MSU looking into COA

[PlayerRep]

Is there any argument to be made that because MSU now has more out-of-state students than in-state students, that the legislature should provide less funding to MSU for infrastructure and less for general funding? Why should the state taxpayers subsidize a school that has mostly (a majority) of out of state students? Just asking. I don't know.

Last I looked MSU had roughly 7500 Montana resident undergrads enrolled and UM had roughly 4500. Also, Many of MSU’s programs (nursing, engineering, architecture, etc) are extremely expensive programs to operate. I would argues it’s not a best practice to rely on out of state students to subsidize the Montana residents. In recent years, due to the MUS funding model, MSU has been forced to do just that, and now you’re using that as an argument to fund MSU even less.

Don't just look at one number. Look at all of them. More than half of MSU's students are out of state.

“This last year we crossed a line I did not want to cross, where more than half of my students are out-of-state students." MSU President.

 

[HookedonGriz]

Holy shit, the trail of tears has now found its way all the way to the top with Waded! Pretty epic!

 

[wbtfg]

Is there any argument to be made that because MSU now has more out-of-state students than in-state students, that the legislature should provide less funding to MSU for infrastructure and less for general funding? Why should the state taxpayers subsidize a school that has mostly (a majority) of out of state students? Just asking. I don't know.

Last I looked MSU had roughly 7500 Montana resident undergrads enrolled and UM had roughly 4500. Also, Many of MSU’s programs (nursing, engineering, architecture, etc) are extremely expensive programs to operate. I would argues it’s not a best practice to rely on out of state students to subsidize the Montana residents. In recent years, due to the MUS funding model, MSU has been forced to do just that, and now you’re using that as an argument to fund MSU even less.

Don't just look at one number. Look at all of them. More than half of MSU's students are out of state.

“This last year we crossed a line I did not want to cross, where more than half of my students are out-of-state students." MSU President.

I guess I’m looking at things from the standpoint that MSU lost $9MM in funding in the past due to UM having more resident students. MSU recognized that and focused hard on recruiting residents as well as non residents. MSU’s efforts were so successful that they now have more Montana undergrads than UM has resident, non resident, and WUE undergrads combined. Just because MSU has also been highly successful in recruiting non residents doesn’t seem like a logical reason the cut their state funding and send it to UM Who has 3000 fewer instate students.

 

[PlayerRep]

Is there any argument to be made that because MSU now has more out-of-state students than in-state students, that the legislature should provide less funding to MSU for infrastructure and less for general funding? Why should the state taxpayers subsidize a school that has mostly (a majority) of out of state students? Just asking. I don't know.

Last I looked MSU had roughly 7500 Montana resident undergrads enrolled and UM had roughly 4500. Also, Many of MSU’s programs (nursing, engineering, architecture, etc) are extremely expensive programs to operate. I would argues it’s not a best practice to rely on out of state students to subsidize the Montana residents. In recent years, due to the MUS funding model, MSU has been forced to do just that, and now you’re using that as an argument to fund MSU even less.

Don't just look at one number. Look at all of them. More than half of MSU's students are out of state.

“This last year we crossed a line I did not want to cross, where more than half of my students are out-of-state students." MSU President.

I guess I’m looking at things from the standpoint that MSU lost $9MM in funding in the past due to UM having more resident students. MSU recognized that and focused hard on recruiting residents as well as non residents. MSU’s efforts were so successful that they now have more Montana undergrads than UM has resident, non resident, and WUE undergrads combined. Just because MSU has also been highly successful in recruiting non residents doesn’t seem like a logical reason the cut their state funding and send it to UM Who has 3000 fewer instate students.

The policy is not tied to allocation per student. The Regents have used a different policy for a number of years. Why can’t you acknowledge this?

The current policy looks at the needs of the schools. Schools need funding to maintain their physical plants.
Schools need need funding to do things like professor and staff buyouts. Those things are necessary and have been deemed to be good ideas. They are not tied to the number of students, except buyouts relate in some respect to the lack of students and lack of need of
staff.

While I don’t really believe that MSU began recruiting
students mainly to get more funding, why didn’t MSU stop managing to that when the policy changed and
per capita was no longer a prime factor.

Your president just wants more money. I wonder if
her complaining is going to hurt her cause
and reputation.

 

[mcg]

George Dennison's legacy is a powerful thing. He's been dead for years and continues to beat MSU like the proverbial drum.

 

[wbtfg]

Last I looked MSU had roughly 7500 Montana resident undergrads enrolled and UM had roughly 4500. Also, Many of MSU’s programs (nursing, engineering, architecture, etc) are extremely expensive programs to operate. I would argues it’s not a best practice to rely on out of state students to subsidize the Montana residents. In recent years, due to the MUS funding model, MSU has been forced to do just that, and now you’re using that as an argument to fund MSU even less.

Don't just look at one number. Look at all of them. More than half of MSU's students are out of state.

“This last year we crossed a line I did not want to cross, where more than half of my students are out-of-state students." MSU President.

I guess I’m looking at things from the standpoint that MSU lost $9MM in funding in the past due to UM having more resident students. MSU recognized that and focused hard on recruiting residents as well as non residents. MSU’s efforts were so successful that they now have more Montana undergrads than UM has resident, non resident, and WUE undergrads combined. Just because MSU has also been highly successful in recruiting non residents doesn’t seem like a logical reason the cut their state funding and send it to UM Who has 3000 fewer instate students.

The policy is not tied to allocation per student. The Regents have used a different policy for a number of years. Why can’t you acknowledge this?

The current policy looks at the needs of the schools. Schools need funding to maintain their physical plants.
Schools need need funding to do things like professor and staff buyouts. Those things are necessary and have been deemed to be good ideas. They are not tied to the number of students, except buyouts relate in some respect to the lack of students and lack of need of
staff.

While I don’t really believe that MSU began recruiting
students mainly to get more funding, why didn’t MSU stop managing to that when the policy changed and
per capita was no longer a prime factor.

Your president just wants more money. I wonder if
her complaining is going to hurt her cause
and reputation.

Yeah. That’s the whole point Cruzado is arguing. When UM had more resident students, funding was based solely on that. Now that UM has fewer resident students, funding is no longer tied to that. She’s arguing the allocation field has been continually slanted to UMs benefit.

Also, I haven’t seen how the funding model breaks down in terms how how much weight each metric carries. Is it always the same? How often does it change? Is it the same for every school? Is it completely arbitrary?