An uncommon education for the common man?
I have read numerous articles in the last few years stating that U-M keeps making it more difficult for in-state students to be accepted and attend U-M. They keep raising the standards for admissions and don't provide the financial aid necessary for in-state students from middle, working and lower class backgrounds to attend. Much of this is blamed on U-M's need to grab the out-of-state tuition due to only 8% of funding coming from state taxpayers. U-M now is only about 60% in-state students.
Over a hundred years ago, James Angell famously stated the University of Michigan vision: "an uncommon education for the common man."
Is Michigan losing the Angell vision? Are the Michigan men and women of today and the future going to be primarily from privileged backgrounds? Does this bother you or are you OK with it?
My son's friend was accepted to Dartmouth this year, but rejected by Michigan, and that was with a 35 ACT and impressive extracurriculars. Talking to a friend this weekend, they had 4 kids in their school admitted to the Ivies but rejected by Michigan. I'm lucky I applied in the '80s as it's laughable to think I could be admitted today as an out-of-state student.
Michigan Engineering is in a tier of its own now above the Ivy Leagues.
My sis got in after being on a wait list and I'm guessing legacy helped even tho she had all the stats and then some.
Yup exactly why my sister is going to Michigan come fall!
for the new middle-class(most of which have pretty crippling education debt themselves) is not really realistic anymore. I am going to work until I die in one way or another. I have come to accept that. If my kids go to college, I am going to help them but it will be on a "check to check" basis for the most part. I will also offer them "free room and board" as well for those 4 years if they want to go to an in-state commuter college, UM Flint/Dearborn, etc. That is my plan and I am sticking to it.
I wouldn't say it's "have kids" or wealth.
It's more like white collar workers in our generation have kids at a later age aka into our 30s because that's the only time where we'll have financial freedoms and time to take care of em.
But yeah agreed on the parents front. Generation X fucked us.
The Google definition seems very appropriate for em "disaffected and directionless."
to blame an age group for whatever ails society today. This applies whether you blame the newer generation or looking back. You can literally go back centuries for re-tread of the "oldersters screwed it up" vs. "youngsters are hopeless." It doesn't make sense the more you think about it. Whatever the answers are, if there are any.... lie elsewhere.
already did, so too late for me on that front. And really, screw that. I am not going to allow a society construct to stop me from having off-spring. I believe that reproduction is a fundamental part of living and would gladly trade wealth and comfort in order to do it. If I can't pay for my kids to go to college, so be it. I saw their face at Disney World. That is good enough for me.
Also, while the everyone has to go to college case is certainly over stated, the extent to which people argue that there is a fantastic life waiting for those who choose skilled labor and that college isn't worth it are vastly overstating their case. Especially when being compared to a school like Michigan. There are something like 6,000 colleges in the US that get factored into those stats, so yes a person taking on debt to get a degree from phoenix probably isn't faring much better than a skilled laborer, but the majority of Michigan, MSU, or OSU grads are almost certainly doing better.
If you also include that most college educated requirement jobs are the ones to have benefits and the gap gets larger. I only make 65k right now but my job includes healthcare at no cost to myself, pre tax commuting benefits, a 401k with a 5% match, dental, vision, etc. All of those things are not offered in trade jobs so that even a person who makes more than me is less likely to be able to retire at 65 than I would be. I also have much more potential wage growth. Even beyond that skilled labor jobs get cut faster in economic downturns and are more likely to be replaced but automation or outsourced to a cheaper labor country. A higher education degree provides a lot of safety in long term thinking that being a skilled laborer does not, even for supposedly useless majors.
If your kid is choosing between some random northern michigan directional school that nobody south of traverse city has ever heard of and being a skilled laborer they should choose skilled laborer. If they prefer being a skilled laborer they should choose that and there should be no stigma and they should be proud and happy. However if they are deciding between Michigan and MSU and being a skilled laborer and making an entirely economics based decision they should get the college degree.
If your kid is choosing between some random northern michigan directional school that nobody south of traverse city has ever heard of and being a skilled laborer they should choose skilled laborer.I was born and raised in the Upper Peninsula, but was lucky enough to attend UM. I have many family members and friends, however, that attended Northern Michigan University. NMU is the only directional public school north of Traverse City, but you should count Lake Superior State and Michigan Tech as the other public schools north of the bridge. I know many NMU graduates who are gainfully employed in a variety of stable careers with excellent wage growth possibilities. Is NMU as prestigious as UM? No. But it's not the backwater morass that you paint it out to be.
can't afford UM. Period. So then it becomes 'How much debt are you willing to swallow'?
" Even beyond that skilled labor jobs get cut faster in economic downturns and are more likely to be replaced but automation or outsourced to a cheaper labor country"
It depends. I live in a small town in Northern Michigan. Plumbing companies are dying for plumbers here, as many of the ones they have are close to retirement.
You aren't going to automate the guy coming to fix your toilet or stop your shower from leaking. And given the lack of replacements coming on line, demand is going to outpace supply of work for quite some time.
Ironically, I've done lots of high level 'programming' over the years that is very likely to get automated in the future. Interface engines and medical device interfaces are requiring less work, not more, as the programs get smarter.
What you are saying is that if it is a choice between a Michigan education and a skilled trade, the Michigan education is the better route? Whereas a skilled trade vs. a degree at another school might be different.
If I understand that correctly, I agree, to a point. That point is that you have to get a money making degree from the University of Michigan. If I go 90K in debt and graduate with a degree in ancient civilizations or general studies I may well be wiser, but I'd argue that it's likely going to be a pretty poor return on investment. Whereas going to a cheaper, lesser known university, but graduating with a 4.0 and a Computer Science degree might well get you a good enough job to pay off a much lower debt load.
Now, that pre-supposes that you're planning on graduating job ready.
I don't dislike universities. They hold a huge place of honor in Western history and UM in particular is responsible for me being a better, more rounded person. I don't scorn learning for learning sake. It just seems that we've gone way beyond the pale in terms of ROI on many degrees, regardless of institution. I don't think it should be made necessarily easier, even for in state grads. That's our job to earn admittance. But, the cost...
I remember reading the book 'Hanging on' by Edmund G. Love for a class at Michigan. It blew me away how he was able to do odd jobs and afford books, tuition, and board.
It's just not that way anymore.
after reading the original post I've gone a bit on a tangent. I apologize for that.
For one, it depends how you value success but there are lots jobs that a shitty roi that provide extreme value to the world. The Michigan school of social work is the #1 school of social work in the country but the vast majority of social workers would never have 90k in debt work out for them but the education is still valuable both for them and the people they work with. That is why things like the public interest loan forgivness programs are truly valuable (no politics makes it difficult to discuss further).
And what many people see as not "valuable degrees" have immense value. On forbes list of richest people the third most comman major was a history degree, an english degree was the fifth most common. Being a well rounded person who is taught to think critically, learns how to write effectively, has a range of backgrounds in their education, all critical components of a liberal arts degree that are often derided can have immense impact on the ability of a person to succeed. The vast majority of my friends were liberal arts majors, they are almost all successful by their definition. College is what you make of it, regardless of the degree you choose. The people who argue college is a poor investment often go to schools with a poor reputation, a belief that a college degree will gaurantee them some high paying job regardless of their performance and skills and many are exploited by for profit schools. I was a general studies major because I wanted the flexibility that came with no core requirements and it has never once hurt me in a job interview.
Fairly simple. Tell your kid to go into STEM and take out loans. Those fields will be fine for paying em off.
Of course it is possible. If she can get the grades, she can get the loan. At Michigan, it'll be well worth it. Great ROI.
I don't understand why anyone would feel entitled to get an education at one of the best universities in the world for dramatically under market value. Even at current tuition, it's a great value for Michigan kids. Get a loan and make an investment in your future if you're bright enough to get in.
6 months intensive study and make 6 figures plus bonus\options.
In 1986, with a 4.0/4.0 GPA you were put on a waiting list.
I can't imagine what more difficult looks like.
This might be an aberration, but I was not the only one I know to run into this over the years.
GPA is important, but is only one facet. I was in a similar position (same grades/time frame) from a tiny rural high school with limited AP classes and I was accepted into UM so quickly that I didn't even manage to get my applications to other schools completed. So I'm not sure exactly what situation you ran into.
I did take Calc & AP Physics and all that stuff in High School, but I imagine most people applying to Michigan did. For me, the big win was probably my ACT score. My SAT was nothing special (would have been a NO at almost any IVY for sure. I sucked at the SAT Verbal) but my ACT was pretty good. Since Michigan took either, they probably ignored my mediocre SAT.
Essentially higher education is very labor intensive. The perceived "quality" of a college often comes down to the student:faculty ratio. And then to attract the best faculty, the colleges reduce their teaching load so they can focus on research or whatever their academic interest is. As a result, some of the best colleges strive for an 8:1 student/faculty ratio with professors teaching 2 classes a semester. It makes sense (to me) that a major cost-cutting move would be to have the faculty teach more classes to more students but the perceived quality takes a huge hit. What you end up with is faculty and staff compensation makes up the majority of the budget.
Which may be why a something like USNews ranks Michigan in the 20's but from an admissions standpoint it is difficult to get into, espeically out of state.
From a purely educational standpoint, the universities or colleges that have smaller classes taught by professors and not by TAs are stronger than Michigan but it does not diminish UMs appeal among applicants.
as large research U's like Michigan don't have the faculty to student ratios.
Perceived (and arguably actual quality) has pretty much everything to do with how selective a school's admissions are. The value of a college degree is largely tied to how impressive it was that you got in in the first place. That's the indicator of how smart you are (and how hard you worked in HS).
Sure, graduating indicates that you continued to work hard through college but since graduation rates are so high for elite Universities, they're not weeding out many students anyway.
...universities across the nation. As I help my second child through the college selection process, I'm encountering similar sentiments all over the place. If the tax payers and the officials that they elect have reduced the subsidies to provide financial aid to lower income students, is it up to the university - feeling pressured themselves, economically - to make up all of the difference? That would result in cutbacks on facilities spending, and with research and salary cuts, would eventually lower the quality of the education. If the university looks at two options: 1. Abandoning their legacy of academic leadership or 2. Catering to more out-of-state students to make up the funding gap, it's pretty easy to see why they would choose #2. Does anyone particularly LIKE that? Probably not, but the people of the state of Michigan share in this decision with their funding decisions.
I don't really want to wade into this debate, but take a look at this article: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Are-You-in-a-BS-Job-In/243318.
Then go and look at what has happened to top administrator jobs across academia. It's very similar - in terms of the outrageous inflation the last 30-40 years - to what is going on with CEOs and their pay.
In other words, a lot of the dramatic increases in cost and tuition is attributable not to better education, but to more bullshit jobs and insane salaries for presidents, provosts, deans, etc.
Administrative costs have skyrocketed but it isn't the driver of tuition increase like people claim. If a college provost is making 800k instead of 200k (completely random numbers) and the undergraduate population is approximately 29k that 600k increase is an extra $21 per student. You could add 100 extra administrator postions and it wouldn't even come close to accounting for a majority of the increase over the last couple of decades.
entire departments that are created? When a new administrator is created, they often aren't created alone, but with whole departments and staffing.
You're right, it's not the sole cost. But I think it's crazy to say to a University 'Try to find ways to make things cheaper without cutting quality'.
"Administration" refers to a lot more than just the president, provost and so forth. There's a huge bureaucracy that runs an institution this large and for whatever reason it's grown tremendously over the past two decades.
Yeah, I should have been clearer. Not only are these folks making far more than ever before, there are also far more of them. So now, the "Assistant Interim Adjunct Dean for Measurement of Deanly Things" makes more than university presidents used to, in some cases.
are due to the dramatic increases in demand for higher education. Full stop. That is it.
The country is growing such that there are more young people than ever before and a much greater proportion of young people get degrees than ever before. Add in the fact that the middle class around the world is growing RAPIDLY (particularly in India and China where US degrees are highly valued) and US colleges are experiencing an increase in demand that is even outpacing the increase in price.
And that's why colleges are getting more expensive. Plain and simple supply and demand. Top institutions aren't adding supply so with demand skyrocketing, massive tuition hikes are supported by increased demand.
They know because of increased demand they can keep jacking tuition at absurd rates.
And sure, with the extra money, they hire more administrators to do what every other massive money making enterprise does: protect the existing revenue stream instead of improve upon the product because when organizations get large enough there are vastly diminishing returns to trying to get better so they focus on preventing any of the many things that could cause massive loss.
They hire attorneys to shut down outdoor clubs for fear of being sued, and they hire social workers and therapists to treat sexual assualt victims (or silence them) so their reputation doesn't take a hit, they hire armys of compliance people to make sure they keep up with increasing regulation, etc, etc, etc. If you already have world class faculty facilities, how do you improve the product, anyway?
There isn't some conspiracy here. Increasing demand supports and causes the increasing prices. And the additional revenue is spent to protect that demand. We give them the money first and then they find something to do with it, not the other way around.
FWIW that could have been the vision for UM in its inception, but just from my own families anecdotal evidence, you'd be hard--pressed to find any 'common men' attending UM from its inception to maybe the 1950s onward (post GI bill).
I was there from 2010-2014. My family is firmly in what you would call the middle class. At U of M I felt like I was living on welfare compared to other students. Especially out-of-staters and foreign students. There's nothing wrong with them going there, but U of M is an elite school for the elites now.
When considering this issue, I usually don my conspiracy-theory headgear and conclude that for many years UM Admissions has played a careful game with the state legislature. UM admits just enough in-state students to placate the folks in Lansing, while seeing just how far they can push the out-of-state envelope to admit as many higher-paying students as possible. And Admissions has a large pool of highly qualified, well-heeled OOS applicants from which to choose. It’s not for nothing that college-bound students in New York refer to UM as “SUNY-Ann Arbor," recognizing that if they don’t make it into Cornell or Princeton they have a highly desirable B option.
Moreover, as the state university with the second-highest endowment in the United States (I’ve read that the Texas university system receives a chunk of oil revenues that makes it the highest) UM has from time to time considered to hell with the legislature and just become a private institution. Then, like Williams, Amherst, Harvard and Yale, all tuition bets would be off. "What the traffic will bear" would rule the day.
Often times I think of it as the University in Michigan, rather than of Michigan. At least when Iw as there, their ties to 'Michigan' and it's people seemed tenuous at best. I had many professors and TA's that loved Ann Arbor but viewed the rest of the State as kind of a working class ignorant backwater. I had one TA that kept spouting off so much about Penn it made me sick. 'It wasn't like this in Penn...'
Though UoM has billions in endowment ($10.9 for the 2017 fiscal year), their endowment per student is $197K. There is a lot of ground to make up to be as flush as the Ivies of the top liberal arts colleges. Yale's endowment per student is $2.1 million, Harvard is $1.5 million, Princeton $2.9 million, Amherst $1.3 million, Williams $1.2.
The advantage these school have is they can be need-blind in admissions and can afford to aid any student short of millionaires.UM would still be relying on tuition and less aid to make their model work. In other words, wealthier, less diverse students.