<p>Basketball is definitely a weakness. I really don't understand what's taking so long. NCAA sanctions on the program were lifted 4 years ago. You would expect Michigan to be in a position to at least compete for the conference title, but it is not even close.</p>
<p>is Michigan Mechanical Engineering really ranked #2? I thought it was 4th. WOW Now I can brag to my friends about my major. I am also excited about Hockey, Michigan Hockey has been always good. We should have beaten Notre Dame this year.</p>
<p>I think it was #2 a couple of years ago but has dropped back to #4 last year. Definitely one of the top 5 Mechanical Engineering departments in the US.</p>
<p>The real problem with Michigan is that half of its board of Regents is made up of people who never attended the university in the first place. How can non-Alums dictate how to run the school? They lack decision making from the students' POV. They have no respect for Michigan traditions (the Diag gradutaion fiasco) and shamelessly put money only into ventures that will create a bigger profit for themselves (Crisler, the Big House, etc). What they SHOULD be doing is investing in their student body. That means lower tuition, a smaller entering class size (especially in regard to good for nothing in-state kids), and slightly increased salaries for professors (so they don't jump ship like they recently did in the PoliSci department). They should work to improve the overall quality of the school; more outlets in the UGLi and wireless access in all of the libraries would be nice to name a few things. If the school invests in its students, one day those same students will be more inclined to give back. Not only would this be good for the school financially, but it would also make our rankings go up (alumni contribution %).</p>
<p>Something that I just found out was that the Regents are elected in a <em>state-wide</em> election only; the procedure should be revised to include all alumni in voting and exclude non-alums from the board. Michigan administration should be reserved for those who understand the school and its students, not for rogue state residents who want to make a buck for themselves.</p>
<p>On that note, I'd like to say despite its problems I have great pride in going to school here. You can't truly love a place without recognizing its shortcomings.</p>
<p>Go Blue!</p>
<p>Excellent point inspirdbyacause. There seems to be a lot of outsiders involved in the decision making process of the University of Michigan. That never happens at private universities.</p>
<p>"shamelessly put money only into ventures that will create a bigger profit for themselves (Crisler, the Big House, etc)."</p>
<p>You realize that the athletic department is financially self-sufficient, and pays for its own facilities upgrades, right?</p>
<p>Everything is under the discretion of the regents. There are departments within the school that can function independently but when it comes down to it, the board has the final say and veto power on everything.</p>
<p>How do Regents make bucks for themselves? How do the Big House renovations "profit" the Board of Regents? They get some perks, not all of which I agree with, but they don't get cash and they are all supposed to disclose conflicts of interest and not vote on issues that would benefit them personally.</p>
<p>It is true that the Regents vary in knowledge, and willingness to learn about higher ed administration and finance. Some Regents are wonderful because they are dedicated, and some are wonderful because they are not afraid to ask hard questions of the University. Some are not so wonderful. But personal greed is not a problem I'd charge them with.</p>
<p>WSU, MSU, and U-M Regents are all elected statewide. There are pluses and minuses to this.</p>
<p>"Everything is under the discretion of the regents. There are departments within the school that can function independently but when it comes down to it, the board has the final say and veto power on everything."</p>
<p>But you were saying that the Regents were putting money towards the stadium instead of the students. That's simply not the case when all the funding for the stadium renovations are coming from the athletic department, and wouldn't be going to the students anyways.</p>
<p>In response to hoedown, if you think of the Regents as CEOs and the university as a publicly traded corporation, as stock goes up (more business, more investors, etc.) so do dividends. Ideally these dividends should be put back into the corporation (school) so that it benefits it in some way. Dividends can also be used to finance "efficiency incentives" for the board, meaning higher paychecks. Do I think the Regents benefit in some way from more business in the form of an enhanced athletic program? Yes, I do. I mean I don't know why they wouldn't want to make profits seeing that they have no emotional ties to the school because they were <em>never students there</em>.</p>
<p>yes its true that Wayne state, MSU, and Michigan have Regents that are elected by the state. But not only is Michigan a school that is of a different caliber than its state counterparts, Michigan also has a higher percentage of students who come from out of state. I don't think any school should be run by a board of Regents that are not alumni of that school. It doesn't make any sense. How can people who have never been through the system and culture of a particular school hope to be in charge of it? I don't know much about MSU or WSU, but they should also be run by their respective alumni. I am not focusing on either of them because I am an out of state student at Michigan so they don't really affect me as much.</p>
<p>In response to dilksy, the athletic department does have some of its own money that it gets through ticket sales, sponsors, donations, etc. Thats their money to do whatever they want with. I have no gripes with that and even if I did, there would be no point to it because in money that is given <em>directly</em> to the athletic department can be used in whatever way the department sees best. However, the school (aka Regents) does invest part of the endowment in the athletic department because it seen as a way of make a higher return (it makes sense, big sports schools' athletic departments are cash cows). What I'm saying is that some of this money should be redirected toward the students. It would be an investment all the same, except in a different area.</p>
<p>it seems like i killed this thread. lol.</p>
<p>Don't worry inspirdbyacause, this thread had already run its course. 400+ posts on why a single university is awesome is more than sifficient.</p>
<p>Just to be clear, Regents don't get salaries here. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, the school (aka Regents) does invest part of the endowment in the athletic department because it seen as a way of make a higher return (it makes sense, big sports schools' athletic departments are cash cows).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What part of the endowment is invested in the athletic department? </p>
<p>Does the athletic department have endowment funds? Yes, funds that donors originally designated as being for the athletic department. That isn't a Regent decision. It's a donor decision.</p>
<p>It appears that the Regents serve without compensation. I stand corrected but only on that one point.</p>
<p>I have already acknowledged that money made/acquired by the athletic department independently can rightfully be spent on whatever the athletic department wants, be it a new stadium, new jerseys/equipment, etc. I have no quarrel with this. BUT, there is money that the school as a whole puts into the athletic department, just as they do with academics, student affairs, and other channels. This is the money that the Regents have a final say in, and this is the same money that can and should be redirected toward the students. To quote from their own website, the Regents "have control and direction of all expenditures from the institution's funds." My argument is why can't the Regents simply redirect some of the athletic money toward lowering tuition, or more electrical sockets in the ugli? Furthermore, why are there people serving on the Board of Regents who never attended Michigan in the first place? Why aren't alumni outside the state included in the voting process for electing Regents? Alumni and only alumni should be in charge of calling the shots, not some no-name from randomtown, MI. Its ridiculous.</p>
<p>The regents at Michigan love the university. Whether they attended there or not makes no difference. The athletic budget is self sufficient. You really can't expect them to redirect their funds back into the university, just like you can't expect any other department to send back it's allocations. Also, don't kid yourself, athletics is a HUGE part of the Michigan experience. Alumni give more money because of the quality of the teams. That's money to ALL parts of the university. Athletics is what brings more Michigan people together than all other events. More people on campus and more national exposure on television means more money to the school overall.</p>
<p>novi, I agree that Sports are a big part of the university. I am also sure that most regents, whether alums or not, care about the University. However, I don't think non-alum regents know or understand what alums and current students want.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BUT, there is money that the school as a whole puts into the athletic department
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Could you clarify this point? What dollars flow from the University to the athletics department? </p>
<p>As we've said before, athletics is run as an auxiliary unit. It makes its money through donations, ticket sales, licensing, and so forth--not from allocations from the University. It is entirely self-funding. Athletics dollars flow to the University (in the form of remittance for athletic tuition), not vice versa. That is, the University doesn't let scholarship athletes enroll gratis--it bills the athletics department for their tuition, which the athletics department then pays.</p>
<p>Given this relationship I don't yet understand your point above about how the Regents are enriching themselves or diverting money away from other things towards the stadium (or anywhere else in the athletics department).</p>
<p>I know this is the wrong place to post this, but I would really like to hear your guys input, i've read this thread through and through, and all of you seem brilliant! I live in Michigan, and i'm a junior, will be a senior after this summer. I want to get into some good colleges such as U of M, and Lyman Briggs of MSU (i've heard its as good as if not better than U of M's premed/sciences program). As a fellow CC member could you please evaluate my chances:</p>
<p>Race: South Asian</p>
<p>GPA: 4.0 unweighted, i dunno weighted
Rank: 1(out of 604)
ACT: 30 but shooting for a 33
SATI: - will take soon
PSAT: 192
SAT II: Math2-710 Bio-770
I've taken AP Bio(5) and AP Calc(5) as a junior, i'll be a senior soon and will take AP Chem, dual enroll in Calc II and III and might take AP History.</p>
<p>Health experience: Physician shadowing (100+)
Nursing home (100+)
Emergency Room (50+)
Medical Research (250 +)
Volunteering: Big Brother once a week(50+), Hindu Temple (50+)
Freshman tutor (plan to be next year)
EC's: NHS, Chess club, UNITE club, and Anime Club (of course lol)
Job Experience: Kumon; tutoring kids in math and reading. 12 hrs a week.</p>
<p>Your input would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to recommend any other colleges i should apply to.</p>
<p>^^ Accepted.</p>
<p>Thanks! Is there a possibility in honors or no?</p>