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.
On an earlier thread on this subforum (I couldn't find it, but it was about comparing U-M with U of I), one forumer mentioned U-M as the state's flagship and MSU as the ag school.
I don't believe he was trying to be demeaning. But what he said was telling. And other comments made, when MSU was brought up, seemed to put it in U-M's shadow.
Let me clarify something here before I continue: I'm not from Michigan, but from Chicago and I graduated from UIC (with one year at Iowa), so I have no vested interest.
But it seems to me as an "outsider" who greatly respects your beautiful state, that you often play down some of your very treasures. For example: the top tier of your public universities.
Nobody in their right mind would argue U-M's national (and international) reputation, nor the notion that along with Cal and UVa, it is part of the trio of most respected state universities in America.
But what amazes about Michigan is not only the reputation of U-M but that your state remarkably produces two stellar flagship institutions like U-M and MSU. And, yes, I think most of us outside of Michigan see you as having a two flagship system (as opposed to my state where U of I alone has that special Illinois status, or Wisconsin where UW does the same).
And at least in one regard, MSU may actually have a "flagship" trait that exceeds U-M: U-M's reputation, its historic independence, its draw of out of state students, its endowment, and the shrinking and the ability to contribute state funds has really turned the school into some some of quasi public/private mix. It's MSU with the huge in-state enrollment and the state's largest university to boot.
MSU is leap years ahead of its "ag" days and is a complete public university, law and medicine included in the mix. In most US states, it would be considered the finest public in-state university. Its status as a public ivy along U-M give Michigan a 1-2 punch that exceeds many states with no public ivies. And the very Big Ten conference that has been a source of pride for U-M for more than a century (and for MSU for more than half a century) gains so much of its pride from being the only major collegiate conference (obviously I'm not talking Ivy League) that has top-to-bottom academic powerhouse schools (The Pac Ten doesn't earn that with Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and U-Dub, nor does the ACC with Duke, Wake, UNC, UVa, and VT).
And one more thing about the "ag" days. Since Indiana was way ahead of other states in developing a two flagship system and both its flagships were born as universities, never with one of them experiencing college status, the state's paradigm was always two equals with the curriculum split between the two. Purdue has never given any impression of being in IU's shadow and the rankings would never suggest it should. If U-M was the only flagship for years and MAC/MSC/MSU took on some of the Purdue role without (earlier) the status, today Michigan probably differs from Indiana in the sense that both your institutions strieve for complete status while Indiana still points the humanities towards Bloomington and the sciences towards Lafayette.
Forgive my long winded way of saying that Michigan should be exceedingly proud of having two flagship institutions like U-M and MSU. In Illinois, a bigger state than Michigan, our one flagship offers us about half the slots for an in-state flagship school as you get in Michigan (or IU and Purdue afford Indiana).
You are a lucky state with two such fine institutions (with obviously no knock on WMU, CMU, EMU, Wayne, MT, or all the others). With education the hallmark of the future, Michigan's post-industrial slide, IMHO, will see a dramatic turnabout.
On an earlier thread on this subforum (I couldn't find it, but it was about comparing U-M with U of I), one forumer mentioned U-M as the state's flagship and MSU as the ag school.
I don't believe he was trying to be demeaning. But what he said was telling. And other comments made, when MSU was brought up, seemed to put it in U-M's shadow.
Let me clarify something here before I continue: I'm not from Michigan, but from Chicago and I graduated from UIC (with one year at Iowa), so I have no vested interest.
But it seems to me as an "outsider" who greatly respects your beautiful state, that you often play down some of your very treasures. For example: the top tier of your public universities.
Nobody in their right mind would argue U-M's national (and international) reputation, nor the notion that along with Cal and UVa, it is part of the trio of most respected state universities in America.
But what amazes about Michigan is not only the reputation of U-M but that your state remarkably produces two stellar flagship institutions like U-M and MSU. And, yes, I think most of us outside of Michigan see you as having a two flagship system (as opposed to my state where U of I alone has that special Illinois status, or Wisconsin where UW does the same).
And at least in one regard, MSU may actually have a "flagship" trait that exceeds U-M: U-M's reputation, its historic independence, its draw of out of state students, its endowment, and the shrinking and the ability to contribute state funds has really turned the school into some some of quasi public/private mix. It's MSU with the huge in-state enrollment and the state's largest university to boot.
MSU is leap years ahead of its "ag" days and is a complete public university, law and medicine included in the mix. In most US states, it would be considered the finest public in-state university. Its status as a public ivy along U-M give Michigan a 1-2 punch that exceeds many states with no public ivies. And the very Big Ten conference that has been a source of pride for U-M for more than a century (and for MSU for more than half a century) gains so much of its pride from being the only major collegiate conference (obviously I'm not talking Ivy League) that has top-to-bottom academic powerhouse schools (The Pac Ten doesn't earn that with Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and U-Dub, nor does the ACC with Duke, Wake, UNC, UVa, and VT).
And one more thing about the "ag" days. Since Indiana was way ahead of other states in developing a two flagship system and both its flagships were born as universities, never with one of them experiencing college status, the state's paradigm was always two equals with the curriculum split between the two. Purdue has never given any impression of being in IU's shadow and the rankings would never suggest it should. If U-M was the only flagship for years and MAC/MSC/MSU took on some of the Purdue role without (earlier) the status, today Michigan probably differs from Indiana in the sense that both your institutions strieve for complete status while Indiana still points the humanities towards Bloomington and the sciences towards Lafayette.
Forgive my long winded way of saying that Michigan should be exceedingly proud of having two flagship institutions like U-M and MSU. In Illinois, a bigger state than Michigan, our one flagship offers us about half the slots for an in-state flagship school as you get in Michigan (or IU and Purdue afford Indiana).
You are a lucky state with two such fine institutions (with obviously no knock on WMU, CMU, EMU, Wayne, MT, or all the others). With education the hallmark of the future, Michigan's post-industrial slide, IMHO, will see a dramatic turnabout.
Your thoughts, Michiganders?
i agree with what i understood from your post
my belief is that the two are awesome universities....with two very different feels to them! many people favor one or the other due to sports or they knew someone who went there therefore they are "rivals"...all in good fun though! you are either a state fan or a michigan fan and i think that is why one might seem more popular than the other!
academics are great at both-just depends on what you plan on studying-say for aerospace engineering-go to UofM...for outdoor type education-forestry or parks management go to state......
i don't know i guess a lot of it is due to the rivalry?!
As a U of M grad, I never thought of MSU of our inferior other, but there are lots of others that tie so much to athletics that they forget about academics. I have an uncle that never went to college and couldn't have gotten into either, who is a fanatical U of M football fan. Perhaps his "fanship" makes people believe that he actually went there?
Another great point about MSU is that it is one of a very few- if not the only- university to have 3 medical schools. They have an MD, DO and Vetrinary program. That is pretty cool!
I think many people think MSU is inferior because so many stories that come out of that school often include binge drinking and rioting. That school has the infrastructure to handle many student- as much as it tries to be a more competitive school to be admitted into; it is built for masses, that's the business of that school. Subsequently, there are enough un-motivated bastards who get accepted at MSU, for various reasons, to bring down the schools reputation, at least stigma (though there are many bright students and excellent professors at MSU). I'm not saying that Michigan doesn't have its share of bastards; they're just disguised more by the school's leading reputation.
^ These are my observations from watching/hearing local news stories from MSU, my H.S. classmates who went to both these schools, and me, who currently attends U of M.
On an earlier thread on this subforum (I couldn't find it, but it was about comparing U-M with U of I), one forumer mentioned U-M as the state's flagship and MSU as the ag school.
I don't believe he was trying to be demeaning. But what he said was telling. And other comments made, when MSU was brought up, seemed to put it in U-M's shadow.
Let me clarify something here before I continue: I'm not from Michigan, but from Chicago and I graduated from UIC (with one year at Iowa), so I have no vested interest.
But it seems to me as an "outsider" who greatly respects your beautiful state, that you often play down some of your very treasures. For example: the top tier of your public universities.
Nobody in their right mind would argue U-M's national (and international) reputation, nor the notion that along with Cal and UVa, it is part of the trio of most respected state universities in America.
But what amazes about Michigan is not only the reputation of U-M but that your state remarkably produces two stellar flagship institutions like U-M and MSU. And, yes, I think most of us outside of Michigan see you as having a two flagship system (as opposed to my state where U of I alone has that special Illinois status, or Wisconsin where UW does the same).
And at least in one regard, MSU may actually have a "flagship" trait that exceeds U-M: U-M's reputation, its historic independence, its draw of out of state students, its endowment, and the shrinking and the ability to contribute state funds has really turned the school into some some of quasi public/private mix. It's MSU with the huge in-state enrollment and the state's largest university to boot.
MSU is leap years ahead of its "ag" days and is a complete public university, law and medicine included in the mix. In most US states, it would be considered the finest public in-state university. Its status as a public ivy along U-M give Michigan a 1-2 punch that exceeds many states with no public ivies. And the very Big Ten conference that has been a source of pride for U-M for more than a century (and for MSU for more than half a century) gains so much of its pride from being the only major collegiate conference (obviously I'm not talking Ivy League) that has top-to-bottom academic powerhouse schools (The Pac Ten doesn't earn that with Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and U-Dub, nor does the ACC with Duke, Wake, UNC, UVa, and VT).
And one more thing about the "ag" days. Since Indiana was way ahead of other states in developing a two flagship system and both its flagships were born as universities, never with one of them experiencing college status, the state's paradigm was always two equals with the curriculum split between the two. Purdue has never given any impression of being in IU's shadow and the rankings would never suggest it should. If U-M was the only flagship for years and MAC/MSC/MSU took on some of the Purdue role without (earlier) the status, today Michigan probably differs from Indiana in the sense that both your institutions strieve for complete status while Indiana still points the humanities towards Bloomington and the sciences towards Lafayette.
Forgive my long winded way of saying that Michigan should be exceedingly proud of having two flagship institutions like U-M and MSU. In Illinois, a bigger state than Michigan, our one flagship offers us about half the slots for an in-state flagship school as you get in Michigan (or IU and Purdue afford Indiana).
You are a lucky state with two such fine institutions (with obviously no knock on WMU, CMU, EMU, Wayne, MT, or all the others). With education the hallmark of the future, Michigan's post-industrial slide, IMHO, will see a dramatic turnabout.
Your thoughts, Michiganders?
Interesting to note that you went to Chicago, which is most similar to UM in its academic pursuits and student makeup (of course we all know that Chitown is a math and science hot bed). I believe they both serve a separate purpose, both attracting a different type of demographic. It is true that most people don't realize that many other states do not offer such a broad range of choices when it comes to choosing a university. Sadly, as pointed out previously that many brilliant people who go through our public institutions never stay here.
Very thoughtful, interesting thread edge25. Let me add this, too..
... a lot of people don't realize that even as an agricultural college (and MSU actually had 6 names rather than 3, starting with the cumbersome Agricultural College of the State of Michigan), the school had quite a bit of prestige. See:
While, yes, I know Wikipedia is hardly the Gospel, this MSU history is pretty on target (from my research) and, after all, is extensively footnoted with original sources, including written histories and info from its own website. What’s interesting, and ironic, is that while it was classified as, and called the ‘State Agricultural College’ for most of the 19th Century, many kids from the farms it largely attracted from, used the high quality academics (that mixed vocational-type ag courses with liberal arts and lots of science) as a means to escape the farm and enter the professions… Of course, another key early purpose/aspect – if not the driving aspect that lead to MSU’s founding -- was to provide applied science research in a scientific way to the farm which, theretofore, had relied on ancient, unscientific methods… The initial (and only) degree “B.S. in Agriculture” from the Lansing college (there was no separate city of East Lansing until 1907) really was a cover for a complete and rounded and State Agricultural College curriculum which helped attract and produce as strong and diverse alumni group during the 19th/early 20th Century, as diverse and prestigious (a bunch of leading scientists and authors, for instance) as some of the top liberal arts colleges of the day (to which SAC/MAC was similar in size in those olden days), and far more stronger than the average Midwest college of the time.
While most of the early land grant colleges (including Purdue, Kansas State, Maryland and others) fought against the “Michigan model” of a more mixed liberal education and stuck with the purely vocational/technical education to please farm interests by cranking out graduates who were distinctively not scholarly but geared toward strictly working on and running the farm, all of them eventually embraced liberal/general approach of SAC… it’s why MSU was then, and is now, considered the “Pioneer Land Grant College.”
Edge25, MSU may have had ag roots – it most assuredly did -- that MSU today is considered a powerful co-flagship university though, admittedly, somewhat in U-M’s shadow, was the direct result, as I see it, of building on this historically strong foundation.
Plus it is fun to screw with an alumni of MSU by putting a UM front license plate on their vehicle, and seeing how long it is before they notice it and their head explodes. (So I hear....)
Actually, UM, MSU, and WMU are all top-tier research institutions, according to the Carnegie classification system, so we have three major universities. The Granholm administration has recognized the importance of postsecondary education in general and these institutions in particular for the future economy of Michigan, and would like to turn this "technology tri-corridor" into another Silicon Valley. See the major recommendations of the Cherry Commission: Implementation
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.
