Is Michigan weak in any way?

<p>"I'm working with my friends at MSU and UM to defeat Ward Connerly and MCRI and maintain Affirmative Action throughout the state. "</p>

<p>How sanctimonious of you. You know better than the majority of voters in Michigan AND you know better than the authors of the 14th amendment of the US constitution.</p>

<p>"many Asians support the concept of Affirmative Action"</p>

<p>Gow ambiguous. Can you quantify the number of Asians supporting AA and put it in a percent for us, please?</p>

<p>If there are 10 million marbles and 100,000 of them are red, I can still claim there are "many" red marbles.</p>

<p>Going private would be a disaster for U-M. It's unique because it is a superior public university and a large one. But a 40,000+ student private school? I don't think so, nor would I expect it would shrink as it is built to handle the size it is... U-M folks need to get the go-private fantasy out of their heads.</p>

<p>NYU has around 30k students and it's private. Same with USC. So I don't think a 40k student private school would be such a ridiculous idea.</p>

<p>Actually CCRunner, NYU has 41,000 students. And USC has 35,000 students. Those two schools combined have an endowment of $5.9 billion. Michigan's endowment is $7.1 billion. But being private with 25,000+ is not unusual. Boston University (27,000) and Columbia University (25,000). If Michigan wanted to be private, it could certainly manage. </p>

<p>However, I don't think it would be in its best interest to do so. Unless the state steps out of line and starts dictating to the University, there is no reason it should seek to turn private. But I certainly think the University can do more in terms of the way it structures the makeup of its undergraduate population. 65% in-state is way too much. 25% is far more reasonable. I have often said that Michigan would run optimally if it had 15,000-16,000 undergrads, 65%-75% of which should be out of staters and international. 26,000 undergrads is way too much. </p>

<p>And any talk of this top 10% rule should be dismissed immediately. I am not sure where the state comes off thinking it has any sort of leverage over UM. A state as impoverished and backwards as Michigan should get on its knees and thank the Gods (i.e., the University of Michigan) that it has a university of UM's calibre within its borders.</p>

<p>Alexandre. With all due respect, you are not a resident of Michigan nor have you ever been. This school was created by the state to give the common man an uncommon education. To say Michigan is "impoverished and backwards" is highly insulting to us residents who've lived here all of our lives. I could easily say that most middle eastern countries are impoverished and backwards, and be more accurate with my comments. You, as a resident of one of those countries, should get down on your knees and thank the gods that oil was discovered in vast quantities where you came from. Otherwise i doubt very much you would be a super moderator on these boards. Michigan is going through a tough time, we don't need to be reminded of that by someone who came to our state and took advantage of one of america's great institutions of learning. I hate to say it Alexandre, but it's people like you who have disparaged this state around the world who are part of our problem. Furthermore, if you think Michigan is so backwards, then i have to question how much of this world or Michigan for that matter you have seen? I can understand your selfish reasons why Michigan should lower it's instate numbers, I just can't accept the other comments without making some of my own.</p>

<p>I admire your loyalty to your home state Novi, and I sincerely appologize for my insulting comment...it was uncalled for. I believe that the state isn't providing nearly enough financial assistance to the University to make any sort of demand or have any lofty expectations, but I was out of order in making such a sweeping and unjustified statement. As for the Middle East, it is, I am sad to say, impoverished and backward in most corners.</p>

<p>Apology accepted Alexandre. I knew you were better than that, and you confirmed it. :-)</p>

<p>I don't know where I got the idea that NYU has 30,000 students. I probably just made it up haha.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't know where I got the idea that NYU has 30,000 students. I probably just made it up haha.

[/quote]
It's a proud college confidential tradition: make stuff up when you don't really know. ;)</p>

<p>As for the top 10% idea, another thing U-M is concerned about are the plans they're floating for a Colorado-style voucher system. No thanks.</p>

<p>Hoedown, how likely is Michigan to be forced into adopting those damaging policies? I would assume the state is powerless to force it on the University, but I could be wrong.</p>

<p>How would college voucher work? I understand that the Colorado proposal was struck down by the state supreme court?</p>

<p>Oh no, the Colorado thing has been in effect since 2005. Perhaps they struck down a voucher system for K-12, but they're already operating under vouchers for higher ed. Essentially the state gives Colorado universities a set amount per enrolled student per credit hour, and that amount comes right off each students' tuition bill. it's a paltry amount, about $2700 per full-time student.</p>

<p>Alex, the state isn't powerless in these things--U-M has a lot of constitutional autonomy but the State can put conditions on the money it provides. We count on cooler heads to vote down of the loonier ideas that some legislators float. Our VP-Government Relations is very busy. Also, one smart cookie.</p>

<p>Apparently Colorado public universities are still getting the same funding from the state, in addition to the voucher, for there is still a significant difference between in-state ($4311) and OOS tuitions ($11790). On top of that, in-state students get to apply the voucher ($1602) and pay only $2709.
ACCESS</a> Tuition Schedule | University of Colorado at Boulder Continuing Education</p>

<p>Colorado residents can also choose to use their vouchers for private schools and other OOS publics.</p>

<p>My question is then ... how can the State of Colorado afford that?</p>

<p>That's tuition for "continuing education" for non-degree candidates. Regular undergrads paid $5,418 for resident and $21,900 for nonresident at Boulder last year. Tuition has risen quite a bit since the College Opportunity Fund went into effect. Partly that's because the COF also came with provisions that got the universities out from under TABOR restrictions, but also because the funding was such a bad deal for a research U like CU-Boulder.</p>

<p>The information I have states that the voucher can NOT be used out of state. It can be used at two private schools in Colorado, but only if the student is Pell-eligible, and its value is 50% what it would be for publics.</p>

<p>The Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post have recently posted some criticism of the program and how it has not worked as intended.</p>

<p>Your question of affordability for the State is still a good one, even if the program is different from what you were told. The state slashed the stipend considerably since they first proposed it. That's why tuition has gone up--although it still remains quite a bargain for residents. Colorado institutions are have long been poorly funded and that trend has not been greatly improved by the COF.</p>

<p>My mistake. The tuition and fees for non-resident is $23,580 for 2007-08, compared to $12,210 for resident (with the voucher, resident student pays $5,922).</p>

<p>But how does it really work? How can the university afford to provide the big tuition discount for resident students if the state slashes the funding to the university considerably?</p>

<p>Since this thread has departed its original mission, I will take this opportunity to say that Michigan ROCKS! Yeah baby!</p>

<p>I haven't followed this thread, but I assume Michigan's biggest weakness would probably be their eroding football program. I also hear the girls are not the best looking. Overall, a very good school, minus those two things and the weather.</p>

<p>jec, Michigan's football program is not eroding and you heard wrong about Michigan girls. </p>

<p>Michigan's football program is two years removed from an 11-2m top 10 season, where its only regular season loss was at #1 OSU by a score of 38-41...the day after the death of Bo Schembechler. Last year wasn't a good season, but Michigan still beat PSU, Notre Dame and defending National Champions Florida.</p>

<p>As for the girls in Michigan, they are, only the whole, quite a fun, intelligent, down-to-earth and attractive bunch.</p>

<p>Well the basketball team certainly isn't strong...</p>

<p>I do like the baseball team though. Went to a few games last year and loved the new Wilpon Complex. Definitely one of the more underrated events on campus. Tickets are only $5-7 per game, and there generally is a decent size crowd at the games. It doesn't hurt that Michigan is to Big Ten baseball what Memphis is to C-USA basketball.</p>