<p>Isn't that dependent on income level? And also how do you allocate the tax payments to just the budget for higher education? State taxes cover a lot of ground. You could probably do a pro-rata if you knew what share was of spending on higher education relative to the entire state budget and then the portion of that that was dedicated to the institution that you are attending. I'm guessing that the amount of tax dollars is a pittance and would not come close to $80k.</p>
<p>I think the answer would depend on state tax rates, the kinds of taxes state residents pay (some have no income tax, for instance), income, land ownership, taxable spending, etc. of individuals, and the percentage of taxes paid that goes to higher ed.</p>
<p>I don't think it's a very answerable question except on a state-by-state basis, and at average income and tax levels.</p>
<p>Should it matter? Well, if you're wondering whether taxpayers get their money's worth, I think it's a factor, but not the only one. For instance, an agricultural school provides a number of benefits to the state, its citizens, and taxes collected that don't show up only in tuition rates. States with top notch public higher education systems tend to attract and retain businesses better than those with average ones. In addition, keeping good students in-state helps shore up a state's talent pool.</p>
<p>tsdad, regarding your argument about 18 years of taxes, the average length of residenct for an in-stater will be less than 18 years in our mobile society. Also, the porportion of taxes going to fund higher education is becoming less and less each year. The state is spending your tax dollars on other items.</p>
<p>My state "sold" the voter on a state lottery with the promise that the money would be used to fund education. They hoodwinked the voters by using the lottery money to replace previous education funding.</p>
<p>Assuming the UCs do have the means to go privates, I think it'd be strange for a state with such a huge population but only Cal State Us as their public Us. CA would have disproportionally much larger number of kids with difficulty to find affordable education. Maybe then, people would stop coming to Cal and the families in Cal would start packing and move elsewhere.</p>
<p>That's assuming that the ability of the UCs to ostensibly use their money wisely necessarily precludes them from giving better aid packages.</p>
<p>Tarhunt, although I'm not in higher ed., I started out life as a CPA and now work as an executive for a large company. "Overhead is overhead" is simple and is written as a tautology, but a cost accountant will tell you that overhead is fixed to a certain point. For example, you can cut overhead by razing an old building you no longer need. The fixed overhead associated with the building now translates to mowing/landscaping cost, which is far cheaper than maintaining, heating, cleaning, etc. You are correct that "debt service is debt service" and there are certain other costs that are indeed fixed. However, all fixed costs are not the same.</p>
<p>I agree that you should not assume the university can raise tuition for in-staters and expect the revenue to remain the same. However, you may be able to reduce the tuition to something between in-state and OOS (as noted in the Miami of Ohio example) and attract more OOS students. Michigan has a distinct advantage over most publics because its OOS attendance and alumni base is so high.</p>
<p>Going private may not be the answer, but I believe the state has the ethical responsibility to pay the subsidy they are granting to in-state students IF they want to tell the university how to run its business. For example, the UM voters recently removed affirmative action from UM. UM did not like this (an understatement). At what point does the funding become so low that they shouldn't exercise so much control (11%?)? The question in the AA example is truly academic since the voters had the constitutional right to do it.</p>
<p>UCLAri, I am not assuming anything. Even if they can give good aid packages, they are no longer obligated to serve CA students (we are talking about them as privates, right?). The aid packages are equally available to students from other states. All I am saying is there's less such thing as "in-state" tuition available. Some people (esp those from low-income families that can get full-ride) may find Stanford more affordable but more often than not, Stanford is the more expensive one for CA students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, on one hand the General Assembly gave UVa more autonomy, but on the other hand, they exerted more control with respect to the admissions process. In return for more autonomy, the General Assembly required UVa to admit more community college students and to increase undergraduate enrollment. The legislature also continually introduces Bills (so far unsuccessfully) to reduce OOS enrollment at UVa.</p>
<p>Perhaps the best argument for UVa to become totally self-sufficient, is the success of both the law school and the Darden (graduate business) School.</p>
<p>Both of these schools became self-sufficient several years ago, and are perhaps some of the most competitive programs at UVa.</p>
<p>The following is a portion of an article relating to the self-sufficiency of the law and graduate business schools at UVa:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Law, Darden eliminate all state funding from budgets
Professional schools choose to receive no funding from Richmond, which will free more state dollars for the rest of the University</p>
<p>Josh Goodman, Cavalier Daily Associate Editor </p>
<p>While most of the University struggles to deal with the state's withdrawal of funds this year, two of the University's schools have decided to go cold turkey. </p>
<p>In a matter of months, both the Law School and Darden School will cease taking state funding, perhaps for good.</p>
<p>"I think it's permanent," Law School Dean John Jeffries Jr. said. "State dollars are scarce; I think they are likely to be scare for the foreseeable future." </p>
<p>Darden spokesman Phillip Giaramita said self-sufficiency will begin at Darden in the fall of 2003, while Jeffries said the process is "nearly complete" at the Law School as well.</p>
<p>Neither the Law nor the Darden School received any state funding this year, though officials said this was a result of budget cuts rather than the implementation of the self-sufficiency plan. </p>
<p>University officials think the move to self-sufficiency will not only benefit the two schools themselves, but also the University as a whole. </p>
<p>Since the Law and Darden Schools will not take state money, more public funds will be available to the rest of the University, said Colette Sheehy, vice president for management and budget. </p>
<p>"The University gains some redirection of the state support that has traditionally gone to Law and Darden," Sheehy said. </p>
<p>Officials at the schools say they will gain increased autonomy from the self-sufficiency plan. </p>
<p>Both schools now will be able to propose the tuition rates they want to the Board of Visitors, Sheehy said. </p>
<p>"It makes us a little bit more masters of our own destiny," Jeffries said. </p>
<p>Officials said they hope some of the added autonomy will help Law and Darden remain competitive with top law and business schools. </p>
<p>"They have more freedom in recommending tuition strategies and in hiring and paying their faculty," said Leonard W. Sandridge, University executive vice president and chief operating officer. "They can recommend their faculty receive raises different than those appropriated by the state generally if they need to do so to remain competitive with their peers." </p>
<p>Self-sufficiency also could help Law and Darden Schools by increasing private donations to the two schools, officials said. </p>
<p>Part of the self-sufficiency agreement with the University allows private contributions to Law and Darden to be used exclusively by those two schools, and Jeffries said this could stimulate greater giving. </p>
<p>"It's a very good idea that private fundraising be responsive to donor wishes," Jeffries said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Also, unlike most states its size, Virginia does not have a highly ranked, private, research institution (e.g., Duke, Emory, Princeton, Northwestern, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Pennsylvania, Vanderbilt, etc.). It is really in Virginia's best long term interest to "free up" UVa so it can compete head to head with these private schools to attract the best talent to Virginia (both students and professors).</p>
<p>
[quote]
A great college like UC Berkeley . . . their strategy to date has been to play the PR game by . . . admitting large numbers of IS transfer students to satisfy the demands of the politicians and the voters (see OceanPoet's post above for what they will say).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think this is a very cynical recasting of what Berkeley does. Using community colleges as a form of access to the state's elite universities is part of the state's entire higher education Master Plan.</p>
<p>hoedown,
The way you present it sounds reasonable, but we are talking about 3100 transfers a year (entering class is only 4150) which is a dramatic recasting of the student body. If they included the transfer students in their statistical profile, that would probably reduce my cynicism. </p>
<p>I also think you trust the politicians more than you should. The people of UC Berkeley (and probably most state universities) have to care about their school in the same way that the folks at U Virginia are caring about their school and come up with the cash to fund their endowment. Only by doing so can they gain more operating automomy to do the right things for the school and not necessarily the politically right things. Relying on the politicians to do the right things is...well, if that's the plan, then you have a lot more faith in them than I do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think this is a very cynical recasting of what Berkeley does. Using community colleges as a form of access to the state's elite universities is part of the state's entire higher education Master Plan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But honestly, other than being politically expedient, how does this policy help the University. Do you ever see schools like HYPS admitting that many transfers from community colleges?</p>
<p>
[quote]
we are talking about 3100 transfers a year (entering class is only 4150) which is a dramatic recasting of the student body. If they included the transfer students in their statistical profile, that would probably reduce my cynicism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It would be inappropriate to include them in the profile for the entering class. I am not aware of any school who does that. </p>
<p>Does their presence alter the high school profile of the student body? Yes. Maybe they need to come up with some way to "capture" it, but in my experience most schools care more about the college record of their transfers, not the high school record.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also think you trust the politicians more than you should.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're kidding, right? I trust politicians? You clearly haven't read my comments in other threads. </p>
<p>And what I stated was simply fact. The term "Master Plan" is not my normative endorsement of the wisdom of CA politicians. It's the actual title used by the CA system, and has nothing to with the "trust" or "faith" of me or anyone in this thread. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The people of UC Berkeley (and probably most state universities) have to care about their school in the same way that the folks at U Virginia are caring about their school and come up with the cash to fund their endowment. Only by doing so can they gain more operating automomy to do the right things for the school and not necessarily the politically right things. Relying on the politicians to do the right things is...well, if that's the plan, then you have a lot more faith in them than I do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Am I misunderstanding your point? Upthread you reported that Berkeley admits transfers people only as part of some PR game. Now you seem to be acknowledging that they have to do it because of the Master Plan, and that this is bad for the school. Which is it that drives their actions, again? Is it the longstanding three-tiered state system, or is it due to playing a game?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But honestly, other than being politically expedient, how does this policy help the University. Do you ever see schools like HYPS admitting that many transfers from community colleges?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know that it does "help" Berkeley. My point is that it is not some "game" but rather the structure of the system. Berkeley admissions standards for freshmen and its admissions standards for CC transfers are set by the same plan that gives them additional funding over the CCs and CSUs.</p>
<p>I don't really have a dog in the fight over whether or not this is a good system (it's got pluses and minuses, sure), but I reject the characterization of the UC schools as doing something as part of kind of PR game.</p>
<p>From the LA Times.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But soaring student fees, huge fundraising drives and controversial corporate donations have not made up for a sharp decline in the state's commitment to higher education. UC administrators and faculty fear that waning commitment is eroding the 10-campus system's reputation for excellence and will trigger a slide toward mediocrity. Already, the salaries of professors and workers lag behind comparable institutions while faculty posts remain open and more classes are taught by teaching assistants.</p>
<p>Administrators and faculty also worry that the University of California and the 23-campus California State University will become de facto private institutions, where most of the costs are paid by students.</p>
<p>In 1970, the state spent 6.9% of its budget on the University of California. Today it spends 3.2%. In 1965, the state covered 94.4% of a UC student's education. Last year it paid 58.5%.</p>
<p>This year, California will spend an estimated $3.3 billion to operate UC. It will spend three times as much -- $9.9 billion -- to run the state's prisons
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dynes said that some state institutions, such as the University of Michigan and the University of Virginia, have led the way in raising tuition and luring higher-paying students from other states and countries.</p>
<p>"If you look at Michigan and the number of out-of-state students, you realize they have privatized," Dynes said. "It's not a criticism. They have just chosen a different path."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^ The difference between 1970 numbers and todays comes down to Prop 13 and property taxes...when passed, education spending plummeted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know that it does "help" Berkeley. My point is that it is not some "game" but rather the structure of the system. Berkeley admissions standards for freshmen and its admissions standards for CC transfers are set by the same plan that gives them additional funding over the CCs and CSUs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's all about saving the state money. It's much cheaper to educate students at a community college than a four-year university. The quality of the students' education is not a concern.</p>
<p>Also, CC transfer students have strong college scholarship records...they aren't admitting the bottom of the barrel here. UC says the graduation rates of transfer students are comparable to freshman admits.</p>
<p>It gives someone that may have screwed up in high school a second chance to go to a great school. Besides, it's a cheaper alternative for the student. </p>
<p>Transfer students are also more focused and more mature, IMHO.</p>
<p>ParentTrap:</p>
<p>Surely, as a CPA, you don't really believe that the University of Michigan, or any other public school for that matter, can wave a magic wand and replace $320 million in revenue by reducing the size of the student body, do you? How would you make those numbers work? Please be specific.</p>
<p>Your example about razing a building ... well ... I do not ever recall being in any faculty meeting, anywhere, where everyone was complaining about having too much space. Buildings do get razed, but only when they can be replaced with larger and newer buildings. That costs money.</p>
<p>The Big10 model feeds on size. The size of the faculty brings in research dollars and allows for more grad students to be the serfs doing a lot of that research. The size of the student body supports a huge number of departments and programs, which have faculty, who get grants. Saying that Michigan should downsize is like saying that Microsoft would be better off shrinking itself so that it can focus only on operating systems.</p>
<p>Now, to your question about the amount of influence a state legislature should have as state support shrinks, I have strong opinions about that. I think that influence should shrink to zero when funding reaches zero or near zero. I suspect that is pretty much what will happen, naturally, if funding continues to shrink.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but we are talking about 3100 transfers a year
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If I'm not mistaken, that's 3100 transfers accepted; far fewer actually attend (~42%, I think).</p>
<p>
[quote]
If they included the transfer students in their statistical profile, that would probably reduce my cynicism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Consider that the acceptance rate for transfer students is ~30%, lower than most colleges and barely above Berkeley's usual acceptance rate. Do you think that those transfer students would dramatically change the statistical profile, if at all? I don't think so. (Berkeley is very selective, even with its transfers.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
That would likely cut the amount of applications they receive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In all honestly, I don't mind if this happens. The UCs right now are way overloaded, whereas some of the lower CSUs are empty.</p>