<p>I've been following the recent budget problems, and have consider the value of a series of solutions proposed by former UCLA chancellor for almost 40 years, Charles Young, which would result in the partially privatize the UC system. The link to the youtube video is here:</p>
<p>The main part of the video starts at around 3:10</p>
<p>Please keep all discussions civilized. </p>
<p>I strongly urge you to watch the video, but partially summarized here with some of my own input: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Remove state appropriations. One major problem in the UC system is that schools can not independently manage its funds. Removing the barrier and allowing campuses to independently assert its finances over what it chooses will increase long term sustainability. </p></li>
<li><p>Continue to eliminate inefficiencies. We all know this. No need to explain.</p></li>
<li><p>Increase tuition significantly. If tuitions for students were to even begin approach private school levels, the UC system would be able to adopt a more comprehensive financial aid system funded by an overall higher tuition, it would make the college more affordable. Faced with a choice between a private (50k tuition, but with full scholarship) vs. Berkeley (20k tuition, 10k financial aid), one would more likely choose the private school given they are equally matched. Financial aid > low tuition</p></li>
<li><p>But you ask. What about low income families who deserve an education? A possible solution at least from my point of view would be to use the money California was funding the UCs at that point and put it to serving California's mission of educating students who can not afford or require some kind of assistance. Whether this be financial aid, grants, work study. Once again, as the chancellor says, "the way to provide access to the university is not to provide low tuition, but through a medium level tuition, and very very strong financial aid." Simply keeping tuition low will not solve the problem as many families are still unable to pay the cost of attendance.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I don’t think this would happen. Especially at Berkeley. People like to think of themselves as attending the top public university in the world. Plus with so many people with liberal point of views, many would ardently defend public education. (I’m not a liberal, I consider myself a moderate, and I have some fiscally conservative views, so I’m open-minded to privatization) </p>
<p>Berkeley, being a public school, takes in A LOT of students. Many of them are sub par, have less than stellar SAT and AP scores, and don’t do well at Berkeley. Privatization could eliminate these students, reducing class sizes, and making the educational opportunity better for the high achieving students. It could essentially bring Berkeley’s UG up to its Graduate Level. Conversely, many would see privatization as a disadvantage because Berkeley currently gives mediocre students a second change to step it up and take advantage of of Berkeley’s renowned professors and resources. </p>
<p>Privatization could also affect Berkeley’s graduate program. With a research university dependent on government subsidization funding, privatization could create a temporary vacuum.</p>
<p>But I agree with you on the general point of school finances. It may be beneficial to privatize the UC system, and keep the CSU program intact (this would be our state university system, and I don’t see it as much of a disadvantage because most state universities aren’t that stellar anyways)</p>
<p>1 and 3 are gradually happening by default every year, as the state defunds post-secondary education in favor of K-12, health/welfare, prisons, and tax cuts.</p>
<p>Just to clarify, who is in more control of the UC’s finances? The state legislature (who imposed 650 million cuts), or the regents? I got into an argument with my friend when I told him the root of the problem with tuition hikes was in Sacramento, since the Regents based their tuition hikes on decreased state funding. </p>
<p>But she argued back saying that “that’s what the regents would like you think,” saying that even with these cuts, the Regents could have slashed administrative pay and prevented rising tuition. She feels that the Regents are the main problem.</p>
<p>According to a recent article i was reading about the UCs, low income students are at record numbers, as are high income students; however, the proportion of students from middle class families (defined, iirc, from 50k-150k range) is down. A big problem would be raised if the tuition increase essentially meant that a significant portion of the middle class would be unable to afford the UCs. The UCs mission, originally, was to provide high quality education for california’s elite students at a low and affordable rate which was subsidized by the state. Do the UCs even have the authority to privatize themselves? if they don’t i doubt that the state would give it to them. The last thing legislators want is blame for letting the best public education system in the world become privatized.</p>
<p>A lot of people want to see UCLA and Berkeley turn like it’s peers like Michigan and UVA. If this does happen, it will happen very slowly. Through the raising of their tuition, if financial aid does not keep up, the UCs will slowly start to weed out the poorest students, and start to weed in their richer counterparts essentially becoming more like a private university. It’ll be interesting to see how the state deals with this. And, if the state does return funding, if the UCs will return in-state levels to their normal levels.</p>
<p>I do agree that we can’t have our cake and eat it too. California cannot make deep cuts to the funding of the UCs, and expect them to keep their original obligations to the people of california (at least at the rate they were doing so.) A lot of people are ****ed off about this, but there’s really nothing that can be done about it.</p>
<p>I think at least Berkeley and UCLA are mostly self-sustainable at this point, maybe UCSD too. What could be done is let these universities private themselves, and focus more money on building the reputation and prestige of the lower-tier UCs. This might be the best option since it would let the top UCs keep their quality, and build the quality of the lower tiered ones (riverside might be finally able to build its medical school) But i doubt that the legislators would let some of the finest universities in the world slip out of its hands, even if this would be the best option.</p>
<p>all we can do at this point is wait and see what they ultimately decide to do.</p>
<p>Somewhat offtopic, but I went to the University of Delaware which is another example of a school that is both public & private, being financed through state assistance and a private charter. Though the school obviously isn’t directly comparable to Cal, academically it does compare to some of the other UCs.</p>
<p>As an OOS student there, I paid the equivalent of what in-state students pay for the UCs (without FinAid).</p>