NorthofDetroitGuy's Blog

There are 2 sides to every coin.  Even coins that have heads on both sides.

In many cases I wish life was like that coin that has a head on each side.

Unfortunately it’s not.  Recently I was asked to participate in a charity fundraiser to help a school district get a computer lab.  I was told the middle school didn’t have one.  I found this strange and inquired because I thought every school in the state from 6th grade on was required to have at least 1 computer lab.  Well then I found out they had one, but the computers were old and out dated.   Then I thought, why the taxpayers in the community paying for it… aren’t.  Ok, so maybe the school system couldn’t get a bond approved because a lot of people don’t have kids in the area.  Then to enhance the story, the University of Michigan will give each of the students’ automatic admission if they complete the computer program and get a 3.0 GPA. 

My first thought was wow, what a great deal for these kids.  Then I looked up the income in the community and it’s about the same as communities in my area.  Then I looked up the taxes.  It’s less then what I pay (lower home values).  I have a kid, and I would love to be able to get him guaranteed admission to U of M.

Is it right or fair for a publicly funded institution such as U of M to offer 1 public school’s students guaranteed admission and not to another? Remember, we all pay for this!

My kid might still be able to get into U of M, but it’s a lottery.  Why should these kids be any different?

It’s not necessarily a “poor community”.  It’s more lifestyle.

Not only that, I looked up the financial aid guides for U of M.  Certain students qualify for scholarships, just based on where they are live and what high school they go to.  You might be thinking, wow, that’s great for poor inner city kids right?  Think again.  There are communities that have lower income levels, higher taxes, and worse economic conditions that don’t make the list. 

Click here for the link!

 Below I listed 2 examples.  

U Of M Sponsored                           Not U of M Sponsored

Median Home Value

 $92,000                                            
     $132,000

Avg. Income                                                 
  

$36,000                                             
       $33,000

Avg. Property Taxes

 $1,850                                             
           $2,150

 High School Grad. Rate.

64%                                                 
                  79%

Numbers rounded to nearest $50

So the right column, people make less, have more expensive houses and property taxes, yet they do not get this guaranteed plan.  The  houses in the left column appreciate less (maybe) because of the school system.

However, could this U of M plan greatly increase the value of living in a community?

In addition, what factors were used?  These communities are pretty close in numbers with 3 exceptions:

Graduation Rate, and Taxes (by home value) and racial makeup.

Wait, column 2 pays more in State Taxes then Column 1 does.  Which means more of their dollars go to U of M in State funding.  Shouldn’t their kids get AT LEAST the same opportunity?

Don’t get me wrong, I definitely think these kids should get this great opportunity.  However, I think if you are going to offer to 1 community with X income and another has X income, you need to offer it to all communities with X income.  After all, the residents in that community decide how to spend their money and how to raise their children.  Their home values and taxes could be low because they vote down a new computer lab.  That’s their choice.  It could be low because they don’t maintain the houses or other items.    I understand if the income just isn’t there.  Life is a lot tougher when you are poor.  However, I am looking at the numbers thinking they make more money, but have lower taxes and property value.  They can afford to spend more to get their school in shape.

I am torn.  I love helping people out, but it just doesn’t seem fair