STUDY OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY g ENROLLMENT …

[Pages:288]Senate Fiscal Agency

STUDY OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENT PATTERNS

BY COUNTY AND INSTITUTION October 2009

Gary S. Olson, Director ? Lansing, Michigan ? (517) 373-2768 ? TDD (517) 373-0543 Internet Address:

THE SENATE FISCAL AGENCY

The Senate Fiscal Agency is governed by a board of five members, including the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairperson of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, and two other members of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate appointed by the Chairperson of the Appropriations Committee with the concurrence of the Majority Leader of the Senate, one from the minority party. The purpose of the Agency, as defined by statute, is to be of service to the Senate Appropriations Committee and other members of the Senate. In accordance with this charge the Agency strives to achieve the following objectives:

1. To provide technical, analytical, and preparatory support for all appropriations bills. 2. To provide written analyses of all Senate bills, House bills and Administrative Rules

considered by the Senate. 3. To review and evaluate proposed and existing State programs and services. 4. To provide economic and revenue analysis and forecasting. 5. To review and evaluate the impact of Federal budget decisions on the State. 6. To review and evaluate State issuance of long-term and short-term debt. 7. To review and evaluate the State's compliance with constitutional and statutory fiscal

requirements. 8. To prepare special reports on fiscal issues as they arise and at the request of

members of the Senate. The Agency is located on the 8th floor of the Victor Office Center. The Agency is an equal opportunity employer.

Gary S. Olson, Director Senate Fiscal Agency

P.O. Box 30036 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7536 Telephone (517) 373-2768; TDD (517) 373-0543 senate.sfa

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was prepared under the direction of Senate Fiscal Agency Deputy Director Ellen Jeffries. Senate Fiscal Agency Intern Jessica Clark gathered the data, prepared the tables and maps, and summarized the information. Ms. Clark is a graduate student at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. Karen Hendrick, Executive Secretary of the Senate Fiscal Agency, prepared the report for publication.

Any questions regarding the contents of this report should be directed to Ellen Jeffries at the Senate Fiscal Agency, (517) 373-5300 or ejeffries @senate..

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................

1

Section 1: Michigan Population Statistics .............................................................

5

Section 2: County Reports ................................................................................... 19

Section 3: University Reports ............................................................................... 187

Section 4: All Michigan Public Universities ........................................................... 263

Section 5: International Enrollment....................................................................... 269

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is a compilation of student residency data collected and reported by each of the 15 public universities in Michigan which provides a comprehensive overview of enrollment patterns across the State and from throughout the world. Additionally, population data from the census bureau is used as a point of comparison for enrollment rates in each county. Whenever possible, 10-year averages are also shown as a baseline for comparison. However, due to missing data, some of the averages are for an eight- or nine-year period. Wherever data is omitted, the average has been adjusted to reflect the data available.

This report conducts a study of student residency based on the location of the student's domicile and does not reflect their tuition status with the universities. Several of the public universities have reciprocal agreements with other states that allow students to attend the university at in-state rates. These arrangements are not reflected in this study.

The report is arranged in five sections. The first section compiles population data for the State to provide background and potential explanations for the ebb and flow of enrollment in counties. Section 2 provides detailed enrollment on a county basis showing the number of students that attend each of the 15 public universities. Section 3 takes much of the same data from section 2 and includes information about out-of-state and foreign students and organizes the information by each university. Section 4 summarizes the data for the entire public university system. Finally, 10 countries were selected for review in section 5 based on their contribution of students to the university system and potential interest due to current geopolitical events.

Population

The State of Michigan experienced a 0.7% increase in population from 9.9 million in 2000 to 10.0 million in 2008 based on the U.S. Census Bureau estimates. This is slightly below the national population increase of 0.8% experienced over the same time period. As Table A shows, Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Kent, and Genesee Counties were the top five mostpopulated counties in 2000 and continued to be so in 2008. Wayne and Genesee Counties maintained their rank in spite of experiencing population declines since 2000. Michigan's population is concentrated in the southern half of the State with especially dense concentration in the southeast quadrant around the Detroit metropolitan area, with an additional center of population concentration in Kent County on the west side of the State.

Of the 83 counties in Michigan, 36 counties experienced population gains, 37 counties experienced population declines, and 10 counties showed less than a 1.0% change in population from 2000 to 2008. As Table B indicates, Livingston County had the largest percentage increase of 16.3% since the 2000 Census and jumped in the rankings from the 15th to the 11th most-populated county. Ontonagon County experienced the largest decrease in population of 12.8% and maintained its rank of 81st most-populated county. Keweenaw County continues to be the least-populated county with only 2,202 residents.

Of the 15 counties in the Upper Peninsula, 13 experienced population declines; Mackinac and Ontonagon Counties both experienced double-digit population declines. Marquette and Chippewa were the two counties of growth, both experiencing increases of less than 1.5%.

Since the 2000 Census, the State of Michigan has grown older. The median age of the State rose from 35.5 in 2000 to 38.0 in the 2008 estimates. This is compared with a median age for the nation of 35.5 in 2000 and 36.8 in 2008. In spite of this aging population, the 18- to 24-yearold cohort grew within the State from 9.4% of the total population in 2000 to 9.7% in 2008 and is the cohort associated with undergraduate studies.

1

County Enrollment Rates

Michigan saw an increase in public university resident enrollment of 6.3% from 2000 to 2008. This is compared with a 7.6% increase in overall enrollment in all Michigan public universities. Table C lists Oakland, Wayne, Macomb, Kent, and Washtenaw as the top five counties for enrollment in both 2000 and 2008. This is not surprising considering their large populations and close proximity to large institutions.

As illustrated in Table D, 37 counties saw an increase in enrollment with Benzie, Kalamazoo, and Livingston Counties experiencing an increase of more than 30.0% in their enrollment. Forty-one counties experienced declines in enrollment including Keweenaw, Montmorency, and Presque Isle which all experienced a greater than 30.0% decline in enrollment. Finally, six counties had a change in enrollment of less than 1.0%.

Of the 37 counties that experienced population declines, 18 showed enrollment increases including Clinton, Grand Traverse, Lapeer, Macomb, and Benzie Counties which were all among the top 10 counties for enrollment gains. Benzie County had the largest increase of 42.2% in spite of a 2.4% population decline.

Seventeen counties experienced the opposite effect, showing enrollment declines in spite of population increases. This includes Luce County which saw a 23.5% decline in enrollment and a 16.3% increase in population. The Upper Peninsula, in spite of its population declines, had seven counties that experienced enrollment increases, and the two counties that had population increases actually experienced enrollment declines.

There are 13 counties that have a public university, with Wayne and Washtenaw Counties having two institutions each. Of these counties, seven experienced enrollment declines, including Genesee and Mecosta, which experienced declines in spite of population growth and proximity to an institution.

Nonresident Enrollment

Out-of-state enrollment increased by 17.8% from 2000 to 2008 with an additional 4,262 students attending in 2008. Illinois contributes the largest number of students at 4,867, with Ohio in a distant second place with 2,754 students. The number of students attending from Ohio has actually decreased over the past decade and is the only state among the top 10 contributors to do so. Surprisingly, in spite of its proximity to the State, Indiana is ninth on the list, with larger states such as California, New York, and Pennsylvania contributing a larger number of students. Texas showed the largest increase of students attending compared to 1999 and is now tenth among the states.

Foreign enrollment has experienced an increase of 11.8% since 2000 and includes students from 176 countries and territories. China surpassed India for the first time in 2008 to become the top contributor of students. Canada is the third largest contributor of students but has had a decline in the number of students enrolled since its peak year in 2001.

2

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download