<p>I knew this was coming.</p>
<p>I think we all knew this was coming.</p>
<p>Let’s keep this in perspective. This is a draft report by one committee of some profs and a few students. </p>
<p>In any case, the Guv controls the Board and the Board controls the U. No Governor and no Legislature would agree to anything that would drastically increase in-state tuition or reduce the no. of in-state students.</p>
<p>And let’s stop trying to compare UVa to Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Chicago. Those are not UVa’s peers or prime competitors. (Yes I know a few students have picked UVa over them, mainly when UVa resulted in a $40,000 or more a year advantage to them in net costs).</p>
<hr>
<p>There is an interesting comparison with Penn State. Penn State receives state funds, but less per student than many other public universities. It is considered to be “state-related”, not state-owned. In-state residents receive a discount on tuition, but no preference in admissions decisions. The main campus is 1/3 out of state. The state has no direct control over the U., except that the Governor and his representatives hold about 10% of the board seats, and he gets to appoint some of the other boardmembers. The other seats are elected by members of the alumni association. There are certainly pros and cons to this arrangement. </p>
<p>The State views the land and buildings of UVa as a state asset. Any sale of land by UVa needs approval of a state official. These assets were built up over centuries using state funds, and the state is not going to let those billions of dollars of assets suddenly become part of a private entity.</p>
<p>It irritates me when people talk about UVa’s serious financial problems. Every other public university and most of the private universities in the US would love to only have UVa financial problems, instead of their own. Also, when comparing faculty salaries with other top universities, let’s also remember that many of those top universities are in locations with a much much higher cost of living. That is why NYU is buying multi-million dollar condos for some of their new hires, and even paying for some of their vacation homes, while their financial aid to their students is pathetic.</p>
<p>Let’s hold on, as correctly stated above, UVA is a VA asset and belongs to its citizens, not the alumni, students, or Theresa Sullivan. As a taxpayer and resident, I will insist to my representatives it should stay that way study be darned!</p>
<p>To those who want to break away, they are more than welcome to exit and create their own private university wherever they desire.</p>
<p>WRT cost, I’m sure that the university could charge $40,000 with no financial aid and it will be as competitive/selective as ever. That would be unfortunate to those in the economically disadvantaged parts of VA, but it is the sad truth.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see whether Sullivan supports the draft report or keeps her distance. I’m guessing that she’s politically savvy enough assess the opposition before she puts her name to it.</p>
<p>If the recommended action is her vision for UVA I now more fully understand the basis for her attempted ouster by the board.</p>
<p>If the state keeps the promises it made a few years ago, it would not be so bad. The state promised to give UVa more flexibility in its decision-making and to provide the same level of funding per in-state student as the in-state enrollment increased. Instead, the annual funding has not kept up with inflation and enrollment increases, and the Governor keeps threatening to cut funding if in-state tuition increases above inflation.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m wrong (I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I am), but I thought it was Helen Dragas who appeared to have the more purely business-minded/directed vision during the whole situation with Sullivan in 2012. This draft report certainly looks to follow in that “business-first” mindset. Regardless, this is simply a Draft report by a panel - not a formal recommendation or action plan.</p>
<p>The title of this thread is also misleading. The report did not recommend that UVa become a Private University. It recommended that specific changes be made, making certain areas less controlled by the state. That doesn’t make it a private university. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the limited information that was available, Dragas last year was looking for spending cuts at the U., which probably would have involved cuts in academic programs. </p>
<p>Pres. Sullivan has been looking for ways to increase faculty compensation, after a few years of pay freezes. Fortunately, UVa did not need to institute layoffs, unlike many other universities over the last few years.</p>
<p>More recently, Dragas reconstituted herself as the champion of avoiding tuition increases on in-state students. </p>
<p>The state this year did increase funding by $8 million, after many years of cuts. It might help that the Guv’s twin sons are both at UVa. The state also provided special funding to pay a portion of the cost of the Rotunda restoration and to pay most of the cost to completely rehab “New” Cabell Hall. </p>
<p>In any case, this is part of a national trend. Almost every state has cut higher education funding over the past few years. That trend was not only caused by decreased revenues during the Recession, but also the fact that Medicaid and employee health insurance and pension costs are soaking up much higher percentages of all state budgets. In most states, the percentage of spending that was cut from education has gone directly to Medicaid.</p>
<p>Part of the increase in funding was the agreement that UVa increase enrollment in response to the “Top Jobs Act” which calls for an increase of 100,000 degrees conferred to in-state students at Virginia’s public two- and four-year institutions over the next 15 years, focusing on STEM degrees. The overall increase in enrollment at UVa was targeted to be 1,500. The time frame seems to be a moving target, again based on the state ponying up funds, but the target was five years. The ratio of IS/OOS students remains the same, so for every 100 additional students 2/3IS:1/3OOS.</p>
<p>I agree this is nothing to get excited about. It appears to be nothing more then a ‘focus group’ and I don’t give it any more weight then that.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>As far as the title of the thread being misleading
a. The title was taken right off the print version of the article
b. The very first sentence says "operate more like a private school.</p></li>
<li><p>Sullivan is quoted in the article. This is not just a report from a panel. Sullivan completely supports this … at least on the surface.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>My suspicion - This was part of the deal between Dragas and Sullivan when Sullivan was brought back.</p>
<p>If the first sentence of the report contains “Operate more like a private school”, then the title of your thread " Report:UVa should be a private school" is completely different.</p>
<p>GolfFather “My suspicion - This was part of the deal between Dragas and Sullivan when Sullivan was brought back.”</p>
<p>I highly doubt that Dragas would have been in favor of this idea. Dragas wanted to cut expenses and deliver education more efficiently (e.g., on-line). We’ll have to see how it all plays out.</p>
<p>A report saying that something “should operate more like” a private school is a far cry from saying it “should be” a private school. Especially when the report also said it “makes clear that U-Va would remain a public university.” I don’t think there can be much confusion over that. </p>
<p>Regardless, these are preliminary comments in a draft proposal from a non-actionable working panel based on a requested brainstorming exercise by the university president while looking to develop future strategies to strengthen the university’s financial and educational position. In other words: it’s a good thing. Brainstorming is intended to ellicite extreme options and alternatives to spark conversation. In that respect this is a very beneficial exercise.</p>
<p>Is this going to happen tomorrow? No.</p>
<p>Was this just a bunch of eggheads sitting around coming up with zany ideas out of thin air?
No.</p>
<p>Sullivan is completely on board with this and the intention is clear …</p>
<p>Raise tuition and have more out-of-state students.</p>
<p>Anyone who doesn’t believe this, I happen to own a bridge you might be interested in.</p>
<p>Agree with Golffather that this has Sullivan’s footprints all over it, ie the reaffirmed commitment to liberal arts some of which Dragas wanted to cut; cut in-state student levels; more aid for poor (and interestingly STEM students). Essentially this proposal is similar to the current state of affairs at the law and business schools, except with s bit more Commonwealth oversight. Just as a rough barometer, does anyone know whether the law/business school rankings have gone up since they went private?</p>
<p>Based on some back of the envelope calculations increasing tuition to OOS levels for all students would net about $170ml in revenue above current levels (assume 14K students, 70% in-state = 9800 X $27,600 (appx difference between in and OOS tuition levels) = a little over $270 million in revenue, minus the $100 ml loss of state funding, equals net revenue increase of $170 ml). </p>
<p>Am in-state and have one child at UVA (sophomore). Hope this is more of a shot across the bow of the Commonwealth government re increase our funding or else as opposed to a serious proposal. Do not think this is remotely consistent with TJ’s vision and find it interesting the draft proposal does little more than pay lip service to TJ.</p>
<p>Of course Sullivan is for this. She, like every university president in history, wants more money. She’s in favor of more money from students, more money from the state, more money from donors. And less restrictions too. Her top priority is to raise faculty salaries after all.</p>
<p>Kinda like those T-mobile commercials with the little kids. What’s better – more or less? More!!! I suspect the real agenda here is to shake more money out of the state.</p>
<p>And she did come from UM, which (as compared to UVA) has more OOS students, more state funding, and higher tuition rates. The Dragas crew, not Sullivan, seemed to be the ones interested in exploring how to do things in a way where the solution was something other than just more money.</p>
<p>But the concern about a possible slide (not just for UVA) is valid as state money keeps going down. If there’s less state money, having less state strings has some logic to it. UNC has more strings than UVA but also gets much more state funding.</p>
<p>FYI, the UVA law school’s rankings have gone up slightly since it became “financially self-sufficient.” Tied for #7 this year with Penn. Behind NYU, but ahead of Michigan and Berkeley (both also private financially now). Also ahead of Duke, Georgetown, Cornell and Northwestern. That exercise was more about maintaining the ratings rather than increasing them them. Seems to have worked well, although the tuition is eye popping. 51k OOS, 46k IS. That’s just tuition.</p>
<p>FYI - U. Michigan is up to 39% undergrad out of state students. Part of the reason is that Michigan was not growing in population (unlike Va.). Berkeley and UCLA’s numbers are much lower, but then they are within a state with a much larger population.</p>
<p>The major of Sullivan’s career was at Texas, though. It’s student population in 2012-13 was 79.9% in state. So she is very used to a small OOS contingent. I can speak to the level of state aid in Texas, though.</p>
<p>See <a href=“https://sp.austin.utexas.edu/sites/ut/rpt/Documents/IMA_S_StudentChar_2012_Fall.pdf[/url]”>https://sp.austin.utexas.edu/sites/ut/rpt/Documents/IMA_S_StudentChar_2012_Fall.pdf</a></p>
<p>Ann Arbor is up to 43% OOS for the 12/13 academic year. Up from about 36% just a few years ago.</p>
<p>[Enrollment</a> trends: Out-of-state students form 42.6 percent of University of Michigan’s freshman class](<a href=“http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-sees-increase-in-out-of-state-students/]Enrollment”>Enrollment trends: Out-of-state students form 42.6 percent of University of Michigan's freshman class)</p>
<p>UVA is much more on the model of UM – high OOS enrollment, high OOS tuition, high IS tuition and low state funding.</p>
<p>UNC and UT have the model of low OOS enrollment, low OOS tuition, low IS tuition and high state funding.</p>
<p>The UC’s used to be like UT and UNC, but are rapidly morphing into the UVA/UM model. The latest class at UCLA is 41% OOS.</p>
<p><a href=“http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-admits-more-than-16-000-exceptional-245294.aspx[/url]”>http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-admits-more-than-16-000-exceptional-245294.aspx</a></p>
<p>I think Sullivan (and any other univ prez) would be fine with either model, but keeps saying UVA is stuck in between.</p>