Search News


Browse Archives

News

Interstate Commerce

February 12, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Ask an admissions director at a public university about recruiting out-of-state students, and you’re likely to hear a lot about geographic diversity goals and becoming a nationally recognized institution. While these are good reasons to target non-state residents, higher education experts say colleges may be increasingly inclined to recruit across state borders just to make ends meet.

For some colleges, like the University of Vermont, out-of-state students have always been a healthy part of the enrollment mix. About 66 percent of Vermont’s freshmen came from out of state this year, continuing a practice that is designed in part to make up for relatively low state funding levels. But as the economy softens, others may follow suit. Institutions in states like Florida and Ohio are stepping up efforts to lure non-state residents, who are likely to bring both strong academic credentials and a willingness to pay higher tuition rates.

“It’s the miracle of loaves and fishes,” said Jane Wellman, who heads the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability. “You get a better admissions profile and you get a lot of dough.”

About 16 percent of first-time undergraduates at public colleges across the nation come from out of state, according to the U.S. Department of Education. At a number of state universities, however, out-of-state students make up more than 30 percent of the freshman class.

While it may be tempting to bolster non-resident enrollment, doing so is full of potential political perils. Lawmakers tend to get huffy about state-funded institutions providing education to students who seldom pay state taxes, even if the colleges are pursuing those students only in response to declining state revenues.

A University of California regent recently suggested the system move more aggressively to recruit out-of-state students, only to have the system’s president quickly distance himself from the remarks.

“[President Mark Yudof] made it very clear that there are absolutely no plans at this point and no proposal to in any way change [enrollment ratios],” said Ricardo Vázquez, a spokesman for Yudof’s office. “That’s not something that is being entertained or is being proposed in any way at this particular time.”

It may not have been proposed, but it’s already happening -- at least to some extent. Between 2006 and 2007, the university’s total non-resident undergraduate population – excluding international students – grew by 4 percent, or 256 students. By adding 125 non-resident students to its roster in 2007, California’s Los Angeles campus grew its out-of-state undergraduate enrollment by 10 percent over the course of a year.

Revenue Seldom Mentioned as Motivator

Many college officials bristle at the suggestion that non-resident recruitment is part of budget balancing. At the University of Michigan, where about 35 percent of undergraduates are from out of state, officials view the potential revenue generation of these students as less important than the diversity and academic credentials they bring, according to Phil Hanlon, vice provost for academic and budgetary affairs.

“The financial reasons are very secondary,” he said.

Even so, there’s little question that non-state students are a boon to Michigan’s bottom line. Michigan residents pay $11,037 in tuition and fees in their freshmen and sophomore years, compared with $33,069 for non-state residents. Furthermore, Michigan has a policy of meeting full demonstrated financial need for in-state undergraduates, but doesn’t extend that policy to those who come from other states. As a result, 80 percent of state residents receive some form of financial aid -- compared with 52 percent of non-state residents.

The University of Michigan has seen state revenues fall by about $100 million in inflation-adjusted dollars over the last six years, but has not dramatically changed its residency mix in response, Hanlon said. That said, there are more challenges on the horizon. Not only is the state facing a $1.6 billion budget deficit, but Gov. Jennifer Granholm is pressing universities to hold tuition at current levels for in-state students. While Hanlon doesn’t see increasing the number of out-of-state students as a quick solution to revenue woes, he acknowledged “as part of a [long term] competitive strategy, I’m sure we would look at residency mix.”

In Ohio, where a tuition freeze has been in place for the last two years in exchange for increases in state funding, officials at Kent State University are actively stepping up efforts to recruit out-of-state students. Last semester, the university increased its number of traveling admissions counselors from two to seven, the university’s student newspaper reported.

Miami University’s campus in Oxford, Ohio, has seen out-of-state enrollments grow from 30 percent of undergraduates in 2000 to 36 percent in 2008, but Provost Jeffrey Herbst disputes any notion that finances are the driver. Furthermore, he says the university won’t look to bolster out-of-state enrollment numbers to make up for any potential losses in revenue if the university faces budget cuts.

“It’s our general philosophy not to shift the cost on to out-of-state students, because I don’t think it would be right,” he said.

Elsewhere in Ohio, the line between in-state and out-of-state tuition is blurring substantially. Youngstown State University, which is about 10 miles from the Ohio/Pennsylvania border, recently announced that it would lower its out-of-state tuition surcharge from $2,692 to $200 for students living in the eight bordering counties along the Ohio/Pennsylvania border.

It’s all but inevitable, however, that some cash-strapped colleges will look to raise revenues by increasing out-of-state enrollments, according to David Shulenburger, vice president for academic affairs at the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

“There are tons of motivations that go into it,” Shulenburger said. “In general -- now this isn’t always true -- [but] the general rule is out-of-state tuition is priced at a point that it pays the full cost of instruction. In-state [tuition] generally pays one quarter of the cost of instruction, and when financial times are tough I’m sure schools have to at least think about that revenue. Again, the motives are mixed … but right now finances probably have a lot to do with it.”

Florida Atlantic University, an institution of about 26,000 students with a main campus in Boca Raton, is looking to expand its out-of-state recruitment efforts, in part to deal with significant budget cuts that higher education has taken in recent months. Barbara Pletcher, director of admissions, says the university has been particularly active in the northeast.

“I wouldn’t say it was completely financial, but I believe it did play a part,” Pletcher said. “We do, of course, make more money from students who are out of state than in state, but we do like the diversity [of out-of-state students as well].”

Currently, only 6 percent of undergraduates at the university hail from outside Florida.

Like several other states, Florida has a limit on the number of out-of-state students that can attend its public universities. The state mandates that no more than 10 percent of the undergraduate population across the 11-campus system be non-resident. In 2007, 5 percent of the students in the system were from out of state.

Non-residents Flock to Vermont, Colorado

While some states place strict limitations on non-resident enrollments, others have tacitly encouraged public institutions to go after students from elsewhere. In Vermont, for instance, out-of-state students are the backbone of the state’s lone land grant institution.

“To create a major research university, you have to have … both revenue and a student base, and we don’t have either one in Vermont,” said Chris Lucier, vice president for enrollment management at the University of Vermont.

Vermont admitted 71 percent of in-state first-year applicants this year, but about 75 percent of the enrolled class of 2,468 students ended up being from out of state.

There are a number of factors that contribute to Vermont’s enrollment mix. For in-state students, Vermont’s tuition is still a cringe-inducing $11,340 on average, among the highest in the country. Compared with other states overall, the state of Vermont's average tuition and fees for public four-year universities are the highest in the nation, according to the College Board. In a rare offer, however, students in Vermont are permitted to carry their in-state financial aid to other states, and many take advantage.

As for out-of-state students, tuition is nearly $29,700, and 28 percent of those students pay full freight with no aid. So why are nonresidents willing to shell out that kind of cash? One factor is location.

“Burlington is a great place; that does not hurt us,” Lucier said. “We sit on Lake Champlain, and one of the sayings is ‘You can do it all.’ You can boat, you can ski, you can mountain climb.”

The University of Colorado at Boulder has a similar draw for lovers of the great outdoors. A skiing destination for many, Colorado sells itself without too much effort.

“This is an institution that has never had to work hard to recruit nonresident students,” said Bronson Hilliard, spokesman for Colorado.

Colorado had its first class with more than 50 percent non-residents in 1992, prompting the Legislature to mandate that the university's undergraduate population be 55 percent in-state students on a rolling three-year average. In this year’s freshman class, 47 percent of students were from out of state; that’s the largest non-resident freshman enrollment since at least 1999, the earliest year for which Colorado maintains online data.

As with Vermont, Colorado officials point toward relatively low levels of state funding as one of the reasons for a large out-of-state enrollment. Several years ago, the Legislature granted Colorado “enterprise status,” a designation that allows a university to operate as quasi private when less than 10 percent of its budget comes from state sources.

The non-resident enrollment at Colorado has unquestionably helped fill the budget gaps left by the state. For every 100 out-of-state students that come to Colorado, the institution generates an extra $1 million, according to university officials.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Interstate Commerce

  • better start recruiting martians
  • Posted by finaidfollies on February 12, 2009 at 8:35am EST
  • ...where else are we going to get a fresh crop of dupes?

    Public universities can keep up this shell game only so long. Demand hasn't caught up with this kind of cuteness yet, but when it does, watch enrollment crest, then sputter.

    Then the universities will go back to their state legislatures, crying that they've exhausted even this option, and need still more. Trouble is, every state will have captured every other state's rubes.

  • Cost and benefits of revenue search
  • Posted by Tom Mortenson , Policy analyst at Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY on February 12, 2009 at 8:35am EST
  • The search for public university revenues through non-resident tuitions is a well established practice in many public university systems. What is often overlooked is who is hurt by this practice. What our data have shown is that students from low income families are the most frequent victims of such practices. In the lust for revenue and prestige, state universities are most likely to turn away from enrolling students from low and lower-middle income families. This disengagement from serving state residents further erodes institutional claims for state appropriations when state budgets are under pressure.

  • Posted by Author, No Sucker Left Behind on February 12, 2009 at 11:22am EST
  • It's an absolute scandal that public colleges are allowed to charge higher prices for out-of-state students. We're all part of the same country, we all pay taxes, and it's to all of our benefit for our country's students to obtain the best training. This system needs to be changed. Let's start by charging much higher prices for public colleges based on students' income and wealth (or future salaries), rather than their state residence. Or create federal credits to cover the interstate differences.

  • Force Competition
  • Posted by Daniel Bennett , Administrative Director at The Center for College Affordability & Productivity on February 12, 2009 at 11:25am EST
  • Here's an efficient market-driven idea that will drive down costs to the students and taxpayers:
    Cut state subsidies altogether and force colleges to compete on price and quality. The excessive spending will surely reign in, as colleges will trim back the non-education related services and bloated administrative salaries because they will be faced with the reality that students are going to vote with their wallets and those schools who offer a good value will survive and flourish. And those who don't will be faced with the decision to cut costs and improve quality, or close up shop. Markets work and are highly efficient.

  • "Markets Work and are Highly Efficient"
  • Posted by Alfred on February 12, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • Credit default swap, anyone?

    Seriously, though, the for-profit higher ed industry wouldn't be what it is today had it not set up contracts with the military and bribed Bush's Department of Ed to make federal loans available for students at their crappy 16% graduation rate academic sweatshops.

    So when you hypocrites are really ready to compete in the market rather than relying on government money, let me know.

  • Academic Institution + Business Revenue = Today’s University
  • Posted by Angee Siegel , Director of Enrollment Marketing at Ward Media, Inc. on February 12, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • Something not mentioned which would be of interest to me, especially for the Vermont university mentioned, is where are a majority of these out of state students coming from? For example, the in state tuition for California public universities is greater than the out of state tuition at Arizona State University. As you can imagine there is a significant number of students from California at ASU’s traditional campus. Does ASU consider out of state applicants of greater value than one from AZ? Does ASU do any special targeting for potential CA students? I really don’t know, but I doubt it. The cost of living is lower in Arizona, it is likely that simple. My question is where is the line drawn in terms of how accepted students are selected? If it’s based on geographical location essentially what schools will do is create a caste system where only the “wealthy” 18 year olds can attend universities.

    The world is changing and not just our economy but higher education operations as a whole. Targeting out of state students is a short term solution to a long term problem. I do believe universities should operate more like a business. That means doing many things not all would be happy with, for example eliminating programs with consistent low retention and enrollment rates. This also means adjusting budgets and tuition. Many 18 year olds (and their parents) cannot afford to go to school the traditional way and instead they’re getting full time jobs and attending school in the evenings or through distance learning. University’s who have already adjusted to this model, and running it customized for distance learning students, have seen great success. Charging a different tuition rate for the various formats of learning makes sense since the overhead costs are different. We’ll see, the next few years are going to be interesting.

  • Markets have not and will not work
  • Posted by PS on February 12, 2009 at 1:50pm EST
  • The notion that markets will be more efficient and effective in higher education is not accurate - and there is no evidence to support it. First, we already have markets. College students can choose any college they want and for many, there are vouchers (Pell, SEOG, state awards, etc.) available to redeem at any college or university of their choice.

    Second, students equate high price with high quality. Harvard could double their tuition tomorrow and would have no problem filling their seats. In the early 2000's many public, selective public four-year universities increased their tuition way beyond inflation and still witnessed high demand. (One may argue that places like Harvard will still see higher demand because they have higher quality than, say, a community college. But there is no evidence to support that idea either). The third reason why a market approach will not work is because people will pay for a more services at a college....services that cost money. Modern residence halls, state of the art fitness centers, and professors that teach 2 courses a semester to 25 students exist at high-priced institutions.

    When the federal government decided to funnel subsidies through students via vouchers (Pell, SEOG, etc.) instead of directly to colleges in the early 1970's, it was based on the idea that if colleges should compete for students and that they would lower their prices to be competitive. The results? Colleges increased their tuition at record levels. The fact remains that there are many lower-priced community colleges that do a much better job and are of higher quality than many 4-year institutions. But despite the choices available to them and a higher tuition, most middle and high-income students will choose the more expensive college, despite lower quality.

    A better remedy would be a mix of government regulation and market solutions, with subsidies to colleges as opposed directly to students through vouchers. Markets cannot make colleges publicly state what their quality measures are and outcomes....but government can. Injecting market principles, by themselves, is a simplistic argument that has been around since the 1920's, similar to the idea that if only we had lower taxes, all of our problems would be magically solved. The best solution would be government funding directly to colleges, regulation and mandates about what colleges should publicly report, and market principles that allow colleges the freedom to differentiate themselves in order to compete for students and staff. But the idea that markets will lower prices is not accurate and, in fact, the evidence shows the opposite - markets raise prices in higher education.

  • Correction, Colorado rules
  • Posted by Lou McClelland , Director of institutional research at U of Colorado at Boulder on February 12, 2009 at 2:55pm EST
  • The article states that the legislature mandates that "that the university’s undergraduate population be 55 percent in-state students on a rolling three-year average." The 55% requirement applies to new fall first-time (freshmen) students only. A separate 2/3 requirement applies to total enrollment, graduate and undergraduate combined.

    Both new freshmen and total enrollment counts for in-state and out-of-state students are available for 1988 - 2008 at http://www.colorado.edu/pba/records/time/enrl88plus.htm

  • Angie Siegel - On ASU
  • Posted by Scrawed on February 12, 2009 at 4:45pm EST
  • "Does ASU consider out of state applicants of greater value than one from AZ? Does ASU do any special targeting for potential CA students? I really don’t know, but I doubt it." - Angee Siegel. Actually, Angee, it seems to be somewhat department-dependent - but on the whole, ASU DOES consider out-of-state applicants of greater value. Mostly ASU is operated by administration and faculty from out-of-state who regard locals as not quite good enough for 'cow college.' Some of the College of Engineering's recruitment and retention efforts for international students were illegal and often sickening, including class-wide cheating and plagiarism cover-ups, while local students were milked for tuition dollars and then pitched out.

  • Back to the point...
  • Posted by Angee Siegel , Director of Enrollment Marketing at Ward Media, Inc. on February 12, 2009 at 8:20pm EST
  • I actually misspoke in my posting, I should have said any Arizona universities in my example. My point was cost is a factor for those pursuing their education, the decision of what to pursue and where to attend is one of the most important decisions an individual will make in a lifetime. It would be interesting to survey out of state students at various colleges and find out by order of importance why they chose the particular school they are attending, as a marketer I’d love to see the results.

  • Posted by R.Will , Funding for UM on February 14, 2009 at 8:20pm EST
  • The University of Michigan used to receive roughly $1.3Bn per year from the state, and now receives roughly $325MM/year. Conversely, the prison budget is now in the $1.4Bn plus range. I wonder why Michigan is taking out of state students?

    At Michigan, the university spends $300MM/year to $500MM/year on facilities, and the state contributes roughly $25MM/year (a rounding error). I wonder why Michigan likes the out of state alums who are 1/3 of the total alumni body, yet contributed 2/3 of the alumni contributions that build those building?

    Those out of state contributions form enough of the endowment to account for, very roughly $200MM/year in income alone.

    UM has filled the void left by the state's abdication with out of state students, and a top five nationally ranked federal research dollar volume.

    Residents of Michigan don't pay for the funding of UM, in that respect they are little better than those who cheat on spousal support. Because the residents have no skin in the game (contributing less than 8% of the university's budget) they have no standing to complain, and should be glad that the university simply doesn't privatize and fill the entirety of the class from out of state.