<p>Southeast Missouri State uses commission agents who are paid a fee to recruit full-pay foreign students:
[New</a> York terror case: Is recruitment process for foreign students flawed? - CSMonitor.com](<a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/1018/New-York-terror-case-Is-recruitment-process-for-foreign-students-flawed]New”>New York terror case: Is recruitment process for foreign students flawed? - CSMonitor.com)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems pretty clear that the program is turning a profit, so I don’t see the sense of a “taxpayer dollars” argument against it. There may be other reasons to oppose it, of course.</p>
<p>the same question could be asked about spending locally-gneerated tax dollars to recruit OOS students.</p>
<p>If they had enough state taxpayer funding these efforts would not be necessary. But they no longer do so it is. Typical politicians will try to make headlines with such nonsense stuff.</p>
<p>It is a stupid idea that does nothing to address taxpayer concerns and may make them worse, as in, why increase funding to schools that educate out of staters? It is putting a bandaid on a big problem. State u’s should be giving taxpayers exactly what they can get with the funding provided. That is the only way for them to understand what is truly going on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Say what? Are you aware that at schools like Michigan and Virginia, taxpayer support represents only about 6 or 7% of the university budget? Are you suggesting they cut their budgets by 93% to signal to state taxpayers that the universities are underfunded? </p>
<p>These universities subsidize the education of state residents through in-state tuition discounts in amounts that far exceed what they get from the legislature. OOS and international students, especially full-pays, make up part of the difference. The rest comes from endowment earnings, intellectual property licensing fees, externally generated (largely but not entirely federal) research grants, and so on. Don’t have time to do all the math now, but last time I looked at this I figured Michigan residents were getting at least $2 in tuition discounts for every $1 the state of Michigan invests in the University of Michigan. Pretty extraordinary ROI, at the university’s expense.</p>
<p>And OOS tuition revenue is not a “bandaid.” My quick back-of-the-envelope calculations say that if all undergrads at Michigan were full-pays, the university would haul in about $355 million in OOS tuition, and about $220 million in in-state tuition. They don’t net that much, of course, because many students get university-sponsored need-based and/or merit aid, but Michigan has a reputation for being far more generous with FA to state residents (as it should be if it doesn’t have enough money for everyone). If that’s the case, the disparity is probably even greater; OOS students collectively pay far more in tuition than state residents do, even though nearly 2/3 of the undergrads are state residents. If Michigan were to switch tomorrow to a 100% in-state student body, it would lose about $230 million/year in tuition revenue, and probably more after FA is factored in. The quality of its student body would also decline as it had to dig deeper into the in-state applicant pool. </p>
<p>And just how likely do you think it is that the legislature would rush to make up the lost revenue? Not very, in my estimation, if for no other reason than that if they increased Michigan’s appropriation, every legislator whose district includes a public college, university, or community college would also be lining up at the trough to get his or hers, and that very quickly adds up to billions.</p>
<p>Universities like Michigan and Virginia are in a sense fortunate in that they’re ahead of the curve on this; their legislatures de-funded them years ago, so they had to develop alternative financial models that didn’t count on substantial state aid. That means they didn’t go through the same kinds of wrenching changes many other public universities did in the recent recession, because even substantial percentage cuts in state appropriations were coming off such a tiny baseline figure that they barely registered a blip.</p>
<p>Other universities should look at them as a model and begin their own transitions, because there’s a good chance the state gravy train just isn’t coming back. OOS tuition is just one part of that model, but it’s not a trivial part.</p>
<p>Yes, the state U model has gone from state funded to state assisted to state located. Most top state U’s only get a small percentage (under 25% and shrinking) of their budget from the state taxpayers. The rest comes from tuition–especially OOS and internationals, donations, and research funding (not from the state either in most cases). Typically the OOS tuition funds part of the instaters’ cost of education too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm yeah. UC Riverside and U Colorado might like to know about those screening methods too.</p>
<p>sorry double post. Second time today I’ve gotten an error about waiting 45 seconds to post, but it actually posted.</p>
<p>Between 38 - 43% of Southeast Missouri State’s budget comes from state funds, [Board</a> of Regents News, Southeast Missouri State University](<a href=“http://www.semo.edu/news/archive/42839.htm]Board”>SEMO News), and nearly all of the balance from tuition, with 80% of its students being in-state residents. Therefore, it would be safe to say that the funding for foreign recruiters most likely comes from state taxpayer money.</p>
<p>Taxpayer support of public universities is more than the amount of funding specified in the state’s annual budget. In most states universities are exempt from paying property taxes and new building/ remodel construction taxes. The state taxpayers also pay for state universities staff/faculty pensions and post-retirement health insurance.</p>
<p>Considering the shrinking state share of state systems’ budgets reach as low as around 10%, I’m with bclintonk.</p>
<p>What did the state taxpayers/government expect considering the heavy cost to not only maintain the system so it can fulfill its mission as a higher ed institution, but also subsidies to in-state residents? </p>
<p>Unless state governments/taxpayers are willing to cover a greater proportion of the budget by increasing the allocation and/or severely reducing the services provided…recruiting foreign students may be one of the few ways public university systems can maintain themselves as higher education institutions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These are exactly the same tax exemptions enjoyed by private colleges and universities. Are you suggesting Massachusetts taxpayers should have a say in how Harvard, MIT, Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley spend their money, based on state tax exemptions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, at every state university I know anything about, faculty and staff pensions and benefits come from the university’s budget. In some states the pensions are part of the state employee pension system, in other states not; and in some states, university employees are part of a larger state employee health care plan, in others not. But in all cases, at least those I’m familiar with, the university is buying those benefits by making payments to the state system at their full cost. There is no additional or hidden state subsidy there.</p>
<p>No, they should not. In fact, they should probably have an out-of-country higher tuition. This country is full of arrogant law makers who like to believe that everyone in this country is as wealthy as they are. Then they give our money and our resources away. It actually really bothers me. Most of us work hard for our living and to pay our taxes. The resources being paid for by our taxes should go to the tax payers first.</p>
<p>Plus, the government constantly talks about how Americans have such a bad education system and we need to work to help bring American kids up and help kids go to college, and blah blah blah. Then out of the other side of their mouths, they give spots in American Universities to outsiders. Then somewhere out of their butts, they complain we have to outsource so much and we NEED the resources elsewhere because Americans are not as qualified as foreigners.</p>
<p>These foreigners are also paying a lot more money than in-state residents were. Are you suggesting that SE Missouri State should only let in instate students? If so refer to bclintonk’s post</p>
<p>
I live on the border of two western states and private schools are NOT afforded the same property tax exemptions and construction tax exemptions as public universities.</p>
<p>Lmkh:
If foreigners bring more revenue (tuition) then the cost to serve and recruite them, then it is a good idea for the university to have them.<br>
The same logic applies to turism: Should Hawaii, France, Barcelona recruit turists that will come and use the roads, sidewalks, monuments, airports, parks, etc. that the taxpayers built? Yes, because of the extra revenue they bring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that will come as a surprise to the tax policy experts, who report that “properties owned by non-profits . . . are exempt from property taxes in all 50 states even though municipalities still need to pay to provide these nonprofits with public services like police and fire protection and street maintenance.” (quoting Daphne A. Kenyon & Adam H. Langley, Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, “The Property Tax Exemption for Non-profits and Revenue Implications for Cities,” 2011). There may be a few for-profit educational institutions out there that pay property taxes, but the familiar non-profit private colleges and universities–HYPSM, AWS, etc.–certainly do not.</p>
<p>Sales taxes (which I assume you’re talking about when you say “construction tax,” because I’ve never heard of a construction tax per se–though maybe I’m missing something) are a bit more of a mixed bag, but most states exempt private non-profits from sales taxes as well.</p>
<p>Then, of course, is the fact that the income of private colleges–including returns on endowment, whether in the form of capital gains or ordinary dividends and interest–is tax exempt at the federal, state, and local levels. And contributions to private colleges and universities, like those that built the massive endowments of the wealthiest of them, are taxpayer-subsidized by virtue of the tax-deductibility of “charitable” giving against federal, state, and (where applicable) personal income taxes. </p>
<p>When all is said and done, the value of all these tax benefits is probably far greater for private than for public universities, and certainly so on a per-student basis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True only in a trivial sense, unless the recruiting efforts are unsuccessful.</p>
<p>Look, they wouldn’t be doing this unless they thought they could recruit enough full-pay (or nearly full-pay) foreign students to more than pay for the cost of the recruitment effort. So even if state taxpayer money represented 100% of their revenue at the outset of the program, it’s essentially just a loan against future tuition revenue. If they succeed they’ll more than pay for the recruitment costs and end up with higher tuition revenue than they had before, thereby relieving pressure on the state’s taxpayers. It’s only if they fail that it represents a net cost to taxpayers. So if I were a Missouri taxpayer, I’d be rooting for them to succeed.</p>