University of Michigan-Ann Arbor/Detroit Dilemma

<p>Fair question but not an issue. I theorize at times that Detroit’s woes help UM in some respects because Ann Arbor attracts much of the art, culture, and science that might have gone to Detroit. By contrast, San Francisco attracts much of the good stuff that might otherwise have gone to Berkeley.</p>

<p>Side note about Detroit, it does have it charms. It was once a prominent city with a prosperous economy and first rate architecture, great sports tradition, great music scene. It’s not all gone. Plenty of it is still around. I was there a month ago and can still say it’s a pretty cool town. It boarders Canada and Windsor is a really nice city. The Detroit Institute of the Arts is world class. The library is gorgeous. The river is a pretty blue-green. I like Detroit.</p>

<p>Also with the state of Michigan in general you get a gorgeous state with lakes galore.</p>

<p>“why on earth is this thread getting so much attention it makes absolutely no sense what so ever”</p>

<p>Probably something to do with our largest city being the largest city in history to ever file for bankruptcy. This is not only national, it’s world-wide news. And when outlets write or talk about Detroit, they typically segueway into state-wide issues, like population decline, political corruption, sagging economy, violent crime in our large cities and abysmal public schools. You guys sound absolutely ridiculous with the “almost private” or “Detroit’s problems are actually a good thing” chatter. When your state or region or the largest city in your state have issues, it’s anything but a good thing for universities (yes, even a world-class public school like Michigan).</p>

<p>I personally believe Detroit’s issues are emblematic of the difficulties facing our entire state. You out of staters don’t care, because you’re simply piggy backing off of our public school system we built up and then flee back to a coast. But to the folks that live and work here, the state of Michigan’s perception and purpose moving forward is a very real issue for us and our universities. </p>

<p>Detroit and the state of Michigan have become geographically irrelevant. There used to be a network of industrial activity that used the Great Lakes to transport raw materials throughout what is now known as the Rust Belt. The boom years produced some amazing things, most notably one of the best public universities in the world. Now air travel is cheap, wheeled transport is cheap, trains are cheap. And, most importantly, air conditioning is cheap. The bulk of the US population has moved south. To the extent it still exists, so has most industry. Coasties speak of “the fly-over,” but Detroit and the state of Michigan are not even part of the fly-over. The future is quite uncertain and THAT is a VERY real issue for the University of Michigan, whether you want to believe it or not.</p>

<p>

Yet more and more of them keep coming. Out-of-state students now account for more than 2/3 of the overall applications, and 40% of the incoming freshman class. That despite the University of Michigan has one of the most expensive cost-of-attendance among public universities.</p>

<p>“After Michigan, the State of New York, Illinois and California are home to the largest number of U-M undergraduate students”, followed by New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.</p>

<p>“Coasties speak of “the fly-over,” but Detroit and the state of Michigan are not even part of the fly-over.”</p>

<p>If they do, why should I care? North Dakota is probably in better shape overall than any state in this country. You think they are concerned about what “coasties” think?</p>

<p>“You out of staters don’t care, because you’re simply piggy backing off of our public school system we built up and then flee back to a coast.”</p>

<p>Piggy backing? I paid out of state tuition! The in-staters piggy pack off of the out of staters.</p>

<p>And I always care about the state of Michigan. I’d move there if I could find a job there.</p>

<p>Anyway, UM is not really a state school anymore. I think the state provides about 10% of the funding. So the school is largely independent of the state. Besides the state looks to the UM for leadership, tech corridor, that sort of thing.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wild-eyed nonsense.</p>

<p>I’ve lived on both coasts as well as various places around the Midwest. I mostly talk to other academics. Everyone I know speaks of the University of Michigan with nothing but admiration and respect, if not outright envy. Our former provost, who was part of an accreditation team that visited the University of Michigan a few years ago and in that capacity had the opportunity to go over the University’s finances and operations with a fine-toothed comb, told me he was blown away by the university’s strengths. He said every public university in the country should look to Michigan as a model, both academically and financially. That hasn’t changed, except possibly for the better. No one in their right mind thinks the University of Michigan is somehow threatened by the City of Detroit’s bankruptcy. That’s just utterly far-fetched lunacy.</p>

<p>Acting as if a public university system is completely insulated from the chaos in its state is far from reality. Detroit and the state of Michigan are suffering some challenges and the university would love nothing more than to see both of them rebound.</p>

<p>alopez, most public universities would feel the pinch if their state were facing tough economics times, some more than others. Michigan is an (possibly the only) exception. Its $8.5 billion endowment (6th largest single campus endowment in the World) makes it completely, 100%, financially independent from the state.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>alopez14,
I don’t know where you’ve been, but the City of Detroit has been “suffering some challenges” at least since the 1967 riots, and in reality since long before that. It started losing population in the 1950s. White flight also began in the 1950s and accelerated through the 1970s. Suburbanization and decentralization of the auto industry caused the City of Detroit to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs and millions in tax revenue, again beginning in the 1950s. City leaders continued to spend as if it was a much larger city than it had become–some of it necessary because the physical footprint of the city remains the same, some based on naive optimism that the spending would turn things around and spark a revival. Crime rates in the City of Detroit have been horrible for decades, as have the city’s schools. This is all old news.</p>

<p>The U.S. auto industry had a near-death experience at least once before, in the 1970s, and as a consequence the State of Michigan went through a severe fiscal crisis, much worse, if I’m not mistaken, than the recent one. That’s when the state started cutting off funding to the University of Michigan, and the University needed to find other ways to pay its bills. It adapted, and not only survived but thrived. It built one of the biggest endowments of any university in the world, public or private. It built up its research capacity to the point that it now generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually in externally funded research grants. It carefully tended its intellectual property rights and converted them into strong positive revenue streams. It gradually raised tuition to make undergraduate education more of a self-funded enterprise, but at the same time it invested tens of millions in financial aid, most of it directed at in-state students; and it gradually increased the number of OOS students which strengthened its tuition revenue stream, since each OOS student probably brings in, on average, as least 3 times as much tuition revenue as the average in-state student.</p>

<p>The City of Detroit and the State of Michigan have been “suffering some challenges” for at least 4 or 5 decades, probably longer, and the University of Michigan has only gotten stronger, financially and academically, over that period. Conditions in the City of Detroit may get worse before they get better, though it’s hard to say as things appear to be close to rock-bottom right now, and there are some positive signs here and there. The State of Michigan is in better fiscal shape now than it has been at some times in the past, and there’s no reason to think that will get worse. The overall economy of the state is probably more diverse and a little less dependent on the auto industry than in past decades, but it will probably continue to be a pretty low-growth state for the foreseeable future. That’s not a “sky is falling” scenario. So yes, there are “some challenges,” but there have been some challenges for a very long time, and they haven’t hurt the University. </p>

<p>In fact, I would venture to say that the University of Michigan stands out as the single strongest, most resilient institution in the entire state. Unlike the City of Detroit, it’s never come anywhere near bankruptcy. Unlike the auto industry, it’s never had to go hat in hand to the federal government for a bailout. Unlike the State of Michigan, it’s never had to lay off thousands of workers and slash budgets every time there’s a downturn in the auto industry. Even as Detroit and the State of Michigan have gone through hard times, the University of Michigan has steadily advanced, ever onward, ever upward, ever stronger. There’s every reason to expect that will continue.</p>

<p>So the state of Michigan’s bottom or near bottom economic indicators and the bankruptcy of Detroit are good things for the University of Michigan? Is that really what you all are suggesting?</p>

<p>…really?</p>

<p>Nobody is claiming they are good things, alopez. </p>

<p>Just that UMich is thriving, despite what has happened to Detroit. Has been for decades. </p>

<p>Choose to believe what you want.</p>

<p>Why would the state of Michigan’s economic woes be a good thing for the University? Who said that what is bad for the state is good for the University? But clearly, the state’s economic performance have not had a detrimental effect on the University. In the last 25 years, the University’s academic position has been constantly reinvigorated and its endowment has grown faster than that of any other university endowment in the United States (from 30th larger endowment in the nation in 1987 to the 6th largest endowment in the country in 2013). Today, less than 5% of Michigan’s budget is covered by state appropriations. The remaining 95%+ are covered by the University.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Now we’re on the same page. I don’t think anyone is suggesting anything really detrimental could occur (anytime soon), but there are very real consequences to the sagging state-wide economy and a broken Detroit. What those are or how devastating they will be? No idea.</p>

<p>My Dad is friends with one of the regents and tons of connected fellow alums that still live here in Michigan. I know for a fact the state-wide economy is a major concern currently and moving forward. I also know Detroit being a world-wide news story is a huge headache for the school. Yet all of you are completely downplaying this.</p>

<p>The state of Michigan was booming for almost a century and that produced some quality state funded universities and maintained a robust economy. Now the state-wide economy is in the tank, we educate students and they move away, our largest city is a war zone…you’re telling me this won’t have any impact on the university moving forward? I say BS.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, don’t be ridiculous, no one said anything of the sort. That’s just a childish sort of argument, completely twisting people’s words.</p>

<p>Look, Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had one of the slowest-growing economies in the nation from the 1920s through the 1950s after the collapse of the state’s three main industries, textiles, shoes, and transportation equipment, which migrated to the South and Midwest and then later overseas. Boston was pretty much a basket case, plagued by race riots, crime, and open gang warfare on the streets. Were Harvard and MIT hurt by that? Amherst? Williams? Wellesley? No. Those institutions only found ways to grow stronger. Of course, they were and are private; the University of Michigan is public. But at this point the state contributes so little of the University’s budget that it’s almost public in name only. It is also public in a more important sense: it’s governed by a popularly elected Board of Regents, and it is committed to serving the people of the State of Michigan by, for example, offering sharply lower in-state tuition and giving state residents first dibs on financial aid, even though the state government doesn’t fully pay for those things. But it is barely more dependent on state government financing than Harvard was between 1920 and 1950. In short, colleges and universities largely ARE insulated from the surrounding state economy, or at any rate they CAN be if they have the financial wherewithal. And the University of Michigan has the financial wherewithal.</p>

<p>“Now the state-wide economy is in the tank, we educate students and they move away, our largest city is a war zone…you’re telling me this won’t have any impact on the university moving forward? I say BS.”</p>

<p>The state Economy has been in the tank for the past 45 years alopez. Has the University lost ground in that period of time? Why would it lose ground going forward, when the University is far less dependent on state funding today than it was 45 years ago.</p>

<p>I have never heard anyone ever use the term “almost private” to describe a public university system. Please support your use of this term with data comparing Michigan-Ann Arbor to other elite flagship publics, e.g. California (Berkeley & UCLA), UVa, UNC and UT-Austin. Also are you suggesting Michigan-Ann Arbor wouldn’t want more funding, if more funding was avail from a robust state? If they would, how would that extra funding improve the school? If that extra funding from a more successful state would help the school system, can we infer that not having that funding, i.e., current state, has stunted some part of the system?</p>

<p>Maybe you haven’t heard that term before because you are still in high school. In all seriousness. It’s not exactly discussed in APUSH or Pre-Calc. I am not trying to be rude - it’s just that this has been floated around for several years that UM could turn private and not much would change. Will they do this? Doubtful.</p>

<p>[Coleman:</a> University management similar to private institutions - The Michigan Daily](<a href=“http://www.michigandaily.com/news/coleman-talks-endowment]Coleman:”>Coleman: University management similar to private institutions)
[Privatize</a> the University of Michigan to save the state money, budget document says](<a href=“http://www.annarbor.com/news/should-university-of-michigan-go-private/]Privatize”>Privatize the University of Michigan to save the state money, budget document says)</p>

<p>“almost private” is a fair term. I heard about it even when I was working there more than 10 years ago.</p>

<p>Detroit was run by imbeciles, and the bankruptcy was a long time coming. In fact, Detroit has been a total ****hole since 1970. The University of Michigan has been fine all those years and will continue to be, don’t let the bankruptcy headlines alarm you.</p>