the era of public university privatization
Olderwoman has written a fascinating post on Scatterplot about the political conflict brewing (or boiling over perhaps) in Madison as the UW-Madison contemplates separating itself from the larger Wisconsin university system. The move would allow them to raise tuition and would grant the university some autonomy from the state. Of course, the change is complicated by the current, messy politics of Wisconsin and is made even messier, as OW describes in her post, by the conflicts of interest that faculty have as citizens who typically support more progressive policies while also being stakeholders in a research institution striving to maintain its elite status. Here’s a highlight from her post:
As I have debated this issue with grad students (who are mostly lined up in opposition to the plan), I have been trying to unravel the threads of interest involved. The students tend to emphasize concerns about tuition. Issues of access and affordability are real ones. They are issues now, as state funding continues to decline. All predictions about how this issue would play out under different structures are entirely hypothetical. One group argues that to change from being a public university is to give up forever on the idea of more tax dollar subsidies for tuition. Another group argues that the only way to increase affordability is to raise tuition simultaneously with raising financial aid — effectively to charge a sliding scale that depends on family income; people who advocate this disagree about which structure is most likely to do this. As that is all hypothetical, that particular debate is solely one of opinions.
But the whole tuition debate — one I am sympathetic to as a progressive — cuts entirely differently from the issue of what is good for an elite research university. If my goal is access to high quality education for youth of modest means, wouldn’t I just stop funding an elite research university entirely? Wouldn’t that access goal be better met with an institution staffed by lower-paid faculty teaching three or four courses a semester than by an institution staffed by higher-paid faculty whose major interest and time commitment is to their research/scholarship? The trend at elite schools is toward inequality: higher and higher salaries for the high-performing research faculty, and more and more teaching done by lower paid adjunct faculty.
One core value question is whether you support the idea of an elite research institution or not. Should there be major public research institutions at all? And if so, what does it take to maintain them? Can an elite research university survive with an egalitarian ethos in the face of competition from the unapologetic elitist private institutions?
These are great questions that cut to the core of one of the biggest issues facing public higher education institutions. As Fabio wrote last month, we seem to be entering a new era of public-private university hybridization. Competitive forces and a lack of public funding are pushing public institutions to seek a semi-privatized model. The University of Michigan is already there. For the most part, there isn’t much of a difference between Michigan and most private universities in the way they run their books. Because Michigan doesn’t rely on state resources for revenue, it has been able to maintain its elite status quite nicely even as the state government around it has weakened considerably. Berkeley is moving in this direction as well.
Current students hate the idea of semi-privatization because it typically means higher tuition and it violates our egalitarian preferences. However, the value of a public university education may significantly decline in the future if these institutions don’t develop other sources of revenue. Faculty retention and recruitment, building research labs, etc. all require resources that states are just not willing or are unable to fork over anymore. As an alumnus of a public university sociology department, I’ve unfortunately had some first-hand experience with the consequences of a sudden shortage of state funding. In short, it sucks. Public universities need to find creative solutions to this problem before they lose their elite status. It may suck, but it’s the reality.
[...] the era of public university privatization « orgtheory.net [...]
links for 2011-04-28 | KevinBondelli.com: Youth Vote, Technology, Politics
April 28, 2011 at 6:30 pm
perhaps the hybridization plan offered goes under the category of “second-best but politically possible solutions.” it’d be better to fight for more funding – though there is the question of where the money will come from (soak the rich!)?
i’m recently graduated from college, but i wonder what college will be like for my kids (if i have any)
Andrew
April 28, 2011 at 6:41 pm
This touches on the big question — should tax money go to subsidize high end knowledge creation, your art critics, theorists and such? Or should that be left to elite private institutions while the publics just teach — as was more or less the case until the rise of the state universities in the ’60s? What is the case?
Claude
April 28, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Drastic change seldom materializes, though change is in and of nature. Some institutional structures – such as a Silicon Valley corporation – thrive with change. State universities have a different model: In 100 years we have gone from the steamship to the spaceship, but education still consists of a person in front of a board lecturing to a passive array of listeners. Computers have made little difference: online instructors assign more work to the individual while discussions devolve into tweets. If classes are only certifications for self-study, why bother with professors at all? Just go straight to incremental licensing exams administered by Kaplan or the College Boards.
Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus would adapt well to the modern university. The institution will be with us for centuries to come. What it looks like at the detail level in 25 years may seem alien to us today.
Michael E. Marotta
April 28, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Claude – Yes, that is a good big question. I think most us/orgtheory readers are inclined to say that the government should subsidize such high end knowledge creation, but of course I would say that because I’m an academic. I don’t know what most taxpayers think.
In the abstract a lot of people seem willing to say that they think the government should get out of the business of funding anything (unless you’re talking about tax breaks and then they’re open to indirectly fundings lots of stuff), but when you get down to specifics, people change their minds quickly. Would a libertarian who was a philosophy major be okay with seeing their major shut down at the public university they graduated from?
In trying to save public universities maybe we should do more lobbying of alumni from public universities. Politicians might be more likely to fund those schools if they know their electorate cares about the creation of that high end knowledge.
brayden king
April 29, 2011 at 4:45 pm
First, the faculty at UW Madison are strongly behind the Chancellor on separating the Madison campus (based on resolutions in the faculty senate, etc.). The University gets about 15% of its funding from the state and this separation will free it from some inefficient state bureaucracy to allow it to act more like the private institution it effectively is.
Tuition will go up but it is not clear that it will go up any more than it would have gone up anyway since we are in competition with other Universities. Also, as the blog points out, there has been a significant increase in financial aid to help people to modest means so the University will never be off limits.
The rest of the UW system relies much more heavily on State funding (few research grants, exec ed, etc.). As such, the rest of the system cannot afford to separate from the State in the same fashion. Also, the rest of the system follows the model that OW describes (lower paid faculty teaching more courses and lower tuition).
Regarding the public funding of elite research institutions, as I mentioned, state funding is a relatively small part of the UW-Madison budget. Research gets funded through development or grants which are competitive in nature and weigh different possible projects (and, hopefully, gravitate to the most promising ones).
My point is that research institutions — even state Universities — are effectively privately funded. It seems to me like the issue is moot for the most part.
RussCoff
May 2, 2011 at 1:14 pm
As a commenter on Scatterplot noted, state tax dollars do or can subsidize research to the extent that they pay for faculty to have lower teaching loads for the purpose of having time for research. Not all research gets external funding, and external funding is relatively rare in the humanities and humanistic social sciences. Lower faculty teaching loads for higher salaries IS a research subsidy. Undergraduate tuition subsidizes faculty research and graduate education at elite high-tuition universities.
olderwoman
May 4, 2011 at 12:10 pm