Editorial: Recruiting out-of-state students unfair to state system

If you’re an out-of-state college student, you’re in high demand. If you’re an out-of-state college student, you’re in high demand.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that public universities are ramping up their out-of-state student recruitment. These students not only bring geographical diversity to a campus, they also pay higher tuition rates than their in-state counterparts — something very desirable to public schools that are receiving less and less support from the states, proportional to tuition rates.

This report follows a recent Inside Higher Ed survey that says universities increasingly select students based on their ability to pay. According to the survey, more than half of the admissions officials at public research universities and more than a third at four-year colleges say they’ve increased their efforts to recruit students who can pay full price for college with no financial aid. The survey of 462 admissions directors and enrollment managers was conducted from August to early September.

Essentially, a student’s academic qualifications are being pushed aside in favor of his or her financial status and the money he or she will ultimately give to the university. We can’t help but think, is this really happening?

The fact is that state schools need to recruit out-of-state students and give them preference over in-state students for their bottom lines. And the states’ nationwide budget cuts to higher education are mostly to blame.

Arguably, this is not a bad procedure for schools to undertake in the name of academics. Presumably, schools will have to improve their resources and make themselves worth the extra money in order to convince out-of-state students to attend. This could bump up the importance of research, increase the quality of professors and add improvements to facilities to make for better learning environments.

But if this trend continues, what’s the point of having state schools in the first place?

Imagine if everyone in Pennsylvania attended schools along its border — West Virginia, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland and Ohio State would be contenders — and the students from those states attended Pennsylvania’s state schools. It seems strange then, to involve state governments’ money in something that no longer benefits their residents.

Back in Abraham Lincoln’s day, the land-grant system was installed in each region, and thus was the inception of the state school system. But this study shows that those same schools no longer cater to their in-state students and instead choose to focus on money.

Solutions to a problem like this all stem from correcting the seething volcanic eruption that is the price of higher education. Universities are in trouble, and the recruitment of out-of-state students is a consequence of the poor condition of the system as it stands. Solving the inflating tuition problem seems to be the most desirable way to fix the struggling state of higher education.

What we think wouldn’t be a good idea is further regulation of the admissions choices that schools make. Determining a quota of out-of-state versus in-state students would sacrifice academic quality even more so than schools’ current procedures do.

It seems like schools are doing what they need to in order to stay afloat in an economy that increasingly neglects higher education. But this most recent consequence of student preference is unfair, upsetting and preventable.

We just have to hope universities’ future endeavors will focus on academics and not cash flow, and that the government will realize the importance of improving this rotten state of higher education.