<p>"James Duderstadt, UM president from 1988 to 1996, has argued for years that it is a misnomer to call schools like the University of Michigan "state universities." The state's annual contribution to the school's operating budget is now less than 6%, about half the share that California puts into its state schools and roughly the same level as Virginia. "The state is our smallest minority shareholder," says Duderstadt. (See TIME's special report on paying for college.)"</p>
<p>I hope Michigan remains public, but the state of Michigan needs to play ball. Either pull its weight financially ($700 million annually) or stand by and watch as Michigan restricts its in-state students to just 15%-25% of the total undergraduate student population. As it stands, Michigan receives a paltry $300 million from the state. That's pathetic for a top 20 university. Michigan could raise that much money by trading in 10,000 in-state students with out-of-state students. </p>
<p>If Michigan is to go private, it should do it right. Reduce Freshman classes from 6,000 to 4,000, raise tuition to match those of other elite privates and privide better aid packages.</p>
<p>Including self-supporting hospital operations to lower the percentage from the state is a little devious. Obviously UM has been left to fend for itself by the state but the actual impact of state money is still well over 10% of academic operations. At least they give UM lots of leeway in how they spend the $$$ unlike some states I know. With recent cuts UVa gets around $140 Million from the state but it is much smaller too.</p>
<p>I'm a freshman right now from out of state.. to be honest, this sounds exciting. No offense but the average out-of-state student is much much brighter than the average instate student....it would definitely bring up the university's prestige.</p>
<p>Yes but the university needs to do it right just like Alexandre said, Michigan will lose its appeal if it doesn't. But I hope it'll remain public though.</p>
<p>The school is controlled by regents who are elected by the citizens of the state of Michigan. There is no way it will ever go private as long as this state is in operation.</p>
<p>Novi and China, I do not pretend to understand the exact procedure or likelihood of Michigan's privitization. However, I am fairly certain that James Dudertadt is very intimate with the precedures and if he feels like it could happen, then it is likely that it can happen. It may be tricky and painstaking, but it can happen. </p>
<p>Personally, given the choice between Michigan going private and Michigan staying the way it is today, I would opt for privitization in a heartbeat. The way the state is handling Michigan will destroy the University. Ideally however, the University of Michigan would remain public but the state will start treating the University with the respect it deserves and the University would change its bend-over-backwards approach to the state.</p>
<p>The state will "destroy the University"? The state doesn't "treat the University with respect"? Alexandre, you really need to tone down your rhetoric. Of course the last time we had this discussion you called all Michigan residents "not rational", so I probably shouldn't be surprised at anything you might say.</p>
<p>Interesting post. I'm currently a freshmen in Umich, and I think if Umich becomes private, it will need to cut the size of the student body down. There are too many students, and its largely due to the fact that the university needs money. Also, I think it would be better to go private, since we already function like a private University. Umich will probably move to common app with the privatization, and that alone will likely decrease the acceptance rate, attracting more students, and since the tuition will go up for in-state students, Umich will likely have similar amount of money to compensate for the loss in state funding. However, I think this would take awhile for it to happen.</p>
<p>chinaismine, I guess I am passionate about Michigan. Although I do not wish it to happen, I think Michigan will eventually privatize. The expectations of the alums/students, as well as what is genuinely in the best interest of the university, are not consistant (even in conflict) with the wishes of the state and many of its residents. Since alums and students provide more money to the university than the state and its residents, it only stands to reason that the alums and the students will eventually determine what happens to the university.</p>
<p>If you truly love Michigan Alexandre, you need to realize that because of the state of Michigan the school is where it is in the first place. The president of the university certainly realizes that. She knows that U-M will lead the way to our ultimate recovery. It's not an us against them situation here. The state would love to be able to fully fund all of their universities, it's just not possible. The school was built first and foremost to educate the population of the state of Michigan. Remember, An uncommon education for the common man." These words and thoughts I hope will never waver.</p>
<p>Novi, unless things change drastically, there is a distinct, albeit remote, possibility that the University will privatize in the future. My hope is that things will change so that Michigan can remain public without losing its standing. For the last few years, Michigan has slowly but surely been losing its standing as a top university. It used to be a top 5 university back in the 50s and 60s and a top 10 university back in the 70s and 80s. Today, it is considered a top 15 or top 20 university. Without seriously reforming, Michigan will find itself locked out of the top universities in the nation. Honestly, I don't mind. I have very fond memories of my experience at Michigan when that university actually had standing in the academic world. Should Michigan's standing disolve, I lose nothing as I am in a position today where my academic qualifications no longer matter. </p>
<p>But if the necessary change does not come about, I would rather see Michigan privatize, for the sake of its students and recent alums. Michigan is indeed "an uncommon education for the common man", just like Cornell is "an institution where any person can find instruction in any study." I think we both know that those catch phrases are open to major interpretation!</p>
<p>I'm a freshman right now from out of state.. to be honest, this sounds exciting. No offense but the average out-of-state student is much much brighter than the average instate student....it would definitely bring up the university's prestige.</p>
<p>"For the last few years, Michigan has slowly but surely been losing its standing as a top university. It used to be a top 5 university back in the 50s and 60s and a top 10 university back in the 70s and 80s. Today, it is considered a top 15 or top 20 university. Without seriously reforming, Michigan will find itself locked out of the top universities in the nation."</p>
<p>I think privatization is not the solution to this issue. Just look at the best public university in the nation, UC Berkeley. Regardless of its standing as a public university, it still manages to hold its own against the elite privates and still remains as one of the top 6 universities in the US and arguably in the world.</p>
<p>Proudwolverine, I am not talking about reputation in academic or professional circles. In that regard, Michigan is still considered a top 10 university. I am talking about public perception. And Cal, in that regard, like Michigan, is not considered as strong as it once was. Cal would also benefit from privatization. Also, something to keep in mind is location. Berkeley, although not as nice as Ann Arbor, is much more ideally located. San Francisco and Silicon Valley are a much better area than Detroit. Thanks to its location, Cal's deterioration has been slower than Michigan's. In short, Michigan is in more dire need for privatization than Cal at this time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The state will "destroy the University"? The state doesn't "treat the University with respect"? Alexandre, you really need to tone down your rhetoric.
[/quote]
I'm going to have to agree with this poster. Nobody is more passionate about this school than I am. Not only did my parents attend, but so did I and two of my children. Umich is greatly respected by the State of Michigan and by almost all its citizens (except a few MSU grads.)</p>
<p>There may be some who believe it should be privitized, but the majority of people I know do not. And even if you do, I think it's going a little far to say that the State will destroy the University.</p>
<p>I do not claim to know what is happening in the state of Michigan. I do, however, know what it is happening at universities in the national scene...possibly more than any of you. Without bragging, I have spent so much time studying universities that I am an expert on the subject. Without a doubt, I can say that the University of Michigan is not doing well. Michigan was #7 back in early 80s, #17 in the early 90s and #26 last year. I guess you are complete satisfied with this trend and would not mind it if Michigan were ranked #37 in 5 years and #47 in 15 years. Those rankings may not be a reflection of what academe and corporate American think, but it does impact our ability to attract top students, both from the state of Michigan, and to a greater extent, students from out of state. However, as Michigan continues to drop in the rankings, its lofty position in academe and corporate America will also drop. </p>
<p>I realize many of you who are "in touch with the goings on in the State of Michigan" love the in-state tuition guarantee. But before you know it, that guarantee will be for a second rate university. Not that it matters to me. I already attended Michigan and benefited from its once great reputation. Today, as a Human Resources specialist, I rely more on my Cornell degree. Unless things change radically in the state of Michigan, or unless Michigan turns private, at the current rate, students who attend Michigan in 2020 will no longer be attending a top ranked university.</p>