Top 10 US Universities for Graduate Level

[sakky]

<p>

1. Michigan students do not have to put up with classes that enroll 1,000. In fact, the largest lecture hall at Michigan seats 600 students, and there are only a handful of lecture halls at the university of Michigan that can accommodate more than 300 students. Obviously, as a larger university, Michigan is going to have larger classes than Harvard, on average. But the difference is not as glaring as one would think. Even Harvard has classes that enroll over 300 students.

</p>

<p>Fine, fair enough, so UM students have to put up with 600-student classes. That’s frankly, not significantly different from a 1000-student class. </p>

<p>

2. Michigan students are seldom locked out of classes due to over enrollment and in my 20 years of following Michigan closely, I have never heard of a single case where a student had to delay graduation plans as a result of administrative inefficiency (be it over enrolling or whatever).

</p>

<p>Then clearly something else must explain the fact that UM needs 6 years to graduate roughly the same proportion of students that Harvard does in 4 years. I have enumerated some of the possibilities on this thread. </p>

<p>

Could Michigan alter its curriculum to facilitate high four-year graduation rates? Sure, but at the expense of providing undergraduates enrolled in certain programs with the substance that the department feels is required. Students wishing to double major in LSA and the School of Music or LSA and the College of Architecture or Engineering and LSA or LSA and Public Affairs/Policy, to mention only very few popular double majors open to Michigan stuents, will usually require more than 4 years to complete all required courses for graduation.

</p>

<p>And here I’m afraid I must disagree, for such circumstances could be fixed by an easy administrative tweak. If, as you say, certain cross-school double-major choices are notably popular, then it would be trivial to determine which ones by consulting their immense dataset of past student behavior and then restructure the recommended course sequence of those double-majors so that students are far more likely to complete one of the majors within 4 years (and the second major would be finished later). The student would then have graduated with a degree in 4 years. </p>

<p>Lest you think that that would only serve to restrict student freedom, I would actually argue the opposite: student freedom would actually increase. After 4 years, the student would have a degree, whereupon he could choose to stay and complete the double, or immediately head right to the workforce or grad school. Under the present system, as you said, those students still have no degree at all after 4 years and are therefore have no choice but to stay to complete the double. </p>

<p>

Let us be honest here, there are many students at Michigan who are paying $12,000 in tuition (or less thanks to merit scholarship) and probably just as many students at Harvard who are paying $40,000 in tuition and come from well-off but not wealthy families. The former are not motivated to complete their studies in 4 years, particularly if their program is demanding, or if they plan on applying to graduate programs that require very high GPAs and can afford to pace themselves by taking a more manageable courseload to maintain a high GPA or if they are having too good a time! The latter, on the other hand, are under a great deal of pressure to graduate as quickly as possible.

</p>

<p>And this is where I think a version of the “Johnny-Lechner” rule is appropriate. Since it seems that the students you are citing are state residents, hence the $12k figure, UM could simply announce that no student will receive a state tuition subsidy for more than 4 years. Those students who haven’t completed a degree within 4 years (as, for example, in conformance with the new double-major policy above where the student would need to complete at least one of the two degrees in 4 years), would be allowed to stay, but would be required to pay the full (unsubsidized) tuition from then on. I’m quite sure that such a tuition cliff would greatly spur those students to graduate on time. </p>

<p>Again, lest anybody find this step draconian, I would argue that it actually more fair for the state of Michigan at large. After all, there are surely plenty of people who would like to be admitted to UM but can’t get in because the school lacks sufficient space, partly because those other aforementioned students continue to linger without graduating. If these students would graduate in a timely fashion, then UM would be able to educate more students and hence enhance the overall human capital base of the state of Michigan (hence fulfilling the public mission of the state). Students should not be allowed to effectively squat on public educational resources that other people want to use. </p>

<p>I would also further couch the reform in terms of taxpayer fairness. After all, those subsidies are ultimately being provided by taxpayers - including plenty of taxpayers who themselves cannot get into UM. Those students who continue to linger without graduating are effectively abusing the subsidy system. I believe that the implicit social contract between UM and the taxpayers is that state residents are provided with 4 years worth of undergraduate subsidies (and perhaps some years of public graduate school subsidies), but are not allowed to milk the taxpayers by, as you said, hanging out for years while “having a good time”. </p>

<p>Nor would such a system imply that each state resident would receive a lower average total subsidy. Such a reform could be accomplished in a revenue-neutral manner. For example, rather than continuing to provide subsidies for students who linger through years 5+, those subsidies could instead be directed to rebate part of the tuition bill of state residents in years 1-4 (with the amount of the rebate contingent on the proportion of students who stay through year 5+). Hence, those state residents who graduate on time would see their overall tuition (over 4 years) lowered, while those who don’t graduate on time would have to pay much more, and I think that’s entirely appropriate.</p>

<p>Again, lest anybody think that such a policy would hurt those students who can’t graduate on time through no fault of their own, I take you at your word that over 20 years, you have never heard of anybody having their graduation delayed due to administrative inefficiency. I certainly agree that such a tuition-shifting policy would be controversial at other public schools where administrative delays are a significant flaw. But if UM is as efficient as you say, then there should be no problem with instituting such a tuition-shift reform. </p>

<p>

If properly and honestly conducted, Cal and Michigan’s undergraduate and graduate programs should be rated equally

</p>

<p>And that is why I joined this thread in the first place, for that’s a sentiment that I must (sadly) diametrically disagree. To say that Cal’s or Michigan’s undergrad programs should be rated equivalent to their graduate programs categorically neglects the fact that the graduate programs, at least at Cal’s (and almost certainly also Michigan’s), are simply better managed than the undergraduate programs. {Either that, or you’ve just inadvertently insulted Cal’s graduate programs by implying that they’re no better than the undergraduate program, which I’m sure you did not mean to do.} Put another way, I wish that the policies and resources that Cal implements upon its graduate programs could be applied to its undergraduate program, but I absolutely do not wish the opposite: that the undergraduate policies and resources be applied to its graduate programs. I am sure that the same could be said for UM.</p>