[edsg25]

I've been involved with a few threads here about your two major public universities in Michigan. I guess as a big B10 fan, they really interest me.

So I've got a question about U-M and MSU. Hope you don't think it is weird. I've touched on it before in other threads but thought one of its own might be more appropriate.

Here's the deal: my impression is that Michigan differs from other states with 2 flagship public universities (usually called Univ of ___ and ___ State Univ).

In most states, there seems to be clearer line of distinction between the original state univ and the landgrant one that came on board later in the 19th century.

The typical model sees the original one the focus point for the liberal arts and possessing the professional schools like law and medicine. The landgrant goes more in the direction of agriculture and the sciences.

And while U-M and MSU started out as typical in that regard, my impression is that their missions have become more parallel in the last half century than what would be true in most states. So while MSU still is well known for it agricultural school, for example, it appears to be a smaller part of the mix than in other states and that MSU looks more like the traditional original flagship than you would find at schools in more rural states to the west and south.

Thus, it would appear to me that U-M and MSU have a more balanced and parallel role compared to the following combinations:

Iowa-Ia St
KU - K-St
OU - OK St
CU - Colo St
Ole Miss - Miss St
Ore - Ore St
Wash - Wash St
(don't know if I would put UF-FSU or UA-ASU in those categories)

and in the northeast quadrant of the nation, I would have to say that there is more overlap in U-M and MSU than you would find in the IU-Purdue relationship.

My sense is that U-M and MSU come across as complete, comprehensive universities in way highly unusual in states with two major public universities (in that sense, I can't think of any other really good parallels other than Cal/UCLA).

Am I right to any degree? Does more heavily urbanized Michigan really have more similiar public flagships with its pair in U-M and MSU than in those other states or am I just imaging (or perhaps nuts).

Hope you don't think this is a silly question. I really am curious.

[jmlowman]

Actually, UCLA is one of the campuses of the University of California; the original being in Berkeley.

Also, we have 20+ campuses of the California State University and Colleges.

Hasn't MSU had its own medical school for a while? I think MSU may have the only veterinary school in the state; typical for a state university.

[hsw]

Need to define "flagship" universities for self

I tend to most respect universities w/powerful engineering schools or undergrad business schools, esp as defined by highly accomplished (i.e., wealthy) <50yo alumni

U-MI dwarfs MSU...its most famous recent alums are arguably Larry Page of Google and a couple of other engineers now in Silicon Valley (who almost all went to Stanford or Berkeley for grad school)

U-IL Engineering rivals MI Engineering in prominent alums in SV (IL has Andreesen of Netscape, Siebel, some of the youtube guys, etc)

And Berkeley easily dwarfs UCLA in notable Engineering alums

None of these state universities has a notable undergrad business school w/remarkable alums

[enigmaingr]

I'm not sure if the similarity is unique to Michigan. I think most land-grants are increasingly similar to the flagships nowadays simply because of the diminishing interest in agriculture. I don't think a true land-grant can survive today. MSU now offers all that UM does (med school, law school, business school), as I'm sure most land-grants now do.

What is unique about Michigan is that both UM and MSU enjoy a national reputation...perhaps because of sports but true nonetheless. However, the student body at each institution represent a more traditional interest split between land-grants and flagships. A large percentage of UM grads leave Michigan whereas most MSU grads stay in state.

I wouldn't compare UCLA/Berkeley. As someone else mentioned, they are part of the same system. That is akin to UM-Ann Arbor and UM-Flint.

[YAZ]

The "Cow Colleges" had to offer more academic choices in order to stay in business.

Even the "smaller" universities that started with their own 'lil "niche" have branched out into more comprehensive studies to lure students.


Eastern Michigan University is a good example. While nationally known as a "teacher's school", the business school there is quite large. EMU also has a "Coating Research Facility" for the manufacturing curriculum.

[jmlowman]

Originally Posted by enigmaingr

I wouldn't compare UCLA/Berkeley. As someone else mentioned, they are part of the same system. That is akin to UM-Ann Arbor and UM-Flint.

A better comparison for the OP would be UCLA/USC. Of course, USC is a private university.

And UM-Flint is a very small school compared with Ann Arbor.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by jmlowman

Actually, UCLA is one of the campuses of the University of California; the original being in Berkeley.

Also, we have 20+ campuses of the California State University and Colleges.

Hasn't MSU had its own medical school for a while? I think MSU may have the only veterinary school in the state; typical for a state university.

jm, i realize that, but Cal and UCLA are the two leading UC's and the shared apex of the system as well as the two premere public universities in Calif (since obviously none of the CSUs could touch them). And other than not have a med school at Cal (UCSF is across the bay), the two offer pretty much the same type of curricula.

[timeofseasons]

Originally Posted by edsg25

I've been involved with a few threads here about your two major public universities in Michigan. I guess as a big B10 fan, they really interest me.

So I've got a question about U-M and MSU. Hope you don't think it is weird. I've touched on it before in other threads but thought one of its own might be more appropriate.

Here's the deal: my impression is that Michigan differs from other states with 2 flagship public universities (usually called Univ of ___ and ___ State Univ).

In most states, there seems to be clearer line of distinction between the original state univ and the landgrant one that came on board later in the 19th century.

The typical model sees the original one the focus point for the liberal arts and possessing the professional schools like law and medicine. The landgrant goes more in the direction of agriculture and the sciences.

And while U-M and MSU started out as typical in that regard, my impression is that their missions have become more parallel in the last half century than what would be true in most states. So while MSU still is well known for it agricultural school, for example, it appears to be a smaller part of the mix than in other states and that MSU looks more like the traditional original flagship than you would find at schools in more rural states to the west and south.

Thus, it would appear to me that U-M and MSU have a more balanced and parallel role compared to the following combinations:

Iowa-Ia St
KU - K-St
OU - OK St
CU - Colo St
Ole Miss - Miss St
Ore - Ore St
Wash - Wash St
(don't know if I would put UF-FSU or UA-ASU in those categories)

and in the northeast quadrant of the nation, I would have to say that there is more overlap in U-M and MSU than you would find in the IU-Purdue relationship.

My sense is that U-M and MSU come across as complete, comprehensive universities in way highly unusual in states with two major public universities (in that sense, I can't think of any other really good parallels other than Cal/UCLA).

Am I right to any degree? Does more heavily urbanized Michigan really have more similiar public flagships with its pair in U-M and MSU than in those other states or am I just imaging (or perhaps nuts).

Hope you don't think this is a silly question. I really am curious.

I don't think the question is silly, but I'm also having a difficult time understanding it. So I will state a sentence ( or more) that may relate/ give information towards your question:
I've been told, and read many times that University of Michigan- Ann Arbor was close to becoming a private universities. There are still many who argue that University of Michigan- Ann Arbor should, I think this was base off support it was getting from the state. Michigan State University ( as you may already know) have a larger portion of students from the state of Michigan. Known as one of the largest landgrant or flagship state university, and largest residence hall system in the nation.

[Cato the Elder]

I don't think the situation in MI is all that unusual. In FL, FSU is officially considered a flagship along with UF, although the latter is largely regarded as the superior school - similar to MSU and U of M. I believe ASU and U of A are in a similar position, though perhaps ASU hasn't made up at much ground. While the latter in this case has a longer history, the former has the advantage of being located in a major metro. This will eventually place ASU on the same playing field, if it hasn't already done so, much as LA has done for UCLA.

Speaking of UCLA, while Cal is still regarded as the official flagship, UCLA has become the de facto flagship of SoCal. Though it's officially a branch of the UC system, it's distinguished itself from Cal (much to its chagrin) with a medical program and certain specialities, like film, that Cal just does not have. This should not surprise as SoCal by itself would be a formidable state and has almost become one in itself with regards to both economics and culture. SoCal culture and society generally rallies toward UCLA, not Cal. UCLA has become its own brand name, and one with greater recognition than Cal overseas. Many don't even realize that UCLA=University of California, Los Angeles. There's a famous story about how Berkeley made UCLA answer their phones as "University of California" for many years even though most would think they had reached Berkeley. This finally changed when the President of the UC system even called it silly and confusing.

A better analogy to MI would be UCLA and Davis. Davis was the traditional ag school of CA and still retains the best vet school. UCLA is about on par with U of M. As much as U of M likes to put itself on par with Cal, I'm afraid Cal has distanced itself from U of M and UVa in the last twenty years and stands by itself in its own state school category. This was inevitable with the stature of each state in the 21st century.

We could go on and on - UVa and Virginia Tech, Georgia and Georgia Tech, Texas and Texas A&M, Oregeon and Oregon State...

[Bluefly]

I think the dynamic's pretty normal - as society has advanced they've both created programs that reflect the demand of the day. I think they've actually distinguished themselves.

So, now University of Michigan is the prestigious school (it is essentially private now, receiving I believe about 7% from the state on soon to be under 5% and with many top ranked programs).

MSU fills a far more public university role of educating whomever.

Both are important.