Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if i may, i'd like to piggyback on some previous comments i made. i have spoken about looking at universities in context. for example, i mentioned that to understand Cal, you need to understand the whole UC system and the state of California and how they both contribute to why this school is such an academic and research powerhouse.
i'd like to look at MSU in context of the state of Michigan. MSU is generally credited as being the first land grant institution and that certainly is the reason why "of agriculture and mechanical sciences" were once part of its name.
i believe, however, why it is important to look at the reason that ending was dropped. (For example, Iowa State is still Iowa State University of Science and Technology).
Think of the US in quadrants. Now think of the state of Michigan in the northeast quadrant, basically north of the Ohio River and Mason Dixon line and east of the Mississippi. This is the most heavily urban quadrant in the nation and the vast majority of that urbanization came well after the Morrill Act.
In states that have two flagship public institutions, usually formed with the older, more liberal arts related Univ of ___ and the more agriculturally and scientifically oriented landgrant ___ State Univ, there tends to be real differential in roles.
That certainly was the case in Michigan for a century after MSU was founded as an agricultural college. And MSU, like other such schools, went through often a series of name changes from college to university and other words (or removal thereof) that broadened their image through name branding.
By the late 1950's and the baby boomers entering the enlarging colleges, virtually all had the tag "university".
But so many of these schools, given the agrarian nature of their states, remained closer aligned to through old roots in the soil. Kansas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Oregon, etc, could not support two full curriculum universities.
Michigan could. And since the mid century, when MSU joined the ranks of universities and achieved Big Ten status, the university has more and more grown into those "full service" areas. Which makes sense. Iowa State and K-State are hardly dealing with those masses of students from suburban Detroit who are not in school to prepare for farming the land.
If there is a parallel to MSU's post mid-20th century growth, I'd say it was Penn State which shares a lot in that rise from college to university, broadening of curriculum, and sheer growth. Of course, Penn State did so with no existing public university in the state. Let's face it. The elite east coast with its deep roots in private education was never going to lead the way to true public university. That was more a product of our own midwest, the uniquely American and equalitarian region that was a child of the northeast but became the most American in nature. U-M, as I noted earlier, set the standard and was the model for the modern public flagship; MSU served the same in the landgrant category.
So I'm saying MSU, in that urban northeast quadrant, is more a mirror (in scope) of U-M, unlike what you see in other parts of the nation. It is rare to see a state university outside the original first ones in their state that has both medical and law schools. MSU does.
And one other thing sets it apart from other schools. It deals with U-M, less its quality (although its quality has influenced this), but its structure. U-M, as noted, has more autonomy than its peers in other states (indeed, the state of Michigan as a whole offers its universities more autonomy...although none to the U-M degree....than most states in a rather loosely organized system). U-M also has an enormous endowment. It also receives very little capital from the state of Michigan, which sadly has something to do with Michigan economics, but the university is strong enough to rely on its own resources. It also has an exceedingly large out-of-state enrollment. When discussions come up about whether "privatization" of our public schools take place (a concept that makes me shudder as I see how much of the public domain and the commons we have already given away in the United States....or, more correctly, taken from us), U-M is high on the list of schools already straddling the public/private divide.
Why is that important to MSU? I think because, more so than in any other state, MSU takes on more of that real flagship role because U-M has to a degree changed its role in relationship to the state of Michigan. U-M thinks expansively way beyond the borders of its own state and probably less in service to it. That is not, to say, a bad thing; it is just a different role. If I may use a name-of-state parallel, the University of Michigan may share more with the private University of Pennsylvania than it does with the public University of Missouri.
As such, MSU takes on the old role of the public flagship.
We've seen a lot of change over the years. I think both U-M and MSU are in a good position as institutions to continue to grow and prosper, but they need to do so in a more economically rigorous Michigan.
Then again, Michigan has never in a long time been more like the other states. Michigan has had a depressed economy for too many years. And (which let's face it was logical), other states joined it in a downward move (makes sense....Michigan's problems were...are...not its own; they're the nation's. the decline of the Big Three and Detroit's racial battlegrounds mirrors the nation and shows you cannot run away from your problems. Forgive the political rant; I did feel it was relevant).
I have absolutely no idea how people in Michigan rank order their public universities and how much "space" there is between them.
But outside of Michigan, certainly throughout the Midwest, but truly nationally, MSU has an academic reputation that could run rings around the other state schools you mentioned.
People outside Michigan obviously have great respect for U-M (why not...it's one of the absolute icons of pubic education), but see MSU as the highly respected university it is.
Look. I live in Illinois. We have one flagship public university, UIUC. It is in a class by itself in state. Nobody comes close and nobody would ever suggest anyone does. The others are simply not in the same league as U of I (including my own alma mater, UIC, a fine school, arguably second best of the publics in Illinois, but well below its big brother in Champaign Ubana.
But Michigan, like Indiana, have two flagship public universities each. And in both places, they are viewed nationally well above the other in-state publics....both IU and Purdue in Indiana and U-M and MSU in Michigan.
It is rather ridiculous to suggest that MSU isn't a major academic institution when one realizes that it is higher ranked (by USN&WR or others who do their rankings.....for whatever BS those are) than the top ranked public university in most states.
I have no connection to MSU, so this isn't partisan, but the truth is that your state doesn't have one highly respected public university as seen by us "outsiders". you easily have two.
Really? I rarely think anyone considers MSU to be a "highly respected" public university. Where in the world are you getting this? Perhaps you are just trying to be cordial but the moniker "highly respected public school" is typically associated for the likes of Berkeley, Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, et al, of which MSU is certainly not a peer institution. It's OK to support a school or whatever, but lets stick to reality here.
MSU is perceived as a "good" and yes, better-than-average state school, nothing better but also nothing worse. It is also a major institution, but that does not equate to highly respected. At best, MSU is somewhere middling or in lesser half academically in the Big Ten, well below NW, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Penn St., and likely below Purdue, Indiana and Iowa as well.
I do agree that MSU is above the state directional schools, but perhaps not as far above as you esteem them. You allude to this with your flagship comment, but the Big Ten is blessed to have -- from top to bottom-- some pretty good academic schools.
There are other aggregators and rankings, including U.S. Business and World Report and I assume Forbes has a best party school ranking or "School Most Likely to Have its Students Poop in a Cooler" but here's one I found that shows a decent estimate of academic rankings. Times Higher Education
And btw-- of course this thread veered towards "rankings" and regretably an accomplice. So, getting back to the initial question posted by the OP... Is MSU for the elite? Maybe. Is it an elite school? No.
... and, obviously Big Lake, you've clearly id'ed youself as having a pro-UM, anti MSU agenda unlike edge25, ... who is much more in touch with reality than you...
... btw Big Lake, you may want to update your sources, like the Times of London world Higher Ed survey. Yours is from 2008, where of course (happy for you), MSU didn't rank among the top 200 world universities... But you probably missed that the old survey was heavily criticized as being too crony, less factual, and so they re-did it in 2010, to attempt to factor out such bias... and, surprise, surprise! MSU leaped to 122, not at the bottom of the Big 10, but ahead of Indiana and Iowa (and new member, Nebraska)... and Georgetown, as well... and close behind Penn State and Purdue, just so you know... Sorry to disappoint your premise, Big Lake, the MSU is just an above avg school (not much above the Michigan directionals, ... right?)
And since you like rankings, how about the Washington Monthly ranking that puts MSU at 34th... ahead of Northwestern? (see below)... but then, why spoil your day even more, Big Lake?
... btw Big Lake, you may want to update your sources, like the Times of London world Higher Ed survey. Yours is from 2008, where of course (happy for you), MSU didn't rank among the top 200 world universities... But you probably missed that the old survey was heavily criticized as being too crony, less factual, and so they re-did it in 2010, to attempt to factor out such bias... and, surprise, surprise! MSU leaped to 122, not at the bottom of the Big 10, but ahead of Indiana and Iowa (and new member, Nebraska)... and Georgetown, as well... and close behind Penn State and Purdue, just so you know... Sorry to disappoint your premise, Big Lake, the MSU is just an above avg school (not much above the Michigan directionals, ... right?)
And since you like rankings, how about the Washington Monthly ranking that puts MSU at 34th... ahead of Northwestern? (see below)... but then, why spoil your day even more, Big Lake?
Prof-- To the contrary, your post, nor the information you provided, "spoils my day." It's a message board; a place to share discourse and ideas. I appreciate seeing the more recent links you posted-- great to have more recent information. In fact, it was nice to see Univ. of Michigan come in at 15 (up three spots!) in the World. Also nice to see MSU crack into the rankings at 122. That's respectable. But, just to make sure we're sticking to the facts, it's interesting to see that so many Big Ten schools -- eight-- ranked higher than MSU in the Times Higher Education poll!
Also good to see the Big Ten placing 8 (!) schools in the Washington poll top 50 with MSU a very respectable 34th. Overall, good showing by the BigTen, right Prof? This is one of the points I was making earlier, right?
As far as the Michigan directional schools... no the MAC is not the BigTen, but there are some pretty decent schools there. I'd venture the gap between UofM and MSU is roughly the same as the one between MSU and the directionals. I'd say that's safe. And yes, I'm loyal to UofM, and to a lesser extent (though not much lesser extent) BigTen, of which MSU is a member. MSU is the "meh" in the Big Ten.
All right Big Lake, ... just so you know, I've never given anything but the utmost respect to U-M as one of the greatest Universities in the world... and as a Midwesterner, Big 10 guy and Michigander for a time, I've argued with people that UVA, is NOT better than U-M, as so many people would like to say it is... (based on what? I ask, because it's smaller, preppier? Doesn't UM blow away UVA in its research and grad schools, etc...). And I reject the premise by the OP that MSU is elite; it's not a term I'm comfortable with for MSU, because it stands against what MSU was founded and stands for... the land grant mission to serve the un/underserved...
No one in their right might would say that MSU is better than, or even comparable to UM overall (although, there are some programs and areas MSU exceeds UM, like its residential colleges, Honors Program, journalism, among them)... I just think some U-M people, for whatever reason, go overboard in putting down MSU and not giving it the respect it deserves.
All right Big Lake, ... just so you know, I've never given anything but the utmost respect to U-M as one of the greatest Universities in the world... and as a Midwesterner, Big 10 guy and Michigander for a time, I've argued with people that UVA, is NOT better than U-M, as so many people would like to say it is... (based on what? I ask, because it's smaller, preppier? Doesn't UM blow away UVA in its research and grad schools, etc...). And I reject the premise by the OP that MSU is elite; it's not a term I'm comfortable with for MSU, because it stands against what MSU was founded and stands for... the land grant mission to serve the un/underserved...
No one in their right might would say that MSU is better than, or even comparable to UM overall (although, there are some programs and areas MSU exceeds UM, like its residential colleges, Honors Program, journalism, among them)... I just think some U-M people, for whatever reason, go overboard in putting down MSU and not giving it the respect it deserves.
Ultimately, I think we may be of the same general mind here. MSU is a solid school with a principled mission-- and bedrock on what makes the Big Ten so solid. That said, they're not prestigious nor, IMHO, "highly respected"; that's for the Michigans, Wisconsins, UCLAs, Berkeleys, UNCs, and a quickly diminishing list of et ceteras)
What I get tired of is people tearing down the Big Ten. People, beyond the Ivy League, you're really not gonna find a better conference -- end-to-end-- than the BigTen, though I know the ACC would make an argument.
Hey, Prof.....good responses. and Big Lake got me all wrong where as you were reading me loud and clear.
a lot relates to the Big Ten. You already know my position on Nebraska. Without being unduly critical, I really don't think it is a B10 quality school.
But what Big Lake didn't seem to get about what I was saying about MSU and the Big Ten is this:
unlike any other major conference, what separates the Big Ten schools is their top to bottom rankings. In other words, at least in how I see it (and those rankings....for as little as they are worth...back me up) the Big Ten has quality throughout (and again......there's my concern about UNL).
It's not that the Pac 12 doesn't have Stanford, Cal, UCLA, SC, UWash. It isn't that the ACC doesn't have Duke, UVa. UNC, Wake.
It's that those conferences peter out with the likes of Wash St, Ore St, ASU, Miami, FSU.
As for the rankings of the Big Ten, schools like Minnesota, OSU, IU, Purdue, and MSU tend to be rather close.
I really do believe that the midwest (in terms of the 7 states in the original Big Ten footprint) were the lynchpins for public higher education in the United States. The northeast was about private universities and indeed their public universities didn't really receive prominence until after WWII. The Great Lakes region was the product of the northeast, but in the more equalitarian interior, truly American in nature.
The South didn't develop along the same route, slavery no doubt being a factor. And schools like UNL are out there on the Great Plains, removed from the nation's urban energy that helps define our colleges.
So, yes, I do see MSU as having set itself apart from landgrant and even original flagships in state in other parts of the nation.
Hey, Prof.....good responses. and Big Lake got me all wrong where as you were reading me loud and clear.
a lot relates to the Big Ten. You already know my position on Nebraska. Without being unduly critical, I really don't think it is a B10 quality school.
But what Big Lake didn't seem to get about what I was saying about MSU and the Big Ten is this:
unlike any other major conference, what separates the Big Ten schools is their top to bottom rankings. In other words, at least in how I see it (and those rankings....for as little as they are worth...back me up) the Big Ten has quality throughout (and again......there's my concern about UNL).
It's not that the Pac 12 doesn't have Stanford, Cal, UCLA, SC, UWash. It isn't that the ACC doesn't have Duke, UVa. UNC, Wake.
It's that those conferences peter out with the likes of Wash St, Ore St, ASU, Miami, FSU.
As for the rankings of the Big Ten, schools like Minnesota, OSU, IU, Purdue, and MSU tend to be rather close.
I really do believe that the midwest (in terms of the 7 states in the original Big Ten footprint) were the lynchpins for public higher education in the United States. The northeast was about private universities and indeed their public universities didn't really receive prominence until after WWII. The Great Lakes region was the product of the northeast, but in the more equalitarian interior, truly American in nature.
The South didn't develop along the same route, slavery no doubt being a factor. And schools like UNL are out there on the Great Plains, removed from the nation's urban energy that helps define our colleges.
So, yes, I do see MSU as having set itself apart from landgrant and even original flagships in state in other parts of the nation.
Arrgh. My response to you was saying that I don't think MSU is either elite and probably should not be classified as "highly respected" (your reference). I think MSU is traditionally a good school, perhaps better than good, but no way elite. They are a middle/lower in the pack school in a very top-notch BigTen conference. This is certainly is not a bad thing.
I guess we agree to disagree, or likely more apt, we're just not speaking the same argument. Either way, I appreciate your thoughts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
