New Medical School! (Detroit, Flint, Lansing: environment, military, budget)

[TurboState]

I guess if the state was in a huge downturn, they wouldn't be opening NEW medical schools, would they? No, they wouldn't.

Like I said in another thread, the big downturn was pathetically short lived, things are looking up everyday.

Oakland University News

Officials from Oakland University and Beaumont Hospitals announced today that they have entered into a partnership that will create a new medical school

“Moreover, the economic impact on southeast Michigan will be significant. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, the economic impact of medical schools and teaching hospitals equals $451 billion nationwide. In Michigan alone, that impact is $18 billion, and 122,000 Michigan citizens are employed by medical schools and teaching hospitals. Our partnership with Beaumont will add to those numbers.”

[Cato the Elder]

This is great news. In addition to the benefits mentioned, the graduate programs of WSU and OU bring in significantly more non-locals than their undergraduate programs. These are the steps that MI needs to take to get away from the spectre of the Big 3 and bolster its national image. Ann Arbor and East Lansing are not enough.

[M TYPE X]

This is positive, yet only a seed that will take time to develop, barring any failures.

[Crowley]

The school has nothing to do with whether or not there is a downturn. A medical school will attract a significant amount of applicants from the rest of the country. However, it will have a positive economic impact in the area it is located.

[scottmi]

That's GREAT!!!! </sarcasm>

Now if they could only figure out how to keep all those people HERE once they graduate. Doh!

[tuebor]

I grew up in Ann Arbor in the 70s and 80s. While Detroit and Flint were reeling from the downturn in the auto industry of that time, Ann Arbor was blithely passing millage increases and building malls. It was an object lesson in the impact of higher education, research, and medical jobs on the economy. Even if every student at UM and EMU majored in poetry writing, left the state after graduation, and got jobs as baristas at Starbucks, the economic impact of higher ed would be huge. Houghton, in the UP, is another example of a local economy that is bouyed by a couple of universities and a hospital.

For decades we've had a military-industrial complex that provided jobs building weapons, many of which were unneeded. Why can't we have an "education/medical-industrial complex" that provides jobs by actually doing something useful?

This is the direction Michigan needs to go. But our education "industry" won't succeed if we allow our educational "plant" to deteriorate, which is what budget cuts to universities will do.

[SALteacher]

Originally Posted by tuebor

I grew up in Ann Arbor in the 70s and 80s. While Detroit and Flint were reeling from the downturn in the auto industry of that time, Ann Arbor was blithely passing millage increases and building malls. It was an object lesson in the impact of higher education, research, and medical jobs on the economy. Even if every student at UM and EMU majored in poetry writing, left the state after graduation, and got jobs as baristas at Starbucks, the economic impact of higher ed would be huge. Houghton, in the UP, is another example of a local economy that is bouyed by a couple of universities and a hospital.

For decades we've had a military-industrial complex that provided jobs building weapons, many of which were unneeded. Why can't we have an "education/medical-industrial complex" that provides jobs by actually doing something useful?

This is the direction Michigan needs to go. But our education "industry" won't succeed if we allow our educational "plant" to deteriorate, which is what budget cuts to universities will do.

We still have a military industrial complex that's very much controlling our lives Don't let your guard down. President Eisenhower warned us just before leaving office.
As for the medical school, of course that's great news, but only targets are particular group.

[Andre5140]

Originally Posted by tuebor

I grew up in Ann Arbor in the 70s and 80s. While Detroit and Flint were reeling from the downturn in the auto industry of that time, Ann Arbor was blithely passing millage increases and building malls. It was an object lesson in the impact of higher education, research, and medical jobs on the economy. Even if every student at UM and EMU majored in poetry writing, left the state after graduation, and got jobs as baristas at Starbucks, the economic impact of higher ed would be huge. Houghton, in the UP, is another example of a local economy that is bouyed by a couple of universities and a hospital.

For decades we've had a military-industrial complex that provided jobs building weapons, many of which were unneeded. Why can't we have an "education/medical-industrial complex" that provides jobs by actually doing something useful?

This is the direction Michigan needs to go. But our education "industry" won't succeed if we allow our educational "plant" to deteriorate, which is what budget cuts to universities will do.

Tuebor,

I have read many of your posts and find them to be very intelligent. I must take issue with a point that you always want to fall back on: pouring money into education. My intent here is not to discount your points nor to speak to you directly. This is, after all, a forum for all to participate and learn from.

I graduated from UM with a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Urban Planning. Sadly, I too had to leave the state for a job in my field. Here in Arizona (your laugh here since everyone seems to migrate to this place), I can already see the effects of a poor education system. As I'm sure you already know, the Midwest has a great education system that is largely rooted in Thomas Jefferson's belief that education was one of the keys to prosperity following the passage of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Some 220 years later, we still see the positive effects; Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin have some of the best colleges in the country and relatively high scores in secondary education. An unsual and arguably negative dichotomy took hold after World War II (IMO) when living the good life became a birth right, regardless of education. The New Deal and the Great Society programs, while well-intentioned, did nothing but foster a HUGE welfare state, low expectations of personal abilities, and high expectations of government handouts.

Throwing money at schools is not the be-all, end-all solution that you (seemingly) make it to be. We need creative solutions such as allowing parents to use vouchers to get their children in schools that DO work while also fostering public education as much as possible. As a former tutor at the now-closed East Catholic High School AND Kettering High in Detroit, I can say from personal experience that the morale and work ethics were vastly different. Had the government assisted families so that they could continue to afford sending their children to East Catholic, it may have remained open.

I agree with you that 100% lassez-faire would not and cannot work in this country. However, when competition exists (yeah...even between schools), then Charles Tiebout's model of moving out to municipalities (and school districts) that offer better will be codified and assist in creating a more level playing field for all students. When the government can and must play its assigned role of ensuring good education for all, it should consider creative solutions other than simply throwing money at it that is often wasted by teacher unions at the tax payers expense.

Reform is necessary in education. Money (to the extent that you and many on the Left seem to argue for) is not.

Cheers!

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Andre5140

Tuebor,

I have read many of your posts and find them to be very intelligent. I must take issue with a point that you always want to fall back on: pouring money into education. My intent here is not to discount your points nor to speak to you directly. This is, after all, a forum for all to participate and learn from.

I graduated from UM with a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Urban Planning. Sadly, I too had to leave the state for a job in my field. Here in Arizona (your laugh here since everyone seems to migrate to this place), I can already see the effects of a poor education system. As I'm sure you already know, the Midwest has a great education system that is largely rooted in Thomas Jefferson's belief that education was one of the keys to prosperity following the passage of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Some 220 years later, we still see the positive effects; Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin have some of the best colleges in the country and relatively high scores in secondary education. An unsual and arguably negative dichotomy took hold after World War II (IMO) when living the good life became a birth right, regardless of education. The New Deal and the Great Society programs, while well-intentioned, did nothing but foster a HUGE welfare state, low expectations of personal abilities, and high expectations of government handouts.

Throwing money at schools is not the be-all, end-all solution that you (seemingly) make it to be. We need creative solutions such as allowing parents to use vouchers to get their children in schools that DO work while also fostering public education as much as possible. As a former tutor at the now-closed East Catholic High School AND Kettering High in Detroit, I can say from personal experience that the morale and work ethics were vastly different. Had the government assisted families so that they could continue to afford sending their children to East Catholic, it may have remained open.

I agree with you that 100% lassez-faire would not and cannot work in this country. However, when competition exists (yeah...even between schools), then Charles Tiebout's model of moving out to municipalities (and school districts) that offer better will be codified and assist in creating a more level playing field for all students. When the government can and must play its assigned role of ensuring good education for all, it should consider creative solutions other than simply throwing money at it that is often wasted by teacher unions at the tax payers expense.

Reform is necessary in education. Money (to the extent that you and many on the Left seem to argue for) is not.

Cheers!

Michigan already has School of Choice (vouchers), and a multitude of charter schools that have been opened by private organizations (mainly tied to universities). However, the test scores and graduation rates at many of the charter schools are not that much better than their neighboring public schools:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard...es/2005456.pdf

So opening up public schools to "free market competition" so far has had little effect on improving public education. Since the great majority of Americans aren't and will never be in professional services making enough money to move into the middle class (no matter how hard they pull up their bootstraps and work), and since U.S. household income has declined from 1999 - 2005 (inflation adjusted) by about 6%, making it more difficult for urban working class families to move to areas with better school districts, and not being able to afford to drive little Johnny out to the burbs on his school voucher, do we continue to keep gutting the urban schools? Creating an even more hostile environment for those who wish to stay in urban areas or can't afford to move out?

[Andre5140]

"Gutting" urban schools is not something that is occurring. I think you are tied up in a little mind game that uses manipulated words.

I gather you define a "cut" as an annual increase that is not quite as much as the anticipate annual increase in budgets. For example, if I plan on buying a $60,000 Cadillac Escalade but end up buying a $40,000 Explorer, I didn't actually "save" 20 grand...I just spent 40 instead of 60 grand of my earned income. In the same vein, public education (like EVERY fed & state budget item) gets an annual increase...the debate is "how much of an increase?" Anyone in poli sci 101 would know that.

If by "gutting" you mean closing of schools, how can you blame them? Detroit is losing much of its population and not just by people leaving. You also have people aborting their babies, dropping out of school, murders, etc etc.

Opening the faucets so that tons of money can flow is not the answer. It is mismanaged. The problem with education goes much deeper than just money alone. The work ethic and values as a whole in this country are going down the toilet.

If you are one who argues that we should spend as much as possible for every budget item (such as education), I only need to refer to you the Great Society and the The War on Poverty....an ongoing, ACTUAL bumper-sticker war that has, to date, cost our country 3 trillion dollars.

Just look what that's gotten us. A "wutchoo got fo MEH?!" society. I agree that the government should focus more on problems here at home. I just disagree that endless dollars is the solution.