<p>State appropriation only accounts for 7% of the university's annual budget. I personally believe the state should totally release its control if its appropriation to the university can only meet less than 10% of the university's annual need.</p>
<p>They might owe the state a little cash for all the buildings and other stuff on the campus. Like billions. Most of the increase is in research which is neither state nor school funded and the hospital operations which are self-funded but get lots of state medicare/medicaid money. The state money still pays a good share of the direct cost of education.</p>
<p>Lucifer, it is very difficult for Michigan to go private for several reasons, some of which were very well articulated by Barrons. I also think it would be bad for Michigan to go private because a big part of Michigan's personality, character and identity stems from its history are a premier state institution. If Michigan goes private, I fear it could lose much of its uniqueness.</p>
<p>However, thiws said, I agree that Michigan should re-evaluate their in-state to out-of-state ratio. As of now, roughly 65% of Michigan's undergrads are in-state students. I would like to see that number drop to 45% or so, giving more room for students from other states and other countries.</p>
<p>For one thing (and this is what Barrons was referring to) the 7% figure (is that even right?) refers to the All Funds budget (which includes the hospital. The state funds closer to 30% if you look at general fund budget, which is what prospective undergrads should care about as it covers the teaching and research functions of the rest of the U.</p>
<p>30% is low in some ways, but that's a pretty hefty part of the budget to have to make up for. As far as drastically changing the residency ratio, that would have some costs as well. There is no way the State would keep its level of state support at anywhere near the current level if we turned away so many offspring of state taxpayers.</p>
<p>Deducting the number of in-state students instead of slightly increasing tuition.</p>
<p>alexandre, at 35-40%, among "elite" publics, UM is even with UVA, and well ahead of UNC (limited to 18% by law) and UC Berkeley (virtually non-existant, presumably due to instate competition for admission). The only publics I know of >50% are Vermont and Delaware, both with small instate populations and somewhat unique campus draws.</p>
<p>at some point, the "mission" of the university surely includes providing affordable education for residents. I'm sure residents not admitted (remember the lawsuit) or on the margin would have an issue with a substantial increase in non-resident admissions.</p>
<p>Then the state should pay up. Michigan gets less than $1 billion/year from the state. In fact, Michigan gests a pathetic $350 million from the state. Ifd the state wants to provide its residents with great public education, great. Let them pay up. Otherwise, I would say that Michigan should give back to the state as much as they get from the state. It is only fair. Roughly, only 8% of the university's budget comes from state funding. Only 30% of the cost of instruction comes from the state. So I do not see why the university should, by law, give more than 50% of its seats to state residents. As far as I am concerned, Michigan, for its own good and the good of the state of Michigan, should start putting its foot down. If it doesn't, and I am not kidding here, in 30 years, Michigan will be no different than the University of Okloahoma or Bowling Green. We simply will not be able to keep up with the big boys.</p>
<p>from the "Letter from the President" contained in the 2004 Financial Report (<a href="http://www.umich.edu/%7Efinops/FormsReports/Reports/2004/um_2004_financial_report.pdf%5B/url%5D):">http://www.umich.edu/~finops/FormsReports/Reports/2004/um_2004_financial_report.pdf):</a></p>
<p>"For fiscal years 2004 and 2005 alone, University
general support from the State of Michigan has
been reduced by 12 percent, or $49 million.</p>
<p>The continuing uncertainty of the state budget
situation has compounded a long-term erosion of
state supporta trend I have called an unarticulated
policy. The compact of the State to fund higher
education has become strained over the past thirty
years. This translates to the following: in the 1970s,
the State provided about two-thirds of the cost of a
University of Michigan education; by 2004, State
support had dwindled to less than one-third."</p>
<p>One might expect that over the same period the ratio of resident to non-resident tuition would have risen correspondingly. However, over the last 10 years (data available at <a href="http://www.umich.edu/%7Eoapainfo/TABLES/PDF/UMAA_TuitFee_History.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.umich.edu/~oapainfo/TABLES/PDF/UMAA_TuitFee_History.pdf</a>) that ratio has remained constant at ~29%. Michigan is already the most expensive public university in the country for non-residents; realistically, revenue solutions to budgetary shortfalls can include only increases in resident tuition relative to non-resident and/or increases in the non-resident percentage of the student body.</p>
<p>As it is, resident tuition represents one of the greatest values in higher education.</p>