Provost Sullivan: A public university is more than just publicly funded

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Michigan
1

<p>
[quote]
The provost said that as annual state appropriations steadily have decreased, there have been calls to “privatize” public colleges and universities.</p>

<p>“This is a disservice to both the institutions and the states that help to fund them. While public university budget models are increasingly tuition driven, that does not make us private,” she said. “Rather than threatening to ‘privatize,’ I think we would benefit from a broad public discussion of the mission, roles, and contributions of public colleges and universities.”

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Provost</a> Sullivan: A public university is more than just publicly funded</p>

2

<p>What a load of BS. Man up and force the state’s hand to pay up.</p>

3

<p>The State doesn’t have room to ‘man up’.</p>

<p>Shut your mouth and learn something about the State of Michigan, seemingly you think you know a lot so why not add that to your repertoire?</p>

4

<p>hmm reading comprehension skills please…</p>

<p>THE UNIVERSITY should MAN UP and force THE STATE’S hand… how can you intepret it as “the state should force the state’s hand”? That doesn’t even make logical sense. Are you ■■■■■■■■?</p>

<p>One way to do it: just constantly complain about the lack of support of the state and talk about privatizing (you dont even have to do it, just constantly mention it) in the national media and diminish the state of Michigan’s already non-existent reputation… Our media loves to pile on a bad situation and make things worse (See Tiger Woods). Let them do the dirty work for you and give them an opportunity to pile on and they will bury the state of Michigan and put a lot of pressure on them.</p>

<p>Not saying it would definitely succeed, but the state would be more inclined redirect funding to the university to avoid a PR nightmare. Not like there’s a downside to it anyway. Better than sitting there, doing nothing and accepting the state’s decision to not sufficiently fund its own residents to go to a world class university at a discount rate.</p>

5

<p>“Redirect funding”? From where?! The state doesn’t have any money to spare and it’s not really as though UMich is lacking in funds like the rest of the state.</p>

6

<p>This University isn’t even close to what it is without that private funding. And doubtful it would go private.</p>

7

<p>Um, this is a sticky issue but while I generally disagree frequently with Bearcats very-very-free-market-private-preferences at times, I actually think his political savvy on this point is germane. Saying “there there” to the State of Michigan instead of holding its feet to the fire is the same thing as lying down and telling someone to run you over.</p>

<p>If you bend, they’ll bend you.</p>

<p>The senate and house in Michigan are so terrified of raising taxes one iota that they’re taxing income at less of a rate than they did 30 years ago. They don’t have the cahonies to replace any of the taxes their predecessors removed during the illusion of “reduce taxes and the economy will flourish.” They don’t tax seniors on benefits under $100k – so seniors flock in droves to MI, the most undertaxed senior state in the U.S. They have an antiquated goods taxation structure that does not reflect the current spending mix in Michigan or anywhere else in the modern world (SERVICE tax, people, Europe was there 20 freakin years ago). </p>

<p>So, when these same idjits say “we just don’t have the money” the fact of the matter is they just don’t have the brains to conceive the following truism:
“A zero tax increase equals an erosion of infrastructure by a minimum of the rate of inflation.”</p>

<p>If you ran a private company this way, it would tank.</p>

<p>So, truth is, the state COULD invest in U of M, COULD invest in its future population or infrastructure (I mean, economies are powered by people who WANT to live in a place : ), but they CHOOSE instead to wring their hands and say that their constitutional obligation is to balance the budget, NOT to find new revenue models to support the infrastructure.</p>

<p>So, if I were a provost, I’d be tossing around the private label concept too – because it would actually motivate the republicans to support an education tax (egads, novel concept) because they’d know how much more expensive school would be for THEIR kids instate; and it would motivate the democrats to hop to it because public education is SUPPOSED to be part of their platform…you get the idea. Bipartisan motivation.</p>

<p>That said, I am actually personally opposed to privatizing U of M. I just think that you have to walk softly and carry a big stick ; )</p>