In-state vs. Out-of-state costs and applicant qualifications

[frazzled1]

<p>Another quote from the previous thread, from Squiddy:

Some quick back of the envelope calculations** suggest that, bottom line, if W&M were to be 100% in-state, then tuition+ fees would have to be raised by just over $8000 a year for all undergraduates - and since many of them are on assistance, the shortfall would be even higher, and so then, the actual increase would be larger. (Such assistance isn’t generally available to OOS students.) … Put another way, OOS students combined, while representing 35% of the school population, pay more in total tuition than the combined 65% of in-state students.

There may be enough in-state applicants whose parents are willing to pay whatever the difference would be if OOS tuition no longer carried the burden. But I can’t believe that all those students would be academically superior to the OOS students who, as individuals, now pay more than 3 times as much in tuition for the same college experience.</p>

<p>Sure, a W&M education would be a steal for an in-state student whose parents can afford another $8,000 a year. But when out-of-state students are limited to 25 percent, or 20 percent, as was proposed in 2011 - for how long will it be the same William and Mary? Because out-of-state students raise the student profile, given that it’s a harder admit for them. The common data set doesn’t split out SAT results by in- versus out-of-state. But when my oldest daughter was admitted in 2001, the student profile specified that out-of-state students posted an average SAT score 100 points higher than in-state students. </p>

<p>If VA legislators want to change long-established ratios, they should be willing to raise the amount of funding they provide their top public universities, so that more in-state students can afford to attend them. I don’t really see that happening.</p>