The answer, according to the non-partisan – and not particularly liberal – Mass. Taxpayers Foundation, is to allow children of undocumented immigrants (CUIs, for short) to pay in-state tuition if they went to high school here. Here’s the report (pdf), which is several months old but seems worth revisiting in light of Chris Gabrieli’s oddly harsh position on this issue.
Here’s the report’s basic conclusion, which was released shortly before the legislature rejected the bill:
The Foundation projects that the Commonwealth would receive several hundred thousand dollars in tuition and fees in 2006, an amount that would increase to $2.5 million by 2009. Undocumented student enrollment in the state would grow from nearly 100 in 2006 to 600 in 2009. The tuition and fee payments would represent net new revenues to the state, since public colleges would incur little or no added costs in accommodating these small numbers of additional students, a tiny fraction of the 160,000 public college students in Massachusetts.
The reasoning is as follows:
Undocumented immigrant expert Jeffrey S. Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that two-thirds of one percent of undocumented immigrants in a given state graduate from high school each year. Applying this percentage to the 200,000-250,000 undocumented immigrants in Massachusetts, 1,300-1,700 undocumented students would be expected to graduate from high school annually. The Foundations projection of 530-660 undocumented public college students in 2009, approximately two-fifths of the expected high school graduates, makes sense because some of these graduates would choose not to go to college; others would need financial aid, which they cannot legally receive, in order to attend; and still others would fail to meet the proposed legislations eligibility criteria.
Given those assumptions, here’s how the tuition situation shakes out:
Projected Enrolled
Undocumented ImmigrantsProjected Tuition and Fees 2006 70-80 $290,000-$330,000 2007 190-240 $780,000-$980,000 2008 320-400 $1.31-$1.64 million 2009 530-660 $2.17-$2.70 million
These projections assume that 85 percent of undocumented students would enroll at community colleges, ten percent at UMass, and five percent at state colleges. The Commonwealths enrollment patterns for those who pay in-state rates support this breakdown, which is consistent as well with the experience in Texas. While 53 percent of Massachusetts students paying resident rates attend community colleges, a higher percentage of
undocumented students would almost certainly enroll in these more affordable schools. If undocumented immigrants went to the more expensive UMass or state colleges in greater proportions than we have assumed, then revenues from this program would increase.
These tuition and fee payments represent net new revenues for public colleges, since the campuses would incur virtually no new costs from the small number of undocumented students who would attend for the first time. According to the Foundations enrollment estimates, undocumented students would constitute a minuscule 0.4 percent of the states more than 160,000 public college students, or an average of about 20 students per undergraduate campus. Massachusetts education officials confirm that their schools can accommodate these small numbers of additional students without incurring new costs.
I hadn’t seen this report before. Anyone got grounds to question its conclusions? If not, I have moved from “undecided” on the in-state tuition issue to “why not, what’s the big deal?”
To me, the only credible reasons to deny CUIs in-state tuition are: (1) it would be unfair to legal residents; and (2) it would impose costs on the schools.
The MTF report blows reason (2) out of the water. According to the report, allowing CUIs to pay in-state tuition would impose virtually no costs on the institutions, while generating tuition payments (since CUIs would not be eligible for financial aid). Apparently, it would be a net positive for the schools.
In light of that, I can’t see reason (1) holding water either. What would the “unfairness” be? Allowing CUIs to pay in-state tuition rates does not affect the tuition that children of citizens or legal immigrants will pay, regardless of where they live or go to school (especially since CUIs paying in-state tuition apparently wouldn’t impose costs on the schools). In particular, denying in-state tuition to CUIs will not decrease the tuition paid by out-of-staters who want to go to school here. All it does is give out-of-staters the “satisfaction” of knowing that CUIs aren’t paying less than they are. Schadenfreude doesn’t strike me as a great way to make education policy.
Which brings us to Chris Gabrieli. Here’s the most concise statement I could find of his position:
You’ve said that you were opposed to providing in-state tuition rates for state colleges to illegal immigrants. Why?
Gabrieli: It’s a question of priorities. It’s not a priority for me to extend state taxpayer funding to address the needs and wants of people who are illegal.
Source: Interview with Joe Burns in The Upper Cape Codder, Jun 1, 2006
Putting aside the questionable phrase “people who are illegal” (much more accurate would be “people who are here illegally”), the MTF report seems to show that “state taxpayer funding” would not be needed to extend in-state tuition to CUIs – in fact, doing so would grow the state’s coffers, not deplete them. If Gabrieli really doesn’t care about “ideology” and is only interested in “results,” isn’t this a “result” he should want?
So as far as I can tell, Gabs is wrong on this, and Patrick and Reilly are right. Anyone think different and got a cogent reason why? (Sorry, but “BECAUSE THEY’RE ILLEGAL!!” doesn’t count. It’s not the kids’ fault, and the MA bill requires them to swear that they’ve applied for citizenship or will apply when they’re eligible. Don’t we want to encourage bright ambitious young people to become citizens, get an education, stay in MA, and go on to become productive members of society?)
[One more thing: don’t go telling me it’s a violation of federal law (that’s one of Kerry Healey’s lame excuses for opposing in-state tuition for CUIs). It probably isn’t – at least, the office of the (Republican) Attorney General of Utah concluded that it wasn’t (see p. 15). Since the MA bill allows anyone who went to high school here for three years to pay in-state tuition, regardless of where they live, it likely doesn’t violate the federal law (which is written in terms of “residence”). For example, 18-year-old Deval Patrick, who lived in Chica
go but attended high school for four years in Milton on a scholarship, would have been eligible to pay in-state tuition under the MA bill. Would that have been so terrible?]
eury13 says
For most politicians, the priority is to not take an unpopular position that they’d have to defend.
will says
This doesn’t make sense. I’m going to put out a scenario, and someone tell me where it’s wrong.
<
p>
The tuition a student pays is roughly equal to the university’s costs incurred while educating that student.
<
p>
Maybe it’s less, and the university offsets unmet costs through other funding. (Grants, donations, etc)
<
p>
Maybe it’s more, and the university makes a little $ off the student.
<
p>
Now, I had always thought that the in-state / out-of-state tuition thing was supposed to give in-state students an essentially subsidized rate, and the out-of-state rate would be correspondingly over-priced, the goal being to encourage in-state applicants.
<
p>
So given all that … where is this coming from that the universities can accept more students at essentially no cost? I’d like to see some numbers to back that up. The report talks about what a trifling fraction of new students the illegal immigrant students would be … but that’s just language. If you add it up, the fraction of the tuition provided by them ought to be trifling, too.
<
p>
The report seems to suggest that big costs like housing, food, health care, etc. don’t get bumped up when you squeeze in just a couple more students … but I suspect that’s not true. I imagine those costs are there, traceable to each individual student. And given my earlier logic, I would imagine that they add up to something not so different from the tuition each student is paying. Which would mean, the state isn’t making so much (if anything) after all.
<
p>
But this is clearly not what the report is saying. What gives??
rafi says
But perhaps what I learned from there might apply to UMass as well. It is likely that what the students are paying (whether at the discounted in-state rate or not) is substantially less than the actual cost of running the institution divided by the number of students. As expensive as college is, the truth is that it would be far, far worse if not for a constant stream of donations and aid.
<
p>
This simple analysis is, however, deceptive without further examination. The bulk of the cost of running a university is fixed, irrespective of the number of students who attend (within reason, obviously a school that suddenly makes a drastic change in enrollment levels will see major cost fluctuations). Whether University X has 4,000 students or 4,500 students, it will have virtually the same costs. They’ll still have to mow the lawns, still have to keep the lights on in the campus center, still have to hire deans and secretaries and librarians. They might require a few more professors, but if the increase is small a couple of extra students in a class will hardly be noticeable. Yes, some costs are more closely associated with enrollment, but you’d be surprised by just how small marginal costs can be for things like dining halls — making more food is virtually free once the kitchen is already in operation.
<
p>
To give you a real life example of how cheaply a school might increase enrollment, my alma mater (Tufts) took in approximately fifty displaced Tulane students for the Fall 2005 semester. Rather than charging the students for attending, they simply collected whatever the students would have owed to Tulane and held the money to be handed over to Tulane once they were back in operation (the point being to help them get back on their feet by keeping the stream of tuition going). These Tulane students could sign up for virtually any Tufts courses, were given meal plans, were placed in Tufts dorms (students with space to fit a room mate volunteered to take them in), and had all the rights and privileges afforded to actual Tufts students. The cost to Tufts was negligible.
<
p>
So, had those fifty people been permanent Tufts students, their tuition payments would have represented a significant addition to the bottom line. Yet due to the enormous fixed costs of just keeping the doors open, the cost per student of attending college is through the roof. And that, I believe, is why the report makes sense.
ryepower12 says
We’ll take pupil-to-professor ratios. Say there’s 40 students to every professor in state public schools (which is probably pretty close to actual class sizes), but there’s room for 45 students per professor without increasing costs.
<
p>
What this bill would have essentially done is make it 44.1 students per professor… so maybe one in every three or four normal classes there’d be an extra undocumented resident… or an half of one in a large lecture hall.
<
p>
The same principal would apply to janitors, librarians, etc. If there’s only going to be 600 more students in all Massachusetts public colleges and universities, it would be barely noticable… costs wouldn’t have to increase to service them since there’s already enough people already in place to do it.
<
p>
If there’s an extra few million dollars at stake here, it seems like an EXCELLENT reason to readdress this issue, but sadly I think it’s dead and buried. Maybe with Deval Patrick at the helm, we could pass it off… but it’s a heavy burden to convince a xenophobic culture to embrace an idea, even when that idea helps everyone involved. People are often more interested in the cynical approach to life – they’d rather see others sufferring than potentially helping them because they don’t have an easy life themselves. Somehow, when they know people have it worse, there’s a sick and twisted aspect in their life that makes it all okay – simply because they have it better than some others.
<
p>
It’s a principal that makes What’s the Matter With Kansas a book that’s still worth reading, for those who haven’t.
stomv says
Let me begin by saying that I believe that if you graduate from a Massachusetts high school, you should go to Mass colleges on the in-state rate — not for financial reasons to the state, but because it is the right thing to do. That your parents brought you here undocumented isn’t your fault. That your community is below median income is largely a function of education. By encouraging minorities to get college education, you’re helping to reduce the correlation between race and poverty, which results in all sorts of other social ills.
<
p>
Now, all of that written, I think the analysis is crap.
1. If the college system could afford to take another 1% of students without increasing costs, why aren’t they doing that now? Are there just not another 1% of kids who want to go to community colleges? There certainly are for the 47% who go to state colleges. So, even if there isn’t extra demand for community colleges, there already is demand for the state schools (Fitch. State, UMass, etc). Why aren’t they already enrolling another 1% and grabbing that revenue now?
<
p>
2. Where’s the evidence that the total revenue for illegals would increase by giving them in-state tuition. This is really Econ 101, supply and demand. You can charge a higher price and sell fewer units, or a lower price and sell more units. Which price maximizes profits w.r.t. CUIs, the in-state or out-of-state tuition price? I have no idea, and neither do the rest of us I suspect. We could speculate until the cows come home, but if the Mass. Taxpayers Assn wants to claim that enrolling CUIs is good for the bottom line, they need to show that a lower price results in more total revenue than a higher price, and they don’t really do that except for hand waving.
<
p>
So, I agree that CUIs should pay in-state tuition, but the rationale that the Mass Taxpayers Assn uses seems shaky to me. Let them pay in-state because it’s the right thing to do. Let them pay in-state because by increasing the pool of qualified candidates, you’re allowing admissions to admit and enroll a higher quality student body, both in terms of academic ability and diversity. Let them pay in-state because in the long run you’re working toward finding a social equality where non-related qualities like skin color, religion, sexual preference, etc. have less and less to do with your quality of life. If it is the case that it also results in more money for the state, that’s great. I’m just not sure that the MA Taxpayers Assn has demonstrated that part, a part which is in my opinion not at all necessary in the first place.
rafi says
I completely agree with you that the policy should be based on what is right and not what will generate more revenue, and I also strongly agree that it’s right to treat all students who go to high school in Massachusetts in the same way (and as the original post points out, that’s not just undocumented immigrants). All I was doing was answering your question about how the math might work.
<
p>
As for the new questions you raise, your second point about supply and demand is well-taken, and obviously the answer will depend on the elasticity of UMass for students who went to high school here but who are not legal residents. As to your first question, well, you have to stop enrolling at some number. There will always be a number that’s 1% higher than what you have, and increased revenue is not the only thing that’s important to a university. Other factors that guide enrollment include housing, classroom space, the amount of time a professor gets to devote to each student, and other qualitative factors. Sure, you can squeeze in a few more students and pad the bottom line, but at some point the quality of education will begin to deteriorate.
rafi says
I see you’re not the same person who posted the question I originally answered. Hopefully that helps you out anyway. 🙂
ryepower12 says
First, I agree with your thesis. We need to do this because, quite frankly, it’s the right thing to do. But, like I said in my earlier reply, we live in a cynical culture that certainly has it in for minorities – especially Latinos who may not have their full citizenship. The fact that it was their parents who brought them here doesn’t matter; a significant portion of society is not going to get behind them simply because they can’t get past their background (and I would argue it’s not the fact that they’re illegals, but where they came from… no one seemed to care that there were millions of European illegal immigrants in the 80’s in this region).
<
p>
However, where I must disagree is the issue of cost. First, I respect the Massachusetts Taxpayers Association on an issue like this. It’s a fiscally conservative organization that isn’t going to suggest something that costs a lot of money. Furthermore, you couldn’t increase enrollment by 1% in general and feasibly make more money without losing services. The fact is that 1% is going to come from a pool that overwhelmingly requires at least some financial aid and will cost the state extra resources; the very reason why the proposal wouldn’t cost money is because the pool it came from would be students that would pay the full in-state tuition. While I consider myself somewhat liberal, I’m also pragmatic – the only way to convince enough cynical voters who otherwise wouldn’t vote to help immigrants to go along with this proposal is to convince them with reasons that extend beyond social justice.
<
p>
In the future, I’d like to see anyone who lives in Massachusetts not only recieve in-state tuition, but significant help to move them out of poverty. However, for right now we need to enact policies that will eventually put us in a position to get us to those goals. Getting more illegal immigrants an education would help towards doing that – so they can become legal, productive and tax-paying members of society.
gary says
2 remarkably similar, and remarkably flawed statements:
<
p>
A: If we lower tax rates, we’ll receive more revenue;
<
p>
B: If we allow non-legal residents lower tuition, we’ll receive more revenue.
ryepower12 says
particular analysis to further suggest the corrolation? In fact, I would argue that the economy certainly does respond to tax cuts. However, when they’re mostly to the wealthy – the trickle is more like slow drips that never really help anyone. Furthermore, it causes us bankrupt our future; that’s why slashing taxes isn’t smart fiscal politics.
<
p>
Giving undocumented residents in-state tuition wouldn’t have the same baggage – increasing their potential to profit in life would expand our tax base, not reduce it, especially considering that doing so wouldn’t impact either the quality of education at UMASS or the system’s budget. In fact, a somewhat conservative organization said it would increase the budget by up to 2.5 million.
<
p>
I’m going to have to go with them on this both because of logic and because they’ve done the research that you were willing to whisk away at the snap of a Tom Reilly finger, without giving a shred of evidence as to why you feel that way or think the way you do. By all means, contribute and convince me (and others) of why what you say is right and the MTA is wrong.
trickle-up says
Proposition A is based on the dubious Laffer curve, little more than ideological gloss for economic warfare against the poor and middle-class.
<
p>
Proposition B can be investigated using the old fashoned econmic toolkit (supply and demand curves) to determine the profit-maximizing price. Heck, you can just look at marginal costs versus revenues. It is a testable proposition that may quite easily be true.
peter-porcupine says
..but if you do it, you have to give a single rate to EVERYBODY. No more charging higher out-of-state-rates to anybody. And that WILL cost money. Probaly more than the additional tuition brings in.
<
p>
Nobody is PREVENTING illegal immigrants from attending these schools. They simply have to pay the out-of-state rate. They are equally eligible for scholarships, etc., as a kid from New York or New Jersey.
<
p>
The difference with a private school is that schools HAS AN ENDOWMENT with which to offer scholarships. Our public colleges have no such endowment except for tax dollars.
hoyapaul says
First off, of course public colleges have endowments. They receive donations just like other colleges and universities.
<
p>
Second, I suppose the real question here is: how are children of undocumented immigrants like out-of-state students, especially when they have attended high school (also supported with tax dollars, BTW) IN the state? If the policy of in-state tuition is to encourage greater education levels amongst residents of the Commonwealth, then is it so clear that providing this to in-state undocumented residents violates this policy?
peter-porcupine says
david says
The MA bill proposes allowing anyone who went to high school here for 3 years to pay the in-state rate, regardless of residence. That would obviously not include out-of-staters who went to HS in their home state but then come to UMass, so to say “no more charging higher out-of-state rates to anybody” is wrong. Though, as I noted in the post, it would allow someone like Deval Patrick who lived elsewhere but came here for HS to pay in-state rates.
<
p>
Healey has repeatedly claimed that the MA bill was against federal law. She’s wrong.
gary says
The language of the proposed bill passes muster of Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996?
<
p>
I’m guessing by saying it’s not violative of Fed law, you’re hanging your hat on the requirement that the person need only to have attended 3 years of instate HS (The “Deval Patrick exception”) therefore end-running the Section 505 requirement that allowing illegals in-state tuition rates cannot be descriminatory against in-state or out-of-state legals.
<
p>
Interesting how the proposed law would shake out against Section 505.
<
p>
(I’m also not sure who’d have Standing to raise the matter, but that’s a discussion for smarter people than me in a Federal Courts class, far, far away.)
<
p>
cos says
“… of people who are illegal.”
<
p>
Yuck!
That makes me want to slap him. Way to talk like an unflattering caricature of a Republican, Chris.
<
p>
People are not illegal! Every single one of us has probably done a number if illegal things. That doesn’t make any of us illegal people.
gary says
Ok, instead of “illegal” I’ll use the term, individuals who are in the US in violation of the US immigration law.
<
p>
And instead of “speeder”, I’ll say those people of who commonly engage in the practice of operating a moving vehicle at speed in excess of the posted limits.
<
p>
How about “deadbeat dad”?
<
p>
The term “illegal alien” appears in no fewer than 198 cites in the US Code. The term “illegal” is the shortcut, and well known by everyone.