<p>I’ve heard a lot about the controversies of US News rankings so I went to do some analysis myself. I noticed that the peer assessment score of U-M is pretty high (ranked 13, tied with UPenn), which says something about it’s reputation. YET it’s alumni giving rate is, lol, 13%— VERY LOW compared to most Tier 1 colleges. That’s pretty sad. Is there any particular reason, given that U-M prides itself on its huge alumni network? Does this mean that graduates tend to be unhappy? Coz perhaps this is what’s dragging U-M down to a mere 25 on overall ranking (its alumni giving rate is lower than all the above 24).</p>
<p>U of M has the largest living number of alumni out of any university in the nation. ANY, by far. So that percentage is going to be somewhat skewed because of the high number of alumni, and it shouldn’t be taken into effect when you are judging the University itself.</p>
<p>Donation rates have nothing to do with alumni satisfaction or loyalty and are generally directly related to two factors:</p>
<p>1) The size of the university. The larger the university, the harder it is to reach out to the entire alumni base. Michigan has close to half a million alumns!</p>
<p>2) Whether the university is private or public. Public schools were wealthier than private universities up to the 1960s. Until then, state schools did not need support from alums so they did not really develop the system to get alums to donate. On the other hand, private universities have depended on alumni financial support for centuries and have developed very effective methods of reaching out to their alumni base.</p>
<p>That explains why 23 of the 25 academic institutions with the highest alum donation rates are LACs and why none of the top 100 are state universities.</p>
<p>But do not confuse Michigan’s low alum donation rate with lack of alum pride, loyalty or statisfaction.</p>
<p>out of curiosity, is it true from what I have heard that UM might be turning private in the future?</p>
<p>It gets discussed. I’ve yet to see numbers that suggest this is a smart move for Michigan financially. That could change as state support goes down, but right now, I don’t see it.</p>
<p>Some bozo at a public policy thinktank wrote an article a few years ago outlining why this is a good idea, and that got a lot of attention. Unfortunately, he really did sloppy homework and people cringe every time they see someone cite him. Former president Duderstadt likes to write about going private, but I think it’s more of an interesting and provocative thing to think about, rather than an actual game plan.</p>
<p>Hoedown, I think that Michigan could probably pull it off, financially speaking. I think the reason Michigan won’t do it is because being publically funded is a big part of the univerity’s history and identity. Furthermore, I think the mindset of the people governing the university would never allow it. I would personally hate it if Michigan were to go private. However, I think Michigan should limit its in-state undergraduate student body to 40% for now and ultimately, reduce the in-state undergraduate population to 20%-25%.</p>
<p>Do that and you’re going to upset to many people in the state for Michigan to remain a public school.</p>
<p>I agree to a certain point though. Lots of underqualified kids from my school got in by applying early.</p>
<p>underqualified? </p>
<p>By what measure?</p>
<p>U-M may take students for different reasons, and that means some students have less impressive academic measures than others. However, the University is supposed to make sure that students are all qualified.</p>
<p>According to article in the 2/17/06 article in The Detroit News, U-M posted a 22 percent boost in donations in 2005 that placed it 16th nationally for gifts. </p>
<p><a href=“Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com”>Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com;