<p>Don't waste your time trying to reason with hawkette. He (oops I mean she) is totally biased in a negative way with anything to do with The University of Michigan.</p>
<p>bc,hoedown,
Thanks for the correction on Mary Sue Coleman. Sorry for the error.</p>
<p>bc,
I’m in full agreement about the problems facing California and its funding for higher education in that state. I see a train wreck a-coming. I would agree that U Michigan has done a good job of developing significant endowment assets that will better help it deal with the economic troubles of the state and any funding problems that may arise with the state legislature. </p>
<p>State legislatures, Michigan’s or otherwise, are rarely populated with politicians who take the long-term view and think about a state’s competitive position in higher education. Much more commonly are pleas/demands for more populist approaches that can dilute the product and emphasize quantity (of voters) over quality. </p>
<p>rjko,
IMO U Michigan is a fine state university, with a strong institutional fiscal position, that is located in a state that is an economic basket case and which is hemorrhaging population, jobs, political power, etc. If you take that statement as “totally biased,” then I suspect your objectivity on U Michigan and the state of affairs in Michigan is irretrievable.</p>
<p>Hawkette, Michigan's Economy has been in decline for 30 years (since 1978). And yet, in those thirty years, Michigan's endowment has grown far more than that of any other university, Michigan student body has steadily grown in size and quality and recruitment activity on campus, with over 1,000 recruiters hiring students full time each year, is greater than that on any other campus in the US.</p>
<p>Also, I would not worry too much about Michigan's future Economic prospects.</p>
<p>alex,
You're so in the tank about U Michigan that you can't seem to even accept that U Michigan's economic fortunes are not benefited by what is happening in the state's economy. Take off the blue-colored glasses and get a reality check. </p>
<p>This thread began with an article about cities and states under financial pressure, but as is often the case on CC, the U Michigan partisans robotically attempt to squelch the slightest suggestion that anything could negatively impact their institution. Look, I've written several times in this thread that your school's finances are in very good shape (eg, see #102, # 94, etc) and I concur that they are better than most public universities. That does not change the fact that the state's economy is one of the worst in America and this has negative implications for all of higher education in that state, including U Michigan. </p>
<p>I don't know that we'll ever have specific numbers on how these dismal economic times will affect specific schools and their abilities to hire faculty and attract good students, but just as a rising tide helps float all around it, a receding tide drains resources and people away.</p>
<p>hawkette, I'm not sure what is your problem with Alexandre's post. It's right on. </p>
<p>I currently work for Univ of Michigan, and this campus is steadily growing -- new buildings, new faculty/employee positions, new institutes, etc.. The university has grown less dependent on state appropriations than other states and continues to rival top-ranked colleges in endowments and academics. Despite all the surrounding economic problems of the state of Michigan. Yes, the state economy is in the tank. Yes, the state of Michigan continues to educate and send off college graduates to other parts of the country. I do believe in a couple of years the state economy will start to rebound with alternative industries and less-dependent manufacturing economy. Gas prices are steadily decreasing. It might be temporary, but it's a big relief.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I don't think you understood my post. I did not claim the state of Michigan's Economic situation was healthy. In fact, I clearly stated that the state Economy has steadily declined over the last 3 decades. All I said is that the University of Michigan has not been impacted by the state economy. Michigan's endowment stands at $7.8 billion. Only 5 universities have a larger endowment. And Michigan students are among the most heavily recruited in the country. Clearly, the University of Michigan does not depend on the state of Michigan. Only 7% of the University's operating budget is funded by the state. The remaining 93% of Michigan's cost of operation is generated by the university. </p>
<p>In short, Michigan hasnothing to worry about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
U Michigan partisans robotically attempt to squelch the slightest suggestion that anything could negatively impact their institution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>On behalf of all robotic U-M partisans, I apologize for suspecting that you start this kind of negative thread with a soupcon of barely-suppressed glee.</p>
<p>Other than that, I am not sure it's fair to lump all U-M supporters in that category--it would be pretty naive to say that NOTHING could negatively impact a top flagship, and I don't think that's been the gist of their arguments. They're saying they've got some strengths that aren't impacted by the state's troubles, and seem to be weathering the economic woes better than you give them credit for.</p>
<p>^ Forget it, hoedown. hawkette is rooting for the University of Michigan's demise---that's the whole point of this thread---and she's just disappointed that it won't come easily just because the state is facing serious economic and fiscal woes. What she fails to acknowledge is that the state of Michigan has been on its knees economically and fiscally for most of the last 30 years, and the University of Michigan had to adjust to that reality a long, long time ago. It's done so remarkably successfully. Most other publics are only now coming to grips with these harsh realities. Public higher education is going to get whacked really hard in places like California, Florida, and Arizona, states where the bottom has dropped out of the economy, state governments are facing enormous fiscal headaches, and the public universities are still as dependent on legislative appropriations as the University of Michigan was in the 1960s. That's the real story here. But it doesn't fit hawkette's narrative.</p>
<p>Exactly right bclintock.</p>
<p>My other concern about this thread is that it offers such a one-sided analysis: how state economies are supposedly dragging down public schools. I'm hopeful that out of hard times will emerge increasingly robust relationships between universities and between higher ed and state government. I think public universities have a great positive role to play as state economies switch out of moribund sectors into ones with more promise. They can help their states considerably.</p>
<p>^ Some states recognize this. Here in Minnesota it's widely accepted that the economy of the future will be knowledge-driven, and that our state flagship research university has to be one of the principal engines of economic growth, operating as a "talent magnet," repository of scientific and technical knowledge, educator of the high-skill workforce of the future, and source of innovation and knowledge breakthroughs that will lead to new products and whole new industries. This transition is already well under way. In fact, a British magazine recently rated the Twin Cities economy as the most "knowledge-based" in the world---the least dependent on traditional industries, farthest along in the transition to the economy of the future. That ranking is debatable, of course, but the underlying assessment about the state of the Twin Cities economy, by far the most dynamic in the state and arguably the most dynamic in the Upper Midwest, seems pretty sound. That's not to say the University won't take a hit when the state needs to shrink its budget, but I think there's a very broad consensus in the legislature that if the state cuts funds for the University it's cutting the most valuable and cost-effective economic development program it has; consequently, any cuts will need to be temporary and limited, and will need to be made up when the state's budget is on sounder footing. </p>
<p>I don't claim every legislature is similarly enlightened. It's painful to watch a great university like the University of Wisconsin in our neighboring state get whacked year after year by that state's benighted legislature. But I should think that for a state like Michigan it should be painfully obvious that the economic growth in the Ann Arbor region is one of the few bright spots in an otherwise bleak state economy. Cutting investments in what's working would be shortsighted and self-defeating. I'm sure some forward-thinking people in state government recognize that. Whether they'll be able to muster a legislative majority to protect the state's comparatively modest investments in the University, I can't say.</p>
<p>Actually the UW did very well the last budget cycle--now the next?? Even several of the profs who left for other greener jobs have returned. The grass is not always all that much greener.</p>