Michigan raises tuition

The thing people here tend to overlook is that very few, and I mean very few, of matriculating students pay the full tuition rate at top-tier programs. They have significantly more aid to throw around then programs like UMass-Isenberg, and they use it to recruit the very best applicants. It's not uncommon for someone to use an aid offer as leverage with a preferred school when deciding where to attend. Estimates are that fewer than 20% of attendees to top 20 programs pay the full tuition rate. Hell, I had a GPA in the low 3's and a GMAT score in the mid-600's and was offered aid from multiple programs.
Once you wrap your head around the fact that very few pay full-tuition rates at top-tier programs it makes it much easier to see why they are worth the investment. Beyond that, the average starting pay difference between the two programs you referenced is roughly $31k. Considering that number it would take a graduate from Michigan all of 2.5 years to make up the disparity in tuition rates assuming an someone was going to pay the full-rate at either school.

 

My own opinion is that the system you've described, more commonly known as, "it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know." is one of the things that's wrong with our country. It rewards favoritism rather than competency. Of course, you are welcome to hire the less competent grad from an elite school just because their Daddy belongs to the country club. But I prefer to hire the person with intelligence, drive and creativity, regardless of the origin of their degree. Have fun at the club.

 

So your argument has devolved from "elite programs aren't worth the price" to "I'm angry because I have a perceived bias towards people who have been admitted to elite schools". News flash: the vast majority of the students at those schools do not come from privilege.
Beyond that, hiring managers use all sorts of criteria to narrow their applicant field, only recruiting at top-tier programs is a good way to narrow the field of applicants. They may find one qualified applicant at a school like UMass where as they could find 10 at Michigan. It makes more sense to go where the qualified applicants are, even if some managed to weasel their way in due to nepotism or family connections. I'll tell you what I heard a high ranking executive at a Fortune 100 company recently said at a conference; "Where you went to school matters. A Harvard degree means something." (I should note this particular executive was a Harvard alum)
Oh, and another quote heard from back in my fraternity days; "It's not the grades you make, it's the hands you shake." Truth is people want to work with people they like and will hire a less qualified person they connect with, and that's not something exclusive to top-tier companies, it happens everywhere.

 

I'm not an MBA, and don't claim to have "MBA expertise". But I've taken Econ 101, and I know that you can charge more for a product if the demand is high. That's how markets work.

So what is the demand for the Michigan MBA program vs. the UMass MBA program?

Number of applicants to full-time program (from USN&WR):
Michigan: 2,436
UMass: 229

I have no personal opinion on the quality of either program. However, it seems fair to note that there is more demand for the Michigan program, so it doesn't seem surprising that they can charge more. (Incidentally, Harvard had 8,963 applicants).

 

I also know from Econ 101 that sometimes there are hidden costs.

Some schools charge expensive "fees" that are not technically "tuition". For example, UMass-Isenberg only charges $9,937 in annual non-resident "tuition" -- but they also charge a mandatory $14,317 "curriculum fee" and a $1,109 "service fee". At UMass, the "fees" are higher than the "tuition", so quoting tuition prices alone is rather misleading. In reality, UMass estimates annual out-of-state enrollment costs (including all tuition and fees) at $29,249.

Michigan, on the other hand, has no "fees" (except for a $100 "loan fee"). The $55,000 "tuition" is basically everything.

Even with the high fees, the UMass sticker price is low compared to Michigan and most comparably ranked schools. But no way is it a 5X difference -- it's less than 2X when you include fees as well as tuition. Since top schools like Michigan often discount their sticker price, as noted in a previous post, the effective difference could be even less.

 

All employers prefer to hire people with intelligence, drive, and creativity. The question is: How do you identify those people, assuming that they have just graduated from school and have no professional track record ?

The traditional answer: You hire students from the top schools. The top schools get far more applicants than they can handle, so they only select the ones with most intelligence, drive, and creativity. If you are an employer who values those qualities, then the top schools have already done the work for you.

 

duplicate post, please delete