Fix disparities in public university funding in Michigan

There has been a lot of talk recently about closing the foundation allowance gap between K-12 school districts in Michigan. This gap effectively ranges from $7,251 to $8,099 per pupil.

But what about closing the funding disparity among Michigan public universities? The gap is huge: Funding for the state’s 15 public universities ranges from $2,747 to $11,561 per student.

The bulk of federal funding universities in Michigan receive is in the form of Pell Grants, which are awarded to students based on their financial need which they use for the school that they wish. Other federal funding comes via grants that universities have to apply and compete for.

The state, on the other hand, largely funds universities through an appropriation process that is largely arbitrary. And this is real money: Gov. Snyder’s budget calls for spending more than $1.5 billion on public universities next fiscal year.

Beginning in fiscal year 2012-13, the state did finally begin to consider some important factors when deciding how to allocate university spending. But much more needs to be done.

In 2013-14, universities received 50 percent of the appropriation based on what they’ve historically been given – which means half of state funding isn’t based on anything important. Of the remaining, 11 percent is based on graduating students in areas of “critical skills” (a wide range of areas). 5.6 percent of funding is for “research and development expenditures” (which leaves out eight public universities).

The remaining 33 percent of the state funding appropriated is based on four areas where Michigan universities are judged against their national peers. This includes the six-year graduation rate, total number of degrees, administrative efficiency, and the total number of Pell grant students.


While this is better than the totally random way funding was given out in the past, there are still problems. The formula is flawed, basing only a small percentage of state funding on things that actually matter.

Grand Valley State University scores second-highest on the state’s “performance funding” measurements and Wayne State University scores the lowest. By most objective measures, the former is doing a better job than the latter – but WSU still gets far more money from taxpayers.

Consider that Wayne State (20,108) and Grand Valley (20,825) have nearly the same number of resident full-time students – but the former receives more than three times as much money ($191.1 million compared to $64.4 million).

The six-year graduation rate at GVSU is 66 percent compared to 28 percent at WSU. The average student tuition paid per degree awarded at GVSU is $63,722 while Wayne State takes in over $108,000 in tuition per bachelor’s degree.

When the university the state says is doing the second-best in providing value to students is receiving among the least amount of funding per student, there’s something wrong with the formula.

The state currently does a poor job in determining how much money each university should get. A better path would be to simply give each Michigan student attending a public university a set amount of money to attend where they wish. This would be a much fairer system – each student, no matter which public university they choose to attend, will have the exact same level of taxpayer support. Attaching a performance kicker – a bonus if a student actually graduates – would be even better.

The college receiving the median amount from the state is Ferris State University which gets $4,121 per pupil in taxpayer funds. If Michigan funded its other public universities at this rate per students, it would save more than $600 million.

Universities always push back when the Legislature wants to base more of higher education on real performance measures. But when taxpayers are spending over $1.5 billion, there should be metrics in place that ensure it is being spent efficiently. The state has failed in this and it is time for a change.

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission.

If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, please contact Monica WilliamsClick here for details and submission guidelines.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Thu, 04/23/2015 - 8:53am
The article doesn't explain why there is such a large graduation rate difference between GVSU and Wayne State. We once offered a fixed per student grant, it was called The Michigan Promise, a promise we broke. It costs a lot more to educate an engineer than it does a social science major, so the fixed amount per student has some downsides. Not all degrees are equal in terms of instructional costs, return on investment for the student and return on investment for taxpayers. This article was written by a policy analyst employed by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, an organization NOT renowned for unbiased reporting and commentary.
Sun, 04/26/2015 - 11:33pm
The Mackinac Center is a radical right-wing think tank funded by billionaires to promote a right-wing agenda and right-wing economic policies. Basically, it is a propaganda arm of the one percent supporting policies to make the richest American's even richer, and opposes regulations for clean air and clean water, denies climate change (money from gas, oil and coal), and promotes that lower taxes on the rich will somehow trickle down to the peons.
Jarrett Skorup
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 9:38am
Ignoring the fallacious arguments, I'm not sure about your main point. The main reason for the difference in graduations rates is the make-up of the student body - specifically the poverty level of students. But low-income students get a large amount of subsidies from the federal government. That is besides my main point though, which is that there is no rhyme or reason to how the state allocates funding. And when you're spending $1.5 billion, that is very silly.
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 9:48am
There is arm twisting by university presidents (being a good fund raiser is essential to the job whether from the state or private donations). Also, legislators that are grads of particular schools tend to favor them in the funding process. There is just a lot of game playing.
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 9:58am
Ha...speaking of unbiased commentary....there's the pot calling the kettle black...seems like there's more than a casual connection between the Bridge and that little institution in A2 that sloughs at the trough of public finance. Let's be honest the GVSU success is no accident when compared to Wayne State who can't get out of its own way.
Mon, 04/27/2015 - 1:32am
Instead of looking at how the state has slashed support for public universities over decades driven by tax-cutting right-wing fanatics, and resulting in huge tuition increases suffered by middle-class and poor students, the author chooses to deflect and distract from this real issue. In 1970, my annual tuition at WSU was $312. Today my undergrad sons pay almost $9,000 each to attend WSU and Oakland University -- the two lowest public tuition rates in the state. It was possible to graduate with no debt. Now the average debt is $26,000. The declining rate of public support for our universities has resulted in this huge burden for our young people and their middle class parents. The agenda of the Mackinac Center is tax cuts benefiting the rich; we've done that and every year the average income in Michigan declines. And tuition increases.
John S.
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 10:13am
Why not conduct an experiment? Recruit a thousand students to participate in the experiment. Randomly assign them to either GVSU or Wayne State. Compare graduation rates 6 years later. I'd be amazed if there was a statistically significant difference in graduation rates. While performance measurement/management/budgeting can lead to improvements in the performance of public agencies, the methods are not easily developed, implemented, and sustained. They have been greatly oversold, and can have unintended and unfortunate consequences.
Jarrett Skorup
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 10:30am
I mostly agree with that. Taking your comment into account, it makes very little sense that one schools gets 3x as much funding as the other.
John S.
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 2:01pm
The largest costs for public colleges/universities are tied up in salary and benefits. The AAUP annually publishes the numbers. It's absurd to equate the mission of a nationally ranked Carnegie I research institutions such as WSU with the mission of GVSU. WSU will pay higher salaries than GVSU. It must attract and retain highly paid faculty for its medical, law, business, engineering, and other professional schools. There are no doubt inefficiencies in both institutions, particularly with respect to administrative expenses. Those should be addressed. In my view, it makes little sense to use identical metrics to judge and compare institutions with quite different missions and operating in quite different environments.
Jarrett Skorup
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 4:46pm
John writes, " In my view, it makes little sense to use identical metrics to judge and compare institutions with quite different missions and operating in quite different environments." Should there be any metrics? Because right now, almost none of the money the state spends on higher education is based on any metrics.
John S.
Fri, 04/24/2015 - 11:28pm
The political process involves Homo narrans or the "story teller." University presidents and their lobbyists no doubt must tell a story to make their case before the state legislature. Nobody really knows whether this story telling makes much if any difference in how the universities fare in competition for funding with other universities. I'd think that the "street level bureaucrats" or the programs/departments of a university are most knowledgeable about what they can or can't control and are in the best position to develop metrics that make sense and will aid in making improvements to their programs/departments. From experience, even at that level, it's not easy to do so and often a difficult process to sustain. In the federal government, the National Park Service was one of the first agencies to fully implement performance measurement/budgeting for its units (the parks). So far, it's difficult to see much positive that has resulted, despite all the effort put into it. Indeed, better performance is not linked with higher budgets, but higher budgets are linked with better performance. Is the latter an astonishing finding?
Sun, 04/26/2015 - 11:53pm
The only university in Michigan that can be mentioned in the same breath as WSU's colleges of Engineering, Physics, Chemistry and Medicine is the U of M. WSU brings tons of money into the state. Some through federal student grants, yes, but even more through opulent federal research grants (including important defense research) that are often matched or surpassed by corporate investment. Since the 60's, WSU has successfully worked to promote the classic research and advanced degree environment: university-corporate-federal. Thankfully, this triumvirate brings money into the state that is not ignored in Lansing. Comparing WSU to GVS is pure sophistry. More likely, this is part and parcel to the racism that permeates the Mackinac Center, and its anti-Detroit, anti-union and anti-public education agenda.
Jarrett Skorup
Tue, 04/28/2015 - 10:12am
"Racism" is quite a charge. I'm not interested in engaging with someone lobbing those type of insults.
Thu, 12/24/2015 - 10:58am
These are two different schools with different purposes and goals. WSU has a collection of colleges that ultimately provide the people of SE Michigan with doctors, lawyers and many other professional services. These tend to be expensive operations, but the benefits cannot be calculated solely on the basis of a cash-flow study. Policies mainly devoted to keeping the rich rich are going to gloss over such considerations.
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 10:16am
I realize this is a guest commentary, but it surprises me that Bridge now serves as a mouthpiece for The Mackinac Center. That's so disheartening and disappointing. Perhaps when articles originate from organizations which have such well-known bias, Bridge should indicate the nature and funding sources of those organizations.
david zeman
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 11:11am
MM, you've answered your own concern. Bridge takes guest commentary from across the political spectrum, that's the entire point of offering this platform. We are no more a mouthpiece of the Mackinac Center than of the many progressive organizations whose voices are also heard in Bridge. Frankly, I believe we need more conservative voices in the guest column spot to maintain a more even distribution of perspectives on issues important to the state. David Zeman Bridge Editor
Mon, 04/27/2015 - 12:07am
While I agree with you, David, perhaps Bridge could clearly indicate people who are paid to write propaganda as opposed to the rest of us poor buttholes. When someone writes an article from the MEA or UAW, we know that it speaks for a teacher's union or autoworkers and represents their viewpoint. Groups paid for and created by right-wing billionaires deliberately conceal where they get their money and what their agenda is. You have some responsibility to make that clear, beyond listing a name like "Mackinac Center" that sounds like all things natural and wonderful about the Great Lakes State.
Jarrett Skorup
Tue, 04/28/2015 - 10:12am
In the piece: "Jarrett Skorup is a policy analyst with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market economic think tank based in Midland."
Jim Vollmers
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 10:27am
Mr. Skorup begins his attack on the current appropriation with a personal agenda. "In 2013-14, universities received 50 percent of the appropriation based on what they’ve historically been given – which means half of state funding isn’t based on anything important." Does the author truly believe that historical documentation and the intent of previous lawmakers is not important? How uninformed and falicious can he be? He chooses two universities that couldn't be more different in make-up. GVSU is 91% white. WSU is less than 50% white. He just happened to choose the most racially different schools by happenstance? Tour the campuses and look at the facilities. GVSU is noticeably newer at every level, which means lower operation and maintenance costs. WSU was founded in 1868, while GVSU got started in 1960. Wayne State also has a Law School and School of Medicine which GVSU doesn't. Yes, all these things cost money. At least try to compare apples to apples. This opinion piece is clearly a simplistic and one-sided view of a complex issue.
Jarrett Skorup
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 10:35am
I'm not sure what you mean by "personal agenda." But past funding wasn't "based on anything important" - that is, the legislature was not trying to measure anything when it appropriated funds. How do you believe higher education money should be appropriated? Should it be based in anything measurable? Or should it be arbitrary or based on political pull? What factors of the universities should be considered? My argument is simple: Legislative appropriations should be based on something.
Jim Vollmers
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 1:45pm
Jarrett, You work for a right-wing, think tank. You can't offer an opinion in a statewide publication, then respond with, "I'm not sure what you mean by a personal agenda." You're an educated man, so don't go all passive-aggressive on me with the "I don't know what you're talking about" routine. My point of admonishing your "nothing important" remark was to get you to give some background for it. You've provided no reason for me or other readers to believe that historical figures were based on "nothing important". That is a slap to all previous legislatures since these allocations have taken place. You say that your argument is simple, Legislative appropriations should be based on something. You have provided nothing that those appropriations are not already based on something. You've only given a few, well selected factoids , out of many possible options, why one school isn't getting as much as another. That doesn't mean that there isn't a metric in place. You've said that it ought to be based on something, so say what those somethings are. You're adept at pointing the finger, but offer no solutions.
Jim Vollmers
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 2:09pm
My apologies! You've recommended that we install a voucher system.
Jarrett Skorup
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 4:50pm
Jim, Not trying to be passive aggressive - my agenda is a better system of funding higher education and I'm trying to prove the point that I don't think the state is currently doing a good job. Past legislatures did use "something" to base funding on. But it was probably political pull and lobbying of the universities. It is no secret that U-M, MSU and WSU team up as research universities when lobbying. But I think allocating money with different metrics and goals would be better.
Mon, 04/27/2015 - 12:30am
I appreciate the fact that you've made an honest attempt to defend your article by responding to the many criticisms leveled at it. While I have clearly attacked the place where you work, I mean nothing personal, and I hope you understand that, and hope you keep an open mind. As a young journalist and writer, unlike you, I was often a total embarrassment. For example, I once wrote a column promoting Esperanto as a universal language to promote world peace. Really.
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 10:34am
Take a look at what the State of Tennessee is doing, prek - 16 regarding funding and performance measures. What a wonderful educational environment we would have if we would be willing to take a page from their book.
Bob Balwinski
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 11:05am
Jarrett, You have an opinion......the state is not appropriating money correctly to universities and the Mackinac Center has a better idea. Here's my question: When you asked our former state senator, John Moolenaar, and our former state rep and now our state senator, Jim Stamas, why the state does its appropriations this way for universities, what did they say to you???? After all, the MI legislature must approve the budget so surely they know why the monies were spent as they have been over the past decades. I am curious as to why the state does this non-Mackinac Center approved appropriation process and am anxious to hear the words spoken to you directly from Moolenaar and Stamas.
Uncle Danny
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 11:11am
Sadly there is one assumption that is not stated. The assumption is that all universities offer the same education programs including basic research. It is just not true and thus the suggested solution is quite naive.
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 12:03pm
Give the state's interest in STEM, Jarrett, do you know why Lansing refuses to count graduate students in STEM in its metrics? It seems odd, no, not to provide incentives for universities and colleges who are turning out highly trained professionals (pretty expensive) and have been for decades. Everyone seems to agree we need this. Do you?
Jarrett Skorup
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 1:12pm
Maybe, Ken. It would be better than the current process. But I'm nervous about the state trying to pick "positive" metrics that are too specific. Even in the past few years, STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) has become STEAM (adding art). If the state is going to fund universities, it should lay out what it wants to accomplish with that funding. Currently, it is not.
Harry C
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 12:35pm
1. I serve on a volunteer support committee at Oakland University, for the Department of Music, Theatre and Dance. For over 15 years. The promise made to us years ago for larger and adequate facilities keeps slipping, slipping, into the future. The department has built an excellent reputation, is doing great work, and is attracting more students than we can accomodate. But we can't grow any more until the State of Michigan cuts us in. I'm not surprised we are at the bottom of the list. It is hindering us. We just don't have the political pull the older, more politically connected schools have. 2. OK, Mr. Jarrett Skorup works for the famously conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy. So what, if his article is honest, well-written, and raises excellent points (as it is and does)? Yes, if his measurements of performance were used, they would probably tend to help the more privileged students. But Mr. Skorup isn't necessarily advocating any particular measure; he's arguing the disparities are not rationally based and therefore need to be reformed. And I think he has a point.
Jarrett Skorup
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 4:52pm
Thanks, Harry - I tried. We prefer "free market" think tank. I've met many conservatives who very much want government involved in the economy and civil affairs. The Mackinac Center prefers a more limited role.
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 1:05pm
As taxpayers I think we should be interested in what we get for our investment. What percentage of graduates are working in their chosen field of study in a job/wage that actually justifies the investment, in Michigan 12 months after graduation? Those are the schools that should be rewarded and benefit both the taxpayer and the students. The first step towards this is to get the politicians out of the process.
Bob Balwinski
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 1:38pm
Jarrett, I'm waiting. What did John Moolenaar and Jim Stamas tell you directly as to why the state allocates monies to our universities the way it does?
Jarrett Skorup
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 4:55pm
Bob, I missed your previous comment. I have not asked Sen. Stamas or Congressman Moolenaar. I have written some about higher education, but I hadn't actually stumbled over how high the funding disparities were until recently. I thought it might be a good article right up Bridge's alley. I have only met Sen. Stamas once, but I'll try and remember to ask next time I see him.
Tom C
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 3:03pm
The article reveals some valuable data and raises some important points about funding, but I don't see anything that supports the idea of shifting all of state aid to a per student subsidy. Graduation rates are important, and more emphasis should be placed on helping students both get to, and stay in, college. Just offering a tuition subsidy will encourage more students to enroll, but not necessarily succeed. We don't build stronger institutions of higher education when the majority of entering students don't stay. Also, the author seems to dismiss "research & development" but this is a key function our larger, older, bigger universities play; the economic and societal spin-offs of the basic and applied research done at UM and MSU have accounted for much of the State's success. Nor should we overlook the community assistance and public education (e.g. MSU extension) and health care benefits (e.g. UM hospital) provided by universities. Perhaps the legislature has weighed all this and is making a relatively wise (but, in my opinion, too low) allocation of funds; just because the allocation of funds is unequal does not mean they are unjustified. Perhaps we should bring back Promise Scholarships, and perhaps we need to re-examine our priorities for education, but let's not throw out the current system for a tuition-subsidy driven system.
Jarrett Skorup
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 5:06pm
I think you have some good points, Tom. I didn't have space to go over any type of ideal "plan" for funding. I dismiss R&D because the state does not currently require good metrics for this. It might be a good argument, but that isn't where a lot of appropriation money is going. "Perhaps the legislature has weighed all this and is making a relatively wise (but, in my opinion, too low) allocation of funds; just because the allocation of funds is unequal does not mean they are unjustified." I certainly agree with the last point. But if the Legislature is considering those areas, they aren't laying it out in the statute.
Bob Balwinski
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 5:45pm
Okay Jarrett, I will wait for your follow up report as to why the state allocates money this way to universities. Interviewing some long time legislators, like Stamas and Moolenaar, is the way to go to get their side of the story. With their side and your views known, we can make an intelligent choice as to which is better or even come up with something new. I await your report.
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 10:16pm
WSU has brought more poverty stricken students into the middle class than any other university in Michigan. They've taken students with lower GPA's than any other university would accept, and moved them up. Yes, it may take more time and money to do this, but what's the alternative. I would not so easily discredit what they do, as other comments have pointed out the variety of differences in these two universities you focus on. If you really feel that everything education should be on equal footing, perhaps you could write more articles on the other disparities that may play into the very limited data you present here. I applaud you on the simplicity of your article, and solution, but I fear it is too simple to solve a problem that encompasses much more than education.
Wed, 04/29/2015 - 7:57am
Agree with much of this. WSU has a "Mission to the City" that involves a dedication to providing a college education to students that want it but may otherwise not be able to get it. As a prof at Wayne, I can honestly say that such a mission is both admirable and crippling. With the shambles that are DPS and many of the public school districts in Wayne County, we are forced to keep our admission standards low to meet this mission. Retention is low and dropouts are high. Time to graduation is high because many students fail (believe it or not, most faculty here still have academic integrity and try to keep standards somewhat high) or are working while taking classes. All of these work against WSU in terms of the state's performance-funding measurements. It is something talked about here all time at all levels of the university: How can Wayne improve its performance while meeting it's mission to the City? Compare these issues to GVSU. It's just not an apples-to-apple comparison. In my opinion, one simply cannot jump up and down about public funding parity - without having some sort of agenda - when the institutions are serving two wholly different groups of people. By the way, I am also curious why GVSU was selected as the comparison for WSU. Who was the highest scorer for the state's perfomance-based metrics?
Fri, 04/24/2015 - 11:11pm
Our state is already copying the South by tilting the tax code and state services against average people. Any changes proposed by the Mackhack center have to be viewed with skepticism.
Sat, 04/25/2015 - 7:21am
Speaking of the south there is an effort in the North Carolina legislature to require professors to do a lot more teaching than they do now because some feel the students are getting shortchanged on their education by just learning from teaching assistants. One result of that would be a major decline in time devoted to research which some say is the real reason for the proposed changes because conservatives in the legislature don't like the ideas coming from the research for political reasons. opponents are warning of a major exit of professors from the famous "research triangle" if this bill comes to pass and a major hit to the states economy from the lost research. Sorry I don't have a link but you can find more info on a google search.
Patrick Shannon
Sun, 04/26/2015 - 7:21am
Michigan needs a single public higher education plan that promotes a leaner delivery system for public higher education. Michigan supports 15 state universities. Each of these institutions competes for the same budget dollars. Appointed or elected boards govern each of these 15 institutions. The expansion of public higher education occurred during the post World War II era. Today’s economies, technology, and politics are much different. Our education and political leaders should look at the delivery systems for health care in Michigan and across the country. There is a revolution occurring in the design, funding, and implementation of health delivery systems. This change is based on the demand for efficient access to quality health care. The result is the elimination of small locally run hospitals and the growth of regional health care systems of care that promote access, efficiency, and above all patient quality of care. Shouldn’t Michigan leaders consider health care system affiliations and acquisitions in their development of a plan for the delivery of public higher education? Health and education are both publicly funded goods. So why shouldn’t students, parents, and taxpayers expect a lean higher education system that promotes and expects affordability, access, efficiency, and academic quality? There are successful public delivery models available to review and evaluate if one just looks around this great state. Do we really need 15 universities with 15 different boards, 15 different administrations, 15 different budgets, and 15 different lobbying firms.
Sun, 04/26/2015 - 9:15pm
Good points. You didn't even mention the independent community colleges in Michigan. How many medical schools are we building? States like Wisconsin, Maryland, and Georgia have unified systems, which help to prevent mission creep and costly competition. Their systems also include community colleges. States like California and Texas have a few systems differentiated by mission. Bottom line: nobody is in charge of higher education in Michigan, and schools keep clawing each other's eyes out for a diminishing population of students.
Chuck Jordan
Sun, 04/26/2015 - 1:28pm
Here's my idea. Reward schools that put money into helping disadvantaged students and minorities, and those that reduce student debt and tuition.
Patrick Shannon
Mon, 04/27/2015 - 7:42am
The 15 state universities operate similar to semi-autonomous city states. Even in health care, unnecessary growth is attenuated by certificates of need. Rather than speak in abstract terms, why doesn't a school like Lake Superior State with its 2,100 students start affiliation discussions with a larger school like Central Michigan with its 20,000 students? They would complement one another and that complement would benefit higher education and the students of Michigan. Unfortunately, there is no long range plan for higher education in Michigan other than the yearly budget race for the dollars led by the 15 university lobbying firms. The insanity repeats itself.
Tue, 04/28/2015 - 8:06am
I thought higher education funding was based entirely on the number of column inches the athletic departments receive in the Free Press!
Wed, 04/29/2015 - 7:36am
An important piece of information not mentioned in this article is that Gov. Snyder consistently proposes the highest increase in university funding go to GVSU, and the lowest to WSU. Here are his proposed funding increases for 2015: Grand Valley State University -- 4% Oakland University -- 3.4% Central Michigan University -- 3% Ferris State University -- 3% University of Michigan-Flint -- 2.5% Michigan Technological University -- 2.1% Northern Michigan University -- 2.1% Western Michigan University -- 1.8% Lake Superior State University -- 2% Michigan State University -- 1.9% University of Michigan-Ann Arbor -- 1.9% University of Michigan-Dearborn -- 1.9% Saginaw Valley State University -- 1.8% Wayne State University -- 0.6% So, there are other important metrics, ignored here, besides per-student funding. These may further inform your audience beyond your seemingly skewed viewpoint.
Thu, 12/24/2015 - 11:04am
It is interesting to note that the highest percent increase goes to regions mainly dominated by republican voters and vice versa. Probably just an accident,
Fri, 05/08/2015 - 4:16pm
Am I missing something? U of M does not have fewer than 25,000 students.
Thu, 12/24/2015 - 1:41pm
A new funding formula might be good, but all even is ridiculous. It costs more to run a medical school. Salaries for science and engineering faculty are higher, because they can go elsewhere. Nationally ranked research intuitions bring business to the state. Graduation rates should be based on reality, Wayne has a very large percentage of part time students, where I doubt that Michigan Tech has any. Graduates from Graduate programs should also be taken into account. All that said, I am still trying to figure out some on with an English degree and no teaching certificate, or a degree in African American studies expects to make a living, or why tax dollars should be used to support a degree with minimal benefit to society.