an example like Michigan raises a few eyebrows. Out of state students attending University of Michigan do not go there because of "rising instate tuition" and "cuts." UMichigan has a out of state COA of $57,432, and none of the instate COAs where Michigan's incoming arrows originate come CLOSE to a COA that high. Therefore I would hope you would eliminate students that did not apply for financial aid at all (leaving more students from places like Michigan State, with much lower COA).
Third, very populous states like as California are more likely to "export students." Sure, California schools are very expensive, but that doesn't mean California's less populous neighboring states aren't sending any students at all. A better graphic/chart would show the rate of outgoing students vs instate students for each state. Similarly, Minnesota (which has reciprocity with all its neighbor states) appears to send out so many students because it has so many students to begin with.
6
Alabama? Are you serious? What a stigma to have to live with for the rest of their lives. I have taught at three universities, all very superior to Alabama. I do not care what they do and how much money they spend, it is not even a middle rung school.
As for all those people who are complaining about out of state students monopolizing their campuses ----- too bad. Prices have gone up on everything. Your salaries are greater, your houses are worth more, on and on. You do not pay proper taxes to support your state schools. How do you think Washington, Michigan and UCLA (all in the top 20 ranked schools in the WORLD) are supposed to get funds? State support stinks. These would be mediocre schools if they had to rely on state support. The faculty of these schools bring in almost a billion dollars a year in research funds. Put up or shut up.
As for all those people who are complaining about out of state students monopolizing their campuses ----- too bad. Prices have gone up on everything. Your salaries are greater, your houses are worth more, on and on. You do not pay proper taxes to support your state schools. How do you think Washington, Michigan and UCLA (all in the top 20 ranked schools in the WORLD) are supposed to get funds? State support stinks. These would be mediocre schools if they had to rely on state support. The faculty of these schools bring in almost a billion dollars a year in research funds. Put up or shut up.
2
Some states limit out-of-state students at their flagship institutions. North Carolina can only accept 15% in Chapel Hill. But I'm not sure this makes for the best student body. If one wants diversity on a campus, then out-of-state students add quite a different perspective and much experience of the outside world. Being parochial isn't necessarily a virtue.
At all events, universities like Michigan-Ann Arbor have become private in all but name, with minimal state support. And that means instate tuition has also risen.
Finally, I object strongly to the notion expressed elsewhere here that college professors at Research I universities should work the hours of those teaching, say, high school. It's not that I don't value what K-12 teachers do, quite the contrary. We should pay them more. But a college professor teaches 2 classes per semester (that was my load) in order to allow time for research and writing. I produced 6 books and 2 editions in my time, and people still use my work constantly today. Some British universities of "research fellows," professor who do nothing but investigate and write. So let's not dump the high cost of tuition at the doors of professors. At Research I universities they teach what they know at first hand, not what other people know.
At all events, universities like Michigan-Ann Arbor have become private in all but name, with minimal state support. And that means instate tuition has also risen.
Finally, I object strongly to the notion expressed elsewhere here that college professors at Research I universities should work the hours of those teaching, say, high school. It's not that I don't value what K-12 teachers do, quite the contrary. We should pay them more. But a college professor teaches 2 classes per semester (that was my load) in order to allow time for research and writing. I produced 6 books and 2 editions in my time, and people still use my work constantly today. Some British universities of "research fellows," professor who do nothing but investigate and write. So let's not dump the high cost of tuition at the doors of professors. At Research I universities they teach what they know at first hand, not what other people know.
6
End tuition loan programs and watch college costs decline. The people pouring gasoline on this fire are parents who bankrupt themselves and their children because they think their marginally educated progeny will become the next Hawking when they should be learning a trade. This country is full of waitresses and bartenders with advanced degrees.
3
Why is it that common sense is the most overlooked and underappreciated opinion out there? They have high paying jobs in Jackson, Mn. that they can't find enough workers for because of social security disability, which most aren't, as it is easy in this state of many medical professionals to get an opinion to say you are disabled, and the typical university graduate wants desk jobs, of which many are overpaid government jobs.
3
States must increase the funding levels to colleges so that they can reduce the cost to in-state students. The universities have the responsibility of maintaining a balance between quality of students it admits, cultural diversity by attracting students from all states and international students. This requires attracting high quality faculty who are excellent teachers and researchers. The public schools are doing an excellent job. The only bright spot that is still top of the world is higher education.
2
This is interesting because it shows what states produce the most students and can take the least where funding is reserved for the top of the class only. As a result, the average American student (as the data suggests) has to go to a lower tier public school out of state and as a result has to pay higher out of state tuition. There wouldn't be a problem with this unless it weren't widely believed, accepted, and generally kinda true that you need a college degree to do most any kind of "entry-level" job.
So we either need tuition reform, or public colleges getting more funding from corporations that don't pay taxes anymore in their home states, or a shift in the way the average American 18-year-old thinks about his/her future involving not going to college based on cost and risk of not making the return back on that investment due to a shortage in jobs available after graduation.
So we either need tuition reform, or public colleges getting more funding from corporations that don't pay taxes anymore in their home states, or a shift in the way the average American 18-year-old thinks about his/her future involving not going to college based on cost and risk of not making the return back on that investment due to a shortage in jobs available after graduation.
The article mentions students leaving the state but it doesn't specify if they're going to public or private schools on another state, which makes the conclusions drawn less convincing. Also not all students leave the state for money reasons, my #1 criteria in college selection was that it wouldn't be located in my home state.
3
States that are net importers of college students will benefit after their graduation. Many students come to enjoy where they went to school, and will stay as part of an educated work force. States that are net exporters will suffer the consequences by losing potential wealth to other states.
1
I went to high school in the Seattle area, and most kids who moved on to college chose either UW or Wash State. I desperately wanted to go out of state to have "the true college experience" and hoped to attend a UC school (having been born in SoCal) but we couldn't afford the ridiculous out of state tuition. I was able to go to Arizona State out of state for less than UW in state and although the admissions standards are much lower, I chose highly ranked programs within the school and haven't had it held against me since. I think that it's important to remember that college is mostly about the experience (unless you are pre-med or something equally specialized) and you get in what you put out. It's not a given your life will be better just because you paid ridiculous sums of money just to have a diploma from an expensive school.
4
According to the arrows on the map, many point to Alabama, suggesting that students are flocking to Alabama because of the University of Alabama's national championship football team. Roll Tide!
3
"...leading many students to attend universities far from home, where they pay higher, out-of-state tuition," logically makes no sense. Unless it refers to the higher out-of-state tuition they pay in the new state. Anyway, is there any real evidence that higher tuition is responsible for the number of out-of-state students doubling? Was population increase factored in?
2
My niece left California to attend a top rated out-of-state university. The university waived her out of state tuition (the University hadn't filled its out-of-state slots).. She graduated in 4 years and will now attend law school. In California she would have struggled to graduate in 5-6 years; trying to get the requisite classes in alternating semesters and still no guarantee she would. We Californians love to brag about how reasonable the cost to attend a CSU (California State University) or UC (University of California) is but the reality is; when it takes the average full-time attending student 5-6 years to complete a 4 yr degree- it ain't such a bargain. Currently the *bragging rights" * are ; "I'm a 5th year Senior".
2
When state universities are cheaper for in state students, these universities serve the interest tp benefit state residents above all others. But when there is no financial advantage for an in state student to attend a state university, there is no incentive for the state to pay for a university of particularly high quality. State taxpayers will spend the money to educate their own. But there is little reason for them to pay taxes for the purpose of offering high level education that benefits out of state students.
1
Is the implication that out-of-state admissions have a lower bar than in-state? For like all of these states? The paper in Seattle has had a long tirade about UW giving 'local kids' spots' to Chinese immigrants. According to this we're accepting Californians (and sending all our grade-inflated wannabe business majors not good enough for UW back to CA). Seems like international students are not in this calculation at all.
unless your kid is very interested in some academic field long before college age, discourage him from college
most who go should not
if you have a drivi9ng intellectual curiosity about something, then college is for you
if youre going just to get a better paying job, forget it
learn a trade , youll make more money like that and wont a start off w 100 k debt
1
Mr. Strayer needs to be more careful when making up reasons behind why students choose to attend college or university in one state vs another.
It is nearly impossible that tuition hikes (no matter what caused those increases) are what is causing students to leave Minnesota for Wisconsin. The two states have had tuition reciprocity for many years (it did lapse for a while). With reciprocity, Minnesota residents do not pay the lower in-state tuition of Wisconsin schools, rather they pay the tuition rate of the equivalent Minnesota school (e.g. Minnesotans pay University of Minnesota, Twin Cities tuition when attending the Univeristy of Wisconsin, Madison). So there is almost no financial incentive for a Minnesota student to attend college or university in Wisconsin - they pay the same tuition they would in Minnesota. Check it out at https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/mPg.cfm?pageID=121
It is certainly possible that more Minnesota students choose schools in Wisconsin than Wisconsin students choose Minnesota schools but Mr. Strayer's conclusion that this is the result of higher tuition and hence from state budget cuts does not hold up - at least not for Minnesota/Wisconsin.
It is nearly impossible that tuition hikes (no matter what caused those increases) are what is causing students to leave Minnesota for Wisconsin. The two states have had tuition reciprocity for many years (it did lapse for a while). With reciprocity, Minnesota residents do not pay the lower in-state tuition of Wisconsin schools, rather they pay the tuition rate of the equivalent Minnesota school (e.g. Minnesotans pay University of Minnesota, Twin Cities tuition when attending the Univeristy of Wisconsin, Madison). So there is almost no financial incentive for a Minnesota student to attend college or university in Wisconsin - they pay the same tuition they would in Minnesota. Check it out at https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/mPg.cfm?pageID=121
It is certainly possible that more Minnesota students choose schools in Wisconsin than Wisconsin students choose Minnesota schools but Mr. Strayer's conclusion that this is the result of higher tuition and hence from state budget cuts does not hold up - at least not for Minnesota/Wisconsin.
6
Manufacturing was an important avenue of economic opportunity for many Americans. If you travel the land, there’re so many cities that had a golden age, when they were billed as the world’s capital of paperclips or some such. Perhaps what we lack today more than anything is economic imagination for a twenty-first century renewal. Winning a four-year college degree is not supposed to be easy, if it is to mean anything. It is not something that a majority of a population could be expected to achieve, and it should not be necessary in a country like America, so commanding worldwide, with so many advantages. This is a failure of America’s leaders, not of the American people.
1
How about a bit of context for all these figures? For example, how many students who are admitted to University of Illinois decide instead to enroll at a public university in another state?
2
This article would be more meaningful if there were some mention that states sharing a border (like Missouri and Illinois) often have tuition agreements. So students living on the Illinois side of the St. Louis metro area pay in-state tuition at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. I believe there is a similar reciprocal agreement between Minnesota and Wisconsin, and I'm guessing these agreements exist between other states as well. So not all these students are paying the "higher, out-of-state tuition."
3
Take for profit out of education
or health care
or prisons
or politics
or policing
or war
or ...
We all pay for it more in the end .
or health care
or prisons
or politics
or policing
or war
or ...
We all pay for it more in the end .
9
In 1990, while an elected person for District 22 as a democrat, I found out that the University of Minnesota was receiving from 2-3 times per student as the other 7 state university system. I nicknamed them the University of Mafia. The university I attended at the time was Mankato State University, and a number of professors confirmed their dislike for that legislative injustice. That said, the amount of money that the taxpayers pay for each student per year at the University of Minnesota is now $25,000. I realize it goes for new stadiums for many athletic programs, the medical school, etc. But it is overdone. When the University of Minnesota wanted to close its branch of medical school in Duluth, even though it cost less to educate a medical student than the Minneapolis branch, then people in the state began to see what was going on. Part of the reason the cost of an education is high, and tuition is rising, is because of the healthcare and pension benefits that are supported 50% by the taxpayers of the state when the taxpayer often doesn't get the almost free cost of healthcare that those who work for the University of Minnesota receive. Minnesota has high state taxes plus we have sales tax, also. I think overeducated people have never seen a tax increase that they didn't like, as long as they can pass it on to future generations. Let's see 20 trillion in debt as a nation, borrowing 30% more each year than what we take in, entitlement trouble?
2
I went to ranger school with a lieutenant from Mankato State. One of the smartest people I have ever met. And absolutely hilarious.
2
I'm absolutely sure that it's budget cuts, not wasting money on football and lazy rivers that has driven tuition up. I'm confident that state money not increasing as fast as demanded, not administrative staffs being 10:1 larger that has made the costs unsustainable. It couldn't be that the MBAs who invaded colleges saw free federal money for anything other than money for the taking.
3
having participated in many college tours in the last 5 years, i agree that spending on non academic and facilities as well as cost per administrator needs to be curtailed.
2
How about just eliminating sports programs that are money losers? That'd drive the Title 9 people crazy. I like driving people crazy.
1
Equally important - public colleges and universities are happily accepting very wealthy international students from China, Saudi Arabia and India whose uber-rich families send them to our colleges where they take up spaces that should rightfully go to state residents.
Everything about how most colleges are run now is about profit and about administrators raking in money anyway they can get it to support their exorbitant salaries and posh lifestyles. They should be ashamed.
The legislatures in many of these states - like mine, Virginia - don't have any ideological support for higher education in the first place so this influx of rich foreign students continues unabated. State residents lose out to out-of-state students and wealthy foreign students.
It shouldn't be this way.
Everything about how most colleges are run now is about profit and about administrators raking in money anyway they can get it to support their exorbitant salaries and posh lifestyles. They should be ashamed.
The legislatures in many of these states - like mine, Virginia - don't have any ideological support for higher education in the first place so this influx of rich foreign students continues unabated. State residents lose out to out-of-state students and wealthy foreign students.
It shouldn't be this way.
13
It's not unabated in the Commonwealth. There is legislation in place relative to the percentage of out of state students. Can't exceed current levels.
start paying proper taxes to fund the universities in Va, NC, Mich, Wa, Wisc, and Ca and this problem will be reduced. You can not have it all. It is supply and demand.
1
O.K. But don't forget that today's college degree is the equivalent of a high school diploma 50 years ago.
3
True, but 50 years ago the national goal was an increase in high school graduates, and public high school was free of charge.
It seems obvious to me that what a state should do is close its public universities. The tax savings to its corporations and citizens would be huge. This money could then be freed up for use by their job creators. Fuhrerrmore, their college students would then go to public universities in other states to be educated at the other states' taxpayers expense. It's a win-win! The key thing is to be one of the first to do it, before another state does it to you. It's like that economics game where it is best to cheat your partner before they cheat you. It's basic free-market economics. Illinois is on the cutting edge of this new forward thinking fiscal policy. Freedom!!!
2
You know nothing about great public universities. They bring in much more money than they cost. Plus the state has the prestige of saying this. In my view, places such as Va and NC have little going for them other than their flagships. Now Arizona is trying to get the same prestige from its universities. Michigan and Wisconsin have gotten more than a hundred years of prestige for their states via their flagships. Most people I know never think of these states for other reasons.
When I went to UCLA in the 1960's as an in-state student the only charge was a yearly registration fee of $243 ($1850 in todays money). Then Saint Ronnie came along and decided that anti-war students and other bums had it too good and started charging tuition. The money he saved went right into the pockets of his coterie of rich "donors." Saint Ronnie's philosophy was. "If you want to feed the birds, give oats to the horses."
3
For my son, now a junior, out of state tuition at University of Minnesota was significantly cheaper than in state tuition at University of Illinois. But starting this year, Minnesota is doubling out of state tuition over the next four years, making it out of reach for my college freshman daughter. Fortunately, she received a very generous no-loan aid package from a very expensive private university that made it a much more affordable choice than any of the five public universities she was accepted to.
While the financial aid statements from each public school admitted we couldn't pay much, there was no need-based aid that was not a loan offered from any of them. An education at a flagship state school -- in state or out -- is now unaffordable for most families.
While the financial aid statements from each public school admitted we couldn't pay much, there was no need-based aid that was not a loan offered from any of them. An education at a flagship state school -- in state or out -- is now unaffordable for most families.
2
Your daughter sounds great. I wish there were more like her.
I am so tired of the false premise that state funds for universities has declined. Roughly speaking, states provide about as much money per pupil as they did, after adjusting for inflation, 60 years ago. The stat always given, usually by college administrators, is that the percent of the overall budget which is paid for by the state has declined. This, however, is because universities are spending much much more per pupil than they used to.
Now, the rise in spending might be justifiable if it in any way translated to better educations but the increase in spending has almost nothing to do with education. Rather, it is wrapped up in the creation of more and more administrative and staff positions along with, and because of, the awards system this bureaucracy has created for itself. It is a system which exists almost independently of the classrooms and academic departments. Administrators spend their time jockeying for position, prestige, and power. Their accomplishments are often advertised by how many people work underneath them and the building projects they were able to push through. How do you reward an administrator in such a system? You raise their salary, hire more people below them (and possibly raise their salary as well), and if they're really "good", build something for them. In 1970 there was almost one bureaucrat per faculty member. Now there are nearly two per faculty member. US colleges are no longer for students or faculty but for administrators.
Now, the rise in spending might be justifiable if it in any way translated to better educations but the increase in spending has almost nothing to do with education. Rather, it is wrapped up in the creation of more and more administrative and staff positions along with, and because of, the awards system this bureaucracy has created for itself. It is a system which exists almost independently of the classrooms and academic departments. Administrators spend their time jockeying for position, prestige, and power. Their accomplishments are often advertised by how many people work underneath them and the building projects they were able to push through. How do you reward an administrator in such a system? You raise their salary, hire more people below them (and possibly raise their salary as well), and if they're really "good", build something for them. In 1970 there was almost one bureaucrat per faculty member. Now there are nearly two per faculty member. US colleges are no longer for students or faculty but for administrators.
3
Really? Well, I am tired of starve-the-government fanatics camouflaging their sole desire to SLASH public funding by blaming "bloated administrations, football teams, lavish dorms and sports facilities, lazy professors," or any other pretext. The sleepy public just nods while their children's future is being stolen by right-wing plutocrats.
Deflect attention with the left hand while the money is taken away with the right hand! If state legislators seriously wanted to reduce the number of public university administrators, they could achieve that goal easily. No, they simply want to dry up every penny of public funding, even at the expense of the next generation of Americans.
Deflect attention with the left hand while the money is taken away with the right hand! If state legislators seriously wanted to reduce the number of public university administrators, they could achieve that goal easily. No, they simply want to dry up every penny of public funding, even at the expense of the next generation of Americans.
1
Where did you get your data? Is the amount being given corrected for inflation? I know for a fact that state support has declined in several universities. Do you teach at a university?
What a scam. The education model is abandoned in favor of this corporate model of education tourism. Obscenely compensated administrators are no different than any greedy CEO: skim off education dollars to build on-campus world class health clubs and sports facilities, throw in restaurants and hotel-style dorms, and what do you get? More and more out of state, and let's face it, out of country, students to fill aging classrooms with adjunct faculty teaching 70+% of the courses. It's an education game in which states compete with each other for the max returns on education dollars invested. Funny, colleges and universities used to compete for the best and brightest students, not the richest; something about building an academic reputation for the future, or some such quaint aspiration.
2
If states do not support their schools with proper taxes, the schools have to go somewhere to get the money. The top publics already bring in much much much more via faculty grants than they get from the states. None of the people on here has the slightest idea of what it takes to make a great university.
Why should a good school take a local student with poorer grades just because he or she is local? It is not as if that person can show he/she payed taxes to support that university. If someone pays out of state tuition and has high standardized scores, a university would have to be crazy to turn him/her away.
Why should a good school take a local student with poorer grades just because he or she is local? It is not as if that person can show he/she payed taxes to support that university. If someone pays out of state tuition and has high standardized scores, a university would have to be crazy to turn him/her away.
The article lacks significant data to support its conclusion that budget cuts caused the students to attend out-of-state schools. To meaningfully reach that conclusion, you'd need to gather information from the students regarding their decisions. Nothing suggests that occurred. You'd also need to compare the tuition increases in the students' home states to increases in the states to which they moved. Finally, you'd at least want to compare the outflow of students from each state to prior years' outflows to know if outflows increased proportionally with student populations or if they truly spiked with funding decreases. In sum, the article presents a superficial "analysis"; it tells us what is happening (students are moving) but entirely lacks data to tell us why.
11
Interesting story but glosses over some important variables. Here in TX, students this year have to be in the 10% of their class to get automatic admission to the state university of their choice. For UT-Austin, however, that % varies by year ie it is 8% for this year's applicants and will be 7% for next years.
Many students outside the autoadmit group are admitted by "holistic admission" (the subject of the Fisher vs UT supreme court case), but for sure auto admit has encouraged many good students to look outside of TX. However, UT ALSO has a cap on out of state students - 10% (and this includes domestic out of state as well as international students) which is the main reason this map shows so few incoming students. Other public universities likewise cap out of state students, although generally much higher eg VA (cap is 1/3 at U.VA and W&M I believe) and the proportion of out of state students is also currently the subject of intense debate in the UC system (which has rapidly increased the % of out of state students for tuition reasons in he last few years). These kinds of factors shape the map you show in important ways and should be captured to make it more useful.
Many students outside the autoadmit group are admitted by "holistic admission" (the subject of the Fisher vs UT supreme court case), but for sure auto admit has encouraged many good students to look outside of TX. However, UT ALSO has a cap on out of state students - 10% (and this includes domestic out of state as well as international students) which is the main reason this map shows so few incoming students. Other public universities likewise cap out of state students, although generally much higher eg VA (cap is 1/3 at U.VA and W&M I believe) and the proportion of out of state students is also currently the subject of intense debate in the UC system (which has rapidly increased the % of out of state students for tuition reasons in he last few years). These kinds of factors shape the map you show in important ways and should be captured to make it more useful.
1
It's a pity that state education systems have become more oriented to revenue generation - through the attraction of out-of-state students at higher tuitions - than focused on educating students living the states they serve. After all, we pay the taxes to support our state higher education systems.
My son just completed a very successful freshman year at the U of Oregon (Dean's List). But he would have loved to go to a UC school. Despite great grades (near 4.0) and SAT results (98th percentile), we were told there was "no chance" he'd get into a top UC like UCLA or Berkeley. And that proved to be true. Oregon were clever. They offered my son a scholarship almost exactly equivalent to the difference in price between their out-of-state costs and UC in-state. So it was a no-brainer to send him north.
On an individual level, I have no complaints about this arrangement. My son's college expenses are no higher, and he loves Eugene and has thrived there. But what is the purpose of a UC system that turns away thousands of equally capable students? What exactly are my tax dollars, which go to the UC system, funding? Or is it time to start calling top state schools like UCLA and Berkeley "semi-private"?
My son just completed a very successful freshman year at the U of Oregon (Dean's List). But he would have loved to go to a UC school. Despite great grades (near 4.0) and SAT results (98th percentile), we were told there was "no chance" he'd get into a top UC like UCLA or Berkeley. And that proved to be true. Oregon were clever. They offered my son a scholarship almost exactly equivalent to the difference in price between their out-of-state costs and UC in-state. So it was a no-brainer to send him north.
On an individual level, I have no complaints about this arrangement. My son's college expenses are no higher, and he loves Eugene and has thrived there. But what is the purpose of a UC system that turns away thousands of equally capable students? What exactly are my tax dollars, which go to the UC system, funding? Or is it time to start calling top state schools like UCLA and Berkeley "semi-private"?
4
You answered your own question. Your tax dollars are paying for Californians to be educated. And since you are not spending any more money to send the young man out of state, Oregonians are subsidizing you. I feel certain people in Oregon might have more of a problem with this than you do. After all, your son earned a spot that could have gone to an Oregonian whose parents pay taxes there.
1
I noticed that they've increased their enrollment substantially so he probably is not taking someone else's spot. I'll guess that he still pays more than an in-state student as well. Looks like a win-win!
why not get Nike to buy the U of Oregon's academics as they already bought everything else. I could see Oregon having to buy good students.
If Colleges were tuition free as they are in most industrial countries, we will not have young men and women entering the workforce burdened with insurmountable debts as they are about to start a family on top of it. Education is not a luxury, it is a major necessity. Higher education is the best investment for our national security. It is not a business for profit. It is the necessary infrastructure that serves every level of society, without it, we will be prone to wars, invasions and retardation as we are witnessing it in backward countries. Compromising our education is compromising our existence.
1
These university systems would, in my opinion, fight that idea all day long. I'm not saying it's a bad idea but here is what would happen.
First, without tuition, the universities would become completely dependent on allocations of federal and state dollars. They won't like this one bit because it gives them very little control over their revenues. They will be subject to the whim of appropriations committees.
Second, this will force all universities to compete. They won't like this either.
Third, they will have to account for increases in costs not related to education such as administration and amenities.
Finally, it would give you, the voter, more of a say in whether or not they can pay their presidents 7 figure salaries.
Again, yours isn't a bad idea but the universities enjoy the discretionary nature of tuition money and the various per credit hour surcharges charged at these schoold.
First, without tuition, the universities would become completely dependent on allocations of federal and state dollars. They won't like this one bit because it gives them very little control over their revenues. They will be subject to the whim of appropriations committees.
Second, this will force all universities to compete. They won't like this either.
Third, they will have to account for increases in costs not related to education such as administration and amenities.
Finally, it would give you, the voter, more of a say in whether or not they can pay their presidents 7 figure salaries.
Again, yours isn't a bad idea but the universities enjoy the discretionary nature of tuition money and the various per credit hour surcharges charged at these schoold.
1
The article seems to suggest that these choices are all for financial reasons, but some students may just prefer to leave their state for a different school.
For example, your data show that Alabama students who leave are mostly going to Mississippi, and Mississippi students to Alabama. Either group would get in-state tuition at its own school, so the choice to leave cannot be solely financial.
For example, your data show that Alabama students who leave are mostly going to Mississippi, and Mississippi students to Alabama. Either group would get in-state tuition at its own school, so the choice to leave cannot be solely financial.
3
I only know - and not much at that - about Oregon and Minnesota. Weirdly to me, Oregon football has been a huge draw for students from California and even from the midwest, including Minnesota. As far as I know there is tuition reciprocity between Minnesota and Wisconsin. Wisconsin has the more extensive system of good, affordable state universities. My son attended one!
1
Oregon is Nike University, that could be part of the attraction.
No worries. When Hillary Clinton is elected she has promised to make college free for the children of any family making less than $125.000 a year. Where she will get the money from since our federal debt has doubled to nearly $20 trillion under the Obama administration, nobody knows. But don't worry, Hillary will find a way. Democrats never mind spending other people's money.
2
Paul, better we use the money to give hedge fund guys lower taxes, then just sit back and watch that trickle down process trake effect, haha.
1
Here in California, students who are going to Arizona, Oregon, and Colorado share a similar profile. Most are rich white suburban kids with mediocre grades and test scores. Few years ago, they would have gone to places like USC, UC Santa Barbara, and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo that combined relatively easy admissions and academics with alcohol-fueled social scenes. As admission standards and academic rigor have been wretched up in light of institutional ambition (USC and UCSB) and underlying demography, California has produced a flood of white, privileged academic refugees across the state lines. The key attraction of the three states are fairly obvious--PAC 12 football, unending party atmosphere, hot babes and bros. In all of the institutions implicated in this phenomena--Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, Oregon State, and Colorado--California students have out-sized contribution to escalating dropout rates, delayed time to degree, and arrests and disciplinary actions from underage drinking, illicit drugs, and sexual assault. It's scandalous that these universities are offering up their spots to partying Californians to grab easy money while more deserving in-state students are pushed to second-tier universities. Too many kids of this generation were raised by indulgent parents: $45,000 per year is a lot to pay for an kid who is academically adrift to live it up in between football games and frat parties.
3
Isn't USC a private school?
2
USC is a private university. The point is that academically, USC was a notch or two below UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego until the 2000s. Now, USC is right up there with the top tier UC campuses as far as undergraduate academic metrics are concerned. Apart from the academic reputation, USC once admitted more than 70 percent of the applicants as late as 1996, now the figure is less than 20 percent. So, the rich "B-" kids from Orange County who would have happily driven up the freeway to attend USC to root for the Trojans are now going to Arizona, Oregon, and Colorado. In the East Coast, NYU has undergone a similar transformation in their academic reputation. Both schools enroll huge numbers of undergraduate students and hit the jackpot of increasing tuition revenue AND raising their academic prestige and selectivity. You wonder, though, how long this can continue. A sharp economic decline (as in 2008) or Asian financial crisis (1997) will burst this academic bubble.
I do not care how much money USC spends, I will never consider its graduate programs to rival UCLA, Berkeley and Washington. There is only so much that money can buy (oops sorry, Stanford can buy anything and change an average-good dept into a great dept in two weeks).
As ACA co-creator Ezekiel Emmanuel, MD, PhD, Health Economist Victor Fuchs, and former OMB Budget Director Peter Orszag have all pointed out, the ACA requires states spend additional money on Medicaid and this takes money away from higher education.
Yet another assault by politicians on the middle-class and upper middle-class. Politicians should be putting in place policies that make college education *more accessible* instead of making it *less accessible* through higher costs.
A recent NYTimes article about the states and Medicaid coverage did not bring up this point. It would be helpful for the NYTimes to hire reporters that understand the systems effects of implementing health policy and how it makes life harder for the middle class and upper-middle-class to get a university education.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/upshot/how-expanding-medicaid-may-lowe...
A far better way to help people to get access to health care is to follow the lead of UK, France, Canada, Ireland, and other developed nations and raise the cigarette tax: Currently the Federal Tax is about $1 compared with taxes in the range in excess of $5 to $7 or more in these other developed countries. Smokers have more health care costs than non-smokers and they should pay for them.
Yet another assault by politicians on the middle-class and upper middle-class. Politicians should be putting in place policies that make college education *more accessible* instead of making it *less accessible* through higher costs.
A recent NYTimes article about the states and Medicaid coverage did not bring up this point. It would be helpful for the NYTimes to hire reporters that understand the systems effects of implementing health policy and how it makes life harder for the middle class and upper-middle-class to get a university education.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/upshot/how-expanding-medicaid-may-lowe...
A far better way to help people to get access to health care is to follow the lead of UK, France, Canada, Ireland, and other developed nations and raise the cigarette tax: Currently the Federal Tax is about $1 compared with taxes in the range in excess of $5 to $7 or more in these other developed countries. Smokers have more health care costs than non-smokers and they should pay for them.
1
New York State imposes an excise tax on cigarettes at the rate of $4.35 per package of twenty cigarettes. New York City imposes a local excise tax at the rate of $1.50 per package of twenty cigarettes, bringing the combined tax rate in New York City to $5.85.Feb 17, 2016-- From www.tax.ny.gov
@Peggy. I was reading to the subject of this article which is all of the states. For example California' tobacco tax is less than $1. Illinois is about $2. NY state has the highest state taxes in the nation. Many states have taxes of about $1. Other states should raise the taxes to NY state's level. It would have the added health benefit of helping people quite smoking.
Did the author ever think that a young person might want to attend an out of state public or private university because they liked the university's football or basketball team?
4
I do not know anyone in higher education who respects Alabama as a university.
Furthermore, you have a lousy bball team anyway.
Furthermore, you have a lousy bball team anyway.
As a recent college graduate who left the state of Illinois to attend college, these statistics are especially damning of the state's public university structure. There is little incentive for state students to stick around with high in-state tuition fees and massive cutbacks in funding and scholarship allotment. This is only accelerating with Governor Bruce Rauner who's agenda is just to take his toys and pout when he doesn't get his agenda passed. But make no mistake, this is the result of years of neglect to the state's public education system. 16,000+ students and counting...
2
Other states are cutting expenses as well - but they are attracting lots of out of state students. So apparently there is little correlation between state funding and the number of students who choose to attend college out of state.
2
All State schools receive some Federal funding making the reality that all taxpayers are funding every State college/university. Therefore, State college/universities should have 3 tier rates:
- in state residents
- out of state residents = a 20-40% higher rate
- international, not US citizen = highest rate
Separately, some states have an 'all residents' accepted policy. If a student enrolls, it is up to the student to meet the requirements and the policy provides an opportunity. If not this open, all State universities should be required to publish the number/percentage of in state students that were accepted and declined with associated demographics to represent decisions based upon qualifications.
- in state residents
- out of state residents = a 20-40% higher rate
- international, not US citizen = highest rate
Separately, some states have an 'all residents' accepted policy. If a student enrolls, it is up to the student to meet the requirements and the policy provides an opportunity. If not this open, all State universities should be required to publish the number/percentage of in state students that were accepted and declined with associated demographics to represent decisions based upon qualifications.
2
I haven't looked yet, but most of the comments will be about how "universities waste money/benefit from student loans."
This is a lie, perpetrated by people who want to prevent low- and middle-class people from attending college. The reality is that higher educations funding has been gutted by anti-government types.
This is a lie, perpetrated by people who want to prevent low- and middle-class people from attending college. The reality is that higher educations funding has been gutted by anti-government types.
As a 23 year old (recently graduated), I'd like to add in a big factor that no one will address - for many, it is not about cost. Kids want to get away from where they grew up, their parents do not say no, and with a signature they can take out the loans they need. For a lot of people, it has nothing to do with access to public universities in their home state. It's vanity and parents who won't say no. Pretty embarrassing, from my perspective.
10
"I'd like to add in a big factor that no one will address - for many, it is not about cost. Kids want to get away from where they grew up, their parents do not say no, and with a signature they can take out the loans they need."
Good point. UNH was much closer to my Mom than UMass. In the end I didn't go to either and went farther yet (and paid out-of-state there...)
Good point. UNH was much closer to my Mom than UMass. In the end I didn't go to either and went farther yet (and paid out-of-state there...)
I was lucky. I went to one of the SUNYs and graduated. Things were Spartan enough but we didn't have to worry about supplies, required classes being cancelled, or being unable to graduate on time because of being unable to get into classes due to a lack of open sections for them. I was in the sciences so I had to sign up for a class and the corresponding lab. We complained about our department, biology, being the only one that didn't have a time for its majors to register before everyone else so we could get into our requireds. I'd hate to see what it's like now.
If education is so important why are we cutting funds? Why do we do we use property taxes to fund schools? And why do we insist upon a college education instead of having a good apprenticeship system that students can use during their high school years? Not everyone wants to go, or needs to go, or belongs in, college. In fact, from what I hear college for many is still a glorified extension of high school. The intellectual exploration that is supposed to occur in college is smothered by needing to work to pay for courses, professors fear to have open discussions, and the tendency of resident students to party more than do their school work.
If education is so important why are we cutting funds? Why do we do we use property taxes to fund schools? And why do we insist upon a college education instead of having a good apprenticeship system that students can use during their high school years? Not everyone wants to go, or needs to go, or belongs in, college. In fact, from what I hear college for many is still a glorified extension of high school. The intellectual exploration that is supposed to occur in college is smothered by needing to work to pay for courses, professors fear to have open discussions, and the tendency of resident students to party more than do their school work.
4
First, you are comparing apples to oranges. Property taxes represent a portion of funding for a state's K-12 education but not to higher ed. Secondly, using property taxes to fund K-12 schools is, for the most part, completely progressive (in terms of taxation) because it taxes wealth rather than income. Also (and I can't prove this), I would think that many who pay a lot in property tax, don't use the public school system. I live in Florida and pay $20,000 per year in property taxes. My kids go to private school. So my taxes represent found money for the school district. The district gets my money but doesn't have to educate my kids.
Next, "cutting funds" is relative. State funding for higher education may have decreased but federal funding has increased over the past 10 years. Plus, not all states are cutting funding. Finally, states like Illinois, Ohio, Connecticut, and Michigan are growing at rates of less than 1%. West Virginia is shrinking. What is the proper growth of higher education funding for a state that is shrinking?
Finally, I do agree with you with respect to apprenticeship programs. Other countries in Europe and Asia do this very well and Georgetown did a study a few years back that showed that those with 2-year technical degrees make 30% more than those with 4-year degrees and those with 4-year degrees make 40% more than those with masters.
Next, "cutting funds" is relative. State funding for higher education may have decreased but federal funding has increased over the past 10 years. Plus, not all states are cutting funding. Finally, states like Illinois, Ohio, Connecticut, and Michigan are growing at rates of less than 1%. West Virginia is shrinking. What is the proper growth of higher education funding for a state that is shrinking?
Finally, I do agree with you with respect to apprenticeship programs. Other countries in Europe and Asia do this very well and Georgetown did a study a few years back that showed that those with 2-year technical degrees make 30% more than those with 4-year degrees and those with 4-year degrees make 40% more than those with masters.
2
Money that once went for higher education is now going towards increasing Medicaid costs.
As ACA co-creator Ezekiel Emmanuel, MD, PhD, Health Economist Victor Fuchs, and former OMB Budget Director Peter Orszag have all pointed out, the ACA requires states spend additional money on Medicaid and this takes money away from higher education.
Other developed nations such as UK, France, Canada, Ireland, ... pay for universal health care by taxing tobacco. While our Federal rate is about $1 their rates are $5 to $7 or more. Smokers incur higher health care costs, so it only fare that they pay for them, instead of money being taken away from public funded higher education.
As ACA co-creator Ezekiel Emmanuel, MD, PhD, Health Economist Victor Fuchs, and former OMB Budget Director Peter Orszag have all pointed out, the ACA requires states spend additional money on Medicaid and this takes money away from higher education.
Other developed nations such as UK, France, Canada, Ireland, ... pay for universal health care by taxing tobacco. While our Federal rate is about $1 their rates are $5 to $7 or more. Smokers incur higher health care costs, so it only fare that they pay for them, instead of money being taken away from public funded higher education.
3
This article is incomplete and should dig deeper into the varied reasons why students from certain states attend colleges in other states. Tuition and admission requirements play a big role, but other factors are noticeably absent from the article, like proximity to your home state. I've known several people who actually commuted to NJ and PA daily for college so they could live at home. I also know others who when across the country to get as far away from home as possible to be on their own and experience a different lifestyle. There is also the issue of the value of the education received at one institution vs another, regardless of cost.
6
My observations lead me to disagree with the premise of this article. My four children have been in the college mode for the past eight years, and I have watched their friends pick their schools. I am a pediatrician in a fairly diverse practice and have seen hundreds of patients from so many different backgrounds head off to college. In general, the very high achieving students go to private schools or to the "public Ivies" if they have the resources. The next level of students go to a flagship university of their state-e.g. Georgia Tech or the University of Georgia in my state. The next tier of students go to the next strongest in-state schools if resources are modest, but to a less competitive out of state flagship public university if they have greater financial resources. The flagship schools are usually perceived as being socially more exciting and have higher profile athletic programs, thus the wealthier families feel that their kids will have an enhanced experience and the opportunity to network with "connected" students.
The lack of state support for the public universities may have a role in seeking out of state education, but in general, parents are spending what they can to give their kids a more prestigious, more socially "prestigious" experience.
The lack of state support for the public universities may have a role in seeking out of state education, but in general, parents are spending what they can to give their kids a more prestigious, more socially "prestigious" experience.
17
Thanks for a good perspective. What we're seeing in our school district is that even the highest achieving students, of which there are many, can't get into an ivy or top private college. This year none... zero... were accepted to an ivy out of 500 students.
This is starting to be a problem for the student who is comparable to the college applicant who gets into a top college but has one aspect of their application package that is weak. These very high achievers are ending up at colleges that are not a good fit.
This is starting to be a problem for the student who is comparable to the college applicant who gets into a top college but has one aspect of their application package that is weak. These very high achievers are ending up at colleges that are not a good fit.
Your experience is with people of means. I had friends whose parents refused to co-sign student loans or help their children with any effort to go to college. It shocked me but it was a lesson that not everyone is the same. There are many high school students in this country whose parents did not go to college and have made no plans for their children to do so.
2
Georgia Tech is a public Ivy in case you did not know that. I hate to admit it, but it is.
There are markedly different costs among the Commonwealth's universities and colleges, all which are good to excellent with the exception of two historically black universities. The principal variable appears to be the salaries of the faculty and administrators. The University of Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and William and Mary College have the highest salaries and charge the most for in-state tuition, the other institutions of similar quality; James Madison University, George Mason University, Radford University and Longwood University, not nearly as much. All States should consider regulating faculty salaries; possibly with a cap on liberal arts, political science and law professor compensation. Engineering and Science should not be capped because those disciplines provide greater value and impact to society.
1
You do not know what you are talking about. Professorial prestige is what makes a university. This is how it works. A small rich private college (non-University) pays good salaries and requires superb teaching and not as much research. There are only two top universities in VA and they rely heavily on the prestige of their professors. If you think that profs at these schools should get the same salaries as the second and third tier schools, do it and see how fast UVa and W&M tumble in prestige.
This is all part of the reversal of the great trend in the last century to democratize and universalize education for Americans and then help them get onto the path toward a secure, middle class life. The "High School Movement" of the early 20th century segued into the expansion of access to higher education after World War II through such resources as the G.I. Bill and greater public funding of colleges, universities, and career training organizations. WE HAVE GOT TO FIGHT TO RESTORE EDUCATIONAL DEMOCRACY IN OUR TIME. Bernie Sanders' movement and many of the ideas being touted by current Democratic leaders and candidates are a good start. Decimating the Republican party would be a good next step.
Don't blame the Chinese, Mexicans, Saudis, Indians, and Japanese for problems that Americans have created. The more international and cosmopolitan our university environments are, the better, but in no way does that mean that American students need to be shoved aside and left facing a future without opportunity.
Don't blame the Chinese, Mexicans, Saudis, Indians, and Japanese for problems that Americans have created. The more international and cosmopolitan our university environments are, the better, but in no way does that mean that American students need to be shoved aside and left facing a future without opportunity.
1
Another group - students who don't want to go to a local school populated with the same people they knew in high school; but still don't want to be too far away from home. Answer - at least East of the Mississippi - go to a state school in a neighbor state.
1
It used to be in this country that teaching slaves to read was against the law, and that only wealthy males deserved a formal education.
To wit, we are seeing a "taking back" of this country by conservatives, who are frightened by minorities and women succeeding in university and, with their learned knowledge and insight, voting in such a way that develops society into something many whites, male and female alike, don't want.
Too bad.
The Constitution permits these changes by the vote, and the country is the better for them. We've collected enough data to the extent we can no longer call ourselves an experiment. Indeed, we have uncovered the same findings and reached the same conclusions as our eons-old European counterparts: we are better when we all have access to robust systems of health care and education, livable wages, child care, rest and relaxation, recreational alcohol and plant-based substances like marijuana, clean air and water, and the tools with which to explore both our world and outer space.
Why continue to waste time looking for other conclusions when the data says there are none to be had?
To wit, we are seeing a "taking back" of this country by conservatives, who are frightened by minorities and women succeeding in university and, with their learned knowledge and insight, voting in such a way that develops society into something many whites, male and female alike, don't want.
Too bad.
The Constitution permits these changes by the vote, and the country is the better for them. We've collected enough data to the extent we can no longer call ourselves an experiment. Indeed, we have uncovered the same findings and reached the same conclusions as our eons-old European counterparts: we are better when we all have access to robust systems of health care and education, livable wages, child care, rest and relaxation, recreational alcohol and plant-based substances like marijuana, clean air and water, and the tools with which to explore both our world and outer space.
Why continue to waste time looking for other conclusions when the data says there are none to be had?
3
That's nuts. Despite the costs, more people attend and graduate from college in the US than in any other large westernized nation.
Yes, it costs money but we pay lower taxes here overall. The average debt at graduation of college is $26,0000 -- not outrageous for something which will advantage you all through life!
Even the most conservative right-winger has been to college, and intends his children to be college educated! so you are dead wrong on that.
Yes, it costs money but we pay lower taxes here overall. The average debt at graduation of college is $26,0000 -- not outrageous for something which will advantage you all through life!
Even the most conservative right-winger has been to college, and intends his children to be college educated! so you are dead wrong on that.
People complain all the time about how the European Union can't get its act together, but with regard to college education it is FAR ahead of the US. Under the Erasmus agreement, EU residents can study at other EU universities while paying essentially the same tuition as their home country. If Germany, France, Italy and Switzerland (not even part of the EU) can work out such agreements, why can't California and Nevada?
Oh, and let's not forget: yearly tuition at a top 10 university (world ranking, not just EU) is less than Euro 1500 for an EU resident. While the US is producing graduates with lifetime loads of debt, the EU is producing highly educated students with little or no debt, free to pursue their passions.
Oh, and let's not forget: yearly tuition at a top 10 university (world ranking, not just EU) is less than Euro 1500 for an EU resident. While the US is producing graduates with lifetime loads of debt, the EU is producing highly educated students with little or no debt, free to pursue their passions.
4
but don't forget they pay VERY HIGH taxes top support all of that--so education while low cost, is NOT FREE--the cost is just hidden a bit.
So we are paying more and getting less? Say it isn't so!
Having been to Europe many times, I really think people here have a skewed perception of "free higher education" in Europe. First, there are way fewer universities in Europe and a lot of people don't go to university. It is not "free for all" as people here imagine. Secondly, European universities are way smaller; a typical university only has a few academic buildings as opposed to a large campus with loads of facilities. Almost any school in the US has an amazing gym and luxurious dorm rooms, the cost of which only contributes to higher tuition.
2
There is an important piece missing about Wisconsin/Minnesota - you pay the same tuition at either due to reciprocity. See http://www.heab.state.wi.us/reciprocity/ for details.
3
This article has a YUUUGE hole in it - please detail which states have reciprocity agreements, like the ones explaining the YUUGE arrows leaving Minnesota for North Dakota and Wisconsin.
1
I insisted my son attend college in a state outside of California. It turned out that the mid-West is cheaper to attend even with out-of-state tuition because the cost of living in California is so much higher. He also got the benefit of growing up independent without have the ability to come home on weekends. He also got to experience a culture that is different than the one in California.
5
I really wonder if the numbers going to WI from MN are any higher in recent years than they have been in the past. A significant portion of my '89 graduating HS class when to WI schools. Many b/c that is where the family was originally from, or b/c their parents went there. I don't see that as unusual at all.
That does not negate that the legislature is underfunding the schools in MN. Or, the schools are using the funds on "fru-fru" stuff (like flat TVs in every room and a/c - heck, when I was in school in Missouri, a/cs weren't even allowed without a dr's note, and it was SIGNIFICANTLY hotter/humid down there - and underfunding the actual education portion of school.
That does not negate that the legislature is underfunding the schools in MN. Or, the schools are using the funds on "fru-fru" stuff (like flat TVs in every room and a/c - heck, when I was in school in Missouri, a/cs weren't even allowed without a dr's note, and it was SIGNIFICANTLY hotter/humid down there - and underfunding the actual education portion of school.
1
Mr. Strayer's comments are off-base when it comes to Michigan. In Fiscal Year 2005-06 state higher education appropriations were $1,731 billion, and in Fiscal Year 2015-16 they were $1,44 billion, a 16.9% drop of $293.2 billion. (Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency State Budget Overview of March 2016, Table 23) Yet Michigan public universities took in more students from other states than Michigan lost to public universities in other states. Something more is at work than state budget reductions.
2
I agree but also think the University of Michigan could probably get away with paying its president less than the $1 million she makes.
2
Wake up, buddy. Mark Schlissel replaced Mary Sue Coleman as president about three years ago. Both brought tremendous talent to the university and got or are getting really good results. Neither should be envied or resented for being well compensated at a level well in line with their counterparts elsewhere.
I'm so glad that part is behind me. I went to U. of Il. and then Loyola and the price I paid was nothing. I got free medical services and medicine through the amount of tuition I paid. I really feel bad for college students today. And what do they have to look forward to in this economy?
9
We live in California, but my son didn't even bother applying to schools in state. California schools are so impacted, and he had so many friends telling him how difficult it was to get into classes they needed to graduate. He's going to school in Colorado and is going to graduate early!
4
This article is useless; it would have had some relevance if some of the heralded universities, colleges, and majors in various states had been included. For instance, Indiana has great music programs, Kansas fabulous acting programs, California, many great tech opportunities, Maryland, great medical programs, etc. To suggest that college migrations issues are all about state aid is absolutely disingenuous.
16
Colorado is a net importer of undergraduates, for several reasons. Two strong research universities offer a wide range of excellent programs, job opportunities after graduation are manifold, owing to, and contributing to, the current boom in CO's economy. NYT (?) had an article recently about how CA and MA no longer "own" high-tech growth. And CO is a fine environment with lots of outdoor recreational opportunities. Leading the nation, 43% of CO residents have a 4-year college degree, or more. (That may explain other CO phenomena.)
Colorado State University has expanded from 27K students to 35K over the last years to overcome drastic cuts in state support. Both CSU and CU have total budgets wherein less than 10% can be identified as state support, so there are ways to deal with dimwitted legislators. But having a product worth selling makes all the difference.
Colorado State University has expanded from 27K students to 35K over the last years to overcome drastic cuts in state support. Both CSU and CU have total budgets wherein less than 10% can be identified as state support, so there are ways to deal with dimwitted legislators. But having a product worth selling makes all the difference.
1
nice try, but you will never convince a person in the know that CSU is a good school.
@bigdoc I said very little about CSU. It is true that CSU's revenue sports are not very good--some see that as a feature and not a bug--although the annual battles with CU are closely matched. For the last several years, annual research expenditures at CSU have exceeded those at CU. You'll need to supply some actual information beyond the sentence you provided.
A big problem with the University of Texas is that it was originally conceived as a polytechnic, specifically to give the residents of Texas the skills they need to succeed (the various college catalogs used to start with this mission statement). Over time, it has morphed into a self-described "Stanford of the Southwest." Along with this, it allows too many students from out of state (and out of country), at the expense of Texas residents. Visit the graduate programs in any engineering field or computer science and you will see Indians and Chinese students, very few locals. The university justifies this as arguing it ensures "excellence" but the end effect is that the people the school system was created to serve have to go elsewhere. None of this has anything to do with "cuts"; like it or not, it's the direct consequence of deliberate policy decisions made over the last 40 years.
16
How do you know those students are Indian and not American go l with Indian ancestry
1
How many non-Indian or Chinese looking students applied for the graduate level engineering programs that you mentioned?
Being known as the Stanford of the Southwest still refers UT to the Southwest, which is not saying much.
The Hope Scholarship in Georgia (funded by our lottery) means students with a B average or better get an 85% reduction in tuition. This has made UGA and Ga Tech very attractive alternatives and as such, the quality of the students applying "in state" has drastically escalated, making it extremely difficult to get admitted. You might have a 3.8 avg. and a 32 on ACT and not get in! As a result many students who want a less expensive public university, flock to Alabama. For GA residents, it is a great thing.
9
Florida's Bright Futures scholarship has had the same effect on its flagship universities. But in Florida we are not allowed to use the term "flagship".
Both Auburn University and University of Alabama are good alternatives for Georgia students, and very popular. Plus Georgia and Alabama have long common border. It is closer to AU and UA for many Georgia students than the trek to Atlanta for Georgia Tech or to Athens for U(sic)GA. The University System of Georgia is approving additional engineering programs at U(sic)GA, Kennesaw State, and Georgia Southern University.
Total enrollment this year for first-year students at UC and Cal State colleges is around 485,300, according to my quick tally. 17,000 students is about the size of the entering class at UCLA, which seems like a lot, until you consider it as a percentage of the total entering class, roughly 3.5%.
I know the numbers cited in the article are for 2014, but the enrollment numbers would be in the ballpark. I'm not even including the huge community college system, in which case the percentage would be much smaller.
When you take reciprocity agreements on tuition between western states into account, it's hard to see the case for cost being the driver of students attending out of state colleges when 96.5% of students—at a minimum—are staying in California and those that leave are paying essentially California rates.
It's the young women and men who decide not to attend college because of cost that are truly the ones being driven out. What's that number? Is there even any data on it?
I know the numbers cited in the article are for 2014, but the enrollment numbers would be in the ballpark. I'm not even including the huge community college system, in which case the percentage would be much smaller.
When you take reciprocity agreements on tuition between western states into account, it's hard to see the case for cost being the driver of students attending out of state colleges when 96.5% of students—at a minimum—are staying in California and those that leave are paying essentially California rates.
It's the young women and men who decide not to attend college because of cost that are truly the ones being driven out. What's that number? Is there even any data on it?
3
I am not sure if this going-to-college-out-of-State is a bad thing, though the financial issue might have to be worked out.
There are far too many people trying to get into undergraduate programs without the required preparation, qualifications or grades. A university, even a public one, is not required to take them all in just because they are locals.
Going from Texas to Oklahoma is not going to Canada or some other foreign country. And if Texas public universities want to maintain their standards, which they should, they have every right to take in only top students from the State, with some leeway for poor students from both inside and outside the State.
This idea that every idiot should be given admission first to universities in his or her State mostly is ridiculous. That is how you get idiots-with-college-degrees playing "native sone" game to get in and get ahead in spite poor grades, poor performance and poor effort, while out-of-State or out-of-Country students have to be super duper smart, hard working, super duper nice & super duper tolerant to idiots who think they deserve a free ride because they are locals. We should not become a quota system like India where from birth to death there is quota that just gets some fools and corrupt people into the system and keeps promoting them. Then we wonder why countries like that are "Third World"?
My view is get out of the State, break the umbilical chord, take some risks and stop being so clingy to your State.
There are far too many people trying to get into undergraduate programs without the required preparation, qualifications or grades. A university, even a public one, is not required to take them all in just because they are locals.
Going from Texas to Oklahoma is not going to Canada or some other foreign country. And if Texas public universities want to maintain their standards, which they should, they have every right to take in only top students from the State, with some leeway for poor students from both inside and outside the State.
This idea that every idiot should be given admission first to universities in his or her State mostly is ridiculous. That is how you get idiots-with-college-degrees playing "native sone" game to get in and get ahead in spite poor grades, poor performance and poor effort, while out-of-State or out-of-Country students have to be super duper smart, hard working, super duper nice & super duper tolerant to idiots who think they deserve a free ride because they are locals. We should not become a quota system like India where from birth to death there is quota that just gets some fools and corrupt people into the system and keeps promoting them. Then we wonder why countries like that are "Third World"?
My view is get out of the State, break the umbilical chord, take some risks and stop being so clingy to your State.
1
Now that states have increasingly slashed their contributions to their own state university systems (from 80-100% to 10-20% in many cases), "public" education has become all about "chasing the money" too, just like private colleges.
So in-state students get pushed out by out-of-state students or those from other countries altogether who have the personal means or government funding to pay for what has become a "luxury product" (cf. Joel Trachenberg @ GW).
A sad state of affairs, and one that doesn't bode well for our own students--or our nation.
So in-state students get pushed out by out-of-state students or those from other countries altogether who have the personal means or government funding to pay for what has become a "luxury product" (cf. Joel Trachenberg @ GW).
A sad state of affairs, and one that doesn't bode well for our own students--or our nation.
1
Very strange indeed. I think it is known as a "market".
3
Wonderful graphics, but without data on the average net cost of attendance (COA) from one state to another, and even then, it's hard to understand what's going on here. E.g., if a student exits PA for the University of Alabama, is he paying an eight percent premium to go to another state's flagship (in-state COA at Penn State is roughly $34,000; out-of-state COA at Alabama is ~ $42,000), or is he paying 50 percent LESS because Alabama offered him a full-tuition scholarship?
What I see is a game of music chairs, with some universities, like PSU, welcoming all the those OOS students from the northeast, who flock there for a “traditional flagship” experience, while middle-class Pennsylvanians take the money a Bama (or Arizona State or Ole Miss or Ohio State) offers and never look back. And of course students of more affluent families, who get denied admission to PSU or would rather go to school out of state, will gladly pay the premium to leave their home state.
It's not necessarily all bad, mind you -- it's good for flagships to have geographic diversity within their student bodies and to recruit full-pay families who subsidize in-state students, but not if there are no good affordable options in state for families who can't perform in the 90+ percentile on standardized tests and are left with no affordable public options in state. [See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.]
What I see is a game of music chairs, with some universities, like PSU, welcoming all the those OOS students from the northeast, who flock there for a “traditional flagship” experience, while middle-class Pennsylvanians take the money a Bama (or Arizona State or Ole Miss or Ohio State) offers and never look back. And of course students of more affluent families, who get denied admission to PSU or would rather go to school out of state, will gladly pay the premium to leave their home state.
It's not necessarily all bad, mind you -- it's good for flagships to have geographic diversity within their student bodies and to recruit full-pay families who subsidize in-state students, but not if there are no good affordable options in state for families who can't perform in the 90+ percentile on standardized tests and are left with no affordable public options in state. [See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.]
2
This seems like a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. The title is also misleading. It shows that students are indeed crossing state lines but really doesn't tie this movement to cuts in education spending at either the state or federal level. It claims that cuts to university funding has driven students out of state but fails to explain the "how".
Maybe show what each spends on higher education and what each state has spent over the past 10 years. Same with federal dollars.
Then the most obvious question is that all states can't be losing students to other states. By definition the numbers will even out won't it? Some states have more students leaving than coming but this would mean that there are others where the opposite is the case. EVERY state, by definition, cannot have a net outflow of students. The math just doesn't work. Looking through the list, some states have a net outflow, some have a net inflow.
In order for the author to draw an justifiable conclusion, he needs to actually address the "how" rather than just make claims that are supported by nothing other than the fact that kids leave state to go to college and a hypothesis that it is due to cuts in funding.
Maybe show what each spends on higher education and what each state has spent over the past 10 years. Same with federal dollars.
Then the most obvious question is that all states can't be losing students to other states. By definition the numbers will even out won't it? Some states have more students leaving than coming but this would mean that there are others where the opposite is the case. EVERY state, by definition, cannot have a net outflow of students. The math just doesn't work. Looking through the list, some states have a net outflow, some have a net inflow.
In order for the author to draw an justifiable conclusion, he needs to actually address the "how" rather than just make claims that are supported by nothing other than the fact that kids leave state to go to college and a hypothesis that it is due to cuts in funding.
3
Massive cuts in State funding have led to a quizzical result for my State.
Students are demurring in deciding to attend the secondary Universities and Colleges. Stories like the laying-off of tenured Professors have potential matriculates opting for the safety and assurance of other States.
However, the flagship, the University of Illinois, is enjoying it's largest ever Freshman class. It seems students recognize that their are greater resources available and less likelihood of their program being cancelled.
Odd case where the somewhat rich (the U of I) are doing "better" than the rest.
However, the overall picture is bleak with a Democratically-controlled legislature that refuses to budge even though the populace choose a Republican Governor to try and reign things in.
Students are demurring in deciding to attend the secondary Universities and Colleges. Stories like the laying-off of tenured Professors have potential matriculates opting for the safety and assurance of other States.
However, the flagship, the University of Illinois, is enjoying it's largest ever Freshman class. It seems students recognize that their are greater resources available and less likelihood of their program being cancelled.
Odd case where the somewhat rich (the U of I) are doing "better" than the rest.
However, the overall picture is bleak with a Democratically-controlled legislature that refuses to budge even though the populace choose a Republican Governor to try and reign things in.
1
It's interesting to see how many out-of-state universities actively recruit our high school students here in Texas. I had a graduating senior this year and he was wooed by the likes of Alabama, Arkansas and Va Tech. Alabama even had a huge party for admitted students at Texas Motor Speedway and purchased billboards on DFW freeways. My son ended up staying in state and is now a freshman computer science major at UT Dallas, where a nice scholarship and low in-state tuition should enable him to graduate debt free.
2
Used to be that the state colleges and universities were all but free. Your taxes at work. Out of staters had to cover the shortfall. Now, out of state students are recruited because they will pay more money.
the shift away from educating the public is apparent in our entertainment and political choices.
the shift away from educating the public is apparent in our entertainment and political choices.
3
the main problem --hopefully--is that EDUCATED people THINK before they vote-so that is anathema to the kind of government we have. We have a government of "the party first"--public benefit and ideas last. the Business world dictates much of our success and how it is achieved. If it doen's tmake money, it probably isn't worth much.
You are assuming that spending and outcomes are positively correlated when it comes to education.
Why blame only budget cuts for tuition increases? University administration costs and staff have grown many times more than the increase in their student or teacher populations! How much is spent on new amenities? Student centers with bowling alleys, pubs, etc. Luxury dorms with complete apartments! Why not go back to some basics - share a dorm room, eat in a cafeteria and educating in state students in preparation of productive future lives!
10
A study like that would entail real work. Pulling financial statements, performing arithmetic, analyzing data, etc. Plus, the results would run the risk of contradicting the narrative the Times is trying to promote - that throwing more money at a problem is always the answer.
I agree with you though. Another basic comparison would be what other countries' governments spend on higher education. The OECD shows that the US spends more on higher education (on a per student basis) than any other country in the world. But that includes state, federal, and private funding. Would be interesting to see a comparison of pure state/federal funding on a country by country basis.
I agree with you though. Another basic comparison would be what other countries' governments spend on higher education. The OECD shows that the US spends more on higher education (on a per student basis) than any other country in the world. But that includes state, federal, and private funding. Would be interesting to see a comparison of pure state/federal funding on a country by country basis.
1
What you write is not true. The Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank has done surveys about employment at US colleges and universities, and this is their latest report:
https://clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-comme...
Interesting points covering 1987-2013—all measured as percentages of total employees--
* The widespread belief that administrative and management staff have increased is not true—not changed at all.
* Clerical/secretarial staff numbers have declined.
* Other professionals (IT, lawyers, librarians, etc.) have increased.
* Faculty members have increased.
* Full-time faculty have decreased, as part-time faculty have increased.
One can conclude that, as public universities experienced a decrease in state support funding, more part-time adjunct faculty have been hired to save money. Likewise, clerical staff numbers have decreased as more people do more of their own clerical tasks on their PCs, and secretaries are being shared by more people. The increase in other professionals is more difficult to explain, perhaps because governments have increased reporting requirements, universities compete for students (= tuition $) by providing more amenities, etc.
https://clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-comme...
Interesting points covering 1987-2013—all measured as percentages of total employees--
* The widespread belief that administrative and management staff have increased is not true—not changed at all.
* Clerical/secretarial staff numbers have declined.
* Other professionals (IT, lawyers, librarians, etc.) have increased.
* Faculty members have increased.
* Full-time faculty have decreased, as part-time faculty have increased.
One can conclude that, as public universities experienced a decrease in state support funding, more part-time adjunct faculty have been hired to save money. Likewise, clerical staff numbers have decreased as more people do more of their own clerical tasks on their PCs, and secretaries are being shared by more people. The increase in other professionals is more difficult to explain, perhaps because governments have increased reporting requirements, universities compete for students (= tuition $) by providing more amenities, etc.
The Federal Government (tax payer) is financing the college cost for foreign students, basically giving a carte blanch to universities to raise the tuition cost any way they like. This results in excessive annual cost for USA students.
please PROVIDE evidence of this!
1
That is absolutely not the case. In fact, the reverse is true.
Foreign students do not typically receive ANY financial aid at US colleges and universities for undergraduate study. They're heavily recruited specifically *because* they pay the full sticker price and bring in a significant amount of money to US institutions. If anything, they're subsidizing some US students who do receive financial aid.
Exceptions are typically only made for very talented graduate/ post-graduate students (e.g., full-funded PhD programs in the sciences). But there often aren't that many American-born applicants for those programs.
Foreign students do not typically receive ANY financial aid at US colleges and universities for undergraduate study. They're heavily recruited specifically *because* they pay the full sticker price and bring in a significant amount of money to US institutions. If anything, they're subsidizing some US students who do receive financial aid.
Exceptions are typically only made for very talented graduate/ post-graduate students (e.g., full-funded PhD programs in the sciences). But there often aren't that many American-born applicants for those programs.
This analysis is ridiculously simplistic, but the editor must be pleased: it produced a click-bait headline so it's a success! In my state, it was actually investment in the flagship state university over the past two decades that made it more attractive both to out-of-state students and to higher ranked in-state students. That in turn has made it more difficult for in-state students, even with strong high school achievement, who would have gained admission more easily a generation ago. And often that has made the out-of-state school a more attractive next-option for those students than it might have been before. That's also why the Sanders-Clinton "free public college for the middle class" plan, well-intended as it might be to solve the serious debt problem, will be a fraught exercise leading to similar repercussions that might make the public universities even more unattainable for in-state students who might have been accepted earlier.
4
Exactly. Free college for all would force public universities to compete, slash administrative expenses, rely solely on appropriated funds (as opposed to tuition), and not pay their presidents 7 figure salaries. No way the higher education community would be in favor of this.
1
This article is incomplete and misleading. Mr. Strayer makes an important point about the punitive costs of public education, which is the reason why many students attend public institutions outside of their own states. But some students, some affluent, choose to attend out of state public institutions for other reasons. The chart shows New York students leaving the SUNY system to attend state schools in Pennsylvania, where tuition is higher than in New York, even for state residents. The article undercuts its essential point about the scandal of rising education costs by failing to provide the full context.
6
I would say this is pretty basic analysis, mostly number crunching and some data points to fit a narrative.
The state of Minnesota has tuition reciprocity agreements with Wisconsin, North and South Dakota. Yes NDSU is cheaper even without the reciprocity agreement than the U of MN, but that reciprocity makes it far more attractive than the average non-resident.
MN reciprocity agreement page.
https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/mPg.cfm?pageID=97
The state of Minnesota has tuition reciprocity agreements with Wisconsin, North and South Dakota. Yes NDSU is cheaper even without the reciprocity agreement than the U of MN, but that reciprocity makes it far more attractive than the average non-resident.
MN reciprocity agreement page.
https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/mPg.cfm?pageID=97
3
Another "genocidal" policy of America like farming out good paying jobs to slave labor countries, making higher ed only available to the rich or students who want to go heavily into debt for the rest of their lives.
Sure way to put us nearer the bottom of the heap than the top of the heap re advanced industrial democracies....
Sure way to put us nearer the bottom of the heap than the top of the heap re advanced industrial democracies....
2
"Far away from home", that's the key phrase, as long as schools can accept students, in particular from China, who have the ability to pay much more and as long as the bundling of student loans for those who have to borrow continues, the problem will not change. There is also the issue of University Presidents routinely receiving seven and eight figure pay packages and of course no money for anything but fighting other people's wars. Ain't globalization great, are we having fun yet?
2
Because state institutions are not adequately funded, they choose to raise the percentage of students from out of state. It's all about money, and it's shameful!
1
Depends on your definition of "adequately funded" is. You might think the president of a public university has a harder job than President Obama and should therefore make more money than he does. I don't. 93 public universities have presidents who make more money that President Obama does.
The size and compensation of college administrators has grown at a much higher rate than that of faculty members over the past 10 years. If colleges want to complain about their lack of support from the revenue side, we should be able to complain about their expenses - as a percentage of their budget, how much is allocated to educating our kids versus administering to the self perpetuated bureaucracy?
The size and compensation of college administrators has grown at a much higher rate than that of faculty members over the past 10 years. If colleges want to complain about their lack of support from the revenue side, we should be able to complain about their expenses - as a percentage of their budget, how much is allocated to educating our kids versus administering to the self perpetuated bureaucracy?
1
What does this graphic-article show? Nothing (at best).
Take Texas for example. The premise as reported is that college funding cuts (and tuition increases) are leading students to leave Texas to go elsewhere. But how do these numbers compare to earlier decades? Not shown. How many of these students are leaving because of tuition versus how may are leaving just because they didn't get in to their preferred school (UT) and can't possibly imagine going to the their in-state 2nd-best option (A&M, which is still a better school than OU).
And so on ...
The idea that these big fat arrows show students going to states that are more attractive and that value education more is perverse. Maybe those are the states that are less competitive, full stop (looking at you, Mississippi). Without more information, this article is not only uninformative, it is very likely (mis)leading to exactly the wrong conclusions.
Take Texas for example. The premise as reported is that college funding cuts (and tuition increases) are leading students to leave Texas to go elsewhere. But how do these numbers compare to earlier decades? Not shown. How many of these students are leaving because of tuition versus how may are leaving just because they didn't get in to their preferred school (UT) and can't possibly imagine going to the their in-state 2nd-best option (A&M, which is still a better school than OU).
And so on ...
The idea that these big fat arrows show students going to states that are more attractive and that value education more is perverse. Maybe those are the states that are less competitive, full stop (looking at you, Mississippi). Without more information, this article is not only uninformative, it is very likely (mis)leading to exactly the wrong conclusions.
3
Considering that the education of the local workforce is a major concern to many businesses seeking to locate operations in a state, I find these cuts to be exceedingly self-defeating. Instead of creating short-sighted tax deals which further erode revenue, perhaps states should seek to invest in their education systems to make their states more desirable and sought after in the long run.
Another measure of the problems besetting flagship campuses of public universities is the outflow of senior faculty.
This trend line reflects not only diminished institutional resources but also the inability to recruit the most promising top-flight entry-level faculty to join academic departments.
Anecdotal evidence points to prominent faculty exiting from public institutions for leading private-sector universities.
This trend line reflects not only diminished institutional resources but also the inability to recruit the most promising top-flight entry-level faculty to join academic departments.
Anecdotal evidence points to prominent faculty exiting from public institutions for leading private-sector universities.
1
Having recently (2yrs ago) finished paying for 2nd son's college education, a total of over $300k for both of them, I find it hard to believe any university is hurting on any level!
5
OK, maybe we should adopt the "free college for all" theory and then degrees will be completely worthless, instead of mostly worthless, as they are now. Perhaps requiring high school graduates to demonstrate proficiency in reading and writing English and basic math would help restore some sanity to the situation. The only people benefitting from the current state of affairs are those employed by the education industry.
3
Larry free tuition for all doesn't mean everybody can get in. In fact it is the reverse. Because University is free the standards for entry are much higher as is the case in Europe. Europe provides a very strong high school education which is the equivalent of two years of college in America. Europeans know that not everybody is cut for higher education. Only the very best students make it to University. In America students get in because they are rich or extremely rich, not necessarily the best of the brightest.
Mr. Bruce Rauner the incompetent Republican rookie rich governor who is holding the state of Illinois hostage to his anti Union anti government agenda does have amazing accomplishments in his first term and this exodus of our students is just one of them. We can't wait to vote him out in 2018.
1
In order to prove that you would need to look back at the years when spending on higher education was increasing and see if there was less of an "exodus".
Other states which have net inflows (as opposed to the exodus in Illinois) of students are cutting higher ed expenses as well.
Other states which have net inflows (as opposed to the exodus in Illinois) of students are cutting higher ed expenses as well.
Years ago when going to Purdue, the number of students from NY was amazing. After I found out what they tuition and fees were, no wonder they came to Purdue.
When I started Purdue, tuition and fees were less than $100 per semester and out of state students paid not much more. The state legislature said they were tired of paying for people from NY to get their education and they raised out of student fees.
IMHO getting a good education is the greatest thing one can do for themselves/children. Now with the cost of education so sky high - what happened?
When I started Purdue, tuition and fees were less than $100 per semester and out of state students paid not much more. The state legislature said they were tired of paying for people from NY to get their education and they raised out of student fees.
IMHO getting a good education is the greatest thing one can do for themselves/children. Now with the cost of education so sky high - what happened?
1
Please research MN and reciprocity with surrounding states--especially WI!
1
Government subsidies for higher education are responsible for the massive cost increases over the past 30 years. The extra money provides an incentive for colleges to waste money on "diversity deans," fancy dorms, and other things not related to education.
2
My kids, raised in NJ, said they wanted to get away from NJ for 4 years- the rule was, a state school within 1 day's drive, no flying to colleges for me.
One chose Penn State, the other Virginia Tech, both of their first choices.
Since at least 50% of state schools' population are filled with that state, it is nice for some to move elsewhere and meet kids a little different than what they know.
One chose Penn State, the other Virginia Tech, both of their first choices.
Since at least 50% of state schools' population are filled with that state, it is nice for some to move elsewhere and meet kids a little different than what they know.
2
As a professor at an Illinois university, I can attest to the fact that Rauner's agenda is in fact destroying our universities. The inevitable consequences include serious economic damage to the state and extreme hardship for Illinois families with college age students. Conditions are unbelievable. I have not had heat or air conditioning in my office for months because there is not money to replace my office unit and it is not fixable. I've been told there are no more printer cartridges (I have brought in millions in grants, work with approximately 100 students, and do substantial amounts of service both internally and externally). Yesterday I worked 12 hours, which is not unusual. Earlier this week I called a colleague in another department because I wanted to hire a student with specific skills I need to produce a product to disseminate my research findings to the public -- the phone was answered by the department office because faculty members phones have been disconnected to save money. Faculty who are not place bound due to family ties are fleeing the state and it is nearly impossible to hire people. My department has 1/3 of the faculty we had 8 years ago. One of Rauner's early acts was to cut taxes. The state has been without a budget since July 2015. Public education should not be a business, but anyone who thinks they are running a business and is using these practice is either intent on destroying the "business" or a fool.
38
I grew up in a college town in Illinois. The problem is not with the Governor Rauner who is an emotionally convenient target. The true problem is a pension crisis built up years before Rauner took office. The legislative bodies refuse to really deal with the pension crisis and that is why there is a budget gridlock. The voters of Illinois should threaten to vote their representatives out of office if they do not fix the pension system and then vote in the a new budget.
In addition, as I have pointed out in a separate comment, the ACA creates additional Medicaid funding liabilities on the state budget which then takes away from higher education. The correct solution is to do what other developed nations do which is to have higher tobacco taxes to help pay for healthcare. The UK, France, Canada, Ireland, .... all have tobacco taxes greater than $5 to $7 per pack. Our Federal tax is about $1.
While Chicago and Cook County have higher tobacco taxes, the Illinois tax is only about $2 compared with $4.35 in New York which itself was last increased 6 years ago. Raise the tobacco tax by $2 in Illinois, and use that to help pay for Illinois's increased Medicaid costs and use the savings for higher education. That is a reasonable plan.
In addition, as I have pointed out in a separate comment, the ACA creates additional Medicaid funding liabilities on the state budget which then takes away from higher education. The correct solution is to do what other developed nations do which is to have higher tobacco taxes to help pay for healthcare. The UK, France, Canada, Ireland, .... all have tobacco taxes greater than $5 to $7 per pack. Our Federal tax is about $1.
While Chicago and Cook County have higher tobacco taxes, the Illinois tax is only about $2 compared with $4.35 in New York which itself was last increased 6 years ago. Raise the tobacco tax by $2 in Illinois, and use that to help pay for Illinois's increased Medicaid costs and use the savings for higher education. That is a reasonable plan.
1
I do not disagree with your suggestion of increasing tobacco taxes to fund higher education, especially because raising the price of tobacco products generally has the added benefit of reducing the number of youth who smoke or the amount they do smoke. However, Gov Rauner, who you say is no more than a convenient emotional target, will not approve any new taxes and, in fact, has exacerbated the IL funding problems considerably by reducing taxes. So your solution is a non starter. Interestingly, IL residents who are paying out of state tuition would be better off paying more taxes to support IL higher education, it would be way less expensive. I would like to add that although Rauner did not cause the problem (politicians from both parties did) he has made it worse and his refusal to compromise in any way is antithetical to our form of government.
1
Illinois and Chicago have been going bankrupt for years, if not decades -- nothing new here.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-illinois-pensio...
As soon as y'all face your problems as adults -- the better y'all will be. Good luck.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-illinois-pensio...
As soon as y'all face your problems as adults -- the better y'all will be. Good luck.
The State University System of New York State, SUNY, has an enrollment of over 450 000 students - and this is not counting adult education, an other million. 10 000 students enrolling mostly into neighboring States, is a small fraction. I have not analyzed the data other States but for NY at least the headline of "Cuts to Public Schools have driven students out of State" is clearly a wild exaggeration.
3
The movement of students from Minnesota to Wisconsin belies the fact that many top Wisconsin faculty and administrators are leaving the UW system for other public universities. This is due to Gov. Scott Walker's actions that have reduced faculty pay and benefits, virtually eliminated tenure, increased the bureaucratic "oversight" of faculty research, prohibited some areas of research (e.g., stem cell research) on religious grounds, and generally demonized anyone who promotes rigorous scientific and academic research as a way to improve the lives of Wisconsinites.
Yes, more Minnesota freshman are coming to Wisconsin because of the perceived value, but if the product is inferior, is it really a bargain?
Yes, more Minnesota freshman are coming to Wisconsin because of the perceived value, but if the product is inferior, is it really a bargain?
16
Don't you remember when they said it was good to bring in students from out of state? Made the school better? It would never be a problem?
Sure didn't take long for that smoke to clear. You should take a look at professional schools. How about students from out of the country? It is all about maintaining out of control spending on administration, buildings, sports, advertisements, etc. on the backs of students.
The corporatization of higher education has yielded this and it is obscene,
Sure didn't take long for that smoke to clear. You should take a look at professional schools. How about students from out of the country? It is all about maintaining out of control spending on administration, buildings, sports, advertisements, etc. on the backs of students.
The corporatization of higher education has yielded this and it is obscene,
3
One thing is sure; hewer, people are not leaving Public or Private universities for For-Profit Schools. They have tuition costs literally approaching those of top private schools, in many cases, credits are not transferrable to other school, other than other For-Profits. Ans, the failure rate of these schools is quite high.
"In Texas, only the top 10 percent of each high school’s graduating class is promised admission to a public university."
The above statement is utterly false and a correction should be issued. Although the two public university flagship campuses in Texas--The University of Texas - Austin and Texas A&M University at College Station--guarantee admission to only the top 8% and 10% of high school graduates respectively, a large number of other Texas state universities guarantee admission to students with lower high school academic ranking. Here is one of many examples:
http://www.springisd.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&DomainID=4&...
The above statement is utterly false and a correction should be issued. Although the two public university flagship campuses in Texas--The University of Texas - Austin and Texas A&M University at College Station--guarantee admission to only the top 8% and 10% of high school graduates respectively, a large number of other Texas state universities guarantee admission to students with lower high school academic ranking. Here is one of many examples:
http://www.springisd.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&DomainID=4&...
8
If your high school grad isn't sure they want to go to college right away it may be a good idea for them to take a break, work and figure out what direction is best for them.
Compared to the northeast the west has much lower cost of living. A kid is much more likely to make their own rent with the available lower paying jobs.
And if they like the area and stay, they may achieve state residency and have much lower tuition when they're ready to attend.
Student loans are a very bad idea for the average 18 year old.
It's ok to delay college for a while but still nudge them out of the nest for the adventure and work experience.
Compared to the northeast the west has much lower cost of living. A kid is much more likely to make their own rent with the available lower paying jobs.
And if they like the area and stay, they may achieve state residency and have much lower tuition when they're ready to attend.
Student loans are a very bad idea for the average 18 year old.
It's ok to delay college for a while but still nudge them out of the nest for the adventure and work experience.
5
But you have to factor in the cost of airfare back and forth.
The state level exodus reflects how American college students are scrambling for shelter as the global plutocracy has pivoted from strangling K-12 public schools to defunding public colleges and universities.
True enough that university administrators have bought into the false promise that they can replace tax dollars with out of state tuition (by importing students from out of state and overseas). But there's a larger power grab here.
In Illinois, Gov Rauner continues to hold the state budget and state vendors hostage until he gets union-busting concessions to make the state 'more competitive.' Really? Is the fate of America's glorious middle class to compete with exploited workers in China and India? Apparently that's Rauner's vision.
While students who grew up in Illinois flee local uncertainty for opportunities elsewhere, the state's universities intensify their efforts to recruit enrollment from China and India. Many of these graduates will return to their home countries to compete with higher earning American professionals.
While I support cultural diversity and engagement, I am disgusted that the plutocrats have rigged this game to kill the American dream that was built on educational opportunities.
True enough that university administrators have bought into the false promise that they can replace tax dollars with out of state tuition (by importing students from out of state and overseas). But there's a larger power grab here.
In Illinois, Gov Rauner continues to hold the state budget and state vendors hostage until he gets union-busting concessions to make the state 'more competitive.' Really? Is the fate of America's glorious middle class to compete with exploited workers in China and India? Apparently that's Rauner's vision.
While students who grew up in Illinois flee local uncertainty for opportunities elsewhere, the state's universities intensify their efforts to recruit enrollment from China and India. Many of these graduates will return to their home countries to compete with higher earning American professionals.
While I support cultural diversity and engagement, I am disgusted that the plutocrats have rigged this game to kill the American dream that was built on educational opportunities.
14
I went to SUNY Binghamton a state university in New York. The tuition was about $1600 per year when I graduation in 1990. That is about $3000 in 2016 dollars. The tuition is now over $9000 per year. Why? Because the State of NY stopped subsidizing the tuition shortly after I graduated. I am grateful that the citizens of NY subsidized my education and I show that gratitude by earning more money than I would have without an education and paying more taxes. It was a virtuous circle. I'm sorry the lawmakers no longer see it that way.
45
This article is incomplete. Total numbers of students leaving or staying by state are interesting data, but what can I do with this? It is not the whole story. There should also be state-by-state charts showing the annual student deficit or surplus over time, correlated to tuition hikes (and similar charts correlated to reduced public funding and aid packages). Also, exclude the students who move to states with reciprocal tuition agreements. That would complete the story.
10
This is a two way street. Decline in (the percentage of) state support, yes. But also, explosive university budget growth, done for the people who work there. Their goal state is this: copious out-of-state student body. Higher tuition revenue. Higher pay for university staff. Large foreign student population, perhaps majority. Local students denied entrance. That's what you get when you do not regulate the behavior of the institution. Even with public money - the greed instinct is the same.
Blaming state support is a bit specious when there was never a guarantee of unlimited, fully funded budget growth. Nor would such a guarantee be reasonable.
Blaming state support is a bit specious when there was never a guarantee of unlimited, fully funded budget growth. Nor would such a guarantee be reasonable.
8
You seem to ignore the fact that not all state systems are equally good, and students often have other reasons for wanting to go to school out of state. Climate, a good specialty program, near other family members. winning teams. all play into the decisions. And sometimes, not just for athletics, out of state schools will do things to make it attractive to talented kids to increase their geographic reach. A number of the schools which attract out-of-state students have had significant budget cuts of their own.
4
Huge funding cuts in public education. Another terrible, short-sighted, Republic-led policy. Republicans say get government out of our lives, let the free market solve problems. How are we going to lead the world, innovate, if our children aren't educated?
10
What this article fails to mention is that federal funding has increased over the same period. And that overall government spending (state + local + federal) has increased as well.
Yes! Bad Republicans. Of course the states with the greatest outflow are Democratic controlled and the states with the largest inflow are Republican.
2
Texas? Democratic? Really?
Would be interesting to see these data as a fraction of the total number of public university students in each state.
17
Perhaps if State Schools did not charge illegal aliens as state residents but as international students with a much steeper tuition charge some of the tuition increases could be rolled back. Plus cuts to the generous pay, benefits and pensions of tenured professors along with streamlining administrative offices would help as well.
4
I don't believe there's a good deal of illegal aliens taking up college slots. The majority are working in construction, landscaping and food service. If their children were born in the US they are citizens and subject to the same rights as other student of that state.
1
Most of these states have few, if any, illegal aliens within their public university system. In a state such as Texas with a large illegal population and that does allow a one-year old smuggled into the states by their parents to utilize the public college education system 17 years later their parents paid taxes toward, few generally achieve the top 8% of their class and can afford to pay UT@Austin tuition and cost-of-living expenses in a distant city.
Those that can, more power to them for they will make a better citizen than many.
As for your supposedly "generous" pay, benefits, and pensions for public college faculty, never worked in one, huh?
https://data.chronicle.com/category/state/Kentucky/faculty-salaries/
https://data.chronicle.com/category/state/New-York/faculty-salaries/
https://data.chronicle.com/category/state/Texas/faculty-salaries/https:/...
Those that can, more power to them for they will make a better citizen than many.
As for your supposedly "generous" pay, benefits, and pensions for public college faculty, never worked in one, huh?
https://data.chronicle.com/category/state/Kentucky/faculty-salaries/
https://data.chronicle.com/category/state/New-York/faculty-salaries/
https://data.chronicle.com/category/state/Texas/faculty-salaries/https:/...
1
Yeah only hedge fund operators should get generous pay and benefits.
1
Recognizing that this article was about intra-state movement of students, it nevertheless ignores a much more significant trend: the influx of students from abroad, especially India, China and Japan, who typically and enthusiastically pay the high out-of-state tuition/fees, and then (mostly) return to their home country after graduation.
College administrators can't get enough of these international students, and actively recruit them. To the extent that they take away slots for in-state residents, our public higher education system is quickly becoming a growing source of professional education and training -- especially in the sciences -- for students from overseas.
College administrators can't get enough of these international students, and actively recruit them. To the extent that they take away slots for in-state residents, our public higher education system is quickly becoming a growing source of professional education and training -- especially in the sciences -- for students from overseas.
58
Yes this article seems to have missed the bigger picture. Over seas students are grabbing a lot of spots (300,000 from China alone) by paying out of state tuition to these hungry schools. State schools have therefore become servants to international students, at the detriment of their own.
1
Yes, because the US prefers uneducated illegal immigrants or illiterate Americans to smart education-oriented or education-focused legal immigrants. Legal immigrants should be given green card the day they graduate with their PhDs or double Masters. In stead, we insult them, humiliate them, confuse them and hurt them with an immigration policy that keeps calling them alien-this and alien-that, and makes green card impossible and/or citizenship unattractive. They come to our universities and research programs after they have made huge personal sacrifices to get here, study here and do better than most academically or research-wise. Now you are wondering why they are leaving? Why were you not fair or nice or helpful to them when they were here? You did not like them when they came, and now you are complaining they are leaving after completing their education and getting a degree? Bit of a contradictory argument there.
If this "son-of-the-soil or true-native" argument is used to push aside or push down out-of-State or out-of-the-Country people then Native Americans of USA should be "doing very well" in local universities. In stead they are moving out of State to attend Haskell universities. If every State resident thinks he popped out of a rock in his State, then we got some serious problem with their history knowledge and/or cognitive function.
This discussion should be about college affordability nationally and globally, but has dwindled to "who is the true State native".
If this "son-of-the-soil or true-native" argument is used to push aside or push down out-of-State or out-of-the-Country people then Native Americans of USA should be "doing very well" in local universities. In stead they are moving out of State to attend Haskell universities. If every State resident thinks he popped out of a rock in his State, then we got some serious problem with their history knowledge and/or cognitive function.
This discussion should be about college affordability nationally and globally, but has dwindled to "who is the true State native".
When I attended school in Calif. in the '70's, tuition was nearly free for everyone, regardless of income. The program was not considered controversial except to the radical right tax cut purveyors.
During the primary campaign, Bernie's suggestion of free public higher education tuition was met with chants of "happy dreams" by supposed liberals. True, Hillary was forced to come up with her own plan that is based upon income, but it is far from what we used to have in California and many other states. And don't look for her to push it too hard, succumbing to "the Republicans won't let us do it," meme. As for free trade agreements--expect enough Democratic support to get it through.
My point--we have allowed our government to cut programs and replace them with debt-driven alternatives. Free tuition is not a novel idea, but one that was stolen by the neo-ilberals whose only belief is the only things worth doing are those at which profits can be made.
With the moneyed class in charge no matter who is elected, don't expect anything to change for the better as student debt continues exploding.
During the primary campaign, Bernie's suggestion of free public higher education tuition was met with chants of "happy dreams" by supposed liberals. True, Hillary was forced to come up with her own plan that is based upon income, but it is far from what we used to have in California and many other states. And don't look for her to push it too hard, succumbing to "the Republicans won't let us do it," meme. As for free trade agreements--expect enough Democratic support to get it through.
My point--we have allowed our government to cut programs and replace them with debt-driven alternatives. Free tuition is not a novel idea, but one that was stolen by the neo-ilberals whose only belief is the only things worth doing are those at which profits can be made.
With the moneyed class in charge no matter who is elected, don't expect anything to change for the better as student debt continues exploding.
19
"Nearly free".... I want to school in the '70s and my education was also "nearly free"...I paid 50% which was thus an out of pocket cost to me of $2100 per year. Free will mean that there is no skin in the game...ask Norway, who is looking to stop their fee college as students are taking an average of 6.2yrs to complete their education...a bonus to them is that they also receive an equivalent of $2500 per yr to live on.
I too graduated from Brooklyn College paying only a student activity fee. Tuition was imposed the year I graduated. But of course we can't do this now. USA can never do what other nations are able to do, despite the fact that this is the richest nation the world has ever known.
To a certain degree, this is a good thing, a very good thing. It greatly increases the diversity at public colleges giving students a chance to interact with other students who have had different experiences. Students who move away from home for college will also be more willing to move to where the good jobs are when the graduate. Some of our present employment problem is the lack of mobility on the part of workers.
On the other hand, there are hints of problems as well. California, for example, has one of the best higher education systems in the country - its a shame students have to go out of state where they may not receive as good an education. Similarly, state universities in Arkansas and Alabama are not as well regarded as the UT system, so again students may be losing by going out of state.
Regardless, this is the 21st century, The time when a high school education was sufficient for success has long since passed. State need to provide additional years of free public education, whether it be at a trade school, community college, or a research university.
On the other hand, there are hints of problems as well. California, for example, has one of the best higher education systems in the country - its a shame students have to go out of state where they may not receive as good an education. Similarly, state universities in Arkansas and Alabama are not as well regarded as the UT system, so again students may be losing by going out of state.
Regardless, this is the 21st century, The time when a high school education was sufficient for success has long since passed. State need to provide additional years of free public education, whether it be at a trade school, community college, or a research university.
9
"California, for example, has one of the best higher education systems in the country..."
USED to have. The huge cuts have hurt.
USED to have. The huge cuts have hurt.
1
Students who live in states with top public universities are being seriously deprived of educational opportunities that made living in their states attractive in the first place - and that encouraged their families to stay and expect to educate their kids there- ie California. More inequities from the higher education industrial complex.
~Don't Sweat the Essay
~Don't Sweat the Essay
1
It is amazing how many "red" states are the ones with the largest number of students leaving the state. Another example of liberals crying about inequity that they create!
1
Minnesota has reciprocity with North and South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Manitoba, so the movement of students among those states doesn't force out-of-state tuition. That may have been something to look at before you put this chart together. But it does look like it facilitates movement of students between those states, which allows students more options for higher education choice.
4
May I submit that funding cuts are part of the problem the "other" part is "Administrative Bloat" that seems to be infecting educational institutions across the country, assigning ever larger shares of funding that never sees the classroom. Students think they'll see a professor in college and rarely see anyone other than a TA grad student... Professors are relegated to publishing... while University Presidents are become millionaires at students expense... the rubber isn't meeting the road.
1
This data does not tell us whether cuts to funding have driven students out of state or not. The only way to make that judgement is to compare current data to data from periods prior to the funding cuts. I live in Illinois, and there have always been large numbers of students, particularly from the Chicago suburbs, attending the University of Michigan, University of Iowa, Indiana University, Purdue University and the University of Wisconsin. This is not a new phenomena at all...and we don't know whether the funding cuts have caused it to grow or not without comparisons to those pre-cut periods.
1
NJ public colleges: run away, run far, run fast.
Pretty, but of course a nice 50 x 50 table would quickly show us all the data.
2
Amazing how these states/colleges have the finances tooffer in-state tuition to illegal aliens - BUT - are unwilling to do so for their own tax-paying citizens.
How much longer do you think this nonsense catering to illegals will continue before there is an uprising, regardless of whether Trump is elected or not?
How much longer do you think this nonsense catering to illegals will continue before there is an uprising, regardless of whether Trump is elected or not?
4
Students leave for their home states for lots of reasons, especially when the costs are essentially the same. The better question. . . how many students are leaving their home state to attend a nonreciprocal (or out-of-state tuition) school? Why is reciprocity not even mentioned? In WI, reciprocity is readily available (MN/Wi, Midwest Student Exchange Program, etc.). TX and other southern states have SREB.
Our soon-to-be freshman is the child of two WI university employees. We encouraged him to leave the state and attend a public university with reciprocity. Budget cuts have decimated our state's higher education system (though no mention of it in the article).
Our soon-to-be freshman is the child of two WI university employees. We encouraged him to leave the state and attend a public university with reciprocity. Budget cuts have decimated our state's higher education system (though no mention of it in the article).
11
States appropriated $81 billion for public higher education operations in 2014-15, 3% less (in 2014 dollars) than in 2000-01.
Public FTE enrollments rose 30% over these 14 years.
So what we have in more and more kids going to university and the folks that don't go - your mechanics, your school janitors, your bus drivers are not having their taxes raised to support them.
That sounds pretty fair to me. You want to go study romance poetry at a state school - don't ask the guy cutting the lawn to pay for a significant part of your tuition.
Public FTE enrollments rose 30% over these 14 years.
So what we have in more and more kids going to university and the folks that don't go - your mechanics, your school janitors, your bus drivers are not having their taxes raised to support them.
That sounds pretty fair to me. You want to go study romance poetry at a state school - don't ask the guy cutting the lawn to pay for a significant part of your tuition.
1
These data for Texas are do not support the argument. I graduated from Texas Tech in 1970 and back then many kids from Texas went to OU, OSU, and LSU, some to U. of Arkansas. The numbers in the article amount to little more than the population of one major-university freshman class leaving Texas.
The comment about kids who are smart but not Ten Percenters makes no sense. Only UT-Austin is packed full of Ten Percenters and is now using a Seven Percent rule. Any kid in the top 25% of his class and with good SAT/GRE socres can get into a top Texas state university. There are sevaral Tier One universities not ovewhelmed by Ten Percenters: U. of Houston, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, UT-Arlingotn, UT-Dallas, UT-San Antonio.
Texas has many more Tier Two universities that are just as good as Tier One but have lower research funding and produce fewer Ph.D.'s.
None of these facts lead to a conclusion that Texas kids are leaving Texas just because of higer tuition or full freshman classes.
The comment about kids who are smart but not Ten Percenters makes no sense. Only UT-Austin is packed full of Ten Percenters and is now using a Seven Percent rule. Any kid in the top 25% of his class and with good SAT/GRE socres can get into a top Texas state university. There are sevaral Tier One universities not ovewhelmed by Ten Percenters: U. of Houston, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, UT-Arlingotn, UT-Dallas, UT-San Antonio.
Texas has many more Tier Two universities that are just as good as Tier One but have lower research funding and produce fewer Ph.D.'s.
None of these facts lead to a conclusion that Texas kids are leaving Texas just because of higer tuition or full freshman classes.
7
You're ignoring other factors.
The best college advice our Illinois family was given was to look north for college...not just out of state but all the way to Canada. Our son is getting a challenging, world class education among internationally diverse classmates at University of British Columbia (UBC) in the beautiful city of Vancouver for less than the $30,000 we would have paid at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (that's in-state tuition, btw). And the currently favorable USD-CAD exchange rate makes it even better financially. I normally avoid giving people advice about their kids but watching the life changing experiences my son is having at UBC makes me feel like a zealot whenever the topic of colleges comes up among colleagues or friends -- Go to Canada! Go to Canada! Your kids, their minds and your bank account will thank you!
12
I agree. Our daughter attended McGill University in Montreal and had a wonderful experience.
I am a University of Illinois graduate from back in the 1960's I think your approach is really admirable. The UBC is a good school and frankly an undergraduate degree from there will be good if your son wishes to go to grad school at Illinois or anywhere else. The excellent exchange rate will allow you so save money for grad school as well.
The maps are interesting to look at, but they don't really provide much evidence to support the writer's main contention...that decreased funding of higher ed is driving students out of state. The maps are a snapshot for one point in time, and while it may be true that decreased funding is a reason why some students are leaving some states for out of state public colleges, there's no link provided here. I can infer some things from what I know about funding declines, but that information is nowhere to be found in the article. Too bad, because this is an important issue that isn't illuminated by facile reports like this one.
8
While many comments appear anecdotal, the data is available. Two thirds of Americans would have a difficult time coming up with $1000 in an emergency.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/965e48ed609245539ed315f83e01b6a2
The cost of an AVERAGE in-state tuition is $9,135.00 (and living expenses, books, fees and travel are on top of that).
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/pay-for-college/college-costs/college...
It isn't hard to do the math. Student loans are ubiquitous (allowing students that cannot truly afford to go out-of-state to GO out-of-state anyway) and now showing their hand as the personal finance and future-economy hobbling force they are. Many students graduate with the equivalent of a mortgage payment. If you already have a mortgage payment, how can you afford to buy a house in the future?
State Universities are funded by state taxpayers and should serve the citizens of that state first and foremost. Like almost all large institutions of late, they have become self-serving instead of the public-serving institutions they were originally chartered to be.
Instead of planting trees under whose shade they will never sit, the Governors and college presidents are chopping down the trees they have now in favor of lower taxes for older voters who will re-elect them.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/965e48ed609245539ed315f83e01b6a2
The cost of an AVERAGE in-state tuition is $9,135.00 (and living expenses, books, fees and travel are on top of that).
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/pay-for-college/college-costs/college...
It isn't hard to do the math. Student loans are ubiquitous (allowing students that cannot truly afford to go out-of-state to GO out-of-state anyway) and now showing their hand as the personal finance and future-economy hobbling force they are. Many students graduate with the equivalent of a mortgage payment. If you already have a mortgage payment, how can you afford to buy a house in the future?
State Universities are funded by state taxpayers and should serve the citizens of that state first and foremost. Like almost all large institutions of late, they have become self-serving instead of the public-serving institutions they were originally chartered to be.
Instead of planting trees under whose shade they will never sit, the Governors and college presidents are chopping down the trees they have now in favor of lower taxes for older voters who will re-elect them.
7
Nice graphics, state by state. It is easy to see which states value public education. It may also reflect which states are attractive to young people - and which are dying (not all decisions are based on cost).
3
(Not Mark) They are nice graphics, but they are really meaningless. They don't say much about the schools in the states, such as NJ. How many top-rated universities does it have? How many colleges at all? How many private colleges? Does the school population in NJ have an equal chance at a spot at a state school, or is the population too large? Just smoke and mirrors.
Which states are dying? The states with a net outflow of students (like NY, MA, MN, CA, and IL)? Or those with a net inflow of students (like MS, LA, KY, SC, and WV)?
The University of Illinois has had decreased funding. As a result it has been incredibly hard to gain acceptance to the flagship state university. As a result students are applying to schools like the University of Iowa and Indiana University. These are good schools but lack the stature of the engineering and business schools of the University of Illinois.
1
This is just another example of how the US and the states cannot seem to see the big picture, will not invest for the greater good, has no vision for the long term. Cut taxes, everybody must pay, fire government workers, defer infrastructure expenses until something breaks, etc.
What am I missing? State schools are increasing in-state tuition and charging out-of-state students dramatically higher tuition, so students are leaving home states to avoid higher tuition so that they can go to a school in another state that charges a dramatically higher tuition?
4
This article begins with the author's conclusion that declines in state funding for public universities has led students to leave their states to seek college education elsewhere.
I cannot write knowledgeably about other states but I know that Minnesota high school graduates have been using reciprocity agreements with neighboring states and Canada to attend schools "away from home" for decades.
https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/mPg.cfm?pageID=97
The 2016 entering class at the University of Minnesota is extremely strong with http://admissions.tc.umn.edu/academics/profile.html
It would seem to me that many Minnesota students are choosing to get their undergraduate education in the Public University System rather than take on large student debt to attend private schools elsewhere.
The number of National Merit Scholars who have chosen to attend the University of Minnesota is very high compared to other nearby state universities and has prompted Wisconsin to increase its recruitment of these students.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/12/18/university-wisconsin-ups-...
The choices of high school students to attend colleges and universities are made for many different reasons and this article's opening conclusion is not supported by any information in the following paragraphs.
I cannot write knowledgeably about other states but I know that Minnesota high school graduates have been using reciprocity agreements with neighboring states and Canada to attend schools "away from home" for decades.
https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/mPg.cfm?pageID=97
The 2016 entering class at the University of Minnesota is extremely strong with http://admissions.tc.umn.edu/academics/profile.html
It would seem to me that many Minnesota students are choosing to get their undergraduate education in the Public University System rather than take on large student debt to attend private schools elsewhere.
The number of National Merit Scholars who have chosen to attend the University of Minnesota is very high compared to other nearby state universities and has prompted Wisconsin to increase its recruitment of these students.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/12/18/university-wisconsin-ups-...
The choices of high school students to attend colleges and universities are made for many different reasons and this article's opening conclusion is not supported by any information in the following paragraphs.
5
There's a disconnect between the data presented and the title given to this article. Have numbers risen directly due to cuts? If so, what were the numbers before such cuts started in earnest? How can you account for students moving out-of-state for other reasons, such as regional agreements (the PNW has such a program that offers reduced tuition)? Why are students willing to pay so much more for out-of-state tuition? Are these rich kids who have the option? Poor kids who take out loans?
1
I see nothing wrong with this diaspora; young people need to get out and see the world. It contributes to their education. Cheers!
5
Mr. Strayer: thank you for your timely article on the dismal state of public higher education. Several of the states are loosing large numbers of college students. It doesn't takes much common sense to realize that a state must offer attractive public education possibilities in order to keep their current college age residents and hopefully attract new ones. I tend to believe that if a state wishes for future growth they need to find some optimum ratio of attracting 2 or 3 new students for every student they loose. I'm a conservative Republican and for the life of me I can't understand what's happening to the GOP. During the 50's, 60's and 70's taxes were much higher. Supporting conservative government doesn't mean cutting taxes and destroying the essence of what made America great. It means that tax revenue have to be accounted for and be no higher than necessary to accomplish the public mandate. In my way of thinking, tax revenues must be spent prudently and thoughtfully, provide lean government and offer whatever regulations are necessary to keep the public healthy and our environment pristine. We can't maintain the country's infrastructure without sufficient tax revenue. We need to offer competitive salaries so we can keep our best teachers and attract new ones. We need to realize that the States, not the Feds, seem to be creating the regulations and the hurdles for startup businesses The ineptitude of State Government is monumental. Just look at Flint. Need I say more?
EB is correct. The Minnesota-Wisconsin reciprocity agreement means that Minnesota students who attend in Wisconsin pay the Minnesota resident tuition, but they pay it to Wisconsin, and vice versa. The reciprocity agreement was intentional and was based on the fact that there were several existing Wisconsin state colleges on the border with Minnesota with available capacity at a time when Minnesota was considering adding new colleges just across the border. Those number represent cooperation to use existing resources, rather than economic competition.
The situation with North Dakota is, however, as your reporter describes, but the number of students is much smaller.
The situation with North Dakota is, however, as your reporter describes, but the number of students is much smaller.
7
The ease at obtaining college loans has indirectly..or perhaps directly caused increases in tuition. If affordability equated to the number of students enrolled, then colleges and universities would be more prudent with tuition increases.
With one trillion in outstanding loans by students, the resultant is a debt ridden graduate who struggles for years to repay the student loan. One trillion dollars is a very large burden on the college age students.
Universities and colleges need to control their cost, teacher-instructor salaries and benefits.
With one trillion in outstanding loans by students, the resultant is a debt ridden graduate who struggles for years to repay the student loan. One trillion dollars is a very large burden on the college age students.
Universities and colleges need to control their cost, teacher-instructor salaries and benefits.
2
Easy to blame the teacher salaries, but completely wrong. It's bloated administration, requirements and amenities, but those won't change.
1
Costs ARE being controlled... Professors publish... TAs (grad students at minimal pay or benefits) teach your children, while University President collect million dollar salaries and.... in 41 states the HIGHEST paid state employee is a Coach... show me another western country where this is so???
In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the University of Texas could not use race or ethnicity as a factor in deciding which applicants to admit. The Texas legislature reacted by passing House Bill 588, which promised Texas students who finish in the top 10 percent of their high school graduating class admission to state-funded universities. This had the effect of increasing minority enrollment. Non-Hispanic white students—or Anglos as they are called in Texas—make up only 31 percent of Texas K-12 students, and the Anglo population is unevenly distributed across the state, leaving many school districts almost 100% minority. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned the Fifth Circuit decision, and the University of Texas resumed affirmative action admissions in addition to top 10 percent admissions. (About 69 percent of Texas students are eligible for racial or ethnic preferences.) The admissions policy squeezes out honor students at elite suburban high schools who finish outside the top 10 despite almost perfect GPA and SAT/ACT scores. So, students who normally would have gone to the University of Texas at Austin go out of state.
9
But "How Affirmative Action Is Pushing Students Out of State" would be a very bad headline.
UT requires top 7%
This is true at my local high school - Southlake Carroll - where the University of Oklahoma is consistently the number one college destination with Alabama and Arkansas close behind. There's rumored cases of kids getting in Stanford but not UT. I wonder about the long-term impact to higher ed in Texas of these wealthy kids heading out of state and taking their money with them. Most of these kids do return to Texas but will they support Texas state universities or will the cycle perpetuate?
New York State students are also faced with the problem of having an overwhelming number of "international" and out-of-state students, replacing NY State resident students, in the SUNY University system.
According to SUNY statistics, the number has exceeded 40, 000 as of 2014.
Foreign and out of state students pay higher tuition, therefore SUNY is now making millions on this project.
"The mission of the state university system shall be to provide to the people of New York educational services of the highest quality"
Incredibly, the SUNY website even boasts of the fact that it operates an Office of Global Affairs, which has "Offices abroad (Mexico, Russia and Turkey)"
The present system is unacceptable, many students are prevented from attending SUNY Universities and are being forced to attend more expensive private colleges, and out of state colleges, because of the "international" and out of state students taking their seats in their state schools!
In this current New York State political environment, one has to wonder where the interests of the Governor and our state representatives truly lie!
Unwilling to tax wealthy New Yorkers, paying millions to charter schools and shortchanging the whole NY State education system, the State government is encouraging SUNY System to seek additional funding from foreigners.
According to SUNY statistics, the number has exceeded 40, 000 as of 2014.
Foreign and out of state students pay higher tuition, therefore SUNY is now making millions on this project.
"The mission of the state university system shall be to provide to the people of New York educational services of the highest quality"
Incredibly, the SUNY website even boasts of the fact that it operates an Office of Global Affairs, which has "Offices abroad (Mexico, Russia and Turkey)"
The present system is unacceptable, many students are prevented from attending SUNY Universities and are being forced to attend more expensive private colleges, and out of state colleges, because of the "international" and out of state students taking their seats in their state schools!
In this current New York State political environment, one has to wonder where the interests of the Governor and our state representatives truly lie!
Unwilling to tax wealthy New Yorkers, paying millions to charter schools and shortchanging the whole NY State education system, the State government is encouraging SUNY System to seek additional funding from foreigners.
1
Not one SINGLE foreign or international student should be admitted to any PUBLIC college or university, until EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY in-state student has had an opportunity to enroll. ONLY those spaces unused should be left to foreigners!
Without a doubt, this is one of the worst articles published by the NYT in a long, long time. The author claims that students are being pushed to other states by support cuts, but he offers not a shred of evidence to support his claim. Not even polling of students.
There can be lots of reasons to go out of state: the existence of a high quality program in a field one wants to study, good weather, better job prospects after college, or even to get away from mom and dad.
Look at California. Are we to believe that with 4% of its college students leaving state that there is a problem? And he totally mischaracterized the Texas program. It guarantees the top 10% of graduates in each school district admission to its two flagship universities. The program was implemented to improve diversity on those campuses. Other states have implemented similar programs to improve access for the disadvantaged.
If the NYT wants to make claims, it needs facts to support them. This article provided none.
There can be lots of reasons to go out of state: the existence of a high quality program in a field one wants to study, good weather, better job prospects after college, or even to get away from mom and dad.
Look at California. Are we to believe that with 4% of its college students leaving state that there is a problem? And he totally mischaracterized the Texas program. It guarantees the top 10% of graduates in each school district admission to its two flagship universities. The program was implemented to improve diversity on those campuses. Other states have implemented similar programs to improve access for the disadvantaged.
If the NYT wants to make claims, it needs facts to support them. This article provided none.
21
Some more insight into the cali system: community colleges have transfer agreements with local UCs. Meaning that if you get a 2.5-3.5 GPA, you are guaranteed a spot at a UC. Tuition and fees at our CCs are sub 5k/yr typically.
Once at a UC, any student whose family makes less than 80k is given free tuition no questions asked. It's called the blue and gold plan.
Price and spots aren't quite as disqualifying as those big outward stretching arrows would have you believe. Really, you would otherwise guess that cali's poorest students would prefer to stay in a system that would cover their tuition completely and otherwise be local so that they can continue to receive familial support such as housing or food. Fleeing cali for most poor students would be fleeing to more dire financial straits.
Once at a UC, any student whose family makes less than 80k is given free tuition no questions asked. It's called the blue and gold plan.
Price and spots aren't quite as disqualifying as those big outward stretching arrows would have you believe. Really, you would otherwise guess that cali's poorest students would prefer to stay in a system that would cover their tuition completely and otherwise be local so that they can continue to receive familial support such as housing or food. Fleeing cali for most poor students would be fleeing to more dire financial straits.
It seems that university boards, composed largely of corporation executives, favor administration and sports over academics or even research. State legislatures and governors wishing to curry favor with tax-adverse fiscal conservatives appoint these board members to reallocate funding from academics to administrators (the corporation model of grossly disproportionately high executive pay v. miserably low labor costs). How to fix this? Maybe it's time to change the corporate culture from "trickle down" (clearly another name for greed) to one in which building better rather than cheaper with higher profits.
It truly is a short-time mindset to pay the executives and short-change the mission. It may be necessary, given the culture of greed, for government regulation of corporation distribution of revenues. Reinhold Niebuhr long ago, in Moral Man and Immoral Society, signaled that the role of government is to control individual greed ("ego") but even more so corporate greed that goes
unchecked except through regulations from above.
Our universities should not fail in providing quality education at affordable costs for students, as our national investment in learning. Administrators' salaries should not soak up funds that should be distributed to those most directly engaged in the educational mission. Legislatures need to see education as pivotal for social and financial progress.
It truly is a short-time mindset to pay the executives and short-change the mission. It may be necessary, given the culture of greed, for government regulation of corporation distribution of revenues. Reinhold Niebuhr long ago, in Moral Man and Immoral Society, signaled that the role of government is to control individual greed ("ego") but even more so corporate greed that goes
unchecked except through regulations from above.
Our universities should not fail in providing quality education at affordable costs for students, as our national investment in learning. Administrators' salaries should not soak up funds that should be distributed to those most directly engaged in the educational mission. Legislatures need to see education as pivotal for social and financial progress.
Some state schools have become very difficult to get into. Students might choose to leave their home states simply because they cannot get into the schools. Here in NY, SUNY schools have become very competitive, and many students who want to attend are unable to.
1
The silver lining I guess would be the dissemination of ideas and knowledge.
Anyway, the way higher education is handled in this country is lacking at a very basic level.
Anyway, the way higher education is handled in this country is lacking at a very basic level.
1
This is not very useful or interesting without seeing these numbers as the proportion of the number of students in each state university system. The time spent on nice graphics might have been better spent on deeper analysis.
3
I think states should offer college students loans that are forgivable for as long as they reside in the state. Why should tax payers in California subsidize the workforce in Arizona? Giving a student a loan that won't need to be paid providing they stay in the state, would be an incentive for companies to locate in the states where the best education is going on, or to help reimburse the states that educated their work force.
1
These graphs, although pretty, do NOT show that the movement of students is anything to do with changes in funding. I would be interested to learn whether that was the case - but we would at the very least, need to see changes in funding compared with changes in movement of inter-state enrollments.
3
Part of the problem is too many students going to college. In California, for example, it may make sense for the top 10-20% of students to attend our selective UC system. In our lower tier California State system, however, standards and graduation rates are lower, and the link between attendance there and future success is weak for many. For example, I have a friend who left a job managing a restaurant for a four year hospitality degree at SF State. She's now managing a Mrs. Field's cookie store, and with a load of student debt.
2
Your friend should have gone to UNLV here in exciting Las Vegas. The students regularly intern with casinos and restaurants. Many of them are offered excellent positions right out of college. You attend a school that offers a good program in hospitality (like Cornell or UNLV) instead of a junky school like SF State.
Here in NM the low price of oil, which is the main source of state revenue, has led to massive cuts at the state universities. The New Mexico State University Biology Dept. recently had three faculty take early retirement or leave for other jobs...and university will not be replacing any of the three...in spite of the fact that biology faculty are a major source of extramural revenue through research grants from outside organizations like the NSF. Meanwhile many younger faculty members, the future academic leaders of the university, are fleeing to other positions in other states.
But some things never change. In spite of the fact that NMSU has THE worst Division I football program of all time, the football team will not be degraded. Instead, President Carruthers (a former Republican governor) chose to terminate the riding team...at a university with is an agricultural land grant institution with a major in equine science. The reason the football team will stay (the football coach makes more than $100K a year more than the university's president) and the riding team will go is because a major benefactor, the owner of a race track and casino, says he will not donate to the university if it doesn't have a Division I football program. But he could care less about the riding team whose student-athletes are all women.
Another interesting different. Most female athletes are studying for real majors. Many males in football get phony worthless degrees in "individualized studies."
But some things never change. In spite of the fact that NMSU has THE worst Division I football program of all time, the football team will not be degraded. Instead, President Carruthers (a former Republican governor) chose to terminate the riding team...at a university with is an agricultural land grant institution with a major in equine science. The reason the football team will stay (the football coach makes more than $100K a year more than the university's president) and the riding team will go is because a major benefactor, the owner of a race track and casino, says he will not donate to the university if it doesn't have a Division I football program. But he could care less about the riding team whose student-athletes are all women.
Another interesting different. Most female athletes are studying for real majors. Many males in football get phony worthless degrees in "individualized studies."
2
Fascinating. So supply and demand is still alive and well in the halls of academia. No matter how much the Progressives try to repeal it, the natural law still stands.
3
This article is poorly conceived and inadequately researched. Without comparative historical data from, say, 10 years back, a single year, in this case 2014, is meaningless. In addition, as shown in others' comments, the article fails to mention extenuating circumstances such as interstate reciprocity agreements that have always accounted for much of the imbalance.
15
Not surprised that my home state of NJ sends so many more students than it receives. Pity, as our flagship university, Rutgers, is a major academic research institution. It has a lot to offer students. But I'm sure the out-of-state tuition RU and other NJ colleges charge holds students back from applying. And tuition plus the cost of living in NJ drives our students out of the state. I would love to know what percentage of those students return to NJ. Do we have a net brain drain or not?
Tuition for out-of-state students at Rutgers is pretty steep: http://admissions.rutgers.edu/Costs/TuitionAndFees.aspx
Tuition for out-of-state students at Rutgers is pretty steep: http://admissions.rutgers.edu/Costs/TuitionAndFees.aspx
1
New Jersey "exports" almost 12000 students (according to the charts here) a couple years. Even so, a couple ago The College of New Jersey (formerly Trenton State), located a mere ten miles from Pennsylvania, embarked upon an aggressive effort to recruit Pennsylvania students, complete with massive billboards along the heavily traveled I-95 corridor. Never mind that TCNJ also already had one of the lowest acceptance rates of any NJ public institution, with far more applicants than it could admit.
Why, you may ask? Well, because each of those PA students would pay almost double what a NJ student would in tuition, and the president figured no one would notice a couple hundred additional students paying top dollar. Traditionally, NJ has been one of the worst states in offering public higher education, with only Rutgers and six former teachers colleges comprising its four year offerings until very recently.
For decades NJ students have had to attend public colleges out-of-state, due to the shortage of quality, public higher educational opportunities.
Why, you may ask? Well, because each of those PA students would pay almost double what a NJ student would in tuition, and the president figured no one would notice a couple hundred additional students paying top dollar. Traditionally, NJ has been one of the worst states in offering public higher education, with only Rutgers and six former teachers colleges comprising its four year offerings until very recently.
For decades NJ students have had to attend public colleges out-of-state, due to the shortage of quality, public higher educational opportunities.
2
Some additional data is needed. The flux of students between state colleges in neighboring states has been going on for a long time. It would be good for example to see the numbers for Minnesota from 1980-2016. Tuition costs are part of the reason but not the only reason. Additional factors such as majors available at the college, reciprocity, proximity, living costs, and the desire to attend a school further away from home are important.
4
It never ceases to amaze me how Americans can continually allow their lobby influenced politicians to work against the interests of the nation at large, usually while waving the flag and spouting about "patriotism" and "family values". In what way can it be beneficial to our country to have intelligent, eager young people not to be able to get a college education, including advanced degrees? Have we too many doctors? Have we too many scientists? While the rest of the civilized world finances the education of it's brightest, we slam the door in their face to benefit lenders, and contribute on our frantic race toward becoming an oligarchy. How patriotic is that? How moral is that? How smart is that? Is it not bad enough that we deprive many of our citizens with health care & medication to keep them healthy? Must we also deprive our young people from the education they need to serve our nation's interest in an ever increasingly competitive world? Or have the insiders invested so heavily in global interests they no longer care about OUR national interests? We are truly "exceptional". Mostly in shooting ourselves in the foot.
1
It's hard to draw conclusions from the map without controlling for population, or, even better, the change in the state's population since its university system was built. It makes sense that lots of students would be leaving California, Illinois, and Texas because they're three of the largest states in the U.S. How many leave as a percentage of the number who graduate high school every year? That would be a much more meaningful number, wouldn't it?
4
Exactly. Article shows that 5,000 kids leave Florida for other states. Florida's university system has nearly 350,000 students. A tiny number in the grand scheme of things. Relative benchmarks would be nice.
This article is highly misleading. The numbers cited for each state are really quite low compared with the much larger number of students who go to college from each state. There is no comparison to the number of students who went out of state in prior years. I left Texas to go to college in NY in 1958, and even then many classmates from my private school (and from public schools in the affluent area where I lived) chose to go to a variety of out of state colleges. Even then, Oklahoma was very popular among some Texans.
The statement that only the top 10% of Texas high school students get admission to Texas state universities is just wrong. The State University in Austin and a few other universities in the Texas University are highly competitive. To encourage diversity, Texas adopted a rule assuring that students in the top 10% of each high school class can attend the most prestiguous Texas state universities. There are many other colleges in the Texas university system for which there is no 10% cutoff, and indeed entrance requirements are fairly low at many other universities in the Texas system.
The flow of students between states seems typical of college placements that have been going on for decades. There are no facts stated in the article to show how the current flow student is due to spending cuts, although many of these cuts are a reality and have had an adverse effect of many students.
The statement that only the top 10% of Texas high school students get admission to Texas state universities is just wrong. The State University in Austin and a few other universities in the Texas University are highly competitive. To encourage diversity, Texas adopted a rule assuring that students in the top 10% of each high school class can attend the most prestiguous Texas state universities. There are many other colleges in the Texas university system for which there is no 10% cutoff, and indeed entrance requirements are fairly low at many other universities in the Texas system.
The flow of students between states seems typical of college placements that have been going on for decades. There are no facts stated in the article to show how the current flow student is due to spending cuts, although many of these cuts are a reality and have had an adverse effect of many students.
1
An alternative explanation is the population's income and wealth. It sure does seem like states with higher incomes or wealthier have higher out of state flows. This raises the question whether the cause is of out of state flows is relative tuitions (a state compared to other other states and tuition increases) or income/wealth of the state's population. Before drawing conclusions, like this article does, it would be useful to analyze the data (which would be fairly straightforward in this case and it is amazing some economist has not done the analysis).
Some of this has to do with the number and quality of the schools in a particular state. PA has countless great schools -- NJ has Princeton.
They are only looking at public colleges, not Princeton.
1
This chart only considers public colleges, not private.
I understand this is public to public. Except .... they don't discuss "value" in the article -- how much and what do I get in return.
They also don't discuss competition. Most top students in NJ don't factor Rutgers into the mix -- as someone from PA would going to Penn State. This is also my experience with my own and friends in NY. U of Delaware's reputation has increased in recent years and is viewed as a good value vs NJ state schools (not necessarily cheaper)-- especially to southern NJ students.
They also don't discuss competition. Most top students in NJ don't factor Rutgers into the mix -- as someone from PA would going to Penn State. This is also my experience with my own and friends in NY. U of Delaware's reputation has increased in recent years and is viewed as a good value vs NJ state schools (not necessarily cheaper)-- especially to southern NJ students.
The University of Alabama offers scholarships for those who do very well on the ACT/SAT and reduced (or no) tuition and when coupled with a lower cost of living rate in general in the state makes it much more attractive for students who live in other higher-priced tuition-board states. My daughter has one of those scholarships on her horizon (as an in-state) student based on her ACT. The average ACT score for students has been on the rise with each freshman class over the past decade because of this. National Merit Scholars have a free ride should they desire to attend. Now state schools in Mississippi are doing the same thing - attracting students with the reduction of tuition and cost of living. Even this summer when my daughter, an early-college/dual-enrolled high school student, was on campus, there were kids from all over the States in her program. AND snow is a novelty.
To fix education 1) repeal the law preventing student debt discharge during bankruptcy making the banks actually insure people can pay 2) get rid of all the money the govt throws in terms of "aid" allowing the universities to just jack up prices more and more and more and more...
1
Those laws came about because unscrupulous students would run up giant tuition debts, and then at graduation...declare bankruptcy. At that point, they were penniless students, so they had no assets.
After a few months, they went out and got good jobs, but hey! they had discharged all that student debt!
A famous case involved a pair of married medical students. They ran up $250K in debts (a vast sum 25 years ago) and used some of the money for rent, trips, etc. and then at graduation....both declared bankruptcy, right before starting six figure jobs as MDs. They got away scot free, as it was perfectly legal then.
In a panic, they closed the loopholes.
There are many unscrupulous people who WOULD game such a system. That does not mean I don't think the entire system should be re-evaluated and reformed!
After a few months, they went out and got good jobs, but hey! they had discharged all that student debt!
A famous case involved a pair of married medical students. They ran up $250K in debts (a vast sum 25 years ago) and used some of the money for rent, trips, etc. and then at graduation....both declared bankruptcy, right before starting six figure jobs as MDs. They got away scot free, as it was perfectly legal then.
In a panic, they closed the loopholes.
There are many unscrupulous people who WOULD game such a system. That does not mean I don't think the entire system should be re-evaluated and reformed!
Southeast Michigan has one of the lowest levels of college attainment of any large, US metropolitan area. So what do we do here people? Make 45% of U of Michigan, Ann Arbor undergrads out-of-state students to bring in more revenue. Highly qualified in-state students with a vested interest in the community cannot get in. Then of course the out-of-staters return to NY, NJ, CA, and IL......... Can someone say "vicious circle"?
2
That's exactly right. People who come from out of state won't stay in state, and states wonder why they end up with a brain drain.
1
Excellent point.
State schools should not "seek" out of state students at the detriment of in-state students. That's what does seem to be occurring. If MA does it ... they many stay in Boston ... most places, the students leave after graduation.
No one ever talks about the cost side of the equation -- it's grown exponentially. We have also screwed up the community college model in many states -- growing them into mini university sized institutions ... teaching Criminal Justice and Public Policy vs the previous model of skill based associate degrees and affordable transfer vehicles to traditional 4 year institutions.
State schools should not "seek" out of state students at the detriment of in-state students. That's what does seem to be occurring. If MA does it ... they many stay in Boston ... most places, the students leave after graduation.
No one ever talks about the cost side of the equation -- it's grown exponentially. We have also screwed up the community college model in many states -- growing them into mini university sized institutions ... teaching Criminal Justice and Public Policy vs the previous model of skill based associate degrees and affordable transfer vehicles to traditional 4 year institutions.
1
It is a definite shame that states are unable to find money to fund state colleges and universities. I was lucky enough to attend the University of California (although the tuition/fees increased during my time there). A positive outcome, it that students/young people and perhaps their families experience another part of the country, meet other Americans which may benefit the country in years to come as they start work and families.
The business model of public higher education is that it is not supposed to be entirely dependent on resident tuition dollars, because it serves a greater good. A well-educated populace is a major engine of long-term economic growth
The Illinois governor, Mr. Rauner, thinks they should be run like a business. The problem is the business model he seems to favor is one rapidly headed toward bankruptcy. We have received a shockingly tiny fraction of the state support promised, leaving us almost entirely dependent on incoming tuition and fees to keep the doors open. As this article dramatically shows, lack of confidence in our university system has been driving prospective students ("customers" to a "business guy") away in large numbers (net negative of ~14,500 students). This does not include the massive numbers of students who have dropped out for loss of scholarship and qualified students who figure they can't afford to enroll in the first place. This is unsustainable not just for the institutions, but for the state
Econ 101 message to Mr. Rauner: If you want a business to thrive it needs customers. If you want customers it needs investment to build a quality "product" (educated graduates and research development) and also the all-important brand loyalty. As our budget spirals downward, with our most promising students fleeing or skipping college, so does our short and long-term revenue and reputation, which severely impacts the state's short and long-term economic health
The Illinois governor, Mr. Rauner, thinks they should be run like a business. The problem is the business model he seems to favor is one rapidly headed toward bankruptcy. We have received a shockingly tiny fraction of the state support promised, leaving us almost entirely dependent on incoming tuition and fees to keep the doors open. As this article dramatically shows, lack of confidence in our university system has been driving prospective students ("customers" to a "business guy") away in large numbers (net negative of ~14,500 students). This does not include the massive numbers of students who have dropped out for loss of scholarship and qualified students who figure they can't afford to enroll in the first place. This is unsustainable not just for the institutions, but for the state
Econ 101 message to Mr. Rauner: If you want a business to thrive it needs customers. If you want customers it needs investment to build a quality "product" (educated graduates and research development) and also the all-important brand loyalty. As our budget spirals downward, with our most promising students fleeing or skipping college, so does our short and long-term revenue and reputation, which severely impacts the state's short and long-term economic health
42
Reed - your comments are all very true. I'd add one more. Our huge backlog of bills, grossly underfunded public pensions and rock-bottom credit rating have done at least as much, if not more, harm to our short and long-term economic health as any education funding cuts. Unless we address those problems we won't get any healthier economically. And unfortunately it appears that the only way this will ever happen is if we can enact term limits, take redistricting out of the hands of legislators who gerrymander that process to protect their jobs and power, and align public pensions more with what workers in the private sector receive. The alternative - to dramatically raise taxes to cover all the spending that's put us into this difficult position - would simply be more nails in the state's coffin from an economic standpoint.
2
Inconvenient fact: Illinois, and Chicago, are going bankrupt --
http://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2016/04/19/in-illinois-some-pu...
Ignoring financial problems never solves anything. Someone tell that to BHO.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2016/04/19/in-illinois-some-pu...
Ignoring financial problems never solves anything. Someone tell that to BHO.
This is a remarkably shallow analysis. No data to back up the thesis. No comparisons to past trends (before budget cuts). No discussion of reciprocity agreements. I expect (much) better from the Gray Lady.
28
So at the risk of sounding like a nut job conspiracy theorist, I wonder if the intention here is to feed the student loan debt machine. It may not be an intention of the policies of various states to encourage another debt bubble, but investors looking for a source of high return investments buy up the securitizied student loans, creating more demand for the loans, colleges increase tuition beyond what cost of leaving would seem to justify, etc, etc, etc, etc...
2
Out of state students greatly benefit a state like West Virginia. WV doesn't have enough college bound residents to fill it's universities. WV keeps out of state tuition very reasonable. WVU and Marshall University are able to enhance their student bodies.
1
Interestingly - what the map doesn't show is the percentage of out state students accepted by various state universities. Many states are accepting more and more students from out of state who will pay the considerably more out of state tuition rates. The University of Virginia takes almost 1/3 out-of-state students. This probably pushes VA students into other states. Also, you need to factor in reciprocity arrangments. TN has reciprocal agreements with other Southern States for programs not offered in TN. Finally, looking at the map and seeing the flow into places like Alabama, Kentucky, and Louisiana, it should be remembered -that much of the financial stability at these places has more to do with their money generating sports programs than any philosophical bent from the state legislature. Clearly we need all states to invest in our future, and one of the best ways is through the state university system. States have long been cutting back on funding state universities at a time when having a college degree has become an important tool in finding a job. It is yet another example of sending the 99% down the river.
18
University of Michigan, the oldest public university in the world, is considering going private so it no longer has to meet the in state student quota. Ofcourse this means charging everyone out of state tuition rates.
1
Do we care about education? We don't. In North Carolina where I live, the school budget gets cut even in a good year. At the North Carolina State University, there are a lot of Indian and Chinese students. Why, because they pay more. We are a selfish bunch, we don't want to pay taxes and don't care about our next generation.
40
Here in IL, these figures may just be harbingers of a worse future. While the present Governor is clueless and would like to follow Scott Walker's example, the present terrible financial problems for education in general, and higher education in particular, are a consequence of the only truly bi-partisan activity in our state, shameless irresponsibility. This, coupled with the need for elected public officials to stay in power for as long as three decades of self-interest, guarantees that there will be no future in IL, in the future!
30
Yes, but according to the chart here, Wisconsin had a net influx of students in 2014. Of course, that could change if Walker and his cronies are successful in dumbing down the UW.
1
This is interesting information. Regarding VERMONT, 2 factors should be noted
1) Vermont is a low population state so naturally it is likely that fewer students will leave to attend college, so a better representation of the situation here would be to show the percentage of students going to college that stay versus leave the state, instead of the raw numbers.
2) A very alarming situation here is that the state has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the country, yet because of cost, close to 40% of graduates do not attend college - this is a tragedy.
1) Vermont is a low population state so naturally it is likely that fewer students will leave to attend college, so a better representation of the situation here would be to show the percentage of students going to college that stay versus leave the state, instead of the raw numbers.
2) A very alarming situation here is that the state has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the country, yet because of cost, close to 40% of graduates do not attend college - this is a tragedy.
29
40% of high school grads don't attend college?
Way too low - too many attempting college who do not have the intellectual ability for it.
A real college program -the kind that leads to a BA - is designed for those in the top 15-20% of intellectual ability.
Only way you can get more than that top 15-20% through college is to dumb it so far down that it is the intellectual and academic level of "easy" middle school classes.
The next 30-45% could make it through a job-training program at a junior college -- auto mechanics, nurse's aide etc. They can not do BA level work.
Of the 60 out of 100 that do go to college if they are going for a BA, at least 40 of them will drop out of flunk out
All the tutoring and special assistance can not give them more brains than they were born with.
Way too low - too many attempting college who do not have the intellectual ability for it.
A real college program -the kind that leads to a BA - is designed for those in the top 15-20% of intellectual ability.
Only way you can get more than that top 15-20% through college is to dumb it so far down that it is the intellectual and academic level of "easy" middle school classes.
The next 30-45% could make it through a job-training program at a junior college -- auto mechanics, nurse's aide etc. They can not do BA level work.
Of the 60 out of 100 that do go to college if they are going for a BA, at least 40 of them will drop out of flunk out
All the tutoring and special assistance can not give them more brains than they were born with.
1
Minnesota students attending UW schools pay U of M tuition. The flow of students to Wisconsin is more about getting away from parents in the Twin Cities and going to a highly-ranked college than it is about price. (Although housing may be a smidge cheaper in Milwaukee and Madison than in Minneapolis.)
As the U of M rises in the rankings and Walker keeps cutting UW, this may change. But Wisconsin will still look good to suburban kids who want to get away from mom. Sure, there's Duluth, but who wants to spend winter there!?!
As the U of M rises in the rankings and Walker keeps cutting UW, this may change. But Wisconsin will still look good to suburban kids who want to get away from mom. Sure, there's Duluth, but who wants to spend winter there!?!
40
MN has a similar reciprocity agreement with ND. The flow of students between the states may have less to do with tuition than with student interest in certain programs or specialties, or even successful sports programs. And, of course, some kids do want to get away from home.
Wisconsin was always a better school than Minnesota. Ask any college recruiter.
An interesting comment, and a valid parameter, from what I witness here in Madison. As others have mentioned, the numbers are interesting but a look at contributing factors would be nice. Generally speaking, those families who can afford non-resident tuition (or those students who believe they will be able to eventually get out from under the debt!) have been able to provide a life which leads to higher academic accomplishment, so a fair proportion of the flow is voluntary. Lots of monied offspring flying around having fun and fulfilling themselves while the larger group, the non-affluent, stays in place and deals.
1
Is there a law against moving to another state for a year and becoming a resident? Yeah, I didn't think so.
2
Many states make it very difficult for out of state students to meet the requirements for residency and gain in-state tuition. It is not as easy as you think.
2
Some states, yes; some states, no. When you file the FAFSA as a dependent student, if the parents are residents of a certain state, it doesn't matter what the student puts down. They are dependent on parents, and the parents' state is there to screen on.
2
In many states there is a law against enrolling in a state school as an out-of-state student and then claiming residency. Some states allow it under certain conditions (Texas), but most do not. If admitted as an out-of-state student, you remain an out-of-state student until graduation.
1
Shouldn't the primary purpose of a state college or university be to serve the citizens of that state? Don't state taxpayers help to subsidize these institutions?
If I'm a state taxpayer and my son or daughter has to go out-of-state to attend college, I have every right to be outraged.
If I'm a state taxpayer and my son or daughter has to go out-of-state to attend college, I have every right to be outraged.
9
The model you cite is a good one--but, sadly one that "government/education are bad" right-wingers have been intent on eroding since the 1980s.
And you're right, if in-state families can't afford to pay for college education for their kids, they should be angry--but the right-wingers are intent on making you blame: a) universities; b) faculty; c) unions; or d) students, not e) ideologues actually forcing these destructive changes by "starving the beast" (Cheney's term)--in this case higher education..
And you're right, if in-state families can't afford to pay for college education for their kids, they should be angry--but the right-wingers are intent on making you blame: a) universities; b) faculty; c) unions; or d) students, not e) ideologues actually forcing these destructive changes by "starving the beast" (Cheney's term)--in this case higher education..
1
Shouldn't the results be adjusted for state population by expressing as a percentage? This would be a better indicator. Of course NY, CA, TX and FL export large numbers of students - they have large populations.
11
This article does not mention state consortiums or reciprocal trades for students in nearby states. Are those numbers included in these stats?
8
Given cuts in state support, the often dramatically higher tuition public institutions receive from out of state students, and the obvious incentives that creates, do we now have a system where public universities practice "affirmative action" for out of state students who can afford it?
3
As someone who recently went through the college admissions process in a highly competitive state, I can stay with confidence that getting into a University of California-Berkeley, Georgia Tech, or UT Austin as an out of state student is far harder than it is for in-state residents.
2
This article doesn't consider factors besides in instate tuition increases to explain this trend. How much is demographics? The recent population growth has been very unevenly distributed. So it makes perfect sense that Texas would be exporting students and Rhode Island would be importing them.
5
Where is the evidence that this migration is due to budget cuts? Could it also be due to the U.S. becoming a much more connected place since 1986? Cell phones, internet, facebook, etc. have made leaving your home state for college much less daunting. If kids have the option to leave home, but still be connected, they are going to take it.
Once again, NYT correlation is not causation...
Once again, NYT correlation is not causation...
26
In Pennsylvania, state support has dropped precipitously and the state college administrators are quite blunt about how out-of-state tuition rates present a solution to this problem and, as the numbers show, the recruitment efforts are working. We even aim to recruit internationally now.
Think about what that means. College costs for Pennsylvania's state system students - as a group - have skyrocketed and the average student is paying a lot more than they were ten years ago. All the while, the Pennsylvania politicians can boast about how tuition price tags haven't increased.
And your worried about the NYT's incincerity?
Think about what that means. College costs for Pennsylvania's state system students - as a group - have skyrocketed and the average student is paying a lot more than they were ten years ago. All the while, the Pennsylvania politicians can boast about how tuition price tags haven't increased.
And your worried about the NYT's incincerity?
2
Missing data from the article. Quite often, adjoining states have reciprocity agreements for resident tuition rates. A student who can attend a college in an adjacent state at resident tuition rates may do so for reasons ununrelates to the cuts. I agree that tuition rates at public colleges have risen more than inflation, and often due to states that have drastically cut their state funding for instruction (not administration, sports or other functions of a public college (half or more since 1976). Tuition rises correlate very well with state cuts and the public is not holding their legislatures accountable. States are also short sighted and are feeling the effects of cuts to post secondary education when their workforce is not ready for jobs in the 21st century. It will only get worse.
54
True about reciprocity, though there are limits to those agreements. In the south, the Southern Regional Academic Board's "Academic Common Market" program is limited to students whose desired majors aren't offered at ANY school in-state.
1
Here in Oregon we have the WICHE reciprocity agreement.
"We don't have enough" has been repeated by edu-crats so often, it no longer has an impact.
There are plenty of options for students -- AP tests, community college, quality online. It has never been better.
There are plenty of options for students -- AP tests, community college, quality online. It has never been better.
Bruce Rauner, governor of Illinois, is trying to run the Brownback agenda that's currently destroying Kansas. But he's too dumb to realize that he won't get it through a Democratic legislature. So he's holding his breath and throwing a tantrum, and the state has gone nearly a year without a budget, because Rauner won't sign anything that doesn't include the union-busting provisions he's never going to get. So the public universities of Illinois are being very badly starved, and that will likely continue until the immensely unpopular Rauner ends his single term in a few years.
46
You appear to be saying that Rauner is on a possible path to "destroy" Illinois. It looks as though your reps and governors have beaten him to the punch:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/american-civics-parent...
More cuts to education to come unless taxes are raised and Illinois is already among the worst:
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/american-civics-parent...
More cuts to education to come unless taxes are raised and Illinois is already among the worst:
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/
More to the point: the state of Illinois, and the city of Chicago, are going bankrupt, like Detroit and Flint.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2016/04/19/in-illinois-some-pu...
Someone has to be the adult, and ask the hard questions.
BTW: where is BHO from?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2016/04/19/in-illinois-some-pu...
Someone has to be the adult, and ask the hard questions.
BTW: where is BHO from?
State schools, without strategic oversight, become fixated on bringing in more dollars, and lose sight of their primary mission - to provide a college education to their state's residents. They limit the number of slots for in-state students (who will pay less) in order to attract more out-of-state students (who will pay more). The failure here is by state college boards, governors, and state legislatures who are letting state school administrators do this.
44
States have long been at war with each other to attract industries by offering huge tax breaks in return for dubious numbers of jobs. Now the whole game has been taken to education with each school within a college required to be a profit center. Departments that teach core courses make more money; now every department is incentivized to create courses students *must* take to graduate, even if they won't need them later in life. Those courses assure money continues to flow to that department; what do they care about the number of credit hours (credit hour creep) a student needs to take?
Its Administrators vs Tax payers (you know... the people who payed to BUILD the institutions?)...
Administrator$ welfare vs taxpayers children...
Administrator$ welfare vs taxpayers children...
Wisconsin still receiving students? That won't last long. Governor Walker has made huge cuts to the UW system. When word gets out about the lack of classes and the lack of qualified professors, because the qualified are leaving in droves, Univerity of Wisconsin will deteriorate rapidly, like other aspects in the state Walker has ruined.
94
What do you expect from a Governor who never bother to graduate... Respect for the institution and it's importance to the future of the state? He'd prefer the plebs to eat their young...
And the ironic thing is - if Gov Walker or one of his family members comes down with cancer, they probably will beeline it to the med center at the U of Wisconsin or another major public research university.
That's how craven and hypocritical he and most other Republicans are. No abortions - unless you're my daughter. No birth control or other healthcare - unless you're my son. Universities are elite wastes of money - till my wife gets breast cancer.
That's how craven and hypocritical he and most other Republicans are. No abortions - unless you're my daughter. No birth control or other healthcare - unless you're my son. Universities are elite wastes of money - till my wife gets breast cancer.
1
The gutting of public schools is part of the conservative agenda to tamp-down what are considered to be bastions of liberal thinking, or at least make them so expensive only wealthy conservative can attend, graduate, donate as alumni and eventually re-do the schools in their own images.
1
It is not true that you have to be in the top 10% of your high school class for automatic admission into Texas public colleges. This rule only applies for admission to the flagship campuses (UT-Austin, TAMU-College Station). Both UT and TAMU have large systems, with many campuses--and admission there is not limited to the top 10%. The UT system also as a program set up where students can enroll in one of the other UT system campuses, and if they do well in their first year, transfer to UT-Austin.
29
Absolutely agree with you. Also, is not the top 10% it varies. For example UT-Austin could be 7-8%. However, they offer the CAP program which my daughter did. She got guaranteed admission at UTSA, completed the program and is now at UT Austin with automatic transfer. Texas A&M offers the blend program that works the same way.
2
Vermont has some unusual relationships with nearby state institutions in other states such that some VT students can attend neighboring out of state schools for reduced and/or instate tuition. It is a two way street.
3
further privatization of education, with the implication, the outflow states are saying, they are funding only the students for whom there will be job.
2
Simply the best representation of the scenario.
3
Of course the reason that states accept less of their own students is that pushes students to go to other states where they can be charged higher out-of-state tuition. So it is game that is being played by all the universities-you send us some we will send you some.
That being said, states have radically been cutting support of higher education. With the increased cost of technology, the complying with regulations and student amenities (of course everyone deplores this but it is a major factor parents look at when visiting ) the money has to come from somewhere.
Everyone complains about taxes and big government, but they still want the benefits they provide.
That being said, states have radically been cutting support of higher education. With the increased cost of technology, the complying with regulations and student amenities (of course everyone deplores this but it is a major factor parents look at when visiting ) the money has to come from somewhere.
Everyone complains about taxes and big government, but they still want the benefits they provide.
11