Would Privatization Help Public Universities Excel?
The move would make colleges less dependent on state budgets but could limit access.
In a trend that parallels the "charter school" movement among public elementary schools, a number of colleges are seeking to semiprivatize.
These schools say they are tired of getting less money from state legislators. They want to seek additional revenues by setting, and keeping, their own tuition. They also want the freedom to enter into business arrangements without obeying many state rules.
But critics warn that semiprivatization could turn into a debacle for taxpayers and possibly the schools themselves. Privatized colleges tend to charge comparatively high tuition, which can price out low- and middle-income students. Still, the comparatively painless budget cuts imposed so far on the University of Virginia, the University of Michigan, and a few other big flagship universities that have been at least partly deregulated are attracting growing attention.
The University at Buffalo-SUNY is lobbying the New York legislature to let it raise its tuition and, unlike other State University of New York campuses, keep the money instead of sending some of it back to the state general fund. Without more funding, "pretty soon, quality goes out the window," Buffalo President John Simpson says.
But privatization's critics say the high tuitions charged by semiprivatized schools undermine access. "State-related" Penn State is ranked as one of the least affordable public universities in the country. At the University of Virginia, only about 8 percent of the students come from low-income families. At other fully public universities in Virginia, more than 20 percent of the students come from low-income families.
Some attempts to "privatize" have flopped. Miami University of Ohio raised its tuition to about $23,000 in 2004 and then tried to attract in-state students with "scholarships" that brought prices back down to below $11,000. But students were so frightened by the big numbers that enrollment fell. Miami abandoned its experiment in 2008. "We offered a lot of things to justify" that price, says Chuck Knepfle, Miami's head of financial aid. But "people are making very strict financial decisions."
Reader Comments
Private, Private,Private,Private,Private, what's with you !!!!!
Geeez..everyone is talking about "private" the better than the public ..what's with you ???? Once when there is a "private", there will be ALWAYS discrimination against miniorities, disabliteis, and so on.....
The reason for that is because They don't like them. They wanted perfect, inelligent, undumb Americans who can do the job done...This is not always the case...
Come on...quit thinking about "private" stuff....
Geeeez Man!
Facts Straight?
While the Common Application has been in effect for public universities since 2001-2, three years before Miami's Tuition Plan was implemented, it continues to grow in popularity. Therefore, the rise in applications, even 3 years later, can also be at least partly attributed to the Common Application. It often takes time for technology to catch on and I believe this is the case with the Common Application.
Let's Get the Facts Straight
The Common Application had been in effect for public universities since 2001-2, three years before Miami's Tuition Plan was implemented. As Garland noted, applications surged after the plan was adopted. In the first three years of the plan Miami U ranked 22, 26, and 21 in the US News ratings for public universities. In 2007 and 2008, the first two years after he retired, Miami ranked 27 and 26. In 2009, the year after the tuition plan was discontinued, Miami's ranking dropped to 34. This was coincident with a drop in admissions at the university that has contributed to layoffs and salary freezes.
Whether Garland was the "worst" or "best" president of the university depends on one's frame of reference. During his tenure, he changed the "Redskins" team nickname to "Redhawks", which endeared him to some alumni, angered others. He greatly toughened promotion and tenure standards and raised research expectations for faculty. This earned him praise among some faculty, but alarmed others. He adopted domestic partner benefits for the university, again, winning praise or scorn, depending on one's perspective. He also doubled the endowment, renovated much of the campus, and doubled student applications. There are many faculty and alumni who think he was an outstanding president.
advertisement
