Michigan State hikes tuition 4.5%, but leaves wiggle room for legislative cap
LANSING — Students will pay a few hundred dollars more to attend Michigan State University for the 2025-26 academic year, but the exact amount is still in flux while legislators iron out the state budget.
Trustees voted June 13 at a meeting in Traverse City to raise tuition 4.5%, but included language that will reduce that amount if the state budget includes a cap that is lower than that, the university said. The state Legislature typically determines a percentage cap that universities can increase tuition for in-state students by, and if an institution goes over that amount it is no longer eligible for millions in state funding.
MORE: Michigan State trustees pause demolition of IM West, OK study to decide building's future
Last year, that cap was 4.5%, and both Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the Democratic-controlled Michigan Senate proposed that same cap for the coming fiscal year in their budget recommendations. However, the Republican-controlled Michigan House of Representatives previously recommended a 3% cap, but the bill passed with a substitute that brought the cap to 4.5%.
"If you've been reading or listening to the news this week, then you have heard of the threat of additional state appropriation cuts," said Trustee Sandy Pierce, who chairs the board committee of budget and finance. "State appropriations per resident undergraduate student has fallen by 44% since fiscal year 2000 when adjusted for inflation."
The state's final budget may take some time to negotiate between the Republican-led House and the Democratic-led Senate. Lawmakers have a July target date to finalize it but the deadline is the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept. 30.
MORE: MSU Board of Trustees approves hiring of AD Batt, extension for hockey coach Nightingale
As of now, per semester base costs for undergraduate students from Michigan will increase by $399. Freshmen will pay $8,458 per semester, sophomores will pay $8,653 and most juniors and seniors will pay $9,642. Juniors and seniors from Michigan who are in the Eli Broad College of Business or the College of Engineering will pay $9,935 per semester.
Undergraduate students from outside Michigan and international students will also see a per semester base rate tuition increase of $399. Freshmen and sophomores will now pay $22,150 and juniors and seniors will pay $22,818. Juniors and seniors who are in the Eli Broad College of Business or the College of Engineering will pay $23,127 per semester.
Graduate students will see per-credit hour costs increase a similar rate, the university said.
The university said in a statement that the budget allocates an additional $6 million to student financial aid.
The University of Michigan raised its tuition rates June 12. In-state tuition and fees for undergraduates will increase by about $610, or 3.4%, for an annual rate of $18,346. Tuition and fees for nonresident undergraduate students will increase by $3,016, or 4.9%, for an annual rate of $63,962, according to information posted on the university's website.
Contact Sarah Atwood at satwood@lsj.com. Follow her on X @sarahmatwood.
This article originally appeared on Lansing State Journal: Michigan State University increases cost of tuition 4.5%
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Ranked choice voting promised more moderates. It delivered extremists instead.
Ranked choice voting further loosens party control and gives the activists within either party more say in the process. And voters in the middle suffer the consequences. In one of my first published columns ever, I advocated for ranked choice voting, which was at the time a lesser-known alternative way to conduct elections in which you rank several candidates in order of preference. I have since changed my view. Since then, the idea has grown in popularity, even making its way into New York City's Democratic Party primary election on Tuesday, June 24. Ranked choice made headlines as state lawmaker Zohran Mamdani won that primary. The promise of ranked choice voting producing more moderate candidates has been undermined by extreme candidates. American politics are better off under more traditional voting systems. What is ranked choice voting? Ranked choice voting seeks to solve the issue of strategic voting ‒ when voters cast their ballot not for their top choice in a crowded field, but rather their preference between one of the two candidates with a high chance of winning. One of the central arguments in favor of ranked choice is that, because people can express their true preferences, it is more likely to produce more moderate candidates. However, in practice, it rarely accomplishes this goal. Take New York's mayoral primary race, for example. The city's ranked choice system led to the election of Mamdani, a democratic socialist, as the Democratic nominee to be the next mayor, giving him the inside track at the job. Now, part of that issue is candidate quality. Mamdani's opponent was Andrew Cuomo, who is best known for resigning the New York governorship in disgrace in 2021 due to numerous sexual harassment claims and mismanagement of COVID-19. But that dilemma goes even further to the point of ranked choice voting not producing better outcomes than an ordinary ballot system. The New York election is not the sole arbiter of this system's effectiveness, however. Other municipalities that have adopted ranked choice have seen more extreme candidates prevail. Researchers have found that 'as an electorate grows more polarized, candidates located at the median are less likely to be elected under IRV (another term for ranked choice voting) because they simply are not the first choice of enough voters.' In our polarized political environment, ranked choice voting may make matters even worse by favoring more extreme candidates, thus widening the partisan divide in races. Ranked choice voting weakens political parties One fact that many in the news media are reluctant to admit (but may agree with privately) is that voters are extraordinarily bad at selecting good candidates. This is why America is better off with strong political parties. Strong political parties, with more influence over who their nominees are, limit the extent to which voters can influence a party to nominate a candidate outside of the mainstream opinion. Political parties have grown weaker in recent years as populist movements in both parties grow, and the result is a rise in extreme candidates in response to American political polarization. More extreme candidates acting outside the structure of parties is a major reason for this. Ranked choice voting reduces the amount of sway that a political party has over its nominee. Ordinarily, in a primary election, there is a uniform sequence of dropouts that build coalitions among two and three candidates by the time Election Day rolls around. This typical procession gives parties plenty of opportunities to interject their preferences into the race, and to help boost their preferred candidate. Still, the existence of a primary system in the first place entails that, from time to time, the voters will override the preferences of the internal party structure, such as Donald Trump's initial nomination in the 2016 presidential election. That problem has worsened as activists have captured the primary system to promote their candidates, rather than those of the median partisan. Ranked choice voting further loosens party control and gives the activists within either party more say in the process. These activists are only further likely to produce more extreme candidates, and the voters in the middle suffer the consequences. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Ukraine says Russia launched the biggest aerial attack since start of the war
Russia launched its biggest aerial attack against Ukraine overnight, a Ukrainian official said Sunday, part of an escalating bombing campaign that has further dashed hopes for a breakthrough in efforts to end the 3-year-old war. Russia fired a total of 537 aerial weapons at Ukraine, including 477 drones and decoys and 60 missiles, Ukraine's air force said. Of these, 249 were shot down and 226 were lost, likely having been electronically jammed. Advertisement 3 A Russian drone hit a residential building in Odesa, Ukraine overnight. Ukrainian State Emergency Service/AFP via Getty Images Yuriy Ihnat, head of communications for Ukraine's air force, told the Associated Press that the overnight onslaught was 'the most massive air strike' on the country, taking into account both drones and various types of missiles. The attack targeted regions across Ukraine, including western Ukraine, far from the frontline. Advertisement Poland and allied countries scrambled aircraft to ensure the safety of Polish airspace, the Polish air force said Sunday. Kherson regional Gov. Oleksandr Prokudin said one person died in a drone strike. Six people were wounded in Cherkasy, including a child, according to regional Gov. Ihor Taburets. 3 Ukrainian firefighters worked to put out the flames caused by a Russian drone in the town of Smila. via REUTERS Advertisement In the Lviv region in the far west of Ukraine, a large-scale fire broke out at an industrial facility in the city of Drohobych following a drone attack that also forced parts of the city to lose power. The fresh attacks follow Russian President Vladimir Putin's saying Friday that Moscow is ready for a fresh round of direct peace talks in Istanbul. 3 Russia is accused of firing 537 aerial weapons at Ukraine in the latest attack. via REUTERS However, the war shows no signs of abating as US-led international peace efforts have so far produced no breakthrough. Advertisement Two recent rounds of talks between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul were brief and yielded no progress on reaching a settlement. Long-range drone strikes have been a hallmark of the war, now in its fourth year. The race by both sides to develop increasingly sophisticated and deadlier drones has turned the conflict into a testing ground for new weaponry.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Trump slams Israel's prosecutors over Netanyahu corruption trial
U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday lashed out at prosecutors in Israel over the corruption trial that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has faced, saying Washington, having given billions of dollars worth of aid to Israel, was not going to "stand for this". Netanyahu was indicted in 2019 in Israel on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust - all of which he denies. The trial began in 2020 and involves three criminal cases. On Friday, the court rejected a request by Netanyahu's lawyers to delay his testimony for the next two weeks because of diplomatic and security matters following the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran this month. He is due to take the stand on Monday for cross-examination. "It is INSANITY doing what the out-of-control prosecutors are doing to Bibi Netanyahu," Trump said in a Truth Social post, asserting that the judicial process was going to interfere with Netanyahu's ability to conduct talks with Palestinian militant group Hamas, and Iran. A spokesperson for the Israeli prosecution declined to comment on Trump's post. Netanyahu on X retweeted Trump's post and added: "Thank you again, @realDonaldTrump. Together, we will make the Middle East Great Again!" Trump's second post over the course of a few days defending Netanyahu and calling for the cancellation of the trial went a step further to tie Israel's legal action to U.S. aid. "The United States of America spends Billions of Dollar [sic] a year, far more than on any other Nation, protecting and supporting Israel. We are not going to stand for this," Trump said. Netanyahu "right now" was in the process of negotiating a deal with Hamas, Trump said, without giving further details. On Friday, the Republican president told reporters that he believed a ceasefire was close. Hamas has said it is willing to free remaining hostages in Gaza under any deal to end the war, while Israel says it can only end it if Hamas is disarmed and dismantled. Hamas refuses to lay down its arms. Interest in resolving the Gaza conflict has heightened in the wake of the U.S. and Israeli bombings of Iran's nuclear facilities.
