Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It devalues the brand

On the contrary. Michigan is betting that there are enough talented students not served by USC or UCLA who will be attracted to its brand. What is a little odd about this is that Michigan is a public university. Usually it's the private schools that have done this, so to go to another state and "encroach" on the territory of the home state schools make this move an oddity.

It's barely a public anymore. I suppose this is true at many of flagships these days, but state support isn't what it used to be.

https://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-issues/tuition/general-fund-budget-tutorial/#:~:text=Declining%20state%20support%20drives%20up,fiscal%20years%202010%20and%202011.

Barely a public? The state of Michigan sends $350 million a year to the school!

Anonymous wrote:Hmmmm… a private school with satellites in other states makes sense. But shouldn’t a public keep its money in state???

If I’m a taxpayer in Michigan, I’m not so keen to send that money to pay for LA real estate and create jobs/tax revenue for California. This doesn’t make sense?

The landlord's name is Ross.

Hmmmm… a private school with satellites in other states makes sense. But shouldn’t a public keep its money in state???

If I’m a taxpayer in Michigan, I’m not so keen to send that money to pay for LA real estate and create jobs/tax revenue for California. This doesn’t make sense?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It devalues the brand

On the contrary. Michigan is betting that there are enough talented students not served by USC or UCLA who will be attracted to its brand. What is a little odd about this is that Michigan is a public university. Usually it's the private schools that have done this, so to go to another state and "encroach" on the territory of the home state schools make this move an oddity.

It's barely a public anymore. I suppose this is true at many of flagships these days, but state support isn't what it used to be.

https://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-issues/tuition/general-fund-budget-tutorial/#:~:text=Declining%20state%20support%20drives%20up,fiscal%20years%202010%20and%202011.

This is an Exec Ed program. The "students" already have jobs.

Anonymous wrote:It devalues the brand

On the contrary. Michigan is betting that there are enough talented students not served by USC or UCLA who will be attracted to its brand. What is a little odd about this is that Michigan is a public university. Usually it's the private schools that have done this, so to go to another state and "encroach" on the territory of the home state schools make this move an oddity.

business students want jobs. if kids could spend a year in LA taking classes one semester and working an internship the second, half the class would raise their hand.

Anonymous wrote:It devalues the brand

Prestigious colleges already do this in other countries. Why not do it other states?

It devalues the brand

I have no problem with this.

Smart. Leverage the strong brand to attract students out of the "home" area. Northeastern may be the leader in doing this, but other schools are getting in the game.

It is the wave of the future where a select few colleges will hoover up all of the best students.

just like Vanderbilt building their B school in Palm Beach...

I guess it's for grad school/MBA.

Most of the smaller satellite campuses for Northeastern are for grad schools for working professional taking advantage of the local industries. It has one of the best outcomes for the programs.

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/search/?search=northeastern%20university&page=0&sort=threshold_earnings:desc

Taking the Northeastern approach...

https://x.com/santajono/status/1837051909724582114?s=46

Ross-LA

Will be interesting