(04-07-2017 08:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I did, but have since retired to Alabama. And I'm not defensive. But I do know Auburn fairly intimately. Our tuition break is based on miles only. Anyone else headed our way is paying almost double for out of state. It will soon affect some of my out of state grandchildren if they choose to come here.

No doubt we get some kids from Atlanta, but our Alumni base there is the third largest in the city so a lot of those kids are our kids. We really don't draw from coastal Georgia or South Georgia. We probably get more from Northwest Georgia than from the other two regions but even that doesn't amount to much. I know that from Albany South Florida State would be the out of state preference. The Waycross and Brunswick area would tend to gravitate to Jacksonville or Florida if headed out of state, but truly most prefer Georgia from that region. Augusta and North and Clemson gets a look. Northwest Georgia has Chattanooga and Knoxville. So it really depends on who your neighbors are.

I see a lot more North Carolina, Virginia, and Northern tags now than I see from some other areas where we once pulled a lot of out of state students. In fact most of the SEC schools are seeing more kids from the North. We've had Michigan and Wisconsin kids coming here. I think our out of state is still cheaper than some Big 10 educations and certainly more economical than many of the privates up there.

It's definitely turning into a buyers market on undergraduate degrees.

(04-06-2017 04:59 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 04:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  Missouri has the advantage in being a sole flagship, both Liberal arts flagship and land grant.

Missouri State may gain and may even get bigger, but its still not going to pull huge numbers of students away. Nor will Truman State.

They did pull away a lot of students who would have been going to Mizzou with the recent incidents. It's pretty much a well known fact in the state.

Don't mind him...he comments on things he knows squat about all the time. He's the master at posing his opinions (he's a UK fan so that tells you all you need to know lol) as fact.

It is not 10,000 students. In round numbers, Missouri has 25k undergrads. Assuming the classes are relatively equal that would make the freshman class ~6,250. 24% of that would be 1,500 or 6%. This corresponds to the stated capacity of the dorms being closed. It is still a significant number just not the 10,000+ being stated here.

Missouri has an image problem. In general, people may not pay attention to the details but parents will go completely illogical when it comes to protecting their kids. I'm curious how Baylor numbers look for this fall.

(04-07-2017 03:55 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(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.

lol, and their parents pay more taxes in NJ, NY and I'LL. idiots.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-07-2017 05:37 PM)Captain Bearcat 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

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.

How do state colleges get money to pays the bills, salaries etc? It is really very simple

1--Tuition and fees
2--State funds
3--Donors

You explained my argument very well when you said in-state tuition levels are too low to pay for them selves. (See some of my previous posts on this subject). So the state and donors must pay the rest. The more students the more the state must pay. The state may or may not give a pro-rata amount, but they give the school money to operate. Dollars are dollars.

So we agree, it is the height of idiocy to count out of state students in a scheme like this.

(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.

BUT it is usually on a very limited basis. Arkansas is taking students from as far South as Houston and New Orleans, as far North as Chicago and West to Kansas and I do not know how far East. Like I said, more than 50% of entering freshmen at UofA have been from out of state.

(04-08-2017 10:48 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 05:37 PM)Captain Bearcat 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

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.

How do state colleges get money to pays the bills, salaries etc? It is really very simple

1--Tuition and fees
2--State funds
3--Donors

You explained my argument very well when you said in-state tuition levels are too low to pay for them selves. (See some of my previous posts on this subject). So the state and donors must pay the rest. The more students the more the state must pay. The state may or may not give a pro-rata amount, but they give the school money to operate. Dollars are dollars.

So we agree, it is the height of idiocy to count out of state students in a scheme like this.

there are economies of scale and other factors involved as well

you only need one university president and the few VPs and Provost

you want X number of books and periodicals for your library for "stature" no matter the enrollment

as the flagship and land grant university of the state you are going to offer some particular degree programs no matter what......so you need a college dean and department chairmen and you need about 10+ faculty per department for a department to even be considered to be decent without regard to overall faculty quality

you have faculty from statutory land grant funding that you can have teach as well

you need particular labs for particular degree programs to be respectable or to even exist be it if you have 2 classes a day in that lab or 5 classes a day or 8 classes a day in that lab

you need particular research facilities for researchers to have respect for the programs and to attract those researchers so if you are going to have those labs you can have students in there helping to do the research

if you are a small state with a single flagship/land grant school that you want to offer a lot of diverse degree programs you are not going to meet the economical enrollment for many of those degree programs with just in state students

there is a point where tuition and the state subsidy for students meet that provides an economical use of facilities and administrative overhead all the way down to the people that just do data entry and day to day administrative duties

if they are going to have to pay $8,500 per in state student to have X degree program exist with Y number of in state students

well if they can enroll Z number of out of state students and get their tuition dollars and cut the total state spending down and or hold it the same while graduating more students then it is a net positive or a break even for them

(04-08-2017 07:02 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 04:59 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 04:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  Missouri has the advantage in being a sole flagship, both Liberal arts flagship and land grant.

Missouri State may gain and may even get bigger, but its still not going to pull huge numbers of students away. Nor will Truman State.

They did pull away a lot of students who would have been going to Mizzou with the recent incidents. It's pretty much a well known fact in the state.

Don't mind him...he comments on things he knows squat about all the time. He's the master at posing his opinions (he's a UK fan so that tells you all you need to know lol) as fact.

Neither of you understood what I wrote. I was saying Missouri State might even get bigger (than Missouri), but there would still be a large number of good students who still will prefer Missouri to Missouri State or Truman State.

Obviously the Cincinnati fan has little brother syndrome and speaks his opinion when he doesn't even understand the conversation.

(04-07-2017 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 08:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 08:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 07:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

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

I did, but have since retired to Alabama. And I'm not defensive. But I do know Auburn fairly intimately. Our tuition break is based on miles only. Anyone else headed our way is paying almost double for out of state. It will soon affect some of my out of state grandchildren if they choose to come here.

No doubt we get some kids from Atlanta, but our Alumni base there is the third largest in the city so a lot of those kids are our kids. We really don't draw from coastal Georgia or South Georgia. We probably get more from Northwest Georgia than from the other two regions but even that doesn't amount to much. I know that from Albany South Florida State would be the out of state preference. The Waycross and Brunswick area would tend to gravitate to Jacksonville or Florida if headed out of state, but truly most prefer Georgia from that region. Augusta and North and Clemson gets a look. Northwest Georgia has Chattanooga and Knoxville. So it really depends on who your neighbors are.

I see a lot more North Carolina, Virginia, and Northern tags now than I see from some other areas where we once pulled a lot of out of state students. In fact most of the SEC schools are seeing more kids from the North. We've had Michigan and Wisconsin kids coming here. I think our out of state is still cheaper than some Big 10 educations and certainly more economical than many of the privates up there.

It's definitely turning into a buyers market on undergraduate degrees.

With the Hope scholarship paying tuition, Georgia has rapidly gotten more difficult to get into as its too good a deal for many strong students to pass up. Georgia Tech also has gotten more difficult. People are looking for alternatives, much the way people in Texas for a while have been looking for alternatives when they can't get into Texas or Texas A&M.

(04-08-2017 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 08:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 08:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 07:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

I did, but have since retired to Alabama. And I'm not defensive. But I do know Auburn fairly intimately. Our tuition break is based on miles only. Anyone else headed our way is paying almost double for out of state. It will soon affect some of my out of state grandchildren if they choose to come here.

No doubt we get some kids from Atlanta, but our Alumni base there is the third largest in the city so a lot of those kids are our kids. We really don't draw from coastal Georgia or South Georgia. We probably get more from Northwest Georgia than from the other two regions but even that doesn't amount to much. I know that from Albany South Florida State would be the out of state preference. The Waycross and Brunswick area would tend to gravitate to Jacksonville or Florida if headed out of state, but truly most prefer Georgia from that region. Augusta and North and Clemson gets a look. Northwest Georgia has Chattanooga and Knoxville. So it really depends on who your neighbors are.

I see a lot more North Carolina, Virginia, and Northern tags now than I see from some other areas where we once pulled a lot of out of state students. In fact most of the SEC schools are seeing more kids from the North. We've had Michigan and Wisconsin kids coming here. I think our out of state is still cheaper than some Big 10 educations and certainly more economical than many of the privates up there.

It's definitely turning into a buyers market on undergraduate degrees.

With the Hope scholarship paying tuition, Georgia has rapidly gotten more difficult to get into as its too good a deal for many strong students to pass up. Georgia Tech also has gotten more difficult. People are looking for alternatives, much the way people in Texas for a while have been looking for alternatives when they can't get into Texas or Texas A&M.

You really have to get into the numbers on the Lottery in Georgia to see that the Hope is nothing but a smoke screen. The loss of sales tax revenue at point of purchase sales eclipses what the Hope provides when coupled with the inflationary aspects that Hope created with the cost of education. I wasn't sold on it when it passed, worked against it in the state, and am glad I didn't have to rely on it, or stick around for its nasty aftereffects. The rednecks and crackers wanted it because Florida had a lottery, and now the idiots in Alabama think it will be a popular quick fix. You never get more by sending circulating cash outside of your state.

I feel for you. But truly while they may be looking for more places to go and while some of them may be coming to Auburn, it is not a significant number. No doubt Auburn is looking to increase enrollment and the physical evidence is everywhere in the form of still more housing going up. If we aren't careful we're about to lose the "loveliest" aspect that has always been associated with the city. Greed in Auburn is ignoring zoning laws and is encroaching on residential areas, and creating a traffic morass in the downtown area. A major push back by residents will likely turn out some of the current city council. Most of the locals outside of the university don't want further development. In spite of what others may think, Auburn is a very confined area and unless there is a major redesign of existing roads and zoning it simply can't handle more and more students all of which want their SUV's, want to eat at restaurants, and want to drive everywhere instead of walking. So send your kids to Clemson if you can't get them into UGA.

(04-08-2017 04:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 08:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 08:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

I did, but have since retired to Alabama. And I'm not defensive. But I do know Auburn fairly intimately. Our tuition break is based on miles only. Anyone else headed our way is paying almost double for out of state. It will soon affect some of my out of state grandchildren if they choose to come here.

No doubt we get some kids from Atlanta, but our Alumni base there is the third largest in the city so a lot of those kids are our kids. We really don't draw from coastal Georgia or South Georgia. We probably get more from Northwest Georgia than from the other two regions but even that doesn't amount to much. I know that from Albany South Florida State would be the out of state preference. The Waycross and Brunswick area would tend to gravitate to Jacksonville or Florida if headed out of state, but truly most prefer Georgia from that region. Augusta and North and Clemson gets a look. Northwest Georgia has Chattanooga and Knoxville. So it really depends on who your neighbors are.

I see a lot more North Carolina, Virginia, and Northern tags now than I see from some other areas where we once pulled a lot of out of state students. In fact most of the SEC schools are seeing more kids from the North. We've had Michigan and Wisconsin kids coming here. I think our out of state is still cheaper than some Big 10 educations and certainly more economical than many of the privates up there.

It's definitely turning into a buyers market on undergraduate degrees.

With the Hope scholarship paying tuition, Georgia has rapidly gotten more difficult to get into as its too good a deal for many strong students to pass up. Georgia Tech also has gotten more difficult. People are looking for alternatives, much the way people in Texas for a while have been looking for alternatives when they can't get into Texas or Texas A&M.

You really have to get into the numbers on the Lottery in Georgia to see that the Hope is nothing but a smoke screen. The loss of sales tax revenue at point of purchase sales eclipses what the Hope provides when coupled with the inflationary aspects that Hope created with the cost of education. I wasn't sold on it when it passed, worked against it in the state, and am glad I didn't have to rely on it, or stick around for its nasty aftereffects. The rednecks and crackers wanted it because Florida had a lottery, and now the idiots in Alabama think it will be a popular quick fix. You never get more by sending circulating cash outside of your state.

I feel for you. But truly while they may be looking for more places to go and while some of them may be coming to Auburn, it is not a significant number. No doubt Auburn is looking to increase enrollment and the physical evidence is everywhere in the form of still more housing going up. If we aren't careful we're about to lose the "loveliest" aspect that has always been associated with the city. Greed in Auburn is ignoring zoning laws and is encroaching on residential areas, and creating a traffic morass in the downtown area. A major push back by residents will likely turn out some of the current city council. Most of the locals outside of the university don't want further development. In spite of what others may think, Auburn is a very confined area and unless there is a major redesign of existing roads and zoning it simply can't handle more and more students all of which want their SUV's, want to eat at restaurants, and want to drive everywhere instead of walking. So send your kids to Clemson if you can't get them into UGA.

I don't believe in state lotteries. But they have done it and dedicated it to scholarships for good students. So if you get free tuition, its a pretty good deal. It also makes Georgia State, Georgia Southern, West Georgia, etc. look a little better relative to going out of state., so there isn't as high a % going out of state as Texas, but it is a growing number. 10 years ago UGA was heavily recruiting students from Texas. One sorority at UGA is jokingly referred to as the "Texas" sorority. But the Hope scholarship has significantly changed the situation.

(04-08-2017 07:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 04:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 08:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

I did, but have since retired to Alabama. And I'm not defensive. But I do know Auburn fairly intimately. Our tuition break is based on miles only. Anyone else headed our way is paying almost double for out of state. It will soon affect some of my out of state grandchildren if they choose to come here.

No doubt we get some kids from Atlanta, but our Alumni base there is the third largest in the city so a lot of those kids are our kids. We really don't draw from coastal Georgia or South Georgia. We probably get more from Northwest Georgia than from the other two regions but even that doesn't amount to much. I know that from Albany South Florida State would be the out of state preference. The Waycross and Brunswick area would tend to gravitate to Jacksonville or Florida if headed out of state, but truly most prefer Georgia from that region. Augusta and North and Clemson gets a look. Northwest Georgia has Chattanooga and Knoxville. So it really depends on who your neighbors are.

I see a lot more North Carolina, Virginia, and Northern tags now than I see from some other areas where we once pulled a lot of out of state students. In fact most of the SEC schools are seeing more kids from the North. We've had Michigan and Wisconsin kids coming here. I think our out of state is still cheaper than some Big 10 educations and certainly more economical than many of the privates up there.

It's definitely turning into a buyers market on undergraduate degrees.

With the Hope scholarship paying tuition, Georgia has rapidly gotten more difficult to get into as its too good a deal for many strong students to pass up. Georgia Tech also has gotten more difficult. People are looking for alternatives, much the way people in Texas for a while have been looking for alternatives when they can't get into Texas or Texas A&M.

You really have to get into the numbers on the Lottery in Georgia to see that the Hope is nothing but a smoke screen. The loss of sales tax revenue at point of purchase sales eclipses what the Hope provides when coupled with the inflationary aspects that Hope created with the cost of education. I wasn't sold on it when it passed, worked against it in the state, and am glad I didn't have to rely on it, or stick around for its nasty aftereffects. The rednecks and crackers wanted it because Florida had a lottery, and now the idiots in Alabama think it will be a popular quick fix. You never get more by sending circulating cash outside of your state.

I feel for you. But truly while they may be looking for more places to go and while some of them may be coming to Auburn, it is not a significant number. No doubt Auburn is looking to increase enrollment and the physical evidence is everywhere in the form of still more housing going up. If we aren't careful we're about to lose the "loveliest" aspect that has always been associated with the city. Greed in Auburn is ignoring zoning laws and is encroaching on residential areas, and creating a traffic morass in the downtown area. A major push back by residents will likely turn out some of the current city council. Most of the locals outside of the university don't want further development. In spite of what others may think, Auburn is a very confined area and unless there is a major redesign of existing roads and zoning it simply can't handle more and more students all of which want their SUV's, want to eat at restaurants, and want to drive everywhere instead of walking. So send your kids to Clemson if you can't get them into UGA.

I don't believe in state lotteries. But they have done it and dedicated it to scholarships for good students. So if you get free tuition, its a pretty good deal. It also makes Georgia State, Georgia Southern, West Georgia, etc. look a little better relative to going out of state., so there isn't as high a % going out of state as Texas, but it is a growing number. 10 years ago UGA was heavily recruiting students from Texas. One sorority at UGA is jokingly referred to as the "Texas" sorority. But the Hope scholarship has significantly changed the situation.

Yeah, I was around over there long enough to see that change come about. Part of the construction here is in preparation of downsizing some smaller universities in the state, and I think Auburn has watched Alabama increase its enrollment with out of state kids. But most schools down here are relatively competitive on tuition. It's the Northern schools that are high enough that we can actively attract kids looking for a college degree that is more affordable based upon what they intend as their major. If it's a research field it's another matter.

(04-08-2017 06:09 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 12:07 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 10:48 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 05:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

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

How do state colleges get money to pays the bills, salaries etc? It is really very simple

1--Tuition and fees
2--State funds
3--Donors

You explained my argument very well when you said in-state tuition levels are too low to pay for them selves. (See some of my previous posts on this subject). So the state and donors must pay the rest. The more students the more the state must pay. The state may or may not give a pro-rata amount, but they give the school money to operate. Dollars are dollars.

So we agree, it is the height of idiocy to count out of state students in a scheme like this.

there are economies of scale and other factors involved as well

you only need one university president and the few VPs and Provost

you want X number of books and periodicals for your library for "stature" no matter the enrollment

as the flagship and land grant university of the state you are going to offer some particular degree programs no matter what......so you need a college dean and department chairmen and you need about 10+ faculty per department for a department to even be considered to be decent without regard to overall faculty quality

you have faculty from statutory land grant funding that you can have teach as well

you need particular labs for particular degree programs to be respectable or to even exist be it if you have 2 classes a day in that lab or 5 classes a day or 8 classes a day in that lab

you need particular research facilities for researchers to have respect for the programs and to attract those researchers so if you are going to have those labs you can have students in there helping to do the research

if you are a small state with a single flagship/land grant school that you want to offer a lot of diverse degree programs you are not going to meet the economical enrollment for many of those degree programs with just in state students

there is a point where tuition and the state subsidy for students meet that provides an economical use of facilities and administrative overhead all the way down to the people that just do data entry and day to day administrative duties

if they are going to have to pay $8,500 per in state student to have X degree program exist with Y number of in state students

well if they can enroll Z number of out of state students and get their tuition dollars and cut the total state spending down and or hold it the same while graduating more students then it is a net positive or a break even for them

There is some truth to what you say.... however, when that strike level has been reached it is folly to keep adding students that require expansion of those facilities. In the case of Arkansas that point was apparently reached some time ago.

That is why many colleges, especially private schools that do not have the tax payers to bail them out, have put a cap on enrollment numbers.

IMHO, the dynamics are very different between privates and publications. Public schools sell services to the state and to students. Private schools sell services almost exclusively to students.

I think that's part of the reason why public schools are bigger. The diseconomies of scale kick in later because they can run to the state and say our size allowed us to do W research, which benefits the community by X dollars, and we educated Y students, so give us Z dollars. Private schools can't - at least not to the same degree. They have to rely more on convincing enough prospective students that tuition is worth Y dollars and enough alumni that their experience is worth Z dollars.

As such, it's been my experience that paper stats matter more for public schools and actual experience matters more for privates. Therefore public schools have a greater incentive to be larger. There are obviously many exceptions, but that rule of thumb makes logical sense to me, and it matches my experience.

(04-08-2017 07:35 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 06:09 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 12:07 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 10:48 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 05:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  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.

How do state colleges get money to pays the bills, salaries etc? It is really very simple

1--Tuition and fees
2--State funds
3--Donors

You explained my argument very well when you said in-state tuition levels are too low to pay for them selves. (See some of my previous posts on this subject). So the state and donors must pay the rest. The more students the more the state must pay. The state may or may not give a pro-rata amount, but they give the school money to operate. Dollars are dollars.

So we agree, it is the height of idiocy to count out of state students in a scheme like this.

there are economies of scale and other factors involved as well

you only need one university president and the few VPs and Provost

you want X number of books and periodicals for your library for "stature" no matter the enrollment

as the flagship and land grant university of the state you are going to offer some particular degree programs no matter what......so you need a college dean and department chairmen and you need about 10+ faculty per department for a department to even be considered to be decent without regard to overall faculty quality

you have faculty from statutory land grant funding that you can have teach as well

you need particular labs for particular degree programs to be respectable or to even exist be it if you have 2 classes a day in that lab or 5 classes a day or 8 classes a day in that lab

you need particular research facilities for researchers to have respect for the programs and to attract those researchers so if you are going to have those labs you can have students in there helping to do the research

if you are a small state with a single flagship/land grant school that you want to offer a lot of diverse degree programs you are not going to meet the economical enrollment for many of those degree programs with just in state students

there is a point where tuition and the state subsidy for students meet that provides an economical use of facilities and administrative overhead all the way down to the people that just do data entry and day to day administrative duties

if they are going to have to pay $8,500 per in state student to have X degree program exist with Y number of in state students

well if they can enroll Z number of out of state students and get their tuition dollars and cut the total state spending down and or hold it the same while graduating more students then it is a net positive or a break even for them

There is some truth to what you say.... however, when that strike level has been reached it is folly to keep adding students that require expansion of those facilities. In the case of Arkansas that point was apparently reached some time ago.

That is why many colleges, especially private schools that do not have the tax payers to bail them out, have put a cap on enrollment numbers.

why would you feel that level has been reached with Arkansas a long time ago there is nothing that supports that

the University of Arkansas is not large for a public land grant/flagship university by any standards it is on the smaller side

all of their other public universities in the state with the exception of stAte are on the extreme smaller side of enrollment for a public university

you are also leaving out other factors as well

these students to not come to school broke with one cow from the family farm to milk at the university dairy to help pay for tuition they come with cars and cash

they need to get insurance, buy gas, buy cloths, buy food (even if on a meal plan many plans do not come close to covering all the food plus off campus students)

they work jobs and in Arkansas they work jobs in a very fast growing area that needs low wage employees for service sector jobs in the area and they pay taxes on those wages and the businesses they work for and support with their spending also pay taxes

so there are benefits to having them in state besides just going to the school directly

then there is the concept that graduates often stay and live and work after graduation in the area they graduated from or within a certain number of miles

for Arkansas, LSU, and the OK schools I am not sure that concept plays out like it does for other schools because the draw to return to Texas is strong for many students and because many of the graduates of those schools come to Texas for the major job centers anyway even if they are an in state student to start

but in the area of U Ark in particular it is fast growing with several national and international companies and they need graduates no matter how many employees they transfer in from other places and if The State of Arkansas is not going to fill the quota of top students that companies like Walmart, JB Hunt and Tyson need for their world head quarters well it is better to bring in out of state students, graduate them from U Ark and employ them at those companies than it is to hire those students in after they graduate from other universities out of state

plus it is much more difficult to build any type of technology of software or medical industries from the ground up when you are looking to do so by hiring in students from other places Vs your own in state graduates even if they were from out of state to start

Sematech and other companies did not come to Austin because Austin was a cool place to live (back when it was a cool place to live) and they could hire in people from other places to move there they came there because it was a cool place to live and because UT helped make it a cool place to live and because UT had the research and student/recent graduate infrastructure to support their future growth

once those industries got big in Austin and UT Austin had well surpassed their desired enrollment then they needed to start hiring in people from other places more and more

but Austin never would have build that industry from the ground up without UT already being a major research university with a ton of students and at the time (before the stupid 10% rule) a ton of top students from other places


every place that is smaller and trying to grow or grow their technology and high skill job sector especially those next to stronger places recruits out of state students heavily be it Louisiana/LSU, Nevada/UNLV, AU/ASU, AU/Bama. OU/OK State, WVU and on and on

government does a lot of stupid things, but they all can't be wrong on trying to do this especially with the success many of those places are having attracting better and better students and growing their economy in the areas of those universities at the expense of the places they recruit from

Texas might be one of the few places that benefits from those efforts because in addition to the jobs the cost of living is still low

I doubt many recent former California grads from AU/ASU or Nevada/UNLV are looking to move back to California if they have a similar paying job offer from close to where they graduated from Vs in the much higher cost of living California.....down the road as they have moved up the ladder maybe......as a recent graduate doubtful

but the state around Texas still need to make the investment if they ever want to expand their economy and compete and they are not going to do so by trying to hire in graduates from other places to build their industries

(04-08-2017 04:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 08:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 08:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

I did, but have since retired to Alabama. And I'm not defensive. But I do know Auburn fairly intimately. Our tuition break is based on miles only. Anyone else headed our way is paying almost double for out of state. It will soon affect some of my out of state grandchildren if they choose to come here.

No doubt we get some kids from Atlanta, but our Alumni base there is the third largest in the city so a lot of those kids are our kids. We really don't draw from coastal Georgia or South Georgia. We probably get more from Northwest Georgia than from the other two regions but even that doesn't amount to much. I know that from Albany South Florida State would be the out of state preference. The Waycross and Brunswick area would tend to gravitate to Jacksonville or Florida if headed out of state, but truly most prefer Georgia from that region. Augusta and North and Clemson gets a look. Northwest Georgia has Chattanooga and Knoxville. So it really depends on who your neighbors are.

I see a lot more North Carolina, Virginia, and Northern tags now than I see from some other areas where we once pulled a lot of out of state students. In fact most of the SEC schools are seeing more kids from the North. We've had Michigan and Wisconsin kids coming here. I think our out of state is still cheaper than some Big 10 educations and certainly more economical than many of the privates up there.

It's definitely turning into a buyers market on undergraduate degrees.

With the Hope scholarship paying tuition, Georgia has rapidly gotten more difficult to get into as its too good a deal for many strong students to pass up. Georgia Tech also has gotten more difficult. People are looking for alternatives, much the way people in Texas for a while have been looking for alternatives when they can't get into Texas or Texas A&M.

You really have to get into the numbers on the Lottery in Georgia to see that the Hope is nothing but a smoke screen. The loss of sales tax revenue at point of purchase sales eclipses what the Hope provides when coupled with the inflationary aspects that Hope created with the cost of education. I wasn't sold on it when it passed, worked against it in the state, and am glad I didn't have to rely on it, or stick around for its nasty aftereffects. The rednecks and crackers wanted it because Florida had a lottery, and now the idiots in Alabama think it will be a popular quick fix. You never get more by sending circulating cash outside of your state.

I feel for you. But truly while they may be looking for more places to go and while some of them may be coming to Auburn, it is not a significant number. No doubt Auburn is looking to increase enrollment and the physical evidence is everywhere in the form of still more housing going up. If we aren't careful we're about to lose the "loveliest" aspect that has always been associated with the city. Greed in Auburn is ignoring zoning laws and is encroaching on residential areas, and creating a traffic morass in the downtown area. A major push back by residents will likely turn out some of the current city council. Most of the locals outside of the university don't want further development. In spite of what others may think, Auburn is a very confined area and unless there is a major redesign of existing roads and zoning it simply can't handle more and more students all of which want their SUV's, want to eat at restaurants, and want to drive everywhere instead of walking. So send your kids to Clemson if you can't get them into UGA.

Lottery hasn't panned out well in Arkansas either. The sales have declined while demand for scholarships went up so the dollar amount of the scholarship fell while tuition went up.

Every new legislator thinks the colleges are awash in money because of the scholarships and only some are capable of understanding that the lottery money has had very little impact on their budgets.

Legislature heard from people who cited Georgia and the inflationary impact of their program when they were debating scholarship vs operations appropriations in how to deal with the money. They still went scholarship.

Then when the money wasn't there to fund the scholarships at the level first set they paid a lot of money for a consultant who came in and said the best plan would be to require a student to complete 30 hours with a 2.2 GPA to be eligible and stop funding freshmen because then they could give scholarships in a meaningful amount to students likely to graduate. That of course was a non-starter as well. So we have a scholarship that covers less than 20% of tuition and mandatory fees and a good chunk of it goes to freshmen who never become sophomores.

(04-08-2017 10:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 07:35 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 06:09 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 12:07 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 10:48 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  How do state colleges get money to pays the bills, salaries etc? It is really very simple

1--Tuition and fees
2--State funds
3--Donors

You explained my argument very well when you said in-state tuition levels are too low to pay for them selves. (See some of my previous posts on this subject). So the state and donors must pay the rest. The more students the more the state must pay. The state may or may not give a pro-rata amount, but they give the school money to operate. Dollars are dollars.

So we agree, it is the height of idiocy to count out of state students in a scheme like this.

there are economies of scale and other factors involved as well

you only need one university president and the few VPs and Provost

you want X number of books and periodicals for your library for "stature" no matter the enrollment

as the flagship and land grant university of the state you are going to offer some particular degree programs no matter what......so you need a college dean and department chairmen and you need about 10+ faculty per department for a department to even be considered to be decent without regard to overall faculty quality

you have faculty from statutory land grant funding that you can have teach as well

you need particular labs for particular degree programs to be respectable or to even exist be it if you have 2 classes a day in that lab or 5 classes a day or 8 classes a day in that lab

you need particular research facilities for researchers to have respect for the programs and to attract those researchers so if you are going to have those labs you can have students in there helping to do the research

if you are a small state with a single flagship/land grant school that you want to offer a lot of diverse degree programs you are not going to meet the economical enrollment for many of those degree programs with just in state students

there is a point where tuition and the state subsidy for students meet that provides an economical use of facilities and administrative overhead all the way down to the people that just do data entry and day to day administrative duties

if they are going to have to pay $8,500 per in state student to have X degree program exist with Y number of in state students

well if they can enroll Z number of out of state students and get their tuition dollars and cut the total state spending down and or hold it the same while graduating more students then it is a net positive or a break even for them

There is some truth to what you say.... however, when that strike level has been reached it is folly to keep adding students that require expansion of those facilities. In the case of Arkansas that point was apparently reached some time ago.

That is why many colleges, especially private schools that do not have the tax payers to bail them out, have put a cap on enrollment numbers.

why would you feel that level has been reached with Arkansas a long time ago there is nothing that supports that

the University of Arkansas is not large for a public land grant/flagship university by any standards it is on the smaller side

all of their other public universities in the state with the exception of stAte are on the extreme smaller side of enrollment for a public university

you are also leaving out other factors as well

these students to not come to school broke with one cow from the family farm to milk at the university dairy to help pay for tuition they come with cars and cash

they need to get insurance, buy gas, buy cloths, buy food (even if on a meal plan many plans do not come close to covering all the food plus off campus students)

they work jobs and in Arkansas they work jobs in a very fast growing area that needs low wage employees for service sector jobs in the area and they pay taxes on those wages and the businesses they work for and support with their spending also pay taxes

so there are benefits to having them in state besides just going to the school directly

then there is the concept that graduates often stay and live and work after graduation in the area they graduated from or within a certain number of miles

for Arkansas, LSU, and the OK schools I am not sure that concept plays out like it does for other schools because the draw to return to Texas is strong for many students and because many of the graduates of those schools come to Texas for the major job centers anyway even if they are an in state student to start

but in the area of U Ark in particular it is fast growing with several national and international companies and they need graduates no matter how many employees they transfer in from other places and if The State of Arkansas is not going to fill the quota of top students that companies like Walmart, JB Hunt and Tyson need for their world head quarters well it is better to bring in out of state students, graduate them from U Ark and employ them at those companies than it is to hire those students in after they graduate from other universities out of state

plus it is much more difficult to build any type of technology of software or medical industries from the ground up when you are looking to do so by hiring in students from other places Vs your own in state graduates even if they were from out of state to start

Sematech and other companies did not come to Austin because Austin was a cool place to live (back when it was a cool place to live) and they could hire in people from other places to move there they came there because it was a cool place to live and because UT helped make it a cool place to live and because UT had the research and student/recent graduate infrastructure to support their future growth

once those industries got big in Austin and UT Austin had well surpassed their desired enrollment then they needed to start hiring in people from other places more and more

but Austin never would have build that industry from the ground up without UT already being a major research university with a ton of students and at the time (before the stupid 10% rule) a ton of top students from other places


every place that is smaller and trying to grow or grow their technology and high skill job sector especially those next to stronger places recruits out of state students heavily be it Louisiana/LSU, Nevada/UNLV, AU/ASU, AU/Bama. OU/OK State, WVU and on and on

government does a lot of stupid things, but they all can't be wrong on trying to do this especially with the success many of those places are having attracting better and better students and growing their economy in the areas of those universities at the expense of the places they recruit from

Texas might be one of the few places that benefits from those efforts because in addition to the jobs the cost of living is still low

I doubt many recent former California grads from AU/ASU or Nevada/UNLV are looking to move back to California if they have a similar paying job offer from close to where they graduated from Vs in the much higher cost of living California.....down the road as they have moved up the ladder maybe......as a recent graduate doubtful

but the state around Texas still need to make the investment if they ever want to expand their economy and compete and they are not going to do so by trying to hire in graduates from other places to build their industries

Not only do universities provide communities with a large number of low wage workers while they are students, they provide a large number of consumers.

And when a couple of those students get married, odds are they don't have someplace they want to relocate to other some place where they can both find jobs. Historically, the school districts closest to UArk and AState have paid lower entry salaries than similar sized districts around the state because they can. If one spouse finds a job nearby and the other spouse is a teacher, they will accept low pay.

(04-08-2017 10:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 04:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 08:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

I did, but have since retired to Alabama. And I'm not defensive. But I do know Auburn fairly intimately. Our tuition break is based on miles only. Anyone else headed our way is paying almost double for out of state. It will soon affect some of my out of state grandchildren if they choose to come here.

No doubt we get some kids from Atlanta, but our Alumni base there is the third largest in the city so a lot of those kids are our kids. We really don't draw from coastal Georgia or South Georgia. We probably get more from Northwest Georgia than from the other two regions but even that doesn't amount to much. I know that from Albany South Florida State would be the out of state preference. The Waycross and Brunswick area would tend to gravitate to Jacksonville or Florida if headed out of state, but truly most prefer Georgia from that region. Augusta and North and Clemson gets a look. Northwest Georgia has Chattanooga and Knoxville. So it really depends on who your neighbors are.

I see a lot more North Carolina, Virginia, and Northern tags now than I see from some other areas where we once pulled a lot of out of state students. In fact most of the SEC schools are seeing more kids from the North. We've had Michigan and Wisconsin kids coming here. I think our out of state is still cheaper than some Big 10 educations and certainly more economical than many of the privates up there.

It's definitely turning into a buyers market on undergraduate degrees.

With the Hope scholarship paying tuition, Georgia has rapidly gotten more difficult to get into as its too good a deal for many strong students to pass up. Georgia Tech also has gotten more difficult. People are looking for alternatives, much the way people in Texas for a while have been looking for alternatives when they can't get into Texas or Texas A&M.

You really have to get into the numbers on the Lottery in Georgia to see that the Hope is nothing but a smoke screen. The loss of sales tax revenue at point of purchase sales eclipses what the Hope provides when coupled with the inflationary aspects that Hope created with the cost of education. I wasn't sold on it when it passed, worked against it in the state, and am glad I didn't have to rely on it, or stick around for its nasty aftereffects. The rednecks and crackers wanted it because Florida had a lottery, and now the idiots in Alabama think it will be a popular quick fix. You never get more by sending circulating cash outside of your state.

I feel for you. But truly while they may be looking for more places to go and while some of them may be coming to Auburn, it is not a significant number. No doubt Auburn is looking to increase enrollment and the physical evidence is everywhere in the form of still more housing going up. If we aren't careful we're about to lose the "loveliest" aspect that has always been associated with the city. Greed in Auburn is ignoring zoning laws and is encroaching on residential areas, and creating a traffic morass in the downtown area. A major push back by residents will likely turn out some of the current city council. Most of the locals outside of the university don't want further development. In spite of what others may think, Auburn is a very confined area and unless there is a major redesign of existing roads and zoning it simply can't handle more and more students all of which want their SUV's, want to eat at restaurants, and want to drive everywhere instead of walking. So send your kids to Clemson if you can't get them into UGA.

Lottery hasn't panned out well in Arkansas either. The sales have declined while demand for scholarships went up so the dollar amount of the scholarship fell while tuition went up.

Every new legislator thinks the colleges are awash in money because of the scholarships and only some are capable of understanding that the lottery money has had very little impact on their budgets.

Legislature heard from people who cited Georgia and the inflationary impact of their program when they were debating scholarship vs operations appropriations in how to deal with the money. They still went scholarship.

Then when the money wasn't there to fund the scholarships at the level first set they paid a lot of money for a consultant who came in and said the best plan would be to require a student to complete 30 hours with a 2.2 GPA to be eligible and stop funding freshmen because then they could give scholarships in a meaningful amount to students likely to graduate. That of course was a non-starter as well. So we have a scholarship that covers less than 20% of tuition and mandatory fees and a good chunk of it goes to freshmen who never become sophomores.

One of the interesting things I learned when researching Florida's lottery (prior to Georgia's) was that in communities under 50,000 in population the effect of the sale of a lotto ticket had a more significant and negative impact. The dollar spent on the lotto ticket didn't generate sales tax. In most stores that sell the tickets (predominately convenience stores) the consumer once spent that spare dollar on a drink, or snack, or some other keystone priced impulse merchandise. When the lotto tickets went into these stores their profit margin shrank. There weren't nearly as many impulse buys of product that carried a full profit for the stores. Most of these stores were franchised. So the profit earned in those stores was deposited in local banks, and the owners spent that profit with other merchants and professionals in the town. Those dollars circulated an average of 17 times before leaving the community. Each time they were spent of course they generated sales tax.

When the lottery began not only did the convenience stores that sold the tickets profit less (they only earn .05 cents for a sale of a ticket) but the lotto money was sent to the state capital and then a portion to the agency that sponsors the lotto. The dollars never circulated after that. The county suffered, the schools, police departments and fire departments and garbage collectors all suffered the loss of revenue, but the agency sponsoring the lotto grew richer and the state lotto office did a well.

If the town was smaller than 15,000 the lotto could even close some stores which had only been marginally profitable, which also cost jobs, which in turn affected sales and voila right back into the same spiral downward for the local economy, only with much greater impact than in the larger cities under 50,000.

Politicians like it because it appeases the masses and gives them some revenue to offer the perks of scholarships. It appeases the agency because they get a cut of everything. It appeases higher education because it helps those C.O.L.A.'s go up. It hurts everyone else. But try to stop it through research, economic models, and reason, and you will be the devil that tried to take away the poor man's chance to get rich.

FWIW, AState is considering capping enrollment at around 15,000 or so for on-campus students because they would have to start building more housing and more classroom space. Because there is such difficulty getting state money for housing students the most recent housing project was a ground lease to a for-profit operator.

Also putting a lot of money into distance learning technology. Several bachelor degree programs are offered at the juco campuses through the Jonesboro campus to pick up people who don't want to move but it also encourages them to not take up space on campus.

(04-08-2017 10:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  FWIW, AState is considering capping enrollment at around 15,000 or so for on-campus students because they would have to start building more housing and more classroom space. Because there is such difficulty getting state money for housing students the most recent housing project was a ground lease to a for-profit operator.

Also putting a lot of money into distance learning technology. Several bachelor degree programs are offered at the juco campuses through the Jonesboro campus to pick up people who don't want to move but it also encourages them to not take up space on campus.

Education needs to take a lesson from retailers. They are tired of paying for brick and mortar and large footage spaces that cost even more to heat and cool. A few pick up centers for warehoused merchandise sold online is so much more efficient. It's no different for classrooms.

In retailing they not only save on the physical space, but also in having to merchandise and price product. Schools in turn will save on the number of buildings and services, but they can even cut down on the number of professors on staff. There is no reason a qualified professor of high standing can't franchise his/her lectures to multiple schools for online classes.

The state of Georgia is experimenting with this for High School instruction.

Building more things that have to maintained and trying to group the students together isn't economical for the school or the students.