Talk:University of Michigan/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other matters[edit]

The following is a list of matters that are currently being worked on following the article's featured status. Pentawing 07:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Staff[edit]

Pentawing: looks like we got to the right place on endowment, so I've cleaned out the thread... 66.65.76.15 03:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would introduce the thread "staff". UM has something like 5,000 tenure-track faculty, but the total staff is more like 35,000. Therefore, I would argue that: 1)the word "staff is the right metric if we are including all employees (right down to the grounds-keepers); in which case the figure is wrong, or...; 2) unintentionally misleading if we are trying to signal a faculty/student ratio, in which case the figure is correct.
I would guess that we are shooting for the faculty/student ratio, so I would argue that staff is not quite the right word. 66.65.76.15 03:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about the entry in the infobox, there is little I can do about it since that entry is built into the template (which is used by who knows how many university articles, which at last count is more than 50). Nevertheless, the article does clarify that the 5000 figure relates to faculty members. PentawingTalk 03:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated Issue: 1) I was a bit harsh (below) in my exchange with Taxman; 2) I consider the ranking issue to still be open...but my conversation with Taxman to be closed. If you care to act as a neutral arbiter as to closure, please feel free to remove the thread (if he agrees).
Rankings will continue to be a thorny issue for all schools. The best approach might be to ban them from all articles, and point links outward toward the ranking agents. My concern is that that approach would give those agents spurious control/ownership of a discussion that should remain in the public domain, and relative to which discussion those putative agents should not be able to extract monopoly rents. It might make sense for there to be a Wikipedia-level discussion (by the domain owners), and a policy promulgated. 66.65.76.15 03:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to do about rankings at the moment since I am in the middle of trying to save this article's featured status (ideas I have are still works in progress). For the moment, I am sticking to widely accepted ranking systems (e.g. US News and World Reports). Another user, Lovelac7, has some ideas which are being experimented on at the Michigan State University article. PentawingTalk 03:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum well Research[edit]

These links concerning quantum fabrication and quantum searching might be worth mentioning and/or adding to the main page (comments about technology) or to the engineering page as this is fairly non-trivial stuff. Especially the fabrication: many other groups are working on entanglement (stuff similar to the second link), but actual packaging will be very tough, and this seems like a major step forward: http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Dec05/r121205b

http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Dec05/r120105b

66.65.76.15 03:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Employee organizations[edit]

The following list was added recently to the external links section:

This list existed in the article before, but someone objected to its inclusion and the decision was made to remove it. However, before an edit war starts over this material, the following questions must be answered if the above list were to be included:

  1. Do any of the above groups serve as a model for other similar organizations nationwide?
    1. Several of these employee organizations (aka Unions) are precedent setting organizations. GEO - the strongest grad union in the country. LEO - one of the first "contingent" labor unions of lecturers. House Officers sets standards in their field, last one was a major hours negotiation. (something like limiting shifts from 18 hours to 14 hours)
  2. Have the groups done anything that set a major precedent for administration-labor relationship at the University of Michigan?
  3. Do these groups give a general overview of U-M (not just a portion of it)?

In other words, if these organizations are merely local branches/groups with no impact worth mentioning and do not give an overall view of the university, such links to these groups should not be included (inclusion implies that the contributor merely wants more publicity for such groups). This is also to set a precedent; if any group can be listed, all groups, even the most insignificant, will be listed (this creates a link farm, which is highly discouraged at Wikipedia). Any constructive thoughts and suggestions is appreciated. Pentawing 22:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember wikipedia is not a directory for links. I could see if maybe LEO was mentioned and linked somewhere because they have been fighting against the university for a while, even went on strike for a while, but the rest are nothing special. As Pentawing said unless these groups are important then leave them out. commonbrick 00:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. However, we should include links to some of the most relevant central services at the university. Agreed, a precedent should be set to exclude links to every local department to avoid the link farm effect. But central services are relevant to the university as a whole. Do central services need their own subhead or is "external links" the appropriate section? Comments?

As a current member of one of those unions and a former member of another, I would say that I don't feel like any of that is especially notable for an understanding of the university. Most universities have unions--even the relatively unusual ones (like LEO) aren't really profoundly unique, and don't really tell you much about the nature of the institution. It's interesting to members, potential members, and administrators, but that's about it, and that's a small group. I don't think listing every known fact is really encyclopedic. What about the Concrete Canoe team? The Museum Practices Program? UMTRI? Etc.I guess I agree with Pentawing, in other words.
Furthermore, I'm not sure why "central" services are relevant. You mean like Payroll? The Registrar? I don't see how having such things here offers anything that a link to the main umich page wouldn't. See WP:EL and m:When should I link externally (answer: "Not very often") for thoughts on what is and isn't a good external link. · rodii · 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hazing and deaths[edit]

We forgot all about UM's long history of hazing and deaths that have made the news. Here is a short list of the famous incidents that I remember. Doesn't really qualify as a stub so I haven't put it in the article yet. commonbrick 05:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternities at the university have been the source of controversy in recent years because of their hazing and parties. The first incident that drew national attention the the university's fraternities was in 1998. A freshman, Courtney Cantor, fell out of her dorm window after attending a party at Phi Delta Theta. Test revealed alcohol and GHB in her system [1]. Cantor's father sued the university for the design of the dorm windows and for the lack of education regarding the perils of alcohol, the case was settled out of court for $100,000 [2]. The fraternity lost their national charter and something, the fraternity memebers were charged with something and plead something.
In 1999 a pledge to Alpha Epsilon Pi was shot in the groin with a BB gun [3]. The university responded to these incidents by creating a hazing taskforce in ????. In 2003 a Sigma Chi pledge was hospitalized for kidney failure [4] after being deprived of food and water and force to do calisthenics.
Looks good, but I don't know where this could go in the article. The one thing I would not link is Courtney Cantor. Unless there is a lot of information on her we could use, I can't see us being able to write a fairly comprehensive article of why she is notable without someone else nominating that article for deletion (which almost happened to the Victoria Snelgrove article). Pentawing 05:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this merits inclusion into the article, as it isn't really a UofM specific problem. You can find plenty of examples of drunken / drugged stupidity at any college campus. McNeight 02:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hazing is an ongoing problem and different than drunken or drugged stupidty. While hazing isn't a UM specific problem, UM's hazing problem has changed how UM handles the greek system. Michigan even introduced anti-hazing laws because of these hazing incidents (and other Michigan schools?). Seeing as how Cantor's death and the hazing incidents have changed Michigan's laws and UM's Greek system I think it merits inclusion. commonbrick 04:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a section on Greek life at UM, then the mention of incidents of hazing changing how UM dealt with the Greek system is merited. Otherwise, another article should be where this goes. Is ther one on Greek Life at universities? Hazing? These seem to be better locations. Battlemonk 20:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Cantor case could be used all by itself as representitive of hazing (which I'm personally not convinced it was), but trying to exhaustively list all hazing incidents which became public wouldn't be trivial. I might be more persuaded if you could find more historic examples than just recent memory, which would demonstrate a UofM-specific pervasiveness of hazing. For example, the state of Michigan enacted its' first anti-hazing law in 1931. What happened back then, and why did it fail to stop hazing? In 1980, according to [5] the hockey team hazed 5 players. What was done about it?
Also, a search of "hazing" on wp showed no college pages with a relevance of greater than 1%. Adding it to the UofM page would make it seem as though hazing is such a huge problem that it merits mentioning. And, while I'm not opposed to publishing negative information, I did not find any mention of the recent history of riots at the Michigan State campus on its' entry or any information about the atmosphere of loneliness and drunkeness at Michigan Tech. McNeight 21:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, hazing isn't a UM specific thing. Just because it isn't, doesn't mean it doesn't merit inclusion in the article. I don't see how mentioning hazing will make it seem like there is a huge problem with it at UM, it is just part of the history. Leaving it out would be like, well, leaving out a part of history. We would be leaving out how the Greek system was reformed because of hazing incidents.
Perhaps Cantor could be mentioned in the history section of the main article and more details can be added to History of the University of Michigan. We don't have to model ourselves after other articles, just because MSU's article doesn't mention their riots, doesn't mean we can't mention the hazing at UM. The MSU article looks like it could use some expansion, maybe in the future they will add some info on the riots. Remember that stub is still a stub, and a bad looking one at that. commonbrick 04:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the idea of placing some mention of hazing problems under "history" and perhaps a mention of current problems under "student life" (though not a lot that could overwhelm the section). Taxman had noted a problem with the lack of negatives concerning U-M, and if we want a balanced article we might as well include it as long as there is a reliable source to back it up. Pentawing 04:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The MSU article does mention the riots. See the last sentence in the third paragraph:
In recent years, MSU's successes on the basketball court have led to student riots that have strained relations between the students and the permanent residents of East Lansing.
As with all Wikipedia articles, you are encouraged to contribure to the Michigan State University article. Just because you are not a student at MSU doesn't mean you can't contribute. After all, I was never in the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment and I created the article.... --Habap 21:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If hazing were to be mentioned, which I am not 100% opposed to, I would suggest that it be briefly mentioned as having an influence on Administration and the Greek System, as well as the Athletic department. A link to a the generic hazing article would be good as well. In my opinion much more than this would be unbalanced within the article. Nkowal 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Student/city and student/administration relationships[edit]

I have decided to add a passage concerning town and gown issues and student/administration relationships.

Though town and gown relationships have generally been cordial between the city of Ann Arbor and the university, in the mid-2000s there has been a perception among students that the city is hostile to the student population. These include the passage of a ban on couches on front porches in 2004 and an ordinance requiring residential parking permits in several neighborhoods, including those that house fraternities and sororities, in 2005. Furthermore, none of the city council members were seen as standing up for student rights. The ordinances were voted on during the summer, when many students were not present within Ann Arbor. There has been also been a perception among students of the indifference of the administration towards student needs and concerns.

The ordinances mentioned above were found in the archives of the Michigan Daily. Please comment on the passage above. Thanks. Pentawing 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree with some of the sentiments addressed with this issue, as it has been a hot-button issue on campuse recently (or at least as recently as I can remember), I think there needs to be a lot more involved in this in order for it to be become Wiki-fied. Honestly, the couch ban has had the obvious limitations in AA, and the city council has been preey responsive to student opposition (notably the Historic District rezoning which they put on hold due to massive Greek protest at the meeting)). I think the characterization as "none...were seen as standing up for students right" is false. Don't get me wrong, I spoke vehemently against anti-student measures in a city council meeting, I just think that it is an inaccuracy to make such a statement, as they DID tend to consider the students voice. Finally, while a reference to the Daily is great, Wiki needs specific links.... NRK
While people may have stood up for student rights, the characterization of "none...were seen as standing up for students right" accurately represents the perceptions of the student populace.-Kalium 06:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comments on perception are fairly accurate. The student populace seems to be less than enamored of the rest of the city, and the feeling is mutual. The city districting policy systematically prevents students from having any significant voting power (wards are mandated to be pie-slice shaped, meeting at the center - where all the students are, neatly breaking up the student vote). This angers students for obvious reasons. Items like the couch issue only exacerbate things.-Kalium 06:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The couch thing is still going on? __earth 07:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the above passage is merely an idea that is currently being worked on. What I was trying to ask for is more input to see what further improvements are necessary before the passage is inserted into the article (if it is to be inserted at all). Pentawing 20:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry. But I agree with the others. then again, students mostly don't care about the city council. Maybe, until the couch things became an issue. (hell, students don't even care about campus election and the student assembly) __earth 02:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will clarify my comments a bit. First off, I just want to say I recently looked at the page it looks really good. It really got cleaned up, and kudos to those of you who did the work on it! Anyways, back to my point. I was not disagreeing with the placement of the passage about the relations between Ann Arbor residents and the students in the passage. In fact, from visiting other universities I've found that I was so lucky to have been at UM and had such unique relations with the city, as I don't think many other universities afford such an oppurtunity. That being said, I was more objecting to the wording in the originally proposed paragraph as opposed to the topic's actual integration into the article. I would love to see it in there, I'm just too bogged down in work to actually do it. How about one of you guys still in Undergrad do it? :) (C'mon you know you have the time!) --NRK 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I help publish guidebooks for over 200 U.S. universities. Here is how a student at the University of Michigan felt about the topic...

"Our campus is cool because it is intertwined with the city almost seamlessly. The people of Ann Arbor respect the school and the students, and everyone here has so much energy. The city is very intellectual in nature, and Ann Arbor residents are very intelligent and educated”

from the College Prowler guidebook, University of Michigan - Off the Record

Alumni List[edit]

I think the paragraph format currently used in the article is basically unreadable. It is not organized alphabetically or by topic, so is kind of confuisng to me. After a quick check of Harvard University, Ohio State University, University of California, Berkeley and University of California, Los Angeles, I see it is uncommon to list them on the same page - usually they have a separate page and only links. Maybe we should follow that format? --Habap 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Go ahead. Personally, I believe this stabilizes the article since a list of names generally invites others to add or subtract names at their pleasure. If the section is to be expanded any further, it should use generalities rather than listing specific names. Also, a list is generally something that is frowned upon in an article that doesn't use lists elsewhere unless there is a legimate reason for one. PentawingTalk 02:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the sections in the article are just adumbrations of the topic. The point of any wikipedia article is to give a quick overview. A sample list of alumni - and UM has a very impressive one, perhaps second best after Harvard - is interesting. Sure we are picking and choosing who to include. So it goes with everything else we are doing here. You pick which programs to mention, which sports, which buildings, which aspects of UM's history. You don't have to imitate the schools you've mentioned unless there's good reason to.Skashkin 20:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are good reasons. 1) Listing individual names inspires vandalism and arguments over whom to list, 2) the specific information already exists in another article (the list), 3) it's not an advertisement for the University, it is an encyclopedia entry, 4) it should follow the same format as other university articles and 5) most of us have to look up adumbrations (sketchy outlines). --Habap 20:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no consensus. See Yale, Dartmouth, University of Chicago, University of Pennsylvania, and Columbia. Each lists specific names. Regarding information appearing elsewhere, same goes with sports. Should we just have a link to UM Athletics? I don't mean to list the names as an advert., just a salient point about the university. Skashkin 20:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I had checked the four I listed above and University of Southern California, all of which followed this format. I assumed that it was a standard. I do think it is a more appropriate form, but stand corrected on the breadth of it's use. --Habap 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just created a compromise paragraph that uses a limited number of names. Hopefully this will prevent a full-scale edit war. — Lovelac7 22:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's pretty good. Though are there any famous failures or bad guys for NPOV? :) - Taxman Talk 23:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off-campus facilities[edit]

There are a bunch of UM facilities that are not in Ann Arbor. Various health facilites can probably handled in the UM Health System article, but there are places like the Fresh Air Camp, Biological Station, George Reserve and I'm sure others. There's not room for any detail, but are any of these places worth mentioning (in an "off campus" subsections maybe)? —rodii 17:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


UM has a significant and interesting inventory of properties used for research, including the below. It would seem that a page could/should be broken out to highlight the properties and the related activities. Many of the links may be found here: http://www.snre.umich.edu/about-snre/university_facilities.php

Peach Mountain http://www.umich.edu/~lowbrows/theclub/mcmath.html

Nichols Arboretum http://www.umich.edu/~wwwarb/links/

UM biological station http://www.lsa.umich.edu/umbs/

Matthei Gardens http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mbgna

SNRE Research Properties http://sitemaker.umich.edu/snre-properties http://sitemaker.umich.edu/snre-properties/saginaw_forest http://sitemaker.umich.edu/snre-properties/stinchfield_woods

Other UM links: Michigan Botanical Gardens and Arboreta: Beal Botanic Garden: http://www.cpp.msu.edu/beal/ Fernwood Botanical Garden and Nature Preserve: http://www.fernwoodbotanical.org/ Frederick Meijer Gardens: http://www.meijergardens.org/ Hidden Lake Gardens: http://www.cpp.msu.edu/hlg/ University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens: http://www.lsa.umich.edu/mbg/ Slayton Arboretum of Hillsdale College: http://www.hillsdale.edu/arboretum/ The Dow Gardens: http://www.dowgardens.org/


66.65.76.15 02:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debate Team[edit]

-Some mention should be made of U of M's excellent debate team, one of the oldest in the nation and of most high repute. It is also widely known in the academic debate world as a major summer debate institute/facility which has produced most of the best high school debaters in the country. I should know as I went to the Michigan debate camp when I was in high school debate. -User: Afghan Historian

While you're probably right on most accounts I do not think it is something that should be in the article. For one, the article does not focus on such groups. Secondly, even when the article does focus on extracurriculars it does so in a very limited manner (see "Groups and Activities"). Maybe a seperate page is warranted about the topic, but there are thousands of extracurricular programs at UM and once one is warranted all are warranted. Finally, I also will note that they do not play a big role on campus, while other groups which get a mention (BAMN, Greek Life, Newspapers) are very active around campus (whether or not you want them to be). See Inter-Collegiate policy debate. NRK 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MSU article does not mention the debate team. The MSU debate team is currently the national champion. Precedent enough for us. Also I agree with Nkowal in that it is not active in the community (for the better or worse).Ed-it 18:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expenses[edit]

"Nevertheless, student costs are high for a public institution, and for out-of-state students tuition is currently one of the most expensive in the U.S."

Several points may be made:

1) under so-called NPOV, we don't know if expensive is good, or bad (we are not allowed to make normative observations under "NPOV"). For example, the fact that out-of-state students will pay high tuition levels is a positive vote for the quality of the univesity (is that vote "good" or "bad"?);

2) I've NEVER seen support for the "most expensive" clause, and believe it should be either supported with a citation, or stricken;

3)the fact that in-state students pay far, far less (under $10,000/year) than the all-in cost to the university(probably $40,000/year to $50,000) means that the school is a relative bargain to in-state students who are paying between 20% and 25% of the actual cost (budget of $2.6Bn over 50,000 students on all campuses), but still a bargain for out-of-state (pay $34M, but cost is $45M-$50M);

4) Kiplinger's rates the school, in 2006, as something like the 16th best buy (from memory...needs a citation);

5) "costs" are irrelevant...the "cost" is the university's problem, the tuition paid is the student's problem...Kiplingers doesn't agree with the statement made in the Wikipedia article;

6) This is analogous to the statement about student instructors teaching too many classes, and classes being too large, I've NEVER seen an actual tabulation for UM. I don't know if UM is exceptional in either regard (e.g., what percentiles respectively?), whether for public or private. Both of these contentions and the cost contention seem to be based on either preconceptions about the university, or some misguided attempt to be NPOV. Conversely, calculated data is not accepted, even when the calculation itself may be NPOV and reveal an underlying reality that is quite different from perception. Does the article exist to reinforce popular perceptions, or might it also be used to inform, if the calculations/information are accurate?

NPOV is an issue onto itself: 1) If a University has 10 good departments (by ranking) is it puffery or anti-NPOV to state this?; 2) If a university has 200 departments (stictly as a hypothesis)and 180 of them are good, do we need to somehow use a false sense of NPOV to "recenter" that school in some artificial way?; 3) We all know rankings are a contentious issue, but why is it conceded that the Ivy schools are automatically great, when a check of the rankings may reveal a large halo effect?;

66.65.76.15 20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66, the cost is either a fact or not a fact. Whether it is a value is irrelevant to this sentence (and best left to college guides instead an encyclopedia). If we state that the "cost is high for a public institution", it means that and only that. I concur that if no evidence can be found, it should be stricken.

You may have misunderstood my characterization, or I was unclear: ("the cost is either a fact or not a fact"): 1) one man's asset is another's liability (accounting theory); 2) one man's revenue is another man's expense (accounting theory); 4) every debit has a credit; 5) I'm suggesting that cost is the university's word, and that "cost of tuition" is the student's phrase. The "real" cost per student is the ratio of university budget to student count. The student's "cost of tuition" is some sort of scalar that is not pinned to actual expenses...it is a constructed number. I don't think that this is hair-splitting.

What is the relevance of knowing a cost without knowing the benefit, and vice versa? Is an Ivy League education expensive? Yes. Does it confer a benefit? Yes. Should we go into each Ivy League school and proclaim it the X-th most expensive in the country, without a characterization of the benefits? What is the benefit of using "expensive" without comparative metrics...as I believe that you implicitly acknowledge. If student's pay a proper "cost", then they don't pay something that is either cheap or expensive: they pay a no-arbitrage price that is reflective of value. If the university pays X, and the student pays a sub-scalar-multiple of X, then the tuition is always cheap relative to that no-arbitrage price. 66.65.76.15 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also use more paragraphs? One paragraph that long with so many points to make is really hard to understand and digest. --Habap 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've broken up the diatribe into paragraphs ;) 66.65.76.15 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see your argument. Cost is used rather loosely in the original. When I read it, I assumed they meant:
"Nevertheless, tuition is high for a public institution, especially for out-of-state students, for whom the tuition is currently one of the highest in the U.S. for a university."
I believe that the value gained for that tuition is discussed in many other parts of the article. I am not an economist, so I read "cost" as "how much money comes out of their pockets", not any of the things you went into. I'm just a simple man, though. --Habap 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings[edit]

Someone was nice enough to edit "graduate" to read "undergraduate" with respect to the fact that rankings are believed to be in the top ten.

In fact, the sentence was correct as it was before the edit. From a link provided at the bottom of the wikipedia article for the engineering school, here is UM's self-reported ranking. Anyone who can provide a citation in refutation of these rankings should include the citation. If such a citation can be provided, the person who provides it should feel free to edit in the sentence back to read "undergraduate" rather than "graduate". Edits of this sort should be based on something empirical, not on caprice. Until then, here are the rankings, and "graduate" is the proper word to use in the referenced place in the profile on the main page:


School of Engineering rankings 2005 2005


Graduate Undergraduate

Aerospace Engineering 5 3

Biomedical Engineering 12 8

Chemical Engineering 12 10

Civil Engineering 8 8

Computer Engineering 6 6

Electrical Engineering 6 5

Environmental Engineering 8 2*

Engineering Physics N/A 6*

Industrial and Operations Engineering 2 2

Materials Science and Engineering 8 3

Mechanical Engineering 4 3

Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences 2 4

Overall 6 6

Note: U.S. News does not rate Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences or Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. Rankings are published annually, graduate in the spring and undergraduate in the fall.

  • Area of concentration

Other Top 10 Schools at Michigan

College of Pharmacy

Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy

Law School

Medical School

School of Education

School of Information

School of Music

School of Nursing

School of Public Health

School of Social Work

Stephen M. Ross School of Business

Wikipedia link in main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_College_of_Engineering

Link on UM website: http://www.engin.umich.edu/about/rankings.html


66.65.76.15 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alumni[edit]

Someone entered the following: "Marian Anderson, she was an opra singer". I find no evidence that: 1) she was an astronaut (as entered by our contributor); 2) that she was an "opra" singer; 3) that she was a UM graduate. It appears she was actually an opera singer, and received an honorary degree from UM. The article doesn't carry honorary degrees, and I'm not sure that it should. But someone (pehaps Pentawing) would care to take that under advisement? 66.65.76.15 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

research figure update[edit]

Posted on UM web on 2/17/2006: ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Research expenditures by the University of Michigan reached $778 million in fiscal year 2004-2005, a 3.4 percent increase, and are headed for the $800 million mark in the current fiscal year ending June 30, Stephen Forrest, vice president for research, told the Board of Regents at its monthly meeting Friday.

I've updated the figure used in the article, but not the footnote.

66.65.76.15 19:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Lombardi Center has updated its 2005 .pdf document (at least in part: http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research_data.html ) to incorporate more recent (though still woefully stale) research facts/figures. Someone might care to take a gander and update the article's facts/figures, as well as footnote number 8. Perhaps Mr. Pentawing? Michigan's faculty awards and academy membership, from this arguably objective and longitudinal sample, rank quite highly. Mention of those rankings might make useful incorporations under NPOV "facts" to be cited. 66.65.76.15 03:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unabomber[edit]

I've been enmeshed in this ongoing slow-motion revert war about the Unabomber. Someone (anon, typically in the 68.79.x.x address range) keeps taking him out of the list of notable alumni, and I have been rolling those edits back. But I surrender. I think he's actually one of the more notable UM alumni, and I don't like the idea that someone wants to whitewash UM by taking him out of the list (and I don't actually think he does any damage by being in it). But the anon or anons in question never speak up on the talk page, never write edit summaries, never respond to queries, and it doesn't seem to be an issue for anyone else, so I hereby drop it. But it bugs me. rodii 01:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the other way around. If the anon never responds to inquiries, nor discusses their reasoning it is appropriate to revert them if you can back up your position, which of course in this case you can. I agree it should be in there. - Taxman Talk 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you're right in principle, but I have been feeling like maybe I'm insisting on it too much in the absence of a demonstrated consensus to keep it. So... can I get an amen or two? rodii 21:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added Ted Kaczynski back into the list, though how one deals with the anons is another matter. PentawingTalk 19:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. rodii 21:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get a kick out of telling people that the list of famous U of M alumni includes the Unabomber, Papa Doc Duvalier (former dictator of Haiti), Marina Oswald (widow of Lee Harvey Oswald who assasinated President Kennedy...she attended the U of M English Language Institute in 1965 or 1966) and Robert Q Lewis (an awful TV game show host in the 1950's).

Professional schools[edit]

I would like to disentangle this a bit:

It has acclaimed graduate programs in information science, social work, public policy, and education, as well as in several professional schools including the College of Engineering, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, Law School, Medical School, Ross School of Business, Taubman School of Architecture and Urban Planning, and the School of Music.

LSA is not a professional school, nor are Music or Engineering typically considered professional schools. Engineering is sometimes considered a profession, however, and the College of Engineering has "professional masters" degrees which are distinct from the normal MSE. So it seems as if a few different things are getting mixed up here. I think it needs a rewrite from the ground up, but I thought I'd ask for comments here. (I also think "acclaimed" is getting into NPOV territory a bit--toning it down to "respected" or "well-known" might be better.) Comments? · rodii · 14:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodii, how about something like this?

The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (UM or U of M) is a coeducational public research university in the U.S. state of Michigan. Founded in Detroit in 1817 and moved to Ann Arbor in 1837, it is Michigan’s oldest university as well as the flagship of the University of Michigan system. Its constituent academic units include the College of Engineering, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, Ford School of Public Policy, Rackham Graduate School, Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Ross School of Business, and the Schools of Art and Design, Dentistry, Education, Information, Law, Medicine, Music, and Social Work.

The university is ranked among the world’s top universities.[6] In 2006, U.S. News & World Report ranked the undergraduate division 25th in the nation and placed many of its graduate and professional programs within the nation’s top ten, including business, education, engineering, law, library science, political science, and sociology. UM has one of the largest research expenditures of any American university as well as one of the largest numbers of living alumni.

The university is also recognized for its history of student activism and its formidable athletic teams, notably in football and ice hockey. However, despite being a public institution, the University of Michigan is also known for its high student fees; tuition for out-of-state students is currently the most expensive in the U.S.[7]

UM was the first American university to use the seminar method of study.[8] It was also the location chosen by President John F. Kennedy to propose the concept of what would become the Peace Corps as well as the site of Lyndon B. Johnson's speech outlining his Great Society program. More recently, the university successfully fought for the constitutionality of race as a factor in admissions before the U.S. Supreme Court.

- Gku 21:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better to list the separate academic units under "Academic profile" rather than the introduction (which I already did). Just my thought on this. PentawingTalk 02:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though that's a nice way of listing the units. I was tempted earlier to delink some of those units, thinking that they didn't really merit separate articles... but maybe they do, let's see how many of them get turned into blue links. Is that list complete?
...On review, I like Pentawing's revisions, keeping the lsit of units in there but not right up top. I liked this part, though:

Although a public institution, the University of Michigan rather uniquely operates in near autonomy from any interference by the state's legislature due to a provision in the Michigan Constitution that allows this special right to the University of Michigan.

I'm going to put that back in, see what you think.
Maybe reword "unique." I am not sure if UM is the only public university in the U.S. to have such a relationship to a state government. PentawingTalk 03:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, um, I'm not so sure that it is unique even within Michigan--what provision in Michigan's constitution specifically guarantees UofM's autonomy to any greater degree than the other public universities in the state? Michigan Constitution older ≠ wiser 03:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone provided a footnote for that assertion. The passage will be left in the article for now until someone finds something that states otherwise. PentawingTalk 03:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That footnote did not assert uniqueness -- it actually said the same autonomy applied to the other public schools in Michigan (although he did hedge this a bit without being very specific). However, there is nothing in the Michigan Constitution that extends any greater degree of autonomy to UofM than to the other state schools. older ≠ wiser 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think UM does indeed have some special status. I'll try to dig up a better source for that. · rodii · 04:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, it appears I am wrong. It looks like UM was unique, in that it was the first university to be granted constitutional autonomy in the constitution of 1850, but this was later extended to all state universities. Michigan (the state) does seem to be unusual if not unique in this respect. Some discussion here. This has been a hot topic in recent years, and under Duderstadt there was even talk of privatization, but it looks like reality is a little less interesting than some of the claims that were made. I'll take the quote back out. · rodii · 04:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, already done. · rodii ·
I thought that this might be more of a historical reference than a contemporary one. This might be worth noting in the history of UM section/article. Now that I look at the reference you mentioned above, the state of Michigan is unusual in that many of the other states I'm aware of have some sort of commission on higher education (going under various names) that has some degree of oversight. Interesting. older ≠ wiser 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Break[edit]

Worthy of an addition?

http://www.harvardindependent.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=9862

College Antidote Explaining the spring-break phenomenon. 3/23/2006 By By Sam Jacoby

The planes leave with their cargoes pale and pallid, and a week later, touch back down with interiors aglow; brown and red and sun-baked, the spring-breakers return. It’s a rite of passage wrapped up in pop culture; it’s wet t-shirts and mass-promotion; it’s crossing a border and magically being over the drinking age. Spring break is an antidote for college — a release from a winter spent bent over laptops and problem sets, a vent for a semester of stress and overwork. Fair enough, but when did this week-long vacation start becoming such a need? When did school get so difficult that jetting off for postcard beaches and foreign beers become required?

Brad Nelson of ICPT.com, a student booking agency, notes that the modern spring break did not even exist until the early ’50s, the invention of an ambitious swim coach at the University of Michigan: “He wanted to train early so he took the team down to Florida. Next year, a few girlfriends came down with them. That was about ‘53 or ‘54, and it just got bigger and bigger from there.” With the 1960 release of “Where the Boys Are,” a genre-birthing beach romp about a gaggle of college girls heading down to Florida, “…spring-break population quadrupled,” according to Nelson. Soon, tens of thousands of college students were swarming south, soaking up sun and stripping off tank tops along the way. Now, so ordained by the cultural arbiters at MTV and Girls Gone Wild, spring break is no longer optional. It is a part of the rite of college, an essential part of the experience. How well you do spring break is how well you do college.

66.65.76.15 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... weird, interesting. My gut reaction is (a) skepticism: needs a better source than some booking agent; (b) this isn't really about University of Michigan as much as it is about Spring break. But it's an interesting piece of trivia. · rodii · 00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on all counts: needs support, not primarily about Michigan. Was focusing on the last aspect for additional color for the student life section. I've also read that "The Assassin Game" started at UM, and am looking for a cite==>Live roleplay was a closet phenomenon. Then in 1979 a University of Michigan student with the unlikely name of James Dallas Egbert III disappeared, and the information got out to the press that his disappearance might be linked to a group of students who played "live D&D" in the steam tunnels beneath the university. The disappearance turned out to be unrelated to roleplaying, or the TSR product "Dungeons and Dragons," but the case provided the "basis" for Rona Jaffe's fictional work Mazes and Monsters set at "Grant University in Pequod, Pennsylvania." Jaffe's 1981 book portrayed a fictional case similar in appearance to the Egbert case - instead of an intriguing side detail, however, in Jaffe's book the roleplaying game is the basis for trouble. Many more people are familiar with the fictional version in Jaffe's book, and in the subesequent movie, than have any remembrance of the actual facts in the case. After Egbert committed suicide, the investigator who found him, William C. Dear published his factual account as The Dungeon Master, in 1984. Dear states categorically that it was not a factor in Egbert's decision to flee his family and live underground.

One correction: James Dallas Egbert was a Michigan State student! · rodii · 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch...as it turns out, there is actually a full article. If this started at MSU, then it might be a worthwhile add to their/your site. Either way, the origin of the game will make a good add to some school's site, if it can be pinned down... 66.65.76.15 03:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a query as to whether the consistency of hockey program should be highlighted, but it disappeared. The team has made the NCAA's 16 straight times...might be worthy of a mention.Wolverines' Iffy Goaltending Situation Holds Key to NCAA Success by Virg Foss/Staff Writer

GRAND FORKS, N.D. — The litany of great goaltenders at the University of Michigan attest to the reason why the Wolverines are making their 16th straight appearance in the NCAA tournament.

Starting with Steve Shields in 1991 and running through Marty Turco, Josh Blackburn and Al Montoya, goaltending has been the one consistent and constant factor in Michigan's success.


66.65.76.15 00:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moon passage[edit]

I removed this passage fromthe alummni section:

The university claims the only alumni association with a chapter on the moon, established in 1971 when the all-UM crew of Apollo 15 placed the UM flag on the moon, along with a charter for the UM Alumni Association moon chapter.[9]

Although the Alumni Association claims this is true, a story in today's Michigan Daily debunks it. See here. I'm moving the text here to see if others find the Daily's version persuasive. Frankly, the M-flag-on-the-moon sentence is verging on University PR fluff anyway, IMO. · rodii · 15:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute - Residence[edit]

Are there any sources for the cancer claims that were added on 26 April 06? --Jon Cates 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're toally untrue. Just an anon (or two) vandal being an ass. · rodii · 02:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary degree[edit]

Should we have a list of the University honorary degree recipients? Not on this page of course; I'm thinking of a separate page. __earth (Talk) 14:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is no. Honorary degrees are given out, essentially, as payment for graduation speeches and for allowing universities to use people in their promotional efforts. They're well disguised as awards of merit, but really every year there's a very calculated assessment that goes on in development offices of who would be good to use this year to (a) attract donors and (b) shore up the academic profile of the university. I know this sounds cynical, and I'm sure thoe faculty members on the selection committee would protest, but it's pretty much true, and I'm not limiting this to Michigan. Honorary degrees may be worth citing on the pages of awardees, because they are some evidence for notability, but fromthe standpoint of the awarding university, this would amount to List of people mostly only tenuously related to the university who the university nonethless wishes to attach itself to.
Even if you don't buy into my cynicism, realize that this list would have hundreds of people in it, coming close to the indisciminate list kind of thing. · rodii · 15:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
alrighty. __earth (Talk) 05:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, more information is better as long as it is true. We are not charged by the word. Seaslipper 19:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

steam tunnels[edit]

none dare comment on the tunnels...

Every university's got them or the equivalent, and undergraduates who think they're rilly kewl. Unless there's something notable about UM's, I'd say nothing to see here, move along... · rodii · 21:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid academic boosterism[edit]

I just had occasion to read this article for the first time in a while and, I have to say, I found it kind of, well, nauseating. In some sections, almost every sentence is about how UM is the biggest or the best or the first. It's not enough to say UM has such and such a record, we have to add "more than any other Big Ten school" or some such superlative. Try to read the article with a detached eye and see if you agree.

Wikipedia has a guideline, Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism that I think we aren't really doing justice to. I wonder if anyone is interested in trying to systematically tone the article down and try to present a little more neutral, balanced, just-the-facts approach. · rodii · 21:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went through the article to tone down as much of the language as possible, though if you are willing to help further, please list areas that need to be worked on. PentawingTalk 22:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note that the other featured university article, Michigan State University, also happens to have some boosterism creep in. The question becomes how much can we tone down the article so that it will be as neutral as possible. PentawingTalk 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine line kind of thing. I'm sure you don't want to see a two line article that says U of M, state university located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. If you talk about Harvard and fail to mention its prestige, have you delivered an accurate description? I'd say no. By the way, I don't know who removed the 44% of incoming students with a 3.9 stat, but what's the problem with that? It's more statistically relevant to talk about half the students than a quarter. I'd like to see people focus more on their own contributions than editing everybody else's. This is a communal site to a large extent. So unless you see falsehood or complete irrelevance, leave it alone. OK? Seaslipper Talk</19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna[edit]

Madonna left her studies after 3 semesters at UoM. Technically she isn't a graduate of UoM. Why is her name listed as a graduate of UoM in Alumni section? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like Iggy Pop, she attended but didn't graduate. That makes her oficially an alum (according to UM, anyone who attends for two semesters or something is an alum) but not a graduate. So the answer to your question is "someone made a mistake." · rodii · 21:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So please correct the sentence. The sentence implies that she is a graduate. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The odd thing is, by the actual definition of Alumnus, she is one. I had always cringed when the ads during Michigan State athletic events would name Magic Johnson as an Alumnus of MSU, not realizing that it means "former student", not "graduate". The common perception is that it means "graduate", but it doesn't. --Habap 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me why you didn't just correct it yourself instead of bitching about it, Ambuj. Did I not get to it quickly enough for you? · rodii · 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer is simple and evident in the corrected version. I only knew about Madonna; and not about the status of others mentioned as graduates. Clearly, Iggy Pop and Bill Ayers also fall under the same category as her and I didn't knew about them. My correction would still have been a "wrong verison" as it wouldn't have handled them correctly. I never objected to her being an Alumnus, and my only objection was refering to her as a graduate. Since I wanted an "expert" to fix this issue and probably others if they existed (here they actually did), I used the talk page. And I will use the talk page a 100 times for these kind of corrections as the correction re-affirmed my view of need of expert to do the job. And by the way, where was my tone anywhere near "bitching"? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will revise my assessment to "peremptory." Waiting longer than seven minutes for something to be fixed would be nice. · rodii · 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Library System[edit]

The Michigan library is ranked by the Association of Research Libraries (http://www.arl.org/index.html ) along a number of dimensions (acquisitions, volumes held, support staff, budget…). In each such ranking category in the year 2003-2004, the Michigan library system ranks in the top ten. Using a regression equation (page 91 of 142 pages), the UM library is nationally ranked by the ARL in the 8th position. http://www.arl.org/stats/pubpdf/arlstat04.pdf

66.65.76.15 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UM Olympians[edit]

UM Olympians are referred to under sports, and supported via an external link. However, they don't appear to be referenced under "Notable Alumni". Should a section be added to do so?

66.65.76.15 23:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very wary about that, especially if we start adding names for that is an invitation for anyone to add names (even for the most trivial, and in several cases absurd). There is a short mention of UM Olympic medalists, but as long as individual names are not included, I have no problems with mentioning UM Olympians. It would be best to include individual names within the list of UM alumni article, and if that becomes too large to create a separate article listing. PentawingTalk 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that adding names will be a magnet for vandalism and a list would be too long. I was thinking along the lines of: 1) moving the link that is elsewhere in the article, OR; 2) simply adding the link to the alumni list. Think of it as providing contextual scope to a variable: as it stands, a visitor to the alumni list alone doesn't see Olympians; 3) possibly adding a category to the template. In short, an entry analogous to that for football all-americans would probably serve the purpose. 66.65.76.15 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am really questioning the value of that list. Almost all the controversy we have on this article is because of that list. Everyone thinks their favorite person should (or shouldn't, in the Unabomber case) be on it, but it's already practically unreadable. The point here is not to validate people's fame, or validate the University's fame by linking to its Big Name alums--it's to have an encyclopedia article about UM. Does the fact that Michael Phelps, Iggy Pop or Raoul Wallenberg went to UM really tell anyone anything about UM? (I realize I'm tilting at windmills here--every university article has to deal with this issue. But here's a vote in favor of drastically reducing the list to truly eminent people whose achievement is somehow related to their tenure at the University. Otherwise, the U is just "borrowing" their fame, or vice versa.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodii (talk • contribs)

Polio Vaccine[edit]

There is a bit of a reversion struggle over Salk v. Sabin in the vaccine annoucement. While it is clear that there are 2 types of underlying virus (dead v. live), this link makes it clear that the annoucement concerned the Salk variant: http://www.umich.edu/news/MT/05/Fall05/story.html?vaccine3

66.65.76.15 23:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow and Blue Link[edit]

There have been several changes from the proper "yellow" to "maize". Here is the link for the song: http://alumni.umich.edu/info/um/yellow_blue.php

Human Powered Submarine[edit]

COE team is 2006 HPS champ: http://www.engin.umich.edu/news/submarinechamps/


Adding a disambiguation link to Michigan State University[edit]

After a bit of debate (part two) related to Pennsylvania State University and University of Pennsylvania, any objections to adding a top link to Michigan State University? And likewise to University of Michigan? Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • GChriss also brought this up on the MSU talk page, where there was no objection. However, two separate anon users have blanked the amended disambiguation link on the U-M page. I'm not sure why the object to a link to the MSU page, but they do. I just wanted to point this out as a possible target for blanking vandalism. Lovelac7 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This did happen at the University of Pennsylvania page. Not so much aesthetics, but academic elitism was the problem. GChriss <always listening><c> 02:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the link is fine in theory, and serves a useful purpose. However, I think it leaves a lot to be desired from the aesthetic standpoint. It is possible that people have deleted the link because it looks like sh*t, and junks up the header of the article, which is the first thing that people see. If you improve the presentation, you may remove the implicit objection. Just a thought... 66.65.76.15 19:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't think about aesthetics. That might explain why the UM link on the MSU article hasn't been deleted even once. To try to fix the problem, I tried to make the dablink more concise, so it takes up one line, (at least on my monitor.) How's it look on yours? Lovelac7 02:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my perspective, this change is a HUGE improvement (then again, I was not the person who was scrapping the link...they may "vote" differently). Nice work, and thanks for the upgrade.66.65.76.15 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems silly. If people are going to be confused, it would be over the difference between UM Ann Arbor and Dearborn/Flint, not MSU. It isn't uncommon to have a set of universities with paralleling names such as UM and MSU, and the differences between the two are bold enough that readers would be able to figure out the difference. Simply saying that UM is located in Ann Arbor should be enough to allow readers to understand that they are not reading about MSU.

And, on top of that, the sentence ("For an unaffiliated university in East Lansing, see Michigan State University") doesn't fit in with the page or content. When reading that sentence, it seems completely out of the blue. If the aim of including such a sentence is to disambiguate, say that - tell readers what the point is. The first sentence, referring to UM-D and UM-F fits fine with the article, but this one, aside from being all around irrelevant, doesn't flow or fit at all. badhairweek, 24 september 2006

Endowment Growth[edit]

A new wiki table has been added for endowment growth on the endowment page. Michigan ranks first on both the aggregate and exponential return measures for endowment growth over the last 20 years. Might this be added to the article?

What, the whole table? Surely not. The fact that "Michigan ranks first on both the aggregate and exponential return measures for endowment growth over the last 20 years", with a citation, seems sufficient. · rodii · 21:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, not the table, which occurs on another page...rather the conclusions supported by the table, as you infer. I've left the table on the discussion page for support of the "argument". Analogous to the library supporting data and link (which no one picked up the baton on...)... 66.65.76.15 22:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


2006 NACUBO Endowment Survey[edit]

http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/2006NES_Listing.pdf

Michigan in 9th position overall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.76.15 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Institutions by 20 year endowment growth[edit]

Rank Order Name Aggregate Arithmetic Growth (2006-1986) Per Annum Exponential Growth (2006-1986) Endowment @ 2006 ($000) Endowment @ 1986 ($000)
1. University of Michigan 2147% 15.56% $5,652,262 $251,517
2. Duke University 1140% 12.59% $4,497,718 $362,706
3. University of Notre Dame 1041% 12.17% $4,436,624 $388,965
4. University of Virginia 963% 11.82% $3,618,172 $340,387
5. Yale 937% 11.69% $18,030,600 $1,739,460
6. University of Pennsylvania 884% 11.43% $5,313,268 $540,084
7. Stanford 837% 11.19% $14,084,676 $1,502,583
8. M.I.T. 761% 10.77% $8,368,066 $971,346
9. University of Southern California 747% 10.69% $3,065,935 $361,784
10. Harvard 742% 10.65% $28,915,706 $3,435,013
11. Northwestern 625% 9.9% $5,140,668 $709,236
12. Princeton 575% 9.54% $13,044,900 $1,934,010
13. Vanderbilt 560% 9.43% $2,946,392 $446,458
14. Emory 554% 9.39% $4,870,019 $745,188
15. Dartmouth 547% 9.34% $3,092,100 $477,774
16. Cornell 541% 9.29% $4,321,199 $673,848
17. University of Chicago 506% 9.01% $4,867,03 $802,500
18. Rice 427% 8.31% $3,986,664 $755,782
19. University of Texas 423% 8.27% $13,234,848 $2,530,730
20. Case Western Reserve 420% 8.25% $1,598,566 $307,250
21. Texas A&M System 408% 8.13% $5,642,978 $1,110,440
22. Washington University 389% 7.93% $4,684,737 $958,461
23. Johns Hopkins 378% 7.82% $2,350,749 $491,543
24. Columbia 369% 7.72% $5,937,814 $1,266,640

Wolvve85 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Profile[edit]

Given the repeated vandalism of this section, it is not clear to me that these figures are supported by the citations given: "18% of the university's incoming class of 2006 earned a high school GPA of 4.0, while 22% earned a GPA of 3.9 or higher.[5] [6]". It seems unlikely that a 18% of the students would have a perfect GPA, but that a sweep of the distribution down to 3.9 would only yield an additional 4%, especially given an average of 3.72 for the entire class. Given 18% at 4.0, one would expect a figure closer to 29% for the 3.92 cohort, or a cumulative total of 47% for the cohort above 3.9. Unless the edit is intended to suggest 22% at 3.9, and 18% at 4.0, for a total cohort of 40% above 3.9? Either way, the figures are suspect. 66.65.76.15 22:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't someone list the old SAT equivalent scores as well, since most people do not know how these new scores correlate to the old 1600 point scale?

Rather than adding the old scale and then a translation between the scales, I suggest "normalizing" both the SAT and the ACT to a percentage. This would avoid the need to try to compare the inherently incomparable and would stabilize the analysis due to rescaling and recentering. It would also make it easier to compare each quartile, as well as the interquartile range, to other schools. Multiple scales and multiple comparions will probably tend to muddy the waters. 66.65.76.15 22:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Frost[edit]

This article does not address the fact that Robert Frost taught at UM for a few years in the 1920's. This is important because of the obvious notoriety of Frost himself, but also because it bringing him to UM was a first step in making UM known for its depth of culture and academic rigour, not just the university's strong athletics. A "house" of Mary Markley Hall was named after Frost as well. The housing website provides information here: http://www.housing.umich.edu/residencehalls/popup.php?housebio=markley (which describes the Markley house names), and this article: http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9900/May08_00/12.htm from the University Record also talks about Frost at UM. badhairweek, 24 September 2006

Biotechnology Ranking[edit]

Michigan ranked in the top 10 for biotechnology. http://www.midwestbusiness.com/news/viewnews.asp?newsletterID=15583


CHICAGO – According to a new Milken Institute study, the University of Minnesota and the University of Michigan are among the nation’s top 10 leading universities in turning biotechnology research into commercial applications. Titled “U.S. Universities Lead in Biotechnology Research, Tech Transfer and Commercialization of Property,” the study ranked each university’s quality of research, their ability to patent ideas and their commercial outcomes.

MIT was first on the list followed by the University of California system, the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University. The University of Minnesota ranked sixth and the University of Michigan ranked ninth.

Hockey[edit]

http://www.mgoblue.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=22238

Red Berenson has led Michigan to a pair of NCAA championships (1996, 1998) and 16 consecutive appearances in the NCAA Tournament, the longest active streak of any school in college hockey.

Extensive vandalism to UM article[edit]

Extensive vandalism to UM article as of 10/5/2006 by user Tommerrigan The source is no longer editable, might someone repair?

Presumably user Tommerrigan is either a Notre Dame “graduate”, or a provocateur: “Michigan's stated academic goal is to become the "Notre Dame of the Midwest," as it trails its archrival in nearly all academic and athletic categories.”


Wolve85 14:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Faculty Headcount in Template[edit]

I've modified the template to reflect 6,238 faculty as found at the following link: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/obpinfo/files/um_system.pdf

The includes: "Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Instructor, Lecturer, Regular Clinical Instructional and Primary faculty". According to the table presented at the above link, this count does not include the hospital system, an is for the academic year 2005/2006.

Which universities are most often called the U of M?[edit]

I would guess that the following proposition would be unsurprising and uncontroversial among people who have taken a moment (or more) to inform themselves upon this question:

  • Among the dozen-or-so universities called "the U of M" (see the U of M disambiguation page) the one that most extensively and frequently uses that abbreviation in something like an official way, as a trademark, is the University of Minnesota;
  • The University of Michigan is (perhaps a distant) second in such ranking;
  • Whichever is in third place is far behind Michigan.

Note that I said "I would guess...". My research is less than thorough and so I reserve the right to alter my assessment as I learn more.

However, I am amazed that the immense volume of stupid bigotry on this point incessantly pouring out of Ann Arbor. The University of Michigan is (in all other respects) a excellent and admirable institution. It seems as if most people affiliated with the University of Michigan not only feel strongly that only that university has any legitimate claim to that abbreviation, and not only are amazingly ignorant of the facts of the matter, but also (and this is why I insist on calling it bigotry) are given to making strident and inexplicably belligerent claims about other universities, of which they are ignorant, to the effect that those other universities either do not use the term, or do not use it officially, or do not use it as extensively or as frequently, as does the University of Michigan, without having given a tenth-of-a-second's thought to the question. Many of these people are highly intelligent, and become profoundly stupid only when this particular question is raised. It's amazing. I'd understand it if it were just cheerleading for the home team or such. But one such person, having pointed out that the University of Michigan claims "U of M" as a registered trademark, went on to tell me in sneering tones that other universities that may be referred to in that way do not use that abbreviation officially, and then when I contradicted him and questioned his qualifications to say anything about those OTHER universities, insisted with great adamance that ALL HE HAD SAID was that the University of Michigan has registered "U of M" as a trademark.

I don't think people from the University of Minnesota reciprocate this attitude (but I'm the first to admit it may be only that I haven't encountered it, so tell me if I'm wrong).

What causes this bizarre irrationality? Michael Hardy 04:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has less to do with bigotry and more to do with the occasional semi-drunk undergraduate with too much time on their hands, of which there are many. A lot of universities can be called 'U of M'. Revert, rewrite, and don't let it get to you too much. As it stands, the disambig looks fine to me. Fedallah 05:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, when I say "U of M", I always mean Michigan, but that's probably because I grew up there. I now live near the University of Maryland, which I have never heard referred to as "U of M". Disambiguation pages are intended to help people, so his drunken arrogance is pointless. --Habap 15:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is, I've been running into this for many years from many people, none of whom seemed to be drunk. Michael Hardy 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the drunkeness is really a moot point. What you need to do is establish consensus and then treat unjustified alteration of the disambig like any other annoyance. The thing is, it's not that big a deal - there are plenty of universities with the 'University of M____' name. Put them all on the disambig, and hold to the policy that any university with that naming pattern be included. It's a far more precise line of reasoning, it's simple, logical and difficult to argue against, and anyone who gets offended over it should go get a life anyway. Far better than fretting over regional differences in use of the term. I think you and I are in complete agreement here, but again, consensus needs to be established on that point. That way, those who think their university is somehow more deserving of the title 'U of M' can be treated like any other vandal if they repeatedly modify the page along those lines. Fedallah 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But my concern here was not just the Wikipedia page, but this social phenomenon generally, which seems to antedate Wikipedia by some decades, at least. Michael Hardy 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All universities -- and their students -- fret about "brand". It would be far easier to simply say/use "Michigan", than any of the variants proposed. Consistent usage over time creates the "brand". Given the multiplicity of possible mappings out of "UM" (or other variants) into the actual university under discussion, it would be best for all universities to avoid the ambiguity entirely: Michigan, Michigan State, Miami, Miami of Ohio, Minnesota... Wolvve85 20:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ambiguity is that much of a problem when there's sufficient context. You may call your friend "Bill", while many other people also bear that name, and there's no problem. But if he claims to be the only person who can legitimately be called that, or the only person who was ever called that, then he's wrong. Michael Hardy 21:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but that begs the question: unlike the set theory where we may use the universe of discourse, it is precisely because context is user-dependent and user-understood and user-defined and because context/understanding are not universal that a definitive, context-free absolute is called for. Without the need to define context we also obviate the need to define the ambient set. Again, you are right, but it begs the point, it is precisely because people inappropriately claim a unique ownership that a context free label is called for. In other words, I agree with all of your premises but disagree with all of your conclusions. Create a bijective map between name and institution, and the entire "debate" goes away; stick to non-unique names that are bound by context, personal history, prejudice and ego and suffer with eternal ambiguity. Why create a multiplicity of objects when a simpler object, a unique object, will finesse the whole "problem"? Why don't we use "1" and "2" to mean the same thing? Why does mathematics strive for unique solutions? Why should the implicit rules of language be used in a less precise way than math? Largely for cultural reasons. If culture cannot be shared because language intrudes, why not reform the usage of language? Isn't that what contracts and treaties are for? Isn't that how an intellectual commons must be created so that it serves all fairly? Wolvve85 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I fail to see how or why this issue is even relevant or important, and I doubt this talk page is the right place to soapbox on it. Fedallah 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to "U of M"[edit]

This article said:

The University of Michigan (commonly known as the U of M, or UM) is a coeducational public research university in the U.S. state of Michigan.

I edited it to say instead:

The University of Michigan (commonly known as the U of M, or UM) is a coeducational public research university in the U.S. state of Michigan.

The ONLY change I made in that edit was that instead of "U of M" it says U of M; i.e. it links to the U of M disambiguation page. That's all. The U of M disambiguation page is simply a list of universities that are conventionally called that. The University of Michigan is of course one of the universities listed there.

So Fedallah reverted the edit, and said

  • The link to that page is "utter tripe".
  • Including that link makes an "op/ed issue" out of it.

Now I understand Fedallah may think some of the things I've said on this talk page are "utter tripe" or that the things of said on this talk page are making an "op/ed issue" out of something. I could also believe that he thinks my edit summary was "utter tripe" or makes an "op/ed issue" out of something. But why is the link within the article itself an instance of "utter tripe"? And why is the link within the article itself an "op/ed issue"? The NPOV policy certainly does not apply to edit summaries; it applies to articles. If he thinks my POV edit summary is "utter tripe", is that a reason to characterize the inclusion of this link within the article as "utter tripe"? Michael Hardy 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a disambiguation page in this context adds nothing to the article. older ≠ wiser 02:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does add something useful to the reader. The reader is told that speaking of "the U of M" may leave on liable to being misunderstood. Michael Hardy 02:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, how does that follow? There are countless pages where an often ambiguous alternate name for an entity is provided. It is relatively uncommon to include inline text pointing out that there may be alternate meanings for the term (hatnotes are another matter, but those typically only apply if the alternate term is redirect to the page). Now, if you have some verifiable source that supports the notion that people reading an article about the University of Michigan often assume that "U of M" has no other possible meanings, well then there'd be something to consider. older ≠ wiser 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per prior discussions, I suspect that many U of Michigan students and residents of Michigan feel it has no other possible meanings, as do U of Minnesota students and residents of Minnesota. What harm is there in including the wiki-link? It allows users to access related information more quickly and it seems silly to exclude it because no verifiable source indicates that potential users are, in fact, so ignorant as to not realize "U of M" has other meanings. --Habap 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the link adds much to the article. It is certainly not common to link to a disambiguation page like that, and with good reason, I think. People expect to be taken to an article, not a disambiguation page. I think the article is beter without the link. Johntex\talk 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One reason it's not commonplace to link to such a disambiguation page is that usually, the absence of such a link would not mislead the reader. Here, the reader may get an erroneous impression, as experience shows so many do. Michael Hardy 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whose experience? Yours? Is that verifiable? Fedallah 23:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the absence of the disambig link misleads readers. Sure your experience may vary, but your experience doesn't necessarily mean it is a common problem. The copy says "...commonly known as U of M, or UM..." and says nothing that it is the only university that can be referred to as "U of M" or "UM." See Pardon the Interruption that has a very similar "...(also known as PTI)..." The disambig page for PTI isn't linked to on that page and doesn't assert that PTI always means the television show that airs on ESPN. Again, similarly this article doesn't assert that "U of M" or "UM" always mean University of Michigan. What I call the "vocal minority" may be leading you to think the University of Michigan community believes they are the only university that has the rights to the abbreviation "U of M."
I don't think there is anything special about the abbreviation "U of M" that necessitates stating that it could mean other things as that common place for abbreviations. The disambig page is appropriate for a user that enters "U of M" since they should be directed to a list of pages that they could have meant, but linking to a disambig page from a main article that has been navigated to is extraneous.
Now, on an extremely iffy note when it comes to Wiki policies as this should violate the personal attack policy and I will remove this if asked by an admin, but I don't know how else to bring this to everyone's attention. You seem to have your own personal agenda when it comes to the abbreviation "U of M" that you've been pushing since 2003. I have dug back on your contributions regarding this topic and found the original U of M page was pretty slanderous to the University of Michigan community as a whole and included the edit summary of "The gist of this is that University of MIchigan affiliates are bigots. It is just and factually accurate, but I expect complaints, for precisely the reasons the article indicates." I take great exception your assertions being an alum of University of Michigan and because I don't believe "U of M" belongs only to the University of Michigan. I have gathered from your previous contributions on this topic that you believe that the University of Michigan community is jealous that other universities use that abbreviation or may have been using it longer (not to mention you state this as fact without a citing a source). You have even gone on to make at least one personal attack when discussing the topic. You do seem to make great contributions to the mathematical, statistical, and other articles, but when you discuss this particular topic you come off very emotional and I don't understand why. I would ask that you move on, let it go, and leave this article alone. Terryfoster 00:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The position of Terryfoster and others agreeing with him is simply demonstrably irrational. Let us suppose that I was entirely wrong to write "The gist of this is that University of MIchigan affiliates are bigots. It is just and factually accurate", etc. How is that relevant, if the question is only whether to include a link to U of M? I said there are very specific reasons to think some people may find that link useful, and we should not deprive them of the information. I stated those reasons. I also stated specific reasons why it is relevant to the present article: some may get an erroneous impression otherwise---I explained how. I am asked whether that is verifiable. That makes no sense: the verifiability criterion applies to information that is actually in the article. If it is reasonably possible that some readers may find the information useful and may get the wrong impression otherwise, there is no need to prove that such readers exist before putting in the link. If I write in the article that some people may otherwise get the wrong impression, then it would be reasonable to ask about verifiability. The article titled transport in Delhi has a link to exponential growth. Must it be verifiable that some readers of that article will need that link? Is it not sufficient that there is a stated reason why it's relevant and a reasonable possibility that someone will find it useful? If I simply alter the sentence

The University of Michigan (commonly known as the U of M, or UM) is a coeducational public research university in the U.S. state of Michigan.

so that it says

The University of Michigan (commonly known as the U of M, or UM) is a coeducational public research university in the U.S. state of Michigan.

(the only change being that U of M is now a link) must it be verifiable that some readers of the article will need that link? Is it not sufficient that there is a stated reason why it's relevant and a reasonable possibility that someone will find it useful?

You say you don't understand why I'm emotional about this. But why does that matter in a discussion of whether the link should be there? The fact is that over several decades I've repeatedly met people affiliated with the University of Michigan who tell me in snooty terms that I am an ignoramus if I don't know that only the University of Michigan can be called the U of M. They are the ones who are ignoramuses, obviously. One of these had a PhD in chemistry, so it's not just generally dumb people doing this. Is my experience verifiable? That would matter only if I put it into the article. Michael Hardy 18:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still don't see any reason for the link, and it makes the lead look cluttered and non-standard. I remain opposed to adding the link. Johntex\talk 16:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Johntex. It is not common practice to deliberately make inline links within an article to disambiguation pages. Your opinions are not really sufficient (for despite the bluster about having provided "reasons", they amount to little more than opinions stated as assertions). older ≠ wiser 04:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
INLINE LINKS TO DISAMBIGUATION PAGES were objected to here.
MAKING THE LEAD LOOK CLUTTERED AND NON-STANDARD was objeted to here.
A POLICY AGAINST MAKING ONE OF THE INITIAL BOLDED TITLE PHRASES INTO A LINK was cited here.

So I added a terse section at the end of the article pointing out the confusion and linking to the U of M disambiguation page. Someone deleted it SAYING THERE IS A CONSENSUS AGAINST IT HERE. But it was never discussed here. That section is NOT an in the "lead"; it was NOT one of the bolded initial phrases; it as NOT one of the initial names required to be bolded. By putting that section there I was entirely acquiescing in the views expressed here that I don't agree with. But that's not enough for my critics. Look: are you trying to prove I'm right in saying this is just bigotry? Michael Hardy 02:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Your opinions are not really sufficient (for despite the bluster about having provided "reasons", they amount to little more than opinions stated as assertions)."

So you find it IMPOSSIBLE that some University of Michigan affiliates don't know that "U of M" could refer to other things? Michael Hardy 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ewww, the lead is awful[edit]

I don't really care about the above issue, and have no allegiance to or against Michigan, but you guys have ruined the lead of a featured article. I just want this article to actually be a good example of a FA. It looks awful with superfluous sentences. Here's the version from a couple months back (I just chose it at random mostly):

UM also has campuses in Dearborn and Flint. For an unaffiliated university in East Lansing, see Michigan State University.
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (UM or U of M) is a coeducational public research university in the U.S. state of Michigan. Founded in 1817 some 20 years before the territory of Michigan officially became a state, the university moved to Ann Arbor in 1837. Today, it is the state’s oldest university and the flagship campus of the University of Michigan system.
Academically, the university is ranked among the world’s top universities.[1] In 2007, U.S. News & World Report ranked the undergraduate division 24th in the U.S. UM has one of the largest research expenditures of any American university as well as one of the largest number of living alumni at 420,000. The university is also recognized for its history of student activism and its athletic teams, notably in football and ice hockey. However, despite being a public institution, the University of Michigan is also known for its high student fees; tuition for out-of-state students is currently the most expensive in the country.[2]
UM was the first American university to use the seminar method of study.[3] It was also the location chosen by President John F. Kennedy to propose the concept of what became the Peace Corps, and the site of Lyndon B. Johnson's speech outlining his Great Society program. More recently, the university successfully affirmed before the U.S. Supreme Court that consideration of race as a factor in admissions to universities was constitutional.

Compare that to the current lead:

The University of Michigan (commonly known as the U of M, or UM) is a coeducational public research university in the U.S. state of Michigan. Founded in 1817, 20 years before the territory of Michigan became a state, the university moved to Ann Arbor in 1837. Today, it is the state’s oldest university and the flagship campus of the University of Michigan system. (It is possible to refer to "the U of M" and be misunderstood; see the U of M disambiguation page.)
The university's official name is "The University of Michigan"; it does not include the words "Ann Arbor." Two satellite institutions contain the names of the communities in which they are located - "The University of Michigan - Flint" and "The University of Michigan - Dearborn." All three institutions have the same President and the same controlling board - The Regents of the University of Michigan (which is the legal body corporate for all three schools). Although all applications for undergraduate admission are processed in Ann Arbor, the satellites are separately administered by local chancellors.
Academically, the university is among the world’s best universities.[4] In 2007, U.S. News & World Report ranked the undergraduate division 24th in the United States. UM ranks among the top U.S. universities in research expenditures and living alumni, with 420,000.[5] The university is also recognized for its history of student activism and its athletic teams, notably in football and ice hockey.
UM was the first American university to use the seminar method of study.[6] It was where President John F. Kennedy proposed what became the Peace Corps and Lyndon B. Johnson outlined his Great Society program. President Gerald Ford graduated from the college.

If you honestly think that the new version is better, I don't know what to say. I strongly encourage you to revert these revisions. -Bluedog423Talk 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also univolved with the University of Michigan and I agree with you, Bluedog. I removed the final line of the first paragraph (about it being possible to misunderstand U of M). This has not been shown to ban issue and the discussion (above) on this talk page seems to favor leaving such language out. I also removed the entire second paragraph (with its detail about satellite campuses). If this is worth discussing in this article at all, it should be further down - not in the lead. Johntex\talk 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is horrible now. Also, CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE TAKE NEW PICTURES? The ones displayed right now are not only low quality, but also of low photography skills. The picture of central campus is blurry and is covered in shadow. The Angell Hall picture is shot in front of cars. The UM hospital pictures, although shot at a good angle, is also very dark. Overall, the pictures don't display the campus's beauty at all. I understand that wiki is supposed to be an information site, but uploading attratice images don't harm the article at all.

I went through the article and tried as much as I can to clean up much of the mess (including restoring the introduction to the version that is closest to the one I recalled the article's having before the above "current" version showed up). However, I would appreciate it that people try not to insert every small bit of facts without some context as to what those facts pertain to (e.g. if there is a fact about rankings, can you integrate it with the article in as smooth a way as possible instead of making a list that resembles prose?).
As for the images, I admit that they are not high quality (I took many of the original pictures using a cheap 2 megapixel camera without a tripod while running from one end of campus to another). However, if anyone is so inclined with the correct photography skills and is within the Ann Arbor area, feel free to take some pictures. However, I would prefer those images be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under University of Michigan so that we have a centralized database of UM images. PentawingTalk 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007[edit]

As this is still 2006, I don't see how the school (or anything in existence for that matter) could have been ranked anything in that year. Either that's vandalism like other parts of the article or I am not understanding something relating to time traveling journalism. White Lightning 03:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is the ranking from the 2007 edition of U.S. News & World Report. They always release the next year's issue around September of the previous year to make it sound newer, I guess. I have clarified this in the lead. -Bluedog423Talk 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every Three Weekly[edit]

Does anyone know why the article was removed? Thanks. - IstvanWolf 22:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Research Figures[edit]

I've updated the figure in the article, but haven't updated the link/reference.

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=3116

U-M Research reaches $797 million in FY 2006 ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Research expenditures by the University of Michigan reached $797 million in fiscal year 2006, a 2.4 percent increase, Stephen Forrest, vice president for research, told the Board of Regents at its monthly meeting Thursday. The greatest portion of research is sponsored by the federal government, a total of $585 million, which accounts for 73.4 percent of the total. Additional funding sources include the University, industry, state and local governments, and foundations. 66.65.76.15 22:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Research Council[edit]

The United States National Research Council puts out a ranking of United States graduate programs about every 10 years, although the time elapsed between each new ranking has exceeded 10 years. The next rankings are expected to be published in September 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Research_Council_Rankings

In the 1995 ranking, Michigan ranked 3rd nationally behind Stanford and Berkeley only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.76.15 (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

NACUBO?[edit]

I find a reference to something called "NACUBO" in very very many Wikipedia articles on universities, and nothing on Wikipedia to indicate what the acronym means. It is as if it is taken to be so universally known that no article is needed. Never having heard of it before, but wondering whether I should have, I tried google, and it seems to refer to the National Association of College and University Business Officers, so I thought "No wonder I've never heard of it; there's no reason why I would have." So could whoever added these innumerable references to NACUBO take the obvious next step? I've added a suitable red link to the article (although that link should redirect to the full title whose red link I've put in this present paragraph). Michael Hardy 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Top 500 World Universities (2005). Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Accessed October 1, 2005.
  2. ^ Sahadi, Jeanne (October 28, 2005). The 10 most expensive colleges. CNN/Money. Accessed February 21, 2005.
  3. ^ Brubacher, John Seiler (July 1, 1997). Higher Education in Transition. Transaction Publishers. p. 187. ISBN 1-56000-917-9.
  4. ^ Top 500 World Universities (2005). Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Accessed November 5, 2006.
  5. ^ [http://alumni.umich.edu/info/index.php UM Alumni Association's 'about' page. Accessed November 5, 2006
  6. ^ Brubacher, John Seiler (July 1, 1997). Higher Education in Transition. Transaction Publishers. p. 187. ISBN 1-56000-917-9.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Michigan/Archive_3&oldid=791790933"