Coleman said she’d like to begin shrinking the size of the University.

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Michigan
21

<p>

Doesn’t sound as though you’re very happy.
At the risk of furthering “ruffling your tail feathers”, do you think that Michigan taxpayers should pay what it costs (fully fund) to support an In-State student attending UM? If not, then who/how do you suggest that the difference be made up? Should UM cut staff, facility improvements and professor salaries until UM becomes more affordable (less expensive for IS students) but is also less of a prestigious and nationally recognized university?</p>

22

<p>I’m happy. I don’t feel at all that tuition should be cut to make the school more affordable to in-state students. If tuition for IS students needs to be RAISED to pay the full cost of their education, I am ok with that. What I am not ok with is raising taxes across the board in a state that desperately needs to grow their economy.</p>

23

<p>

You’re OK with paying $24K more per year for your son to attend UM?
While I’m fairly sure that most of your fellow Michigan residents would not want an increase in taxes to fully fund UM, I am also doubtful that they would agree with a $24K increase in tuition costs and/or an admissions process that chooses ONLY on merit without regard to residency. Just my OOS opinion…</p>

24

<p>Yes there just isn’t money in Michigan to “give more” to the colleges and unis. There isn’t money to give the public K-12 schools. There isn’t money to fund highway repair, fund adequately staffed public services and all sorts of things. Not with double digit inflation and an economy that is completely trying to make itself over. The US college system is comprised of individual state university systems for the kids of the state. Michigan suceeding as a public state university to privatize is so very far down the road I can’t see the tailights and to suggest that they would establish themselves as some sort of quasi haven for internationals and non-Michigan students I also can’t see happening. I highly doubt they would want to be the “first”. Maybe if some of the UC system in Caliornia privitizes first they might, but I certainly can’t see the administration wanting to pull the trigger and be the first “state public university” to succeed from the original mission statement and charter. As far as OSS undergraduate kids being ‘better’ than In state students all competitive public universities in the country expect kids from other states that want to attend to be at least as qualified as the best in the state and to pay more. Since when is this a UofM “thing?” OSS kids have a choice where they attend at that price point.</p>

25

<p>^
"Not with double digit inflation and an economy that is completely trying to make itself over. "</p>

<p>Really? Double digit inflation? Can you share what you are smoking please? Last I heard (which is about 2 weeks ago) every desk is more worried about deflation than inflation… Core inflation has been about 1%.</p>

26

<p>momofthreeboys: While your analysis of Michigan’s problems is interesting reading, I must have missed the part where you suggested any solutions to funding UM. Are you in favor of increasing taxes in Michigan and having the state fully fund UM? How about increasing IS tuition by $24K per year…sound like an idea you’d support? What do you think of rumandting’s idea of an admissions process that chooses ONLY on merit without regard to residency?</p>

27

<p>Not sure if everyone here knows this, but Michigan law that requires state-funded universities enroll a specific percentage of IS vs OOS students (I believe it’s around 66%). If the IS quota isn’t met, the state will drop its funding.</p>

<p>As far as raising taxes, it’s not an option in Michigan today. There’s no money. What could be done, however, is just raise IS tuition. Obviously not to the OOS level, but enough to decrease the funding gap substantially.</p>

28

<p>“…and to suggest that they would establish themselves as some sort of quasi haven for internationals and non-Michigan students I also can’t see happening.”</p>

<p>What I am suggesting is not turning Michigan into a “quasi haven” for internationals and non-Michigan students. I am suggesting a higher ratio of OOS students to IS student. Many public universities enroll more OOS students than IS students. I am fairly certain that the University of Delaware and the University of Vermont have a 2:1 OOS to IS student ration. And meeting the financial needs of all OOS and IS students is also practiced by some public universities, including UNC and UVa. </p>

<p>UM2014, I do not believe that the University of Michigan is obligated by law to take a certain percentage of IS students. I am almost certain that the two-thirds figure is merely a “recommendation”.</p>

<p>But if altering the makeup of the OOS/IS population is not acceptable to the University and the residents of the state, I suppose Michigan can raise IS tution to bridge the $110,000,000 gap between what the state is giving the University and how much Michigan is foregoing by notcharging IS students full tuition. That would workout to a $6,000 increase per IS tuition, from $12,000 to $18,000.</p>

29

<p>These are complicated questions, and I certainly do not have the answers or a background in economics. I will point out, Alexandre, that Vermont and Delaware have very tiny populations in comparison to the state of Michigan. I can understand them having more OOS students than IS.</p>

30

<p>

</p>

<p>Assuming this study you reference is valid: GPA is not solely influenced by the individual. It is also influenced by the caliber of the high school. There’s a good chance a 3.3-equivalent from Stuyvesant will fair better than a 3.9 from bumble-f*** Michigan. Just something to think about.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>He clearly meant unemployment (I hope).</p>

<p>Ya’ll can argue all day about what’s right and what’s wrong, what Michigan should do and what Michigan shouldn’t do. Alexandre’s points are logical if you take as given that U of M wants the easiest path to regaining its slipping status. Fact.</p>

31

<p>I understand why Michigan residents are so defensive. The University of Michigan:</p>

<p>1) Is close to home
2) Is located in a great college town
3) Has great college athletics
4) Has one of the largest, most loyal and most influential/successful alumni networks in the World
5) Has Ivy League-style prestige
6) Is considered one of the top 10 academic institutions in the United States
7) Is relatively easy to get into for state residents
8) And all that at a highly discounted price</p>

<p>What’s not to love!</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the University of Michigan cannot afford to maintain all this. If it does not change its ways…and quickly, by 2020, the state of Michigan will no longer have an elite public university. Trust me, you do not want this to happen. The University of Michigan’s prominance is the best hope to transform the state’s economy from heavy manufacturing to biotech and info-tech. With the inevitable decline of the university given the current burden the state is placing of the it, the wellbeing of the state itself is being jeoperdized. It is time for state residents to accept major (and I mean big time) changes. The way I see it, there are four options if residents wish to see the continued success of their flagship university:</p>

<p>1) Privatize (my least preferred option and quite frankly, the least likely course of action)
2) Hike in-state tuition significantly (to the tune of 70%)
3) Enroll 50% more OOS students and 50%-65% fewer in-state students (my favorite and most effective approach)
4) Get a lot more money from the state (acceptable option, but not nearly as directly impactful)</p>

32

<p>“I will point out, Alexandre, that Vermont and Delaware have very tiny populations in comparison to the state of Michigan. I can understand them having more OOS students than IS.”</p>

<p>Rumandting, that is true, but consider the options availlable to students from the three states we are discussing: </p>

<p>DELAWARE:
Population: 900,000
Average-good public universities:
Delaware State (3,000 undergraduate students of which 1,500 are residents)
University of Delaware (15,000 undergraduate students of which 5,000 are residents)
TOTAL: 6,500 in-state students attending 2 average-good public universities
RATIO OF STUDENTS AT PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES TO TOTAL STATE POPULATION: 1:138</p>

<p>VERMONT:
Population: 600,000
Average-good public universities:
University of Vermont (10,000 undergraduate students of which 3,500 are residents)
TOTAL: 3,500 in-state students attending 1 average-goodpublic university
RATIO OF STUDENTS AT PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES TO TOTAL STATE POPULATION: 1:171</p>

<p>MICHIGAN (not including UMAA):
Population: 10,000,000
Central Michigan University (20,000 undergraduate students of which 19,000 are residents)
Eastern Michigan University (15,000 undergraduate students of which 13,000 are residents)
Ferris State University (11,000 undergraduate students of which 10,000 are residents)
Grand Valley State University (20,000 undergraduate students of which 19,000 are residents)
Michigan State University (35,000 undergraduate students of which 31,000 are state residents)
Michigan Technological University (5,000 undergraduate students of which 3,500 are residents)
Northern Michigan University (8,000 undergraduate students of which 6,500 are residents)
University of Michigan-Dearborn (5,000 undergraduate students of which almost all are residents)
University of Michigan-Flint (5,000 undergraduate students of which almost all are residents)
Wayne State University (15,000 undergraduate students of which 13,000 are residents)
Western Michigan University (19,000 undergraduate students of which 16,000 are residents)
TOTAL: 141,000 in-state students attending 11 average-good public universities
RATIO OF STUDENTS AT PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES TO TOTAL STATE POPULATION: 1:71</p>

<p>Even without the University of Michigan, residents of the state have so many more options than residents of Delaware or Vermont or virtually any state other than California. The University of Michigan does not have to enroll 18,000 in-state students. 6,000-7,000 is more than sufficient assuming there are 13,000 or so OOS/international students enrolled at the same time.</p>

33

<p>Comparing UofM to Vermont or Delaware is more applies to oranges or if an engineering student looking at UofM, Kettering and Northern and perhaps State. And yes, I was thinking unemployment and wrote inflation. Guess it’s on my mind these days. A more comparable comparison would be the California System or perhaps Colorado or Texas or a handful of other states that have robust public higher education. That said the only “slippage” U of M is experiencing is slippage in the USNWR rankings, it still maintains it’s foothold in global universities. </p>

<p>To suggest that this is a “flaw” of the U of M isn’t a strong argument as other large flagships are experiencing similar affects from the methodology. If the USNWR rankings is something that isn’t very important to a person then it’s an insignificant factor. I would guess that vast, vast majority of in-state students are looking at UofM or Michigan State or one of the strong LACs in Michigan and are less concerned how UofM compares to Amhert or how colleges rank in Texas.</p>

<p>I do think the University can trim it’s entering classes until the infrastructure can accomodate that volume of students if that is a problem. Although as a parent with #3 clearly set on being a 4th gen U of M undergraduate the prospect of increased competitiveness is somewhat fearful to think about but it is what it is. I think the concept of “there are other choices” for in-state students isn’t a valid argument for decreasing potential spots in the freshman class specifically for those students.</p>

<p>Increasing slots for OSS students to improve the economy? Not so sure. I would want to see the statistics of undergrads from other regions who stay and work in Michigan after graduation. Perhaps true of the grad schools, not certain it would play out for the undergrads. </p>

<p>With regard to raising taxes to prop up U of M I would guess the residents of the state would want to see a very micro explanation of the relative need…kick the books around so to speak. The expansion of the Big House is a tough sell to the average Michigan taxpayer whose home value has declined 30-40% and has experienced unemployment or fear of unemployment. Just saying.</p>

34

<p>“Wayne State University (15,000 undergraduate students of which 13,000 are residents)”</p>

<p>Alexandre. You are over 5,000 students too low on the UG population.</p>

35

<p>momofthreeboys, my criticism of the current state of the University has nothing to do with the USNWR ranking. I care little for that ranking because its formula is designed for private universities. I care about the actual quality of the University. It cannot handle 27,000 undergrad. In fact, I doubt it can even handle 20,000 undergrads. And no matter how much we expand our campus or grow our endowment, no university can ever maintain the quality expected of Michigan with that many students. At most, it can handle 15,000-18,000 undergrads. </p>

<p>“Comparing UofM to Vermont or Delaware is more applies to oranges or if an engineering student looking at UofM, Kettering and Northern and perhaps State. And yes, I was thinking unemployment and wrote inflation. Guess it’s on my mind these days. A more comparable comparison would be the California System or perhaps Colorado or Texas or a handful of other states that have robust public higher education. That said the only “slippage” U of M is experiencing is slippage in the USNWR rankings, it still maintains it’s foothold in global universities.”</p>

<p>I don’t know. I think the large network of fine public universities in the state is more than sufficient. Michigan should be the “special” school reserved only for the best students…not because I care about selectivity, but because a school cannot have more than a certain number of students and still function at the highest level.</p>

<p>“To suggest that this is a “flaw” of the U of M isn’t a strong argument as other large flagships are experiencing similar affects from the methodology. If the USNWR rankings is something that isn’t very important to a person then it’s an insignificant factor. I would guess that vast, vast majority of in-state students are looking at UofM or Michigan State or one of the strong LACs in Michigan and are less concerned how UofM compares to Amhert or how colleges rank in Texas.”</p>

<p>I agree. Like I said, I am not talking about the USNWR. Clearly, it does not consider public universities when designing its formula. Obviously, the University of Michigan is excellent from an infrastructure and faculty point of view, but it is not functioning optimaly. It is so focused on accomodating the thousands of students that overpopulate the campus that it cannot effectively address more important issues. For example, where is Michigan’s multi-million, world-class, state-of-the-art career office for LSA students? Our peers at Cornell and Northwestern and Penn have them? Why not Michigan? Our LSA students must fight a little harder to find jobs or get into choice graduate programs than their counterparts at other elite universities. The difference isn’t glaring, but when you get a degree from one of the World’s top universities, you expect every advantage associated with such an honor. And where are our dozens of missing Political Science, Economics, Psychology professors that can help keep classes at a more manageable size? How about providing all our students with better financial aid? And while we’re at it, why can’t Michigan have better dorms and more of them? All of the above are expected of today’s elite universities. Michigan has the main criteria covered in spades, but we should now focus on the small details. </p>

<p>“I do think the University can trim it’s entering classes until the infrastructure can accomodate that volume of students if that is a problem. Although as a parent with #3 clearly set on being a 4th gen U of M undergraduate the prospect of increased competitiveness is somewhat fearful to think about but it is what it is. I think the concept of “there are other choices” for in-state students isn’t a valid argument for decreasing potential spots in the freshman class specifically for those students.”</p>

<p>Like I said is post #32, I understand why Michigan residents do not wish to see things change. But that does not mean that the situation is reasonable of sustainable. State residents are getting more than they are paying for.</p>

<p>“Increasing slots for OSS students to improve the economy? Not so sure. I would want to see the statistics of undergrads from other regions who stay and work in Michigan after graduation. Perhaps true of the grad schools, not certain it would play out for the undergrads.”</p>

<p>I did not say that increasing slots for OOS students would improve the state economy. I said maintaining the quality of the University is necessary for the well-being of the state economy. </p>

<p>“With regard to raising taxes to prop up U of M I would guess the residents of the state would want to see a very micro explanation of the relative need…kick the books around so to speak. The expansion of the Big House is a tough sell to the average Michigan taxpayer whose home value has declined 30-40% and has experienced unemployment or fear of unemployment. Just saying.” </p>

<p>All athletic facilities and projects are funded by private donations and athletic revenues, not by taxpayers.</p>

36

<p>I agree but the average taxpayer won’t grasp the intricacies of this pile of money funds this aspect. The taxes would need to be increased without the involvement of the public and the outcry I fear would be substantial since so many K-12 systems are in very real trouble financially. Anyone living in Michigan knows that are so many very real needs in this state. The national media focuses on California and their troubles because the conflicts are “interesting” and the state is so vast and populated but states like Michigan are still hurting beyond belief. It would be an extremely tough, tough “sell” to do anything that appears to “take away” from Michigan residents something that is rightfully “theirs.” It’s more macro than micro but if I had to craft the argument for increasing taxes or for increasing tuition I’d have many, many sleepless nights even if I understood the details.</p>

37

<p>I agree momofthreeboys. Raising taxes is definitely not the answer to American problems. And raising tuition defeats the purpose of having a public university. The only plausible solution is to reverse the in-state vs out-of-state ratio from 2:1 to 1:2 and reduce the size of the undergraduate student population from 26,000+ to 18,000 or so students.</p>

38

<p>Okay, I might get flamed here as I have become acutely aware that my thoughts on this are often deemed “socialist” but I am looking at this pragmatically as a business owner and resident in the state of Michigan.
I love UM and I love my clients, peers and pals in this state. But if the State of Michigan will not pony up its true share of support for this fine institution; if the residents, who have not had an increase to the personal income tax rate in more than 25 years and who under Blanchard actually had a decrease, can’t fund the infrastructure, then I’m afraid the equitable solution is truly very much along the lines Alexandre has proposed. Otherwise I agree that the value and prestige of UM will be in peril. If you want to be a world class university, you MUST maintain and expand your infrastructure; you MUST compete to hire the best staff; you MUST keep pace. While it’s true that inflation is quite low overall (Bearcats), it is not true that education costs, particularly in collective agerements, are not highly inflationary. They are due to provisions for healthcare. In the K12 system, increasing HR costs in healthcare delivery are causing double digit increases if all else is equal in terms of delivery cost. So, by continually DECREASING the tax funding, the state is causing an EXPONENTIAL STRUCTURAL DEFICIT in education that will, and is, eroding the infrastructure.</p>

<p>An archaic sales tax as a revenue model in a shifting economy and a personal income tax rate and system that has produced decreasing revenue over the last two decades will not (and is not) able to bridge the gaps. That said, taxation is not the only solution. I won’t get into the whole song and dance here, but suffice it to say we need innovative solutions just to MAINTAIN the existing educational infrastructure which is presently being eroded. </p>

<p>So alas, even I would say that altering the mix of IS/OOS students might be the only viable course if this state government cannot wrap its head around closing the structural deficit in Michigan education. Hard to believe, but true ;)</p>

39

<p>I agree with changing the IS/OOS ratio. Then you could raise the requirments to get in IS and raise the overall level of the university. It seems like for Engineering there are a lot more OOS students and the IS students aren’t necessarily any worse. LSA though seems like a different story. IDK how many kids I’ve seen come in from IS and then just join LSA undecided, its weird to me. Nationally the U of M is still seen as a great University, and if not so much nationally then in this area of the country. OOS kids still see it as a great school, especially engineering. Bring in more OOS kids, get more money from tuition, and raise the level of talent. There can only be so many smart kids in Michigan. By this I mean you can’t believe you can get 66% of your students IS and have them equal the best talent you could find from the rest of the country and world and have that group be half the size.</p>

<p>I also agree with cutting all the diversity and outreach directors. We aren’t the south, we can handle ourselves.</p>

<p>P.S. Did you know victims of sexual assault are not called victims anymore, they are called survivors?</p>

40

<p>As an OOS grad, I have to agree that UM is going to slowly deteriorate if it doesn’t change its ways regarding admissions and composition of the class.</p>

<p>I’ve been saying for years on this board that the acceptance rate has to dramatically drop to reduce the class size, increase the quality of the student body, maintain the quality of the teaching and keep competitive with peers. The class size is simply too big for the University.</p>

<p>If lack of funding becomes an issue because of the reduced class size, then one or two things need to happen:

  • raise tuition
  • change the OOS/IS mix</p>

<p>The above two options have both happened at all the UC’s the past two years, particularly at the expense of IS student. No one likes it, but if the state and its citizens aren’t willing to fully subsidize the costs of IS tuition at a premier university, then the beneficiaries (i.e. students) need to pony up the cost.</p>

<p>In the end, like in California, the in-state students need to either pay more tuition or concede that there needs to be more open seats for OOS students who are willing to pay more for the same education.</p>

<p>Rather than being short-sighted, IS residents need to understand that there is marginal benefit from paying lower tuition over 4 years if your degree ends up deteriorating in value long-term because of the decline of the University.</p>