<p>So there was a thread about UCLA Anderson planning to vote to privatize soon in the Cal board, and I thought that there should be a similar, but more broad thread in the UCLA board. Here is the proposal from Berkeley's Chancellor to increase campus autonomy (scroll down the article for the official proposal):</p>
<p>I personally think it would be great news for the name brand campuses, but the system would be hurt as a whole. UCLA and Cal are already better than a ton of private colleges with their public mission handicap, with that lessened I think they would surge a lot in the next decade in ranking, name, and prestige as selectivity, price, and privatization increases. However, I'm not really sure that is in the best interest of the citizens of California or the smaller campuses.</p>
<p>I think that UCLA Anderson trying to become private doesn’t really affect UCLA as a whole that much (unless it becomes the first domino and the other professional schools follow). But the general UCLA campus will likely never follow suit. The business school pretty much operates independently anyway, and they have enough clout to be able to pull in big private donor money where they can do just fine without any public money from the UC system.</p>
<p>I am definitely for a privatized UCLA. We live in a world of snobbish bastards where mainly titles and prestige drive the impression of academic success. UCLA’s programs are already more rigorous than many of the privates, including some ivys. What’s holding UCLA back is the idea that it offers a “state education.” JUST FYI, the state’s funding makes up a negligible percentage of UCLA’s funding which is primarily private, so the school is only getting the disadvantages of being associated with public education.</p>
<p>alicantekid, did you read any of the articles? The proposal written by Birgeneau has nothing to do with Anderson. It’s a university wide system overhaul. I said I just felt like posting this thread for discussion since Cal was discussing Anderson, but they are two completely different proposals with different effects. This proposal to privatize campuses shouldn’t be confused with Anderson’s agenda in any way whatsoever. They aren’t very related. This proposal is about the undergraduate UC colleges, not its professional schools.</p>
<p>And overachiever92, I wholeheartedly agree with you, but I don’t know how UCLA can do that without causing undue damage to the UC system which is extremely valuable to California.</p>
<p>Certainly UCLA and Berkeley would have much more of an advantage than the other campuses. They’d be able to set their prices, and their would certainly be a demand for it, but their public mission would no doubt be put into question.</p>
<p>There’s certainly something to be said about a university being nurtured by public funds, which helped give it the reputation that it currently has, and being founded for a particular purpose, abandoning it’s mission due to a lack of those funds. The state is contributing an awfully small amount of money already (and more cuts are to be expected) so i can’t really blame at least the top UCs (i.e. UCLA and Cal) for trying to protect their reputations, their institutions, and their faculty.</p>
<p>That being said, if UCLA and Berkeley could make up the difference (or a substantial portion of it) in the funds that the state provides them, the money that they use might be able to be split among some of the less prestigious campuses and help students across some of the other campuses as well (Merced could certainly use it; as could riverside with it’s delayed medical school.)</p>
<p>For the privatization of UCLA to happen, we need to stop looking at the impact it would have on the UC system. This needs to be a question of what’s best for UCLA, not what’s best for the UC system. This will probably never happen, but “UCLA” would need to become “ULA.”</p>
<p>UCLA becoming private, doesn’t necessarily mean that it would abandon its MAIN mission. It could still emphasize its commitment to educating California students and the Cal grant would still play a part in financing the education (as it does at CMC and other private schools).</p>
<p>I’ve definitely thought about what it would sound like to call UCLA University of Los Angeles (sort of like NYU). Still “UCLA” just sounds more catchy and better.</p>
<p>I imagine that Cal and UCLA would fall somewhere in the middle ground like Uva or UMich. It’s highly doubtful that the regents would let two of the top three public universities in the US completely privatize (due to political reasons) setting their own tuition prices however is another matter. People with a 3.2 have guaranteed admission to at least one UC, although that UC may not be the UC of their choice.</p>
<p>I completely agree with you that this is an unlikely scenario, but I feel that it’s the best possible situation for Berkeley and UCLA. </p>
<p>Also, that 3.2 GPA guarantee is such a sham (Plus, isn’t the guarantee for when you’re in the top 10% of your class?). Sure, you’re guaranteed into a UC if you have the right GPA but the regents are never going to allow someone to be guaranteed into a top-UC. The best you’re going to get is like UCSB. So, if you’re arguing that UCLA can’t follow its mission if it goes private, I don’t understand your argument.</p>
<p>I meant to say that people who want to go to UCLA with a minimum of 3.2 may be rejected from UCLA but still admitted into “UC” (e.g. UCM, UCR, UCSC, etc.)</p>
<p>It’ll certainly be interesting to see how this situation develops.</p>