<p>“Will they do this? Doubtful.” So why are you guys saying this? It’s not going to happen. “Almost private” sounds like something someone with private-envy would say. Michigan is one of the greatest public schools in the country, something we should all be very proud of, especially Michigan residents.</p>
<p>Look, I get it that Professor Shapiro’s efforts helped insulate the school from Michigan’s collapsing economy; but if the state of Michigan and the Detroit region continue on this downward path, how do you guys know we can sustain and there will not think there will be any measurable impact on campus? It absolutely will. How much? Who knows? Dismissing this as a non-issue is arrogant and short-sighted.</p>
<p>I’m just going to weigh in here on the “Detroit is suffering so the whole state must be a cesspool” theory. </p>
<p>Grand Rapids, on the west side of the state, was recently deemed the city with the second-largest job growth rate in the nation by CareerBuilder. We have a thriving biomedical industry and a growing technological one. And, yes, much to my chagrin, we have a successful beer industry. </p>
<p>So yes, Detroit is struggling. Detroit is trying to turn things around. Detroit is not Ann Arbor, however, and Detroit is not Michigan. You will not have to worry about Detroit if you come here, though you are certainly welcome to engage with it via a service or learning program if you desire. </p>
<p>Re “flyover country”: that’s what some of us call the coasts, since we’re flying over them to get to some place more interesting! ;)</p>
<p>The main problem he has is trying to equal City of Detroit with Michigan State. The second problem he has is keep changing his stand point argument. Now he is not arguing whether UMich is “almost private”, but it is “not going to be private”. Obviously, when someone said it is “almost private”, it is NOT private. So what is his point? I am getting sick and tire with this kid.</p>
<p>Detroit and the state of Michigan are in the toilet, as reported around world. The University of Michigan is in great shape financially (thanks to Dr. Shapiro’s genius), but to argue that (a public school) being surrounded by this bleak economic outlook has not had or will not have any impact to the school is pure fiction.</p>
<p>You’re telling me additional funding from a robust state wouldn’t help UM? You’re telling me positive stories about Detroit and the state of Michigan wouldn’t help UM? You’re telling me a 5% unemployment rate wouldn’t help UM? Well it’s a two way street.</p>
<p>alopez, this thread is absolutely inundated with so many backed-up, researched evidence proving how Michigan has reduced their reliance on the state for funding and any other support to miniscule numbers, in addition to the mountains of evidence (that you seem to agree with) that Michigan has thrived and succeeded for decades as the city of Detroit has languished.</p>
<p>Not only do you ignore these posts, you present no factors of your own to back up your viewpoint (I suspect because there aren’t any). You are throwing out general, wide-sweeping claims that seem to come down to Detroit is near the University of Michigan, thus this is bad for the school, in apparently unidentifiable ways since you haven’t exactly been specific. This is in addition to your new point, that hypothetically speaking and thus with no evidence to back up said claim, a theoretical future with a thriving Detroit would surely help the university. Hypothetical futures? Really?</p>
<p>I only bring this up because you’re the only poster keeping this thread alive, and you’re not doing anything to sway anyone because you aren’t providing facts of your own. Other posters have proved thoroughly how dissociated the university is from Detroit; please stop ignoring them, address how they are flawed, and provide counterexamples that prove your point.</p>
<p>alopez, Michigan is not a local or regional university. It is not even a national university. It is a global university with a global reputation. Being close to Detroit or in the state of Michigan has not diminished its ability to attract world class faculty and students from all over the world, and in turn, that faculty has thrived and its students have gone on to do well for themselves. Faculty and students usually care more about a university’s academic offerings and strengths, and being located in one of the nicest college towns in the country certainly doesn’t hurt. This is not unique to the University of Michigan. All elite universities have the fortune of being insulated from the world immediately around them.</p>
<p>For the LSA class of 2012, a whopping 91% of graduates were either employed or enrolled in graduate school. That is incredible. At some peer private universities, only 70% of recent grads are either employed or in graduate school. And of the remaining 9% of the 2012 class who are not in graduate school or working, only 7% were unemployed and seeking work. That is very impressive. If you conduct a similar survey at other universities of equal caliber, you will often find that 15% or even more of recent graduate at unemployed and seeking work. </p>
<p>Also, 91% of 2012 Ross grads were also either employed or in graduate school. Over 95% of the 2012 graduates from the CoE were either working or in graduate school.</p>
<p>When less than 10% of a university’s entire graduating class is seeking work and over 90% are either employed or enrolled in graduate school, there isn’t much need for improvement. Considering the fact that the US is still recovering from the worst global recession since the Great Depression, those figures are not simply impressive, they are mondboggling. It would be great if the state (especially Detroit) got its act together, but clearly, the University, its faculty and its students are doing fine and are not negatively impacted the state of the local economy.</p>
<p>How do you know what impact the state-wide and regional economy of Detroit have had on the University of Michigan; have you modeled current state of Michigan vs. a hypothetical robust state of Michigan? Have you studied the long-term impacts of a 9% state-wide unemployment rate, 5 major cities with emergency managers, home to 3 of the most violent cities in the world, severe population decline, 20% of population on food stamps, its largest city being home to the largest municipality bankruptcy and population decline in world history, the majority of college grads leaving the state, public school systems in complete disarray? No, you have not.</p>
<p>If you guys think these have no net impact on the university, explain to me why the university is deeply concerned with these issues facing the region? You guys should call the leaders of the university and tell them they need to relax. /sarcasm</p>
<p>I’m not sure what math you’re taking if you think that 37% of college graduates leaving the state represents a majority. The percentage of graduates staying in Michigan is on par with Pennsylvania and North Carolina and ahead of Massachusetts and other northeastern states. </p>
<p>If I could edit my post I would. For some reason I thought it was over 50 percent. Either way, we can all agree 37 percent and growing is very alarming. One long-term impact is that the grads that leave never return to the state of Michigan. So their children, which are very high potential with parent(s) of high socio-economic status, are never enrolled in Michigan high schools. University of Michigan is in turn losing out on those high potential applicants. That’s just one long-term impact.</p>
<p>This kid would never give up. He has a very poor logic and reading comprehension. He just like to ignore all the points against him and keep making up things and changing subject.</p>
<p>I was not a math major, but if in recent years UM has taken in 35-42% freshman OOS students, and only 37% leave after graduating, then that looks like a win. Maybe they are OOS kids that went home, or maybe some Michiganders have left for jobs. </p>
<p>Whatever. </p>
<p>I give up. You are right, alopez. Michigan is headed for irrelevancy and going to the dogs. Probably next week. They might as well close up and stop taking in new students. There is simply no point anymore to apply there, because really only bad things are ahead for UM and MSU and everywhere in between. You win. </p>
<p>Stats mean nothing in the end, actually. Time to go become a Buckeye or flip burgers or something.</p>
<p>^Agreed, Samaurai…meaning, no, we cannot all agree, alopez.</p>
<p>Further, not only is 37% NOT ALARMING considering the makeup and national/global status of the school…the poster’s logic is seriously flawed – Michigan does NOT lose out on “high potential applicants” at all when it’s alumni leave the state. On the contrary, many of those children in turn apply to their parents’ alma mater. </p>
<p>However, there’s no shortage of qualified applicants to Michigan, so there’s no compelling need to waste more time convincing anyone that their concerns are completely unwarranted and uncorroborated by reality ;)</p>
<p>alopez, this is what I mean by not making general claims and not backing them up with anything resembling factual evidence, from your last post:</p>
<p>“Either way, we can all agree 37 percent and growing is very alarming.”
Please look at the posts by Finnlet, kmcmom, and Samurai. You are the only one that agrees with your statement. If you want to convince us you’re right, tell us why 37 percent should really be alarming.</p>
<p>“One long-term impact is that the grads that leave never return to the state of Michigan.”
Please prove that. Furthermore, please prove how this matters to the University of Michigan.</p>
<p>“So their children, which are very high potential with parent(s) of high socio-economic status, are never enrolled in Michigan high schools.”
Please prove why this is relevant.</p>
<p>“University of Michigan is in turn losing out on those high potential applicants. That’s just one long-term impact.”
A large portion of University of Michigan students are out of state. Being an out of state student does not prevent you from applying to Michigan, last I checked. Since you seem to be looking at the Michigan grads who move out of state, who you previously (likely correctly) presuppose are of high socio-economic status, those grads’ children can likely afford Michigan, and so the OOS tuition is not a deterring factor. So no, Michigan is not losing on these high potential applicants.</p>
<p>Even if they were, Michigan’s popularity (in terms of applications) is at an all-time high and set to continue moving higher. Losing out on some potential applicants doesn’t exactly hurt the applicant pool when so many other qualified students are ready to take their places.</p>
<p>I doubt you’ll respond to this since you aren’t interested in a reasonable discussion that isn’t incredibly one-sided, and it’s clear from this thread that your debating skills are indeed at high-school levels. Not surprising, of course.</p>