If the grammar police has groupies, count me in.
If the grammar police has groupies, count me in.
UM has an excellent national and international reputation and people interested in a good education will continue to enroll. UM has always drawn students from around the country. IIRC, in 1987, the Free Press ran an article blasting the university for having more stringent academic standards for in-state students than for out-of-state students. They accused the university of enrolling more out-of-state students in order to receive the higher out-of-state tuition. This was an option because UM was a national draw and UM continues to be a national draw.
The reputations of Michigan and Detroit have both suffered in recent years. But Detroit has had longstanding problems and this has not discouraged out-of-state enrollment at UM. AA is just far enough from Detroit that the everyday problems of the city do not filter down much. Having Detroit nearby may actually be a recruiting advantage for athletes who want access to major city and all it has to offer (e.g. pro sports, big buildings, trouble to be found). Student athletes can take day (or night) trips into the city and return to the safe confines of AA.
Hey, Flint has been worse than Detroit for a while, but MSU manages to find good basketball talent there. I wouldn't worry about the athletic talent in Detroit. I'd worry about the city itself, but not the talent.
I was saying the school may have to go to private or semi private because there will be a decrease in the talent of the state for two reasons. 1) The state requires an admittance of a 2:1 ratio of instate to out of state students in order to get funds. UM is a nationally renowned school that can draw great talent to the school. The question is when does the talent gap between state and out of state get large enough in quantity that they decide to become semi private at least in certain departments to keep the reputation high. Business school, public policy, engineering, etc. 2) The decreased population and economy will strangle the state budget. I know only 20% of the money probably comes from the state but if that number eventually becomes 10%. Why would the school want to be monitored by the state if they aren't benefiting substantially from that relationship.
Because that's the point of a university: to draw the best "talent" from across the country, have high ratings and make shitloads in out of state tuition while fucking over the people in your own state.
I appreciate M for all the reasons you don't. I'm not an alumnus. I'm a Michigan native who is proud that the state's flagship university has chosen to embrace, rather than abandon, its roots.
The Big Three killed public transportation in Detroit. It follows, then, that the Big Three, while helping build the city, eventually helped kill the city. The lack of a viable public transportation system in the city and surrounding suburbs is, in my mind, the single biggest reason Detroit is dying.
This is really a gentle attempt at sarcasm, but: public transportation? Really?
I don't think that Comerica left Detroit for the great Dallas public transportation.
I don't think Leopold Brothers left Ann Arbor for Denver because of the Mile High City's great public transportation.
I don't think the hundreds workers who moved to Wyoming moved for the public transportation.
In fact, all three places I mentioned have gawdawful public transit systems. There are a BUNCH of reasons why Detroit/Michigan has fallen as far as it has. Public transportation has to be like 2,459th on the list of most-important ones.
You're remarkably uninformed if you think that public transportation is not a top 5, maybe top 3 issue for why Detroit is dying. See my response to the guy who called me a retard.
I think suburbanites don't go downtown because they live 45 minutes away, and so the wealth of Metro Detroit stays in the suburbs when if hoping on a train and being downtown in 15 minutes could result in millions of dollars spent at the casinos, at restaurants and clubs, and at other events.
If you look at Chicago, the great places to visit there are where the public transportation stops are. Great cities are aligned this way - it is convenient for tourists in addition to helping people that work downtown also live in the city without the need of a car. Same for New York, San Fran, many European cities, etc.
It's definitely not a requirement, but it's a factor. I know that many of my friends at UofM would have gone into to Detroit more often (as in, more than 0 times) if they could ride an efficient commuter train. Chicago followed this blueprint and it is really the only midwestern city that isn't following the same downward trend.
you are a retard. stfu.
I'm glad you decided to respond intelligently. Allow us to think about this for a moment. Detroit is incredibly spread out. Boston/LA/Manhattan combined could fit into an area the size of Detroit, and yet they have a population that dwarfs Detroit's. Public transportation, linking parts of the city, the suburbs, and cities like Ann Arbor is absolutely essential to creating a viable, livable city. Boston, Chicago, NYC, hell, ANN ARBOR have expansive public transportation systems that connect all areas of their cities with ease. They have viable downtowns because people can cheaply and efficiently get from point A to point B. Nobody will move to downtown Detroit if there isn't an easy way to get around that doesn't require a car, and all the costs of parking, gas, etc. People would be much more likely to move into neighborhoods outside of downtown if there was a train station down the block that could link them to downtown in minutes. It is completely ridiculous to say that Detroit not having a subway/light-rail system has nothing to do with Detroit being a dying city. Find me one other major city without an expansive public transportation system.
I hesitate to throw my hat in this thread but this is actually very true. Not that there is one and only one reason why Detroit has failed, but it can't be overstated that what the Big Three did in building The Motor City essentially served to cripple what had been a great Midwestern city. They gutted the public transportation system and carved up old neighborhoods with an expressways system that further disconnected the suburbs from the city, whites from blacks, and rich (and middle class) from poor. Then sure enough, as though to illustrate the city's downfall, when the city built a modern public transportation system, you got the People Mover, which is pretty much a real life Springfield Monorail.
I'm sorry to bump such an old, old thread... but holy shit, I just read the Monorail/People Mover line. Beautiful and true.
I lived in the Riverfront Apartments from 1985-88, after I finished school. That is my only personal connection with Detroit. It was apparent to people I knew that had worked downtown for many years that city policies destroyed faith that investment would be given a chance to create a normal return on capital. At the simplest of levels, that has to turn around before Detroit can improve. No faith in capitalist principles, no investment, no turn around. The mid to late 1980s felt to me like boom years, but the lack of faith prevented progress. I was a hard core liberal then, and the people talking to me were active in the Democratic party locally. In any event, I don't see any effect on Michigan recruiting.
I just bought a Chevy to help us in recruiting
Ummh, I really don't care at all about housing values in Detroit and the fate of the Big 3 and unions and the mayors and race and politics and political parties. I don't care if all of Detroit is a slum and goes down the toilet. I don't care if GM and Chrysler go bankrupt, and union wages are cut in half, and auto company management is cut by two thirds. What will be, will be. If GM/Ford/Chrysler produce an inferior and more expensive product than Toyota and Honda and VW and Hyundai, and fail as a result, they're only reaping what they've sown for years.
My original questions had to do ONLY with the relationship between things in the Detroit area and:
1) Student recruiting at UofM in general.
2) Sports recruiting at UofM in particular.
Regarding the comments, thanks to the grammar police for the correction. The comments on Flint and Basketball recruits at State also make sense.
Regarding sports recruiting, I'm still curious if there is any kind of causal connection between the economy of an area and the athletes produced. Obviously, there are many, many, variables, and there are always exceptions to the rule. But as a casual observer, it seems that many depressed areas produce an inordinate number of athletes in relationship to their population. For comparison, let's focus on Pahokee. From the articles I have read, it looks like a shithole down there. It seems that there is very little money available in the school system for sports and extra-curriculars, making it analogous to the Detroit area school system. And yet, Pahokee is an incredible hotbed for athletes. IIRC, some of these athletes have been clear that football is their ticket out of town. It can't just be the warm weather, because I don't see nearly as many jocks coming out of Palm Beach or San Marino or Newport Beach or other high rent areas in the South as I do see coming out of Pahokee.
So to restate my question in a different way: is there an inverse correlation between the economy in Detroit and the production of athletes, such that as the economic infrastructure worsens, the number of gifted athletes coming out of the area (Cissko, Will Campbell, etc.) improves?
You mean, the Thong Song guy?
There may be a correlation. As other opportunities decrease, people may increasingly turn to athletics. A downside, at least for football & hockey (due to being extremely expensive to support at a high school) may suffer while talented athletes tend increasingly toward sports requiring less infrastructure (bball, soccer, track & field, etc.)
Purely speculation, of course.
My biggest concern regards the financial status of U of M. Perhaps some of you recall, in 2007, during a brief period of time the state government literally SHUT DOWN. That was when things were considerably better, with regards to the state budget, than they are now. (The budget was the reason for the shutdown). If shit like that keeps up, it will have a severe, negative effect on the university as long as it is tied to the state.
The state shutdown, which lasted like 4 hours, was over partisan fighting and not because the state was broke.
is in the form of a picture
Wait ... Detroit is a state now?
Anyway, that picture was sad, and the accompanying story about getting the authorities to pick up the body was even worse.
If not, I humbly apologize, but someone did. STAY classy.
This was one of the saddest pictures I've ever seen. Thanks for showing us a picture of a dead body. You're a beacon of light amongst all of us morose posters.
Is not nearly as bad a place to be as people seem to think. A lot of bad shit goes down, no doubt, but things like that happen everywhere. I would except a slanderous article from a city like Chicago, one of the most elitist and corrupt cities in the country (if not THE most).
Take a given neighborhood in eastside Detroit and compare it to soutside Chicago ... how much difference should we really expect? So, Chicago has a large population of affluent individuals... the Detroit area does, too, they just live in different municipalities (mostly). And Chicago has slums as bad as the worst in Detroit.
What does it matter, how good things are for the best-off in a city if the worst-off have it as bad as the worst in the overall worst-off city?
Have you actually been to the South Side? To what slums in Chicago are you referring? I'm a SE Michigan transplant living in Chicago now, and I used to think the same thing. I'd had my brief, car-bound excursions into the east side and through the city on Grand River (though I didn't spend any really significant time there, to be sure) and that's basically what I thought the South Side of Chicago would look like, too.
Now my wife works in the southwest, in what is generally deemed to be one of the rougher areas of the city, and from what I can tell - it ain't as bad as Detroit. Chicago has a lot of problems, and the segregation of its neighborhoods is pretty deplorable, but it is simply not as blighted as the D. I think you'd have to take sub-neighborhood samples - such as what existed at Cabrini Green before it was closed down - in order to match Detroit in terms of degree of urban crisis. Again, I'll admit that this is largely my own impression, but the overall vitality of Chicago as a city vis a vis Detroit is indisputably a stark contrast.
Also, the corruption of the Daley Dynasty likely will come to bite the city in the ass at some point down the road, but there is, sadly, something to be said for corruption linked to overall competence and acumen (here's looking at you, Kwame.)
1) Michigan Football averages about 4 to 6 recruits from the State of Michigan
2) Detroit has been a total disaster since the '70's. From then until now Michigan Football has been decidedly spectacular (ignoring 2008, of course)
They are only marginally tied to the fate of Detroit.