You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 1:49 p.m.

Mary Sue Coleman to state lawmakers: Invest in higher ed because Michigan cannot afford an undereducated workforce

By Kellie Woodhouse

It's that time of year again: The time when lawmakers in Lansing ruminate over how much state funding to award Michigan's 15 public universities.

University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman spoke before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education Tuesday morning to advocate for her school's share of state appropriations.


Mary Sue Coleman

File photo |

Gov. Rick Synder suggested a 2 percent funding increase for universities in his fiscal 2013-14 budget proposal and suggested that money be tied to the same formula used last year, which evaluates universities based on graduation rate improvements, critical degrees, the number of Pell Grant recipients enrolled and tuition restraint.

Overall, the increase would represent an addition of $30.7 million in base funding to Michigan's $1.4 billion higher education budget. It follows a 3 percent one-time increase in fiscal 2013 and a 15 percent decrease the year before.

During her appearance in Lansing, Coleman noted U-M's success in producing graduates with critical degrees and the school's increasingly efficient tech transfer operation. She emphasized that for the state to grow economically, higher education must be considered a key component of Michigan's budget formula.

Here's three things to consider from Coleman's visit:

1) If the state wants a robust economy, it needs a robust higher education system

"Our state literally cannot afford an undereducated workforce," Coleman told lawmakers, echoing a statistic often cited by Snyder: "Michigan has 50,000 to 80,000 jobs going unfilled because residents don't have the necessary skills."

Coleman highlighted the success of U-M, Wayne State University and Michigan State University's tech transfer operations, which over the course of a decade produced 149 startups. These three schools, which compose the University Research corridor, produced more graduates than any other cluster in the U.S.

Coleman said that to fill the existing employment need will take "a commitment by state leaders such as you... that our state will offer exceptional opportunities for affordable, high-quality education."

In short, Coleman asserted that if lawmakers want a healthier economy, they need to invest in higher education.

2) U-M is trying to control costs — but don't expect a tuition freeze anytime soon

Coleman remarked that the school has cut $235 million in recurring expenses during the past decade and is planning to cut another $120 million by 2017— the school's bicentennial. The cuts include $24 million in general fund savings derived from restructuring the school's healthcare offerings and shifting costs to employees.

Yet with other considerations, like rising fixed costs, a growing workforce and the pressures of competing with other top schools for faculty and students, U-M must continue to increase its revenue.

"We know we can't stop. We know we have to have tuition increases, particularly because the state has not been able to invest in us the way we would like," Coleman told lawmakers. "I am very cognizant of the burdens on families, but I am also cognizant of my responsibility to keep this place competitive."

3) Do expect financial aid to be the focus of U-M's capital campaign

"Our top priority will be financial aid," Coleman said of U-M's upcoming fundraising campaign, which is set to begin in the fall. "I know our donors won't let us down."

This year the school offered $135 million in financial aid and met the demonstrated financial need —which is based on a federal formula— though grants, work study and federal loans, for all resident students.

For resident students whose families make $80,000 or less, the cost of attending U-M, after factoring in aid, has either held constant or declined in recent years, although the sticker price increased.

The federal aid formula, however, doesn't take into account the financial burdens experienced by middle income families earning more than $80,000 annually but with multiple children in college.

Coleman said she would like to increase aid for families earning $100,000.

"I do not want to lose a single talented high school senior... because of perceived cost," Coleman said.

Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for Reach her at or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.



Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 4:18 p.m.

Invest in higher education? Really? The average UM professor makes $100,000 for working 8 months a year. Many full professors teach a total of 2 classes per year. UM is cutting low-level staff positions but increasing the pay and number of executive staff in the Deans offices. These staff members typically make $100,000 or more. We now have Administrative Service Transformation (AST) run by a guy from Accenture--the same company UM hired a few years ago to audit the staff operations. Hmm, interesting--UM is cutting staff but somehow created a new executive position for this former Accenture guy who is now hiring his own staff. How about creating a Faculty Service Transformation (FST) committee to: review the pay scale and work requirements for faculty members, revise or dismantle the tenure system, require faculty members to teach at least 4 courses per year. UM has policies prohibiting nepotism among staff but actively promotes it at the faculty level. This is especially true if they are trying to hire a "superstar" i.e. a woman or African-American in the natural sciences. At a time when so many Phds are out of work it is an outrage that a job is created out of thin air for a trailing spouse. The state of Michigan should forget about UM and invest in community colleges and schools such as EMU and Western. The return on investment will be much greater. If UM suffers it can draw on its billion-dollar edowment, cut some of its fat cat executives, or become a private institution and finally pay its fair share of taxes--that would truly benefit the state of Michigan.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 5:39 p.m.

HOw much money or jobs has the TRIP/Connacetion to china invested/investment brought back to U Of M


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 5:27 p.m.

Check out the" american recovery act" and see how much money comes in from washington/ or well by friday no more hassle over Money !


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 5:14 p.m.

yes how much is Coleman donating..After FRIDAY >>NO MORE HIGHER Education ..more money doesnot make more money income for the gradute.How many student have "JOBS from the last classes and how much money do this JOBS pay. MOER mONEY isnot giveing us smarter Kids/student only Professor at $ 800 000 and the STAFF at the uni.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 12:42 p.m.

There are too many out of country and out of state students at UM, why should Michigan taxpayers fund that?


Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:01 a.m.

Michigan's in-state yield is 70%. Let me do the math for you: with 3900 in-state students, that means that 1,670 students (roughly), turned UM down. That means that $25,000*1670=$42,000,000 marginal money (over what would otherwise be the state appropriation based net tuition) is brought into Michigan by those students. In addition, that leads to roughly 60% of all voluntary support coming from the 1/3 of the students admitted from out of state...which equates to another $100,000,000 or so per say nothing of the big numbers in the various capital campaigns. The import is that you can engage in your sloganeering, contribute nothing, let out of state students carry the freight, then bite the very hand that is feeding you. Congrats.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 7:48 p.m.

It's about funding a world-class university that contributes immensely to the quality of life in Ann Arbor. Don't be so ridiculously short-sighted. Out of state (and country) students bring in a tremendous amount of additional money in tuition dollars, not to mention what they spend in rent, food, entertainment, and other expenses while they are here. It's new money to the state.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.

So, Michigan students shouldn't be allowed to attend colleges in other states? or countries?


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 3:13 a.m.

Whether you are a senior out of hi school or a senior in your 50's. The work force is mighty slim when you either have no experience or all the experience in the world. It all depends on whether or not you look the part and the employer wants to hire you as a risk. Kind of sad to think that either way? You will probably look for a job for over a year before you get what you are qualified for. Which is why I work for the state. So I can get both. Good luck finding a job you can actually say you love to do.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 11:59 p.m.

"I do not want to lose a single talented high school senior... because of perceived cost," Coleman said. YOUR 600,000 salary would pay for quite a few seniors to attend the UofM. How about it Mary Sue? OR are you ONCE again asking the taxpayer to dig deeper in their collective pockets?


Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:55 a.m.

As noted elsewhere, Coleman and husband have donated $500,000, as well as several of her raises. How much have you donated? Collectively, the faculty donated over $100,000,000 in the last capital much did you donate? Coleman is ranked one of the top 10 Presidents in the country. When was the last time you managed a $6,000,000,000 budget, 80,000 students, a $1,200,000,000 research portfolio, and a $8,000,000,00 investment portfolio and 500 major buildings worth $5,100,000,000? I'd love to hear your thoughts. Better yet, why take your attitude to Coleman and explain to her how to do her job better. That's a conversation I'd love to overhear.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 5:36 p.m.

Well being president of the u of M is not here only "job"position check out all the boards she is on .plus the money that comes with good:reseach " too all the way toooo Wall street.!


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 2:28 a.m.

I dare you to find a $6B corporation out there that pays their CEO less than $1M a year.

Tom Todd

Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 11:56 p.m.

Everyone in this state is solely concerned with what everyone else is making looks like RUSSIA. bin laden wins.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 11:25 p.m.

hey mary sue. stop building and buying up property and give the students a break on tuition.


Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:50 a.m. Q. What does tuition money NOT pay for? A. Tuition dollars are not used to pay for these areas: Intercollegiate athletics. Student housing. U-M Health System. Student Publications. Most construction projects. As you can see, had you bothered to become educated about how the university is organized and managed,you might have spared yourself some embarrassment. It's always great to have those with nothing but empty slogans at their command come in and offer punditry about subjects concerning which they know less than nothing. By the way, when a dorm hasn't been rennovated for 75 years and when a class room building is falling apart, where do you suggest that the students live and study? What is your master plan for rennovating a capital plant that losses value at the rate of ? Coleman and the regents are running in front of a steamroller...if they slow down for minute and don't raise and spend money, future students won't come to UM. It has been well established that "consumption" features are a key driver of applicant interest and UM is barely staying even in that regard...while a few dorms have been brought up to and over a bare minimum standard, many other buildings are begging for attention and funding.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 6:30 p.m.

Yeah Mary Sue! Stop spending money on tangible physical assets with long-term value! It should be used for giving people who are willing to pay your high tuition rates free money! Do you people realize how ridiculous you sound? It's not like UM suffers from a lack of demand. What is more in the long term interest of the university, a one-time expense each year to benefit the current batch of students, or the purchase of an asset that will benefit the University for years? How much talent do you think the university actually loses with the high price tag, and how much do you think that loss of talent harms the university? Probably not nearly as much as it would hurt them if they stopped building infrastructure to save your kid $1000 on tuition that thousands of others would gladly pay or borrow to pay to have their spot. By the way, McDonalds, stop building more restaurants and fancier drive-thrus and make my Big Macs cheaper! House builders, stop building more houses and make my mortgage cheaper! Doctors, stop researching medical advances and make my hospital bills cheaper! No entity ought to do anything to improve itself until everything is the price I want it to be!


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 11:24 p.m.

Surprise, there is never enough.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 4:48 p.m.

Wow I think we have a solution.... Let's bring back all the taxes from before those mindless smaller government people came in and wrecked everything, then college will be $250/semester, everyone will be educated, fed, clothed, housed, and given free health care. So simple. Dumb Republicans. At what point can the government say they're spending just the right amount or too much on education? Will people ever be 'smart enough'. Even college graduates make ignorant statements like "those darn mindless republicans and their tax cuts caused tuition to go from $250 to $7000 a semester". Maybe if we spent more public money on higher education, everyone will be smart like me and realize we should get rid of all the tax cuts and bring back $250 tuition and get those greedy rich people to pay for everything I want ---- errr, I mean pay for everything that is for the 'common good'.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 2:25 a.m.

There was enough 30 years ago before the mindless smaller government people started cutting taxes. My tuition in 1963 was $250 a semester.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 10:32 p.m.

Talented high school seniors - Hmmm. They are talented and SMART if they choose a worthwhile degree. When aid, grants and scholarships are halted to those majoring in useless programs such as - political science, philosophy, archeology, drama, women's studies, journalism, history, etc - then we will have productive graduates capable of contributing to the future of the state. Just how does a philosophy degree contribute to the struggling state of Michigan? And when will the salaries and benefits for the "selective" academia be addressed or overhauled?


Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:43 a.m.

"political science, philosophy, archeology, drama, women's studies, journalism, history" Let's look at the degrees that you consider worthless: 1) sure, who needs political science, it is not like we need to learn how to build and run a Democracy or how to influence others to move down that path...definitely money down the drain; 2) philosophy...sure, who needs to learn how to reason and think and how to assess and build societal values or to understand how the mind works...; 3) journalism...helps a free society stay free; 4) history...we study it largely so we can learn how to not repeat it; 5) woman are 50% of the population and are ill treated or poorly treated over much of the global and their potential contributions to our social and economic life are greatly impaired thereby; 6) drama and its study is part of what makes us human and allows us to reflect on our inner nature. You want to turn UM into a trade school. You seem to have no respect for knowledge and learning. Leaving it up to you or your ilk to shape society via shaping such a great institution fills me with terror and dread. You seem to think that what you don't value should form the basis for what to take away from others. Your take on society and education are appalling and appallingly short sighted.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 11:34 p.m.

It's not a trade school. It's one of the very best research universities in the entire world. Too many people posting here have scant understanding of the capacities of this truly world-class institution right in their backyard. What makes this university superb, and truly consequential for the state and the country, is the quality across all of its schools and colleges and programs. "Leaders and best" is an unfortunate and crass piece of sloganeering. But Berkeley and Michigan are the gold standard.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 10:14 p.m.

Yeah lets invest in high education because we can't afford an undereducated workforce but let's hire college graduates and pay them high school graduate wages.....


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 2:22 a.m.

They have their money all right in the form of loans that have to be paid back. A worker can easily afford a $500 a month payment making minimum wage, right?


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 10:23 p.m.

The higher eds don't care what happens after graduation. They have their money by then.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 9:39 p.m.

If the intent is to keep students here in MI then perhaps the state can rebate part of a student's tuition if they start a business and stay in Michigan for 5 years.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 7:43 p.m.

@leaguebus -- If there's money for business tax cuts (~$2 billion) and money for prisions (>$2 billion), there's money for this sort of incentive. Perhaps it could be done in conjunction with the State and SPARK?


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 2:18 a.m.

Good idea, but there's no money!

Kellie Woodhouse

Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 9:06 p.m.

Readers, you might find this numbers post we did a while back interesting: It looks at the flux of tuition, appropriations, general fund budget and scholarship funding at U-M


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 8:58 p.m.

One fact relevant to this discussion: The state legislature's total contribution to the University this academic year is $273 million, out of an overall U-M budget of about $6 Billion. That's under 5%. The $273M is down by something like half in the last several years, while the overall budget has grown, so the legislature's share has dropped over 50%.


Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:36 a.m.

"To be fair, state appropriations are really only intended for general fund expenses, and that budget is $1.65B. ' Kelly, this isn't really true for several practical reasons: 1) the state subsidy per student doesn't really pay for the full spread between in and out of state tuition differentials; the actual cost to UM is higher than the state immunizes; 2) the state subsidy "sterlizes" or offsets endowment gains, and thus negates compounding; 3) while the athletic budget is pretty much walled off, all parts of the institution cross-subsidize each other when there are operating losses, as there every year under GASB rules...the practical import is that a cut in support means that money has to be budgeted out of some other area and toward the general fund; 4) it completely ignores the bigger picture: the state used to provide $1.3Bn/year or so to the general fund in the late 60s, so the recent cuts add to the death of a thousand cuts in that the cumulative spread between where the university is and where it might be has been degrading for a generation, the losses compound in their effect; 5) despite its prowess in terms of citations, patents, faculty prizes, and despite an ever improving student body, Michigan has slipped 7 places in the rankings (post the major methodology change) in no small part due to the USNWR measure of "faculty resources". Had the state acted intelligently: 1) it would have maintained the subsidy at a level rate for the last 20 years but put UM on a clock to build the endowment; 2) funds directed toward the endowment might have compounded for a full generation; 3) at this juncture the endowment growth and the related income growth would have been sufficient to fully offset the state subsidy and UM could cut its ties to the state.


Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:26 a.m.

"The $273M is down by something like half in the last several years, while the overall budget has grown, so the legislature's share has dropped over 50%." You are correct, and that is in nominal dollars, the after-inflation picture is even more damaging.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 12:39 a.m.

Ms. Woodhouse, I think I don't follow the "to be fair" remark. Yes, the state's $273 Million flows into the general fund portion of the U-M budget, and nothing from the state goes into the other three accounting pots that make up the $6 Billion total U-M budget. But it is a fact that the state's $273 Million is less than 5% of the University's total budgeted expenditures. The other funds come from a variety of sources, including (I don't recall the precise number) something over a Billion in research grants. And of course, a large share of that $6B is spent in Ann Arbor, and an even larger share in the state. Those facts are important context for the recurrent complaints about the U's expenses, about its purchase of local property, etc. On the U-M's economic impact generally, see Kellie's earlier article:

Kellie Woodhouse

Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 9:05 p.m.

To be fair, state appropriations are really only intended for general fund expenses, and that budget is $1.65B. Here's a look at the changing appropriations, tuition and budget over time:


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 8:38 p.m.

Mary Sue Coleman to state lawmakers: Invest in higher ed because Michigan cannot afford an undereducated workforce Michigan cannot afford to educate it's work force. Has anyone checked into the cost of a four year education in this state? you could start up a small business with that kind of money very's out of control and there is no limit to what they will charge. It's become unaffordale to most families and it bordering on being obscene..............


Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:25 a.m.

"Don't forget that the in-state tuition has been increasing every year exponentially..." In state support has gone down almost in exact lockstep with cuts in state support...if you graph the two curves they are almost perfectly inversely correlated. As to "exponential" that is a pretty fancy word but: 1) is the wrong word in the context; 2) incorrectly describes the rate of change.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 9:27 p.m.

add to that the $10,000 in living expenses....each year, plus books, transportation, etc., you get the point. Don't forget that the in-state tuition has been increasing every year exponentially...


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 8:45 p.m.

The annual tuition at UM for an in-state student is $12,994.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 8:29 p.m.

Perceived cost? How about real cost! Ms Coleman, how about you putting 1/2 your salary into an endowment for Seniors that can't quite afford the tuition. Would love to see you give back that way..


Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:23 a.m.

It is well known, documented and has been discussed in these pages: Coleman and her husband have donated $500,000 to UM; in addition, Coleman has donated several of her raises back to the university. What have you donated?


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 8:18 p.m.

What's missing in this report is that UM & MSU are enrolling as many MI students as they did 10 years ago, in spite of the fact that there has been a decrease in the number of high school graduates in MI during that same time frame. UM & MSU are continually rated in the top universities in the nation, yet they are in the bottom 25% in the country in receiving state aid. Yes, an out-of-state student pays more than triple the tuition as a Michigan kid, but Michigan kids have just as good of chance at getting in as they did 10 years ago. Our centers of higher learning are more than due for an increase in investment from the state coffers. That means every one of our accredited colleges and universities from UM, MSU, & WSU to Mich Tech, Ferris & Saginaw Valley. An educated workforce is the key to long-term, economic security.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 1:57 a.m.

Good comment! Plus foreign and out state students pay twice the tuition which allows smaller increases for in state students.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 10:22 p.m.

Not all that long ago UM was rapped by a study that showed it services it's own state less than many major universities. The attitude of the place has changed so much compared to when I attended that I'm not all that interested in supporting much of it anymore.

Nicholas Urfe

Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 8:17 p.m.

"Give us more money so we can buy more tax paying businesses like Blimpy Burger and shut them down."


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 8:15 p.m.

Another thing Michigan cannot afford: The high price of Mary Sue Coleman's tuition. How about if she concentrates more on cutting the fat before passing the plate around to us again.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 12:21 p.m.

@leaguebus- That is government accounting. They have cut the budget but the total amount goes up every year (I.e. they cut the expected increase).


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 1:53 a.m.

UM has cut at least $300M from their general fund budget in the last few years.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 8:13 p.m.

How about making the loser companies give their employees some training! They complain constantly that they don't have good workers, TRAIN THEM YOU TOOLS!


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 8:07 p.m.

The bottom line is that Higher Ed funding has been savaged over the past decade. Every bit of tuition increase has been as a result of state funding declines. If they are held to the stated criteria for performance, which includes tuition restraint, it is absolutely an investment we should be making.

Stuart Brown

Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 5:55 a.m.

ManA2, Why the dramatic increase in admins? The U claims the admins are necessary to support government mandates by the Feds so the U can qualify for Federal research grants; this has little to do with providing any improvement in the quality of education for undergrads. However, the undergrads and their families get stuck with the bill, not fair. I am also disturbed by the dramatic increase in the cost of University supplied room and board over the last 30 years. The inflation adjusted charges for room and board are much higher than what I paid as an undergrad in the early 1980's; not fair and not right. The increases in tuition that undergrads and their families have absorbed over the last 30 years have not been used to improve the quality of the product.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 7:54 p.m.

Actually Stuart, the increases in tuition are exactly equal to the cuts in state funding. Capital projects are either paid for with donations or through increased revenues like higher ticket sales or ticket prices at sports events.

Stuart Brown

Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 5 a.m.

The tuition increases for undergrads are not justified by cuts from the state. The U is one big money machine; over $50 million for the rehab of Alice Lloyd Hall shows where their priorities are and those priorities do not speak well for them. Why should housing costs exceed inflation by a wide margin over the past 30 years? Somebody is getting their meal ticket punched big time and it is not the students at UofM.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 1:51 a.m.

It's been 30 years of mindless tax cuts by the "starve the beast" smaller government rick people like David Stockman. Now, realizing how much damage the tax cuts have caused Stockman wants to increase taxes. Go figure! At the same time all the AntiScience Christians probably don't care how much education is cut. Their kids know all they need to know by the 8th grade.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 7:54 p.m.

I would be much more supportive of increased spending on higher education if: 1) More of the degrees given were focused on job openings in Michigan - to train 10 people in K-5 Education for every opening in the state is creating too many "educated" people for the jobs available in the field - this is but 1 example of many 2) If there were discounts or other incentives to direct students toward degrees that would put them in jobs in Michigan 3) If there was more vocational offerings at the high school level with a good plan for transition for the vocational students into the community colleges to fill the blue collar high skill jobs that need filling in Michigan 4) If there were some form of business/education dialog on what is an a degree program at the universities in the state. In our case we need to take two years to train an engineer to actually do the work we need them to do when they come out of college - why are they not ready when they come out with a degree that is industry specific?


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 10:34 p.m.

It isn't up to the University to DIRECT the student's into jobs. It is up to the University to EDUCATE the students in the degree fields in which they have career aspirations, aptitudes, and interests. It is also not the job of the University to direct students into studies towards programs in which jobs exist in Michigan. The University is an internationally recognized institution of higher education, designed to prepare students for careers and lives where ever they lead. The Nation and the Countries around the World have Alumni of the University proudly representing UofM and Ann Arbor. Are you stating this talent should solely be restricted to Michigan? And finally, how should the University control the vocational offerings in the high schools to transition vocational students into community colleges to fill blue collar high skill jobs in Michigan (again, only in Michigan ???)?

John of Saline

Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 7:54 p.m.

Why does every new building have to look like a palace? You should see the renovated dorms.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 7:37 p.m.

Try this Mary Sue.... How about educating Michigan residents intend of out state/country???? Instead of tuition hikes how about cutting back on staff salaries????? Instead of milking the donors how about taking Athletic Department revenues and putting them towards the general fund????? A bunch of self serving government hogwash.....


Thu, Feb 28, 2013 : 6:30 p.m.

I don't have any non-anecdotal evidence. I think of it this way. UM already does give preference to in-state residents, as well as family of alumni (which are more concentrated in Michigan. There would be no need to give preference to residents if the ones that got admitted would have got in regardless, meaning they're taking the spots of out of state residents who are "more qualified" if you exclude residency as a qualification.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 9:28 p.m.

@TB -- While I agree with your post, I have one nit to pick. You said: "Out-of-state students bring money from outside Michigan into Michigan, face tougher admissions standards than residents," I don't believe that out of state students face tougher admissions standards. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please post it.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 7:42 p.m.

I thought Mary Sue's job was to represent the interest of the university. If you believe in what you advocate, explain how getting rid of spots for out-of-state applicants in favor of Michigan residents benefits the university in any way. It's funny how many people are in favor of affirmative action because "we need a diversity of backgrounds and experiences in our education", and in the same breath cry in outrage over people from out-of-state taking spots from residents. Do you want a university with the best and the brightest, or a university with a diverse group of above-average-IQ (or athletes) Michigan residents that place a higher value on the hometown of their peers than their intelligence? Out-of-state students bring money from outside Michigan into Michigan, face tougher admissions standards than residents, pay higher tuition, move to Ann Arbor and give the university more money for room and board, and then if they don't stay in Michigan after they graduate they spread the UM alumni network and reputation worldwide. Do you think UM would get so much federal research money if they were no longer the 'leaders and best', the professors instead becoming 'the best within our budget', and the students becoming 'the best Michigan residents that didn't leave' and the facilities becoming 'the best we could afford after we gave all of our excess revenue to the students'. And all the revenues the university gets from exploiting Men's Football Basketball and Hockey players to perform for a free education are already required to go back into the athletic department because it would be unfair if the university gave more scholarships and better facilities to male athletes. Women's sports are equally as important regardless of the (lack of) revenues or interest they generate.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 7:35 p.m.

It's in the University's (and the State's) interest to bring in the best students, especially from outside of the U.S. as top talent contributes to better research and it brings in outside money into the state. If you want the best students, you need a top notch faculty and that costs $$$. Regarding the athletic department, it is independently funded and those funds cannot be appropriated to the general fund. I hope this clears up your hogwash.

An Arborigine

Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 7:25 p.m.

Michigan can't keep an educated workforce. Upon seeing the slim opportunities and crummy weather, any young graduates with a brain are jumping like rats from a sinking ship.


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 4:41 a.m.

I don't know why you have more thumbs down than up, An Arborigine. I don't mind the weather, but I'm six years removed from earning my Master's, and have nothing to show for it. Makes me kind of regret going for it. The only thing that stops me from going out of state is that when I tried, I put so much money on the credit card, it took forever for me to pay it off.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 8:45 p.m.

That Michigan water those rats are jumping into is going to be a valuable resource in the U.S. someday soon...


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 7:20 p.m.

"another $120 million by 2017— the school's bicentennial." is wrong. um first classes were held in 1840. First graduation 1844. 1817 is when someone in the territorial legislature suggested that we should have an institution of high education.

Silly Sally

Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 3:46 p.m.

@Tresspass. Please do some math, Oh Please "The University celebrated its 75th anniverary in 1912 (founding date 1937)" You must mean 2012. Then the statement goes on and on stating founded in 19Xx, 19XX. The Michigan Union and Michigan League buildings were built prior to 1929, so what institution owned them prior to the founding of UM in 1937? Oh, so very silly... Yes, I mean 1837


Wed, Feb 27, 2013 : 12:14 p.m.

@Kellie- The University celebrated its 75th anniverary in 1912 (founding date 1937). That was the established date of the founding until a University committee decided to redefine the founding as 1917 based upon the starting of a school by the local catholic parish in Detroit in 1917. It is debateble whether or not that school was really a university or whether it was the same school as the University established in AA in 1937. The building of the AA campus was funded by selling the land in Detroit given to establish a state university by the local Native American tribes in the treaty of Fort Miegs. In return the US government promised to educate the Native American children for free, forever more. That was however struck down by the courts. Will the University celebrate the Treaty of Fort Miegs as part of there celebration or will that part of the Universities history be swept under the carpet.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 10:24 p.m.

Do you think the President of the University doesn't know when the University's bicentennial is for goodness sake ?

Kellie Woodhouse

Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 7:28 p.m.

The school's been around since 1817, it was in 1840 that it held its first classes in A2. Here's a more detailed timeline:


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 7:12 p.m.

Is there a single government/public entity out there that isn't asking for more money? Where do they think the money is coming from? We better take a close look at Greece and Italy and....... Furthermore, those at the top are making enormous salaries and fabulous benefits while cutting from the bottom and demanding more revenue from the taxpayers. Enough! Live within your reduced means like the rest of us have to.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 7:39 p.m.

Education is an INVESTMENT. If we don't sink enough into it, we will go the way of Greece and Italy.

Ricardo Queso

Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 7:03 p.m.

She doesn't want to lose a talented senior for perceived cost but is willing to increase the percentage of out of state students. Rather than base Michigan student aid based upon a federal formula, take the initiative and offer additional aid to our own.


Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:22 a.m.

From the university website: This year, the university increased centrally awarded financial aid for undergraduates by 10.1 percent. That means that, for the fourth consecutive year, the increase in financial aid more than offsets the increase in tuition and room-and-board rates for most state resident students with financial need. Additionally, that increase will come in the form of grant aid ¬– which does not need to be repaid – reducing the educational loan portion of those students' financial aid package. The annual appropriation from the state also plays a key role in setting tuition and fees. While there is a small increase in state funding this year, that follows a large cut the previous year. On an inflation-adjusted basis, state funding per student has declined by 50 percent in the past decade. Q. What is the U-M doing to help defray the high cost of higher education? A. The university continues to increase financial aid funding and aggressively cut operating costs to protect the academic experience. Increasing financial aid: The university remains committed to providing financial aid that makes a U-M education accessible for qualified students from all socioeconomic backgrounds. During the last five years, the university has increased financial aid by an average rate of 10.1 percent. During that same time the average annual tuition rate increase has been 4.5 percent.


Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 8:34 p.m.

UM is enrolling a higher % of MI high school graduates than they did 10 years ago. The number of MI enrollees is about the same, but the number of high school graduates has decreased. The overall number of students is up, so the % of MI students is down.

Bertha Venation

Tue, Feb 26, 2013 : 6:57 p.m.

Aw, I'm so sick of this "stuff."