<p>Jack, I believe you mean well, but I think you are confusing several issues. You have many types of universities, and although status as a private or public university can (though not always and certainly not in the case of the selective and wealthy publics such as Michigan and UVa) influence the type, it does not define it entirely. Michigan is a research university that places an important emphasis on undergraduate culture and education. The school would not be as vibrant and spirited as it is if it weren’t undergraduate-focused. I am going to comment on each of your points below in an attempt to clarify things:</p>
<p>“1. I wans’t really trying to align myself with anybody. I was just trying to say that a meaningful discussion about where University of Michigan is investing their money would be more relavant and interesting to most readers. For example, it would be interesting and helpful to me to understand the trade off between 100 million for more research space vs. higher tuition. Personally, I’m for the research space, but its complicated. On the other hand I’d understand why an in-state Michigan student might not be for the research space. Also, I am curious how the research space well be used by the undergrads. I was hoping to be corrected with some good examples of how it be used.”</p>
<p>Michigan is a research university and as such, not all of its spending will be on undergraduate students. Some of its spending will be on graduate programs and some of its spending will be on facilities and maintenance. However, that does not mean that the university does not invest on undergraduate students. Much of Michigan’s spending over the last few years has been on dorm renovations (South Quad, Helen Newberry, Mojo etc…) and the building of new dorms (North Quad etc…) and the upgrading of academic buildings that is used by both undergraduate students and graduate students alike. The building of the new Ross building will also benefit undergrads as much as graduate students, since 1,100 of Ross’ 2,000 full time students are undergrads. The buying of the Pfizer facility was an investment which will help the University in the future and undergrads will benefit from it too as they will get the opportunity to work on research projects.</p>
<p>“2. I was neither trying to say Michigan is on par with Ivy league or not on par. Honestly, I don’t care that much, and would even go so far as to say that Michigan’s mission is and probably should be different than most Ivy league or other good private schools. It’s a public school. Comparing Michigan to Ivy league is bordering on an apples to oranges comparison. Thier motto is “an uncommon education for the common man” right? This is dramatically different than the list of schools you mentioned. Personally, I think the endless argument about whether Michigan is on par with Ivy is a turn-off. Students choose universities for a variety of different reasons.”</p>
<p>Actually Jack, Michigan’s mission is no different from that of any other elite, top 10 or top 15 university; to be the best university possible. In this regard, I am not sure I agree with you. Comparing Michigan to the Ivy League is not an apple to oranges scenario in all cases. I definitely agree that comparing Michigan to Dartmouth or even Brown would be apple to oranges. However, Michigan has much in commone with Cornell. Cornell was in fact co-founded by a Michigan faculty member and its first two presidents (and 6 of its 12 in total) were Michigan faculty members. You mention that Michigan mission is to provide “an uncommon education for the common man”. That is true. Did you ever read Cornell’s motto? “I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any study”. That sounds very similar to Michigan’s motto doesn’t it? And Columbia, Harvard and Penn are also very much research universities that invest as heavily on their graduate programs as they do on their undergraduate programs. So comparing Michigan to some Ivy League universities may indeed be an apple to orange comparison…but in other cases, it is very much an apple to apple comparison. In the end, when I say Michigan is similar to some Ivy League institutions, I am referring to quality, not to whther or not they are identical. </p>
<p>“3. I agree with you in that the future of Umich is not volatile. It is very stable. Every thing I’ve ever read says it is one of the most stable Universities out there.”</p>
<p>At least we agree on something! 
Among the top 10 or top 15 universities in the nation *not including HYPSM of course), Michigan will probably emerge the strongest out of the current crisis, partly thanks to the fact that the University has been very fiscally conservative over the years and has taken the necessary steps to (1) cut costs by investing in technology and effeicient practices and (2) rely much less on its endowment than most of its private peers. Although not entirely related to this subject, below is a link on how the market perceives the university’s financial stability.</p>
<p>[U-M</a> bonds keep their top ratings](<a href=“http://www.ur.umich.edu/0809/May18_09/06.php]U-M”>http://www.ur.umich.edu/0809/May18_09/06.php)</p>
<p>But beyond the financial, Michigan is also becoming more selective each year, its yield rate has been improving over the years etc… In no way to I see Michigan as a volatile institution, so we can at least agree on something.</p>
<p>“4. I would not argue that a liberal arts education is better than Michigan. It is an apples to oranges comparison. People, like me, go to LAC because it is a better fit. When I chose my undergrad years ago, the last thing on my mind was that it was more prestigous or I’d get a better education here than a National University for undergrad. I though I’d be a better fit. Honestly, If I could do it over again, I would have strongly considered Michigan. If I were a Michgan resident, I do everything I could to get into Michigan.”</p>
<p>I agree that LACs and research universities are apples and oranges, both have their strengths and weaknesses and both provide undergrads with excellent opportunities if the “fit” is right.</p>
<p>“5.No…I don’t believe Michigan Graduate Studies distract from undergrad or vice versa. I do get the feeling though that Michigan is trying to find a niche in its graduate programs and maybe trying not to go head to head with the list of private schools you mentioned on things like acceptance rate, student selectivity, class size, etc in its undergrad. They may be doing this because they can’t. They have a mission to educate the undergrads of Michigan. This will limit them in thier ability to get exactly the student body they want to be truly competitve in the eyes of USNews. I by the way don’t judge whether this is wrong or right nor do I have a strong opinion about whether it should be. It is just my impression.”</p>
<p>I think you overstate the University of Michigan’s commitment to educate the people of Michigan and its inability to be as selective as private universities. I do agree that Michigan will never have an acceptance rate of 10% or 15%. That is simply not possible. Michigan is too large, the state is too small and the area (the Midwest) simply isn’t that popular. I think as an alum of Carleton, you can sympathise. If I recall, the two top 15 LACs with the highest acceptance rates are both Midwestern (Grinnell and Carleton). In fact, those two happen to be the only two Midwestern LACs ranked among the top 15 and they have the highest acceptance rates. Let us face it, our part of the country is not exactly the most popular. But in terms of quality of student body, our fine midwestern colleges and universities can certainly hold their own. In terms of class size, Michigan can definitely make an effort to improve just like Cal and Cornell did. A few years ago, Cal and Cornell both had larger classes than Michigan and now, both have smaller much smaller classes. Of course, that is all based in classes under 20 and over 50 and involves a great deal of manipulation, but it can easily be done. Within 2 years, Michigan couldgo from having 45% of classes with fewer than 20 students to 65% of classes with fewer than 20 students. It doesn’t takemuch really, just limit classes that typically have 20-25 students to just 19 students unless more than 25 students register, in which case, you expand. That alone ought to do it.</p>
<p>“Alexandre, while I don’t think Michigan is trying to go head to head on many factors that USnews looks at(ie acceptance rate, selectivity, alumni giving, class size etc.), I really believe that a lot of these factors are entirely overated.”</p>
<p>Now you aretalking my language. Selectivity and class size are important, but many universities cheat the system by artificiallylimiting classes at fewer than 20 students when the naturalsize of those classes is 20-25. It obviously does not makea difference to the students whether there are 19 students or 24 in a class, but it makes a difference to the USNWR. Same with selectivity. Many universities superscore andover-emphasize the SAT and that can truly distort general perception of selectivity. </p>
<p>“I would care far more deeply with the school’s reputation with peers or recruiters. This is what seems to matter most in the end…at least based on my experience.”</p>
<p>Absolutely, along with actual academic quality and quality of faculty and facilities, reputation among graduate school adcoms and employers are quite possibly the most important factor in determining the effectiveness of a university. </p>
<p>“From my experience, I never did like the classes I had in undergrad with under 10 students and never thought a class or 30 to 50 affected my ability to learn. Ironically, I never seemed to do as well in the class when the professor got to know me .”</p>
<p>That’s a good point. There are obviously two parts to this topic:</p>
<p>1) Some students naturally learn better when they rely on themselves rather than on the instructor. I am such a learner. I need to figure things out on my own to learn. </p>
<p>2) Many classes do not require close interaction with the faculty because the material is pretty cut and dry. </p>
<p>Overall, class size is important but either overrated or completely distorted by the USNWR. At Michigan, 70% of classes have 30 students or less, compared to 80% at many of the private elites that claim to have much smaller classes. At Michigan, only students majoring in very popular majors (such as Biology, Economics, Political Science and Psychology) must deal with larish classes throughout their undergraduate experience, but then again, students majoring in such majors at private universities also deal with large classes. My friends who majored in Econ at Columbia, Morthwestern and Stanford had classes with over 50 students at the intermediate level and even at popular advanced level classes such as Economics of Finance and Econometrics. I just don’t think there is a real difference in class size…at least not to the point where education at a school that claims to have smaller classes will far exceed education at a school like Michigan. As long as the students in the class are well taught, given the opportunity to contribute and given access to faculty office hours when needed, students will get the full benefit of a top education.</p>
<p>“Also, I know for example that many Carleton Alumni(Carleton has the highest giving rate I think) dutifully give 10 bucks each year.”</p>
<p>Alumni giving rates are a joke. The Alumni donation rate is obviously directly and inversly correlated with size of the college/university. The smaller the alumni network, the higher the donation rate. The USNWR uses this criterion to hurt public universities that cannot effectively reach a signifcant portion of their alumni.</p>