<p>In 1959-60, over 75% of the university's general fund each year came from state appropriations. Now, it's 25%. The percentage gets lower every year. See:</p>
<p>The university is merely quasi-public these days and is IMO only somewhat beholden to the people of Michigan, but not as much as you feel. What UM does get from the state these days is basically a subsidy, which IMO is paid back by what UM returns to the community -- jobs, research developments, prestige to the state, educated populace, federal research money going into the state, etc -- not to mention much lower in-state tuition for residents. Moreover, even top private universities receive state funding directly and often indirectly, in the form of research grants, student scholarships, no property taxes, etc. No one says these universities are beholden to every qualified student in the state.</p>
<p>Even if you consider UM public, UM is not the only public school in the state. Not everyone deserves to go to Michigan just because they grew up in the state and finished in the top 10% of their class, just like not every Californian who graduates in the 10% gets to go to Berkeley. There's MSU and there's other publics in the state.</p>
<p>Therefore, I still think that Michigan's goal should be to lower the number of students it accepts every year and the acceptance rate. It lowers the strain on resources of the university, lowers the class size, enhances the desirability of the university, enhances the caliber of the incoming student, and may even enhance the rankings, among other things. I think Michigan can do all this while still accepting a fair number of Michigan residents.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The university is merely quasi-public these days and is IMO only somewhat beholden to the people of Michigan, but not as much as you feel.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not telling you what I feel. It's the reality of how many people feel. And how legislators feel--and their constituents. Ask U-M's government relations people. I may wish that people see things as you do, but they don't--at least not the ones who make themselves heard loudly in Lansing and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Check the recent letters to the editor that have been coming out even since U-M altered its domestic partner benefits policy. Check the tone--it's all a about how U-M must bend to the will of the people. Just the other day someone demanded that Mary Sue Coleman should resign because "taxpayers pay her salary." Uh, no, they don't. But he said it, and the paper published it like it was legit, and I'll bet hundreds of readers were nodding in agreement.</p>
<p>Glock, if you mean the yield rate, then yes, I think Michigan will probably be slightly more circumspect in its approach to admissions next year. Instead of assuming a 40% yield rate, as it seems to do, it will probably assume a 45%-50% yield rate and accept the remaining students from the Wait List...if required. Next year, Michigan should receive close to 30,000 applications and, assuming Michigan will again aim for a Freshman class of 5,500, Michigan will probably accept 12,000.</p>
<p>But for a number of reasons, I don't generally say anything here that U-M doesn't make public. Its "targets" are usually revealed when they talk about how the class is shaping up or how many ended up enrolling. They don't discuss targets before that, in part because they sometimes change midyear.</p>
<p>So , that means we don't know for sure if UM aims for 5500 or 6400. The 5500 figure is speculated through talks about how the class is shaping up? Not that this really matters :s...</p>
<p>I cannot think of a time in recent memory that Michigan aimed for a class of 6400. I can't imagine how that would be possible, given the challenge that a class of 6000 placed on U-M last time that many enrolled.</p>
<p>I would think that hoedown is pretty accurate with her figures...I've seen 5500 repeated in this forum as the target many times over the course of the year.</p>