For (mostly public) universities, is immediate population size a big factor for academics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan must have more satisfied alumni who have contributed heavily to grow its huge endowment. Wisconsin alums obviously aren’t as passionate about their alma mater, with the exception of the booster here who keeps opening these kinds of threads.

No it’s the fact that Michigan is willing to invest in companies like Blackrock. Just like it was Michigan who was willing to make half their class out of state in the 1990s, even though that was taboo for a state university back then. When you look at alumni giving rates, along Wisconsin/William and Mary/Berkeley have high proportional giving rates.

Does making half the class OOS make Mich State the defacto flagship for Michiganders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan must have more satisfied alumni who have contributed heavily to grow its huge endowment. Wisconsin alums obviously aren’t as passionate about their alma mater, with the exception of the booster here who keeps opening these kinds of threads.

No it’s the fact that Michigan is willing to invest in companies like Blackrock. Just like it was Michigan who was willing to make half their class out of state in the 1990s, even though that was taboo for a state university back then. When you look at alumni giving rates, along Wisconsin/William and Mary/Berkeley have high proportional giving rates.

Does making half the class OOS make Mich State the defacto flagship for Michiganders?

No. Because of sports rivalries and the way the in-state high school classes split off between the schools. It's harder to get into U of M. There are bitter feelings about it. Reminds me of Pitt vs. PSU from my home state of PA.

In my opinion, in-staters who do not attend Ann Arbor are not particularly concerned or aware of the OOS contingent at Ann Arbor. Only those who feel somebody from OOS took their slot. That would be people who wanted to go to U of M and are unhappy to go to MSU but still go to MSU. Small population. Most people I know that went to MSU either preferred it originally (there are unique programs and capabilities in fields as varied as journalism, advertising, education, physics, etc.) or embrace the school that chose them and firmly reject the one that did not. Their frame of reference on who unfairly got the spot is hyperlocal (for now).

I would say Michigan has two state flagships and Pennsylvania has more than that (Pitt, PSU, and people often count Temple). Never mind the messiness of how it's all financed/state-related technicalities in either place. I mean in terms of perception.

By the way, I want to say that all the MSUers I've worked with got a great education and I think well of the school's academics. My son was impressed with their admitted student day for the MSU Honors College. MSU did a lot more than U of M did to entice kids to come. But I think a Michigan degree has more pull outside the state and is more of a place for brainiac/niche interest kids. And I'm not pleased with MSU's ongoing admin circus. (Michigan had a turn with Lonely M and the football team issues. I didn't like that either.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan must have more satisfied alumni who have contributed heavily to grow its huge endowment. Wisconsin alums obviously aren’t as passionate about their alma mater, with the exception of the booster here who keeps opening these kinds of threads.

No it’s the fact that Michigan is willing to invest in companies like Blackrock. Just like it was Michigan who was willing to make half their class out of state in the 1990s, even though that was taboo for a state university back then. When you look at alumni giving rates, along Wisconsin/William and Mary/Berkeley have high proportional giving rates.

Wisconsin has many Forune 500 CEOs. I know this because you constantly remind us. So, where are the big donors at Wisconsin? Wisconsin's endowment should be much larger than it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan must have more satisfied alumni who have contributed heavily to grow its huge endowment. Wisconsin alums obviously aren’t as passionate about their alma mater, with the exception of the booster here who keeps opening these kinds of threads.

No it’s the fact that Michigan is willing to invest in companies like Blackrock. Just like it was Michigan who was willing to make half their class out of state in the 1990s, even though that was taboo for a state university back then. When you look at alumni giving rates, along Wisconsin/William and Mary/Berkeley have high proportional giving rates.

Wisconsin has many Forune 500 CEOs. I know this because you constantly remind us. So, where are the big donors at Wisconsin? Wisconsin's endowment should be much larger than it is.

What would be the correct amount?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan must have more satisfied alumni who have contributed heavily to grow its huge endowment. Wisconsin alums obviously aren’t as passionate about their alma mater, with the exception of the booster here who keeps opening these kinds of threads.

No it’s the fact that Michigan is willing to invest in companies like Blackrock. Just like it was Michigan who was willing to make half their class out of state in the 1990s, even though that was taboo for a state university back then. When you look at alumni giving rates, along Wisconsin/William and Mary/Berkeley have high proportional giving rates.

Does making half the class OOS make Mich State the defacto flagship for Michiganders?

Kind of. But at least in the 90s the other state schools were pretty decent as well. For a state of its size, there are many public colleges:Western, Central, Eastern, Oakland, Northern, Grand Valley, Wayne State etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan must have more satisfied alumni who have contributed heavily to grow its huge endowment. Wisconsin alums obviously aren’t as passionate about their alma mater, with the exception of the booster here who keeps opening these kinds of threads.

No it’s the fact that Michigan is willing to invest in companies like Blackrock. Just like it was Michigan who was willing to make half their class out of state in the 1990s, even though that was taboo for a state university back then. When you look at alumni giving rates, along Wisconsin/William and Mary/Berkeley have high proportional giving rates.

Wisconsin has many Forune 500 CEOs. I know this because you constantly remind us. So, where are the big donors at Wisconsin? Wisconsin's endowment should be much larger than it is.

No, you’re just too stupid to figure out how endowments work. Universities, if they want to, invest in venture Capitol and companies such as Google or Amazon. Yale’s endowment famously made massive returns thanks to David Swenson’s famous early investment in Amazon.

Michigan, being the fundamentally despotic and evil, decided to invest in different companies: specifically black rock and lock heed Martin. No other university had a greater share in black rock than Michigan: endowment reports put nearly 8 billion of its 17 billion in the company.

Why would Michigan do this? Because it’s an insecure school who will do absolutely anything for status. Wisconsin and Berkeley have similar sized endowments because they are proud of being state universities and recognizing they don’t want/need massive endowments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh dear. Total population of the state and total tax base are the important points here. NY the major exception to the trend for historical reasons (SUNY is an embarrassment).

UIUC and Florida and Texas schools reflect their state. As does UW. Though UW is a shadow of its pre Scott Walker self.

Yes, this makes more sense than immediate metro area. UIUC is nowhere near Chicago.

Wisconsin is way closer to the Chicago area than the OP likes to admit. Over 11 million people (including Milwaukee) within a couple of hours drive, considerably more than the Detroit area. Also Chicago has no top publics schools closer than The University of Wisconsin. Michigan also has another giant state school. MSU enrolls way more instate students than U-M. Michigan has operated as a semi-private school for decades.

Actually UIUC and Wisconsin are about the same distance from Chicago and are similarly ranked. Both very good, but neither elite like Berkekey, UCLA, or Michigan.

Elite to whom? You sound like a fool. No public universities are elite. Zero.

"elite" means T10, and Berkeley is Top 10. It also has a global reputation.

Nope. Berkeley is ranked #15 national university by USNWR right now however it really doesn’t offer an elite experience. Overcrowded and difficult to enroll in classes. Large underwhelming mega-campus and constant budget problems.

There are no elite public universities.

Berkeley faculty alone beats schools like Yale pretty handily. I would say pretty clearly the best faculty in the world come from one of the following

Harvard
Princeton
Berkeley
Columbia
Chicago
Stanford

Schools such as Yale, Brown, NYU, Dartmouth have bum faculty

The undergrad experience at Berkeley is abysmal despite their faculty.

Undergraduates are heavily subsidizing faculty to to do research and publish at places like Berkeley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan must have more satisfied alumni who have contributed heavily to grow its huge endowment. Wisconsin alums obviously aren’t as passionate about their alma mater, with the exception of the booster here who keeps opening these kinds of threads.

No it’s the fact that Michigan is willing to invest in companies like Blackrock. Just like it was Michigan who was willing to make half their class out of state in the 1990s, even though that was taboo for a state university back then. When you look at alumni giving rates, along Wisconsin/William and Mary/Berkeley have high proportional giving rates.

Does making half the class OOS make Mich State the defacto flagship for Michiganders?

Kind of. But at least in the 90s the other state schools were pretty decent as well. For a state of its size, there are many public colleges:Western, Central, Eastern, Oakland, Northern, Grand Valley, Wayne State etc.

No, because Michigan still has over 17,000 in-state undergrads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan must have more satisfied alumni who have contributed heavily to grow its huge endowment. Wisconsin alums obviously aren’t as passionate about their alma mater, with the exception of the booster here who keeps opening these kinds of threads.

No it’s the fact that Michigan is willing to invest in companies like Blackrock. Just like it was Michigan who was willing to make half their class out of state in the 1990s, even though that was taboo for a state university back then. When you look at alumni giving rates, along Wisconsin/William and Mary/Berkeley have high proportional giving rates.

Wisconsin has many Forune 500 CEOs. I know this because you constantly remind us. So, where are the big donors at Wisconsin? Wisconsin's endowment should be much larger than it is.

No, you’re just too stupid to figure out how endowments work. Universities, if they want to, invest in venture Capitol and companies such as Google or Amazon. Yale’s endowment famously made massive returns thanks to David Swenson’s famous early investment in Amazon.

Michigan, being the fundamentally despotic and evil, decided to invest in different companies: specifically black rock and lock heed Martin. No other university had a greater share in black rock than Michigan: endowment reports put nearly 8 billion of its 17 billion in the company.

Why would Michigan do this? Because it’s an insecure school who will do absolutely anything for status. Wisconsin and Berkeley have similar sized endowments because they are proud of being state universities and recognizing they don’t want/need massive endowments.

Seriously? You’re saying Berkeley and Wisconsin wouldn’t want massive endowments and you’re calling me stupid?

It takes money to make money, dork. Michigan has had multiple capital campaigns that have raised billions of dollars to help grow its endowment. Berkeley and Wisconsin have much smaller endowments because they haven’t raised nearly as much money from their alumni/supporters as Michigan. Perhaps it’s because they don’t feel as passionately about their school. It’s a testament to the quality Michigan and the satisfaction its graduates feel afterwards. Speaking of insecure, take a look in the mirror. Your fixation on Michigan is really ridiculous. Jealous much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan must have more satisfied alumni who have contributed heavily to grow its huge endowment. Wisconsin alums obviously aren’t as passionate about their alma mater, with the exception of the booster here who keeps opening these kinds of threads.

No it’s the fact that Michigan is willing to invest in companies like Blackrock. Just like it was Michigan who was willing to make half their class out of state in the 1990s, even though that was taboo for a state university back then. When you look at alumni giving rates, along Wisconsin/William and Mary/Berkeley have high proportional giving rates.

Does making half the class OOS make Mich State the defacto flagship for Michiganders?

Kind of. But at least in the 90s the other state schools were pretty decent as well. For a state of its size, there are many public colleges:Western, Central, Eastern, Oakland, Northern, Grand Valley, Wayne State etc.

No, because Michigan still has over 17,000 in-state undergrads.

In a state with a stagnating/shrinking population. Michigan saw the writing on the wall decades ago. Thus the need to grow its endowment and maintain its reputation as one of the top public universities in the country. Michigan isn’t like Wisconsin which is by far the most dominant public school in its state. It isn’t like UVA that underserves its top students because it’s too small. It’s isn’t like the UCs, because it doesn’t have 40,000,000 people living instate to support it. In the not so distant future, the state of Michigan will probably need to close down one or more of its public universities. The University of Michigan will be around for centuries more, no matter the fortunes of the state, because its supporters will make sure of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan must have more satisfied alumni who have contributed heavily to grow its huge endowment. Wisconsin alums obviously aren’t as passionate about their alma mater, with the exception of the booster here who keeps opening these kinds of threads.

No it’s the fact that Michigan is willing to invest in companies like Blackrock. Just like it was Michigan who was willing to make half their class out of state in the 1990s, even though that was taboo for a state university back then. When you look at alumni giving rates, along Wisconsin/William and Mary/Berkeley have high proportional giving rates.

Does making half the class OOS make Mich State the defacto flagship for Michiganders?

Kind of. But at least in the 90s the other state schools were pretty decent as well. For a state of its size, there are many public colleges:Western, Central, Eastern, Oakland, Northern, Grand Valley, Wayne State etc.

No, because Michigan still has over 17,000 in-state undergrads.

In a state with a stagnating/shrinking population. Michigan saw the writing on the wall decades ago. Thus the need to grow its endowment and maintain its reputation as one of the top public universities in the country. Michigan isn’t like Wisconsin which is by far the most dominant public school in its state. It isn’t like UVA that underserves its top students because it’s too small. It’s isn’t like the UCs, because it doesn’t have 40,000,000 people living instate to support it. In the not so distant future, the state of Michigan will probably need to close down one or more of its public universities. The University of Michigan will be around for centuries more, no matter the fortunes of the state, because its supporters will make sure of it.

This has been strategy for many southern/midwestern schools with aggressive recruiting of OOS with defined merits and/or lower COA, due to falling in-state HS students.