<p>I believe the basic premise of this thread that people are arguing is that…the university should not be asking out-of-state students to fit the bill because of the reduction of funding from an INADEQUATELY PERFORMING STATE. If the state isn’t giving the university as much money, then raise tuition more for in-state students. Or get more alumni donations.</p>
<p>I am not so sure aglages. The board of regents will be chewing on a ***** burger soon if the state does not shape up. There has been a lot of talk about Michigan going it alone if need be, and this sort of talk usually comes from a tangible source. It may not happen soon, but it will happen eventually.</p>
<p>“We are entitled to lower tuition and a spot at this University because a lot of instate kids stay in Michigan when they graduate.”</p>
<p>Josh, if you wish for the University of Michigan to remain a respected university, you are going to have to accept that nobody is “entitled” anything. Of course, Michigan can continue to give such preferential treatment to residents of the state, but in the long term, all this will get you is access to an average university.</p>
<p>
I don’t know that I would go this far. I would however suggest that UM applies tuition increases equally across both IS and OOS students, instead of disproportionately (6X) increasing tuition for OOS students and claiming that despite the state funding cuts that “Many students and their families will pay less to attend the University in the coming year than they did last year,” Sullivan said, citing the University’s commitment to meet the full demonstrated financial need of in-state students.</p>
<p>I believe the state should accept far fewer in-state students until the ratio of in-state students is under 50%. Ideal, Michigan should be 45% in-state, 45% OOS and 10% international. So, instate of having a class with 4,000 instate students, 1,700 OOS students and 300 international students, Michigan should aim for a class with 1,800 In-state students, 1,800 OOS students and 400 international students.</p>
<p>
Privatizing? Wow!!! That would cause a ****storm in Michigan! Probably would not adversely affect OOS students, but the IS students (and their underpaying families) would lose their minds. Sadly my son (rising senior) is my last child and I’m sure nothing will change before he graduates from college…somewhere.</p>
<p>Sorry to break it to you OOS kids, but this is how it works EVERYWHERE. Students ALWAYS pay less to attend public schools in their own state. There is a problem with the system, NOT with Michigan. So get over it, and be glad that most of your parents are willing to foot the bill.</p>
<p>
Thank God someone finally explained it. Four pages of posts and none of us knew that the answer was this simple. Thank you.</p>
<p>Actually aglages, privatizing several public universities has been discussed behind closed doors for some time now. From a personally point of view, I firmly believe that for public universities to remain competitive in this day and age, they will have to rely on far more than the state can give. But it isn’t just the universities themselves who wish to privatize. The states themselves would not mind seeing some schools privatize because they can no longer afford them.</p>
<p>An alternative would be public universities on the federal level. Perhaps the government can identify 20 or so major public universities and turn them into national pubic universities, open to the best and brightest students across the land. Can you imagine how competitive those schools would be?! hehe!</p>
<p>[Cash-Strapped</a> State Schools Being Forced to Privatize - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1893286,00.html]Cash-Strapped”>http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1893286,00.html)</p>
<p>[Michigan</a> and Other State Schools Look to Privatize | Alumni Association of the University of Michigan](<a href=“http://alumni.umich.edu/get-informed/news/alumni-news/michigan-and-other-state-schools-look-to-privitize]Michigan”>http://alumni.umich.edu/get-informed/news/alumni-news/michigan-and-other-state-schools-look-to-privitize)</p>
<p>[Legislative</a> study group explores idea of privatizing the University of Michigan | MLive.com](<a href=“http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2008/12/legislative_study_group_explor.html]Legislative”>Legislative study group explores idea of privatizing the University of Michigan - mlive.com)</p>
<p>[Privatize</a> the University of Michigan (Viewpoint on Public Issues) [Mackinac Center]](<a href=“http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=6313]Privatize”>Privatize the University of Michigan (Viewpoint on Public Issues) – Mackinac Center)</p>
<p>
The problem would be the same as the state supported universities. The Feds won’t/can’t commit the money to fund national universities, and how long (similar to the states) before they start “underfunding” them once they were created? Interesting idea but I don’t think we have the public will in this country to support secondary education with the amount of tax dollars that would be needed. We (arguably) barely finance public high schools adequately.</p>
<p>I agree aglages, but I am talking about just 20 universities, not an entire system of universities. But for it to work effectively, those universities should enroll no more than 15,000 or 20,000 undergrads,should have a great degree of autonomy and should be very well funded.</p>
<p>It is possible, but unlikely. A far more likely option is privatization.</p>
<p>^^^
Thanks for the links and the interesting “food for thought”. After reading those articles it makes me wonder how many Michigan residents (grad and UG) are actually enrolled at UM (despite the Regent’s limitations) and how economically representative those students are of the overall demographics of the residents of Michigan. While it may take a vote of the legislature and a ballot measure to privatize, I believe the restrictions on OOS enrollment can be lifted unilaterally by the Board of Regents. How interesting would that be? A public university that funds (primarily) itself with mostly OOS students while the state government (and taxpayers) contribute less and less financial support.</p>
<p>Alex/Aglages…20 Fed. universities…interesting idea not unlike Canadian system, which is strong in many respects, and not as strong in others. In fairness, funding the infrastructure becomes an issue and I’m not sure I’d trust the American public to be willing to adequately and sufficiently fund it when Canada – a country far more inclined to take its tax lumps – barely manages it. Since moving to America 7 years ago the general unwillingness at the state level to “adequately” fund education is completely appalling to me. But I do like the idea insofar as unis really should be national and that whole instate/OOS disparity could be eradicated to free US students to go to the places that suit them best without extreme fiscal hardship.</p>
<p>Predator, please back up your following statement, as I am a little sick of this spin, and have seen Michigan Daily articles in the past that suggest the opposite is true. So I’d like to actually know your source, since it seems to be a widely held perception:
</p>
<p>“After reading those articles it makes me wonder how many Michigan residents (grad and UG) are actually enrolled at UM (despite the Regent’s limitations) and how economically representative those students are of the overall demographics of the residents of Michigan.”</p>
<p>If you combine both undergrad and graduate student populations, then I would estimate that U-M is 55% in-state and 45% out-of-state.</p>
<p>Economically, U-M is predominately upper-middle-class. There are 15 other public universities in the state of Michigan that have cheaper tuition and fees.</p>
<p>Although I dislike the state of Michigan’s lack of effort in providing adequate funding U-M, I think everyone needs to realize that the state is still suffering economically. The high unemployment rate and rising health and human services costs are taking a toll on the state’s ability to fund programs and services. </p>
<p>[4</a> in 10 in Michigan uninsured, on public plan | freep.com | Detroit Free Press](<a href=“http://www.freep.com/article/20100620/BUSINESS06/6200463/4-in-10-in-Michigan-uninsured--on-public-plan]4”>http://www.freep.com/article/20100620/BUSINESS06/6200463/4-in-10-in-Michigan-uninsured--on-public-plan)</p>
<p>[Welfare</a> needs rising sharply: Michigan campaign aims to dispel “myths” about assistance programs | MLive.com](<a href=“http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2010/06/welfare_needs_rising_sharply.html]Welfare”>Welfare needs rising sharply: Michigan campaign aims to dispel "myths" about assistance programs - mlive.com)</p>
<p>Something has to give: the state can give U-M its fair share of money, but it will have to cut back on other areas such as prisons, K-12 education and retirement benefits. Who do you think is going to win?</p>
<p>Right, which is why if they are raising tuition, it should be equal across the board, not as disproportionate as $178increase for in-state and a $1000 increase for out-of-state.</p>
<p>"Something has to give: the state can give U-M its fair share of money, but it will have to cut back on other areas such as prisons, K-12 education and retirement benefits. Who do you think is going to win? "</p>
<p>Right, something has to give. Which is why U-M should really look at going private. If in-state students can compete with out-of-state students, then they will get in. The main reason in-state people are against U-M privatizing is that the # of instate acceptances would go down by a lot. Let’s face it…average out-of-state student is a much more competitive applicant than the average in-state student.</p>
<p>Predator, you are failing to acknowledge that U-M exists to serve the residents of the state of Michigan. It doesn’t sound fair, but it is part of the school’s mission. In fact, most public universities have similar missions.</p>
<p>
I understand this in theory just not modern day practice. If U-M exists to serve the residents of the state of Michigan, shouldn’t the state of Michigan fund that institution at a level that is consistent with the services UM provides to the residents? Does UM have an obligation (legal or moral) to provide X amount of services to a state that is only funding Y amount of those services?</p>
<p>I agree with both sides. A good compromise would be to reduce the number of in-state students enrolled at Michigan from 16,000-17,000 to a more manageable 8,000-9,000.</p>
<p>
While I do not know how factual this “widely held perception” actually is, the following article indicates that UM selects substantially less of it’s OOS and international applicants. Is there any reason to believe that:
A. UM is not selecting the best and brightest (and wealthiest) from this group
B. That the larger group of IS enrolled students (selected from a group half the size of A) represents such a cream of the crop representation of Michigan students that their numbers could possibly be as “high” as group A?
I realize all this is speculation/conjecture but if Predator has it wrong then it would seem that the state of Michigan must be doing an extraordinary job (in comparison to other states) of educating it’s K-12 students and the vast majority of people giving “chances” for admittance to UM on this forum do not have a clue.</p>
<p>[Michigan</a> and Other State Schools Look to Privatize | Alumni Association of the University of Michigan](<a href=“http://alumni.umich.edu/get-informed/news/alumni-news/michigan-and-other-state-schools-look-to-privitize]Michigan”>http://alumni.umich.edu/get-informed/news/alumni-news/michigan-and-other-state-schools-look-to-privitize)
"While speculating what would happen if the university moved to a private, market-based system, current president Mary Sue Coleman wrote in 2005 that “historically two-thirds of our applications have been from national or international students, and yet about two-thirds of our enrolled students have been from Michigan.”</p>