(04-06-2017 06:32 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  College and university enrollment in the US peaked in 2010 and has declined ever since. No idea how Missouri's decline compares to other schools. I do know that many schools have heavily recruited foreign students to make up the difference, but that seems to be dropping off as well due to more restrictive visa requirements.

Enrollment of students peaked in 2010, but it's only down by 4% and it's expected to go back up.

However, the total number doesn't tell the full story. International enrollment has gone up by 50% since 2010 (from 690,923 to 1,043,839). So top-level doctoral granting institutions like Mizzou have, on average, seen a big increase in enrollment. That's what's shocking here - Mizzou is decreasing while all of its competitors have been increasing for a long time.

I just pulled some data from IPEDS, and here's the growth of Full Time Equivalent students from 2010 to 2015 for the flagships near Missouri:

26.7% - University of Arkansas
26.8% - Iowa State University
3.8% - Kansas State University
4.7% - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3.2% - University of Iowa
-5.1% - University of Kansas
11.1% - University of Kentucky
2.1% - University of Nebraska-Lincoln
2.8% - University of Oklahoma-Norman Campus
11.4% - Oklahoma State University-Main Campus

The average across all SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 schools was an 8.4% increase in enrollment from 2010-2015.

(04-07-2017 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  Well Target says the announcement of their policy hurt them. Missouri and everyone else is saying the protests hurt them.

You can choose not to believe those closest if you want, but you look pretty silly.

From the conservative standpoint, Missouri looks like a bunch of nuts.
From the BLM standpoint, Missouri looks like a bunch of racist bigots.
From the non-political standpoint, Missouri looks like it might not be a safe place to be if you just want to mind your own business and not be harassed because you are conservative, liberal, Black or uninterested, as well as a place that is incompetently governed.

Missouri made themselves look bad to everyone. That's why enrollment is down 25%.

If I were an incompetent or lazy leader I would say the above in bold and head to lunch.
" Yep it was that other thing...not my 150 golf days a year :D"

(04-07-2017 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  Well Target says the announcement of their policy hurt them. Missouri and everyone else is saying the protests hurt them.

You can choose not to believe those closest if you want, but you look pretty silly.

From the conservative standpoint, Missouri looks like a bunch of nuts.
From the BLM standpoint, Missouri looks like a bunch of racist bigots.
From the non-political standpoint, Missouri looks like it might not be a safe place to be if you just want to mind your own business and not be harassed because you are conservative, liberal, Black or uninterested, as well as a place that is incompetently governed.

Missouri made themselves look bad to everyone. That's why enrollment is down 25%.

No, Target is not saying that at all and neither is the University of Missouri. In fact, they are insisting that just the opposite is true.

Really terrible human beings with blatantly transplant agendas who want to manipulate you into believing their agenda and who are counting on you being dumb enough to fall for it, are saying those things.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/733164

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dailycall...-students/

It's all garbage but I'm not here to persuade you into seeing the truth right in front of your eyes. You believe whatever you want to believe. However, make no mistake about it, you are DEFINITELY being manipulated by people with a financial interest in manipulating you.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the interest of full disclosure, focus groups are a regular part of my job. I sit in on several per year -- 8-10 minimum.

I can tell you with absolute certainty how much attention people pay to marketing and advertising -- and the answer is very little.

Nine out of 10 people were not carefully monitoring the protests at the University of Missouri and developing strong opinions on it – they just weren't.

And an even smaller percentage of people have any idea what Target's policy is towards transgender's.

What is Macy's policy towards transgendered people? How about Sears? JCPenney's?

Nobody knows and nobody cares - except the nuts and bored retirees that watch Fox, CNN or MSNBC all day every day.

Now, the fact that Target had one of the worst security breaches in the history of identity theft, that WAS legitimately big deal because that received a TON of media attention and it actually impacted people's bottom line.

Nobody wants to have their identity stolen.

However, I don't care what your media overlords propagandize you with, where some woman who was born a boy takes a dump, very few people care about that - if they are even aware of it at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-07-2017 12:39 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  In the interest of full disclosure, focus groups are a regular part of my job. I sit in on several per year -- 8-10 minimum.

I can tell you with absolute certainty how much attention people pay to marketing and advertising -- and the answer is very little.

Nine out of 10 people were not carefully monitoring the protests at the University of Missouri and developing strong opinions on it – they just weren't.

And an even smaller percentage of people have any idea what Target's policy is towards transgender's.

What is Macy's policy towards transgendered people? How about Sears? JCPenney's?

Nobody knows and nobody cares - except the nuts and bored retirees that watch Fox, CNN or MSNBC all day every day.

Now, the fact that Target had one of the worst security breaches in the history of identity theft, that WAS legitimately big deal because that received a TON of media attention and it actually impacted people's bottom line.

Nobody wants to have their identity stolen.

However, where some woman who was born a boy takes a dump, very few people care about that - if they are even aware of it at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that there's a difference between buying shoes and buying a college education. I think that the entire MIZZOU situation was dumb - both the protests and the school's response. But that would be unlikely to impact my decision. However, the political ramifications would. MIZZOU is a public school and the 1/10 in people who care are the guys who let this stuff shape their vote. Therefore it's my belief that MIZZOU just made it very easy to reallocate their state appropriations to other worthy uses.

That reality/belief would scare me away if I was a prospective student w/ other options. And even if I didn't believe funding would get the axe, you'd also have a very hard time convincing me that other top students didn't. At that point an admissions, ranking, and funding decline almost becomes self-fulfilling.

It's analogous to a liquidity run in finance.

(04-06-2017 05:57 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 05:45 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 04:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  As long as they keep having decent attendance, the SEC isn't going to worry. Now they may start having financial issues.

If you are closing 7 dorms, laying off staff, and have a 24% drop in enrollment, you already have financial issues. Big ones.

There's probably another factor in the dorm closing...

I live in Morgantown (WV) and WVU is closing down a dorm next year as well, but enrollment is up. The dorm being closed down was built in the 70's, so not super old, but...

1) The University has gone into several "private-public" partnerships which has built several large, off-campus, student apartment complexes. These are owned by the University but managed by a private leasing company. So, in closing down a large dorm, the University shifts the costs and liabilities of housing students to a private leasing company.

2) The incoming students DO NOT WANT to live in dorms. You should see the recruitment tactics of some of these places: granite counter-tops, en-suite plasma TV's, work-out rooms, kitchens and private bathrooms, etc... That's what students are looking for. The days of mass amounts of students ware-housed in a bland, semi-private dorm rooms with a communal bathroom per a floor are dying. Students are demanding private rooms with amenities...and their parents are paying for them.

When I was in college, eating mac-n-cheese and ramen noodles prepared on an illicit hot-plate was part of the experience. Not any more.

That is interesting. I've not heard of these private student residences resulting in closing of university owned housing before. Usually it is complementary. But that also isn't unexpected. These private and private-partnership student housing projects are definitely the current trend.

Interestingly, and this may be one of the few examples of this, the last dorm that Pitt opened intentionally went against the trend of suite-style apartments for students. It was designed as more of a traditional dorm with a central meeting spaces on each floor to intentionally encourage interaction and prevent students from siloing in their rooms. While it is the newest student residence, and hard to make comparisons because of that confounding fact, it is also the most popular dorm on campus for incoming freshmen. Pitt is in a little bit of a different situation though because of the urban nature of its campus and surrounding environment.

The real problem for Mizzou is the 24% drop in enrollment. That's a massive loss. You can't lose a quarter of your tuition and not have serious financial problems. The article also alluded to the fact that state subsidies are being cut, thereby compounding the issue. Clearly the dorm closures there are related to the drop in enrollment, not private off-campus residences. In the meantime, those shuttered dorms will not be generating any revenue that can be used to update and maintain that infrastructure. They have some serious issues there that need to be addressed.

(04-07-2017 12:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 06:32 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  College and university enrollment in the US peaked in 2010 and has declined ever since. No idea how Missouri's decline compares to other schools. I do know that many schools have heavily recruited foreign students to make up the difference, but that seems to be dropping off as well due to more restrictive visa requirements.

Enrollment of students peaked in 2010, but it's only down by 4% and it's expected to go back up.

However, the total number doesn't tell the full story. International enrollment has gone up by 50% since 2010 (from 690,923 to 1,043,839). So top-level doctoral granting institutions like Mizzou have, on average, seen a big increase in enrollment. That's what's shocking here - Mizzou is decreasing while all of its competitors have been increasing for a long time.

I just pulled some data from IPEDS, and here's the growth of Full Time Equivalent students from 2010 to 2015 for the flagships near Missouri:

26.7% - University of Arkansas
26.8% - Iowa State University
3.8% - Kansas State University
4.7% - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3.2% - University of Iowa
-5.1% - University of Kansas
11.1% - University of Kentucky
2.1% - University of Nebraska-Lincoln
2.8% - University of Oklahoma-Norman Campus
11.4% - Oklahoma State University-Main Campus

The average across all SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 schools was an 8.4% increase in enrollment from 2010-2015.

While not a state flagship like those, we are the instate competition we are up 15% in the same time frame.

As an Illini, far be it from me to say anything in the defense of Mizzou, but I believe that this is very temporary short-term response to an intensely political story in a particularly politically charged time in recent history. I wouldn't put too much into this as a long-term issue. There will be a point in the near future (probably within the next year or two) where the students applying to Mizzou will have little to no recollection of the recent political divisions at the school.

Ultimately, if Mizzou continues to have quality academic programs and competes aggressively on providing scholarships to students (as they have very clearly done over the past decade in drawing Chicago area students), then they are going to be just fine. Mizzou has turned itself into as much of an out-of-state draw for Chicago area kids as Big Ten schools like Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin (which was not an easy task), so they have the demographic make-up to get through this bump.

(04-07-2017 02:00 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  That is interesting. I've not heard of these private student residences resulting in closing of university owned housing before. Usually it is complementary.

At the U, there are TONS of apartment buildings going up in the last 2-3 years. I don't think the school has anything to do with planning them or having any kind of partnership with them, but could be wrong.

Example of one that opened up I believe last year: http://liveatwahu.com/

(04-07-2017 02:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As an Illini, far be it from me to say anything in the defense of Mizzou, but I believe that this is very temporary short-term response to an intensely political story in a particularly politically charged time in recent history. I wouldn't put too much into this as a long-term issue. There will be a point in the near future (probably within the next year or two) where the students applying to Mizzou will have little to no recollection of the recent political divisions at the school.

Ultimately, if Mizzou continues to have quality academic programs and competes aggressively on providing scholarships to students (as they have very clearly done over the past decade in drawing Chicago area students), then they are going to be just fine. Mizzou has turned itself into as much of an out-of-state draw for Chicago area kids as Big Ten schools like Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin (which was not an easy task), so they have the demographic make-up to get through this bump.

Illinois politics make it where it's cheaper for Illinois residents to go to Missouri State than it is to Southern Illinois or Illinois State.

(04-07-2017 02:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Mizzou has turned itself into as much of an out-of-state draw for Chicago area kids as Big Ten schools like Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin (which was not an easy task), so they have the demographic make-up to get through this bump.

Well, from another thread (Chicago St problems?) it appears so has Alabama.

Any school can do it ... all it takes is a willingness to target a particular area and "make it rain" with scholarships.

(04-07-2017 02:30 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As an Illini, far be it from me to say anything in the defense of Mizzou, but I believe that this is very temporary short-term response to an intensely political story in a particularly politically charged time in recent history. I wouldn't put too much into this as a long-term issue. There will be a point in the near future (probably within the next year or two) where the students applying to Mizzou will have little to no recollection of the recent political divisions at the school.

Ultimately, if Mizzou continues to have quality academic programs and competes aggressively on providing scholarships to students (as they have very clearly done over the past decade in drawing Chicago area students), then they are going to be just fine. Mizzou has turned itself into as much of an out-of-state draw for Chicago area kids as Big Ten schools like Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin (which was not an easy task), so they have the demographic make-up to get through this bump.

Illinois politics make it where it's cheaper for Illinois residents to go to Missouri State than it is to Southern Illinois or Illinois State.

Back in 80's I knew a few people from Illinois who came to AState because it was cheaper to pay out-of-state tuition than pay in-state at SIU or IllSt.

(04-07-2017 02:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:30 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As an Illini, far be it from me to say anything in the defense of Mizzou, but I believe that this is very temporary short-term response to an intensely political story in a particularly politically charged time in recent history. I wouldn't put too much into this as a long-term issue. There will be a point in the near future (probably within the next year or two) where the students applying to Mizzou will have little to no recollection of the recent political divisions at the school.

Ultimately, if Mizzou continues to have quality academic programs and competes aggressively on providing scholarships to students (as they have very clearly done over the past decade in drawing Chicago area students), then they are going to be just fine. Mizzou has turned itself into as much of an out-of-state draw for Chicago area kids as Big Ten schools like Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin (which was not an easy task), so they have the demographic make-up to get through this bump.

Illinois politics make it where it's cheaper for Illinois residents to go to Missouri State than it is to Southern Illinois or Illinois State.

Back in 80's I knew a few people from Illinois who came to AState because it was cheaper to pay out-of-state tuition than pay in-state at SIU or IllSt.

Approximately half of the WVU student body is out-of-state. A great number of WVU students come from NY and NJ because it is well known that WVU "out-of-state" tuition is still considerably less than "in-state" rates for Rutgers and the SUNY system.

(04-07-2017 02:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:30 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As an Illini, far be it from me to say anything in the defense of Mizzou, but I believe that this is very temporary short-term response to an intensely political story in a particularly politically charged time in recent history. I wouldn't put too much into this as a long-term issue. There will be a point in the near future (probably within the next year or two) where the students applying to Mizzou will have little to no recollection of the recent political divisions at the school.

Ultimately, if Mizzou continues to have quality academic programs and competes aggressively on providing scholarships to students (as they have very clearly done over the past decade in drawing Chicago area students), then they are going to be just fine. Mizzou has turned itself into as much of an out-of-state draw for Chicago area kids as Big Ten schools like Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin (which was not an easy task), so they have the demographic make-up to get through this bump.

Illinois politics make it where it's cheaper for Illinois residents to go to Missouri State than it is to Southern Illinois or Illinois State.

Back in 80's I knew a few people from Illinois who came to AState because it was cheaper to pay out-of-state tuition than pay in-state at SIU or IllSt.

In the 70s, it was cheaper to pay out of state at Texas than in state in Michigan (and a few other states).

(04-07-2017 12:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 06:32 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  College and university enrollment in the US peaked in 2010 and has declined ever since. No idea how Missouri's decline compares to other schools. I do know that many schools have heavily recruited foreign students to make up the difference, but that seems to be dropping off as well due to more restrictive visa requirements.

Enrollment of students peaked in 2010, but it's only down by 4% and it's expected to go back up.

However, the total number doesn't tell the full story. International enrollment has gone up by 50% since 2010 (from 690,923 to 1,043,839). So top-level doctoral granting institutions like Mizzou have, on average, seen a big increase in enrollment. That's what's shocking here - Mizzou is decreasing while all of its competitors have been increasing for a long time.

I just pulled some data from IPEDS, and here's the growth of Full Time Equivalent students from 2010 to 2015 for the flagships near Missouri:

26.7% - University of Arkansas
26.8% - Iowa State University
3.8% - Kansas State University
4.7% - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3.2% - University of Iowa
-5.1% - University of Kansas
11.1% - University of Kentucky
2.1% - University of Nebraska-Lincoln
2.8% - University of Oklahoma-Norman Campus
11.4% - Oklahoma State University-Main Campus

The average across all SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 schools was an 8.4% increase in enrollment from 2010-2015.

Good info. Reinforces my previous posts about Arkansas heavily recruiting out of state students with financial benefits by waiving out of state tuition. Students from many states can attend Arkansas for less than in their home state. The UofA Administration likes it, because it makes money and provides job security..........albeit at the taxpayers expense. It blows my mind that the State Legislature allows this. However it is Arkansas

(04-07-2017 05:20 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 12:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 06:32 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  College and university enrollment in the US peaked in 2010 and has declined ever since. No idea how Missouri's decline compares to other schools. I do know that many schools have heavily recruited foreign students to make up the difference, but that seems to be dropping off as well due to more restrictive visa requirements.

Enrollment of students peaked in 2010, but it's only down by 4% and it's expected to go back up.

However, the total number doesn't tell the full story. International enrollment has gone up by 50% since 2010 (from 690,923 to 1,043,839). So top-level doctoral granting institutions like Mizzou have, on average, seen a big increase in enrollment. That's what's shocking here - Mizzou is decreasing while all of its competitors have been increasing for a long time.

I just pulled some data from IPEDS, and here's the growth of Full Time Equivalent students from 2010 to 2015 for the flagships near Missouri:

26.7% - University of Arkansas
26.8% - Iowa State University
3.8% - Kansas State University
4.7% - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3.2% - University of Iowa
-5.1% - University of Kansas
11.1% - University of Kentucky
2.1% - University of Nebraska-Lincoln
2.8% - University of Oklahoma-Norman Campus
11.4% - Oklahoma State University-Main Campus

The average across all SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 schools was an 8.4% increase in enrollment from 2010-2015.

Good info. Reinforces my previous posts about Arkansas heavily recruiting out of state students with financial benefits by waiving out of state tuition. Students from many states can attend Arkansas for less than in their home state. The UofA Administration likes it, because it makes money and provides job security..........albeit at the taxpayers expense. It blows my mind that the State Legislature allows this. However it is Arkansas

How does it "make money?" In-state tuition levels are too low to pay for themselves. The only way it makes money is if the state gives the university a pro-rata amount based one each student, and it's the height of idiocy to count out-of-state students in a scheme like that.

(04-07-2017 12:39 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  In the interest of full disclosure, focus groups are a regular part of my job. I sit in on several per year -- 8-10 minimum.

I can tell you with absolute certainty how much attention people pay to marketing and advertising -- and the answer is very little.

Nine out of 10 people were not carefully monitoring the protests at the University of Missouri and developing strong opinions on it – they just weren't.

And an even smaller percentage of people have any idea what Target's policy is towards transgender's.

What is Macy's policy towards transgendered people? How about Sears? JCPenney's?

Nobody knows and nobody cares - except the nuts and bored retirees that watch Fox, CNN or MSNBC all day every day.

Now, the fact that Target had one of the worst security breaches in the history of identity theft, that WAS legitimately big deal because that received a TON of media attention and it actually impacted people's bottom line.

Nobody wants to have their identity stolen.

However, I don't care what your media overlords propagandize you with, where some woman who was born a boy takes a dump, very few people care about that - if they are even aware of it at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that nationwide, few non-football fans knew of the Mizzou situation. But in Missouri, I'd bet at least half of people knew what was going on. It was a huge story about one of the biggest employers in the state.

As far as Target, I didn't even know they had a data breach. Those have been happening at so many companies that they all blur together. However I did know about their transgender policy because they were very vocal about it for week or two, and it reinforced my previous impression about their intended target audience (i.e., not me). I don't know Macy's or Sears' policy because they haven't been very vocal about it.

Public universities and large corporations are poor choices of institutions to get involved in political activism - their goal is to serve everyone, not to exclude people based on their political preference. So I tend to stay away from places that do that. I'd avoid a loudmouth conservative corporation or public university too, if such a place existed.

(04-07-2017 05:20 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 12:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 06:32 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  College and university enrollment in the US peaked in 2010 and has declined ever since. No idea how Missouri's decline compares to other schools. I do know that many schools have heavily recruited foreign students to make up the difference, but that seems to be dropping off as well due to more restrictive visa requirements.

Enrollment of students peaked in 2010, but it's only down by 4% and it's expected to go back up.

However, the total number doesn't tell the full story. International enrollment has gone up by 50% since 2010 (from 690,923 to 1,043,839). So top-level doctoral granting institutions like Mizzou have, on average, seen a big increase in enrollment. That's what's shocking here - Mizzou is decreasing while all of its competitors have been increasing for a long time.

I just pulled some data from IPEDS, and here's the growth of Full Time Equivalent students from 2010 to 2015 for the flagships near Missouri:

26.7% - University of Arkansas
26.8% - Iowa State University
3.8% - Kansas State University
4.7% - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3.2% - University of Iowa
-5.1% - University of Kansas
11.1% - University of Kentucky
2.1% - University of Nebraska-Lincoln
2.8% - University of Oklahoma-Norman Campus
11.4% - Oklahoma State University-Main Campus

The average across all SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 schools was an 8.4% increase in enrollment from 2010-2015.

Good info. Reinforces my previous posts about Arkansas heavily recruiting out of state students with financial benefits by waiving out of state tuition. Students from many states can attend Arkansas for less than in their home state. The UofA Administration likes it, because it makes money and provides job security..........albeit at the taxpayers expense. It blows my mind that the State Legislature allows this. However it is Arkansas

A lot of states allow in-state for neighboring state's students. Auburn does it for Georgia students.

Auburn and Clemson are the "2nd choice" for kids who can't get into Georgia or Georgia Tech.

(04-07-2017 07:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 05:20 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 12:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 06:32 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  College and university enrollment in the US peaked in 2010 and has declined ever since. No idea how Missouri's decline compares to other schools. I do know that many schools have heavily recruited foreign students to make up the difference, but that seems to be dropping off as well due to more restrictive visa requirements.

Enrollment of students peaked in 2010, but it's only down by 4% and it's expected to go back up.

However, the total number doesn't tell the full story. International enrollment has gone up by 50% since 2010 (from 690,923 to 1,043,839). So top-level doctoral granting institutions like Mizzou have, on average, seen a big increase in enrollment. That's what's shocking here - Mizzou is decreasing while all of its competitors have been increasing for a long time.

I just pulled some data from IPEDS, and here's the growth of Full Time Equivalent students from 2010 to 2015 for the flagships near Missouri:

26.7% - University of Arkansas
26.8% - Iowa State University
3.8% - Kansas State University
4.7% - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3.2% - University of Iowa
-5.1% - University of Kansas
11.1% - University of Kentucky
2.1% - University of Nebraska-Lincoln
2.8% - University of Oklahoma-Norman Campus
11.4% - Oklahoma State University-Main Campus

The average across all SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 schools was an 8.4% increase in enrollment from 2010-2015.

Good info. Reinforces my previous posts about Arkansas heavily recruiting out of state students with financial benefits by waiving out of state tuition. Students from many states can attend Arkansas for less than in their home state. The UofA Administration likes it, because it makes money and provides job security..........albeit at the taxpayers expense. It blows my mind that the State Legislature allows this. However it is Arkansas

A lot of states allow in-state for neighboring state's students. Auburn does it for Georgia students.

Auburn and Clemson are the "2nd choice" for kids who can't get into Georgia or Georgia Tech.

B.S. Auburn is the first choice for the sons and daughters of Auburn grads who live in Georgia and the first choice for many kids from Columbus / Lagrange / & Newnan areas. Clemson picks up kids from North Georgia and whose parents went to Clemson. Auburn's tuition break is based on mileage from the campus not the whole state of Georgia. We may get some 2nd choice kids but they do not make up the majority of our our enrollment from Georgia.

(04-07-2017 08:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 07:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 05:20 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 12:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 06:32 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  College and university enrollment in the US peaked in 2010 and has declined ever since. No idea how Missouri's decline compares to other schools. I do know that many schools have heavily recruited foreign students to make up the difference, but that seems to be dropping off as well due to more restrictive visa requirements.

Enrollment of students peaked in 2010, but it's only down by 4% and it's expected to go back up.

However, the total number doesn't tell the full story. International enrollment has gone up by 50% since 2010 (from 690,923 to 1,043,839). So top-level doctoral granting institutions like Mizzou have, on average, seen a big increase in enrollment. That's what's shocking here - Mizzou is decreasing while all of its competitors have been increasing for a long time.

I just pulled some data from IPEDS, and here's the growth of Full Time Equivalent students from 2010 to 2015 for the flagships near Missouri:

26.7% - University of Arkansas
26.8% - Iowa State University
3.8% - Kansas State University
4.7% - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3.2% - University of Iowa
-5.1% - University of Kansas
11.1% - University of Kentucky
2.1% - University of Nebraska-Lincoln
2.8% - University of Oklahoma-Norman Campus
11.4% - Oklahoma State University-Main Campus

The average across all SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 schools was an 8.4% increase in enrollment from 2010-2015.

Good info. Reinforces my previous posts about Arkansas heavily recruiting out of state students with financial benefits by waiving out of state tuition. Students from many states can attend Arkansas for less than in their home state. The UofA Administration likes it, because it makes money and provides job security..........albeit at the taxpayers expense. It blows my mind that the State Legislature allows this. However it is Arkansas

A lot of states allow in-state for neighboring state's students. Auburn does it for Georgia students.

Auburn and Clemson are the "2nd choice" for kids who can't get into Georgia or Georgia Tech.

B.S. Auburn is the first choice for the sons and daughters of Auburn grads who live in Georgia and the first choice for many kids from Columbus / Lagrange / & Newnan areas. Clemson picks up kids from North Georgia and whose parents went to Clemson. Auburn's tuition break is based on mileage from the campus not the whole state of Georgia. We may get some 2nd choice kids but they do not make up the majority of our our enrollment from Georgia.

Do you live in Georgia and have HS kids in Georgia? I do. Its hard to get into Georgia and Georgia Tech these days. Auburn recruits Georgia kids in the Atlanta area and a lot of parents I know are looking at Auburn and Clemson when their kids can't get into UGA or GT.

You are just too defensive. Doesn't mean Auburn and Clemson are "inferior," just that Georgia and Georgia Tech are harder for Georgia residents to get into. A lot of people prefer the out of state alternatives to Georgia State or the next tier of Georgia schools.