<p>Quote from Article:
"In 1987, U of M was ranked the No. 8 national university by U.S. News & World Report, ahead of such schools as Columbia and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 2003, and in the same category, U of M ranks No. 25"</p>
<p>The idea has some merit--that article does not.</p>
<p>We've had a long hearty laugh at Weislak's article and the embarrassing thing is that he actually has a Michigan education. </p>
<p>First of all, he was apparently too lazy to read the US News methodology. If he did, he would see that in 1987, the ranking was based wholly on the peer rating. No other measures. So, to compare today's ranking to 1987s, you have to look in the peer rating column. At the time of Lance's writing, University of Michigan was in essentially the same place with peer rating. #8, or darn close (memory fails). I don't know how it compares this year but it is not, as his simplistic and careless comparison suggests, a drop of the magnitude from 8 to 25.</p>
<p>Lance also pulled the number for the hospital out of thin air. $600 million? Please. Way, way, way more than that, and why that number didn't seem wrong to him boggles my mind. It's worth much more, which actually suggests more bounty for U-M if they sold it, but also complicates finding this supposed buyer. Mainly though, this point just shows that this guy is real loose with numbers and accuracy.</p>
<p>First, most people who know something about U-M know that the epithets for the college are as follows:</p>
<p>University of Michigan, U-M, U of M, Michigan, etc. </p>
<p>There is and never has been the phrase "UMich". Sorry, it just gets on my nerves when people say that. </p>
<p>Anyways, I don't think privatizing is a great idea. Just because the state government is reeling right now doesn't mean Michigan should just bail out. In fact, less than 20 percent of the budget comes from the state. I actually don't know the exact number, but I am sure that the state doesn't give that much funding. The majority comes from tuition, alumni fundings, federal funding, hospital and athletic revenues, etc. </p>
<p>By that logic, all public universities in depressed states should immediately privatize. No, I believe Michigan is fine for now. Other alternatives will present themselves, don't worry.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is and never has been the phrase "UMich". Sorry, it just gets on my nerves when people say that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Au contraire--I'd have to disagree with this. Maybe it comes from people using the term so much when verbally giving out their emails to people, but I've heard "umich" creeping into usage.</p>
<p>Anyway, you're essentially right--although the state's support is dropping in both amount and as a percentage of overall revenue, it's still $300 million, and that's not a budget hole you easily fill. You cannot immediately start charging everyone the euqivalent of OOS tuition because you can only do it one class at a time. It would take a while to make up that lost state revenue, and that's a lot of years to be running lean. A lot of years for other institutions with deeper pockets to poach faculty and lure prospective students.</p>
<p>I do not think the University of Michigan should privatize, but the University of Michigan's undergraduate student body should not be made up of 65% in-state students either. Michigan should be 30% in state at the most, with at least 60% from other states and 10% international.</p>
<p>No. The University of Michigan is probably the best weapon the state has so it can compete in the future. Granholm went and put together a great team to do a report on the education and the state's economic future, and the team did great work and made extremely valuable and insightful recommendations. Higher education needs to be a priority if the state is going to compete in the future. The University of Michigan provides an education as good as any school in the country (with a better football team) with a bargain price for in-staters. If Alexandre says 65% of Michigan students are in-state, I'd think that the majority of those students would simply end up attending MSU if Michigan were privatized.</p>
<p>What really distresses me is that the state legislature has completely ignored the report and Granholm's $2 billion bond will probably be shot down because the Republicans don't want to see the Democrats look like the heroes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What really distresses me is that the state legislature has completely ignored the report
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're talking about the Cherry Commission report, I assume? I'll bet she's sorry she ever convened that group, as that report is being thrown back in the state's face at every turn. [insert wry laugh]</p>