EDIT: Die Thread
EDIT: I was young and stupid... If this thread comes up in google searches of the satellite campuses, that's not a good thing. Therefore, thread name changed.
Obviously, you can see the thread was initially about comparing the satellite campuses to Ann Arbor. I wrote this as a transfer from UM-Flint who went on to get a couple degrees from the Ann Arbor campus.
They are a cheaper alternative to the Ann Arbor campus, and an easy way to transfer to the Ann Arbor campus if you dont get in outta high school. Its not like people think less of UofM because of Flint and Dearborn.
Go Blue!!!!!!!!
This is based almost exclusively on what I've heard, as I've never attended nor even been closer than the front driveway to either sattelite, but it is to my understanding that UM Flint is suppose to be meh, but UM Dearborn is actually pretty nice. That is, this is what I've gathered from minimal observation and a lot of other people, not necessarily my own solid opinion based on my own personal findings.
Academically, Dearborn offers a lot more last I recall. In fact, I believe a year or two ago they added their fist doctoral programs. Sounds to me like Dearborn is actively trying to position themselves as UM Light and a place to go if you can't afford Ann Arbor or if you're looking for something smaller.
I've also gone to a couple of events held at the nearby Hyatt in Dearborn, and from the outside, the campus looks pretty nice, too. There would also be quite a bit to do in that area, but its location doesn't appear to have impacted the quality or the style of the campus in any way (By which I mean that it isn't a bunch of huge city-like buildings ala Wayne State).
Flint, although I've never seen it up close, seems smaller and has far less to offer. They don't have the student-life being in Flint and, as you said, a commuter school, and they don't have the range of fields that Dearborn does. Plus, going off of the pictures I've seen here and there, the campus doesn't look quite as nice either.
That being said, neither of them are Ann Arbor, by any stretch of the imagination. Either way though, it is true that they grant you the same degree without distinction to campus. Whatever your reason for going to one of them, you could simply not mention the part about which campus unless you were specifically asked in conversation.
Either way though, it is true that they grant you the same degree without distinction to campus.
Not true. My BSEE degree from 2006 designates University of Michigan - Dearborn.
yeah, it looks identicle to the one from A2 other than it says in small print "with reguards from the University of Michigan Dearborn" or something like that.
I think the words are "Dated at Ann Arbor" or whatever school its from.
That's interesting. Somebody lied to me up front and the University pushes their luck with claiming its the same degree then.
Thanks for clearing that up. I will stop saying that from now on.
I wish I had it in front of me to tell you the exact words, but at the top it says The University of Michigan then it talks about your field like a normal UM degree, then it says based on the recommendations of "the university of michigan dearborn" and then looks like a normal UM degree and is signed by Mary Sue. So it's a little different but not by much.
or it said flat out University of Michigan - Flint. this was in the past 3-5 years.
Nope, mine has the same crest - although there is a modified crest that is used by the university at the campus - that isn't on the degree though. The only difference is that one sentence about the recomendation from UM-D.
October 26th, 2010 at 11:37 PM ^
There seems to be some inconsistency on this, which is odd. I graduated in 2010 with a BA from UMD and my diploma has no mention whatsoever of Michigan-Dearborn. It does have Daniel Little's signature under the chancellor, but that seems to be the only different.
Degrees are worth the same after college, but you just lack the experience and some of the connections you'd probably build at the main campus. At least on the undergrad level. If anything, you're still getting a very good education, but with smaller class sizes and a more personable atmosphere, depending on the level of commuter.
Texas has a similar situation with all the University of Texas schools. UT has over half of it's attendance mandated through the state's Top 10% rule (top 10% in any public high school gets their pick of state university with automatic acceptance). Some of the kids at smaller suburban schools who end up number 51 out of a class of 500 sometimes have to go to a satellite school and transfer over.
I'm actually in a satellite school in the UT system right now. I'm doing far better than I would here than in Austin just because I'm on a first name basis with all of the professors and staff in my department. I'm one of only 70 CivEs. Compare that to when I was at UM and I was one of 110 in just my statics class. It's drastically improved my performance and understanding of the topics.
I'm extremely greatful for my experiences at UM, but the cost and my struggles weren't worth it. I've got a full staff of English as a primary language professors in a university that is teach first, research later, where at UM, I always felt like my professors were generally busy with research and hundreds of other students.
Just one perspective.
But Texas runs their system a lot differently, do they not? Like California, most of the sattelites are meant to be solid, stand-alone schools. UCLA and UC Berkley are both very strong schools, even though they are both campuses of the UC system. Texas differs in that they have a very well defined flagship campus (Austin), but I've always gotten the impression that their sattelite campuses get a massive chunk of the attention as well.
In Michigan's case, our sattelite campuses are really just the result of a large land donation that we needed to do something with. I don't think we would have sattelite campuses if we hadn't recieved a chunk of land out of the clear blue sky.
Some are better than others (UT-Dallas is tier 3), but they definitely don't compare to the UC system. UT and TAMU both are miles ahead of the next tier at Tech (tier 3), Houston (4), UTEP (4), UTSA (4), Lamar (4), etc.
The satellite schools vary as stand alones, UT-D being the only one above a tier 4, and many of them unranked due to size or lack of history. The school I'm at now just became a four year (was previously just junior/senior/grad only) in 1998. Junior colleges around here used to be much, much better than what we'd think of them today, offering up to 300 level university courses. Several of the regional campuses got a huge boost in '98, and many of the campuses are getting much better, they're just nowhere close to "elite".
many new facilites. Very tightly connected with companies in the area. Smaller classes with close interaction with the facility. Yes, close to West Dearborn and local entertainment. Basically as commuter college.
I wish UofM would cut ties with the Dearborn and Flint campuses. They tarnish Michigan's reputation.
I don't think it is the schools themselves that are the issue, but rather the people who try to pretend they are equivalent institutions or that there is some genuine connection with the main campus besides the name.
I don't think schools like UC-Santa Cruz or UC-Riverside diminish the reputation of UCLA or Berkeley, but at the same time you don't have people who went to those schools claiming they are all part of some larger community.
That's exactly the problem though. Flint and Dearborn graduates believe they have an identical degree to those of AA grads. And the fact that they try to pass this fallacy onto naive out-of-state employers tarnishes the Michigan reputation.
On top of that, Flint and Dearborn students are allowed to buy student tickets. Give me a break...
Read some posts below and you will see that there are some of us who state Dearborn with no shame. I often find it is easier to worry about myself and not others.
You're right; not all do. That was an overgeneralization. It just really chaps my ass to hear UM-D and UM-F grads claim they went to "Michigan."
I went to AA and agree with the proposition that the satellites aren't the same (though Dearborn is very respectable and transfers almost all credits to AA) but ultimately if someone says that they went to "Michigan," who cares? How does that diminish anything at all?What they say has no bearing on my school, my experience, or my reputation, nor does it have any impact on the university's. It's not the whole truth, but maybe it makes them feel part of something they wish they were a part of. There are worse things. Ultimately, it doesn't have anything to do with us.
If you have a group of under-achieving, under-performing people (hypothetically) claiming to have gone to UofM, you don't see how that can detract from the school's image?
For example, I work for an aircraft company in Kansas. There are a handful of UofM grads here and in my honest opinion we are some of the company's best assets. When I was interviewing here, I met a UofM Flint student who made no distinction between the two schools. I'm sure our HR department, which is completely inept, did not differentiate between the two institutions either. If this kid ended up getting the job (I don't think he did) and ended up being a waste of space, you don't see how that can negatively influence the school?
I'm not saying UM-F and UM-D are terrible schools or that all of their graduates are worthless. All schools have great and not-so-great alumni. I simply think the distinction between them and UM-AA should be greater.
A statement of clarity from Mary Sue and the Regents stating for the record that the satellites aren't as good? Your opening statement "if you have a group of underachieving, underperforming people" sounds unbelievably condescending and arrogant. And no, I don't think that your example would have anything to do with the reputation of our school since you yourself state the truth that "all schools have great and not-so-great alumni."
Yes, the satellites are not equivalent, and yes, people that went to either should be upfront about that. But people that get angry about it sound pretty uptight to me.
No, I would like to see the schools renamed.
I'd be fine with the name change, but even without that a lot could be done that isn't simply because the university administrators feel they profit from the current arrangement. Not marketing the schools as if they are equivalent (as apparently happened to Tom From AA), giving Flint/Dearborn their own alumni association, reserving Michigan seasons tickets for Michigan students, developing a new and unique image/brand/mascot for Flint/Dearborn, etc.
None of this will happen any time soon though because apparently there is more money to be made by permitting the impression that the schools are somehow comparable and closely related.
Doesn't UM-D have a different mascot. Aren't they the wolves?
October 21st, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
Does that mean you want North Campus to be renamed too?
Believe it or not, maybe it isn't the hardworking UMD or UMF grads who opted to go to a commuter school and sacrifice a real college experience to be a part of the Michigan family - but yourself that's tarnishing the Michigan brand by being an arrogant douche.
What major OOS employers don't know the difference between the schools while recruiting? They go to Ann Arbor, Michigan for Ann Arbor graduates. They go to Dearborn for Dearborn graduates. For that matter, how would you conceal Dearborn on your offical transcripts that are sent out?
Employers in Michigan definitely know the difference. Out of state employers... well, they might see the "Dearborn" and think it's the same as "regular" U of M.
HOWEVER- though I have no data to back this up, my observation has been that the top-end Dearborn graduates are much, much more likely to venture away from Metro Detroit than the lower ones. As a result, Dearborn graduates are not going all over the country "tarnishing" the good Michigan name because the ones who would tarnish it are still living in Mom's basement in Taylor.
October 21st, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
They go to Ohio State for sanitation engineers.
Some asses would be REAL chapped if they knew Dearborn students get to play the U of M golf course. I spent many good weekends taking divots out of the hallowed grounds of Ann Arbor.
Of course, they made us wear jorts and stained NASCAR T-shirts so they could tell who is who.
slow, even breaths
while acting like you don't care. this was more a response to your last comment on page 2 anyways.
nearly every single one of them has a story. and if my MgoPoints are worth anything, it should be to say I can vouch it's happened as I have been involved in the conversation several times. i.e. "oh what dorm?" and getting the clarification, etc.
What, like 90% of the school in Cali have the U-Cal distinction? They're more a family of schools than one school with satellites. Really, it'd be more equivalent to CMU and EMU and Wayne State all saying they're U-M schools, because they're state schools in Michigan. Whereas U-M Dearborn and Flint are a part of the University of Michigan specifically, not just the state of Michigan University system. I mean, you don't have one President signing off on the mentioned diplomas at Berkley, UCLA, and UC-Santa Barbara. It's just a different State set up.
The University of California has a board of regents and a president that oversees the whole system (not sure if he signs every diploma, though). They just choose to differentiate between campuses and make each one stand on its own merits.
I know of no other state where the flagship public university does so much to cater to students at satellite campuses in the hopes of convincing them that they are all part of one big happy family. I just think the powers that be have chosen to keep it this way because they think it will be more profitable (Why choose Central or Eastern when you can get Michigan football tickets and join the U-M alumni association and get a "University of Michigan" degree if you go to Flint/Dearborn, for example).
I just think the reputation of Flint/Dearborn would actually improve if the schools were more independent and given their own distinct identity. As an Ann Arbor alumnus I would also prefer not to have the schools conflated the way they are by university administrators trying to milk more cash out of Flint/Dearborn.
September 9th, 2010 at 3:02 AM ^
I'm replying to a thread from July at 2:30 am in the middle of a pretty important week for the football team. I'm willing to bet this comment will be deleted or something, I don't really care. I just had the distinct pleasure of finding an old thread on this subject... it was from February, I guess I was taking one of my regular MGoVacations that week, so I totally missed it. As anyone who reads this thread can probably tell, it's a subject I feel very strongly about as an alum who attended both Dearborn and Ann Arbor. So, I just needed to get this off my chest: PurpleStuff, you are a moron. Seriously. The living proof of every negative stereotype that every MSU or OSU fan throws out there about Michigan alums. You're arrogant for no reason, ignorant of basic facts and seem to believe yourself beyond reproach. It's just, like, sad. Let's just start with the obvious... the three campuses of the University are not separate universities. This should be very simple to understand. Universities have a board of regents, they have a president, they award their own degrees. No campus of the University has it's own personal regents, it's own personal president nor do they award separate degrees (the geographic notation on the degrees from the satellites are really just part of the name of the college recommending you be awarded the degree) . The Rackham School of Graduate studies is the grad school at Ann Arbor. It's also the grad school at Dearborn. I'm kind of confused about how two separate universities can share a single grad school. By now it should be pretty obvious that the University of Michigan is not, contrary to widely held public belief, solely the school in Ann Arbor. It's more than that. It's a system, comprising three distinct campuses. Think of it like the various colleges that might make up a university... and just like a school's college of music might be weaker than their b-school, the three University of Michigan campuses have vastly different reputations. But the fact remains, they are all a part of a single university, even if it is just in the most technical sense. You seem to see these as nothing more than moneymaking ventures dreamed up by the board of regents. That's downright insulting. The goal of a multi-campus university is to extend the benefits of said universities to people who otherwise wouldn't have them. That's an incredibly noble aim and one that is fulfilled well by the Flint and Dearborn campuses. Now, I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that the technical reality does not reflect popular opinion on the matter. As I've acknowledged many times: Claiming to have gone to the "University of Michigan" is implying that you went to the campus in Ann Arbor because that is the only school anybody identifies with that name. Graduates from other campuses who try to coast on Ann Arbor's reputation are simply wrongheaded. But to look at somebody who went to one of those campuses and tell them that there is NO relationship between where they went and where you went or to tell them that those campuses have as much to do with the University as a totally separate university like Ferris State or EMU is just, plainly, ignorant and arrogant. All it demonstrates is a total lack of understanding regarding how these things operate. Your invocations of the UC system are the ultimate proof... as I demonstrated in my initial post in this thread, there is no differentiation made between the Berkley campus or the Merced campus or any of the other 9 UC campuses. The reason you perceive there to be one is because UC began building it's system up in the 20's and it's become general knowledge that there is no single "University of California". And UCLA being an elite institution in it's own right only helped in shaping that perception. Anyway, this is a long screed that's totally out of place and I'm sure it will never be read. But I had to get this off my chest.
I grew up in Dearborn and I watched the U of M Dearborn campus grow over the years. I had many classmates that attended U of M Dearborn that never even applied to U of M Ann Arbor. I was/am upset that the diploma does not designate that it is a satellite campus. I am also upset that despite the fact that the Dearborn campus has a hockey team and a basketball team (as well as others) the students are still allowed to get "student" tickets for University of Michigan Football and Basketball. For some reason, I think if you go to a satellite that has it's own sports programs you shouldn't be able to "double-dip".
Some of the teaching faculty at U of M Dearborn were parents of friends of mine and to be kind, looking back they were not the top of their fields or anyone who would have held a similar position in Ann Arbor. I'm happy to hear that they have stepped-up the academics of U of M Dearborn with the addition of doctoral programs. Maybe it will make me think differently of them, but I doubt it.
Holla!
Anyway, they do have a hockey team and such...but they're like club level team (though at one point the Hockey team was a national good club level team). So, it's not really like they have the same thing. Besides, does it really matter if more people want to buy tickets?
At least I bet these students, since they're commuting, manage to get into the Stadium before the 2nd quarter...
It matters that they can buy tickets when we have a waiting list for the alumni of the University of Michigan Ann Arbor!
I went to UMD for a BSEE. The degree is NOT the same as UMAA, though you have to look close to notice it states UMD.
UMD is a commuter campus. For me this was OK since I had a full time job while taking 14-16 credits a semester. The smaller class size is a plus and there were many good professors in the program. As noted above the class sizes are small and the professors make themselves available and encourage students to come to them for support.
At least for the motivated student there is good opportunity to get a top notch education at UMD. Unfortunately I also witnessed several people float through the program with very little effort/learning taking place. As with any program you get out of it what you put in.
I don't know if this played a role in the regents' thinking with Flint and Dearborn, but originally, the idea that got the ball rolling for the University of Michigan included a territory-wide eductaion system with several university campuses. High schools were even going to be a part of the system and fall under the same funding and planning mechanisms. The same plan called for an agricultural school, and if it wasn't for a Detroit Horticultural club that lobbied heavily for its separation, MSU could have been part of the University of Michigan system too.
I went to Dearborn, it's a great campus. Most of the buildings are newer and a lot of the professors teach at both institutions. I know that at Dearborn at least there are a lot of majors that UM-Ann Arbor doesn't offer. I know 1 for sure was criminal justice. One of the reasons I went is that I transfered from EMU after three semesters. So I had something like 40 credits. UM-A2 didn't have a program that accepted as many of my credits as the Dearborn campus did. UM dearborn also has smaller class sizes and a much smaller student body. Most of my profs when I went knew me by the end of it.
They are also a few thousand cheaper than the Ann Arbor campus. It's definately not the same but it's pretty close. The main thing I noticed is that you don't get the same sense of being a UM student sense you just drive in and drive out vs. living here in ann arbor and being on campus. The on-campus living is the difference IMO. My brother went to Ann Arbor and we've lived here our whole lives and that's the one thing I wished I had done. I loved everything at Dearborn though.
I went to Dearborn and don't regret it one bit. I was able to get great internships junior and senior year and found that to be most important. In addition to the experience gained through these internships, I was also able to graduate debt free and with a job in hand. The first thing I tell people when they ask where I went to school is University of Michigan-Dearborn. I always point out that I did not go to Ann Arbor and that Ann Arbor was a better school than Dearborn.
Now that it has been 5 years, I am glad that I went the route I did. That UofM Ann Arbor name is great, but graduating debt free and with valuable internship experience was more important to me. Living in NYC now I relate to Ann Arbor grads when we discuss football games and establishments in Ann Arbor where I spent alot of my weekends. Now I am at a point where I am thinking of getting my MBA and would be looking to go to Ann Arbor given my current financial position.