Finally someone is measuring the most important statistic – Salary Impact. (i.e., how much more you are going to earn going to one school vs. another, and how much extra tuition you need to pay to get those additional earnings.
intercst
1 Like
Behind a paywall.
Meanwhile, I have been trying to figure how profitable U of M would be, if it went all out-of-state.
As of the latest data I can find, students provide 75% of U of M’s revenue. Out-of-state students pay 330% as much as in-state. The student body is almost evenly divided between in-state and out-of-state students. So, rounding for ease of calculation (math was never my strong suit), half the students pay three times as much as the other half of the students. so the revenue paid by students should be divisible into 4 sections of 100, one section paid by half, and three sections paid by the other half. Each section would account for 18.75% of revenue. Replace the in-state students, with out-of-state students, and the university gains 2 sections of revenue, or 37.5% of revenue. Now, revenue from students equals 112.5% of revenue. The university returns the 12.5% surplus from the students, plus the 25% that came from state funding, to the (L&Ses) in Lansing.
Meanwhile, in East Lansing, tuition is $15,372 for in-state and $41,958 for out-of-state. State is not as selective as U of M, admitting 88% of applicants. Only 30% of enrollment is from out-of-state. I have not found a breakdown of acceptance rate for in-state vs out-of-state. State may have trouble getting to 100% out-of-state enrollment, to become nearly as profitable as U of M.
/Shiny mode
Steve
2 Likes
A few years ago, I read I read a story about wealthy California parents who offered to pay out-of-state tuition to get their kids into UCLA or Berkeley ( it was something like $12,000 vs. $46,000 at the time). The university declined.
The academic qualifications to be admitted to UCLA or Berkeley as a California resident were actually a lot higher than for out-of-staters.
intercst
2 Likes
Better yet: Charge the L&Ses a 25%/yr premium for producing “qualified candidates”–whether hired or not. Charge 50% premium for NOT hiring those “qualified candidates”. Definition of a “qualified candidate”: A person who meets the stated requirements for a publicly posted job at their business or govt.
Of course that is NOT what is being measured.
Maybe those that go to the top schools would have earned just as much if they had gone to a less prestigious (or cheaper) school.
Mike
2 Likes
That’s exactly what’s being measured. For example, the fancy private engineering school I attended almost 50 years ago now costs $20,000/yr more than State U, but the starting salaries and 10-year salaries are about the same. No way I’d recommend that someone pay an extra $80,000 over four years to attend my alma mater. Hopefully now that this information has more visibility, people will make better decisions.
The reason that places like Harvard, Yale & MIT look like such a good deal is that students from families making less than $200,000/yr essentially go there cost free.
intercst
1 Like
Being from CT that is really great news about Yale. I worried a few years ago the university had become a backwater. The state was in discussions with Yale to tool the university relationships to private industry and start ups in the private sector. Yale has mostly been skipping what could be done in favor of training nurses often master degrees. Frankly a waste of resources on the Ivy League level. All those trained MS nurses were not doing research…mostly not…This was some ten years ago. Nice honor to be a nurse out of Yale. Does not help the state’s economy properly.