SFBlue

September 20th, 2010 at 3:39 AM ^

As someone who studied at Oxford, I can say that folks there rock their college(s) gear pretty much non-stop--the only difference being that Oxford athletics are not "branded" by Nike, Adidas, et al., and there are 30+ colleges, which compete in annual intra-college "cuppers" competition, so school spirit is divided by college and is not a university-wide dynamic.  While we have Big Blue, there is no corresponding concept at the British schools, even though there are, technically, varsity "blues" in most major sports. 

Also, to provide a subtext for this article, when I was Oxford the colleges started to charge fees (OH NOESSSS) ,which was met by pretty much universal disdain among UK students.  Previously, tuition at Oxford, Cambridge, et al. was free to UK students.  So there is a gastric discomfort, among some, with fees for university, which concept does not translate (at least to me). 

Moreover, why is Michigan profiled in an article that references push-back on fees?  Out of state tuition nowhere approaches the grotesque figures charged by some schools, and in-state tuition is a relative bargain. 

Joined: 11/02/2009

MGoPoints: 15699

Brodie

September 20th, 2010 at 4:40 AM ^

Even today, there is a cap on fees at British universities. British/EU students typically about $5,000 a year, most of which is covered by government grants and loans making college essentially free. Of course, that's made up for in international tuition which eclipses $20,000 a year at any school worth going to. Bear in mind that only a handful of universities in Britain existed prior to the 1960's and the article suddenly begins to make more sense. Being totally honest, I tend to prefer the idea of capped tuition so that things like Stafford loans and Pell Grants actually went a significant way towards paying for college. But then, I'm the kind of hippie who feels like all public universities should have open admissions and that academic rankings are the worst thing that ever happened to higher education.

I imagine Michigan was chosen for the same reason the BBC always highlights us in these "LOOK HOW STRANGE AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES ARE!" stories... the ubiquitous branding, massive endowment and massive football stadium contrasted with an excellent academic reputation makes it the perfect contrast to what Britons understand a university to be. So while the UC system, for example, might be a better study in tuition fees gone mad it lacks something as striking as "113,000 seat football stadium" to highlight just how KRAZY WITH A K American universities are. True story, I showed a flatmate of mine the M Den's website and she nearly shit herself. Ditto when I explained that non-students actually bought a lot of the merchandise. I didn't mention the seating capacity of the stadium, that probably would have been too much for her to take.

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 10712

Shop Smart Sho…

September 20th, 2010 at 8:44 AM ^

What world do you live in that Michigan's out of state tuition isn't grotesque?  It is nearly $50,000 a year.  That is double what it was when I graduated from high school in 1998.  My family couldn't afford it back then, and I couldn't get any sort of financial aid.  I couldn't imagine sending a child to school in today's world of truly broken university costs.  If things don't change, I'll be looking to send my son to a school like Wabash.  While the cost looks high, they are set up to help 90% of their students pay through their endowment.

Joined: 07/10/2008

MGoPoints: 9602

st barth

September 20th, 2010 at 10:39 AM ^

Truth be told, public education in America is absurd.  Really, why should public education  cost so much?  It has turned the majority of American education into nothing more than a thinly veiled business that lives off of a combination of government money and indebting young Americans.

It's hardly surprising that outsiders look at the branding & 100,000+ football stadiums and think it's crazy.  Studying and big time revenue athletics really do not have much reason to be together.  What is surprising it how many Americans (college educated, mind you) fail to recognize it even though we occasionally feel little rumblings of in our guts (when we wonder, for example, "Why shouldn't college athletes be paid?").

It is a mess and I do know better...but damn if I don't love college football.

Joined: 12/02/2008

MGoPoints: -576

Brodie

September 20th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^

Americans are a very stubborn lot. Even the most highly educated, intelligent, and well traveled amongst us have trouble with the idea that something foreign, something that's not totally ingrained in them could be better than the system they're comfortable with. I look at the cost of education and am aghast at what it's doing to kids and families throughout this country. I look at universities as nothing more than publicly subsidized corporations, raking in asinine amounts of money at the public's expense. But I know many a person who adheres to the logic that "if you can't afford it, don't go", oblivious to the massive struggle that is life without a college degree in the 21st century.

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 10712

MGoBender

September 20th, 2010 at 6:11 PM ^

Are schools "raking in asinine amounts of money at the public's expense"???

I would say, ummm, no.  UM is a premier institute because it can attract some of the most knowledgable experts in the nation and world in their given subjects.  In order to do that, you need to pay professors at a competitive rate.  It's not like there's a group of people at the top that are squirreling away money for private jets and whatnot.*  The amount of money given to UM by John Q. Taxpayer is not that much of a burden when you consider what UM has done for the state.

Just imagine what Michigan's economy would currently be like without the University of Michigan.  It's tough to even imagine.

I know I'm talking M specifically, and you're talking in general, but since M is so expensive, it's a good case to consider.

Plus, nobody is forcing anybody to go to school out of state.  While a degree has become necessary, a 100K degree is not.  Someone may not be able to afford to go to UM, but why not GVSU?  I'm working on my second degree at Mich with no more than 6,000 in help from parents (averaging a grand or so in random groceries or help with doctors bills, etc per year).  It's possible.  You just have to be willing to work hard.  In the end I'm looking at 60K in federal loans, but hey if you're willing to work 20-30 hours while going to school, you'd be surprised at how much you can afford.

*Tangential argument: Yes the U has been investing in many capital projects.  However, those have been needed for some time due to the relative old age of the University's buildings.  The U put a freeze on approving new capital projects two years ago and made the smallest tuition increase this year since 1984.  I think they are well aware of the high cost of tuition and will be looking to lower that number in the coming years.  But it's tough to do that and stay at the top.

Joined: 03/26/2010

MGoPoints: 15128

st barth

September 20th, 2010 at 6:43 PM ^

...but what I find troubling is that rather than state & federal government directly supporting the schools financial, they have instead been handing out loans to students and handing the burden of debt to young people.  I find it troubling that the US is so willing to saddle the youth with debt.  You can argue, of course, that education loans are pretty tame as far as debt goes but I still don't think it's good idea for the future of the country to intentionally put young people in a hole when they're just starting out.

College enrollment has exploded during the past couple of generations and I don't think it's a surprise that it coincides with rapidly rising tuition.  From the U's perspective, the more students they can get then the more Federal money (funnelled through the students via loans) they can.  Sooner or later the education bubble will burst.

When I was an undergrad student (some 15 years ago) probably half of my classmates were not very academically inclined and probably shouldn't have been studying at a university except for the fact that they could pay and they probably didn't have anything better to do anyways.  I grew up expecting the university environment to be the best-of-the-best with respect to scholarship and was a bit surprised to find that most students were more interested in parties and football.  Even then I couldn't help but think that the environment was already watered down.  I doubt that it is any better today.

I live in an EU territory now and although there is lots of distress about the large numbers of unemployed 20-somethings, I can't help but think that at least they are not unemployed and in debt.

Joined: 12/02/2008

MGoPoints: -576

Brodie

September 20th, 2010 at 7:47 PM ^

You're looking at it from the standpoint of the university having to do what it has to do. I'm coming from the standpoint that $750,000 should not be a competitive salary for a university president. I probably phrased that wrong, the university does reinvest most of the money it makes back into itself. But the system is out of control and spending... not at M specifically but at every public university... should probably be reigned in. As for going to schools like GVSU, I totally agree. It's a fantastic option and more people should look into the smaller state schools. But it's a condition, IME, of the importance we place on academic prestige in this country. There's a feeling that I've detected from a lot of people that basically boils down to "If you're not going to NAME BRAND MAJOR UNIVERSITY, you might as well not go to college". It's a shame because, as anyone who graduated from UM with less than exemplary grades can tell you, college is what you make it. Also, in state tuition at GVSU + COL is still around $20,000 a year. It's not just the Michigan's of the world who have seen outrageous leaps in tuition fees. When top faculty can make six figures, it only increases faculty wages across the board. It's a vicious cycle. And I absolutely agree about putting kids into debt. There is no business in America more seedy and reprehensible than the private student loan industry. Sally Mae and it's ilk are a blight on humanity.

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 10712

mikoyan

September 22nd, 2010 at 2:44 AM ^

But the 100,000+ stadium has nothing to do with the price of tuition except that it makes Michigan a more desirable school to go to.  I was talking with a guy at work and he was incredulous about a story where a student starting out after graduating could be to the tune of $100,000 in debt.  So I looked up EMU's tuition rate (as the relative bargain in the state) and that is $238/ credit hour + fees.  If you life there, you could be talking about $15,000 semester meaning that you will pay at least $60,000. 

Joined: 09/06/2010

MGoPoints: 2784