<p>I had am interesting converstation with a person who is on the board for a mid-tier small LAC located in Michigan. He said they are hoping that U of Michigan goes private or goes through with a massive tuition and room and board hike (to $35K/yr for in state!), because the State of Michigan is broke and can't support U of Mi with the $350 million payments, thus causing this small LAC's cost to then equal U of Mi. </p>
<p>Thus this helps the LAC survive.</p>
<p>I find this hard to believe but this person has a strong financial background and knows the issues.</p>
<p>It may be inevitable Coolbreeze. Eventually, the University of Michigan may be better off becoming private and this may also serve the state of Michigan best. As it stands, the state funds less than 7% of the University of Michigan's operating budget. This is alarmingly low and the trend points to it dropping to less than 5% in the coming years.</p>
<p>So tell me Alexandre the list of public universities that have gone private in this country. Michigan will NEVER go private. The people of this state will not permit it to happen.</p>
<p>Can't they just relax OOS standards to equal in-state and admit more for the higher tuition? Alexandre would know, but I don't think there's a certain % that has to be in-state.....</p>
<p>It appears from this year's stats threads that they may have already started doing this (the results around here support that as well....)</p>
<p>Here is a recent article from the Michigan Daily that talks about the benefits of umich going private. After reading this i have come to the conclusion that while it may hurt the instate students by raising tuition, it will be much better for the university as a whole. </p>
<p>There is no doubt that Michigan would benefit a great deal from turning private. Personally, I think Michigan should remain public, but it should limit its in-state class to 20% rather than 65%.</p>
<p>I don't see how going private will be better than public as it is now. </p>
<hr>
<p>University of Virginia
University of California- Los Angeles
University of California- Berkeley</p>
<p>All the universities listed above are getting enough funds where there is no need for them to go private etc.... Most of UC's students are California residents.</p>
<p>Alexandre^^so you are advocating that no more than 20% comes from in-state?....Wouldn't the taxpayers stage a munity? does any other state have such a low in-state mandate? or do I misunderstand?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Michigan residents are not rational when it comes to this subject.
[/quote]
Haha Alexandre...a resident alum and perfectly "rational" since I have no problem with the U going private...for the reason stated below...having two kids who will not be educated at the U. </p>
<p>From the above-referenced Michigan Daily article:
[quote]
Why should taxpayers who aren’t attending the University pay for those who are? A better system of financing is one in which the University charges equal tuition to all and offers financial aid based on need, not residency. This way, the University can be accessible to those living outside the state, and taxpayers who have nothing to do with the University won’t be forced to pay for it.
<p>It should go private. It makes perfect sense. Rather than charge OOS students an arm and a leg to attend keep tuition high and give out aid to those that really need it, whether from Michigan or not. It is nearly impossible for a middle class kid to afford the place.</p>
<p>Impossible for a middle class kid from Ohio to afford it. Affordable for middle class Michigan residents though.</p>
<p>It's garbage to claim that Michigan residents who don't attend the school don't benefit from the university. The university is a huge boost to the state's economy. Companies can come to U-M needing research done. It's Michigan residents who benefit from this kind of partnership. It is like infrastructure spending...I pay for that highway in Ohio through my tax dollars even though I might never travel on it...but that highway does help the economy by improving the flow of goods and services, which could ultimately result in more business for me, lower prices as a consumer, etc.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I know you have been a huge booster for privatization, because you think it will improve class quality so much. Based on what you know about the leadership at U-M, think about it...are they going to drastically increase the quality of the incoming class, or are they just going to put a huge focus on "diversity."</p>
<p>Once again I will state that here is no way that the university will ever become private. Remember one of the original mottos of the school? "An uncommon education for the common man." Billions of tax dollars have been poured into the U-M university over the years and the state of Michigan is not going to just say, "go private." It seems the only people who are pushing for the school to go private are the ones who don't live here. It's not that hard to get instate tuition. Just come with your whole family here a year before you decide to attend and gain residency. Bring some businesses with you too, we need the work around here.</p>
<p>Alexandre, your bias truly shows when you say Michigan residents aren't rational. The university of Michigan was founded to serve the people of Michigan. As it, along with it's repuation, grew it was more saught after by OOS and international students such as yourself. We have no problem with this because it adds to geographic and cultural diversity (plus the OOS tuition doesn't hurt the university either.) However, it should continue to serve Michigan foremost. Calling for UM to remain public with a 20% in state enrollment is rediculous. The university became the institution it is by serving Michigan, and it shouldn't have to abandon it's purpose because of the tremendous global success it has earned in the process. I can see 50%, but 20% is out of the question.</p>