(03-14-2021 11:39 PM)Statefan Wrote:  In North Carolina, and in much of the South and on the West Coast, the public university system is an economic development tool. Not so much in the northeast or Midwest.

The UNC system has 16 schools instead of 4 and that's why UNC and NC State only have half the population of a Big 10 school. The economic development value of about 1000 or more stable jobs out in bum foozle is pretty great. Contraction will not happen among the top 200 or so institutions in the US. Contraction will hit small liberal arts and schools in dying economic areas that are small. These will go first. HBCU's in the South are another issue because you touch one at your peril.

In much of the South you would need a change in the State Constitutions to make any significant changes.

Although I don’t disagree that it’s unlikely to occur, I do believe that a school like William & Mary would benefit from being private. It was private for its first 200+ years. It helped establish what are now VCU, ODU and Christopher Newport...it accomplished its 20th century development tasks. It has remained a relatively smaller elite university with strong liberal arts focus...W&M has not transitioned like other public Virginia institutions.

Fascinating debate. Oregon has also pushed for effective privatization because, among other things, the state took away their engineering school.

In fact, the percentage that states contribute to their higher education institutions have dwindled so much that for many privatization might be the only way they can survive (https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budg...students). This is especially true in states where they not only continue to cut funding to the universities, but WON'T let them raise tuition, either *cough*Florida*cough*. At a certain point, it might become prudent for states to develop a model where they instead offer a certain amount of tuition dollars per resident student that the students can then use to attend whatever state institution they wish, letting the universities then set their own tuition levels and figure out a way of operating exclusively on tuition/research income instead of counting on state infrastructure. At the very least, it might eradicate some of the administrative bloat that exists and lead to an elimination of the various vice presidents and associate deans that suck up exorbitant salary dollars without teaching a single class OR submitting a single research grant.

USFFan

(03-15-2021 11:36 AM)usffan Wrote:  Fascinating debate. Oregon has also pushed for effective privatization because, among other things, the state took away their engineering school.

In fact, the percentage that states contribute to their higher education institutions have dwindled so much that for many privatization might be the only way they can survive (https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budg...students). This is especially true in states where they not only continue to cut funding to the universities, but WON'T let them raise tuition, either *cough*Florida*cough*. At a certain point, it might become prudent for states to develop a model where they instead offer a certain amount of tuition dollars per resident student that the students can then use to attend whatever state institution they wish, letting the universities then set their own tuition levels and figure out a way of operating exclusively on tuition/research income instead of counting on state infrastructure. At the very least, it might eradicate some of the administrative bloat that exists and lead to an elimination of the various vice presidents and associate deans that suck up exorbitant salary dollars without teaching a single class OR submitting a single research grant.

USFFan

The state education department runs all the public schools. That means University of Oregon have to follow what rules that the state's education department sets up. If both Oregon and Oregon State go private? That means more money will be open up to give to Portland State, Western Oregon, Oregon Tech etc. It would be hard to go away from the state if the state holds the purse strings for the money for the research schools.

(03-15-2021 11:36 AM)usffan Wrote:  Fascinating debate. Oregon has also pushed for effective privatization because, among other things, the state took away their engineering school.

In fact, the percentage that states contribute to their higher education institutions have dwindled so much that for many privatization might be the only way they can survive (https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budg...students). This is especially true in states where they not only continue to cut funding to the universities, but WON'T let them raise tuition, either *cough*Florida*cough*. At a certain point, it might become prudent for states to develop a model where they instead offer a certain amount of tuition dollars per resident student that the students can then use to attend whatever state institution they wish, letting the universities then set their own tuition levels and figure out a way of operating exclusively on tuition/research income instead of counting on state infrastructure. At the very least, it might eradicate some of the administrative bloat that exists and lead to an elimination of the various vice presidents and associate deans that suck up exorbitant salary dollars without teaching a single class OR submitting a single research grant.

USFFan

Wasn't that like 100 years ago?

(03-13-2021 12:12 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-13-2021 11:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 06:29 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 11:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  From a public policy perspective, I don’t get why state governments are still providing funding and tax benefits to many higher-level “public” universities. IMO, Pennsylvania has it right with their treatment of Pitt, Penn State, etc.

It makes sense for governments to fund/subsidize community colleges...schools that are not selective and provide higher education to the general population. Elite public universities, such as UVA, have the foundations and resources to be financially independent. A lot of these universities could become private non-profits and effectively continue their missions.

On the other hand, Virginia taxpayer money has been going to UVa since it was founded, and given that the university isn't going to pay all that money back with interest, that's a pretty good argument for continuing to allow Virginia residents to attend UVa at a lower cost than non-residents have to pay.

Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought Pitt and Penn State still give some forms of preferential treatment to in-state Pennsylvania residents. Agree that UVA owes something to the Commonwealth...it is the flagship institution, it wants to attract a higher number of Commonwealth students. The difference is that the Governor and legislators won’t be demanding a strict quota percentage of residents...there will be a more nuanced negotiation.

The point is that the state should stop subsidizing the generally wealthier families. Elite, selective universities’ admissions naturally skew to the well-off...yet rich people don’t need the welfare.

It’s a delicate dance. From a pure social welfare perspective, you can argue it’s a more fair distribution of resources for more state money to go to regional schools and local community colleges. On the other hand, from an economic perspective, when states are trying to convince high growth companies with faster growing employment to open up offices, those companies focus very highly on the the types of areas where many flagships excel (e.g. engineering, computer science, accounting, etc.) and churn out a larger critical mass of those graduates than elite private universities. Look at where some of the highest growth metro areas for jobs that require a college degree: Austin, Raleigh-Durham, Denver-Boulder - these are all places where highly-rated flagships are directly within their metro areas.

Everyone also has a different definition of who is “rich” (which I think is where we get a lot of misinformed policy opinions on both sides of the aisle on a lot of issues). Let’s say that the upper middle class is defined as the top 20% of households on the income scale. That’s the statistically “wealthy” portion of the population that disproportionately sends their kids to flagship schools. However, that group is much more powerful than 20% of the population. First, they vote at much higher rates than lower income households, so they make up a much larger share of the voting population (e.g. closer to 30% of the electorate in Presidential election years and even higher percentages in lower turnout elections like midterm and municipal elections).

Not only that, this group disproportionately lives in the suburbs, which as we’ve seen in the last few election cycles is possibly the last place where there is a critical mass of actual 50/50 swing voters. These are people that generally don’t love higher taxes proposed by the left (because they don’t think of themselves as “rich” even though they might be statistically compared to the rest of the population) but also are increasingly turned off by the cultural positions of the right. So, this groups wields even more power than their already disproportionately higher electoral percentage because both parties need this specific group to win any election that’s close. Both parties’ conventions last year were almost completely programmed (and pretty blatantly) to target this specific group.

Anyway, this is a long winded way of saying that you do NOT win any friends as a politician with this portion of the electorate by shifting even more of the costs of flagship tuition on to them. It costs about $150,000 for 4 years of in-state tuition and room and board at the University of Illinois right now, so it’s already effectively a quasi-private university. Many other schools are in the same position. That’s a lot of money for most families even within the top 20% of the income spectrum for just one kid. Saving $300,000 for 2 kids is something that is challenging (impossible?) for anyone outside of the very top high income households... and once again, that’s *current* *in-state* *public* university tuition pricing. What the OP is stating has *already* happened.

Now, to be fair to those politicians (as much as they may not deserve it), this group can also talk out of both sides of its mouth sometimes. They’ll hammer you on any tax increases, but then also hammer you when their State U tuition bill jumps. It’s a very delicate dance with a fickle group that collectively wields a lot of electoral power.

Your points are mainly from a political perspective, rather than policy.

Agree completely that as state funding has been cut, elite publics have already transitioned to quasi hybrid models. I graduated from UVA in 1984...my final year’s in-state tuition was a very patriotic $1,776 (for the entire year). A few years later, I went to a private business school with tuition at $17,500...a ten-fold increase in tuition between somewhat comparable public and private tuitions. UVA’s in-state tuition rate is now only 3.3x the OOS/private rate.

The University probably couldn’t raise enough private funds to afford to buy the Grounds from the Commonwealth, even if it was inclined to sell. Financing new construction would also probably become more difficult without being able to rely, at least in part, on public bond financing. I think maintaining the veneer of a public institution is palatable to many folks, even if certain aspects of the school (Darden, the Law School) are essentially private entities already.

(03-12-2021 11:28 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Georgia Tech's enrollment has exploded through online information technology related offerings. They also have satellite campuses in France, Shanghai, and Savannah. That's the real growth path for Georgia Tech. Elite education offered worldwide at a reasonable price with no b******* non-STEM offerings. The obstacles for Georgia Tech to become a private are twofold. The first is the Georgia board of regents which is 50% incompetent and 50% lackeys for UGA. The other is part of privatization will likely be the requirement to buy back real estate assets from the state at market value. The value of Georgia Tech's real estate offerings given their location in midtown is absolutely enormous. We would be talking billions of dollars here.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

IMO, the Georgia Board of Regents seems like 50% incompetent (no argument there), 25% Governor Kemp's lackeys (don't care for the governor either), and maybe 25 UGa lackeys. As for the real estate, doesn't GT have a pretty big endowment???

FWIW, Temple and Pitt (fka "Western University of Pennsylvania") were private schools that ceded funding to the state beginning in the mid-1960's, but are not part of the state educational system as are the PSAC schools.

I suspect there are a number of legal impediments to privatizing a university, not the least of which is ownership of the endowment. Perhaps you could lease back the land and improvements but writing off an endowment is no small matter.

College of Charleston is pretty much a private school already. They get less than 10% of their money from the state.