OT: Schlissel calls out Freep for inaccuracies
Via today's University Record (LINK):
President Mark Schlissel wrote a letter to the editor responding to a series of [Ed-BF: Freep] stories about U-M's endowment, and to a related editorial. He said the articles "invent conclusions and peddle innuendo not supported by facts," and that the editorial's premise was "irresponsible, incomprehensible and false."
Disclaimer: I haven't read Pres. Schlissel's letter, as it would require me to give the Freep a page visit (which I've not done since 9/1/09). I acknowledge that could be viewed as irresponsible, if I'm posting this. But I have no reason to believe Pres. Schlissel is amiss here. Given the choice of comparing the ethics of Pres. Schlissel vs. the Freep, there is no choice.
I post this only to demonstrate the Freep's continued (EDIT: and apparent) disregard for facts and journalistic ethics, where it comes to the University. Why anyone would trust the Freep as a source of reliable news, I don't know. Their track record is abyssmal.
I'm not including a Freep link. It can be accessed via the Record, if necessary.
EDIT: A commenter below provided a link to the U-M Public Affairs response (LINK).
February 12th, 2018 at 1:13 PM ^
February 12th, 2018 at 1:36 PM ^
"Massive damage"? They got probation (which is long gone and resulted in absolutely nothing) and a self-imposed reduction of practice time (which at worst resulted in us canning Rich Rodriguez).
That story was a huge waste of time for all involved. There is pretty much nobody left at either the Freep or U-M that had anything to do with it. Only this forum and this dipshit crusade still cares about that crap. Move on with your life. Christ.
February 12th, 2018 at 1:59 PM ^
I agree. It does not affect Michigan football today and hasn't for a while. That is not the point.
February 12th, 2018 at 1:49 PM ^
February 12th, 2018 at 1:51 PM ^
Any questions?
February 12th, 2018 at 1:09 PM ^
If pearl clutching and living in the past are wrong, I don't want to be right!
February 12th, 2018 at 12:16 PM ^
For the love of god, it was ten years ago. Get over it. (and also if you aren't reading Baumgardner that is your loss)
February 12th, 2018 at 12:21 PM ^
Go to the page that U-M prepared and that President Schissel referenced in his letter:
https://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/responses-to-stories-on-u-m-endowment/
You will get most of what you need there.
February 12th, 2018 at 1:43 PM ^
Click this link:
We're closing in on a decade. How long will you people do this before you realize you aren't bankrupting the Free Press?
February 12th, 2018 at 12:25 PM ^
February 12th, 2018 at 12:28 PM ^
OP: I haven't actually read the information, but I'm strongly urging you all to blindly take a position based entirely on my own biases.
This poster is part of the problem.
February 12th, 2018 at 1:00 PM ^
Where in my OP did I urge anyone to adopt a position, much less my own? I posted it as news/information (that is relevant to the University community), and offered the disclaimer that I haven't visited the Freep.
But thank you for the mischaracterization of my position.
February 12th, 2018 at 1:03 PM ^
You admitted to not having read a crucial part of the material, merely because you don't like a newspaper for something that happened 10 years ago. If you're not prepared to take the time to read through something before you use it to make an argument, don't bother making the argument. It's that simple.
February 12th, 2018 at 1:10 PM ^
And I openly acknowledged that I hadn't read anything but the summary from the Record. What you're arguing has nothing to do with what he's arguing (i.e., that I'm trying to get others to adopt my position).
Again, this is newsworthy. You expressed your original point, but your follow-on is poorly justified.
February 12th, 2018 at 5:23 PM ^
February 12th, 2018 at 12:40 PM ^
"I haven't read Schlissel's letter, but here's my hot take."
Read it, or don't comment.
February 12th, 2018 at 2:31 PM ^
Listen, why anyone would feel they have the right to start a thread on mgoblog and not even read the essential fucking component they are talking about just blows my mind...
I don't ask for much on the internet, and lord knows we don't get it, but this website does pretty well and has stood the test of time but I think we need to move to where only approved people can start threads. And they only get to start one a week...
I try to be a socialist, but in my soul I am a fascist!
jdon
February 12th, 2018 at 12:45 PM ^
February 12th, 2018 at 12:48 PM ^
ok, you first
February 12th, 2018 at 12:57 PM ^
Did lead to RR getting fired, at least indirectly.
We should be thanking the Freep.
February 12th, 2018 at 1:17 PM ^
Eh, I would say RichRod led to RichRod getting fired. Probably picking at hairs here since I suspect we agree more than disagree in the overall scheme of things.
(The fact that he was since revealed to have been a shitty person as well as a coach doesn't negate the fact that Stretchgate was meaningless pennyante bullshit. It's almost as if it's possible for a) Stretchgate being BS and b) RichRod deserving to be fired can be both true statements)
February 12th, 2018 at 1:26 PM ^
But if it helped get him out of Ann Arbor even one day faster it wasn't all bad.
He was a really big drinker back then. Not sure about the sexual harassment and whoring though.
February 12th, 2018 at 2:38 PM ^
strange, I've never heard that before about the drinking.
February 12th, 2018 at 3:34 PM ^
Well, far be it from me to defend RichRod, but as a lifelong non-drinker, our team from 2008-2010 made the compulsion to pound whiskey by the fistful understandable even to me.
February 12th, 2018 at 1:21 PM ^
The story itself was fine - a whole lot of "who cares?" As others have pointed out, it's like the Freep thought they had to come up with SOMETHING bad to write about U-M to balance out the MSU coverage. Because, as we all know, having some people on your investment board that may have some slight connections to a small portion of your investments is just as bad as harboring a doctor who sexually assaulted more than 200 girls over the course of 20 years. So, good for you, Free Press.
It's the editorial that was ridiculous. The Freep conflated the MSU and U-M stories in the editorial, and then wrote an editorial note claiming that they didn't conflate them at all. As Schlissel rightly pointed out, this was reckless, irresponsible journalism at its worst.
February 12th, 2018 at 1:32 PM ^
February 12th, 2018 at 1:32 PM ^
Downvoted OP because he is still boycotting the Freep almost 9 years later.... Some people who read this blog need a different hobby.
February 12th, 2018 at 1:48 PM ^
Was in Schlissel's response, he basically said that we receive more annual money from our investment of the endowment than we do from the state of Michigan.
Why aren't we a private school again? What a joke.
February 12th, 2018 at 2:08 PM ^
What I do have an issue with is how little goes to reducing tuition for current students, especially out of staters.
I can't believe I am actually agreeing with Trump on this (I almost never agree with him on anything).
When I started in 1985, out of state tuition was $5,500 and ended at $7,500 in 1989. It is now $47,476. That's more than Stanford's tuition. Think about that. Michigan has become a private school, that pretty much only the rich can pay for out of state. I only know of one person who got a decent tuition break as an out of stater.
Why can't they hold tuition increases, or at least use the returns off the endowment, to give generous tuition breaks? The administration has always been tone deaf. I'm embarassed that the university has become some elitist.
My high school sophomore will either stay in state in California, at Berkeley, UCLA, UCSB, UCI, UCSD, or Davis. Or she will look at a private school that gives much better financial aid packages. I'm not spending $62K/year for a Michigan degree, which is the same price as Stanford, unless she wants to pick up the difference with loans. Sorry.
February 12th, 2018 at 2:15 PM ^
Pardon me if I don't particularly care about out-of-state tuition costs when the University of Michigan is a state institution which has a primary goal of educating the people of the State of Michigan. Michiganders pay into the institution, even if the public contribution to UM is shrinking. Out-of-staters don't. You pay what you pay, particularly when Michigan's out-of-state sticker cost is commensurate with what you'd pay at peer institutions, public or private, as an out-of-state student.
February 12th, 2018 at 2:30 PM ^
Michigan is a heavily out of state institution. One of the great things about this is that you have alumni, from out of state, returning home and going all around the planet which does help in the job market and alumni network. The goal is to attract people from around the country to attend, and if it is only the super rich, then you won't have too much family tradition.
It's not true that only Michiganders support the university through revenues. The federal government gave the university $960 million / year in 2017-18.
I agree about in state and the admission standards reflect this. In California, it is super difficult to be admitted even in state. Kids have 4.3 GPAs and good SAT scores and are not getting admitted. At least if you do get it, like Michigan, in state, it is reasonable.
But again, what are they doing with such a huge endowment if they aren't using a good chunk to reduce all tuition, both in state and out of state?
February 12th, 2018 at 2:40 PM ^
And tuition has nearly quadrupled since 1995. Add in room and board and you're looking at around 30k for an in state kid paying full freight. Thankfully, the school has started to shift to a model similar to what the Ivies and NU offer, with tuition being based on household income, for in state students at least. A HH income under 65k will basically get you a full ride.
Tuition for out of state students should probably be even higher than it is, considering that the % of OOS students seems to be going up every year.
February 12th, 2018 at 3:56 PM ^
Why should tuition be higher for OOS kids? How much state taxpayer money does UM actually get anyway?
February 12th, 2018 at 4:25 PM ^
Per end of Schissel's letter, for fiscal '17 state gave $314M to U-M; the endowment provided $325M.
February 12th, 2018 at 3:52 PM ^
You need to look at the average tuition paid per student. Generally speaking, colleges have jacked up tuition for people that can pay and then use that money to give as financial aid for less affluent students. Don't rely on tuition cost, but look at average tuition paid.