Student Migration

One of the most compelling reasons for having publicly subsidized institutions of higher education is that a well-educated population presents greater opportunities for a state’s economic growth. Defraying some of the costs of obtaining that education is worthwhile because the state also reaps benefits (in the form of greater tax revenue from higher wages, innovation, etc.) from having its citizenry obtain degrees.

But as Americans become increasingly more mobile, the higher likelihood of a student crossing state borders to attend college elsewhere lessens this rationale. After all, why should Maryland spent millions of dollars each year so students from New Jersey can earn degrees there? Sure those students do pay higher tuition, but having them turn around and leave the state as soon as they walk across the stage sure seems like a lost investment.

Curious to see how student migration has changed over the last decade, I turned to the data released from the Digest of Education Statistics this week. It provides information about both the inward movement of students from out-of-state (what I’ll call importation) and also the exodus of in-state students to a university across the border (what I’ll call exportation).

First, a quick note on the data. Unless noted otherwise, when I say students, I am referring to those who enrolled in either the fall of 2008 or the fall of 1998 after having graduated from high school sometime in the 12 months prior. For example, this includes someone who graduated from high school in June 2008 and enrolled the following fall. It does not include someone who graduated in June 2007 and took a year off before enrolling in the fall of 2008. High school dropouts and those that never go to college are not included either. (Most of the data come from the tables found here and here.)

National Stability Hides State Fluctuations

On a national level, the percentage of state higher education spots taken up by students from that state remained at 80 percent from fall 1998 through fall 2008. But this hides the big shifts many states have had in the percentage of their enrollment made up of in-state students.

For example, in 1998 just 75 percent of higher education enrollment in Alaska was comprised of in-state students. By 2008, it had risen to 90 percent. Nevada, Georgia, and Florida also all now have a larger percentage of their enrollment come from in-state students.

At the other end, are states like North Dakota and Wyoming. The former went from filling 68 percent of its enrollment with in-state students in 1998 to just 51 percent in 2008. That’s a drop of more than 17.5 percentage points. Wyoming, meanwhile, dropped from 70 percent to 55 percent, while West Virginia and Iowa also saw a decline in this ratio.

Some states have very little of their college enrollment filled by in-state students. Just 6 percent of the District of Columbia’s enrollment is from in-state students—most likely a reflection of the large number of colleges clustered in the city, and the small size of its graduating high school seniors. Similarly, Vermont and Rhode Island, both small states with popular schools, have the next lowest percentages of enrollment occupied by in-state students at 29 percent and 38 percent, respectively.

A second way to think about migration is to look at the percentage of a state’s students that end up staying there for college. This is slightly different, in that some states may have excess capacity–i.e. offer more spots than they have students–but it also reflects how likely high school graduates are to cross state borders to attend college.

Nationally, the data indicate that most students stay put–81 percent of students enrolled in a school within their home state. And that percentage has not changed since 1998. But again, the data hide variability at the state level. In 1998, just 33 percent of Alaska’s students stayed in state; now 58 percent remain there for college. Maine (57 percent to 68 percent) and Nevada (65 percent to 75 percent) are also doing a better job of keeping their high school graduates within state borders. North Dakota, however, has gone the opposite direction, just 72 percent of its students stay in state, down from 84 percent in 1998.

Among states that have the highest in-state attendance rate are Mississippi (93 percent), Utah and California (both 92 percent), Alabama (91 percent), and Louisiana and both Carolinas (90 percent). Of course, the California figure can be misleading, as the state’s so big that a student from San Francisco who goes to school in Los Angeles has actually traveled farther a student from New York City who goes to school in Washington, D.C.

New Jersey Rules the Export Business

All told, 30 of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia were net importers of college students in 1998 and still were in 2008—meaning fewer of their students leave to attend college elsewhere than out-of-state students come there for school. Twelve, meanwhile have been net exporters of students over that same period. Of the remaining nine states, six used to be exporters but now import more students and three switched from being a net importer to a net exporter. The biggest change was Georgia, which went from taking in 1,809 students in 1998 to losing 2,789 in 2008. New York, meanwhile, went from a net exporter of 1,955 students to a net importer of 1,967.

So who are the biggest players in the college student import/export business? In the fall of 2008, New Jersey enrolled 4,386 out-of-state students in its colleges and universities. By contrast, 32,205 of students from the Garden State went elsewhere for college. That net export of 27,819 students was the most of any state. Other big exporters of students include Illinois (a net loss of 10,970 students), Texas (10,134), and Maryland (8,480).

On the other end is Pennsylvania, which had a net importation of 14,889 students, the most of any state. Other big importers include Iowa Indiana (8,382), Massachusetts (7,046), and Arizona (6,807).

Pennsylvania’s influx of out-of-state students is likely explained by its proximity to major exporters New Jersey and Maryland. Likewise, Massachusetts likely gets many of its students from Connecticut, which lost about 5,000 students on net in the fall of 2008.

Blame it on the 4-Years

Not surprisingly, most of the migration of students appears to occur at the 4-year level. This makes sense as community colleges and other 2-year institutions are generally more place-specific, providing a local opportunity for additional training or workforce preparation without students having to quit their existing jobs or uproot their families to move elsewhere.

On a national level, 93 percent of student migration results from the movement of students at 4-year institutions. That’s up from 84 percent of all migration in 1998. That indicates two different scenarios: (1) students going to 4-year schools are moving around at a higher rate than they did before or (2) students at 2-year or less schools are less likely to move than before. I’d personally bet on the former.

Subtracting 4-year schools from the state-level data show just how much students at 4-year schools change migration patterns. For example, New Jersey goes from a net exporter of over 27,000 students each year to having a net loss of less than 500. Likewise, Pennsylvania’s net gain of nearly 15,000 students drops to 558 when 4-year schools are excluded. California switches from an exporter to an importer, going from a loss of 2,647 students to a gain of 5,848. That’s surely a testament to the quality and size of its community college system.

Why Does Movement Matter?

In the past, arguments about the need to fund higher education at the state level were pretty easy to make because people were largely attached to a specific place. This meant local students attended in-state schools and then remained there to work. As a result, the benefits of providing an excellent and very well-funded education for your state population made a great deal of sense. And while the national trend of migration has remained relatively stable, individual states have seen significant changes, especially among the best-prepared students that are going to four-year institutions. Having these students leave the state weakens arguments about investing resources since the state is not retaining educational talent as much.

To be clear, having mobility for education, workforce, etc. is certainly a good thing. But what it does mean is a rethinking of the rhetoric around the need to fund public colleges and universities. And given the recent track record of turning to these schools first when education budget cuts or needed, a rethinking of the justification for public support of higher education seems like a good undertaking anyway.

Tagged as: Digest of Education Statistics, NCES, Public Higher Education Funding, Student Migration