Is Michigan weak in any way? - Page 11

Alexandre · 10-15-2006, 10:07 PM

Shyanne, more than 50% will hurt the students' exposure to true diversity. If Michigan were the size of a country (like Texas or California) with a very diverse population of over 30 million people, I would say that a large in-state ratio could still work. But Michigan is a small and relatively homogenious state with a population of 10 million.

dilksy · 10-15-2006, 10:34 PM

"roughly 56% of UMICH comes from michigan other 34% come elsewhere...its on the website"

Please tell me you're not a student here...

56+34 != 100

Rei · 10-17-2006, 03:36 AM

Individual departments are certainly solid, but Michigan as a whole doesn't have a signature, a particular identity; you can be at Berkeley or Cornell for a few minutes and get a feel for the rhythm and atmosphere. At Michigan, there really is no rhythm nor atmosphere.

Alexandre · 10-17-2006, 04:25 AM

What? You have got to be kidding! The University of Michigan has a very distinct feel and culture and an incredible college atmosphere.

GoBlue81 · 10-17-2006, 07:34 AM

OK, I'll bite... What exactly is the signature/identity for Berkeley or Cornell? If you can describe that, may be I can tell you about Michigan.

Quincy4 · 10-25-2006, 12:46 AM

^^I quite agree with President Coleman that privatizing a great public U like U-M undermines the principle for which it was created -- a university primarily for the education of the people of Michigan. At the same time, the daunting State funding issues seem destined to create 2 universities on one campus: a large undergrad school propped up by both tuition and private endowments which replace the losses in state funding coupled with smaller, elite units, principally at the graduate level. At the same time, the potential for widening the quality gap, undergraduate-wise, between top publics and top privates, appears great as struggling states like Michigan become increasingly stingy towards its Flagship U.

All this makes me believe that some other Western nations – Canada and England, among them -- have gotten it right: that is in having no private colleges at all; all universities are public. This also tends to recognize the importance of major public research universities in rebuilding their respective state's economy. Wouldn't you think a struggling state like Michigan, with not 1, but 2 national research universities recognize this? In this country, our greed and short-sightedness always keep getting in the way.

Alexandre · 10-25-2006, 01:00 AM

Quincy, Michigan has many alternatives. I personally believe part of Michigan's charm is the fact that it is a state university. I don't think the university would benefit from going public. On the other hand, there are many things the University can do to improve and remain a top undergraduate institution.

The first is to limit its size. I always say it and I will continue saying it. Michigan should not have more than 20,000 undergrads. I think 15,000-17,000 would probably be ideal.

The second is to limit the number of in-state students to 40%-50%. Over 50% would hurt diversity and the bottom line, both of which impact the quality of the institution directly.

In short, I too quite agree that privatizing a great public U like U-M undermines the principle for which it was created -- a university primarily for the education of the people of Michigan. However, I will make one addition to this statement. The primary function of the University of Michigan is to offer the best education possible to the residents of Michigan. As it stands, Michigan is not quite where it should be, precisely because it does not adhere to the two points listed above.

forgiven · 10-25-2006, 01:14 AM

yeah. i think if umich went private, it would be up there with upenn.

Alexandre · 10-25-2006, 01:21 AM

Forgiven, Michigan, as an overall university, is already up there with Cornell and Penn. Ross isn't up there with Wharton, but then again, with the exception of HBS, Kellogg and maybe SBS and Chicago Business School, no business program matches Wharton.

Quincy4 · 10-26-2006, 02:10 AM

I reiterate that a point being missed here is that, while UM is a high quality university, it has stood for, throughout its history, for the popularization of education not academic exclusivity; that quality academics be accessible to individuals regardless of income and, sometimes, this also meant that some who don't have THE HIGHEST stats get in... One of UM's past presidents (Hutchens? Ruthven?) coined the phrase: 'an uncommon school for the common man.' – btw, not unlike what the 1st president of rival-then Michigan State Agricultural College said this 1st land grant college: “Good enough for the proudest and cheap enough for the poorest.” … In the late 1800s, Harvard pres Charles Elliot attacked UM for its policy of accepting all graduates of state certified HS's without examination. It's why, for most of its history, U-M's been among the largest U's in America...

So as you can see, this idea that U-M should revert to a privately-funded elite school on par w/ a Penn or Cornell or Dartmouth in terms of size, stats, and even tuition (which there are some parallels, now, viz out/state tuition) is counterintuitive... I think that's why Pres. Coleman's comments are dead on the money.

Alexandre · 10-26-2006, 03:10 AM

Quincy, admission into university was relatively uncompetitive in the 1800s. Even Havard was lax in the 1800s. If you look at 1950 admission standards, when Harvard was far more selective than it had been in the 19th century, it accepted over 30% of its applicants. Penn, Columbia and Cornell used to accept 50%+ of their applicants. Michigan at the time used to accept roughly 60% of its applicants. And I believe you have taken the phrase "Uncommon school for the common man" out of context. It certainly did not mean that any common idiot could get in and graduate. It meant that students with the ability and resources would be given the opportunity to study. Remember that Michigan admitted African Americans, women and war veterans when most other elite universities denied them entry. Cornell and Stanford were founded on those very same priciples.

But I think you missed my point. I was not referring to selectivity. The quality of Michigan students has always been and remains high. The mean SAT score at Michigan has never lagged those of much smaller elites like Brown or Cornell or Penn by more than 50-70 points. In 2001, Michigan's freshman class' mean SAT was 1330, compared to 1380 at Cornell and 1390 at Brown. The 2006 Freshman class' mean SAT was 1380, compared to 1400 at Cornell and 1430 at Brown. Go back 50 years and you will see that even then, mean SAT scores at Michigan were not much more than 50 points lower than those at other elite schools.

My point is that given its limited resources, if Michigan wants to maintain its current standing as a top 10 or top 15 university, it will have to limit its student population below a certain level and change the makeup of the student body in a way that the university receives more tuition from its students because the state no longer wishes to support it.

At the end of the day, Michigan's goal has always been to lead and in order to lead, it must maintain a certain standard. At the moment, the university is managing fine, but if it really wants to maintain the edge that it enjoyed in the late 19th century and well into the 20th century, Michigan is going to have to adjust and take corrective measures.

forgiven · 10-28-2006, 02:42 PM

yessssssssss i agreeeeee.

mnozzi · 11-10-2006, 03:29 PM

Recently I attended a wedding and sat next to two couples, three UM professors; one was a department head. Here were some of their thoughts.

I asked each of them what they thought of the school and they all gave glowing references. Then I asked each of them if they would send their children there.

They agreed yes for graduate school. No for undergraduate. (Only one college age -- went to or is going to Macalster).

It is my understanding from them that graduate admissions is based more on intellect while undergraduate admissions is based more on the persevering student. That's why for years the ACT/SAT scores were out of sync with the GPA. “It takes a special person to navigate the large population, i.e. TA's, advisors, etc”. U of M has found the formula for successful students and it's not necessarily high IQs (undergraduate) but extremely dedicated students who perform well under pressure.

They also mentioned that unlike some of the top LAC's and Ivy's they have many students with high average IQ's who work extremely hard. These students would never be able to get admitted to top undergrad schools because of their low test scores. Is this bad? They didn't think so.

They just felt, and none of them went to large schools undergrad, that for most students they could do better at a different school. Also I don't think they thought of UM undergrad as an intellectual incubator as many others do.

Interesting perspective?

awheio · 11-10-2006, 10:01 PM

That really makes me sad, actually. In my past, I've been able to get good grades with terrible ethic, but maybe this will provide the kind of discipline I need. I do really want a nice undergrad experience... but maybe I'll just have to aim for UM for grad school too. hah.

Alexandre · 11-10-2006, 10:37 PM

mnozzi, I think the professors were giving you a very sweeping commentary on the university. The mean SAT score at Michigan has historically been roughly 50-100 points lower than those at the mega selective universities. The top half- two thirds of Michigan's student body are Ivy League material and if the last couple of years are anything to go by, Michigan's student body is closing the gap rapidely.

As for Michigan not being an intellectual incubator, I haver to disagree. Michigan has one of the most intellectually hungry and driven undergraduate student bodies I have been around, and I have been around quite a few.