This essay first appeared in Crain’s Detroit Business, June 12, 2011.
Quality higher education has never been more important to investing in the future of Michigan.With the Legislature’s passage of a new budget, the University of Michigan is absorbing a $48 million loss to our general fund. We will adapt to the short-term pain. We will protect the quality of the academic enterprise, contain costs to ensure a strong return on tax dollars and remain affordable and accessible to students.
We need equally strong resolve from the businesses, communities and organizations we serve. We must make an unyielding commitment to investing in higher education or else risk our collective progress in rebuilding Michigan as a global economic player.Michigan’s taxpayer support for higher education is in the bottom 10 in the nation. To climb into the top 10 most prosperous states, higher education must become a priority.A strong U-M delivers talented faculty and graduates for our state; technologies and innovation for business, industry and health care; and solutions for our neighborhoods and cities. It means more than 2,800 discoveries, 1,337 patents, and 93 startup businesses in the past decade.We have shown great discipline in our fiscal practices, allowing us to weather difficult economic times more effectively than some universities elsewhere in the country. During a six-year period ending in 2009, we reduced our general fund spending by $135 million. We must reallocate another $100 million by 2012 and identify another $120 million in savings by 2017.Our cost-cutting spans all operations, from reducing energy consumption by 14 percent last year and avoiding $5.2 million in annual costs, to saving more than $30 million because of changes to employee health benefits. Our faculty and staff now pay 30 percent of their costs under a highly efficient health plan: Last year’s average cost to cover our employees was 20 percent less than the national average among private-sector businesses.In all of these cost-containment efforts, we never lose focus on our mission: academic excellence. That includes budgeting historic levels of financial aid to keep our doors open to qualified students. We want students and parents to know that a typical resident undergraduate with need, with a family income of less than $80,000, pays less to attend U-M today than in 2004.Our graduates lead the way in many fields that are defining Michigan’s new economy. Alumni report high rates of employment in the fields for which they trained, with more living and working in Michigan than in any other state.We are confident Gov. Rick Snyder will uphold his pledge to support higher education in the future. The governor, U-M, and countless individuals and organizations across our state are working hard to ensure the rejuvenation of Michigan. That must include strong public universities. It is an investment that delivers countless benefits for Michigan and beyond, and is one we cannot afford to squander.
Joseph Gilmore - \\\'59,\\\'60
A recent op-ed in the WSJ by a college professor suggested that signifciant savings at universities could be achieved with only a slight increase in faculty teaching loads. Has UofM considered this as a way to contain tuition cost increases?
Reply
Suzanne Burgoyne - 1975
As a college professor myself, and one who takes on leadership of significant service initiatives in my commitment to help make the world a better place, I can’t imagine what a “slight increase in faculty teaching loads” would be. If this “slight” increase meant teaching only one additional course per year, it would be the equivalent of at least a 17% increase in the workload of a faculty member at a Research 1 institution such as the University of Michigan. This increase is not “slight”–and includes many out-of-class hours spent in preparation, grading, meeting with students to provide individual help, etc. All of the university professors I know are, like me, already overwhelmed with our workload. Please don’t assume that faculty don’t already more than earn meagre salaries that don’t begin to compensate for the years of educational preparation invested or the dedication we demonstrate to creating the best possible learning experience for our students.
Reply
Sandy Schopbach - 67, 70
That makes for hilarious reading on the same day as the announcement that U-M will raise tuition 6.8% next year. Especially given all the new sports buildings that are going up and the new jerseys and all. Sports are big business at U-M. Funny, I thought they were in the education business. U-M, you’re my alma mater, but I don’t agree with all you do, and I’m not in agreement here.
Reply
Robert Thurston - 1980
How about cutting administrators’ salaries, which have gone up several times faster than faculties’ for years now. No college pres. to earn more than $250,000 a year. No sports programs that lose money and must be subsidized. Mary Sue, take the high moral and logical ground here.
Reply
John Seifert - 87
In-state tuition cost at UM is roughly 10x what I paid when I started there in 1983. Salaries for most professions have increased less than 3x in the same period, unless you’re a CEO or senior-level banker. Universities need to open their eyes to what’s going on in the real world and realize their business model is not sustainable. I would love for my kids to go to UM, but I just can’t afford it, and neither can they. Sorry, but I don’t believe the comment about UM being less expensive than in 2004, either. There must be some creative accounting going on with that statement.
Reply