An Argument for and Against Centralization

In an opinion article in the Flint Journal today, the editorial board lays out the case for centralization of Michigan's universities and community colleges. While they do make some interesting points, especially about the need in the state for college graduates, their reasoning is not without flaws.

For example, different colleges in Michigan need different things, and centralization could diminish the ability of colleges to make the best decisions for themselves. The University of Michigan has a large out-of-state student population, which it needs to pay the bills. Michigan State is also doing all it can to attract out-of-state as well as international students. These goals could be in conflict with the broader goal the state has of trying to educate as many Michiganders as possible. They point to Ohio as a good example of a state that is centralizing its education, but the thing to remember is that most Ohio public colleges already educate mostly Ohioans.

Centralization could also lead to the worst of all possible worlds, in the sense that U of M and MSU could start having to accept more in-state students to appease lawmakers, but not receive more money from the state, which would lead to less operating money for those schools, and could mean decreased education quality. It would effectively hamstring those schools, and many Michigan residents would be better served by going to more local schools, such as Western, Eastern, Central, etc.

Perhaps a better solution to the education problem would be to add to the number of public colleges in Michigan, since it has been a long time since that has happened, or maybe streamline all other universities but MSU and UM, and let them operate independently, because they are in a unique situations in the state.