<p>Yes, Wayne State is one of Michigan's big 3, ... and rising.</p>
<p>If Michigan turned private it would lose some of its appeal.</p>
<p>I think if it turned private (not that it will happen)..it will only become a more competitive/prestigious institution. What appeal do you speak of?</p>
<p>Can't speak for ruca, but I think he/she means it would lose the appeal of being putatively a school available mainly for the Michigan taxpayer, that offers academics comparable to some of the best private schools. If it becomes private, itself, assuming it keeps its size -- for it would be unlikely for any school to shrink significantly, it would simply be a huge, expensive school. Where's the cache or edge U-M would have, then? ... no longer would it be that "... uncommon university for the common man."</p>
<p>I think initially, Michigan would actually be hurt by going private. However, over time, Michigan would benefit. Personally, I just don't think this is the right time for Michigan to go private. However, I think forcing a 10% rule on Michigan would hurt it far more than going private. Given the choice, and assuming Michigan can do so legally, I think going private would be the lesser of both evils.</p>
<p>As a Texan, and an auto admit via the top 10% rule, I would advise you Michiganders (that's what my mom says y'all are called, and she's originally from Michigan) to contact your state legislator and vehemently oppose this law. UT has the potential and resources to become a top 5 public school if it got rid of this rule, or even made it top 5%. My dad's an alum, and the president has sent all alumni letters explaining how this year's class of freshmen (which I wont be joining) will be made up of 83% of kids who got in via the "top 10 rule", which is horrific. Many of these kids come from the Houston, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio, as well as the South Texas school districts, which are really crappy. Many kids go to UT from Brownsville (border town) or El Paso and are in way over their heads b/c their HS did not prepare them. I go to a large competitive public school in suburban Dallas, with many kids who are qualified for UT, but they are ranked in the top 15%, so they don't automatically get in, and some are rejected, while kids with lower SATs, less EC involvement are going to Austin to flunk out. I know this is their way of practicing affirmative action (I'm sure U of M knows all about that), but it is really ruining UT because they also make it impossible for OOS kids to get in because of this top 10% rule. There are tons of smart kids at UT, but there are also tons of dumb ones. U of M would go down the tube if it were forced to do this.</p>
<p>P.S. I applied to U of M and UT and got in to both. I'm not going to either, but if I only had those two, I would choose U of M in a heartbeat, just because the quality of the average student is definitely better than that of UT.</p>
<p>I don't know about a 10:90 ratio like Alexandre said...I mean I doubt U of M would ever agree to that so long as they are public. But don't ever go the other way like UT...95% in state, 5% OOS. It's a complete joke, their idea of "diversity" is having kids from all 254 Texas counties. I know schools like Berkeley are roughly the same percentage, but then again Berkeley is actually a very selective school, opposed to UT. Although I've heard UT's admit rate went down below 50% for the first time due to more applicants. But honestly there are tons of kids getting into UT (even from my area), that should not be in.</p>
<p>I full out agree with this new proposal. Coming from a rural area, it is much harder for us to get into good colleges like Michigan. This law would give people like me a better opportunity of going to college. Also, Michigan was built for the people of the state of Michigan, so there is no way the instate vs. out of state ratios will change that drastically.</p>
<p>I have tons of friends from rural Michigan who are currently attending UM. If you are good enough you will get in. And please stop with this UM is for the people of Michigan crap, that argument only works when the state is actually worth something financially (the current contribution sucks..). It is this kind of 'redneck' approach that will put UM into a toilet like the University of Texas.</p>
<p>i think most elite schools have 20-30% in-state students without an official quota. A compelling argument can be made for 50% in-state for Michigan right now. I think that would be tremendous progress over the 65% right now.</p>
<p>And this 10% law will never pass, UM is already getting the best students in the state, and in the past year after banning AA, racial distribution has remained roughly similar to the years before,plus it'll **** off many rich alumni, won't happen.</p>
<p>UT's not bad, but it could be as good as Michigan considering the endowment, if they didn't have that top 10% rule.</p>
<p>Quincy4, excellent response imo. A few other small things also make large public research U's more appealing than private schools:
- Continuing education for all in-state residents, increasing diversity
- In-state tuition creates great socioeconomic diversity by default, most private schools can't even attain it by manufacturing
- School pride not just on campus but all around the state
- Elite public schools, because they are more diverse in intellectuality of incoming students, generally have better party scenes than elite private schools
- Easier to transfer AP/IB/dual-enrollment credits
- Better course selection. More specific courses at a larger school
- Just more of everything at such a large, diverse school ^_^</p>
<p>In particular Michigan and UVA get the best of both worlds since they accept large numbers of OOS applicants.</p>
<p>"Uncommon school for the common man" -- very true</p>
<p>My take on your "socioeconomic diversity by default". I think this has changed, maybe it was the case years ago when Michigan's tuition was a couple thousand dollars and OOS tuition was cheaper. These days Michigan's OOS tuition is almost as high as the elite privates, yes it's slightly lower, but elite privates offer much better financial aid for families with income below 100k. I can't find a source, but a few years ago I read that said the average family income at University of Michigan is over 100k.</p>
<p>OOS and international students at Michigan generally come from upper-income to wealthy families. In-state students's families run the whole spectrum, from lower-cime to filthy rich. By and large, I have noticed that students at Michigan come from well-off to wealthy families.</p>
<p>here is a source I found: <a href="http://www.crlt.umich.edu/gsis/StudentProfileDatafor2006.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.crlt.umich.edu/gsis/StudentProfileDatafor2006.pdf</a></p>
<p>UM Family Income:</p>
<p>Less than $10,000/YR: 1.5%
$10,000/YR to $74,999/YR: 28.0%
$75,000/YR to $199,999/YR: 49.8%
$200,000/YR or more: 20.7%</p>
<p>I think that going private would not hurt necessarily hurt the party scene because it really is about the university and its acceptance of parties. A lot of private schools have restrictive administrations, who could care less about that.</p>
<p>I think also that the financial aid would get better because everyone would probably be paying at the rate of an OOS because they would no longer be forced to subsidize in state students. With that said, I believe that UMich would still accept a significant number of in state students because of its familiarity with the schools. </p>
<p>I don't think UVa accepts a lot of OOS students. I definitely think that UMich is one of the elite public schools that accepts OOS students. I actually think a shift towards privatization would have a major effect on individual schools. I'm sure that some programs at Michigan benefit from state funding. Those programs would need that funding from another source. Other schools in Michigan probably benefit more from private funding, these schools probably will do just the same.</p>
<p>That sounds about right keefer. Roughly a third of Michigan students come from lower income families, a third come from middle income families and a third come from upper income/wealthy families. Relatively speaking, Michigan students come from affluent backgrounds.</p>
<p>75k to 200k is a very large range
75k is middle class while 200k is quite wealthy IMO.</p>
<p>I was thinking about it, and Cornell has public prices for IS in some of their schools. I wonder if Michigan could do something of the like. Then the Michigan- Cornell comparisons would really take off, eh?</p>
<p>UVa accepts a lot of OOS students.</p>