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.
spoiler alert: i linked this
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.
I am sure they are just trying to start trouble...free press sucks and I wouldn't trust them
What the hell would the Free Press have to do, if, as a private institution, the University of Michigan no longer had to honor a newspaper's FOIA requests?
I love it.
As a hopeful, possible freshman next year, that will severely piss me off.
Just don't decommit. Hang in there, the situation will clear up.
I'm one of those who grow up dreaming of the Block M and Big House.Regardless of the coaching change, I don't commit to a coach, I commit to a school.
Just wish football recruits felt the same....
If it goes private, its going to be a lot more more competitive to get in once they take away the unwritten rule about trying to keep a 65%/35% split.
As an out of stater, I wouldn't be so terribly upset to have a much better chance of gaining admission. That would suck for the M residents though.
Things wouldn't change too much for Out of State...
Nice avatar.... What's protocol here, guys?
You've both been members for over a year. Is there any way to really know who was using it first? Unless you know who started using it first or you designed the avatar yourself, I think you're shit out of luck. It's a neat avatar but it isn't all that original or anything.
Same worthless epinion, but what about who has more points?
since even more UofM grads will not be using their talents in this state. Great idea Gov Snyder!
I would be shocked if he does that. I think there will be Higher Ed cuts, but Snyder is a Michigan Man and former Regent, most of the "cocktail talk" about severance doesn't come from those with ties to Ann Arbor.
It is law. I thought the split was 70-30.
It dipped below that during Dueterstats rule, and they had to scramble to get back above.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hopefully, if true, this doesn't take effect until after the class of 2012 graduates; I need to get in before it becomes harder than it already is.
My son hopes to join you! He applied to seven schools including other Big Ten schools. Yes from 4, waiting for 1 and deferred from 2 including U of M.
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.
The freep is just about sensational journalism...I kinda doubt it is a political ploy by the gov since the freep endorsed the other candidate I believe. Free Press is in financial difficulties and will publish anything.
...a very insightful post. I appreciate it, and I think you're onto something. Also, this sort of post coupled with you avatar, makes it even better.
Avatar = Painting c. 1790 of Timothy Matlack hanging in Boston Museum of Fine Arts. About died when I saw it. Complete Doppelganger.
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?
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.
don't know where you got those numbers but tuition is not 19k vs 42k for any program i noticed. http://ro.umich.edu/tuition/full.php. starting out for lsa it's roughly 11.5k vs 35k.
You're materially right, but a couple of nitpicks:
The IS/OOS tuition ratio is more like 1/3, not 1/2.
And we get about $320 million.
The second page shows that they receive approximately $374 Million in State Appropriations and another $12 Million in Capital Appropriations. This probably changed a bit most recently, but I can't imagine it did so significantly.
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!
Can't the state just eliminate MSU from the world. It's not like they contribute anything to society other than felons, females, and final fours.
You don't want them to contribute females?
I can live without them. They make them better in southern Cali anyway.
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..
Was UPenn always private? I don't know why but for some reason I always just assumed it was public and went private a while back....
Penn has always been private. PSU has always been the flagship public school in PA.
PSU is the flagship school of Pennsylvania, but there's been a long-running debate about whether or not it truly is a public school. The outgoing governor, Ed Rendell, always referred to it as "private."
Hmm that's crazy. I've always thought of that as more of a black and white issue. Interesting stuff.
No. Not even close. They still are 90-something percent instaters and funded heavily by the state. We would be the only one.
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.
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.
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.
The IM building weight and cardo rooms just went through a massive renovation a few years ago.
Looks like it was was officially open in November of '04
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.
Don't worry, the bubble is about to bust.
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.
When the University conducted its study, they determined that not only would tuition have to go to about $35,000 or more for everyone, but a number of majors/departments/classes would have to be cut.
Again, whey should we have to do that when the other schools in state don't have to. The answer: Because we've been successful at fundraising and have a good endowment when the other schools haven't and don't.
Our country has been rewarding mediocrity and failure for years, why stop now?
Even when you're not trying (too hard) to be funny. Well said!
Too bad MGoBlog doesn't reward mediocrity in posting only once.
The title of the thread had me thinking that I'll be paying double next semester. Don't scare me like that.
Lets not become Notre Dame... please
To think that they'd even suggest, let alone consider, privatizing one of the two finest public universities in the world, and the very first state-founded school in the US (1817), is so absurd that it's laughable.
Not to say I wouldn't put it past this sorry bunch of politicians to try. I've testified in Senate committee about pending legislation, and I can hardly imagine a more uninformed group of, well, let's just say they're not bright.
Nonetheless, I think the alums and parents of students would be enraged, and therefore it will not happen.
I could comment on the management of this State for the last 30 years, but what would be the point. We all know the results.
The first state university? Not even close. UGa, UVa, UNC, USC, Ohio, and UT all came earlier, and I'm pretty sure there are more than just those.
I feel like saying South Carolina and Tennessee is sort of important in this post.
It is absurd.
The University has to invest time and resources in educating the legislature and other people in Lansing that it's actually a good thing to have a place like the University of Michigan within your borders. And it has to repeat that process every year, every budget cycle, every time a new bunch of folks take office.
I don't know how the government relations people can stand it, frankly.
The idea of UofM going private has been around a long time. It gets trotted out every now and again, then the idea just kind of goes away for a while. I think with a new governor coming in, it's just getting brought up again as a matter of course.
(By the way OP, the deficit is 1.8 billion, not million.)
I was about to say... $1.8 million is pocket change.
I should have such a pocket!
wouldnt this be better for all the other schools? Its not like the university would struggle if it went private and the other universities in the state who don't get as much funding might be able to get some extra funding because of it
The university would struggle with supporting departments and degrees that do not bring in much in the way of funding and as a result, many of those departments and programs would be cut. Having those progams is what adds to the diversity of this university. This is in no way a good thing for anyone involved. In a state looking to shore up a huge budget deficit, they would not simply reallocate the money, it would simply be gone from the department of education and in turn, gone from the budget.
You'll have to pay a tuition rate close to where out of state tuition is now when your kid(s) go.
Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, Northwestern and um lets see almost every top academic institution is private. The state is broke. Michigan can then do what they want and not have politicians screw with it. Most U of M grads move out of state after graduation anyway.
what exactly can we not do now because of the state's influence, other than being committed to admitting a certain amount of in-state students? we don't even really let them pay less, because the state effectively pays for them. i'm pretty sure no politician has ever called any shots in my classroom, so i don't see what you're referring to.
Well ... taking public funds means you have to meet a number of state requirements, some of which are good, some of which are not. I'll use two admissions examples to start off with:
1) As a state school, a certain number of incoming freshman have to be from the state of MI each year. In the past, this restriction has required the University of admit many instate students very close to the start of the school year who were otherwise wait-listed because the state threatened to pull their funding in subsequent years. While I'm an instate student, I don't like the fact that some students initially rejected will get in simply to appease the state legislature. However, this also makes some sense since MI taxpayers are funding the school and potentially part of their children's future higher education.
2) Admissions regarding minority students. As mentioned earlier, it would be easier to get around some admissions policies banning the use of race in these decisions. While I personally like the fact that they cannot do that, the U and it's typical bent (despite the fact that it's had some devastating impacts in minority students actually going into law practice after attending law school), it would be one way to get around it.
Of course, if the U receives federal funding, which is most likely does, it would still have to comply with any federal mandates regarding public institutions. One of the reasons Hillsdale College takes NO federal or state funding is so that they are able to run their college exactly how they want to.
If mgobloggers are going to continue insisting that there is such a written requirement about residents, I'm going to have to ask you to provide a statute number so I can inform the government relations office.
The waitlist scenario you are describing must have happened over a decade ago. U-M doesn't go to the waitlist often; when it does it is rarely in numbers that would shift residency much. I do know that President Duderstadt once had a whole big bunch of MI residents admitted from the waitlist; is this what you are referencing? I wasn't aware that was in response to a legislative threat but I don't know much about state relations during that time period.
And yes, U-M "most likely" receives federal aid funds.
1.8 Mil? That isn't shit.
we should have hired Mary Sue Coleman to coach for a year and then fired her. the buyout would have been a year's worth easily.
Pretty sure the OP forgot some zeros there, your Dudeness.
I think the State of Michigan is considering decommitting because it sees that Brian isn't fully supportive of Hoke. It's the same reason Goudis, Fisher, Dee Hart, and Shavodrick Beaver decommitted.
ALL IN, MAN.
But I had to pay my own way. There is no way I could have been able to to pay out of state tuition.
Can't UM just pay out the 1.8mil? I have no idea how that works but I would hope UM gets to stay public somehow
It's a $1.8 billion deficit.
Republicans have been pushing this idea for some time.
Six of one.....half a dozen of the other from my point of view. My kids cant get in as a public school and my kids couldnt get in if we were a private school.
So outside loooking in no matter how you slice it from my perspective.....
Whether or not your kids get in, UM is an incredibly important public asset to the state of Michigan. And as the economy moves toward a information based economy, UM will only become more important. Keeping it as a publi institution with a public mission is important in my view.
Reducing the amount of state subsidies might be something the state is forced to look at though until we get back on our feet. It could still remain a public university though.
and as governor I would find a way to increase these investments (along with reforms)
The article even called it a "flight of fancy". There is a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of this happening ever, let alone in the near future.
Yes, I remember it well.
After "Brady Hoke," I am going to think about long and hard about "Zero-point-zero" chances.
Even that is too optomistic. There is a zero chance of the University of Michigan going private.
This is a list of things that have been talked about for years as potential cost-saving ideas for the state. And while more of the people who would consider doing this are in office than years past, it is still incredibly unlikely.
Seriously. Even if Republicans held every seat in the state legislature, can you imagine the outcry if they even attempted this?
It's like tea partiers talking about privatizing the Department of Education... just total fantasy.
Snyder would face immense political backlash if this happened, and even proposing it could kill his chances for re-election. I don't think he's arrogant (or dumb) enough to try it.
...this is simply regurgitation of old conversation....not a quote from the Governor (or anyone else, for that matter).
Could it happen someday? Sure.
Is there any reason to think that it is even under serious consideration? Not that I can see.
For most of the 2000s, the state contribution has been nothing compared to federal funding and what we pull out of the endowment. 325 million in tuition aid is nothing compared to say just the hospital (something like 17 billion in treatment revenue and 30+ billion in active federal grants).
I have a hard time Michigan going private. We can easily get our hands on more federal money and as long as remain public we can eminent domain up Ann Arbor whenever we want it. If you look at city planning around here it is almost impossible to get anything build. Anytime you try to build something big (see for example the replacement to U-Towers) people in this town pitch a fit. Michigan loves having its eminent domain and the ability to simply say "Fuck off, this is state property" to the city council. So if we get a funding cut I'd imagine we just make it up by applying for more federal grants and keep on moving.
I know where I work we cut tuition aid, but we got a bunch of federal grants to create work study jobs, so we just hire all our students as work studies and provide them with income instead of scholarships.
The federal government is broke and getting "broker" by the day. Here is a site showing the finances of the state of Michigan.
I think it is realistic to assume there will be less money, not more coming from the feds. This is not what anyone wants, and maybe U of M can find money from other private sources, but it had better because the state of Michigan is in deep trouble and it is not alone. I wouldn't be surprised to see other states seriously considering cutting state schools free.
No more FOIA for pock-marked reporters from Detroit.
God I hope you are joking. I argue with my dad constantly if we'd stop invading countries maybe the US could help fund higher education.
I don't know the numbers for UofM, but as a grad student at UVA I recall hearing that the state of Virginia contributed about 4% of the university's budget. Pretty sure UofM will always be public regardless of how little they fund.
Most business schools are privately funded - even Darden and I think Haas, not sure about Ross.
So, it's all a little sensational and doesn't really matter in the end.
"In 1817 the University of Michigan was the first university established by any of the states. Originally named Cathelepistemian and located in Detroit the name was changed in 1821. The university moved to Ann Arbor in 1841. "
The "Land Grant" colleges came later.
From "Michigan Fast Facts and Trivia" on 50States.com
No, we moved to Ann Arbor in 1837, the same year Michigan gained statehood.
U of M has a nearly $9 billion dollar endowment, and the health system last year brought in 2.77 billion. The state is hurting bad so if they reduced the amount of state subsidies I think the University would still be fine and it could help out many other people around the state.
I graduated a few years ago as an out of state student, and one thing I noticed was that virtually all the in-state students left for either Chicago, New York or DC. In fact, out of the few that stayed, a lot of them left after a couple of years. I think that's a reason why this is being considered. Why fund the school at all if most in-state students leave?
You can't fault in-staters like myself who left when there are so few jobs in the state.
According to MSU's budget...
They received $300 million from the state.
Eliminating MSU makes much more sense if you are looking to free up funds.
now that's some logic I can support
America's education system is robbing alot of people of the American dream. Having to pay an arm and a leg can cripple a kid's financial future, or wipe out a parent's retirement savings. I know Michigan and many others in the US are elite institutions but its getting to a point where that doesnt matter if kids have to borrow 100k+ just to get a bachelors degree which is becoming more and more worthless.
And of course these politicians want to cut funding for the future for political gain today. You can cut education spending today and no one sees the damage for many many years. Long after the politicians that made the cuts are gone.
Education needs more funding -- not less.
UM will be fine either way, but I would be surprised if UM went private.
It is truly sad that the cost of an undergraduate education continues to skyrocket (not unique to UM).
1. The University's property would become taxable. Ann Arbor would become a world class city with top of the line services. The U would be much much poorer.
2. The reason Mary Sue and her clique want this to happen...the U would be free to let in black applicants well under the cut-off. The Michigan constitution currently only allows race base admissions if required by federal law.
3. The U, over the years, is the result of untold billions of investment by the state. Who is willing to pay that back to us taxpayers?
(1) U-M would remain a non-profit organization. It would therefore retain its current tax exemptions.
(2) I have seen nothing that suggests MSC wants this to happen. The senior administration of the university is proud of U-M's status and mission as a public institution. As for admissions: Of far more consequence would be the University's ability to freely recruit non-Michigan students. You are right about there being a constitutional provision against sex- and race-based consideration in admissions, and a private U-M would have more freedom to admit students it found desirable for reasons of diversity. Those numbers would be a small story compared to how U-M would change its residency mix. In interest of clarity, there is no "cut-off" for qualification for admission. Perhaps you are mixing U-M up with an institution with a different admissions system.
(3) I've never seen a good answer to that question and I'm curious myself.
Clay, I think I see where we talked past each other. Non profits, under many circumstances, are exempt from income taxes. Churches, under many conditions, are exempt from real and personal proptery taxes. Most other non profits are not.
The hospital complex would be exempt if it met a six factor legal test. The rest of the U is only exempt under MCL211.7n under one heck of a lot of tests and if the U doesn't use the property outside its non-profit founding documents.
Large portions of the North Campus and Bio Sciences, and most of the newly purchased Drug Labs, would most likely be taxed--building and equipment.
I don't see UofM's taxes going up.
I do see UofM having the same relationship to Michigan as Princeton does to New Jersey. Princeton is an elitist enclave that is located in New Jersey, but not really part of it.
Michigan is not the only school headed toward privatization. Even further along this route is the original state university, Virginia. Thomas Jefferson originally wanted to create a national university system, as exists in France (for example the Grand Ecole Polytechnique). But he was stymied by the conservatives of his day, but did succeed in achieving the creation of the service academies.
Like Virginia, the University of Michigan was originally founded to make quality higher education available to those not born to wealth. Given the increasingly socially stratified and libertarian character of America in recent decades, for many schools like Michigan, that mission is now over.
The culture of U of M is much more elitist than it was when I graduated in 1979. There was some thread of the university acting as a rich kids' school back then, but that has now become its dominant character. Its future will be that of a gentry liberal/slightly conservative school that produces professionals at the grad level, and at the undergrad level to prepare the children of the elite for managerial careers or for further graduate study at Michigan or the Ivy League Plus schools.
The issue of whether to privatize will become a moot point in a decade, when the University's projection for state funding continues its linear trend toward zero state support. At that point, the university management and faculty will clamor for privatization in order to obtain the benefit of autonomy. In the past, the university presidents were content with some loss of autonomy in exchange for state support. Withdrawal of state support nullifies that implicit contract.
* duplicate entry removed *