Ron French wrote a piece in the Detroit News April 10 that should terrify anyone with the slightest shred of concern for our state.

French, one of the best journalists remaining in our rapidly shrinking newsrooms, revealed the following:

And if you think the outflow is limited to our two biggest and somewhat "elite" universities, think again. A survey of all 2007 Michigan public university graduates conducted by Michigan Future, Inc. found that half left the state within a year after graduation.

What's happened with the economy and the auto industry since then would suggest that figure may be even higher today.

Five years ago, the governor appointed a special commission on Higher Education and Economic Growth. Led by Lt. Gov. John Cherry, (and usually called the Cherry Commission) it was a high-powered group gathered to study and chart a course for the state’s future. It set one major goal: Doubling the number of college graduates in Michigan within a decade.

Since then, the number of graduates has increased slightly to 41,250, up from 38,615. But it is nowhere near the pace the Cherry Commission hoped. And the swelling numbers of new degree holders fleeing the state has overwhelmed and canceled any gains.

Michigan Future President Lou Glazer has been arguing for years that a state's competitive position is largely determined by the number of college graduates in the population. Study after study has confirmed his thesis. "If we don’t keep those young, highly educated Michiganders," Glazer says, "we'll get poorer and poorer because we simply won't be able to complete with other states."

So how come so many young, newly graduated Michigan kids decide to pull up stakes and leave home? When I ask, most young people simply say, "There's nothing here for me." That's probably true, given our current 12 percent unemployment rate. That will, eventually, turn around.

But the roots of the problem go much deeper.

Partly, our problems stem from the culture that grew up with the automobile industry. For decades, the idea was that all you needed to do was get a high school diploma and catch on with Generous Motors to assure your economic future. That's all over now, but the habit dies hard.

Another part of the problem: The scanty number of exciting, high-tech start-up companies in the state. Comparing the tolerance for risk in Michigan’s business culture with, say, Silicon Valley is illuminating. Aside from the companies in the supply chain, it’s hard to find many technology-driven new companies spinning out of our auto industry. But go to the Stanford University campus in Palo Alto and you'll find lots of entrepreneurs who bear it as a badge of honor that they started two, three, four companies which went bust … and then hit a home run on the last one. And you’ll find lots of young people excited about a career with such an outfit.

So what to do?

Obviously, Michigan needs more people with college degrees. The state does now offer a $4,000 grant toward college graduation. Beginning with high school seniors who graduated in 2007, about 100,000 students received this stipend, which can be used at any post high-school institution, public or private.

But lots of college graduates flee the state, often without even trying to find a job here. The Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce will put up later this year a site – www.interninmichigan.com – linking college students with internships with Michigan employers.

A high percentage of young people who take internships upon leaving college go on to begin their careers with the same employer, so this site is a good first strategic step.

Another approach comes from the too much derided "Cool Cities" program, launched by Gov. Jennifer Granholm during her first term. So far, the state has handed out $4.6 million to 48 communities around the state. The idea is simple: Many young people decide where they want to live before they start looking around for a job.

Thriving, vibrant, diverse communities are attractive to young people, whether we call them "cool cities" or not.

Another program, MichAgain, is aimed at Michiganders who had left the state but who might be induced to return. Some evidence suggests that many young people figure Michigan is a great place to come home to live and raise a family after sowing their wild oats in Chicago. MichAgain unfunded as yet, but it could prove valuable.

But at the end of the day, Michigan's attractiveness to young people will define the number of college grads who stay. This has as much to do with the quality – and affordability – of life here in Michigan. So our woods and waters, our arts and culture, our cities and our universities are all vital in the competition for brains.

Sadly, you don’t find many policy-makers in Lansing focusing on this. Witness Gov. Granholm's proposal to zero out the pittance — $6.3 million – budgeted for arts and culture.

Our demography, to a great extent, defines our future. The bottom line: If we cannot retain our brightest and most highly educated young people in Michigan, we’ll have a state whose people are poorer, older and increasingly denied the prosperous future we need in the years to come.

***
Editor's Note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics, and a former chairman of the Michigan chapter of the Nature Conservancy. He is also the founder and president of The Center for Michigan, a centrist think-and-do tank which publishes the Michigan Scorecard. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of The Center. He welcomes your comments at ppower@thecenterformichigan.net.