Michigan becoming public in name only, diversity dropping

[Gulo Blue]

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Diversity-Gap-at-Michigan/145057/

The push for more out-of-state students "paying the full freight" has coincided with a drop in diversity at Michigan. I'll put some of the numbers from the article here:

Black enrollment '96-'97, 9.2%; 2013, 4.7%.
Price of attendance, in-state $27k/yr, out-of-state $55k/yr.
Out-of-state enrollment was 46% of last fall's class
60% of students come from families making $100k/year
30% of students come from families making $200k/year
4% come from families with a parent with no college degree and income under $50/yr.

Diversity is less for some majors. There is only 1 black female freshman engineer. Only 18 black students in the B-school. In grad school, the are 9 1st year black law students, 12 1st year black medical students, 4 in nursing. The numbers are similar for Latinos. They don't explain why this is, but I do seem to recall engineering tuition being a bit higher than regular tuition.

 

[Michchamp]

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Diversity-Gap-at-Michigan/145057/

The push for more out-of-state students "paying the full freight" has coincided with a drop in diversity at Michigan. I'll put some of the numbers from the article here:

Black enrollment '96-'97, 9.2%; 2013, 4.7%.
Price of attendance, in-state $27k/yr, out-of-state $55k/yr.
Out-of-state enrollment was 46% of last fall's class
60% of students come from families making $100k/year
30% of students come from families making $200k/year
4% come from families with a parent with no college degree and income under $50/yr.

Diversity is less for some majors. There is only 1 black female freshman engineer. Only 18 black students in the B-school. In grad school, the are 9 1st year black law students, 12 1st year black medical students, 4 in nursing. The numbers are similar for Latinos. They don't explain why this is, but I do seem to recall engineering tuition being a bit higher than regular tuition.

I mentioned this in the long internet-argument thread about affirmative action on the Michigan board.

to some extent, the University itself is to blame for some of this. they're hardly that bastion of liberal-progressive politics they're made out to be, and in some aspects (e.g. the business school) they're apolitical to the extent they're going to go with whatever political party endorses outright rampant greed/avarice.

to another extent though - maybe even a larger extent - these statistics are not representative of Michigan itself, but larger trends that have seen income disparity increase among the our population. and the inertia seems to be only moving in the direction of making these trends worse. Or better depending on your viewpoint. if you're into class stratification, and inherited wealth, you're probably a big fan of doing away with graduated income tax brackets, loopholes for carried interest, and doing away with estate taxes. you probably call them "death taxes" as well, because that makes it sound like everyone is effected when they die, instead of just like the 1-5% of the population actually subject to them.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I mentioned this in the long internet-argument thread about affirmative action on the Michigan board.

the University itself is to blame for some of this. they're hardly that bastion of liberal-progressive politics they're made out to be, and in some aspects (e.g. the business school) they're apolitical to the extent they're going to go with whatever political party endorses outright rampant greed/avarice.

The article says Coleman called to increase the number of students paying the full freight. When I wrote about the luxury suites at Michigan Stadium not being appropriate in light of Michigan's egalitarian mission, I guess I was the one that was off base.

 

[Michchamp]

The article says Coleman called to increase the number of students paying the full freight. When I wrote about the luxury suites at Michigan Stadium not being appropriate in light of Michigan's egalitarian mission, I guess I was the one that was off base.

this is a pic of you:

here's a pic of Mary Sue Coleman:

 

[Michchamp]

ideal Michigan Man:

 

[TheVictors]

I remember M went to rolling admissions the year after I got in because it was said the school was taking too many early out of state enrollees and not enough instate kids who weren't applying until the Fall ...

sounds like it cut the other way since

 

[Michchamp]

One question I have is whether at the current ratio of in-state vs. out-of-state enrollment, they are adequately servicing the State of Michigan's educational needs.

For example, assuming all other things being equal, is the University choosing an applicant over another simply because he/she is out-of-state and his/her parents can afford to shell out $55K/year? If so, that would be really shameful. Like... "I don't feel like wearing my Michigan shirt when I get home today" shameful.

on the other hand, if they've increased enrollment so that all "qualified" Michigan resident-applicants are accepted, and they're just taking more rich out-of-staters while not under-serving the state... then I guess this is merely troubling, but not outright despicable.

 

[Gulo Blue]

One question I have is whether at the current ratio of in-state vs. out-of-state enrollment, they are adequately servicing the State of Michigan's educational needs.

Part of the argument, I think, is that as the state of Michigan cuts funding, their responsibility to the state drops.


Here it is as a percentage of the general fund budget.

http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/understandingtuition.html

 

[Michchamp]

well, don't that graph just line up real nicely there?

 

[zyxt9]

some of the drop MIGHT be attributed to the degrading of the public school system to the point where minorities are not able to score high enough on entrance exams to get in. no, i'm not blaming the minorities, but the school system that has been revamped countless times in the past 20 years to try and help students improve but has done exactly the opposite due to teachers being forced to learn entire new ways of educating the children based on the flavor of the month, whether in math or english based classes.

my wife was commenting the other day how her students have attrocious handwriting. how many of you are aware that penmanship is no longer taught at any level in public school? the students have to "figure it out as they go" because someone likely had a BS agenda.

then there is the fact she and others don't have the materials to teach the new agenda, so the system is expecting them to just know how to teach it with nothing to use as examples, practice tests, or other guides. plus you have new methods coming out almost every year for every subject. remember how when we were in school you got a book that was signed by all the kids who had the same book for 5+ years prior? not any more. chances are good IF your kid has a book it is brand new in order to fit the new method and way in which the "common core" is being taught THIS year. just think about how big of a money suck that is coupled with how not every kid has their books at the start of the year and teachers are missing countless sections even if they have the teacher's guides.

now, they are trying to push for more and more "smart" rooms and online type of coursework is available, provided you don't get a 404 error, broken link, or link that wasn't properly updated so it takes you to an old page with outdated resources.

my point being, the public school system in its current structure and environment is not helping minorities, but of course that is the fault of the teachers according to the administrations and parents. add in the lack of good parenting, video games and other attention grabbers, SOME bad teachers, good teachers who are burned out due to all the BS, and the current belief that it is better to just pass the kid up to the next grade regardless of how bad there performance was so you have 5th graders who are incapable of passing 3rd grade tests yet get passed up to 6th grade anyway.

how are these products of the public school system, which let's face it is where many of the minority kids entering UM come from, supposed to have ACT/SAT/GPA/etc equal to kids getting an education from private schools?

i'm not saying this is the exact problem, just trying to show that it is a piece of the overall problem. the higher income families who can afford to send their children to private school, or move to a wealthier neighborhood that can provide extra money via fundraisers to acquire the materials and still have enrichment elements such as Art or Gym classes.

the system has been broken for a long time, and it seems like every politician comes in with their own agenda, their own administration, try to fix the problems, and end up making things worse, but we cannot properly evaluate their mistakes until 5+ years later when we are looking at how the students are progressing and wake up to the fact the changes only made things worse.

i'm afraid these issues are so beyond repair that the only hope is that technology will finally be properly implemented so that students and teachers are more consistently provided their materials and tested in equal measures. the downside there is that more and more students are no longer being compared to their fellow classmates, but to every single student across the country. no pressure there! just look at the national rankings of athletic recruits to have a view of that future.

 

[river rat dad]

Part of the argument, I think, is that as the state of Michigan cuts funding, their responsibility to the state drops

The flaw in that argument is that "we the people" still own the University regardless of where the money comes from. We still elect a Board of Regents to run our University on our behalf.

Suppose I opened a restaurant and for the first couple years it lost money, I put my own money in to keep it afloat. Eventually it turns a profit. Then over time it gets so wildly successful that I hire a couple manager's to run it, i move to Florida and just collect my profits. Do I still own it even though I don't put any money in to it? :nod:

 

[Michchamp]

...

Suppose I opened a restaurant and for the first couple years it lost money, I put my own money in to keep it afloat. Eventually it turns a profit. Then over time it gets so wildly successful that I hire a couple manager's to run it, i move to Florida and just collect my profits. Do I still own it even though I don't put any money in to it? :nod:

but in your hypothetical, what if it was a not-for-profit public state university, and you were a taxpayer, instead of a local for-profit restaurant in which you were the owner?

 

[Gulo Blue]

The flaw in that argument is that "we the people" still own the University regardless of where the money comes from. We still elect a Board of Regents to run our University on our behalf.

Suppose I opened a restaurant and for the first couple years it lost money, I put my own money in to keep it afloat. Eventually it turns a profit. Then over time it gets so wildly successful that I hire a couple manager's to run it, i move to Florida and just collect my profits. Do I still own it even though I don't put any money in to it? :nod:

I don't know about the restaurant suddenly turning a profit. You're right about the ownership, but if the restaurant managers kept asking for more and more money and said they could make more by implementing strategies the owner wasn't thrilled about, he might decide to cut his losses and let them do whatever they want. That's more the situation we have here.

I won't argue if you think the managers' salaries and manager salaries across the nation are part of the reason cost keep going up. I do think that's a part of it. Why it costs so much could easily be discussed all day.

 

[river rat dad]

.... if the restaurant managers kept asking for more and more money and said they could make more by implementing strategies the owner wasn't thrilled about, he might decide to cut his losses and let them do whatever they want. That's more the situation we have here.....

I see your point and agree. My observation is that at times I think the powers that be,like Mary Sue Colman, David Brandon and the Board of Regents "forget" who they work for. They forget who owns the place. They use the excuse of a lack of State funding or an athletic department turning a profit to pretend they are a self Governing private enterprise.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I see your point and agree. My observation is that at times I think the powers that be,like Mary Sue Colman, David Brandon and the Board of Regents "forget" who they work for. They forget who owns the place. They use the excuse of a lack of State funding or an athletic department turning a profit to pretend they are a self Governing private enterprise.

You're right on that part and it's a good point.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1893286,00.html

James Duderstadt, UM president from 1988 to 1996, has argued for years that it is a misnomer to call schools like the University of Michigan "state universities."

...

"The state is our smallest minority shareholder," says Duderstadt.

I generally like Duderstadt for not being afraid to voice unpopular opinions, even if I don't like how extreme he can be, but it's not a business and the state isn't just some shareholder. ...and I'll never be a university president with that attitude.

 

[Michchamp]

Is there some objective term we could look at for guidance as to whether the University has some standards to meet, by law, and whether it is meeting them or not?

or should we just continue, you know, saying stuff?

 

[Michchamp]

I would also be interested to read why the portion of Michigan's operating funds committed to UM by the State of Michigan has dwindled to 6% of the University's budget, what else the state is spending money on, and how this has changed over time. Did the state start spending a larger % of its revenue on things other than the University of Michigan, or has University income/spending increased so much as to crowd out the state's contribution?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Is there some objective term we could look at for guidance as to whether the University has some standards to meet, by law, and whether it is meeting them or not?

or should we just continue, you know, saying stuff?

The mandate goes pretty far back and has evolved dramatically over the years. Originally the goal was good governance and the happiness of mankind according the words carved into Angel Hall quoting the Northwest Ordinance. After that, the Territorial Act of 1817 planned for the Catholepistemiad to include many colleges statewide along with governance of high schools. I think that's where the body that became the Regents was described, but since the Regents aren't in charge of any high schools, my knowledge of the legal history is clearly insufficient.

 

[Michchamp]

The mandate goes pretty far back and has evolved dramatically over the years. Originally the goal was good governance and the happiness of mankind according the words carved into Angel Hall quoting the Northwest Ordinance. After that, the Territorial Act of 1817 planned for the Catholepistemiad to include many colleges statewide along with governance of high schools. I think that's where the body that became the Regents was described, but since the Regents aren't in charge of any high schools, my knowledge of the legal history is clearly insufficient.

I wonder if there's some legal quota the University has to take from the state of Michigan, or if they're free to do whatever they want? Or did the University simply keep the portion of in-state/out-of-state students above a certain amount out of the goodness of their hearts?

and if not, and if the State of Michigan tried to pass a law to that effect, would the University just say "okay, we don't need your 6% of our operating budget contribution anymore; we're fully private now."

My understanding is that cannot happen, since the campus is property of the State of Michigan. Or at least that's what I remember hearing in the context of Ann Arbor's notoriously lax mj policies didn't apply on campus because it was state property, and on state property, state law trumped local law.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I wonder if there's some legal quota the University has to take from the state of Michigan, or if they're free to do whatever they want? Or did the University simply keep the portion of in-state/out-of-state students above a certain amount out of the goodness of their hearts?

I thought there was some penalty from crossing the 33% out of state mark in the late 90's. Either that was wrong or they renegotiated or they just accepted the penalty since they've crossed that mark.

http://www.provost.umich.edu/reports/slfstudy/ir/require.html
Apparently, U of M is a 'body corporate'...but I don't see anything about what their requirements are for serving the state.

This is interesting: "To qualify for in-state tuition at the University of Michigan on the basis of being a Michigan resident, you must establish that Michigan is your permanent legal residence. In other words, you must establish that the State of Michigan is your home and that you intend to remain in the State permanently. " http://ro.umich.edu/resreg.php

The wikipedia article on the BoR makes it sound like they have a great deal of autonomy from state legislators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Regents_of_the_University_of_Michigan In 1850 they were made a 'constitutional corporation', the 1st in the nation. A showdown over the appointment of a homeopathy professor resulted in threats to remove state funding, but no other state exercise of power seemed to be available. State legislature passed law appointing a homeopathy professor and the Regents ignored the order. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled the Board of Regents are an independent branch of state government.