OT - University of Michigan going private? Any updates?
I am wondering if anyone has heard any recent updates/discussions about Michigan going private (see http://www.nextstudent.com/student-loan-blog/blogs/sample_weblog/archive/2009/05/05/19299.aspx, for example of previous rumors). A guy sitting a few rows in front of me on my flight home from the game yesterday was talking about the movement gaining some fresh steam both with the administrators and in the legislature. Anyone know any more? Was this guy just talking out of his a--? Thanks.
November 8th, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^
I'm not saying privatizing would be good or bad, but I highly doubt that Michigan would ever be considered "second-rate" if it went private. If anything, the caliber of students could arguably increase if they admit more out-of-state residents. I do not agree with the above poster who stated that the only out-of-staters that consider Michigan are the ones that get rejected to Ivy League schools. That's a ridiculous statement.
November 8th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^
I did want to note, though, that in terms of U.S. News*, USC (T-23) is ranked right in between Berkeley (22) and UCLA (25) and a few spots ahead of Virginia (27) and Michigan (29).
* (While U.S. News rankings lack validity, they are what most people reference when talking about school quality, so I thought this was a useful comparison.)
November 8th, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^
In my position with UM I have heard President Coleman, Dave Brandon, then-provost Sullivan, Um CFO Tim Slottow, and current and former regents talk about the possibility of going private. In a word: no. The money just isn't there (going private adds a lot of costs that even the tuition increases wouldn't add up to fill), and Michigan currently gets the BEST students in Michigan because of in-state tuition. Without that the calibur of student at UM could even go down because those students will go elsewhere (MSU was mentioned).
Secondly, Michigan views its identity as being a pillar for the state of Michigan to build off of, to produce minds for the state and serve the state. It is a tad harder to do that with less state funding, but it is about more than that- it is about what the administration feels is the basic mission of the university. When I joined UM as an employee (and when I was a student) I was convinced that going private was the best thing... now not so much. There are more opportunities for Michigan has a public university to carve out a powerful niche and stay relevant nationally than as just another private school.
November 8th, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^
I don't know who you are but this is 100% in line with everything I hear.
<br>
<br>
November 8th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^
The only really great reason to privatize would infuriate putzes like Rosenberg: no FOIA. Imagine pompous assholes like those at the Freep not being able to wave their hands in the air and scream "FOIA" every time they get pissed at Michigan and want to go on a witch hunt. That alone might be worth it.
Sadly, though, from what I am seeing, it would compromise the ability of the University to give a quality education without having students and their parents signing over body parts as collateral on their loans.
November 8th, 2010 at 1:45 PM ^
This notion seems to pop up on a yearly basis, and it never goes anywhere for the same reason: the people proposing it have no feasible and equitable answers to some fundamental questions.
The University of Michigan is both a collection of a vast number of people and a collection of a vast number of buildings, many of them very expensive and technologically sophisticated. Virtually all of the buildings on campus, from the oldest to the newest, were built with state and/or federal funds; i.e., monies from taxpayers.
If privatization occurs, who are the owners? Who gets to select the owners? Is it simply a case of whoever has the most money gets to buy in? If it's owned by shareholders, is it through common, publicly-available stock, or privately-held shares?
And more directly, if taxpayers have financed the design and construction of the physical assets of the institution, who gets reimbursed by the new owners? Is the money returned to the state and federal coffers, or directly to those taxpayers who have contributed via their taxes? Or will it be like what was done after the demise of the old Soviet Union, where state assets were basically stripped away for kopeks on the ruble by the wealthy and the connected?
The singular identify of the University of Michigan is that it has always been one of the very best public institutions in the nation and world, and as such has always had to respond to a broad range of goals and constraints and demands which are nominally characterized as being in the "public" sphere. Privatization would effectively mean the end of that identity.
November 8th, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^
Last year Mary Sue Coleman was brought into my Philosophy class because my teacher worked for her as an advisor. She was asked the question of UM going private and said that UM would not be going private. Obviously things can change and she probably wouldnt have told us, even if there were plans in motion but FWIW, she said there were no plans to become private.
November 8th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
There is almost no chance that Michigan will privatize anytime in the foreseeable future. MSC seems set against it, so it unlikely to even be seriously considered until there is a new President, which hopefully won't be for some time. More importantly, given the difficulty of the process, involving public approval, the chances of the state willingly abandoning its flagship public University and voters giving up the chance for their children to have a significantly decreased tuition is laughable. Barring another economic crisis for the state, UM won't privatize.
This is all unfortunate, however, as the University would be in a far more competitive position if it were to privatize. Right now, the University is held back by its status as a "public" institution and its dedication to accept a certain percentage of in-state students. Michigan would be in a stronger position if it could accept its applicants based on merit, not where they are from. Michigan's acceptance rate is obnoxiously high because it is a public school. If you don't believe this would help Michigan, compare its undergraduate reputation to that of its professional and graduate programs, where in-state status matters much less. Furthermore, Michigan privatizing does not mean we will be losing students to MSU. Michigan is a much better school than MSU - we could still lure the best students from Michigan with the generous financial aid that could be offered if tuition prices were higher across the board.
November 8th, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^
But will the University go pubic? I think that's the biggest question.