University of Michigan being "cut loose" by the State. To become private school?
I've posted in response to other threads that I KNOW the University doesn't WANT to go private but has conducted studies as to what would happen IF the State of Michigan cut its funding. Well, despite the fact that the current governor has three degrees from UofM this article alleges that cutting off funding to the University is on the table (though not probable) as the State figures out how to deal with a $1.8 million budget deficit.
Even the mention of this makes me absolutely nauseous. To think that this would be the only state with its flagship University turned private. Absolutely pathetic. I hope Governor Snyder remembers he's a Michigan Man and keeps this from happening.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^
I sat on my department's budget committee as a graduate student rep and believe me every department has contingency plans if the state of michigan ever cuts funding. If this were to come to pass, I would definitely be on board for privatizing the entire university system.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:42 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^
Our country has been rewarding mediocrity and failure for years, why stop now?
January 16th, 2011 at 5:54 PM ^
Even when you're not trying (too hard) to be funny. Well said!
January 16th, 2011 at 3:46 PM ^
Too bad MGoBlog doesn't reward mediocrity in posting only once.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:07 PM ^
I should have preface my post saying I reside in a biomedical research department, where our funding is more based upon NIH, NSF, and DOE sources rather than state educational sources.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:38 PM ^
The title of the thread had me thinking that I'll be paying double next semester. Don't scare me like that.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^
The whole state of Michigan just decommitted from the University of Michigan too.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:45 PM ^
Lets not become Notre Dame... please
January 16th, 2011 at 4:00 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:22 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 7:30 PM ^
I feel like saying South Carolina and Tennessee is sort of important in this post.
January 17th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^
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.)
January 16th, 2011 at 7:28 PM ^
I was about to say... $1.8 million is pocket change.
January 16th, 2011 at 7:38 PM ^
I should have such a pocket!
January 16th, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^
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
January 16th, 2011 at 8:33 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:18 PM ^
You'll have to pay a tuition rate close to where out of state tuition is now when your kid(s) go.
No thanks.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:21 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 5:16 PM ^
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.
January 18th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^
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.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:16 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:24 PM ^
1.8 Mil? That isn't shit.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:57 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 6:03 PM ^
January 16th, 2011 at 4:31 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:27 PM ^
But I had to pay my own way. There is no way I could have been able to to pay out of state tuition.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:29 PM ^
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
January 16th, 2011 at 4:33 PM ^
It's a $1.8 billion deficit.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^
Republicans have been pushing this idea for some time.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:34 PM ^
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.....
January 16th, 2011 at 5:08 PM ^
January 16th, 2011 at 8:00 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 8:43 PM ^
and as governor I would find a way to increase these investments (along with reforms)
January 16th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^
January 16th, 2011 at 4:41 PM ^
Yes, I remember it well.
After "Brady Hoke," I am going to think about long and hard about "Zero-point-zero" chances.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:41 PM ^
Even that is too optomistic. There is a zero chance of the University of Michigan going private.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:39 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:42 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:47 PM ^
...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.
January 16th, 2011 at 5:03 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 8:01 PM ^
The federal government is broke and getting "broker" by the day. Here is a site showing the finances of the state of Michigan.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-michigan-debt-clo…
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 5:09 PM ^
No more FOIA for pock-marked reporters from Detroit.
January 16th, 2011 at 5:36 PM ^
We need to invest in more wars, not education. Duh.
January 16th, 2011 at 8:38 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 7:17 PM ^
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.
January 16th, 2011 at 7:42 PM ^
"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
January 17th, 2011 at 1:52 PM ^
No, we moved to Ann Arbor in 1837, the same year Michigan gained statehood.