in addition to differentiating tuition amounts on in-state/out-of-state residence BEFORE and during school, should universities give tuition rebates for students who choose to stay in-state AFTER graduation?
Every year, the state spends an enormous amount of money on educating students who will leave the state immediately after graduation. A tuition rebate of, say, $10,000 would give students an incentive to stay in-state and contribute to the local economy.
I'd love to hear what others think of this, and if anybody is aware of other states doing something similar.
Recently, my employer gave me a lump sum payment to buy a house, with the condition that I have to continue to live in that house and work for the company for 5 years, otherwise I owe them plus interest. I see no reason why the state shouldn't similarly incentivize its residents to stay put and contribute to the economy, especially given how much the state has invested in each student over the years. It makes sense for the state to want to recoup part of its investment. Some kind of tuition waver for a promise of staying put would be a great way for the state to hedge some of its investment. Despite the economy as a whole, the job market for college grads is fine. There's no doubt these engineers, nurses, business people or whomever else are going to contribute lots to the economy lots more than a $5, $10 or even $20k tuition forgiveness.
That brings up an interesting aside, however. If a program like this were implemented, should all students be treated equally? An engineer is more likely to make a better living and thus add more to the economy than an artist, so should they be more highly incentivized to stay? My gut says no. Firstly, I know several liberal arts degree recipients who have very successful careers, even though most struggled out of the gate. Secondly, and this is very true of Detroit, artists are value added to the economy in more ways than direct tax payments to the state. The only reason Detroit's downtown population is growing right now is because the artists moved in first and made it more desirable. The businesses are following now. That's awesome, but they owe a lot of this new energy to the pioneers who went there first.
- A tuition rebate of, say, $10,000 would give students an incentive to stay in-state and contribute to the local economy.
Why did you and your friends want to move to NYC or Chicago? Conceivably, the cost of living there far outweighs the monetary reward, this makes the $10k moot. You wanted to move there because they are cities full of art, music and culture born out of many years of development. You wanted to move there because they are home to exciting industries. There is no $10k "silver bullet" for this problem. I've spent time in Michigan, it's a great state. They need to shine a light on Michigan's assets, grow jobs in emerging technologies and exciting industries, then they will see retention.
I once heard Michigan referred to as "America's High Five" (because of the states shape) I've always liked that.
I'm in Ann Arbor and work in Detroit, so I can empathize. I love the place. I haven't lived in as many different places as you, but I did live in Boston for a couple of years, and have traveled quite a bit.
Tuition rebates for staying in the state sounds like a good idea upon first impression. I'll have to think on it, but there aren't any red flags that immediately come to mind. Are there any other states doing this?
For all its problems, there is a lot to love about Detroit, and Michigan in general. Personally, I think there is a powerful character of pragmatism, and creativity here, topped off with a general lack of pretension. People just do interesting stuff here, and others are happy to get excited about it. It does take time to learn the city, (how does one visiting the city the first time stumble upon Le Petit Zinc or Leeland City Club? :)) however, so even getting grads to stay in the area for a few years would probably get a good number of them hooked. One possibility would be that the rebate be given out over the course of several years, -maybe something like $2k per year for 5 years. Or, if this was a State initiative, they could just get this as a credit to their state taxes for a few years.
Yeah, I like it.
Also, what about people abusing the system? How long do they have to stay with the employer before moving out of state to receive the rebate? In all honesty I might view the rebate as a way to find a nice job to add to my resume before looking for a job out of state that I would settle with.
>Every year, the state spends an enormous amount of money on educating students who will leave the state immediately after graduation.
I don't like the wording of this. It feels like you are trying to make it sound like they are wasting the money. Having good public education attracts people to live in area. And for whatever reason, most people do not move, whether it be for family reasons or just preferences a large majority of the earth's population do not move that far from their hometown.
In all honesty I like the idea of trying to attract people to stay in state. But I think it would be better if you spent the money encouraging businesses to set up shop in Michigan, not creating a larger workforce. The latter can lead to the former, but it will take time and it is not a guarantee.
If you look at the demographics for the University of Michigan, the number of student visa holders is insane. The U.S. has the best secondary education in the world. To have policies in place that keep them here is essential. Obama has been talking about this for a while now. I don't understand why it isn't just made so. Any student who gets a degree from a 4 year university should get a green card stapled to it.
You sometimes read a story in the Times or some other national news organization about how Detroit is changing for the better, even in the face of a shrinking budget and population loss, but the local news, not so much. I think media matters, because the majority of what you see in the media about Detroit is murder and decay. While true, there are a hell of a lot of each, there's also a lot to like. I think in some ways its the freest city in the US. No one judges you for anything here, because everyone's fucked already. People start weird businesses, urban farms, have eclectic parties, and generally do as they please.
Any incentive to encourage the rebuilding of Detroit needs to keep these things in mind. There are loads of people who would love to live here, if they only knew about it.
That said, as a relocated michigander, I often find that people have a skewed view of my home state. Even people that have spent time in college there often never see it for all it has to offer. I grew up spending summers in Charlevoix and Petoskey, canoeing and fishing. We took family trips to Mackinac Island and Sleeping Bear sand dunes. It's a great state to raise a family in but this is not always what a 23 year old is thinking about. They are thinking about working for "Apple" or "Google" or making their name with whatever the latest "it" company is. I disagree with winston and think that for a 23 year old $10k is a substantial motivator but it's still not a bright enough lure to attract there gaze. A young talented graduate wants to be where the action is. I will say that Detroit seems to be on the right track
Also, how do you directly market jobs to people that have a previous relationship with the state, former Michigan/Michigan State grads, people that grew up in the state and studied elsewhere? How do you directly communicate to these people and woo them back? I agree with cliffelam that Michigan needs to be attracting "new" talent in order to win but any business will tell you that it's FAR more expensive getting new business than it is to retain business. 80/20 rule? 80% retention of former current and former michiganders and 20% people new to the state.... ?
Good luck jstasik, it's a noble goal. Let me know if I can help.
And... GO BLUE!