Budget Differences between MSU and Michigan
This is why Michigan State will always be second fiddle to Michigan and why we are the "Leaders and the Best".
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100302/SCHOOLS/3020372/As-U-M-hires-an…
Also, I guess that again this begs the question: "With the state of Michigan continuing to make cuts every year to funding should the University privatize?"
I think that it should but that's just like my opinion man.
... the fundamental nature of the University of Michigan is that it is a public institution. Methinks some folks could benefit from a reading of the University's Mission and Vision Statements.
Mission Statement excerpt:
The mission of the University of Michigan is to serve the people of Michigan...Vision Statement excerpt:
...we fully embrace the legacy bestowed upon us by President James B. Angell in our first century. We are proud to offer “an uncommon education for the common man.”It's incredible to me that some of the folks who endlessly obsess about the level of adherance to the heritage of Michigan Athletics would even contemplate such a radical concept as making one of the preeminent public research universities into a private institution. All that said, as the DetNews article points out and as this NYT article makes even more clear, Michigan is in a small class of Public Ivies that have figured out that reliance on the vagaries of state allocations to higher education is a losing proposition. This is especially germane to U-M since the State of Michigan is experiencing a fundamental long term restructuring of its population and revenue base. When it comes to this issue, U-M is extremely fortunate to have had some very forward looking leadership over the past several decades.
...you mean to assert that U-M isn't serving the people of Michigan, I think you'd be hard pressed to substantiate that.
The University Research Corridor consortium of U-M, MSU and WSU is now "...one of the largest employers in the state, [having] creat[ed] 165 start-up companies with nearly 49,000 full-time-equivalent employees."
Not to mention the economic and social impact of the UMHS and on and on.
but to truncate the "of Michigan" would not devalue the mission statement, in fact it may actually make it stronger.
...the actual wording is "...serve the people of Michigan and the world...". I truncated the quote to emphasize that U-M places serving the people of Michigan first and foremost.
For a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is the one Sardonicus brought up, the likelihood of UM privatizing makes the likelihood of Florida, Alabama, and USC joining the Big Ten look like a done deal by comparison.
"U-M and MSU have roughly the same number of alumni, yet U-M raises almost twice as much money from its graduates and supporters."
Don, you make a good point that's not been picked up on -- the Donors.
Wow, what a huge difference. I wonder how the stats would look if they didn't include the big ticket donation like Ross' Business School, Taubman's Medical Center, etc. Is it the big tickets that are the difference, or does U of Michigan also do better at the "retail" level?
Indeed, this is also something that distinguishes us from that other public Ivy, UC Berkeley. Note that's one of the schools the DetNews article says isn't hiring right now*, that Michigan is poaching faculty from. Berkeley gets a lot less money from its alums, and it's really hurting by comparison.
I really think having a strong tradition in athletics plays a huge role in this, too. What's going to make you contribute to your alma mater? Feeling like you have some strong connection to it. I think our long tradition of excellence in athletics plays an invaluable role in promoting that sense of strong connection. I'd argue that this is why Texas has a huge endowment (even larger than ours, I believe), while Berkeley's is significantly smaller. The difference in culture, and sense of connection to the school, between Michigan and Berkeley is, to a student who's attended both, quite palpable -- and it shows up in the schools' bottom lines. (In a sense, this is also an argument against privatization - in a very real financial sense, university culture matters.)
* serious understatement. The budget crisis at Berkeley is of epic proportions.
Most of UT's endowment is from oil money that the state set aside for the long term stability of UT Austin and A&M (15 billion between the two). Most of it is not private investment.
...that the University is twenty years older than the state itself (1817 vs. 1837) and given the sorry affairs of public budgets in the USA (both state level & federal) I wouldn't be surprised if the University also outlived the current "State of Michigan."
You have to be a bit careful with that 1817 date, because while Michigan claims that as its start date, it is very sketchy. While it has been recognized by the State Supreme court as the official start date, if you know the history, the University didn't exist in a shape we would recognize till quite some time after that.
If you want some interesting reading look up this term some time:
"Catholepistemiad"
You might be surprised in what you find...
Aug
Dude, the University didn't exist in a shape we would recognize until sometime in the 1890s-1900s. If you visited "Campus" in 1837 you would have found 4 houses and a classroom with 5 students.
1907 looks more like present day. Full tour at the Bentley's websiteOh, and if you're trying to orient yourself, the President's house is in the same spot. Old Engineering building is where the UGLi would be today. Old Medical Building is Dunn. Old Mason Hall is probably pretty self explanatory. It and South College buildings would make up the current Mason/Angell/Tisch Hall area.
Do not get me started how MSU's provost handled this current budget situation. My wife is very high up in the student leadership for the Great Lakes Region of the Music Therapy Association. I will just say that MSU's provost did not consult with any faculty members including the department head in their decision. It is embarrassing how bungled the budget cuts have been at MSU.
Another comparison, is Eastern Michigan. It is very obvious in a recession commuter universities like Eastern feel the pinch of the recession much more than state funded universities with large endowments and general funds. Eastern, unlike MSU, is currently hiring a full time tenure track music therapy professor.
Michigan loves the words "eminent domain". Absolutely loves it and the fact that can basically gobble up chunks of Ann Arbor and a government agency they get to be both tax free and practice eminent domain. I doubt Michigan will go private since they'd lose the eminent domain and be subject to a different set of private non-profit rules.
We are though basically private in everything but name and the elected Regents. Michigan as a well stocked endowment, a massive alumni fundraising network and of course the sports program income. Plus all kinds of pipelines back to the federal government for grants and ties to private companies. In terms of tuition, you can see Michigan working to bring in not just out of state students, but foreign students and getting their hands on that money. Out of state numbers will likely trend down, but to be fair as the state of Michigan's population decreases, we need more people from out of state (less people to send their kids to Michigan = fewer in state enrollees).
If we go private we lose the eminent domain, the fact we're a government agency in a sense and whatever minimal amount of state funding we get (right now it isn't that minimal). We gain no longer having to listen to the state. Yet the state never tells us what do anyway. For example where I work, we get federal grants, the money is given to us with the agreement "We will do X,Y,Z". Mr. Michigan Congressman is welcome to raise a stink over our stem cell research or whatever he doesn't like, but he can't do anything about it. Our little research unit has a contract with the federal government that says we're doing it. If he squawks too loudly some Fed will come slap him around and that will be that*.
*This has happened a few times, you get the occasional extreme conservative that hears something about Michigan doing stem cell stuff, abortion, transgender research etc and he starts screaming about the fact they're spending state money on it. Then the nice people at CDC or NIH explain to him they're funding and he needs to shut the hell up.
Out of state numbers will likely trend down, but to be fair as the state of Michigan's population decreases, we need more people from out of state (less people to send their kids to Michigan = fewer in state enrollees).
The state of Michigan's population is not shrinking; it's just basically stagnant (from 2000-2008, it grew by 64,000).
I think you exaggerate about how the State never can make us do anything. We love our constitutional autonomy, yes we do, but we are still public and we still adhere to the state laws and U-M still invests time, money, and resources doing things that the State asks. It's part of my job.
This is completely silly, but I think one reason UM needs to stay public is so the local kids continue to have a reason to not injure out of state students. I swear the only thing that kept me from assaulting several of the wonderful folks attending our fine school from New Yak, and New Joisey was the thought that they were effectively subsidizing 2/3 of my education...that feeling alone gave me the will to just walk away from these moronic douches in situations where they truly deserved a good whack upside the head.
Aug
I did move in makers one year and some parent from NYC asked me where I was from. When I said Louisiana his response was: "Oh ok I'll talk slower then". His daughter was super hot though so I let it go.
that is really funny.
I think this is what concerns out-of-state students:
One of the major factors affecting the University budget each year is the loss of state funding. In-state students get a discount on tuition because their tax money essentially subsidizes their education. However, if this money is cut, shouldn't in-state students be asked to cover the difference?
Comparing the tuition increases I've seen between in-state and out-of-state students over the past few years, I'm concerned about a few things. In particular, how is out of state tuition determined? It seems like an arbitrary number. Over a 4 year period, an out-of-state student will pay more than $80,000 more than an in-state student. Given the average income in the state of Michigan being a little over $40,000 per year, this seems like more money than the portion of taxes a family pays that are appropriated to the University even if extrapolated over a lifetime.
I think out-of-state students have a right to ask questions about the rising cost of tuition, as it is becoming prohibitively expensive. I think many out-of-state students feel that their financial burden would be significantly less if the University were privatized.
...get to vote on such an issue like any consumer: with their wallets. If you don't think you're getting value for your education dollar at U-M, then try another elite university.
Prefacing this with the fact that I'm a former resident of the Great Lakes State, I'm sorry to say you don't have the same standing as Michiganders (that is residents) to determine whether U-M is a public or private institution.
It's absolutely true that the University community includes a wide constintuency, but as a public institution, it owes it's primary allegiance to the Michigan citizenry.
Whether or not I am a resident or former resident of Michigan doesn't really matter. I was merely relaying some of the sentiments I have heard from out-of-state students.
In the end, I think if the University becomes prohibitively expensive for out-of-state students, I think it will be a detriment to the University. Something needs to be addressed. While many call for privatization, I don't think that's the answer. But something needs to be done to curb an ever growing tuition rate which is disproportionately affecting out-of-state students.
Dude, we're the Wolverine State. That's our real nickname. "Great Lakes State" is a lame, politically correct substitute.
...it wasn't until I left Michigan that the state moved away from these fine license plates:
So I guess it's just ingrained in my mind that way.
So I guess it's just ingrained in my mind that way.
MSU grads get OK jobs. UM grads own the companies they work for. Do the math.
Personally, I think that's a TERRIBLE idea for a large number of reasons, many of which have already been mentioned, but I don't think it matters, because the reality is that it isn't going to happen. Do you really think the state is going to let's its crown jewel of education separate itself? The University WAS the state board of education for a couple years! If the state asks ANYBODY to go private, it would probably be a host of the smaller schools (Which, for them, would be more like a dispersal notice).
Michigan, MSU, and Wayne State keep the brains of Michigan growing (Yes, MSU. All joking aside, its not a bad place to go to school if you can resist that 50th drink and tolerate a riot from time to time) and also do wonders for our reputation in the other 49 states. To let any one of them privatize or cease to exist would be a huge blow to the appeal of education in Michigan, one of the few things we still have going for us. If the state of Michigan ever got into such a fix it had to kill its ties to one of its top three universities, they would probably sacrifice MSU or WSU and divert the resources to UM. Why UM? Because we are the best university in the state, and if you have to put all your money in one basket, why wouldn't you pick your best basket?
I agree with 95% of your post. However, the one argument I can see against U of M is that after we get our wonderful state subsidized educations, many leave.
I don't think Michigan cares about the Out of State people who leave, but its got to be a blow when many of the In Staters leave as well.
Of course, its a chicken vs. egg argument. More would stay if there were good jobs, good jobs only come to areas where there's good talent already...
The reason why U of M would be chosen is that neither MSU nor WSU would survive without being state institutions. Michigan would probably experience some pain from the loss of state support but really would be fine in the long run.
Also if you look carefully Sparty has a more sloped forehead similar to Cro-Magnon and yet to discover any form of dental hygiene...
Mary Sue Coleman could push through the privatize, go whole hog for what she really wants, affirmative action, and then duck out to Yale or Harvard or Stanford and leave the U holding the bag while she laughs to the bank.
Note there was no talk of going private until the people of Michigan declared they were sick of University admission racism, and ordered the U to stop admitting students on the basis of race and start being fair.
Mary Sue blew a public bitch fit, and she will do anything to be a racist, including using Michigan Alumni funds to give racial scholarships.
You're not even close.
First, you should learn about the first rule of mgoblog because you're way past it by my judgement. I'll leave the affirmative action debate out as a result, but I'll just point out that, if supporting affirmative action is your measuring stick, you believe that nearly half of this state is racist. Unless you want to live in a state that racist, you might want to consider leaving the state if you're still here, or otherwise developing an ability to understand opposing opinions with nuance and without jumping to ridiculous conclusions.
Second, privatization has absolutely nothing to do with affirmative action. Neither Mary Sue Coleman nor anyone in any place of authority in the university has advocated for privatization. For that matter, nobody in any place of authority in the state has advocated for privatization; it is entirely a worst case scenario that has been mentioned by budget people at the state level. The state budget is the one and only reason this is even being considered (and barely considered at that).
Third, this really has nothing to do with the current president. Although there are certainly many dissenting voices, the university as an institution strongly supports affirmative action and advocates for it. Coleman certainly has staunchly supported affirmative action but Bollinger was a strong advocate as well (and the one named in the two lawsuits about it), and I believe Duderstadt before him was, too (and probably further back than that). It's not a coincidence--Coleman's opinion of affirmative action was known before she was hired and she probably wouldn't have been hired without it.