How much longer can U-M remain an elite institution?
Just thought I'd throw this out for discussion as I avoid getting heat stroke in my apt...
With a massive brain drain in the state of Michigan, and the US population's gradual migration south and west, is Michigan in a good position to remain one of the top public universities in the country?
We have seen M slide a spot or so every year in US News rankings, and Mary Sue is admitting record freshman classes every year to offset the decrease in state funding. How can the university avoid sliding with the entire Midwest? Should we go private or find alternative tuition structures to attract the best out-of-state students?
In 50 years, I see Texas and Florida becoming the top public universities along with Berkeley and UCLA due to population shift and job opportunities, unless Michigan is able to invest in something besides autos.
If that were true, you would not think there would be a population shift away from Great Lake states and you would expect to see new industries and jobs moving disproportionately into instead of out of rust belt states like Michigan.
The U.S. has massive ports all along the east and west coasts (far larger and more efficient anything we have in the Midwest) and railroads and trucking to efficiently move resources around inside of the country. The vast majority of U.S. raw materials and finished goods imports come through ports outside the Midwest. Although the Great Lakes do provide an advantage to states like Michigan, that advantage is not nearly as big as you think.
True, but isn't the biggest trading partner of the US Canada?
You can't build things for the world economy without a heavy shipping port, but most of the Big 3's Detroit output was consumed in North America. A Great Lakes port doesn't help much for moving cars to Nebraska. For US use, building something in Alabama is just as good as Detroit.
Blazefire, you make an excellent point. I have had a lot of personal experience with Michigan's many wonderful ports, having landed pleasure craft at several of them over the years.
Many of these ports offer top notch amenities like fresh water, fuel and shore power. Some even have showers and little general stores! Readers can only imagine the level of commerce running through towns like Presque Isle, Escanaba and Algonac. Let me just say, it's massive.
Texas, on the other hand has like, what, Galveston, Houston? I bet there are Longhorns fans that would try to say that Houston is the tenth largest port of commerce in the world, but I'd like to see them prove it.
sarcasm
their nearest competition in the state continues to pump our criminals at an alarming rate.
According to the census website, 2009 estimates say that the state of Michigan has grown in population by 0.3% since 2000. Sure, that's a very small growth rate, essentially flat, but all this talk about Michigan's population dropping significantly just isn't based in fact. Now, the US population has grown over that period, so relative to other states Michigan has dropped, but it's not like Michigan is about to disappear. The differences in population growth between Michigan and any other state is small enough that the University has ample time to adjust. Like has been stated above, nearly half of the students at UM are from out of state anyway, so this only affects half the student body.
Blame the advent of air conditioning.
Michigan will be fine, even if Michigan's population decreases there will still be several hundred thousand alumni keeping the name strong in every state in the union. Except maybe Alaska, but like, fuck Alaska.
Michigan is huge in NY/NJ and I'm sure it is in most major metropolitan areas.
is that he assumes that the Metro Detroit area defines the whole state. It does not. The West Side of the state is middle to upper middle class save for Muskegon and Benton Harbor.
The metro detroit area has been largely working class for decades and that hasn't prevented UM from fulfilling the 65% of instate kids.This state has seen economic booms and busts before.
The class that is getting hardes hit by this recession is a class that typically does not send kids to UofM. UofM is made up of largely upper middle class kids.The only working class kids who get in are those with exceptional grades or who fulfill some invisible quota.UM has and always be,a school for the elite.
The fact is that this state will continue on in a similiar state to what it has been for decades. It has too much to offer in terms of intellectual and environmental potential for it to become some black hole of economic depression ala West Virginia.We did go from agriculture to mining to manufacturing cars. Why would anyone expect Michigan NOT to grow again?
I had exceptional grades AND fulfilled an invisible quota (Yoopers). Booyah.
I'd be more worried about this if Michigan wasn't in the midst of a construction boom worthy of the NYT's attention:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/realestate/commercial/31michigan.html…
Also there was that Detroit News article detailing the massive cutbacks at MSU at the same time Michigan was getting the pick of whoever they wanted because their peer institutions have stopped hiring. (Side note: I spent ten minutes trying to find a major enterprise piece on the two biggest education institutions in the state and couldn't. Website fail.) It seems that Michigan finds itself on extremely good footing.
Brian, this is the article you reference: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100302/SCHOOLS/3020372/As-U-M-hires-and-builds-up--MSU-cuts-back. Of course, because the newspaper is a dying medium and the people running it don't understand their own industry, the article is locked.
As for public vs. private, MSC came to one of my classes last semester and told us that going private was not an option. Whether this was the truth or rather what she has to say as the leader of a university that is currently public, I am not sure.
I worked in the admissions office as an undergrad, and although this was about 4 years ago, I've heard this is still the case. Unless you know something I don't OP, but MSC didn't decide to admit larger numbers of students to offset a descrease in state funding.
You aren't wrong in that the last few classes at UM have been above average, but it's not because we're admitting more students. In fact, we've been admitting fewer students over the last 4 years, it's just that a higher percentage of those students have decided to enroll.
These numbers are off the top of my head, so forgive me if they're a little off, but UM usually admits 13k undergads, counting on about 5k of them matriculating. In 2005 (or maybe 2004), between 5500 and 6000 accepting students decided to come. If any of you were freshman those years, you were much more likely to live in Oxford or encouraged to find your own housing, if you could. Because of this, the following year UM only admitted 11K, hoping to offset the large class from the year before. But there were still more than 5000 who decided to enroll. Since this, UM undergrad admissions had much much tougher.
So this fact goes against your point. Not only are more people applying to UM than before, but more of the students who get accepted choose to enroll. This is certainly not evidence of UM falling from the elite.
I don't think you can really put a cap on the length of time the U of M can maintain its elite status. With the way I have heard people around the country talk about Michigan (very positively), the only way I can see Michigan losing prestige is with poor management. It seems like everybody on the East Coast dreams about going to Michigan, and I don't see that changing.
It's an interesting question. I can't imagine the brain drain helping UMich, but I'm not sure how much it will hurt when the in-state/out-state balance is considered. I'd guess that Sparty's risk is much higher. Of note, in no particular order:
* I think state funding is in the 20% range: http://www.michigandaily.com/content/state-slashes-promise-funding
* I don't think the medical school has slipped much. Also: http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1536
* California has some budget problems of its own. UCLA and Berkeley are also at risk.
* Why did you cite Florida as a sleeping giant? I'm sure it's better off than it was thirty years ago, but I don't think it's threatening the top tier. Remember how much tourism and retirees matter to that state.
* I have the sense that the "public ivies" have benefitted from the tuition spikes at private schools. I've heard that places like Illinois and Wisconsin have much tougher admission standards than they did in the '80s and '90s.
Hey! You got it all wrong. Al gore says there is going to be massive global warming. In a few years, Michigan will be the ideal spot in the US. Florida, Texas and all the southern states will average temperatures in the 110s, while Michigan with all the lakes, fresh water and Palm trees growing in Ann Arbor, people will flock to the U of M.
At least when others in this thread have edged close to the realm of politics, they did so to make a point. You? Not so much.
UC Berkeley may not have been the best comparison to make - they are getting killed with budget cuts and losing top tier faculty: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/education/20berkeley.html?_r=1&scp=1&…
UM is almost the polar opposite. Due to our large proportion of private grants and funding (e.g. the new Ross B-School) the University is going stronger than ever.
There is another reason for the higher rate of enrollment by accepted students. Many of the top in-state students are opting for UM over more expensive private schools. When that happens the quality of the student body actually improves.
UM is far more of a national/international University than any of the southern schools you mention and that will keep them on top.
Finally, it has been known for some time now that, due to how data is collected, the MSM rankings have developed an increasing bias toward private schools like Notre Dame. For various reasons their survey response rates are higher and that skews the results. If you want the real story on where UM stands ask any leading academic.
Michigan's endowment has continued to grow. The school's considerable wealth insulates it a great deal. The disparity between the quality of undergrad and graduate ed., however, is likely to remain unresolved for some time (I don't see it as such a huge problem, myself.)
UF clawed its way into the top 15 ranking among public institutions for a while, and seemed poised to climb higher. But with Cal. and Michigan, Florida is the hardest-hit state; cuts here have been brutal (I'm finishing a doctorate at UF). And UF also has to vie for funds with FSU, UCF, and USF--Gainesville has never been able to convince Tallahassee to make UF the flagship institution. (The governor, for ex., is an FSU grad and--as in Alabama--university funding is a political football.) Also, in my opinion, UF's failure to buttress liberal arts programs might prove a good move or hurt it in the long run.
I wouldn't worry too much about the quality of U Mich education. Newsweek and the Sunday Times seem to switch the rankings around regularly to keep things lively.
I absolutely agree with this. I have been making this argument for some time now.
There is a limit on out of state % admitted, I think it's in the 35% range. As jobs, money, affluent families continue to leave the state coupled with the out of state % limit Michigan will have no choice but to begin admitting in state kids with lesser GPAs/test scores.
I'm not real sure why you are being negged as your point is quite valid.
Seconded... I don't understand all the negging.
You make a lot of claims that I'm not sure I agree with. First of all, I've never heard of a percentage where UM has to enroll a certain number of in-state students. Can to provide any proof of this? Or proof of what the number actually is? Also, what evidence do you have that affluent families are leaving Michigan? The upper-middle class areas of Michigan are actually all growing in population (Oakland and Macomb counties, Livingston and Washtenaw counties, as well as Kent and Ottawa counties). The only areas that are losing population are the tri-county area (Saginaw, Bay and Midland counties), Flint, and Wayne county. None of these are areas from which UM typically pulls a large number of students.
I know the area I'm from, Forest Hills near Grand Rapids, sends a lot of students to UM every year and it's a rapidly growing area. It's not the only area like this either.
I am from midland county and it is not wise to include us with saginaw ...
midland is actually doing well with new semiconducter plants/jobs coming to the area along with the fact our economy is based off the chemical industry (dow and dow corning) which isnt doing badly and then the services that go with it (regional hospital etc)
really midland is sort of a bubble compared to the surronding area and it tends to be very much middle to upper middle class folk ... the high schools tend to be strong and schools like dow high send a ton of kids to michigan
I did clump Midland in with Bay City and Saginaw, but admittedly I don't know a lot about Midland, but I did know about Dow and a lot of what you said makes sense. Now that you say that, I did now a relatively high number of kids from Dow High for how big Midland is.
The reason I included it in my list is because Midland County is one of the few counties in MI that has lost population since 2000, according to the US Census website. Not as much as the other two counties I grouped it with, and not nearly as much as counties like Wayne or Genesee, but it still has a lower population today than it did 10 years ago. So although it might not be fair to clump Midland with Saginaw and Bay City for all things, it fits into this group based on population growth (or lack thereof).
Affluent families? or low-skilled labor families? Affluent families always move around every region, but to assume they are moving more often out of Michigan because Michigan is losing factory jobs is just plain dumb.
Michigan has always been a very reasonably priced alternative to Ivy League/private colleges, particularly in the east. The collegiate atmosphere in Ann Arbor is very attractive as well.
It has an incredible name recognition among foreign students able to afford any option. I worked with a large number of Asian Indians who did not attend American universities that were very familiar and impressed with UM.
The alumni association, athletic teams, and professional schools all fuel incredible generosity on the part of alumni. The return on investment of those funds has been among the most profitable.
Alumni clubs everywhere actively participate in recruiting top scholars for UM and many have scholarships to encourage them to matriculate. There are official alumni clubs (school) and lots of informal specialty alumni groups such as law and medicine that meet regularly in many cities.
Until the last 20 years or so, Michigan's out-of-state enrollment was about 40% out-of-state until the legislature forced them to increase the percentage of in-state students. By contrast, MSU is about 96% in-state.
Michigan is investing much of their funds in infrastructure that will continue to attract the best and brightest. That together with the amount of grants supporting research hopefully guarantee top graduate students and professors come here.
The population growth in states like California has put tremendous pressure on public universities since the 80's to find room for qualified in-state applicants in the face of cuts public funding. I don't believe they have nearly as many slots for out-of-state applicants.
Many public colleges and universities in other states are facing far more severe funding cuts than Michigan colleges have experienced.
then Michigan isn't nearly as bad off as Florida or Texas will be in the next 50 years with regards to expected population shifts.
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments…
I suspect the OP is not a Michigan grad. I think UM grad have a WEE BIT better reasonging than the OP (at least I hope so).
As an example, here is a similarly baseless premise: The fresh water supply in the Michigan region will see it thrive over the barren deserts of the south and west.
Anywa, SOO MANY things wrong with your post, here is a snapshot:
1. Most people moving south and west are going there to avoid arthritis and die.
2. Many of the college grads who go out west and south to work (as opposed to NYC or Chicago) are looking for "any job." Top level kids always went to NYC or Chicago if they wanted. The grads heading to Phoenix, Vegas, Florida, South Carolina, etc. are usually doing so becuase they are from that area or can't find a job someplace better.
3. The South, especially, has HORRIBLE public schools. Sure, Michigan may lose population, but the top ten percent of Michigan HS grads is at least equal to the top 50% of South Carolina or Louisiana grads. Seriously, move to the south and send your kids to public school... like creationism?... Or maybe Texas, where they recently reqrote the history books to remove any "liberal" ideas...
5. Michigan is first and foremost a research institution. That means grad school is the key. Do you think Michigan's population affects that?
6. A ridiculous endowment and momentum as an elite school can usually counter-act negatives of the surrounding area.
7. You assume that the migration of low-education required manufacturing jobs means a depletion of high level jobs? While most parts of the country are "tight" right now for all jobs, Michigan is mainly losing "unskilled labor." As the engineering market across the country rebounds, it will in Michigan as well. Detroit doesn't "make" all the cars anymore... that is left to the under-educated south... Detroit just engineers and designs the cars now...
8. You assume eveything happening in Michigan and around the country is linear. What would your assumption have been 30 years ago (when I was born)? The premise of your question is about as realible as claiming there could never be an African-American president. Grow up.
9. Michigan has actually become harder to get into and higher ranked recently. Doesn't even sound like the trend is in the direction you assume.
Just sitting here, those are a few reasons.
Your question touches on the general negative view of Michigan and concern about the economy. If the state wasn't full of overly sensitive people right now, you probably wouldn't get a single response. (Its kind of like an anti-RR thread preys upon people's worries about "the end of an era").
You are angry.
... I don't suffer fools easily.
But can they use spell check?
Seriously, don't tell someone they're an idiot without using spell check and proper tense.
Are you talking about my post?
If so, are you criticizing the detail of my my typing skills? Isn't that typical form over substance when you have no point to make? Also, if you want to get technical (which seems to be the case), then you will notice I did not call the OP an "idiot" or even use that word in my post. I would say, however, that someone who nitpicks the spelling of an entry, but then misrepresents an entire word that was not in the post is..... an idiot.
I suspect the OP is not a Michigan grad. I think UM grad have a WEE BIT better reasonging than the OP (at least I hope so).
... I don't suffer fools easily.
You're right, you just questioned his "reasonging" and called him a fool. No implication was made at all.
What happened to #4?
9 is just flat out wrong for undergrad. And from my observation, UM is getting way too easy to get into right now.
This is completely incorrect. It has not gotten easier or harder to gain acceptance into Michigan. All data for acceptance rate by the University points to raising scholastic standards for applicants. Secondly, the increasing class sizes is not due to falling admission standards, but due to increasing number of students accepting admission. The University always accepts more students than available slots assuming there will be a decent percentage that chose to matriculate elsewhere for whatever reasons.
Well I said my observation, I couldn't care less what stats say. What I'm seeing is a lot of people who really have no place being at a so called elite institution getting in. Do I look at these people differently or think they're below me? No, we're friends. But it still doesn't hide the fact that if Michigan was hard to get into they wouldn't be here. Conclusion: it's easier to get in. Not a big deal. How does a 60% or whatever acceptance rate not show at least some semblance of being easier to get in?
Well you should care about the data as it proves you wrong. In your opinion, you believe there is an increase in the number of students who do not belong here....That is a strong qualitative metric of student achievement if I ever heard one. Average high school GPA, SAT/ACT, AP scores of incoming freshman has been steadily increasing every academic year.
The fact is that it is harder to get into Michigan. The number of applicants to Michigan is at an all time high. However, the number of available slots for matriculation remains the same. Hence, it is more competitive to achieve admission into the university. I think I know what I am talking about as I sit on the admissions committee for my graduate program.
You may think student admissions is being watered down due to the larger class sizes, but this is due to recent large high school graduation class and secondly, an increase in number of students accepting admission into the University.
By ignoring data that points to trends contrary to your opinion, you sound like those that oppose the teaching evolution, just because they feel creationism is correct.
Show me the data that points to a 60% acceptance rate to michigan. That is a completely false number and it is obvious you pulled that out of your ass.
What exactly are you observing? A few buddies of yours that you don't think are smart enough?
Truth - not everyone at every elite institution will be a Rhoades Scholar. There will be kids who came from small towns, or who aced a standardized test, or who got through high school on brains alone who cannot cut it in college for one reason or another. This is unavoidable. The salutatorian from my high school could have gone to almost any Ivy League school, but she went to Michigan. And she struggled there. This stuff happens.
Just because you see kids in school that you don't think are smart enough, doesn't mean UM has gotten easier to get in to. And what are you comparing it to? The UM students you hung out with 10 years ago?
I was not aware that all grads were Scottish as well.
Aside from your blind "I went to Michigan and therefore am better than you" stance (how well is that working for you in the workplace btw?) the only real issue I take with you is your point #2.
Simply put, not every awesome cool job is in NYC or Chicago. Boeing and Microsoft are in Seattle. Big Oil exists in Texas. Google/Intel/HP/Cisco/Northrup Grumman/Apple/Oracle are all in California. Not every person at Michigan wants to become an investment banker.
Minor quibble, Boeing is, in fact, in Chicago and has been here ever since we stole them.
An understudied aspect to Brain Drain in that they look into the trends right after graduation. Sure, many young people leave to go to a great city where they can work hard/play hard. They want big city life, need public transportation, and don't mind living in a small overpriced apartment.
But when it's time to settle down, buy a house, have a family, priorities can shift. And some of these people move back home--or would, if encouraged. Even if Michigan loses a lot of talented people just after graduation, I think it can get some of them back in a few years.
Rather strongly. How many engineers are finding jobs in Chicago and New York? Or even Detroit? Seriously, NYC is not the crown jewel for everyone on the planet. People are shying away from those cities because they are losing jobs and it's expensive to live there. I'm in Phoenix not because I'm too dumb to go somewhere else (quite the opposite, I was lucky to have had a lot of options), but rather because there is a nice base of aerospace and other high-tech companies, housing is very affordable, and taxes are relatively low - I get to live better here on the same salary than I would in CA or on the east coast, the main bases of the aerospace industry.
Seriously, your disdain for anyone in the South or Southwest and assumption that you're far more enlightened than them is pretty gross.
This is the most clever way yet of asking people when they think the Apocalypse will happen.
Good discussion, I wasn't really stating an opinion, just posing some questions I've been pondering that I thought would be interesting. No need for personal attacks, and yes, I graduated from U-M (Ross BBA).
Summers down south (e.g., Texas) are getting to be a bitch. Regardless of your stance on global warming, it is getting hotter here. If I was a HS student down south, going to school up north sounds more appealing with each summer.
A topic that is inherently political and, with a few minor exceptions, everyone managed to avoid plunging into that abyss.
Manufacturing jobs moved south because of tax incentives and low wages. You can't establish quality public educational institutions without money. The University of Michigan has nothing to fear from the majority of big southern schools -- Texas and Georgia have seen some benefits, but otherwise it's the same as it ever was: Virginia, North Carolina, and not much else.
I see two things that really conflict with your statement.
1. Alumni base. There's a lot of them. I assume some will procreate. I further assume that some of the resulting boys and girls will grow up to becoming Michigan fans who are also very smart. Admitting more and more students NOW is a just a diabolical plan to ensure there are enough children in the future to keep Michigan afloat.
2. Michigan has feeder areas much like how we view pipeline states for football recruits. Our feeder areas are: Ohio, Indiana, Chicagoland, California, New York, and the Washington DC area. As long as some of those areas are still viable, we'll be alright.
I have lots to say about this. Let me start with the ranking bit.
We have seen M slide a spot or so every year in US News rankings,
Very little has changed about Michigan as it has "slid." It is not a worse place than it was when it was #25. Or #23. Or whatever. What has changed have been the formulas, the weights, and the people participating in the peer ranking (which counts for 25% of the total). Generally speaking, U-M is hurt by the fact that it is public (most public institutions don't fare very well in USNews's rating) and that it strives to be honest in its reporting. The latter can not be said for all institutions.
But let me focus on the peer rating thing.
I could yammer on for ages, but I'll stick to two key things. Back in the 80s when USNews started the rankings, peer rankings were the ONLY thing that counted. Michigan was top ten then. If you look at ONLY peer rankings today, we're still up there pretty high. In the 2009 ranking, we were given a 4.4, same as Duke; better than Brown, Dartmouth, UVa, & Northwestern.
However, that said, our peer ranking has gone down a little bit--and that has contributed to our slip out of the top 25. What's curious is that the same thing is true for some of the other top institutions--they have gone DOWN in recent years. There's a real imbalance in the way the peer ratings have changed, with downward being the predominant direction. That's suspicious. Some of the reason can be that some of the most knowledgable people in higher ed are refusing to participate in the rating. And perhaps some of the reason can be shenanigans like Clemson's example from last year, where the president rated Harvard, Yale, and Stanford lower than Clemson.
I've veering into TLDR territory, so enough on that. The brief recap: Don't use the USNews ranking as a measure of U-M's quality over time.
i have a close relationship with my old political science professor who has examined state funding for public universities. michigan receives, by far, the smallest percentage of its overall funding from public sources than any other public university in the US. it is approximately 7%. in short, michigan is nearly a private institution and there were more serious discussions than you probably heard of regarding making the school fully private when the economy tanked. our beloved university has been extrodinarily resilient in these tough economic times. very few professors or important staff members in other areas lost their jobs and michigan remains one of the very few universities still hiring and expanding its roll of professors and research institutions. in fact, its ability to weather the storm so well helped michigan in many non-obvious ways, including hiring professors that they may not have otherwise been able to get because of the paucity of available positions at other prestigious institutions. in short, those in the know have assured me that michigan is in an excellent position to maintain its academic prestige over the long haul.