<p>California State Treasurer has proposed elimination of state funding for the UC system. In other words, the UC system would become private...</p>
<p>Quote from a Berkeley press release...
[quote]
a recent editorial by State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, in which he suggested that the State of California cut off budget support for UC. (State support accounts for a shrinking but still significant portion of the UC budget.) That possibility is also contained in a 60-page report from the treasurer's office, released Oct. 1, enumerating a variety of steps that the governor and legislators could take to reduce the state's persistent budget deficits. </p>
<p>In place of state funding, the notion goes, UC would rely on student fees, private donations, and other sources. "It's conceived by some of these dark forces," Dynes said, that the Berkeley campus in particular, given its stature, "could charge a lot higher fees" and still remain competitive.
<p>it wouldn't be private, it would simply be a public university that receives no funding. the state still owns most of the school. for it to truly become private, it would probably have to buy the buildings and land it resides on, and they couldn't afford that.</p>
<p>jags861,
Do you or anyone have much insight into what I call the emerging Public-Private University? From all I hear, that model is what is going on at your U Virginia and state funding is likely to go to zero. Why is this happening and is there much discussion about how this will affect the school? Is this a pattern likely to be emulated by state universities across the country? What do you see as some of the positives and negatives of such a potential change? (Sorry to bombard you with questions, but IMO this might be one of the most important issues in higher education today)</p>
<p>The reason its happening, at UVa at least, is because the state hasn't given much funding at all for the last several years, yet had incredible amounts of control over what the University spent its money, the vast majority of it privately raise money, on. So the University basically said "we'll take less money from you (something along the lines of like 5% of its budget), if you butt out of our business." The effects of this are that the school can set tuition, don't need approval for construction projects, etc. All in all, its definitely good for a school like UVa--which is wealthy--and can do without the state funding.</p>
<p>I don't see this being emulated by many state schools across the country. Simple reason being that most state universities would fold if they decided to give up their public funding. To counter that they would obviously increase tuition. But let me ask you this. Does Rutgers, or Ohio University or Montclair State look like a great choice if they were to cost $45,000/yr?</p>
<p>^ It is true for UC as well. Instead, I think the state of California is looking to cut obligations so it can balance its budget in future years.</p>
<p>The comment in the article stated Berkeley would be OK with increased tuition since it has a strong reputation. However, I think the increase in tuition would hurt lower tier UCs.</p>
<p>hoedown,
From everything I read and hear, U Virginia's state funding has been declining for years and given the squeeze on budgets at the statehouse, the school's administration recognizes that they may not receive much, if any, help from the state in the years ahead. My understanding is that this is the main driver behind their current capital campaign. On a endowment per capita basis, I have U Virginia as the # 1 public university, so they have already got themselves positioned pretty well. But if state funding does, in fact, go to zero, the endowment will play an even larger role as they need to pick up the funding from somewhere. Coupled with a desire for more operating autonomy (as jags describes above), this Public-Private form looks like a real possibility to me. And ultimately, if U Virginia is successful and is able to operate fully independent of state funding, I would expect this to increase pressure on other state universities to follow their lead. And as you know, many states are not very well-prepared to do this.</p>
<p>From what I understand, UVA has a wealthy student body. Raising tuition significantly while increasing need based financial aid could at the same time make the University more affordable for kids of modest means, increase the school's coffers, and save the taxpayers money.
I wonder how many others could do the same? Maybe William and Mary and Michigan? Michigan's budget (the state of) could use all the help it could get.</p>
<p>It is quite a challenge for all states as other obligations get more expensive. However, I think this path further limits access to higher education for the nation's poor.</p>
<p>I agree that this Public-Private form would be a problem for a lot of state universities. In many respects, U Virginia and its graduates have long seen the school as sort of a public-private school anyway so this is not such a huge psychological leap for them. But the UCs are a whole different story and I can't imagine the people of California going for that. The problems is that the money is so vital to these schools and this non-stop pressure only worsens over time. The financial trends for most state universities, elite or not, are a big deal that I think most Americans don't appreciate and especially at a time when more and more high school students want to go to college.</p>
<p>In my opinion, public universities generally tend to be an entitlement for the middle and upper classes.
State budgets are dominated by medicaid costs and payments to local school districts in an attempt to equalize funding. The public university system is where the middle class "gets theirs".
I can tell you that my two college students paid less, because of family income, at their privates than they would have at their state flagship. Not even close.</p>
<p>Well, UVa did make a big move in this direction (asking for a kind of charter status), but the state countered with the current restructuring plan. It allows public universities several possible levels of autonomy,and UVa is one of the schools that has achieved the most autonomous level. Are you talking about moves that UVa has made since the plan went into effect last year? </p>
<p>Where do you put places like Cornell and Penn State in this spectrum? How low does state funding have to get, and how much autonomy must an institution achieve, before it is private or semi-private? I think the top publics have been living with this reality for a long time, but they each have different funding models and different levels of autonomy, so it's hard to generalize.</p>
<p>I think that UVa, UMich, UCB, UCLA, and maybe a couple other schools could pull it off. However, all the directional schools are a long way from being able to.</p>
<p>Only two UCs, Cal and UCLA, have endowments at levels even close to privates. However, depending on how they structure this "faux-privatization," we could see a good thing here with more control given to the campuses.</p>
<p>There is an income number for any particular family in California where the cost of Cal and Stanford are the same. Income lower than that number, and Cal is the more costly. Above that number, and Stanford is the more costly.
Of course this flies in the face of commonly held notions that the public system is aimed at the poor and those of modest means. It doesn't work that way, in my experience.</p>
<p>To reiterate a few things said on the board and add a few:</p>
<ol>
<li> Very, very few public universities can follow this model. When state funding drops, the other revenue streams, research grants, tuition, and donations, must increase commensurately or the institution will suffer a great deal. Only a few publics are in position to do this. Research grants are probably already at maximum. Tuition can increase substantially only if there is a fairly wealthy student body, and it takes a lot of wealthy alumni to up donations to the point that dispensing with public money becomes feasible.</li>
</ol>
<p>The only public schools I can think of that would have a chance of doing this successfully are: Virginia, Berkeley, and Texas. Perhaps William and Mary, UNC, and Michigan could handle it, as well, but I doubt it.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Public schools systems are sometimes an entitlement for the middle and upper middle classes, but that varies widely by state. Virginia and California, for example, have produced tiered public systems in which elite students attend elite colleges, which tends to favor the wealthy. States like Wyoming, other Rocky Mountain states, old Big 8 states, and the like tend to make public universities far more inclusive, and have less status distance between "elite" universities and the less elite ones. </p></li>
<li><p>State legislatures need to understand that privatizing elite universities comes with a stiff price. First off, it's a hidden tax on the wealthy because both tuition and financial aid will increase, and the wealthy tend to have a great deal more influence on elections than the not-so-wealthy. Secondly, many businesses find elite secondary education systems at fairly low cost to be critical in attracting and retaining employee talent. They will tend not to relocate to and/or to move out of states where this is no longer the case. Thirdly, it will become increasingly difficult for state legislatures to demand that private-state schools give preference to in-state students. Money is influence. Reduce the influence and the schools will start to go their own ways.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Regarding danas post: But, Stanford admits a fraction of the students that Cal does. </p>
<p>In my opinion, if Cal and the UCs went down this "privatization" path, tuitions would be higher and the UCs would be at a competitive disadvantage until they could build up their endowments.</p>