<p>
</p>
<p>It will affect Cal and UCLA temporarily, but the schools will find ways to solve the crises eventually. They will not go down with the effect of the crises entirely just as you’re supposing. Cal and UCLA will weather the crises. They’ve been there before. They still are academic powerhouses now.</p>
<p>I think the economic problems do affect the University of Michigan. I don’t see the problems in the state as a good thing for the school. The school has adapted very well, but I’m sure it would be better for the school if both the economy and the state’s prospects were better.</p>
<p>I think the economy and California’s problems are going to hurt Berkeley and UCLA too. </p>
<p>Unlike some posters here, I don’t see North Carolina as some booming place. North Carolina may have been a booming place, but right now…I don’t think so. I have mentioned it before but a $4 billion projected deficit for a state the size of North Carolina is astronomical. ($4 billion is 20% of the state’s budget). That is going to affect the tax structure of the state, future revenue streams to schools and colleges, future government spending plans, population flows, etc.</p>
<p>The private schools are affected too. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, Dartmouth… are all cutting back. The private schools may be affected more than the public schools by the economic troubles. </p>
<p>I really don’t see too many schools that are immune from the economic problems. Are there any?</p>
<p>So to pick on any of the top schools, I don’t know … they all have problems.</p>
<p>
Michigan somehow managed to raise more than $3 billions in endowment through a campaign that ended last year. I suppose that would be impossible according to your “theory”.</p>
<p>Sometimes perception is more important than reality. Unfortunately, most high schoolers don’t consider my Wolverines to be a “top school” anymore. It has been slipping in the USNews rankings for some time now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you know what? Economic commentators were writing off New England as a declining region in the 1970s. Its manufacturing base–its traditional source of economic strength-- had dwindled to almost nothing. Unemployment rates were high, young people were leaving the region, its population was in decline and with it, its political influence. The future looked pretty bleak. And you know what pulled New England out of this spiral of decline? Its by this time well-established and well-endowed educational institutions which operated as talent magnets and spun off dozens, eventually hundreds of new and innovative businesses in emerging sectors. Massachusetts, especially, became a desirable place to live, and economic growth spread out from there. I don’t say Michigan will follow the exact same course. The University of Michigan is not complimented by as many other quality research and educational institutions as Massachusetts enjoys. But the Ann Arbor region will continue to be a strong growth area, and the University—now well established with a strong endowment and one of the most successful research enterprises on the planet—will continue to be a magnet for talent and a source of spin-off innovation and economic growth. That will make it more attractive than ever to the best and the brightest of the state’s and the region’s young people, and it will continue to draw students from outside the region, especially from the Mid-Atlantic region which faces its own economic, fiscal, and educational challenges. I actually think the University’s future is quite bright. If you’re in Michigan, it’s clearly the horse to ride, pretty much the only game in town, the only place to invest time, talent, and financial resources that offers a promising return on investment. And that will allow the University to continue to build on its extraordinary strengths in fiscal capacity and human capital for years to come. Wish it away if you will, hawkette, but the University of Michigan is actually on the upswing, not on the decline. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I concur. North Carolina is and always has been a low-income state—36th in GDP per capita, roughly the same in per capita income. Sort of a bottom-dweller, a little better off than many Southern states but not nearly as strong economically as most states in the Northeast and Midwest. Historically it’s a largely agricultural state, heavily dependent on tobacco, poultry, and hogs. But tobacco is in secular decline, and poultry and hogs not so strong, resulting in chronic decline in its small towns and rural areas. For a time in the 1960s and 70s NC benefited from transplantation of manufacturing jobs from the Northeast, especially in older industries like textiles and shoes, but these are now being outsourced to Asia, so its manufacturing base is shrinking rapidly and dramatically. (I challenge you to come up with one other manufacturing industry where North Carolina is strong; yet manufacturing has traditionally been the second-most important part of its economic base, after agriculture). The financial services industry in Charlotte was for some years a bright spot, but the Charlotte banks have now been bought out by out-of-state competitors, employment in that sector has declined sharply, and growth prospects there are bleak. The only remaining bright spots that I can see are tourism on the Outer Banks and in the Smokies–low-wage industries at best, and typically among the worst hit in a recession—and the knowledge industry in Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill. Whether the latter is strong enough to pull the state out of its economic slump remains to be seen. But I’d note it’s pretty much the same dynamic that Ann Arbor faces: can higher education and related spin-off industries grow fast enough to counter secular decline in other sectors of the economy? The decline is perhaps less obvious in North Carolina’s case than in Michigan’s as it’s not as much associated with a single high-visibility industry. On the other hand Michigan has more residual engineering and manufacturing know-how, consequently possibly more potential to catch the next big wave. As for the universities, I’d rate the University of Michigan’s financial and human capital position much stronger than the University of North Carolina’s going forward. Perhaps with a few breaks North Carolina can close the gap. But for now, it’s definitely playing catch-up, and without many factors obviously working in its favor.</p>
<p>“Sometimes perception is more important than reality. Unfortunately, most high schoolers don’t consider my Wolverines to be a “top school” anymore. It has been slipping in the USNews rankings for some time now.”</p>
<p>ring<em>of</em>fire, you are correct in your assessment. Fortunately, Michigan does not have to appeal to ALL top students, only to a few thousands each year. As long as Michigan can attract 3,000-4,000 top students annually, along with its elite faculty, world class facilities, wealth of resources, unbeatable college atmosphere and huge, wealthy and loyal alumni network, the university will remain one of the top 10 or top 15 overall academic institutions in the US.</p>
<p>And you should not forget the other two legs of the three legged stool (academe and the corporate world). Their perception matters at least as much, if not more, than the perception of high school students. The perception of Michigan in academe and the Corporate World is hard to beat. Academe will always rate Michigan between #6 and #15 in the country and corporate America thinks just as highly of Michigan as academe.</p>
<p>One of the main differences between Michigan and say Cal, UCLA, UT or UNC is that Michigan’s alumni are spread around the nation pretty evenly. That’s primarily thanks to the fact that hitorically, 35% of Michigan’s undergraduate students (that’s roughly 8,000-9,000 undergrads at any point in time) are non residents. At Cal, UCLA, UNC and UT-Austin, it is closer to 5% (at the larger schools)-20% (at the smaller schools). In terms of numbers, we are talking about 2,500-3,500 undergrads at any point in time. Michigan’s representation in NYC, DC, and aprts of the West Coast and Texas is very significant and those alums, for the most part, never lose touch with their alma matter.In the state of California, for example, Michigan alumni outnumber alums from all out-of-state/non Pac 10 universities. In NYC, Michigan alums outnumber alums from all universities save NYC, Columbia, Cornell, Penn and the CUNY/SUNY schools. In Texas, Michigan alums outnumber alums from mos’t non-Texas universities. All of those alums tend to play relatively important roles in the private and public sectors.</p>
<p>“I continue to be amazed at the head-in-the-sand thinking that I am reading here.”</p>
<p>What are we, ostriches? Some of us are capable of analysing situations objectively. You are not unique in your ability to remove yourself from a situation Hawkette.</p>
<p>“U Michigan is not an island. The environment has had an impact and there is data to support that.”</p>
<p>Care to share the data with us Hawkette? In what way is the University of Michigan’s ability to finance its operations and place its students in companies deteriorating? Recent data (last 20 years) have shown that Michigan’s endowment has grown at a faster pace than all other universities in the nation. The University is receiving less money from the state than it used to, but in all other ways, its ability to generate income has improved significantly over the years. In terms of companies recruiting on campus, I don’t think you will find many universities that attract as much recruitment activity on campus than the University of Michigan.</p>
<p>I should make it clear that I fully believe that a healthy sdtate economy would serve the University of Michigan well. However, I have seen no sign that would suggest that the Unuiversity of Michigan is negatively impacted in a significant way as a result of the state’s hurting economy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is certainly untrue. While tourism is a large industry in the state and is very prone to the ebbs and flows of the economy, other sectors of the state’s economy are booming and the state is not even close to being in an economic slump. The Raleigh-Durham area is the fastest growing metro area in the country; North Carolina as a whole is supposed to gain an extra 2 million people over the next few years. Towards the southern part of the state, Fayetteville is preparing to experience a huge economic boom as US Army Forces Command moves there from Atlanta; Fayetteville was already recognized with having the healthiest real estate market in the entire country earlier this year. Boeing also recently opened an office in Fayetteville, and will be bringing more employees as Fort Bragg continues to expand. Unemployment has dropped in every single North Carolina county since it peaked a few months ago, and Apple just revealed a plan to build a $1 billion call center somewhere in the state. </p>
<p>It is clear that North Carolina is one of the states that is best-positioned to enjoy the next 10-20 years with abundant prosperity. Sure, the rural areas and old manufacturing regions will continue to struggle, but who goes to a flagship U with the intention of becoming a farmer?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. </p>
<p>I think you need to take some time and read up on the Morrill Act of 1862 and land grant universities. In many states, unlike North Carolina, the flagship school and the land grant university are the same institution, Examples are found here in Wisconsin and at my alma mater Rutgers in New Jersey. The Morrill Act is the reason UW-Madison has a statute to Abraham Lincoln in a prominent place on campus overlooking Bascom Hill, [UW-Madison</a> > Univ. Comm. > Photo Library](<a href=“http://photos.news.wisc.edu/view.php?id=4915]UW-Madison”>http://photos.news.wisc.edu/view.php?id=4915) and [UW-Madison</a> > Univ. Comm. > Photo Library](<a href=“http://photos.news.wisc.edu/view.php?id=677]UW-Madison”>http://photos.news.wisc.edu/view.php?id=677). So, lots of kids all over the country go to their state flagship school with the intention of being farmers or working in agricultural related industries.</p>
<p>You will find the list of land grant institutions here: [PB</a> Land Grant Universities](<a href=“Cucurbit Breeding – Department of Horticultural Science”>Cucurbit Breeding – Department of Horticultural Science). You’ll note that in many southern states there are more than one of these types of schools. That’s because there were two Morrill Acts. The second in 1890 created Black land grant colleges as a way of avoiding integration.</p>
<p>The state of Michigan has two flagship schools (Michigan State and University of Michigan) although U-M is considered the top public university in the state.</p>
<p>Michigan State University (MSU) is a public research university in East Lansing, Michigan USA. Founded in 1855, it was the pioneer land-grant institution and served as a model for future land-grant colleges in the United States under the 1862 Morrill Act. </p>
<p>[Michigan</a> State University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_State]Michigan”>Michigan State University - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>alex,
My position throughout this thread has been that certain colleges are better positioned financially due to a combination of factors, eg,
<p>Based on the above, I believe that U North Carolina has the best current financial position for improving its future position. This is NOT to say that the other highly ranked publics of Virginia, California, and Michigan can’t also do well in the future. However, IMO each has some large and unique challenges and their current financial situations are presently more influenced by headwinds than tailwinds. </p>
<p>RML,
I guess one could say that “things are forever” in the world of academia as there is great, great resistance to change coupled with large institutional tenacity. That said, I think you are foolish to think that California’s economic/financial problems, if unaddressed, won’t have a serious effect on the state’s flagships. The schools don’t operate in a vacuum and they will be impacted if the world around them comes unwound. Hopefully, the folks in Sacramento will come to their senses and solve this and get the state back on a positive path. </p>
<p>bc,
If you think that the economic situation in New England and the Northeast is analogous to Michigan, I think you are stretching a mighty long way. Manufacturing mostly has left New England/ the NE to be replaced by finance as the great driver and source of wealth. Yes, there is Route 128 around Boston, but much of the manufacturing for those companies happens elsewhere. Major industrial cities in areas like upstate NY are under immense pressure as the world changes and jobs and industries either relocate or dissipate/disappear (ever been to Rochester?). </p>
<p>While NE manufacturing has been declining, Wall Street has spawned an enormous creation of wealth to fill the gap…and then some. New areas like investment management (hedge funds, private equity funds, etc.) with spillover effects into real estate, both residential and commercial, have had a ginormous effect on the local economies and on the fortunes of the historically prominent institutions of higher education in the region. Almost the whole area has seen its boat float higher as a result of this. And in turn, almost the whole area has been materially impacted by the financial market implosion of the past year. </p>
<p>I agree that the brainpower produced by its many universities in New England/the NE has been very beneficial to its economic well-being and to retaining/growing its population and jobs base. But are you claiming that the state of Michigan can duplicate this? New England/the NE boasts 10 of the top 16 most highly ranked national universities and 12 of the top 20 LACs. In the state of Michigan, after U Michigan, there is….Michigan State…and a few other colleges that no one would confuse with the great concentration of colleges in New England/the NE. Maybe you’ll be right, but you’re going to need a lot of help to make this happen, including from politicians who rarely have the courage to think beyond the next election. Heck, the state of Michigan should be doing a lot more to help U Michigan as that is its prime source for local talent. Instead, they seem to be doing less and less every year and forcing the school to financially fend for itself. </p>
<p>If you think all of this means that U Michigan is on the upswing, then go for it. I (and probably many others) would reach a different conclusion. But, as alexandre points out, the school only needs to convince about 6000 freshmen a year of the merits of your argument (and of course top faculty and top graduate students). Given the school’s assets and the relative value that it offers to IS undergrads, this shouldn’t be that difficult to do. Your and others’ characterizations notwithstanding, my projections of trends benefiting North Carolina do not mean that I am projecting or wishing for the disappearance of U Michigan. The school will survive just fine, and maybe even thrive as you insist, but my belief is that the surrounding economic environment is a large force that cannot be dismissed quite as readily as I’ve read here.</p>
<p>My position throughout this thread has been that certain colleges are better positioned financially due to a combination of factors, eg,
<p>If you read what Bain has to say about UNC…</p>
<ol>
<li>The school’s operating structure is bloated.</li>
<li>Yes…they have room to increase tuitions and the school will have to because state support is going to decrease.</li>
<li>Don’t see how the ability to provide financial aid is improving for UNC.</li>
<li>Yes. True.</li>
<li>Maybe.</li>
</ol>
<p>dstark,
Extend your analysis to the other four publics that we’re discussing and see what you come up with. I am curious to read your comparisons. </p>
<p>And U North Carolina does not need to improve its financial aid. It already gets an A+ for being able to meet 100% of the demonstrated need for all classes of students.</p>
<p>The same argument could be made for many privates lacking substantial endowment and research funding and relying significantly of tuition income. Several Top 50 schools probably fall under this.</p>
<p>I really don’t know the analysis for the other schools. You don’t either.</p>
<p>I believe that UNC’s great financial aid policies are going to worsen.</p>
<p>I didn’t see Bain’s reports for the other schools.</p>
<p>I’m not saying UNC will do better or worse than the other schools.</p>
<p>I don’t know. You don’t know either. For some reason, that doesn’t seem to stop you from expressing your over and over.</p>
<p>I can guess for UC Berkeley…</p>
<p>"My position throughout this thread has been that certain colleges are better positioned financially due to a combination of factors, eg,
<ol>
<li>Berkeley is going to have to lower it’s operating cost structure.</li>
<li>UC Berkeley has lots of room to increase tuition revenue.</li>
<li>UC Berkeley does not have more capacity to increase financial aid.</li>
<li>Yes. True.</li>
<li>Yes. Much better than UNC’s.</li>
</ol>
<p>How is UCB’s “regional economy” much better than UNCs? UNC is located in the midst of the fastest growing metro area in the country and the number one city in the country to do business. UCB is located in a state that is about to be bankrupt.</p>
<p>Yeah right.</p>
<p>The area around UNC is much more vibrant than the area around Berkeley.
Yeah the SF Bay Area sucks.</p>
<p>The budget deficts for California and North Carolina are very similar… percentage wise.</p>
<p>I know how much people like to use percentages.</p>
<p>Cuse, maybe if you included some citations peope could better address your posts, same goes for a few others.</p>