Last week, The Cavalier Daily’s managing board wrote an article about the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors’ desire to see legislation passed that limits the number of out-of-state students admitted to the University and other public Virginia universities.
The managing board raised a number of valid points, referencing mainly the financial problems that would result from such a decision and the benefit that out-of-state students bring to Virginia schools. One point that could have been expanded upon to greater effect, however, was the idea that students should reduce their feelings of entitlement toward acceptance at their state universities.
Admittedly, as an out-of-state student, I do not know enough about other Virginia universities to make well-informed statements about how this legislation will affect students at all those schools. I will mainly be talking about the effects of this legislation within the context of the University. Students at Virginia Tech or the College of William & Mary, for example, may not be opposed to the idea of limiting out-of-state students.
The managing board was correct when it said that Loudoun’s legislation “betrays a sense of entitlement about college admissions that some Northern Virginians seem to feel.” This feeling — most strongly publicized by, though definitely not exclusive to, Loudoun County — that Virginia state universities should be focused to such a high degree on accepting in-state students is a pervasive one. Coming from out-of-state, I noticed early on that the odds are too highly stacked in favor of in-state students. This is especially true at the University, which is respected on a nationwide scale and draws tens of thousands of out-of-state applications.
The main problem with state universities is that they too strongly skew admissions based purely on where an applicant resides. It is unlikely that incoming college students chose where their families would live. The fact that students who happened to have grown up in Virginia face a much easier admissions process to the University is somewhat unfair. Similarly, I do not think that I should have gotten much preference at Indiana University, Purdue University or any of the other state schools in my home state of Indiana. Granted, the argument that state universities should show a preference for in-state students because those schools receive funding from state tax dollars is a cogent one. And I agree that if a state school is receiving a massive amount of money from the state, then it should perhaps show a slight preference for in-state students. The key word here, though, is slight. The state funding argument alone is not sufficient to justify the ridiculous in-state proportions to which many state universities must adhere. At the University, after all, only 6 percent of total funding is provided by the state. It would seem more reasonable to have that money be reflected in a student ratio that still gives in-state students an advantage, yet not an overwhelming one — perhaps 51 percent in-state to 49 percent out-of-state, or maybe lower. Even 40 percent of the entire student body hailing from Virginia still gives native high schoolers a significant advantage.
In addition, although state universities could be considered to have a duty to educate their respective state populations, that duty should not be strong enough that in-state students feel entitled to admission to a state university, even if they have grades and test scores that are relatively good compared to others from their state. The college admissions process is now more competitive than ever before, and there is nothing that indicates that this trend will subside in the near future. With many talented students applying to a high number of schools, state universities are no doubt becoming increasingly inundated with qualified applicants from both in-state and out-of-state. Students must realize that admissions is not — nor should be considered — guaranteed.
I would argue that the University’s duty to favor in-state students is already strongly fulfilled through in-state tuition. In-state students at the University receive an education at bargain prices compared to students from outside of Virginia. The same is true for other state institutions. Moreover, having many respected universities provides additional benefits for a state beyond educating students that attend those schools. There are research or employment opportunities, for instance, that become possible through large academic institutions. Attracting more intellectual capital cannot harm a state. Even if students are from elsewhere, their achievements in college could very well benefit the state of Virginia, and many may choose to reside in the state after school.
One’s location in the country should only marginally affect what college they wish to attend. I have benefitted immensely through my time at the University, and I know that other out-of-state students could do the same. Many deserving out-of-state students, however, will be denied from the University so that its in-state quota may be reached. This is disappointing, especially when — and this is not to insult those from Virginia — I have, overall, met more impressive students from out-of-state than from Virginia.
The Loudoun County legislation apparently stemmed from incidents in which high-achieving Virginia high school students were denied from the University. It is unfortunate whenever promising students are deprived of a chance to attend the schools to which they aspire. And sometimes the rationale behind a rejection is not entire clear. But the mentality that a student should expect acceptance to a state university is a dangerous one. For every in-state student that is refused a spot at the University, there are more from out-of-state who experience the same fate. Increasing the quota of in-state students to avoid outrage over rejections is not a wise maneuver. Indeed, the University would do well to lower its in-state requirements and give out-of-state students a more even opportunity to conduct their learning on Grounds.
Alex Yahanda is a senior associate editor for the Cavalier Daily.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | YesterdayOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 2 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
