University of Michigan being "cut loose" by the State. To become private school?

Submitted by James Burrill Angell on

I've posted in response to other threads that I KNOW the University doesn't WANT to go private but has conducted studies as to what would happen IF the State of Michigan cut its funding. Well, despite the fact that the current governor has three degrees from UofM this article alleges that cutting off funding to the University is on the table (though not probable) as the State figures out how to deal with a $1.8 million budget deficit.

Even the mention of this makes me absolutely nauseous. To think that this would be the only state with its flagship University turned private. Absolutely pathetic. I hope Governor Snyder remembers he's a Michigan Man and keeps this from happening.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110116/NEWS15/101160512/1318/State-of-the-State-Painful-budget-cuts-coming

bryemye

January 16th, 2011 at 3:25 PM ^

Might want to change the title of the thread. I have seen thsi bandied about though. I think it's insane purely from the amount the University would have to downsize.

bluebyyou

January 16th, 2011 at 7:30 PM ^

I believe over 90 percent of the funding comes from a source other than the state of Michigan.

As an OOS'er with two kids who went there (one gets his second degree this year) it is painful to pay 40K just for tuition.  While i can understand why someone from Michigan would like OOS students to subsidize their educations, there are certain realities that are impacting most state schools.

Most states simply don't have the money to increase funding to their schools. Tuition will go up and the bulk of the rise has to be borne by in-state students as OOS'er are already maxed out.

If you don't fund adequately, facilities don't get built and profs don't get raises.  Your physical plant suffers as does the quality of your faculty.  Even more than that, you simply can't continue to shift the financial burden to OOS students without compromising quality.  I have heard a proposal that tuition should at least partially be a function of affordability.  if your daddy makes the bucks, you pay more. It is a fiction to think that more than a  small percent of in-state students' parents pay enough in taxes to justify the in-state discount.  

U of M is fortunate that the option of going private can even be part of the discussion. Most state schools can't make that claim.

wesq

January 16th, 2011 at 10:57 PM ^

U of M is an asset the State of Michigan owns and built it would be silly not to over compensate for people living in Michigan if they can get away it.  The State of Michigan built U of M and can pass laws just about anyway they see fit.  Just like toll roads and bridges you get what you can from non-voters, it's not about fair or unfair it's about what people will and won't pay for.

Feat of Clay

January 17th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^

It is not law.

It was at one time an written rule as part of the boilerplate of the appropriations bill but it was taken out. 

Generally speaking, U-M has had a "gentleman's agreement" that we wouldn't go hog-wild on the non-resident numbers.  However, with term limits there probably aren't many of the original "gentlemen" left and more to the point, the state has cut U-M so much that U-M is less concerned with honoring it. 

Bottom line:  not law. U-M still keeps the numbers reasonable.  Opinions may diverge about what is "reasonable" as time goes on and funding decreases.  More will be revealed.

SpikeFan2016

November 3rd, 2015 at 4:15 PM ^

They have definitely revised that unwritten rule.

 

My undergrad class (2016) is only 58% instate. We are the lowest of all time. The Classes of 2017-2019 have bounced back up to 60%. Their new goal is definitely 60-40 split for undergrads. Although graduate students are a solid majority out of state. 

Overall the University is 50-50 taking graduate students into account. 

Michigantrumpet82

January 16th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^

Develop a long laundry list of "possibilities" to see what raises the most hackles:  a) The budget items causing the least outcry are politcally safer to cut; and b) floating draconian cuts makes the eventual ones seem less painful later on.

stevedore

January 16th, 2011 at 3:34 PM ^

UM has been more or less a private institution nowadays, haven't they? They take a pretty decent chunk of folks from out of state for a lot of programs. I mean, they have a huge endowment and a massive alumni base to keep donating money- why depend on the bankrupt state of Michigan for funding?

James Burrill Angell

January 16th, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^

Not true.

Still have to keep the unwritten 65% in-staters/35% out-of-staters mix for the undergrad.

Still have to keep instate tuition at about half of out of state tuition (about $19,000 vs. $42,000)

Still receive about $200mil from the state that we wouldn't get any more but all the crappy schools like State, the directional Michigans and GVSU will continue to get. The only reason they're considering it is because Michigan has, through its alums and prestige managed to put together a $6.6 billion endowment while the other schools haven't. So now they're suggesting we have to bear the burden of their failure. The fact that its even being considered is bullcrap.

Feat of Clay

January 17th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^

I'm not sure what that $374 million includes in that report; possibly financial aid programs and not sure what else.  As a private school we'd still get some state money, because the state has a grant program for students who go to college in MI but attend a private school.  It comes up for cuts every year but gets reinstated because it's a popular program.

In terms of GF appropriations, which is what would go away tomorrow if we became private, the actual figure is about $320 million.  I guess the Capital stuff would go away as well, but it's not GF.  And its peanuts, too.  $12 million for a campus of this size!

jmblue

January 16th, 2011 at 3:35 PM ^

To think that this would be the only state with its flagship University turned private

Didn't UT-Austin go private?  I thought they were planning to do that..

jmblue

January 16th, 2011 at 4:17 PM ^

Okay.  I had heard that a measure to make them private was close to passage a couple years ago. 

All this debate is tangential to the more pressing concern: why does a university education have to be so expensive?  I was an undergrad here from 1998-2002.  In-state tution is now more than double what it was when I was a freshman.  Why do the expenses of a university need to increase far beyond the rate of inflation?  Rather than actually think about whether they are efficiency utilizing their resources, universities are just punting on this issue year after year and sticking the consumer (students) with the bill.  I really find it disturbing that the average graduate is saddled with an enormous debt.  That has long-term repercussions for our society.

Jon06

January 16th, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^

as a university employee my pay and benefits, generously construed, are roughly equivalent to what you would expect my compensation to be given the number of contact hours i have with students and how much they pay in tuition. nevertheless, my pay is not impressive. the issue is that, in addition to classroom instruction, they're paying for a ton of other stuff. operating costs for facilities, nice gyms, academic counseling, psychiatric counseling, medical services, support staff for all kinds of programs (international office, etc.). it would be a lot cheaper if all they got was the classroom stuff. if you were going to be forced to inflict some pain, you'd probably stop updating gyms first. but doing that sort of thing creates reasons for the best students to go elsewhere, and universities like M are really locked into an arms race for the best.

Mgobowl

January 16th, 2011 at 8:21 PM ^

If there is anything at the university that is underfunded it is the gyms. It's hard to defer maintenance that was never conducted in the first place...

 

The IMSB was updated maybe 10 years ago (not sure) but pretty much everything else is 30+ years old and has not been touched outside of a coat of paint once in a while. They are finally starting to make some changes and updates, but it is a horrendously slow process and I don't see a positive outcome occuring for 5 or more years.

Mgobowl

January 16th, 2011 at 8:57 PM ^

Looks like it was was officially open in November of '04

http://www.ur.umich.edu/0405/Nov01_04/06.shtml

 

The thing is, students/parents are paying higher and higher tuition rates every year and expect to be getting the most bang for their buck. However, when comparing our rec facilities to other B1G schools and top universities we lag far far behind. Now days people expect state of the art, country club type amenities a la Lifetime Fitness, 24 Hour Fitness, etc.

wolverhorn

January 16th, 2011 at 4:22 PM ^

I wish they would, or at least have the state get rid of the top 8% auto-admit rule into any TX public university. 

I'm at UT as a grad student and I don't see nearly as much diversity as I did at UM undergrad.  Plus the heavily state-funded part creates a ton of red tape to get through to make any changes, as voiced by some of the people internally in my program.

Desmonlon Edwoodson

January 16th, 2011 at 3:35 PM ^

I am pretty sure the author was just throwing "stuff" at the wall to see what stuck.  It would be a bummer to have to pay out of state tuition for my kids...but the university would be fine.  My freshman year, they let in too many out of state kids, so they had to double bunk the dorms to make room for in-state kids to maintain ratios.  I am all in for privatizing all the state's universities, but feel if would be unfair to single U of M out, to punish them for being a superior academic institution.