WSJ article on students from the Northeast choosing southern publics

Parents Forum
166

Great point about merit aid at Connecticut College. That one actually was on my D24’s list BECAUSE we thought she was likely to get merit aid. It’s a great school, and she loved it when she toured, but I doubt she would have chosen Connecticut College over UMass Honors College, where she was accepted with merit, if she had to pay full price for Connecticut. (She didn’t end up at either)

We are from the South, but my son chose SCHC over a more prestigious LAC for two reasons: (1) cost, and (2) student experience. He very much wanted a supportive learning environment with small classes, approachable professors, and strong advising, and liked the idea of a small community, but big sports, Greek life, and a bigger school very much appealed to him. He found that the honors college at South Carolina provided the aspects of a SLAC that appealed to him (all 5 of his first semester classes have 20 or fewer students), but that he also got parts of a big SEC school that appealed to him. And, with scholarships, SCHC costs our family $60,000 per year less than the LAC!! It’s fantastic for him.

4 Likes
167

It’s not just regional local publics but also lesser known privates whether they are national or not , I’m not sure. The more renowned a school is, the more applications they seem to have both public and private.

What is interesting is that while Connecticut College is getting more applications (how much of this is due to the increased number of applications students are putting in is hard to say), they are having to give greater sums of merit away and their yield has gone down. I don’t think anyone is suggesting they are struggling but while they may gain some applications, are they also losing some candidates to southern schools because of merit scholarships? Who knows? That number would be more reflective in the yield than in app numbers.

Some families, like the poster mentioned above whose child had a full ride but ended up at an Ivy with another student with that same full ride scholarship, seem to shop around for top schools but also sometimes top merit packages. A student who can qualify for that kind of scholarship would most likely have gotten merit at Connecticut College, but imagine if it was full price at CC vs full ride at U of SC? For many, they may very well pick the full ride. The calculus for these families would be at what price does CC have to discount their tuition for it to remain a viable alternative to the full ride? That price will differ for different families as some have more financial cushioning and some will put more value into certain things over others. That same kind of calculation is likely being made for many when it’s not perhaps a full ride scholarship but a very good price as part of an Honors College vs. significant cost at another school. I think as prices continue to increase, the calculus increasingly starts to favor the south or other places with more affordable alternatives.

2 Likes
168

From what I can tell, they do not, they just say it includes both.

I note the UConn “all campuses” increase was higher (2.2%) than the UConn Storrs increase (1.6%). If my math is not wrong, it looks like UConn ex-Storrs went from 12878 to 13265, which is +3.0%.

I think this supports your suggestion that the more strategically-placed UConn regional campuses might be gaining at the expense of less strategically-placed CSCU’s. In fact, again my understanding is these patterns are happening all over–total enrollment is down generally, but it is usually down much more at the colleges which have a really local focus, and then sometimes even up at colleges which have broader focus. And I agree given the nature of Connecticut, that could include well-placed UConn regional campuses.

I agree.

As I mentioned before, I think if you look at colleges like Connecticut College, Pitt, I would bet UMass and South Carolina, and so on, on the one hand the pool of applicants at least potentially interested in them has increased. On the other, the competitive mix for those applicants has gotten fiercer. So, to enroll the students they want, they may need to admit more applicants to deal with lower yields. But they can also fight to improve their yields with things like merit programs, honors programs, and so on.

All this is great if you are one of the students they might fight over. And different kids are going to end up taking different offers, which is fine.

And to my knowledge, none of that type of school is facing dropping enrollment. So there seem to be plenty of kids to go around in the end. But they have to compete harder to get those kids, which is good for the kids.

But other colleges ARE facing the consequences of a shrinking pie.

Like, it appears to me UMass Amherst in the 2017-18 CDS had 41922 applicants, 24102 admittees, and 4714 enrollees (19.6% yield). 2023-24 CDS, 50424 applicants, 29129 admittees, and 5286 enrollees (18.1%) yield. A now familiar pattern of increasing applications and declining yields, but in their case they actually still were able to increase enrollment quite a bit.

But then here is a similar report about other parts of the Massachusetts public system:

Undergraduate enrollments are down across the board, some by quite a lot, and particularly if you exclude MCAD and MMA.

So once again, we know which colleges are net losers in this shifting dynamic. Not UMass, UConn, Pitt, or so on. They may have to fight harder for some admits, and will not win as many battles percentage-wise, but they are in a lot more battles now, such that they are netting out to increasing enrollments.

But not so much other publics in those states.

169

I’m not sure we can know this. Meaning, and to stick with Conn College, if they weren’t giving all that merit aid, they very well could be struggling with enrollment. Of course lots of factors are all intermixed. But I generally believe if a given school didn’t have to be offering merit aid/discounts, they wouldn’t be. (Or they’d be offering relatively less merit)

1 Like
170

I agree. There is a system of privates we almost never talk about here that are also relatively local. A lot of these privates are quite small even by SLAC standards. And some of those have actually dropped so much in enrollment they had to close.

I think it is virtually guaranteed they are losing “some” of those cross-admit battles, but I also think it is virtually guaranteed southern schools are also losing “some” of those cross-admit battles.

I had to poke around a bit to find a Parchment comparison between Connecticut College and a big Southern public, but I finally got one for Clemson–40% Connecticut College, 60% Clemson. The error bars or so large that is not particularly meaningful in precise terms, but it supports the idea that “some” are going both ways.

Interestingly, there was also data for College of Charleston (which makes sense to me, actually), and that was 60% Connecticut College, 40% Charleston. Which again really doesn’t mean anything precise, but I think supports the idea it is “some” both ways.

But again, I think this is frankly all quite small ball in comparison to the numbers the WSJ describing, which again were primarily focused on enrollment. It is implausible just on its face that what amounts to a small niche part of the overall college landscape (SLACs anyone here has ever heard of) could play a large role in enrollment trends like that. And in fact it does not appear they are.

171

Right, but they ARE giving merit, and are not struggling with enrollment.

The WSJ, though, is reporting on actual shifts in enrollment patterns, not just changes that could have happened but didn’t. So even if it is true that Connecticut College has needed to fight with merit to keep getting enough of the students it wants, and I also believe that to be true, the fact it did that and it worked means it isn’t a contributor to those observed trends.

1 Like
172

I get it and agree that southern schools are attractive to this generation and we’ve seen that in enrollment for a while (Jon Boeckenstedt has been writing about this for years)

I do think LACs as a group are suffering…many do struggle with enrollment and have to offer big discounts to yield students. When I was a counselor the only kids I could get to consider LACs were those who wanted to play their sport in college.

1 Like
173

Very good point and we see this with Pitt and other schools. Not positive on this but my understanding is that while both have lower yields, Pitt actually reduced their merit aid over this time.

There are only so many people willing and able to pay $80k a year. As prices increase, many more are scrutinizing their cost and doing an assessment on whether the cost is worth it for this or that particular school.

174

I know you disagree with me that it’s net COA that matters, but average college net COA is decreasing. And has been for a decade. So, people who don’t want to or can’t pay full boat/their EFC don’t have to, full stop.

Yes, Pitt shifted FA dollars to provide more need based aid. State schools have different priorities than private schools. (And often have relatively lower gross COA)

1 Like
175

I think the question here is whether these schools would have even been in play for those considering Connecticut College a decade or two ago?

If not, then the actual loss may only be in one direction. If Charleston wasn’t even on the radar for those applying to Connecticut College a decade ago and now it is and yet Charleston still loses out on cross-admits, well it would still all be an upside for Charleston since they went from basically a lowish number closer to 0 up to 40%.

Not saying that’s the case as I am sure there are some kids who would have only considered schools in South Carolina like Charleston going to the Northeast but how many of them are likely to be pulled to a LAC like CC? I would think the tippy tops would be much more likely to get those applications though I am sure there are a few but how many would even be aware of CC in South Carolina or would see the value in spending much more for it than a far cheaper and likely far better known school in the south?

176

And to add to this fine post- the citizens of a particular state are important stakeholders in the discussion around merit vs. need based aid. It surprises me sometimes that people shrug their shoulders when they discover that they cannot afford their own state flagship-- with a strong, highly competitive student. Yes, that student is going to have a lot of affordable options. But the decision around “who do we want to attract” is both a public policy issue and a financial issue (you can’t spend the same dollar twice- even if you are a public institution).

6 Likes
177

But is this new to the WSJ study period?

Arguably the public research university form has been outcompeting the private LAC form for well over a century. Indeed, this was such a problem so early that many institutions that used to be private LACs turned themselves into research universities instead. A few actually affiliated with states, others got massive infusions of new capital and turned themselves into private research universities. But many made the transition.

So the surviving LACs today are mostly a very niche product. A niche I happen to value quite a bit, but in the end I still couldn’t even get my own S24 to pick an LAC. And not because the private research university he chose will cost us less, just because he ultimately wanted a bit more of an institution than the LACs he considered would provide.

That said, I don’t doubt that in various ways this competition keeps evolving. Lots of LACs have beefed up their ST-M offerings (most still don’t offer the E), not least CS. Indeed, the more competitive LACs have virtually all put a lot of capital into very impressive new lab buildings to support a lot of student research opportunities. As we are discussing here, some LACs have added or beefed up their merit programs. And so on.

So LACs are constantly using money in various ways to keep wooing kids away from research universities.

But to me, this is just the latest chapter in a very long book. They have always had to do this, and I expect that will continue indefinitely. But to my knowledge, they are competing effectively enough in most cases to maintain enrollment, at least among the sorts of LACs we ever discuss here.

178

So 2018-19 CDS (oldest conveniently available), Pitt has a merit budget of $23,820,109. 2023-24, it was $24,339,196. That is in fact down a bit in inflation-adjusted terms. That said, I think the perception Pitt has gotten less generous with merit is mostly driven by what appear to be shifting patterns of merit allocations, such that certain types of applicants who might have gotten larger awards in the past are getting less or nothing today.

I am fairly confident that there would be more overlap today than in the past. On both ends.

Again, Connecticut College is in fact getting a lot more applications than it used to. I think it is a good point that it then has to fight harder to get its admittees to actually enroll, but presumably people applying are at least willing to consider Connecticut College.

And then of course Clemson and Charleston are getting a lot more applications too.

So, I am sure that these institutions are now crossing paths more than they used to.

I guess it depends on what you mean by actual loss.

Like, suppose there is a kid in Maryland who in 2000 would not have applied to either Connecticut College or Charleston. But in 2023, that kid applies to both.

If that kid then chooses one of those, did the other “lose” that kid? Sure, in that battle. But did they lose them relative to what was happening in 2000?

Of course if you change that hypothetical to a kid that would have applied to Connecticut College in 2000, but not Charleston, then that becomes one-sided. But so too if you reverse it, and assume a kid who would only have applied to Charleston in 2000, and now applies to both.

And the thing is, we KNOW that Connecticut College is getting more applications from somewhere. Unfortunately, we don’t usually have good data. But whatever is happening, they are not just getting the applicants they got back in 2000, they have somehow expanded out into new submarkets of some sort.

Anyway, I just think we need to be careful about not loading these hypotheticals to support a certain thesis.

179

The average cost to attend school X is meaningless because it’s not necessarily reflective of any particular student’s cost. It’s like taking the average GPA at a school and saying well the average GPA of your high school is above the 75% threshold, so you, student X at the school, probably have a good chance.

Those aren’t student X’s odd much as they would not be student X’s costs.

However, I do agree with you that even being full pay means that many can pay less if they wish to. That’s actually my point here - that many are chasing merit in order to reduce the costs. Sometimes this means going south. An example would be NMF students choosing UT Dallas for the scholarship. These are likely students who do not have need or much need since if they did, they probably would have chosen need-based aid.

Yes but my point is that during this time Pitt reduced merit offers to many because they are meeting their numbers without having to offer more. We see this at many public flagships. Was that the case with Connecticut College? Not sure but seems like their merit offers have had to increase.

1 Like
180

Pitt has made public statements about a shift from merit to need based aid. The CDS shows total merit aid for all undergrads, so this shift might not be apparent yet. Or who knows, maybe they changed their minds lol.

1 Like
181

It’s not just Pitt though. UMD, Purdue and many other flaghips have all reduced their merit allocations. A recent example is ASU or U of Arizona which reduced their auto merit awards. As these schools gain students, they are reducing the incentives they used to increase interest because they no longer need the interest.

182

I can say in PA, that is likely because the citizens of that state have been conditioned to state policies that don’t make sense still being very hard to change. Like I know of few PA residents with college-bound kids who think the PA “flagship” system is a gold standard for affordability, but it is an incredibly odd system where those institutions are not normal state colleges, and then the politics around them are incredibly complex.

1 Like
183

Agree that a family in PA likely assumes that the “odd outcomes” are just the way things are. Good point.

2 Likes
184

Purdue made the decision to focus on freezing tuition room and board 13 years ago. That certainly impacted the amount of merit given out to individuals.

3 Likes
185

“Shift” is probably accurate. In 2018-19, institutional merit aid was $32,452,250, total institutional aid was $56,272,359, so that is 57.7%. In 2023-24, it was $74,814,411/$99,153,607, 75.4%. Because the overall amount was up, though, that meant merit aid was actually up in nominal terms, but not inflation-adjusted terms.

I think that is complicated by what they are doing with full costs of attendance and need-based aid. As another poster pointed out, Purdue is a notable example given their “tuition freeze”, which amounts to an ongoing reduction in inflation-adjusted terms. As I was just noting, Pitt has gotten a lot more generous with need aid in recent years. And so on.

Overall, we have a lot of data about college costs, and it is pretty apparent that circa 2016-17 or so, price competition really started to heat up among many different sorts of colleges. But different colleges are using different strategies.