More public universities recruit affluent out-of-state students at expense of poorer, in-state ones

[pstokely]

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/higher_education/more-public-universities-recruit-affluent-out-of-state-students-at/article_ab2c74b0-1b4c-11e5-846f-bb99ac94bbe4.html

"The expense of acquiring a degree is falling disproportionately on lower-income students who tend to devote a greater share of their income to college costs, according to a report released by the New America Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute in Washington, D.C.

Public institutions are becoming more exclusive and inaccessible to low-income students, the report suggests. Schools actively recruit and reward smart, wealthy students — many from out of state — to boost rankings and revenue, at the expense of less affluent in-state students.

The report examined 424 public four-year universities and colleges across the country, including major research universities, regional colleges and universities, and state flagship universities.

Colleges are becoming “bastions of privilege,” said Stephen Burd, a senior policy analyst at New America Foundation and author of the report."

[SunSeeker]

1. K & R for exposure. nt

[Igel]

2. There's a reason that they're major research universities, regional and flagship universities

It's because they're into research, they service the region, and they're striving to become or maintain their status as prestigious.

They're often the reason that many of those same poor students want to go to those universities. Go to one of them and your degree is worth more. But what makes the degree worth more? The school's rep--because they have good research faculty, they have a regional reputation (instead of a local, in-state reputation), and they're prominent because they go for the best students wherever they're from.

At my grad school undergrads had the same complaint. They understood why the school had a good national, not just regional, reputation. But what they really wanted was to have the school cash in on that reputation and spend it ... for them. Undergrads, short-termers, really want the entire school's mission to focus on them, because they are the only actual students; while the school's mission includes them every bit as much as it includes the new admits for the class of 2025, 2055, and 2115. In fact, often the school will implicitly say that the future cohorts matter more than the present ones because the future cohorts are more numerous. There may be 20k students attending in the next 4 years, but there will be 200k students attending in the next 60 years, and reputation, assets, prestige need to be safeguarded for them, as well. But the school usually takes in the best of the poor, the best of the middle, and best of the wealthy in state students, plus the best out-of-state and international students they can.

Because then their research faculty teach at a higher level and feel worthwhile; the students leave to go back to their home states or countries and spread the good word. And those students tend to pay more, sometimes paying their actual cost (meaning that the financial aid per student that the school has can be focused on the poorer students) or even more than their actual cost.

NAF is oft daft.

[floyd1]

3. Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders is advocating for tuition-free state universities. This is the only candidate on the democratic side vocalizing such an agenda! This would help the situation you describe! Check out Bernie Sanders. www.berniesanders.com

[davidpdx]

4. Not only out of state, but also foreign students

Tuition for foreign students is very high (sometimes 3-4 times higher than in-state students) and schools are trying to recruit them to make up for the lack of funding from the state and federal governments. Now if that funding had not been cut in the first place, it wouldn't be a problem.