Is Michigan weak in any way?

<p>Quincy, don't you think that one reason the Michigan Universities are growing is because many kids, like my own, have the Michigan Education Trust (which pays tuition) and now the Governor has decided kids can only get the Michigan Merit Award money if they stay instate?</p>

<p>What I am saying is that the Michigan Education Trust was started 18 to 20 years ago and all the parents who bought it for their babies now have kids that are college age. You can't leave Michigan kids out of Michigan colleges! The big political thing is right now to keep Michigan kids in the state.</p>

<p>Syanne, if the students are qualified (among the top students in the applicant pool) and as long as they allow the University of Michigan to remain a competitive institution, I agree with you. But at the end of the day, if Michigan wants to remain a top 100 university (to say nothing of remaining a top 10 or 15 university), Michigan has to be able to afford the state of the art facilities and faculty to support a large student body and the University should keep its student population diverse enough (at least a third of the undergraduate student body should remain OOS and 5% should be international) for all students to have enough exposure to various cultures and mindsets. As it stands, Michigan is struggling to do so with 25,000 undergrads and it cannot simply fill the entire class with in-staters because at that point, we would lose the ability to expose students to the benefits of diversity.</p>

<p>I wouldn't want to see the entire class be in state but I also don't think it should lower it to very few in state students either. From what I've heard, all the Michigan public colleges are expecting a larger number of applicants this year.</p>

<p>I agree that the largest contigent should be from Michigan. I think 45%-50% of the total undergraduate student body should be from Michigan. No more and no less. Less would not be fair to the state of Michigan, more would not be fair to the students at Michigan, who will lose out from having too homogenious a student population.</p>

<p>Especially since Umich is a public university paid for by Michigan taxpayers! It would be different if it were a private university.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.umich.edu/%7Epog/speeches/051024crains.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.umich.edu/~pog/speeches/051024crains.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think it should definitely be higher than 50%. What good is a public university if most of the public that pays for it can not qualify to go to it?</p>

<p>Wow, if it became a private university then most Michigan residents would not be able to afford or have the qualifications to go to it. That would be sad.</p>

<p>roughly 56% of UMICH comes from michigan other 34% come elsewhere...its on the website</p>

<p>Shyanne, more than 50% will hurt the students' exposure to true diversity. If Michigan were the size of a country (like Texas or California) with a very diverse population of over 30 million people, I would say that a large in-state ratio could still work. But Michigan is a small and relatively homogenious state with a population of 10 million.</p>

<p>"roughly 56% of UMICH comes from michigan other 34% come elsewhere...its on the website"</p>

<p>Please tell me you're not a student here...</p>

<p>56+34 != 100</p>

<p>Individual departments are certainly solid, but Michigan as a whole doesn't have a signature, a particular identity; you can be at Berkeley or Cornell for a few minutes and get a feel for the rhythm and atmosphere. At Michigan, there really is no rhythm nor atmosphere.</p>

<p>What? You have got to be kidding! The University of Michigan has a very distinct feel and culture and an incredible college atmosphere.</p>

<p>OK, I'll bite... What exactly is the signature/identity for Berkeley or Cornell? If you can describe that, may be I can tell you about Michigan.</p>

<p>^^I quite agree with President Coleman that privatizing a great public U like U-M undermines the principle for which it was created -- a university primarily for the education of the people of Michigan. At the same time, the daunting State funding issues seem destined to create 2 universities on one campus: a large undergrad school propped up by both tuition and private endowments which replace the losses in state funding coupled with smaller, elite units, principally at the graduate level. At the same time, the potential for widening the quality gap, undergraduate-wise, between top publics and top privates, appears great as struggling states like Michigan become increasingly stingy towards its Flagship U.</p>

<p>All this makes me believe that some other Western nations – Canada and England, among them -- have gotten it right: that is in having no private colleges at all; all universities are public. This also tends to recognize the importance of major public research universities in rebuilding their respective state's economy. Wouldn't you think a struggling state like Michigan, with not 1, but 2 national research universities recognize this? In this country, our greed and short-sightedness always keep getting in the way.</p>

<p>Quincy, Michigan has many alternatives. I personally believe part of Michigan's charm is the fact that it is a state university. I don't think the university would benefit from going public. On the other hand, there are many things the University can do to improve and remain a top undergraduate institution. </p>

<p>The first is to limit its size. I always say it and I will continue saying it. Michigan should not have more than 20,000 undergrads. I think 15,000-17,000 would probably be ideal. </p>

<p>The second is to limit the number of in-state students to 40%-50%. Over 50% would hurt diversity and the bottom line, both of which impact the quality of the institution directly. </p>

<p>In short, I too quite agree that privatizing a great public U like U-M undermines the principle for which it was created -- a university primarily for the education of the people of Michigan. However, I will make one addition to this statement. The primary function of the University of Michigan is to offer the best education possible to the residents of Michigan. As it stands, Michigan is not quite where it should be, precisely because it does not adhere to the two points listed above.</p>

<p>yeah. i think if umich went private, it would be up there with upenn.</p>

<p>Forgiven, Michigan, as an overall university, is already up there with Cornell and Penn. Ross isn't up there with Wharton, but then again, with the exception of HBS, Kellogg and maybe SBS and Chicago Business School, no business program matches Wharton.</p>

<p>I reiterate that a point being missed here is that, while UM is a high quality university, it has stood for, throughout its history, for the popularization of education not academic exclusivity; that quality academics be accessible to individuals regardless of income and, sometimes, this also meant that some who don't have THE HIGHEST stats get in... One of UM's past presidents (Hutchens? Ruthven?) coined the phrase: 'an uncommon school for the common man.' – btw, not unlike what the 1st president of rival-then Michigan State Agricultural College said this 1st land grant college: “Good enough for the proudest and cheap enough for the poorest.” … In the late 1800s, Harvard pres Charles Elliot attacked UM for its policy of accepting all graduates of state certified HS's without examination. It's why, for most of its history, U-M's been among the largest U's in America...</p>

<p>So as you can see, this idea that U-M should revert to a privately-funded elite school on par w/ a Penn or Cornell or Dartmouth in terms of size, stats, and even tuition (which there are some parallels, now, viz out/state tuition) is counterintuitive... I think that's why Pres. Coleman's comments are dead on the money.</p>