Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 2713 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.17.38.194
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 4:04 pm: | |
Hey guys, I want to know if you agree with this Michigan alum (who by the way does not even live in Michigan nor is from this area) that the University of Michigan can take care of itself and does not need financial assistance from Lansing? I agree that the state will give less to the University over time, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The University realized that the state was a dead beat over 2 decades ago, which explains why Michigan's endowment has grown faster than that of any other university in the nation in that period. In a few years, Michigan will be financially independent and the state can keep its pathetic $300 million annualy contribution to Michigan's $4.5 billion budget. Michigan no longer has any commitment to the state. Michigan remains a top university today in spite of the state's attempts to destroy it. If the state of Michigan really cared for the University, it would give it $3 billion annually, not a pitiful and insulting $300 million. Like I said, Michigan's current operating budget is $4.5 billion and the state provides just $300 million (7%) of that. Pathetic if you ask me. I am not suggesting the University should become private or no longer offer discounted rates to in-staters, but I do believe that Michigan should not set aside more than 30% of its undergraduate seats to in-state students. - Alexander |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1579 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 4:36 pm: | |
Bullshit. If UM didn't depend on the State of Michigan, then why does tuition keep increasing to cover the reduced funding from the State? I'd like to know where our amateur budget analyst gets his numbers. If the University isn't going to be state-supported, then what's the point of not going private, or of setting aside 30% of the undergraduate spots for in-staters? |
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn
Post Number: 102 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.40.195.233
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 5:00 pm: | |
The people running U-M are not idiots. Those who manage the university are constantly reviewing the budget finding holes, and i assume reviewing the feasibility of going private. if the state continues to cut funding, at SOME point it will make more financial sense to be private... however, that is a long way off, if it ever happens... $300 million is ALOT of money... however, if the budget were to be more drastically cut, I assure you that the possibility would be considered... U-M pays the price of numerous restrictions, and needs to answer to the public when it receives public money... this would of course be voided if it were to go private... it is a question of at what point is taking state money no longer worth it? |
Johnnny5 Member Username: Johnnny5
Post Number: 282 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 71.227.95.4
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 5:03 pm: | |
Years of state funding allowed UofM to become what it is today. Calling the state's current funding "Pathetic" is like a recent graduate criticizing his/her parents because they stopped sending allowance checks. If UofM is capable of being financially independent of the State, it is because of the funding, not in spite of it. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1580 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 5:07 pm: | |
Johnnny5, I presume you've never paid tuition at the U of M. It's not like the State is heaping money onto universities these days. U of M students, especially the out-of-staters, shoulder an enormous financial burden to be there. |
Johnnny5 Member Username: Johnnny5
Post Number: 283 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 71.227.95.4
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 5:18 pm: | |
I'm well aware of tuition costs at UofM and I also know that for a Michigan resident it is still a bargain when compared to other schools with similar reputations. What offends me a bit about Alexander's comments is that he figures since UofM is possibly capable of funding itself that it has a decreased obligation to the people of Michigan. (Message edited by Johnnny5 on June 25, 2006) |
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313
Post Number: 98 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 12.45.2.184
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 5:45 pm: | |
I'm with you Johnny5 |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 1120 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.130.18.100
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 8:39 pm: | |
Just the other day this U-Mich alum was told that the majority of the U Hospitals transcription work has been outsourced overseas (possibly India). If that's true (and I'm not sure I could easily verify) it pisses me off. Granholm's been pushing Michigan suppliers first - she should make the state schools do it, too. |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 2353 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.81.229
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 8:48 pm: | |
That guy who wrote that is a MORON! He suggests that Michigan (the State) give the university 2/3 of its entire yearly operating budget ($3 billion). Ltorivia485.... you didn't mention the source of this guys rantings.... |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 2714 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.17.38.194
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 8:55 pm: | |
Gistok, of course he is a moron. His statement that Michigan should accept more out-of-state students and cap the in-state population at 30% is even more absurd. Yet this guy has "Michigan" pride. He doesn't even live in the state! Like U-M does not have any obligations to the state. If the state of Michigan SINKS, so will U-M! |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 159 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 9:02 pm: | |
I think the poster brings up some valid points. I wish to reframe this in a general discussion: 1). At what time does a University with huge endowments stop becoming public? 2). At what level should the State support U of M if a large percentage of its students are from out of state, and many of the students (residents included) leave the State once they are educated? 3). Would it be better if the funding for public education went to the resident student, and not the university? This would make the Universities serve the residents of the State, not their own interests. 4). Should we require students that recieve education in Michigan to work in Michigan for several years in order to ensure that the state can recapture some of its investment? This would also help the universities tailor their cirriculumns to programs that are really needed in the State marketplace, and again provide a better return to the State? (Message edited by Detroitplanner on June 25, 2006) |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 2715 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.17.38.194
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 9:04 pm: | |
YES to #4. |
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin
Post Number: 2741 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.57.75
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 9:20 pm: | |
I agree to number 4 |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 1121 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.130.18.100
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 9:26 pm: | |
You could only do #4 if the student got a certain amount of state financial aid otherwise you'd end up killing off the school. And having the education doesn't mean squat if the jobs aren't here. |
Hagglerock Member Username: Hagglerock
Post Number: 253 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 12.214.243.66
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 9:53 pm: | |
Lt, Where did you find this Alexander guy? |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 2716 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.17.38.194
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 10:47 pm: | |
Another response from Alexander: Personally, I don't see why you take such offense to my opinion. I believe that the university should pursue its own self-interest, and in so doing, provide its students with the best possible education. I love the fact that Michigan is public, but that does not mean that the university should do so to its own detriment. Obviously, I was being facetious when I suggested that the state should provide Michigan with $3 billion/year but at the same time, since that is unrealistic, I also maintain that it is equally as ridiculous that a university that is trying to maintain high standards should continue to enroll 15,000+ in-state students in a state that isn't that populated. A state university simply cannot receive enough money from the state to provide a high standard of education to so many students students. |
Mbr Member Username: Mbr
Post Number: 69 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 69.246.40.224
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 10:50 pm: | |
What is your source? Who is alexander? Are these simply random postings on another message board that people can make outlandish claims under the veil of anonymity? |
Herbpowell Member Username: Herbpowell
Post Number: 13 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 68.255.243.52
| Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 11:54 pm: | |
This is hardly a new topic at UofM, and they kind of wield it like a snotty sword. At some point the law school probably will go private. IMO the undergrad will always stay public, deep down they like being public. UofM is one the ultimate examples of the great things a government can do. Michigan wears that public ivy thing like a badge, that and the political ramifications keep Michigan public for the foreseeable future. |
Huggybear Member Username: Huggybear
Post Number: 239 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 68.79.116.41
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 8:06 am: | |
Michigan won't let its law school split. It's too much of a money exporter the rest of the school. They use the Anglican gothic stuff to sell U of M in other ways, too. Where this guy goes over the top is by not mentioning that most of U of M's budget is the hospital. Sorry, but it's hard to justify the state having an increased financial stake in running something that's a bit outside U of M's core educational mission. Yes, it educates some doctors, but if it were approached on a student-by-student basis, it would be in the millions per student. The reality is that the hospital makes and spends its own money, and the rest of U of M costs virtually nothing by comparison. I don't think U of M spends even $300 million on LS&A and Engineering combined. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1581 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 8:42 am: | |
Have you ever seen U of M's budget? About half the expenses (and about half the revenues) are in the Medical Center.
quote:Should we require students that recieve education in Michigan to work in Michigan for several years in order to ensure that the state can recapture some of its investment? This would also help the universities tailor their cirriculumns to programs that are really needed in the State marketplace, and again provide a better return to the State?
There are trade schools and community colleges for things like this. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 161 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 9:11 am: | |
Dan are you insinuating that folks who graduate from U of M are less prepared for the State's workforce than graduates of trade schools or community colleges? The point I am trying to make with that is that that state should not be in the business of investing in human capital that will not benefit the State. It is a fair trade: money for schools = jobs for Michigan. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 121 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.131.176.232
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 11:54 am: | |
U-M has been looking into going private for years. Especially after the most recent BS from Lansing about getting projects over $1 million approved by the state... even if they are paid for privately. Most, if not all, or U-M's current new bldg construction and bldg renovations are being funded entirely privately. Particularly the ones in the newspaper articles that the state was nitpicking over. There is a strong possibility that U-M could be a lot more profitable if it were to go private. The current political climate is only pushing them further towards that point. I'm not an expert, but I think it would be a bigger blow to the state of Michigan and its residents, than to the institution, if U-M went private. The school could market itself a lot better if it didn't have the overhead from the state to worry about. And I say this as both a native Michigander and a U-M alum. (Message edited by iheartthed on June 26, 2006) |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 2355 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.81.122
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 1:08 pm: | |
Another moronic statement is Alexander saying that Michigan isn't that populated. Duh... 10 million people?? Doesn't sound like a Michigan grad to me. LT, why are you ignoring our inquiries as to the source of this Alexander fellow..... |
Vandykenjefferson Member Username: Vandykenjefferson
Post Number: 10 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 68.40.195.233
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 3:11 pm: | |
By requiring students to work in state after school, you will see U-M implode. If the state wanted to offer hugely discounted education if you stay put after school, that'd be effective and would add to the school, not detract. Also, if anyone thinks that the school will go private, you're probably wrong. The regents are elected officials, so if they were to privatize the school, they would be voted out and their replacements would make it public again. As far as I know, the school constituation dictates that the regents be elected, and a change of it needs all 9 regents to approve the change. |
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus
Post Number: 126 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 209.114.251.65
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 4:43 pm: | |
Are you sure he's an alum? I thought UM graduates were supposed to be smart. |
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313
Post Number: 103 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 12.45.2.184
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 8:34 pm: | |
Who is this guy and why are we quoting him? He was probably born in Columbus. It's a buckeye consppiracy.!.313 |
Leidio Member Username: Leidio
Post Number: 9 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 12.152.3.130
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 8:52 pm: | |
The University of Michigan must become a public institution with a private administration and financing structure, much like the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, and the College of William & Mary following recent legislation in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The dolts in the State of Michigan legislature have no comprehension of what it means to be an academically competitive and globally meaningful university. Despite this, the legislature ends up with undue control over an institution that is one of the State's greatest assets, and attracts more money, brainpower, and social intellect to the state than any legislative policy possibly could; particularly when said policy is procured by legislatures who attended fourth-rate state universities like LSSU, SVSU, GVSU, and Oakland. |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 2719 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.17.38.195
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 9:14 pm: | |
Leido, the politicians are jealous. Hence, they want more funding redirected from Michigan to LSSU, LSVU, GVSU and Oakland universities. |
Everyman Member Username: Everyman
Post Number: 60 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 68.58.41.232
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:36 pm: | |
Ugh. This alum says go private. I am sick of my degree losing value every year, and the declining preftige of the law program is why I chose to go to a similarly ranked private school over it. I was not willing to put all of my eggs in one declining basket. However, I do wonder if the $300M+ can be made up without interference from Lansing. |
Kookie Member Username: Kookie
Post Number: 100 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 164.67.233.28
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:47 pm: | |
Michigan essentially acts as a private university and was the first public to do so. Back in the early 1990s, UM became very entrepreneurial, especially regarding its endowment and development capacity (For an excellent case study on the entrepreneurialism of UM, see Burton Clark's work on entrepreneurial universities). Michigan has non-publically threatened especially during the Bollinger era to become private before and it wouldn't be that much of a change for the university. Recently, President Coleman reasserted her desire to remain public, after some Republicans in the legislature and the newspaper columns were talking about turing the U private. However, if the upcomming ballot initiative goes through, I could see the upper administration wanting to become private to preserve affirmitive action, their pet issue. If the U does go private, I would expect it to model itself after Miami of Ohio, which is private, but all in state students get a nice sized tuition voucher from the state. |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 2720 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.17.38.195
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 11:16 pm: | |
Miami University of Ohio is a public university. Why do people think Miami is private?!?! |
Mbr Member Username: Mbr
Post Number: 70 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 69.246.40.224
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 11:25 pm: | |
Ltorivia485, Can you please tell us the source of the information that has launched us into this charade so that people can make an informed decision about whether or not it is even worth pursuing. The fact that one random fellow expressed an opinion in some unknown forum is hardly a way to start an informed and intelligent debate. This is a very serious issue for the state and those who think keeping U of M grads in state (argument #4 above) are missing the point. Consider how many families stay (or willingly accept employment) in Michigan because their kids can go to great public schools for very little money. |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 2721 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.17.38.195
| Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 11:44 pm: | |
It is the opinion of a Michigan alum who graduated four years ago and now lives out of the country (let's say the Middle East). He thinks Michigan is the greatest (public) university in the world (even better than the Ivy League schools) and has no problem comparing the rankings of graduate programs at Michigan to other schools. |
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy
Post Number: 2664 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 75.10.26.110
| Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:11 am: | |
...Sounds familiar |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 2722 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.17.38.195
| Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:15 am: | |
You personally know the guy, Metro? I think he's an a$$, but we can all form our own opinions. |
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy
Post Number: 2665 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 75.10.26.110
| Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:21 am: | |
...I was talking about you. [S]"He thinks Michigan [Northwestern] is the greatest (public) [private] university in the world (even better than the Ivy League schools) and has no problem comparing the rankings of graduate programs at Michigan [Northwestern] to other schools." |
Deputy_mayor_2026 Member Username: Deputy_mayor_2026
Post Number: 93 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204
| Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:24 am: | |
To the statement that the state should require U of M alumni to work in the state for any amount of time after graduating: I understand the reasoning behind this; however, disagree with it. First of all, ROTC students would never be able to comply. Also, I personally want to beneftit the state of Michigan, but if I pay twenty thousand dollars a year for total expenses of going to this school, and I will be next year, I do not want my employment limited. This would seriously damage the university's prestige and appeal. (Message edited by deputy_mayor_2026 on June 27, 2006) |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 2724 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.17.38.195
| Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 8:32 am: | |
Metro, Do you HONESTLY believe I would TRASH the University of Michigan? Why do you think I want the university to turn into a private school? Better yet, why would I want the in-state population admittants to decrease to under 30% and have only out-of-staters go there? Or naively believe that the state legislature should give billions in aid to Michigan? I never said that Northwestern was overall superior to University of Michigan in graduate school rankings. Get your head out of the sand, yo! |
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy
Post Number: 2667 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 70.228.56.145
| Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:27 pm: | |
Ltorivia, given your track record, I was wondering about your motivation for starting this thread. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1582 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10
| Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 2:20 pm: | |
quote:Michigan essentially acts as a private university and was the first public to do so.
What does that mean--"acting private"? Any changes to the U's governing structure would require a constitutional amendment, as the Board of Regents is a body established by the Michigan Constitution. Not bloody likely to happen. |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 2725 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 143.231.249.141
| Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 4:49 pm: | |
Metro, you are talking bullsh*t. |
Tielerh11 Member Username: Tielerh11
Post Number: 56 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.199.39
| Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:29 pm: | |
i'm going to u-m in the fall and i have been participating in a college discussion forum at which this alexander (alexandre on the other site) is the moderator of the u-m board |
Hagglerock Member Username: Hagglerock
Post Number: 256 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 12.214.243.66
| Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:47 pm: | |
tielerh11, sounds like it is, give him a dose of reality, Detroityes style! PS good luck at U of M, you will love it there. |
Ro_resident Member Username: Ro_resident
Post Number: 165 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.26.88
| Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 10:49 pm: | |
Maybe UM can do something unusual like Cornell--and be both a private university and the land grant institution for the state of Michigan. Do you think MSU would go for that? |
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 494 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 35.12.18.236
| Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 11:05 pm: | |
No, I don't think MSU would go for U-M being the land grand institution. How can U-M be a land grant institution when it never was? From http://www.higher-ed.org/resou rces/morrill_acts.htm "Morrill Act of 1862 established the Land Grant university system. On July 2, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law what is generally referred to as the Land Grant Act. The new piece of legislation introduced by U.S. Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont granted to each state 30,000 acres of public land for each Senator and Representative under apportionment based on the 1860 census. Proceeds from the sale of these lands were to be invested in a perpetual endowment fund which would provide support for colleges of agriculture and mechanical arts in each of the states." ------------------------------ -- Danindc is right: Article-VIII § 4 § 4 Higher education institutions; appropriations, accounting, public sessions of boards. Sec. 4. The legislature shall appropriate moneys to maintain the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, Eastern Michigan University, Michigan College of Science and Technology, Central Michigan University, Northern Michigan University, Western Michigan University, Ferris Institute, Grand Valley State College, by whatever names such institutions may hereafter be known, and other institutions of higher education established by law. The legislature shall be given an annual accounting of all income and expenditures by each of these educational institutions. Formal sessions of governing boards of such institutions shall be open to the public. History: Const. 1963, Art. VIII, § 4, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. XI, § 10. ------------------------------ -- STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT) CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963 § 5 University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University; controlling boards. Sec. 5. The regents of the University of Michigan and their successors in office shall constitute a body corporate known as the Regents of the University of Michigan; the trustees of Michigan State University and their successors in office shall constitute a body corporate known as the Board of Trustees of Michigan State University; the governors of Wayne State University and their successors in office shall constitute a body corporate known as the Board of Governors of Wayne State University. Each board shall have general supervision of its institution and the control and direction of all expenditures from the institution's funds. Each board shall, as often as necessary, elect a president of the institution under its supervision. He shall be the principal executive officer of the institution, be ex-officio a member of the board without the right to vote and preside at meetings of the board. The board of each institution shall consist of eight members who shall hold office for terms of eight years and who shall be elected as provided by law. The governor shall fill board vacancies by appointment. Each appointee shall hold office until a successor has been nominated and elected as provided by law. History: Const. 1963, Art. VIII, § 5, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. XI, §§ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16. |
Kookie Member Username: Kookie
Post Number: 101 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 164.67.233.28
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 1:48 am: | |
Ltorivia485- Sorry, you are correct on Miami. I confused their tuition model with their governance. Danindc- On acting "private"- Michigan acts "private" in the sense that it made the decision to emphasize "private" capital over "public" capital, like private universities. It became very aggressive in building an endowment, which is now signficantly larger than the entire endowment of the UCal system (probably the best example of an elite public university who up until the recent budget recession primarily depended on state support, over tuition and private capital). |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1586 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:11 am: | |
Seeking private capital and donations for plant upgrades doesn't automatically make you a private university, though. The UM has a lot of ambitions right now, and is taking some steps to correct deficiencies from underinvestment in the past (like there hasn't been a dorm constructed since 1968, even though enrollment has grown tremendously since). Other investments are for expansion and growth, as with the new buildings in the College of Engineering. Someone's gotta pay for all this stuff somehow, and unfortunately, the State of Michigan doesn't like to invest money in much of anything other than building freeways. |
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy
Post Number: 2670 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.221.37.219
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:37 am: | |
Sorry Ltorivia, the only bullshit is once again a thread started by you. |
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy
Post Number: 2671 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.221.37.219
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:41 am: | |
"Acting private" can also refer to U of M's admissions standards, out-of-state admissions, and national appeal. Danindc, there is a new dorm under construction. |
Rosedaleken Member Username: Rosedaleken
Post Number: 204 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 68.43.122.151
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 12:12 pm: | |
If I am to believe what the deans and other administrators told us, the vast majority of the money for new buildings is coming from private donations. If the U can do what it wants with policies and course offerings while accepting $ from donors and the state, why privatize? The donations and endowment size simply give U of M options if the state aid goes down much more, or the regents get power hungry. |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 2727 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 143.231.249.141
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 1:06 pm: | |
Metro, you are just jealous that my thread is generating INTEREST. Find someone else to annoy. |
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy
Post Number: 2675 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.221.67.219
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:11 pm: | |
Ltorivia, you're just jealous of U of M. Find another school to pick on. Once again, taking pride in your school doesn't have to come at the expense of another school. |