Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This was a stunning indictment of Michigan. From the NY Times, of all places.
Combined with the already low stats of its students (more than 25% have below a 1350 and only 50% bother to submit an SAT score), Michigan's reputation is sinking further.
Oh you again. You're just a Michigan hater. I think of you as "below 1350 troll". You seem to think SATs are the ultimate measure of human worth. And you never have any other arguments beyond banging on about the SAT distribution.
I don't mind the critical article. It makes some valid points. But quick math suggests $250M's not that large a fraction of Michigan tuition revenue over the multi-year period of time it was likely spent. 2023 tuition revenue alone was $1.6B. Just one year.
And based on that article, that effort, regardless of how you feel about it, was partly an employer/employee relations initiative as well. So the spending also should be compared to total revenues and initiatives beyond just educating students (running a medical center, etc.) Which are more in the magnitude of $10B a year based on Googling quickly. So maybe the $250 mil is out of a denominator in the magnitude of $100B-ish or more.
I prefer to associate with organizations that try to improve society even if they stumble. So, I think it's fair to take the criticism and move on. Articles like that always cherrypick quotes from compelling people. That's how the rhetorical points get made. And that's o.k. There's no special relationship that I know about between the New York Times ("of all places") and Michigan that would make critical reporting unexpected.
Our society has a lot of problems. No surprise that a university can't fix them all. But doing nothing and spending nothing, or spending on things outside the University's mission (like pre-school) doesn't seem very enlightened.