ann arbor is overrated. » Blog Archive

Acting Private

The Detroit News’ Daniel Howes argues that it’s time for Michigan to start cutting spending, especially on “a state university in Ann Arbor that acts private, so why isn’t it?” How does a university “act private”?

59 Responses to “Acting Private”

By attracting students and faculty that other universities might want.
posted by Anna on December 17th, 2004 at 4:56 pm
One of the common complaints about Michigan (perhaps perceptions) is that if there are two students of equal qualifications, it will take the out of state student before it takes the state student. I think another complaint is that it flounts some of the things that come from the State Government.
posted by Kozzie on December 17th, 2004 at 6:31 pm
Wha…? I always thought it was much harder for out-of-state students to get in. (Although not in grad school, of course.) At least the out-of-state undergrads I’ve known claim to be superior.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on December 17th, 2004 at 6:36 pm
It was (and probably still is) harder for undergrads from out-of-state to get in. Under the old point matrix system (for LSA and probably the other colleges to a lesser extent), students from within Michigan got a couple points boost (somewhat appropriately, I think, as U-M is still publicly funded to a certain extent). U-M’s charter from the state gives it greater discretion in what public money it does get, distinguishing it from other Michigan public universities. I don’t understand the animosity toward Michigan though. Would most people be happier if U-M were largely mediocre like several of our other state universities?
posted by Dale on December 17th, 2004 at 7:11 pm
It is much harder to get into Michigan from out of state. Go get a copy of Barrons or something and check it out.

I figure that guy at the Detroit News went to MSU and he’s just bummed he had to live in East Lansing, and not overrated AA.
posted by JennyD on December 17th, 2004 at 7:12 pm
The problem seems to be that there is great bitterness on the part of people who do not get into the Univerrsity of Michigan. Often, this goes on for a lifetime.
I wish people would get over it.
posted by Lucky Jackson on December 17th, 2004 at 7:14 pm
Like I said, it may have been a perception from some people. Sometimes perceptions are all that matters in politics. I don’t know whether it’s true or not.

Although, I have a feeling that some of it might be due to bitterness. Not everyone can get into U-M.
posted by Kozzie on December 17th, 2004 at 7:16 pm
another boost to out-of-state students’ oft-present superiority complex…
posted by Brandon on December 17th, 2004 at 7:17 pm
…how does a university act private? By selling (at least partially-)publicly-funded research to the DOD, and by accepting DOD contracts. Poke around the U-M’s “Tech Transfer” site, in here, for example.
posted by Laura on December 17th, 2004 at 8:57 pm
Hell, every University does that.
posted by Brandon on December 17th, 2004 at 9:33 pm
When the legislature demanded that state universities stop recruiting out-of-state students, MSU caved, and UM didn’t.

MSU, as you probably don’t recall, once had more Merit Scholars than any other public university in the nation, via aggressive nationwide recruitment. Not any more.

And the ending of out-of-state Merit Finalist recruitment has made East Lansing a much less interesting place than it was thirty years ago.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on December 18th, 2004 at 8:58 am
I would imagine it’s acting private by not accurately reflecting the political leanings of the Michigan public at large.

… or, y’know, a certain major Detroit newspaper that doesn’t flaunt having Mitch Albom as a columnist.

Consdering I remember bitching in Lansing about that before, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest.
posted by Jen on December 18th, 2004 at 9:46 pm
It acts private because the UofM seems to maximize profits (oops–revenue) whenever and wherever it can. Just look at the fact that it will take ~40 years to build a new dorm even though the student population has increased significantly since 1967 (that is, by limiting the supply of housing, UofM keeps rents high.)
posted by Chuck on December 19th, 2004 at 12:52 am
Yes, thank you, Brandon, I know many universities do that. That doesn’t make it any less distasteful.
posted by Laura on December 19th, 2004 at 2:43 am
The News (and, I assume, the Freep as well) hires a lot of MSU graduates. They have a damn good journalism program.
posted by Echo Alumni on December 19th, 2004 at 4:04 am
And, it’s worth mentioning, the U-M has no journalism program (kind of explains the state of the Daily)
posted by Ben on December 19th, 2004 at 5:31 am
Chuck — the lack of new university housing over the last 40 years is more due to a widespread abandonment of housing education and decline of federal post-war lending programs.
posted by Dale on December 19th, 2004 at 11:38 am
If you saw a lot of the DOD-funded research, you’d probably find it much less distasteful. Much of it is simply theoretical. Plenty of great scientific research has been motivated by defense concerns - look at the space program. Other scientific research is motivated by profit, which has its own problems, but were it for neither of these, research would have a much harder time being funded.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on December 19th, 2004 at 2:35 pm
I don’t find defense research that particularly distasteful. Until such a time that humans get it and manage to shake greed, we will need a strong military. In order to keep a strong military, we need to have defense research. I would much rather have a strong military in our hands than in the hands of other countries.
posted by Kozzie on December 19th, 2004 at 3:43 pm
I miss the old days when they called it the Department of War… at least they were being honest.
posted by Brandon on December 19th, 2004 at 4:05 pm
“…how does a university act private? By selling (at least partially-)publicly-funded research to the DOD, and by accepting DOD contracts. Poke around the U-M’s “Tech Transfer” site, in here, for example.”

I don’t really understand the part about “at least publicaly-funded research” — the DOD is a public institution. Government grants and contracts help defray the costs of running the U, which benefits Michigan taxpayers and in-state students. The dirty little secret of grants and contracts is that the amount that is charged to the grants by the university for “overhead” (50-70%, depending on the university and funding agency) is much more than the cost to the U of hosting the research.
posted by Anonymous on December 20th, 2004 at 11:23 am
I have never seen a federal grant that allows for a 50-70% administrative overheard charge. I’ve never even seen a state grant that allows for that. When I worked on a Ryan White-funded project, the cap was 12% overhead. And the NY State Human Resources Administration capped it at 10%. Have the guidelines changed, or has UM figured out some clever way around the limits?
posted by Alex(andra) on December 20th, 2004 at 11:42 am
I think the 50-70% overhead is pretty common at UM, esp. in the medical school, but I don’t know what the federal regulations are. I do know that my boss has to pay his own salary through his grant funding. Also note that a lot of public research dollars come from National Institutes of Health - the NIH RO1 is the lifeblood of the bioscience research investigator, and those who can’t pull down the big grants get run out pretty quickly. It’s pretty cutthroat, and pretty depressing.

Oh, and DOD grants can also be responsible for a lot of good public health initiatives, such as new studies on biological agents like smallpox. Many, many investigators in the biosciences are trying to tailor their research to things like the threat of smallpox and anthrax, because that’s where the money is right now.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on December 20th, 2004 at 1:34 pm
Alex(andra): I’ve never heard of a cap on overhead — things must vary by discipline. At my current university, the 2004-2005 overhead rate for NIH and NSF is 63.5%. It all depends on what the institution has negotiated with the funding agency. The higher-powered the institution, the higher the overhead rate. I believe that UM’s is somewhere in the 50-60% range. DOD is generally in line with NIH and NSF (not sure if that’s a cooincidence, or if all gov’t funding agencies negotiate the same rate). Private foundations often have different rates, and some refuse to pay overhead at all. At some universities faculty are either not allowed to, or are seriously discouraged from, applying for funds from agenencies that don’t pay overhead.
posted by Anna on December 20th, 2004 at 2:31 pm
The ratio of in-state to out-of-state students at U of M has always been a sticking point in the state legislature. Naturally, Michigan voters–who do, after all, pay state taxes–believe they deserve more slots, and when their kids don’t get in to Ann Arbor, they raise holy hell with their legislators.

I believe the ratio is fixed at 70-30; in addition to facing higher admissions standards, out-of-staters also have to shell out a hell of a lot more money in tuition.

I came to the U of M from Massachusetts and earned an undergraduate degree in English. On average, I would describe the out-of-staters I met there as smarter, but at the top levels, Michiganders dominated. And if you think about it, it makes sense: if you’re bright enough to attend Harvard but can get a high-quality education at a fraction of the cost, and your family either doesn’t have a tremendous amount of money or they’re just cheap/practical/Jewish (kidding) then Michigan is the perfect choice.

I didn’t even consider attending my own state’s public university because it was such a piece of shit. I was turned down at Virginia and UNC-Chapel Hill, probably because of their smaller student bodies. What I have never been able to figure out is why Michigan, Virginia, and North Carolina all have such strong flagship universities.
posted by TS on December 20th, 2004 at 3:35 pm
So what if Michganders pay taxes for U-M, Michiganders pay less for tuition. Who cares what the ratio is? (excpet petty politians in Lansing and right-wing columnists at one of the nations most conservative media sources). At my current institution of higher learning, McGill, the funding is public (based on enrolement of Quebec and Canadian students) but the institution is strictly private, the only requirement being that Quebec and Canadian students pay lower tuition.
posted by Ben the Geographer on December 20th, 2004 at 4:58 pm
Yeah but I thought tuition alone doesn’t come close to covering the costs of running the university.
posted by g on December 20th, 2004 at 9:13 pm
Maybe the cap I am used to on federal grants is for social services rather than research. We had to tow a pretty strict line in terms of unit costs (per bed, per client, etc.), but it sounds like a whole different ballgame for the kinds of grants you all are talking about.
posted by Alex(andra) on December 20th, 2004 at 9:50 pm
For once, I’d have to agree with TS. I’m also curious why such states have flagship schools… And, honestly, certain programs at MSU seem to be quite top-notch as well.
posted by paul on December 21st, 2004 at 7:51 am
What do you define as a “flagship” school? Tough admissions standards? A certain snobby reputation? UVA, UNC, and UM all seem to have a “close to Ivy league” kind of reputation. And they are all more liberal arts/law school/med school type universities. Whereas schools like Michigan State get lableled as “cow colleges” because they have ag and engineering programs.

Historically, a lot of schools were set up like that, the “state” school had the ag programs, and the “university” had the liberal arts programs. This really noticible in the western states: University of Montana (writing program, journalism) vs. Montana State (engineering, animal and range science) for instance.

The boundaries tend to blur these days, depending on who gets better leadership, funding, and strong academic programs going, but it seems that the well funded liberal universities get to play up their reputation and look down on the more blue-collar state schools.

Then again, I’m biased with a B.S. in animal science from a lesser tier eastern state school and a doctorate from Montana State.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on December 21st, 2004 at 8:20 am
Michigan State gets called “cow college” or “Moo U” because it was founded as an agricultural college. Obviously, it has come a long way since then (from MAC to MSC to MSU), and it does indeed have some stellar programs.

MSU’s engineering school used to be under attack, since it “duplicated” the engineering program at U-M. They frequently had to fight off efforts in the legislature to abolish it.

And then there was a huge fire in 1916 that destroyed the engineering buildings. They desperately needed to rebuild it before the Legislature came back into session. The president of the College sent an urgent telegram to R.E.Olds in Florida, asking him to fund the reconstruction. He did, and the R.E.Olds Hall of Engineering resulted. (It’s still there, but no longer used for Engineering.)
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on December 21st, 2004 at 8:52 am
(I should explain for non-Michiganders that R.E. Olds was an early automobile magnate, the founder of Oldsmobile, REO, etc., etc.)
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on December 21st, 2004 at 8:54 am
Well here are my impressions to the question. A main reason that Virginia and North Carolina have such superb flagship universities is that the leadership of those “New South” states, and especially the corporate leadership, poured resources into UVA and UNC-CH in the 1940s-1960s while other southern states were still letting the good-old-boy networks run higher education. Another key reason, especially at UVA, is that the university refuses to expand enrollment by any meaningful amount despite a lot of pressure from the legislature. The extremely small undergraduate population allows the university to cherry-pick the very top graduates of the state’s many private schools and excellent suburban public ones. UVA’s reputation comes at a price–it is very elitist and really fits the “public in name only” model more than Michigan or UNC-CH, and it is as hard to get into from out-of-state as many Ivies. When I was there in the 1990s the state contributed something like 4% of the university budget, after massive budget cuts that UVA made up for with amazing fundraising, and this allows a high degree of autonomy because the state simply has no leverage as a result.

UNC is a little different–tuition is still very cheap for in-state students, unlike Michigan or UVA. Law or medical school there is probably the best educational buy in the nation. But there is a political culture in North Carolina that believes that its outstanding institutions of higher education are the key engines of the state’s economic growth over the past few decades, and a really solid commitment to fund public education at high levels. Governors in North Carolina aren’t “surprised,” as Granholm professed to be last week, to find out that if the state slashes funding to higher education than the economy will suffer. Both UVA and UNC-CH are hard to get into out of state as undergraduates, but UNC-CH is less elitist than UVA, more of a genuinely public university, although the student population is still skewed by class/income as at all selective schools–UNC is more like Michigan really with cheaper tuition.

Also both UVA and UNC-CH aggressively seek graduate and professional students from outside the South and outside the nation while other public universities–Georgia, Tennessee, Florida et al–are still content mainly to draw from the in-state population for graduate/law/medicine. Proximity to DC has also helped UVA because a lot of young people from across the country work in DC and get residency in northern Virginia and then attend UVA for law/medical/grad school. My grad program at UVA was probably 75% from outside the South, maybe even more.
posted by Matt on December 21st, 2004 at 11:21 am
One way in that the University may “act private” and it has this in common with other public research universities, is that it does not spend public moneys on undergraduate education.

Even with the sugnificant tuition discount that in-state students receive, universities still make tons of money off of undergraduates. Try multiplying the tuition money that undergrads pay for the hundred plus pecture classes they attend. Bear in mind that most of the smaller classes are taught by teaching assistiants, who are barely compensated. Even if we add in a huige overhead cost - say 75%, we still have a huge profit margin for the university.

This would be fine, if the Universities would jsut be honest about it, and stop pretending that they view undergrads as anything but cash cows needed to subsidize their researcha dn graduate programs. It would also help if they stopped pretending to the legislature that the public money they receive is spent on undergrad education.
posted by Lucky Jackson on December 21st, 2004 at 12:47 pm
One time for kicks and giggles I was checking out the various in state rates for Universities. It costs more for a Michigan resident to go to EMU than it does for a California resident to go to UCLA or UC or whatever. Same thing goes for Texas. Michigan has historically lagged behind other states in funding higher education and tuition rates reflect it.

As for Granholm and her call for more graduates to stay in Michigan. If the jobs stay here, the graduates will stay here.
posted by Kozzie on December 21st, 2004 at 1:18 pm
Lucky, You are off the mark on that one. Private universities spend a great deal of time and effort on undergraduate education, so if one is trying to “act private”, one would spend a lot of faculty time and effort (often behind the scenes in curriculum planning and review, review of teaching quality, etc.) on undergraduate education. There is no better way to “act private” than to make sure undergraduates get their money’s worth.

That being said, at the UM, 70% of undergrads (in-staters) are paying much less than it costs to educate them. The UM gets public money, sure, but even at private schools tuition doesn’t cover the operating budget — much of that is made up by alumni donations. At public schools, like the UM, donations are very small relative to private schools.

Contrary to some views, research is not subsidized by undergraduate education; quite the opposite, in fact. Overhead from grants does almost nothing to benefit the researchers who have pulled in the grants — the university offers little by way of support for research (except for the staff members devoted to facilitating the aquisition of grants) and charges grants ridiculously inflated prices for things that should be included in overhead ($200 to have an existing ethernet jack “activated”, $400 to hang a white board, 15 cents a minute for phone calls, extra money for computing support — at my institution we pay $2K per machine per year). Furthermore, undergraduates directly benefit from research conducted at the university — many computers are made available to undergrads that were originally bought with grants funds, research assistants paid off grants often perform tasks that directly relate to teaching, students have access to equipment and materials paid for by grants for special projects and honors theses, etc. etc. etc.).
posted by Anna on December 21st, 2004 at 2:17 pm
FWIW, I work on an NSF-funded grant project at UM. We have to calculate indirect costs for the university at 52%. For that, we get a basement office in a terrible building, access to two five-year-old desktop computers, and what I would assume to be about 10 minutes per week of secretarial support. For this, the U gets $52k per year.

There are all kinds of fun rules attached to our grant, too. For instance, we can’t send mail first class (37 cents). We have to send it all as Express Mail (about $16) so it can be tracked. Priority Mail, also trackable, won’t do for some reason. God forbid someone might steal a stamp and it should go untracked!

We also have to buy our supplies through M-Stores because of UM regulations. Need a spindle of 50 CDRs? That’s $18 at Circuit City, or $35 from M-Stores. Printer paper is $16 a carton at Sam’s, or $30 a carton through M-Stores.

So between NSF rules and UM rules, we burn up a lot of money for no clear purpose.

Bear in mind also that Michigan gets only about $350 million from Lansing every year, which is about 9 percent of our budget. The vast majority of revenues (excluding grants to specific projects) come from tuition, the federal government, private gifts, endowment monies, alumni contributions, et cetera.

So why does UM act like a private university? Because it is 91% private.
posted by Dan on December 21st, 2004 at 2:29 pm
Thank you, Dan — this is exactly what I’m talking about.
posted by Anna on December 21st, 2004 at 2:43 pm
“Bear in mind that most of the smaller classes are taught by teaching assistiants, who are barely compensated.”

I don’t know about that; I’ll be more than happy to take my tuition-waiver and generous stipend next semester! Oh, and it’s “Graduate Student Instructor” to you.
posted by Brandon on December 21st, 2004 at 3:05 pm
Brandon,
Take your generous stipend, claculate how much tuition (even at instate rates) your undergrads are paying to take your class. Then subtract the former figure from the latter. Granted, UM isn’t as bad as most universities, but I think you will still find that there is a singicant sum left over.
posted by Lucky Jackson on December 21st, 2004 at 7:39 pm
Oh I’m sure they are. All I know is I’m not complaining about the quite-a-bit-better-than-work-study pay and free tuition.
posted by Brandon on December 21st, 2004 at 11:12 pm
Lucky, I don’t really understand why there shouldn’t be a significant sum left over — the cost of educating students includes the classroom they’re sitting in, the building the classroom is in, the library, having the faculty around to design the courses & etcetera. Surely you don’t really think that we should divide the teacher’s salary by the number of students to arrive at tuition figures. Even public elementary schools with pitifully-compensated teachers are charging the tax payers a ridiculous amount of money by that measure.
posted by Anna on December 22nd, 2004 at 9:22 am
Brandon — just because you’re happy the U. threw you a bone doesn’t mean we all should be.
posted by Dale on December 22nd, 2004 at 10:06 am
I went to MSU out of High School. After one year I was very depressed. Very easy, made the deans list, but it seemd just like a continuation of high school. Same people, no challenges. I really though college was supposed to be different. Transfered into UM where I finished my undergrad in 4 years with much lower gpa than MSU. UM was far more difficult and challenging. MSU was all “Bubble” multiple choice tests. I am personally glad I made the change though I lost some freinds coming to AA. I felt like a degree at MSU was simply paid for, not earned. I also met far more racists/bigots there than AA. So if you dislike living or working in AA, try East Lansing, things can always be worse.
posted by Ypsidweller on December 22nd, 2004 at 11:04 am
My point is that univesities claim that they use taxpayer money to educate undergraduates, but, in fact, tuition more than covers to expense of educating undergrads. Therefore, it is difficult for research universities to claim they are “public universities.”
And, be honest, much of the money goes for things that ahve nothing to do with undergrad education, such as bailing out university hospitals, the athletic department, conferences, many, mmnay layers of adminsitrators, etc
posted by Lucky Jackson on December 22nd, 2004 at 3:16 pm
Lucky, you have asserted several times that the cost to educate undergrads is less than the tuition the U charges. Do you have any figures or external sources to back up that claim?
posted by tom on December 22nd, 2004 at 3:30 pm
Lucky, I too would like to see your inside information. For one, the athletics department pays for itself via football revenues (they fund non-revenue sports). The “many many layers” of administrative expenses may not be optimally efficient, but they certainly have to do with undergraduate education (i.e. administration that deals with research is more than paid for by “overhead” charged to grants). I don’t know about bailing out hospitals, but one could argue that the hospital serves the public interest and I’m not sure that the U’s budget isn’t separate from the Med Center’s budget. Finally, what “conferences” are you referring to? Most that I know of are paid for through money donated specifically for that purpose or by gov’t grants. On the other hand, I *have* seen figures about how much it costs to have each student on campus, and the cost exceeds both in- and out-of-state tuition.
posted by Anna on December 22nd, 2004 at 3:40 pm
Lucky, you claim that undergrad tuition is used for bailing out the University hospitals. In fact, the hospitals run in the black and reported operating margins of 3%-4% over the past few years. (That’s grocery store territory, but still). See this press release.
posted by tom on December 22nd, 2004 at 4:55 pm
Dale, why aren’t you happy about my bone? I’m pretty sure you’ve got an even larger one goin’ if I’m not mistaken. That sounds dirty.

“My point is that univesities claim that they use taxpayer money to educate undergraduates”

…and research and graduate education and public service and… I don’t think the U has ever focused on educating undergrads solely, nor should it be.
posted by Brandon on December 22nd, 2004 at 5:12 pm
“Tuition more than covers the expense of educating undergrads”

This is just wrong, especially applied to in-state undergrads.
posted by Matt on December 22nd, 2004 at 7:07 pm
Reply to my critics:
I have been gneralizinmg about “research universities, rather than the U of M, but I will try to be more specific.
1. My argument that universities make money off of undergrads comes from multiplying the tuition paid by undergrads by the total number of students in a class, and subtracting the money paid to the instructor from that number. Even if he add an asrtronomically high opverhead (say 75%,) I still see the Universitioes making a profit.
2, My statement about university hosptials comes from abook by Robert Honigman called “University Secrets” that deals directly with the University of Michigan and is available online. If UM hosptials are profitable, this is a recent phenomenon I will concede that hospitals are worthy of subsidy, but I think Unhiversities should be more upfront about doing so.
3. For ahtletic departments, O of M is one of about fifteen unviersity atheltic deparmtnets that are break-even propositions. OSU, which I am directly familar with, is another, although OSU does this byt not including maintenance for athletic facilities in its artheltic department budgets. (This can run into millions of dollars.) I know for a fact that, (at least as of two years ago) the U of M’s licesning fees for hats, t-shirts, etc., went directly into the athletic deparmtents budget. SInce, presumably, more than a few peoplke might be wearing U of M shirts out of idneitfication with the University, rather than the athletic department, this amounts to an indirect subsidy.
MSU directly paid for its fifity mkillion dolalr Breslin Center with a student tuition increase.
4. COnferences in the humanities at OSU and MSU were p[auid for out of deparmtnetal budgets. Perhaps U of M is different.
5. Perhaps a university shouyld exist for more than educating undergrads. (In fact, I agree with you.) But it should stop trying to create the impression that it is expending resources on undergraduate education, when in fact it is using undergrads as a cash cow. (In much the same way that bobo landlords do.)
6. Why are a bunch of self-styled curmudgeons suddenly so defensive? Do I sense self interest here?
posted by Lucky Jackson on December 22nd, 2004 at 7:49 pm
Lucky — undergrad lecture courses surely make money. However, courses get smaller and require much more effort on the part of the instructor as one progresses to the upper classes. 400-level courses (and honors courses) have always seemed like money losers to me; senior theses must be hemorrhaging money. But all of this restricts revenues and expenditures to an absurd undergrad tuition-only cash flow.

At a place like Michigan, all but the most intellectually irresponsible break even or better on their investment (OSU may be another story); it’s more of a symbiosis than a Hoovering of the undergrad wallet.
posted by Dale on December 22nd, 2004 at 8:50 pm
Lucky–

Simply looking at the classroom student to instructor ratio is a narrow and misleading way to define the “cost of educating undergraduates.” To be accurate you would need to include all of the amenities that make the modern selective university a country club for the young–the workout facilities, the student center, the high-speed internet access, the high cost of making services such as lexis-nexis and all the other databases available to everyone on campus. U-M is not nearly as bad as some places in terms of turning universities into youth resorts, but it is not immune from criticism either.

At almost all state universities, money from the state budget subsidizes undergraduate tuition for in-state students. The real scandal, if you want to cast about for one, is that general taxpayer funds are subsidizing a university that basically educates the children of the top 20% income bracket. Don’t forget that last year, when Granholm briefly suggested cutting the MEAP scholarships to save money for the health insurance program for low-income children, politicians of both parties and suburban parents raised hell and she quickly agreed to slash low-income health care and protect MEAP. MEAP is a subsidy from the working class in Michigan to the upper middle class, justified by bullshit rhetoric about meritocracy. I would means-test MEAP and not let anyone in the top 20% family income bracket qualify.
posted by Matt on December 23rd, 2004 at 2:59 am
Lucky,

Snarkiness about country clubs aside, Matt is right about the cost of an undergrad education being more than simply the salary of the lecturer. Were it true that the only cost to consider is the lecturer’s pay, all classes would be held under the nearest oak tree - a great place to be on a day like today. You have also to factor in facilities costs (maintenance, utilities, debt service, etc), the vast computer resources of the U, the libraries, etc., etc., etc.

I am not familiar with Honigman’s book - I’ll have to pick it up. I am fairly sure that the U split off UMHS into its own financial unit a while ago and it now sinks or swims on its own.

btw, I have no connection with the U, other than a piece of paper saying I was graduated from it in 1977, and, some of my taxes go to it.
posted by tom on December 23rd, 2004 at 11:14 am
For all the crap about the MEAP being a subsidy for middle class people, it does have a set target and people know what they do in order to get the scholarship from it. There’s a study going around that basically says that when you push students to do well, they will do well. If you have lower expectations for certain students, you will get those expectations. It’s funny how certain people manage to get past their environment and end up doing well, while other people don’t do anything.
posted by Kozzie on December 23rd, 2004 at 2:54 pm
Remember, inmy earlier claim about undergrad classes making money for the U, I granted a 75% overhead, which, assuredly, should cover maintenance, cumputers, libraries, etc.

I am willing, in the case of UM, to grant undergrad education a “breakeven” status - tuition covers the cast of an undergrad education. This still, however, serves to deny UM it’s status as a “public” university, if by that we mean a university in which taxpayer money goes to subsidize undergraduate education.

I will NOT gos o far as to grant OSU and MSU, the two Bit TEn Universities which I am personally familair with, “Breakeven” status. With a few exceptions (THe honors college for both schoolsn and MSU’s residential colleges, undergraduae tuition is a cash cow. (THe undergad dean of OSU relatuantly coneded the point to me once. I should also like to ad that, even in these schools honors coleges, many classes are tuaght by TAs. I will grant that grad students are foten better teachers than faculty, but I am arguing economics here.)

The smaller upper level classes taught by tenured faculty seem to have disappeared in the past decade or so at msot insitutions. If they are still present at UM, that is something you can be proud of, and it should be something that she be pointed out to the evil cabal of Spartans that control the News and the Free Press.

As someone who was briefly in the MSU journalism program, btw, allow to to differ. MSU doesn have a great journalism program. What it has is a great student newspaper, the State News. THe Daily, however, isn as abd as you guys make it out to be.
posted by Lucky Jackson on December 23rd, 2004 at 5:16 pm
Appended to Matt’s point is this excerpt from a Dec. 26 NY Times article.

“New Jersey’s public institutions really did not provide much of a residential experience in the past,” Dr. Cole said. “That is one of the reasons that students went out of state. They wanted to go to a ‘real college,’ where they can live in a residence hall and have recreational facilities, something that looked like a college and felt like a college in terms of the overall total experience of the institution.”

No longer can Montclair State U., the subject of the article, simply offer a good education — they must satisfy the college dreams of students in every respect. And those capital expenditures are rarely funded by the state.
posted by Dale on December 27th, 2004 at 7:50 am
This is a little off topic, but I want to respond to the Michigan Daily-bashing. I recognize Daily alumns in the Detroit media on a regular basis. Among the more prominent are Bob Wojnowski at the News and Michael Rosenberg at the Freep. If there are more State News alums at those papers, that may reflect the fact that more State News alums are from Michigan, and more likely to stick around. I also know of Daily alumni at just about every major national media outlet — the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, etc. — and would suspect that they outnumber State News alums. Although I’m not a journalist, those I know in the field would rather see a job candidate major in something other than journalism so they have a broader base on knowledge to inform their writing. I think journalism is better learned by writing stories, investigating facts, and interviewing sources than by having someone at a chalkboard explain the inverted pyramid (I realize that this part of a journalism program but it can be learned just as well by working on a college paper, and interning the summer, while majoring in economics, biology or whatever).
posted by PeteM on December 30th, 2004 at 6:49 pm
I agree with Lucky! I asked Mary Sue Coleman this very question on a radio call-in show: “Given that tuition at UofM costs about 2.5 times what it did in 1975 after adjusting for inflation, what value added services do undergraduates get today that they did not get in 1975?” Ms Coleman basicly said that there are “many” services that they get today without adding any detail. Here’s another question, how come the U increased undergraduate enrollment in 2004 at a time when the state was cutting its appropriation? Seems like a dumb thing to do if undergraduates cost more than they bring in. As far as the so-called internal figures that show that undergrads cost more than they bring in, I would ask what overhead expenses are being charged to undergrads and I would question whether those expenses are really necessary to meet the needs of undergrads. Can somebody give me a good answer to why tuition should increase at twice the overall rate of inflation for the last 29 years? BTW, adjusted for inflation, the state appropriations to the U are within 15-20% of what they were in 1975. BTW again, since the U has not built a dorm in 37 years but has raised room and board rates faster than the overall rate of inflation (they should be rolling in dough, no taxes on the property, the mortgages are paid off), where is all the money going? Oh, I know, they hired Tony Soprano to be in charge of the maintanance budget! Or better yet, the dog ate it!
posted by Chuck on January 1st, 2005 at 1:09 am