<p>^ Yeah, barrons. Actually, the problem wasn’t entirely with the Wisconsin legislature. They were paying the state of Minnesota which was pocketing the money and not paying the University of Minnesota the tuition differential, so the U was taking a bath financially. So the new deal is, the state of Wisconsin pays the U of Minnesota directly; eliminate the middleman.</p>
<p>There’s a way in which tuition reciprocity hurts both flagships. It means less tuition revenue flowing through the system, so it shows up in the US News rankings as lower expenditures-per-student. Wisconsin has as high a percentage of OOS students as Michigan but doesn’t get nearly as much tuition out of them because about half of Wisconsin’s OOS are Minnesota residents paying in-state rates. They’d be better off charging the Minnesotans full OOS tuition and making up the difference with guaranteed scholarships for Minnesota residents equal to the difference between in-state and OOS tuition, so the next cost would be the same. Then the university wouldn’t actually HAVE more money, of course, but it would look as if it did, and US News would report it that way—and their overall FA profile would look far more generous, too. Same logic for the University of Minnesota. </p>
<p>This, of course, is one reason some privates can look so much stronger financially than publics, and so much more generous with their FA, too: they set a high nominal tuition rate knowing only a small fraction of students will be able to pay it, then rebate a large fraction of the revenue in the form of FA. You still pay through the nose, but most people are grateful for the school’s “generosity.” Quite a trick.</p>