<p>I got this update in my email:</p>
<p>Tenisghs, I am fairly certain that if Michigan were to privatize, it will not happen in the immediate future. It would most likely happen in the mid-long term (definitely not before 2013). President Coleman will not just come out and say that privatization is on the table. The University (and the State) will only release confirmation once the details have been ironed out and all questions have been answered.</p>
<p>If you asked me 2 years ago if Michigan were to privatize, I would have told you that it would be possible but unlikely. But if James Duderstadt has mentioned the possibility of such an event, then it must be conceptually possible. The man was president of the University for 10 years afterall. Personally, for the last two years, I have been saying that Michigan could benefit a good deal from privatizing if the state did not change its approach to the University. It is unfortunate because I reallly like the fact that Michigan is public. however, if I had to chose between Michigan remaining public and decline further or Michigan privatizing and regaining its position, I would obviously chose the latter. </p>
<p>At any rate, like I said above, privatization will not happen any time soon.</p>
<p>From today's Detroit News...</p>
<p>University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman wants to set the record straight: U-M has no plans to become a private university. </p>
<p>Coleman was surprised by an "incorrect" report in Time Magazine that suggested U-M is being forced to privatize due to budget pressures from the state. </p>
<p>"No such discussions are under way, nor are they being considered," Coleman wrote in a letter to Time, refuting the April 23 article. </p>
<p>In 2008, a state commission work group charged with suggesting ways to cut government spending floated a proposal to eliminate U-M's $326 million state appropriations. But even the head of the work group acknowledged the idea was unlikely, and it didn't gain traction in Lansing. </p>
<p>But the recent Time article reported that this year's graduating class will "walk away from the University of Michigan with a top-notch education, but also the distinction of possibly being one of the last graduating classes of a genuinely public institution." </p>
<p>Cynthia Wilbanks, U-M's vice president for government relations, stressed again this week -- as she did when the proposal first surfaced -- that no serious discussion has taken place to privatize the university. </p>
<p>"It is a provocative idea but not very realistic," Wilbanks said in a statement. "Further, it would take more than a recommendation from the commission. There would have to be legislative and citizen involvement in a decision like this that involves a constitutional change." </p>
<p>The Legislative Commission on Government Efficiency's top recommendation for cutting the higher education budget was the elimination of the Michigan Promise Scholarship. Privatizing U-M was the No. 4 suggestion. </p>
<p>Coleman sent Time magazine's editorial staff a response saying the article not only is wrong in its statement about privatization, but also in its portrayal of the university's budget situation. </p>
<p>"Due to careful management, we are in better financial shape than many of our peers, both public and private," Coleman wrote. "It is true that we have worked to boost revenues from other sources as the state's financial support has declined, but what defines a public institution goes far beyond its funding sources. </p>
<p>"U-M has an ingrained culture of serving the state and the nation through excellence in education and research, nurtured over nearly 200 years of history," the statement said. "It is our birthright, and one we treasure."</p>
<p>she obviously has to say that. we'll see in 10-20 years.</p>
<p>Alexandre, please show me the exact quote where Duderstadt "mentioned the possibility" of Michigan going private.</p>
<p>Please also provide a link, or a source for your claim that it has dropped in the rankings.</p>
<p>Chinaismine, he did not say it explicitly, but it was implied.</p>
<p>3bm103, Michigan was ranked #7 in USNWR's first ranking back in 1983. By 1990, Michigan's ranking dropped to #17. In the last ranking that came out in 2008, Michigan was ranked #26. And like I said, in the 50s and 60s, Michigan was generally considered a top 5 university.</p>
<p>Now I am the first to admit that the USNWR ranking is a load of BS, but unfortunately, that's the main ranking that students and many parents rely on when selecting universities. In the long term (15-20 years out), it will impact Michigan's overall reputation.</p>
<p>I got this email today from MSC. Sounds rather bleak:</p>
<p>To the University of Michigan Community,</p>
<p>The economic downturn that has gripped much of the world is taking its toll on universities as well, and many of our peer institutions are resorting to severe measures to cope with the crisis. U-M is also feeling the effects, and we are making some adjustments as outlined below, but at this point we dont anticipate having to take some of the harsh steps taken by others. </p>
<p>Because we have been dealing with the challenges of a declining state economy for several years now, we entered the broader downturn in a position of relative strength. Early on, we recognized the need to set priorities, cut costs, manage our investments wisely, adjust the endowment spending rule to reduce the effects of market swings, and boost fundraising, particularly in such areas as financial aid. </p>
<p>Over the last six years, we have reduced annual general fund costs by $135 million, and we continue to search for ways to trim costs and work smarter across all of our operations as we position ourselves for the future. In recent months, we have taken the difficult but necessary steps to consolidate our central IT operations, restructure the University Press, discontinue the operation of our public television station, cut back on non-patient care positions in the Health System, introduce a one-year waiting period for new employees to be eligible for retirement benefits, and increase the share of health benefit costs paid by employees. These changes alone should eventually lead to savings of over $55 million annually and help mitigate cost increases. You can read more about efforts to control costs at our cost containment site, <a href="http://www.provost.umich.edu/budgeting/CostContain-2008.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.provost.umich.edu/budgeting/CostContain-2008.pdf</a> and we invite you to send further suggestions to <a href="mailto:prudence@umich.edu">prudence@umich.edu</a>.</p>
<p>Moving forward, we are monitoring U-M finances closely, including expenses, endowment payout, and liquidity, in order to ensure the Universitys long-term health and stability as well as to maintain the quality and accessibility of a U-M education. Although we expect to complete construction already under way, we may have to delay some proposed capital projects. Meanwhile, we are aggressively pursuing increased energy efficiency through our "Planet Blue" teams and by adopting new energy efficiency standards for all new construction and renovations. We are also implementing more cost effective and strategic purchasing practices, setting new space utilization standards, and exploring possibilities for outsourcing several services. </p>
<p>In making strategic choices and preparing our budget, our top priority is our students and the academic experience we provide them. We are well aware that these are hard times for students and their families, and we want to make sure a U-M education remains accessible. While we work to keep our costs under control and increase financial aid, we are also watching such indicators as student application and yield rates, student requests for emergency loan funds, and changes in students ability to return to campus each semester. </p>
<p>Thanks to the generosity of our donors, we raised an additional $545 million for financial aid during our recently completed capital campaign. Endowment funds donated for student support have been central to our ability to increase financial aid at a greater rate than tuition for the last six years. More than ever, private support is more critical to our future, and the University will continue to ask its donors and alumni to invest in U-M. </p>
<p>More help for students is also on the way from the federal government. An estimated 22,000 U-M families will be able to take advantage of the $2,500 tax credit made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Act also provides for an increase in the maximum Pell Grant by $619 to $5,350. And an additional $1.6 million will provide funding for about 440 more work-study jobs.</p>
<p>We are also looking beyond the downturn to lay the groundwork for the longer term. As an educational institution, our greatest assets are our faculty and staff, and it is critical that we remain competitive in attracting and retaining them even in these difficult times. We expect to stay on track with the plan to hire 100 interdisciplinary faculty over the next few years, strengthening our programs in emerging fields critical to career opportunities for our students and ultimately to the health of our economy and society. </p>
<p>Our research enterprise, which was at $876 million last year, is expanding this year and we are pursuing the opportunities for further growth under rising federal research funding. As we win research grants, we enhance the work of our faculty, the educational experience of our students, and the financial stability and impact of the University.</p>
<p>No doubt, there will be more difficulties ahead, and we are prepared to make further adjustments as necessary. We are confident that by managing our finances carefully, and continuing to invest in the future, we will not only weather this storm, but we will emerge a stronger institution. In doing so, we will be better able to serve the needs of our students, and to help pave the way to a more robust economy for the state, the region, and the nation. </p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Mary Sue Coleman
President</p>
<p>Luckily, Michigan depends less on its endowment than most of its peers. Only 8%-12% of Michigan's operating budget (not including the hospital in this figure) comes from its endowment. At many of its peers, particularly those that are private, over 20% of their operating budget comes from their endowment.</p>
<p>hey i would be ****ed if they cut their lower in state qualifications...its these in-state students that make college actually fun instead of having a bunch of super smart nerds running around. College is about the full expirience, which is not very well-rounded at some of the top institutions in the country. Its not about what companies will place you where, its all about how much fun you will have and how happy you will be</p>
<p>I recall a Detroit News article a few weeks ago about some Democrats trying to push legislation for tuition-free education at Michigan public colleges for in-state kids. This would be a nice incentive to move to Michigan. If somehow they are successful in a new law making public universities in Michigan tuition-free for in-state kids, these poor kids would get screwed with UM privatization.</p>
<p>greg7, there is no way that would ever happen.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now I am the first to admit that the USNWR ranking is a load of BS,
[/quote]
Besides using a load of BS (your words) as your proof that Umich has declined in the rankings, you actually kept all those records dating back to 1983? Or are they available online?</p>
<p>Admittedly I don't have written proof that Umich is still highly regarded and maybe even more so than it was back when I was applying. Of course, I could just write it down and claim it's proof. My criteria is that in my day, you could get in with much lower grades and test scores than it takes now. Parents my age are astounded when they find out that their children can't get in with the same stats that we had. </p>
<p>And you're right in that my perspective as a life long Michigan resident is much different than yours. Privitizing Umich would encourage many more of our brightest students to leave the state never to return. We're struggling enough here.</p>
<p>U.S</a>. News Rankings Through the Years</p>
<p>2008 is not included in the report above, but Michigan was ranked #26 in 2008.</p>
<p>And 3bm103, all universities have become more selective over the years. Chicago and Johns Hopkins used to accept 50% of their applicants back in the late 80s and early 90s. They now accept 25% of their applicants. Cornell, Culumbia and Penn all used to accept 40% of their applicants back in the late 80s and early 90s. They now accept under 20% of their applicants. Harvard, Yale and Princeton all used to accept 20% of their applicants back in the late 80s and early 90s. Today, they all accept fewer than 10% of their appicants. I personally would not have been accepted into Michigan had I applied today. I was a 3.4 student! Times have changed. We live in a far more competitive world. </p>
<p>"And you're right in that my perspective as a life long Michigan resident is much different than yours. Privitizing Umich would encourage many more of our brightest students to leave the state never to return. We're struggling enough here."</p>
<p>Have you been reading posts written by your "best and brightest"? They are leaving the state of Michigan in favor of schools such as Dartmouth, Duke, Northwestern and Penn. Those schools aren't better than Michigan, but because they feel the University of Michigan is not prestigious enough...and because it is supposedly "easy to get into" (42% acceptance rate), they feel obligated to leave the state. Their logic, flawed as it may be, is quite simple. They have worked hard for 4 years of high school. Why should they attend the same school that some weaker student got into. It makes no sense, but there you have it. And how can you blame them. Michigan is ranked #26 in the country. Those other schools are ranked between #7 and #12 in the country. That may be meaningless to recruiters and graduate school adcoms, but it means a lot to impressionable high school students. If the University of Michigan cannot find a way to make itself more appealing, you will keep on hemorageing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Have you been reading posts written by your "best and brightest"?
[/quote]
Your perspective comes from the people posting on CC and mine comes from living with them. There will always be those that leave for the "prestige". But there are many, many more that were admitted to Ivy League and privates schools that chose UMichigan for the cost. If the cost ended up being the same, more would leave. My son, for example, was admitted to Notre Dame, Northwestern, Kalamazoo and others but chose Umich because it's hard to turn that down. One of his best friends was accepted to Yale and made the same choice. I could go on and on, but you're going to believe what you want to believe. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And 3bm103, all universities have become more selective over the years
[/quote]
Not all. Just the very selective ones. There are some that are easier to get into now that 30 or 50 years ago.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the University of Michigan cannot find a way to make itself more appealing, you will keep on hemorageing
[/quote]
The hemorrhaging will be much greater if it charges in state students the same as out of state. The brightest will definitely leave.</p>
<p>3bm103, I'm also a lifelong Michigan resident. As Alexandre said, many of my high school classmates saw Michigan as a safety school. Some of us got admitted into U-M. Some of us also got admitted to Ivy League schools and peer schools (Duke, Dartmouth, Penn, Cornell, Columbia, Northwestern, etc.) Most of my friends, including me, chose to attend school out-of-state because of the college rankings, better financial aid, and a desire to experience life in more cosmopolitan cities. Metro Detroit has its share of economic problems, and it's unfortunately still struggling. Young college graduates have great difficulties finding jobs here, so they move to other cities (DC, Bay Area, NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, etc). Chicago is unofficially the Midwestern capital because there are entry-level jobs.</p>
<p>I don't regret attending Northwestern. I had access to vast resources and cultural institutions that were relevant to my specialized field. The city of Chicago was my laboratory. I made great friends and contacts. Some are even coming to Michigan for grad school because it offers high-quality programs in all fields. I don't want Michigan to become a private school. It doesn't fit its character. Michigan is still an important gem and its residents (including most Midwestern residents) value their public institutions. I want to be one of those young people who can help save the state economy and bring back Michigan to its glory days.</p>
<p>"but you're going to believe what you want to believe."</p>
<p>I believe you 3bm103. I personally chose Michigan over Brown, Cal, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Penn, and as an international student, I paid full tuition (well, my parents did!)...and I would do it again if I had to. I loved my experience at the University of Michigan. </p>
<p>And I agree that many students from the state chose Michigan over Ivy League schools and other private peers such as Notre Dame and Northwestern. I have said it all along that the University of Michigan has a lot of talent. </p>
<p>Your point is well taken. It is an angle I had not considered; talent leaving the state. Won't that talent leave the state after college any though? Those students who graduate from Michigan will probably end up going where the jobs are. </p>
<p>There is no clear cut answer to this dilemna. Ideally, the state would recognize the need for the University of Michigan to remain a top university and invest more in it.</p>
<p>I agree. Ideally the state will invest more in the university and keep it at the top. But IMHO making it private is NOT the answer.</p>
<p>Yes. Some will leave the state anyway, no matter where they go to school. The chances though, increase if they go away to school. Both my Michigan graduates, as did I, remain in the state. As a matter of fact, my youngest will be starting his Ph.D. there in the Fall and I can't picture him ever leaving.</p>
<p>...Further, intellectual capital fuels economic development, or redevelopment as the case may be.
Google didn't just happen to locate in AA.
Companies seeking highly skilled workers/innovators are typically not banging down the door of low-tax states that do NOT fund education well. The quality of life and educational opportunities available for employed families bears on those decisions. Which is why if Michigan (as a state) wants to reinvent itself (as it must) it must begin by devising an adequate funding model with respect to its contribution to U of M, as well as remedying the structural deficit in educational funding statewide overall.</p>
<p>If Michigan were to go private, it's not like Michigan residents would be completely screwed. They could still get a very affordable, quality education at MSU.</p>