Search News


Browse Archives

News

Out-of-State Dreams

October 16, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

At a time when getting admitted to many flagship universities is harder than ever, a growing number are considering plans to increase enrollments -- dramatically in some cases -- of out-of-state applicants.

The theory behind these plans is straightforward: Public universities charge much more for out-of-state students; the parents who must pay those bills vote in other states, so these tuition dollars are much less politically costly than those gained by raising in-state rates; states have run out of money. Add those factors together, and all of the sudden everyone wants a larger national student body.

Some flagships have been doing this for years. At the University of Vermont, three quarters of freshmen are from out of state, and the University of Delaware routinely enrolls more from out of state than in state. But whether out-of-state enrollments can grow nationwide -- and whether they should -- is doubted by many policy experts.

They note that the states that successfully enroll many non-residents don't have massive in-state demand. Some worry that the quest for high non-resident tuition will amount to an increased emphasis on enrolling wealthy white students -- those who are likely to be well served by some college no matter what. And guidance counselors who work with students say that this strategy may work for some institutions, but may be a flop at others.

Nonetheless, it's clear that the terrible budget situation has many flagship presidents thinking that this policy shift needs to happen (even if none of them would approach the levels of Vermont or Delaware). Consider these ideas and policies that are in play:

  • The University of California at Berkeley is planning to admit more out-of-state residents this year. Berkeley's non-resident undergraduate population is quite low (around 10 percent typically, counting both U.S. residents outside California and international students). Robert Birgeneau, the chancellor, told The Contra Costa Times that he hopes that the shift will set off some anger from California residents, saying: "Actually, I hope for some pushback. This is connected to the state's failure to pay for the University of California."
  • While faculty leaders at the University of California have been critical of the administration's management of the state's severe budget crisis, they too are calling for more out-of-state students. Department chairs at UC San Diego issued a statement calling for significant increases in out-of-state enrollments. "Admitting more students from other states would also enhance UCSD's national reputation and it will benefit California in the long run since a significant number of American students who go to university out of state end up settling in the state where they attended university. It is in California's interest to attract some of the best and the brightest high school graduates from around the country, to provide them with a world‐class education and then to reap the tax revenues that result when these university graduates enter California's workforce," said the statement.
  • The University of Massachusetts at Amherst is planning to increase undergraduate enrollment by 15 percent over the next decade, with the additional students coming from out of state. If the plan succeeds, the share of undergraduate enrollment from outside Massachusetts would grow to 30 percent from 20 percent.
  • Rutgers University, where out-of-state enrollment is currently about 10 percent, is planning a gradual increase to about 25 percent.
  • The president of the University of Colorado wants the state to lift caps on non-resident enrollment.
  • The comptroller of New York State issued a report last month calling on the State University of New York to increase non-resident tuition, with the goal of increasing revenues

The primary motivation in just about all of these moves is money. According to data released Wednesday by the National Center for Education Statistics, during 2008-9, public four-year institutions nationally reported average tuition and required fees of $6,070 for in-state undergraduates and $14,378 for those from out of state.

State philosophy on out-of-state enrollments varies widely, although very few institutions approach the ratios of Vermont. The University of Michigan has a high out-of-state percentage, with only about two-thirds of slots going to Michiganders. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in contrast, has a freshman class that is 82 percent in state.

The Policy Questions

The fear many public universities have had historically about out-of-state enrollment increases has been a backlash from parents and lawmakers who resent the idea (even if it may not be true) that non-residents may be taking slots away. That's why universities in less populous states have long relied on non-residents -- while being able to tell their legislators that their constituents aren't losing out. On its admissions Web site, the University of Delaware draws attention to the differing admissions rates for in-state applicants (69 percent) and out-of-state applicants (between 42 and 48 percent).

Daniel Fogel, president of the University of Vermont, said that his institution is "kind of a poster child for long-term reliance on non-resident students," but that Vermont's demographics make that possible. "There aren't enough high school graduates to populate a research university with the programs the state would like its students to have," he said.

So while the out-of-state tuition helps financially, there are educational gains by having the critical mass to support a broad range of majors and research centers, he said. Fogel said that he still hears complaints from Vermont citizens, but that they generally understand the educational case he makes in response about why the university needs non-resident students. Nearly 12 percent of this year's freshmen are minority students, and that's a level of diversity that would also be impossible without the out of state students, Fogel said.

Fogel noted that to have a steady stream of high quality out of state students, public universities need to do more than just open their doors. Vermont has an extensive alumni network involved in identifying and recruiting applicants, many second and third generation out of state families connected to the university, and long-term relationships with high schools that are outside the state. In many respects, he said, Vermont's admissions operation resembles that of a private college -- and involves long-term investments that not all public universities make.

A concern for the universities seeking more out-of-state students, Fogel said, is a shift away from public mission. "There is the risk of subtly and not so subtly undermining the public mission," he said. "Then you are like a private university that isn't at the top of the pecking order, looking for the sweet spot of the kids who are qualified to come and can pay all or most of the cost, and that's a pretty market-driven agenda."

Others share that concern. Patrick M. Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, said he worried about any state -- like California -- that moves to recruit more out-of-state students at a time when there are qualified residents losing slots, and those being recruited are likely to be less diverse than the residents of the state. He noted that most University of California campuses have more ethnic and racial diversity than much of American higher education. "So now that the majority of kids in the state will be more Latino, you are going to recruit more out-of-state students" who are likely to be white? he asked.

While Berkeley officials and UC faculty members have said that they believe any lost slots in California will build political pressure to support higher education, Callan said he was "very skeptical." He said he doesn't see signs that the public would respond in that way. "There's a danger here that you cut off your long-term support," he said.

At the same time, Callan acknowledged that in California and elsewhere, state officials considering these options face terrible budgets. "It's the dysfunctional nature of state government that makes these things possible."

David L. Kirp, a professor of public policy at Berkeley and the author of Shakespeare, Einstein and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education, said he viewed the out-of-state trend as "one of those lamentable necessities." He said that the University of California campuses and some other flagships have been "an equal opportunity gateway" for so many low-income students. Ultimately, he said that these plans work financially only by going after well-off students, and thus can encourage universities in that direction. You can easily end up, he said, with public universities "with a private school profile."

And in some states, it's not even certain that drawing in more out-of-state tuition revenue would help the university system. Nancy L. Zimpher, chancellor of the State University of New York, said she's intrigued by the idea of admitting more out-of-state students and using the extra funds to help improve SUNY for all of its students. But she noted that in SUNY's recent tuition hike, almost all of the additional money raised went to the state, not to SUNY. "How can we recruit out of state students on the assumption that they will help the university" if very little of the money ends up on campuses? she asked.

Zimpher also noted the importance of competition for non-resident students, and especially for international students. If lawmakers push for sharp increases in non-resident tuition as a money-raising strategy, it could backfire "and you can price yourself out of the market," she said.

Attracting more out-of-state students could benefit the state, she added. "We're a state that really wants in-migration," she said. But good tuition policy needs to be sensitive to the different demographics of different campuses, the need for campuses to serve the existing population, and a range of other factors. "I'm very interested in the proposition" of more non-New York students, she said, if the policies are set up correctly.

Will They Come?

Beyond the policy questions, there is of course another issue: If flagships open up more slots to non-residents, will top students apply?

Guidance counselors and consultants who advise students and their families about admissions here have very mixed reactions. Most say that there is no doubt that if Berkeley wants more out-of-state students, it will have no problem finding them -- with the highest of academic qualifications. The same is true for other highly prestigious universities.

Moving down a little bit in the pecking order, there may be more challenges. And the expectations vary considerably based on geography.

Julie A. Manhan, founder of College Navigation, advises students in Washington State. Most stay close to home. Of those looking out of state, "it's more about geography than anything else," she said. Many want to go someplace where they don't need to carry an umbrella at all times, so California is by far the biggest draw. Depending on the academic qualifications of her clients, she has students looking at a variety of University of California and California State University campuses. Looking at similar academic institutions without the California sun would be a hard sell, she said.

Generally, those of her clients who end up in the Northeast are almost always drawn by private colleges.

Jim Jump, president of the National Association for College Admission Counseling and director of guidance at St. Christopher's School, in Richmond, said he also sees clear patterns in student choices that may make it difficult for some public flagships to attract them. Many of his best students do look out of state, but typically at private colleges, he said. Those who go to out-of-state publics -- frequently applying in the states south of Virginia -- are those worried that they can't get in to the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech or the College of William and Mary, and who think (correctly) that they may have better luck in another state.

He said that if flagships outside Virginia start taking more out-of-state students, "it will make only a marginal difference for my students," in part because Virginia has great public options in state.

John B. Boshoven, director of college counseling at a public high school in Ann Arbor, Mich., said his students might seem perfect for this flagship strategy. They grow up in the shadow of the University of Michigan and many thus love the idea of a big research university, but many still don't want to go to college in their hometown. This results in some looking at Michigan State University or the other public universities in Michigan, and some considering other Big 10 institutions, such as the University of Wisconsin at Madison or the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.

The kinds of students who consider those choices may be the ones who would benefit, if those institutions were to admit more non-residents. But Boshoven said that even though he holds those universities in high regard, he also always asks students and parents a question when they consider these choices: "Are you willing to pay $10,000 or $15,000 more for a similar education with a different zip code?"

And as a result, the typical pattern is for his best students to go to Michigan -- or, if they leave the state, to go to small private colleges, having made the decision that they want to study at a liberal arts college, not a research university.

The way flagships outside of Michigan could become more competitive for his students, Boshoven said, would be to offer generous merit scholarships, which many already do through state scholarship programs designed to attract the best in-state students. Boshoven said that parents "feel valued" when their children are offered merit scholarships, and might "buy into this approach," even if it means a higher bill than would have been the case for an in-state institution. Of course, such discounting also cuts into the revenue that flagships are hoping to gain.

Mark A. Montgomery, a Colorado-based consultant to applicants and families, said he sees interest in public universities outside of the state, but mainly either those with very strong reputations -- "the Berkeleys, the Michigans, the North Carolinas" -- or those that are close and have strong recruiting efforts in the state. He cited the University of Wyoming and Montana State University as two institutions that have built awareness in that way.

His clients who apply to the Northeast or the Midwest tend to be looking at small liberal arts colleges, which differ in many ways from the large public universities that are dominant in their home state and are so much less expensive than flagships elsewhere. "If you could go to Boulder, why would you go to UMass?"

Larry Dannenberg, CEO of College Solutions, which counsels high school students and their parents, said that there is already a market for the flagships that want more out-of-state students: "There are kids every year who will tell you: 'I'll go anywhere as long as it's not in state.' "

As he sees more flagships trying to attract out-of-state students, he said, he'll adjust his recommendations to students, suggesting that it may be worth applying to an out-of-state flagship that might have been out of reach academically before. "I'll tell them 'you might not have gotten in before, but you might now, and by the way, if you don't need financial aid, you've got a better shot.' "

Dannenberg said he sees parents using "a sliding scale of price sensitivity" and that for some who may balk at the most expensive private colleges, a flagship out of state may represent "a compromise" with their children.

One group Dannenberg predicted won't be lured to out-of-state flagships: the children of professors. More than 10 percent of his clients each year are academic families, and he finds that the students in this group almost never select large doctoral universities; instead, these days, they opt for liberal arts colleges. He noted that concerns about quality of the undergraduate experience at large universities matter to these parents, even some who teach at such institutions.

"They cringe at the thought of their child with teaching assistants," he said. "They would rather see their child at a Gettysburg, with small classes and learning how to learn. They know that if they go to large state institutions, in many cases they are going to end up with large classes."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Out-of-State Dreams

  • Net Revenue
  • Posted by Mike on October 16, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • There is a very interesting debate. Some state legislation has capped the percentage of nonresidents enrolled at public institutions. The more nonresidents and revenue are linked the greater chance state government and the public will take sides.

    On one side of the argument are parents and students, residents of the state, whose sons and daughters are not admitted to the flagship campus.

    And the other side of the argument, are university leaders with strong conviction that nonresidents will willing pay more for an out-of-state public education.

    First, the argument on academic credentials for residents and nonresidents. Universities will need very clear and published admission criteria to eliminate any perception that the nonresident enrolled student has less academic credentials than the resident students that was not offered admission.

    Second, the public university should annually report to the faculty senate and state Board of Higher Education the number of undergraduate nonresidents and their academic credentials (ACT/SAT and GPA).

    Third, the public university should not use any ste funds to provide scholarship aid to nonresidents. Any scholarship/financial aid should be from FAFSA and federal sources and private sourses of funding. This would reduce the perception that state tax payer dollars are given to nonresident students at the expense of the instate student.

    Fourth, the enrollment, retention and graduation patterns of nonresidents should be tracked and reported. This should be compared to instate student enrollment patterns, retention and graduation.

    Fifth, the gross and net revenue from nonresident tuition and fees should be tracked. This will validate the premise to enroll nonresidents.

    Six, the public university should demonstrate how enrolling more nonresidents has a positive impact on instate students. As one example, assuming the tuition and fee revenue generated from nonresidents is real, what percentage of this revenue is directed to student financial aid and specifically to instate students to increase their financial awards as allowed by policy. I.E. eliminate loans with grants.

    Seventh, are nonresidents reducing the opportunity for low income, first generation and minority students?

    Eight, is higher education selling the seat in the freshmen class to the higest bidder?

    Thanks

  • Posted by Cato Renasci at NO, NO, NO on October 16, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • As a 5th generation Californian and University of California graduate, I strongly oppose increasing the number of out-of-state students in the UC system. The taxpayers of California pay for the University of California to provide a world class education to California resident undergraduate students, and only incidentally to bring in the very best students obtainable from out-of-state.

    It may well make sense at the graduate level not to differentiate between state residents and out-of-state applicants in admissions, especially now that the professional school tuition even for California residents has risen to levels once unthinkable.

    The UC System was once untouchable in California politics - whatever the University reasonably asked for, the University got from the legislature and the governor. That was because UC had almost universal support among the voters; opposing UC was like opposing Mom and (Gravenstein) apple pie. The radicalism of the students and the faculty in the 1960's and 1970's cost the UC System its overwhelming support. The brouhaha over affirmative action at UC did not help, and the increasing sense that UC is out of touch with Californians has led to its current less than admirable state in the current budget situation.

    The last thing UC needs is to further alienate the voters of California by making fewer UC slots available to state residents and more to out-of-state students.

  • A Decade or More Long Problem
  • Posted by Brett Bennett at UT-Austin on October 16, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • I think the issues raised by this article highlight a larger shift in demographics and economies highlighted by this recession/depression. What we are seeing is the need by universities to find sources of income outside of the designated tax bases that used to support them. This means that the money doesn't exist in a specific area when it used to. We can play the blame game and say that states have misappropriated the monies, but it is safe to say that with the excessive spending by states, there is only one way to gain more for education: taxing. And this is unlikely to happen.

    So what are we facing? Australia is a good example of a country that has modeled itself on importing higher paying fee students from abroad. It has the same problem of the state schools discussed: the taxes and fees from residential students and the government cannot adequately fund the growth and programs desired by administrators, faculty, and local communities. Australia has managed to import students of varying qualities from Asia. These universities can do this because they are essentially non-selective--those with fees and credentials in English, however poor, can get in. Many international students in Australia are disheartened by the lack of selectivity (except perhaps for ANU) and the way that universities use foreigners for their money.

    This is a scenario that might increasingly describe American universities who seek funding from out-of-state students and international students. While Berkeley can pull students from elsewhere, it is, in many ways, a zero sum game: there are only so many good students to go around. At some level, some schools will have to let in less capable candidates because they offer more money. We might also see schools having trouble filling the rosters to make the budget. 

    American universities are in a bind. States offer less and less, tuition is going up, and people have, and will likely continue to have, less money. What I think we are perhaps seeing is the erosion of mid-level top universities, just like there is an erosion of the US middle classes. There will also be a wealthy elite in the US, but the longevity and health of the middling sorts--be they universities or middle classes--is seriously in question right now. Australia, a country on the cusp of having elite world schools, essentially has to sacrifice the quality of students to gain more funding. How long this can continue before it erodes the countries credibility or before students quit coming is another issue entirely. The US should also be beginning to ask this question.

    What I think we should realize is that this is not just an issue of out-of-state students; it is a complete change in how universities are and will continue to be funded. Unfortunately, I don't think academics, administrators, states, or students are honestly thinking about the massive changes that might be happening in the coming years because of economic and demographic changes around the world. Let's hope the recovery really is V-shaped or the expectations of a post-World War II generation might sadly not fit the reality of the new world coming into existence. Asia is just not developing fast enough to pull anyone out of this, and Western economies seem to be falling into a mire that will take a long, long time to pull out of. 

    This is obviously pessimistic, but at the moment, the trend seems to be leaning towards low or no growth and a decline in state revenues and spending without the increase of private wealth required to finance education. One can be hopeful that the Western economies will recover or that Asia will wildly surge forward, but the problems in the West are too great and Asia's educational quality and infrastructure in absolute terms just cannot compare to even Australia or New Zealand, minor Western powers. Get used to a slow decline for the next few years. Let's hope we can pull out of this economic mess as soon as possible or else we can expect the erosion of many mid-level research universities. 

  • Stark Choices
  • Posted by Larry Hincker , Assoc VP for University Relations at Virginia Tech on October 16, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • States across America have been generally disinvesting in higher education support (with some exceptions) for at least a decade. Decisions by state policy leaders not to fund higher ed in state after state have resulted in a huge cost shift from the taxpayer to the student…or as evidenced by this story, to students from other states.

    Universities are economic animals and must pay the bills and keep the lights on like another other business. When state legislatures don’t provide necessary funds for its citizen students, universities have several choices – turn away the students, raise their tuition, or subsidize their tuition from other sources. In that latter case, many schools have found ready revenue via out-of-student tuition.

    At my university, the stark financial reality is that we could not fund operations and teach 17,000 Virginia undergraduates without the income provided by 6,000 non-Virginians. The business model just won’t work….unless we drastically raise in-state tuition, which is just another special purpose user fee, as former Virginia Governor Gerald Baliles recently opined. (Our cost to educate a student is about $15K; the student pays about $6.5K; and the state pays about $6K. The balance is the hole that needs filling.) At my university (and I venture this saga is repeated in states around the nation), the state had reduced its support for in-state students by almost 40% since the beginning of the decade. Adjust for inflation and it just gets worse.

    There is no money in the statehouse and legislatures will not raise taxes in the current economic climate. Universities and legislators couldn’t stand the pressure if they were to raise in-state tuition to actually pay the full cost of education. Thus, there are few palatable choices left to keep the doors open and relying on the out-of-state student to support the in-state student is one that seems acceptable in most quarters.

  • Higher Ed Funds
  • Posted by LAJerry , NSCS on October 16, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Regarding some of the statements by Larry...with all due respect, state funding (overall) for higher has not been on the decline for the past decade. In fact, the annual percentage change in state tax appropriations for higher ed each year over the last decade has been as follows:

    2000 = +7.1%
    2001 = +7.0%
    2002 = +4.6%
    2003 = +1.2%
    2004 = (2.1%)
    2005 = +3.8%
    2006 = +6.0%
    2007 = +7.1%
    2008 = +7.5%

    In addition, an IHE story from July 20 quoted a NASSGAP report which showed financial aid awarded by states to students grew in 2007-08 by 7.1% from the previous year.

    I understand that enrollments have increased each year, sometimes faster than tax appropriations, and thus per student spending in some cases has not risen, or even declined. But the notion that most states have not supported higher education over the past few years doesn't seem consistent with the actual data.

     

  • I Want My Taxes Back
  • Posted by Concerned Citizen on October 16, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • State residents have paid taxes to support our public universities. Taxes have helped build the buildings, and pay faculty/staff salaries to develop quality programs. Although non-state residents pay higher tuition, they have not shared a similar financial (tax) burden over the years as state residents. Our public universities serve an educational mission – they are not a for-profit institution. How do you explain to a taxpayer, that their children will not be admitted and yet there are spaces available for non-residents? If we don’t have funds to serve all eligible residents, then we should not open the door to non-residents. Even if that means we can’t afford to keep the same number of faculty/staff employed. Public universities exist to serve state resident students. If that is no longer the mission, I want my taxes back.

  • where is this data from?
  • Posted by Jnewmann , EDS at UCSD on October 16, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • LAJerry, where is your data from? This is inconsistent with data I have seen.

  • Data source
  • Posted by LAJerry , NSCS on October 16, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Data above was reported in an IHE story publised January 9. IHE quoted an annual study called the "Grapevine", produced by researchers at Illinois State University's Center for the Study of Education Policy.

    My apologies for not including that cite earlier.

  • California taxpayers
  • Posted by UC Employee on October 16, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • In fact, California taxpayers only partially support the University's endeavors--at some campuses, such as UCSD, only 12% of the budget is from state funds. The state-supported portion has been shrinking over time on a per student basis while other state-supported sectors have been growing. Taxpayers have consistently refused to increase spending on education, while expecting a quality product.

  • do the math
  • Posted by Chris Newfield , English at U of California, Santa Barbara on October 16, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • In addition to raising complicated political, ethical, and educational issues, increasing proportions of out of state students have two big problems: they encourage state legislatures to cut proportionally, so the net revenue increase is smaller than the gross; and even the gross is marginal. I calculated the maximum benefit at UC Berkeley, the most viable candidate for this policy in the UC system, to be 10% of the annual campus budget,and more likely half that (http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2009/09/can-doubling-out-of-state-students-save.html; for a parallel analysis by a colleague at UCSD, see http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2009/09/non-resident-tuition-profit-revenues.html) Since the new revenues are small, why not rebuild the same amount of state-based public support instead?

  • Will this be a good bargin?
  • Posted by Tish Peterson , Director of College Counseling at Holton-Arms School on October 17, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • Although this article implies that better out-of-state options might be available to our students, it also raises the spectre of a diminished quality of education at these same institutions due to budget cutbacks. Is there really a benefit to gaining admission if the eductional experience has been undermined?

  • extra students or replacement students?
  • Posted by conor king , HE Consultant, Australia on October 18, 2009 at 8:00pm EDT
  • The comments from Concerned Citizen point to the need to be precise about what is proposed in each case. One approach is for a University to continue with its current number of in-state students and expand the out of state. In that sense no additional in-state person is missing out - but you could argue for the capacity to expand the in-state numbers. That seems the more likely intent in most cases.

    The other is indeed that a university reduces the in-state numbers to increase out of state while keeping the total at current levels. The arguments about use of taxes then come in to play.

  • Not all of the out of state encouragement is simply money...
  • Posted by Bill Gleason , assoc. prof / Lab Med & Path at U Minneosta on October 20, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • The U of M has CUT out of state tuition recently. This fire sale on tuition will not doubt stimulate applicants from out of state to the detriment of Minnesota residents. No doubt to make us more competitive in the beauty contest that is the USNews annual reports. Some interesting numbers (from the Wisconsin provost's office):

    Non-Resident Tuition

    BigTen Public Universities

    [Academic Planning & Analysis, Office of the Provost, UW-Madison]

    Minnesota $15,293

    Iowa 22,198
    Ohio St. 22,278
    Wisconsin 23,063

    Purdue 25,118
    Penn State 25, 946
    Indiana 26,160
    Illinois 26,650
    Michigan St. 27,781

    Michigan 36,163