If you don’t live under a rock — that is to say, if you don’t have classes exclusively in Evans Hall — then you’ve probably been following our campus’s perennial protests against tuition hikes. For years, demonstrators have rallied on Sproul Plaza, occupied buildings, vandalized landmarks and disrupted regents meetings in the name of fighting against the privatization of the University of California.
Indeed, “privatization” has been one of the movement’s favorite buzzwords, used to conjure up images of a conspiracy by the corporatist regents to rob every student of their last penny. Perhaps the clearest manifestation of the slogan’s popularity is the UC Movement for Efficient Privatization. As a satirical subdivision of the demonstrators, UCMeP’s website sarcastically calls for “the swift and efficient privatization of the University of California.”
It seems as if every apparition of this buzzword carries the same underlying assumption that privatization is evil. But this fundamentally stands in conflict with how we live our everyday lives. After all, most of the goods and services we buy and use are private, as markets provide for food, clothing, shelter and technology in an incredibly efficient manner. So, what makes education so exceptional?
Every intelligent Cal student should examine the presumptions being barked from that ever-so-annoying megaphone on Sproul Plaza before jumping on the protest bandwagon. Namely, why would the privatization of our University of California, Berkeley necessarily be a bad thing?
Having read my question, dear reader, you may think that I’ve radically gone off my rocker. Perhaps I have. This article ends my two-semester tenure as the Daily Cal’s political columnist, after all. So, I figured I could either finish with another sappy, self-congratulatory column about free speech or go out with a bang. Fortunately, for your entertainment I’ve chosen the latter. As music legend Neil Young once crooned, “It’s better to burn out than fade away.”
Let’s burn this bitch.
The root of stigma surrounding privatization is the assumption that tuition at an autonomous UC would be astronomically higher without public funding. After all, 28 percent of UC Berkeley’s budget comes from California state support. Without this source, opponents would argue, our campus’s operating costs would be shifted onto students in the form of higher tuition.
However, empirical evidence suggests otherwise. There are many private universities in America today that are both cheaper to attend than UC Berkeley and just as academically excellent. A recent article by the Bay Area News Group, for example, found that “a family of four — married parents, a high-school senior and a 14-year-old child — making $130,000 a year” would spend $17,000 to send their child to Harvard, compared to $19,500 at UC Berkeley. The same goes for Princeton, Williams College and Yale.
Granted, many of these elite universities enjoy enormous endowments that make our $3.15 billion pale in comparison. But, at the same time, UC Berkeley as a larger school doubtlessly has a larger alumni network to tap into. Ironically, one of the greatest discouragements for alumni donating to our school today is precisely its public funding. After all, a Cal alumnus residing in-state may figure that he or she is already “donating” through taxes, so why ring up the bill even higher?
Fortunately, our campus has repeatedly proven that it can count on private donors to make up for lost state funding. Not only has UC Berkeley stepped up its donation solicitations over the past few years, raking in $283.35 million in 2011, but major campus programs have also been made and saved by private funds. The newly opened Li Ka Shing Center for Biomedical and Health Sciences was constructed primarily by private funds, with only $53 million of the project’s $257 million total coming from the state.
Furthermore, Cal’s baseball, rugby, women’s gymnastics and women’s lacrosse teams were saved from elimination last year precisely by such philanthropy. So why exactly couldn’t a private UC Berkeley, as one of the world’s most respected institutions of higher education, find more sources to make up for state slashes without shifting the costs to students?
All right, it’s about time I take off my trollface. I ultimately don’t think that a private UC Berkeley would or should be a reality anytime soon, mostly because abandoning the university’s public mission for “Undergraduate programs (to be) available to all eligible California high-school graduates and community college transfer students” would be a breach of contract with taxpayers. However, as our campus continues to face cuts from a bankrupt state, we should embrace philanthropy for reinvigorating UC Berkeley in its time of trouble instead of shunning it with delusions of privatization.
One instance of shunning in my mind is the stigma surrounding out-of-state students. As fellow Daily Cal writer and Vermont resident Jordon Bach-Lombardo explained in a January article, many “voices preach that out-of-state students steal places in university classrooms from deserving Californian students.” Unfortunately, this xenophobia is only bound to increase with the UC Office of the President having announcing last week that out-of-state admissions increased by five percent for the incoming freshman class.
Such interstate hate is both discourteous and hypocritical. It is discourteous in the sense that out-of-state students pay more than double than in-state students do to attend our university, thus subsidizing the education of us Californians. It is hypocritical in the sense that many of the same people who would defend illegal immigrants’ rights to participate in our state’s social programs are suddenly decrying the same situation when a different class of foreigners wants to attend public schools reserved for “real Californians.”
Rather, we should welcome students, immigrants and investors willing to bring their labor, talents and wallets to the Golden State. Because if our university can survive its current budget-cutting catastrophe, it will more likely be through the private investment and innovation that make markets thrive than the public petitioning of a bankrupt state that could care less.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
Yeah — privatization worked great for the economy. We should try it here, too.
Tony M needs to get laid.
I see my little stalker puppy changed his handle again. But I see you had to let everyone know that YOU got laid. Maybe you will be in a better mood when your asshole stops hurting?
Actually I am just Pathos, Progressive Thinker, and ZComwiz. I don’t know Pooponurface, but he seems insightful. Anyways, I’m waiting for your real response to my last comment.. I thought we didn’t respond to every random little comment anyways?
[I don't have a problem with that. I was simply stating that it was the private institutions that have pet projects on campus: not the liberal agenda.]
Like most lefties, you’re not even honest to admit that your intent is to use the university system for social indoctrination vs. producing an educated, economically productive citizenry.
[Although, many liberals do donate towards those causes.]
Obviously not, if you need to twist the arm of a private company such as BP to spend money on funding “diversity studies” and other sorts of crap.
[Show me an minority from the lowest socio-economic rung in Oakland who
has been able to overcome their plight and join us here at Berkeley. ]
I know plenty of minorities from refugee camps in places such as southeast Asia who overcame their plight, as well as people from other corners of the globe – and they didn’t have the home-court advantage of already being citizens who could speak English. Come on now, slavery in the USA has been over for nearly a century and a half already. How come people who have fared far worse and far more recently in history done better?
[WHEREAS CAUCASIANS HAVE NOT BEEN THROUGH SUCH INEQUITIES.]
Tell that to the surviving relations of the 10-15 million Jews, most of them Caucasians, who were butchered by people just like you – snivelers looking for scapegoats as to why their own groups didn’t do as well as others. More innocent people were slaughtered in a week in Auschwitz or Dachau than all the blacks lynched in the last 150 years in the US. Yet, how many Jewish people show the same level of dysfunctionality as your typical “under-represented” group, where half of the kids walking the street were born to parents who didn’t even bother to show some semblance of responsibility, either using contraception beforehand or getting married and taking care of their own family?
[That said, abuse of any system is always a possibility, but, like most things, Welfare abuse is not the norm, but rather the exception.]
You really have no clue.
[Just because they are not properly indoctrinated in our society does not mean that you can attribute that to personal flaws.]
Only a lefty would consider having personal responsibility and a work ethic as the product of “indoctrination”.
This is your masterpiece Tony. Keep up the good work, I enjoy trolling the lefties on the Daily Cal with you
[Like most lefties, you're not even honest to admit that your intent is to use the university system for social indoctrination vs. producing an educated, economically productive citizenry.]
Actually, you are stipulating something that I did not even mention. I did not say the University didn’t have flaws. In my view, the University should provide a means to study a wide variety of topics. One of the major draw backs is that it does create militarized people (future doctors/ lawyers/ businessmen of America) into the workforce who are not self actualized. You are merging two separate ideas. Where I am stipulating that some form of better indoctrination in our society is needed is in the poor communities whereby the culture is not conducive to being productive members of society.
Again, I would stipulate that the University should produce educated people. I would not place an economic value on their studies though. There are too many factors necessary for innovation to stifle people and force them to not explore their world around them. Economics does not create new innovations as quickly as an incubator of all ideas and thought, which is what the University is/ should be.
[Obviously not, if you need to twist the arm of a private company such as BP to spend money on funding "diversity studies" and other sorts of crap.]
Just like BP has contingencies on their donated money, it is fair to ask for the same. Remember, we talked about how corporations, especially BP, tax our infrastructure and our environment far more than they pay for through taxes. The very minimum they could do is fund other programs at a university that is building their next big thing. That said, I don’t know where your information about funding “diversity studies,” is coming from.
[I know plenty of minorities from refugee camps in places such as southeast Asia who overcame their plight, as well as people from other corners of the globe - and they didn't have the home-court advantage of already being citizens who could speak English. Come on now, slavery in the USA has been over for nearly a century and a half already. How come people who have fared far worse and far more recently in history done better?]
Please read my post more carefully. I am well aware of immigrants overcoming hardship and making it in America. However, you neglect the fact that their culture is a main driver of that. We have the wrong culture and environment in our country in these poorer communities that breeds these vicious circles aforementioned. In the case of immigrants overcoming refugee camps: 1. you don’t need to lecture me, my grandmother escaped Nazi germans in WWII, 2. It’s not the same thing.
What I mean is this: they always had the escapist mentality and the mentality of perseverance. We are not breeding that same mentality in these problem communities. It’s a different world. I know that is a hard concept to realize: that people who seemingly have been persecuted more have a greater chance of making it in America than the forgotten vicious circle communities, but it makes logical sense. If you don’t change the dynamic and pestilence in these communities, how can you expect them to even know about the outside world. The schools are poor, the culture dictates (in these communities) that education is nonessential/ not the desired path. But like I said, you can show me all the immigrants you want, but in order to prove your point: that everyone, through effort, can make it: show me the % of people who come from these communities who overcome their environments. The numbers are dwindling. You think they are lazy. I think the culture and environments they live in are fucked.
[Tell that to the surviving relations of the 10-15 million Jews, most of them Caucasians, who were butchered by people just like you - snivelers looking for scapegoats as to why their own groups didn't do as well as others. More innocent people were slaughtered in a week in Auschwitz or Dachau than all the blacks lynched in the last 150 years in the US. Yet, how many Jewish people show the same level of dysfunctionality as your typical "under-represented" group, where half of the kids walking the street were born to parents who didn't even bother to show some semblance of responsibility, either using contraception beforehand or getting married and taking care of their own family?]
Hey asshole, my grandparents were in the Holocaust. By Caucasians, I should have probably stipulated “Anglo-Saxan Americans.” Sorry for the confusion. However, you should look up the White Flight which occurred in the 1950s when the Whites (Anglos) left the inner cities and moved to suburbia (which was subsidized for them). Check out the criteria of the HOLC loan ratings. Race was one of the factors that demoted an area. Guess what happened? African Americans were left in the inner cities; funds were siphoned off to the new suburbs; education in the inner cities dwindled; urban pestilence arose. Do a bit of research on the topic. Get back to me.
[Only a lefty would consider having personal responsibility and a work ethic as the product of "indoctrination".]Since when did the term lefty mean “A logical human being of sound mind and reason.” OF COURSE indoctrination into society stipulates work ethic. If you are not taught in school to study hard, work hard, or basic principles of society, what do you think would happen? I think we would have a lot more Thoreau’s running around and fending for themselves. Likewise, that is what happens in these communities. They do what they need to survive. If we can change the mentality of selling drugs to working for that masters degree, then we indoctrinate them into society. Indoctrination. Inviting them to join our society and be productive.. That is a bad thing why?=
The kids are afraid of privatization because they have yet to understand that for most of them, what they study is of zero economic value to anybody. They want the state to continue to prop up the facade.
Fake degrees to get fake jobs earning fake money.
That doesn’t make logical sense. Privatization and the value of one’s major are separate topics. Your response is unreasonably hostile and unfounded. Economic Value is derived by demand. If an individual wants to study something that is obscure, that is their right.
As an entrepreneur, I respect all majors as they all serve a function in their own right. Who are you to say that a science major is greater than a study of art or vice versa? That’s my job when I decide whether or not I need someone with those skills at my company.
What I don’t respect are trolls on forums who spurt out criticism on whole groups of people and assert things that aren’t founded (hot air).
Also, just as a reference, UC Berkeley has developed many things that benefit private industry and military functions as a Public university.
What is fake money? Eh. You pollute with ignorance and hostility and should be ashamed.
[As an entrepreneur, I respect all majors as they all serve a function in
their own right. Who are you to say that a science major is greater
than a study of art or vice versa? That's my job when I decide whether
or not I need someone with those skills at my company.]
Fine, but at the same time, if individuals of a given major are disproportionately unemployed, should the taxpayers OR private corporations be coerced into providing funding for programs that certainly don’t have much economic justification, especially when the state and the UC system are in a financial predicament such as at present?
In any case, the current flap over “privatization” has NOTHING to do with concerns that private corporations are going to somehow take over the UC system, or any philosophical objections to those same private corporations funding education or research activities. The issue isn’t about funding, it’s about CONTROL. The lefties are happy to FORCE private enterprise to provide additional funding to the UC system. What they simply can’t accept is that companies that make such contributions set conditions (naturally) on how such money is spent, which is unacceptable to your typical left-winger, who thinks he or she can better determine how that money is spent. The so-called “progressives” want it both ways: they want the corporate money (either voluntarily or involuntarily), but want to divert the money into their pet projects and pet agendas (various and sundry racial/ethnic grievance and political action programs) while simultaneously taking credit for the funding. This is the type of hypocrisy that many of us find objectionable.
Well, let’s actually look at the facts. BP invested $500 million into a “pet project” that is supposed to find alternative energy sources here at Berkeley. However, they reserve rights on the intellectual property that is discovered.
“Lefties” don’t control the money that is donated. However, what you are confused with is that there are programs that work to ease the disproportionate equity that is given to certain races/ people due to embedded socio-economic factors in our society. If HOLC and redlining (a primary cause of the discrepancy in socio-economic backgrounds of these individuals) were institutionalized by the government, then the logical conclusion would be to provide a reverse program to counteract them. (It’s either that or admit that you don’t actually care that certain groups of people have an advantage over other groups of people.)
The problem is that from the Libertarian standpoint, a free market will allow all to have their share of the pie if they work hard or smart. The problem lies in the fact that we do not all get the same opportunities due to environmental factors (that may be caused by government or private interests or simply chance).
Thus, a vicious circle is created in these poor communities. A force must be present to break these circles and it is the responsibility of the society that placed those burdens on these groups.
By the way, when has the “LEFT” twisted the arm of the private sector to fund UC programs? That seems like a typical fox news headline.
But you know what? The private sector HAS A RESPONSIBILITY to fund our education or to supplement our infrastructure on two fronts:
1. They utilize a citizen workforce, use government paved roads, and utilize our infrastructure far more than their taxes cover. Thus, it is only fair to ask that they contribute back or cover their costs. That’s a free market principle and a rather Right wing idea. People who use our infrastructure should pay for it.
2. Supplementing our education is just good business. They need a talented workforce. Our education system is in such a state of disrepair that it has become an issue of National Security. The skills needed to do most jobs are becoming more intricate, yet a workforce that can meet those needs is shrinking.
That said, this is a somewhat free society and as such, if a person wants to pay their tuition and pursue an unpopular major, that is their right. It’s hardly being subsidized by public capital or private financing. What ISN’T right is pushing the burden of entertainment (something that is not a core mission of our University) on tax payers or private investors who do not wish to subsidize a $930 million (*post serviced bonds) stadium or off the charts coach salaries. That would be considered a corrupt allocation of funds as it does not meet our core-mission of furthering knowledge.
Which brings me to the last point to respond to your question: [ In that case, should the taxpayers OR private corporations be coerced into providing funding for academic programs that certainly don't have much economic justification, especially when the state and the UC system are in a financial predicament already?]
Yes. They should. Our institution is not one that is supposed to further private interests or economic factors. We are supposed to foster the acquisition of knowledge and research to advance society. The private sector may run parallel to this philosophy, but does not provide a way to advance sectors that are not directly economically beneficial or foster the bottom-line, but may improve society otherwise.
This is a commonwealth goal that a modern society should strive for. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is important because as any good businessman knows: you never know the value of a discovery or an idea. These ideas may be unimportant on their own, but, after merging a seemingly unimportant idea or piece of knowledge to another, you may find something important. Thus, in order to innovate, you must foster creativity as a society.
[Well, let's actually look at the facts. BP invested $500 million into a
"pet project" that is supposed to find alternative energy sources here
at Berkeley. However, they reserve rights on the intellectual property that is discovered.]
And you have a problem with that? Why?
["Lefties" don't control the money that is donated. However, what you are confused with is that there are programs that work to ease the disproportionate equity that is given to certain races/ people due to embedded socio-economic factors in our society. ]
In other words, you want to divert money from what BP intends to do to push your own sociopolitical agenda, which is exactly what I said. If you think such crap is SO freaking important, why don’t you get together with all your wealthy liberal/progressive/Democrat buddies (Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, and all the Hollywood entertainment/media crowd) and donate your OWN money to your OWN cause? It’s not like conservatives are the only ones with money out there…
[The problem lies in the fact that we do not all get the same opportunities due to environmental factors (that may be caused by government or private interests or simply chance).
Thus, a vicious circle is created in these poor communities. A force must be present to break these circles]
There IS a force available already. It’s called EFFORT. Plenty of people have come to this country poor and made something of themselves through a bit of work and perseverance. Time from some of the long-time net recipients of the taxpayer-funded social welfare system to get off their asses and do likewise.
While I would love to quibble with you, I don’t have the time. However, I will address your response.
[And you have a problem with that? Why?]
I don’t have a problem with that. I was simply stating that it was the private institutions that have pet projects on campus: not the liberal agenda. The only problem I do have with it is that eventually UC funds will take over when the $500 million dries up and BP would still have rights to the intellectual property. I don’t want a publicly funded private subsidiary on campus.
In response to your second point, since the first point was a tangential off of the misconception about the first point, I can’t justify that. However, I would say that it’s not something that any party or private interest should be responsible for: It’s society’s burden as society enforced it. Although, many liberals do donate towards those causes.
Lastly, to address your libertarian talking point of [There IS a force available already. It's called EFFORT. Plenty of people have come to this country poor and made something of themselves through a bit of work and perseverance. Time from some of the long-time net recipients of the taxpayer-funded social welfare system to get off their asses and do likewise.]
Show me an minority from the lowest socio-economic rung in Oakland who has been able to overcome their plight and join us here at Berkeley. You’ll be hard pressed. There is a reason for that. When society does not provide a proper K-12 education or foster the proper culture in the problem communities, it is impossible to overcome the problems. It’s easy for a suburban kid or non-minority to judge others as being lazy when they can’t understand their plight. Part of being a human is having empathy.
You can assume that most immigrants who come here grew up with a different culture that isn’t fostered in these pockets poverty in the states (WHICH, AGAIN, WAS INSTITUTIONALIZED, WHEREAS CAUCASIANS HAVE NOT BEEN THROUGH SUCH INEQUITIES. I am caucasian, but you can’t keep denying facts).
Lastly, I agree that welfare is out of control. However, I wouldn’t suggest disbanding it. Rather, it should be audited. Welfare and medicare are generally good ideals, but I dislike the abuse of the system just as much as you.
That said, abuse of any system is always a possibility, but, like most things, Welfare abuse is not the norm, but rather the exception.
I would close on the fact that you can’t say that whole groups of people are lazy or that they don’t exert effort. There are clear pockets of people who suffer from the same plight and it would be illogical to assume that all of them are lazy. Just because they are not properly indoctrinated in our society does not mean that you can attribute that to personal flaws. Society, culture, and environmental factors dictate a lot of how we develop. Clearly, this is a front to combat in these communities. Hate and ignorance won’t make society better though. Don’t discount things that you can’t conceptualize.
” The problem lies in the fact that we do not all get the same opportunities due to environmental factors”
So that means we would push for 5’3″ players in the NBA, dumpy, overweight cardaic risks for firemen, and borderline retards at Cal, just to be more “fair”? Liberal logic in action.
You are confusing genetics and environmental factors. No one said you shouldn’t hire those most apt for a position. People should be given the same societal opportunities though (Different from personal skills/ abilities).
”Your response is unreasonably hostile and unfounded…. You pollute with ignorance and hostility and should be ashamed.”
Sounds like someone hit a nerve. Fact of the matter is that most people who aren’t on the far left end of the political spectrum don’t view social indoctrination as the primary mission of the UC system. Instead, they view it as a place where young men and women who show the prerequisite ability and dedication can gain knowledge and develop skills that will allow them to lead economically productive lives, improving their own lot as well as those in the community around them. By that standard, there are certainly a disproportionate number of programs and courses of study that fail to achieve those goals due to the fact that students in those program fail to learn any marketable skills. Not that that bothers people who would rather stuff empty skulls full of their own propaganda, but companies such as BP would like to see some benefit from their own investment, and RIGHTLY place certain stipulations on where such money is spent. That simply pisses your type off to no end, because your own narcissism and arrogance lead you to (mistakenly) believe that you can make a better determination of where that money should be spend than any potential employer.
“If an individual wants to study something that is obscure, that is their right.”
Likewise, it’s the right of both taxpayers and corporate contributors to have some voice and decision in where educational funds are spent, instead of being goat-roped into paying the bills for every student who wants to waste 4 years of his time playing “college” and winding up with a degree that won’t even increase his/her earning power to pay off the interest on the student loans. The college tuition bubble is about to burst, and the state of California is broke. Time for college students to learn the difference between recreational activities and studying something useful.
Hey Stan, before you comment, why don’t you:
a. Read all the comments.
b. Read the comment that you are replying to fully.
My “type” is that of an entrepreneur, as in the CEO of two companies. If anyone (between me and you) is going to do any hiring or job creating, it’s me.
If you read the comments below, you will see where I have a problem with BP. I don’t mind them funding a project on campus that benefits them. However, the amount of $500 million dries up quickly when you burn through it. The program would still continue after. Thus, UC $ would be spent on the studies at their pet project facility AND BP would still own the discoveries made.
Again, I could reply to the last part of your statement, but I think if you look below at all the comments, we have already addressed that issue. I love how the Right will be quick to jump behind private interests, but when it comes to real business practices, they don’t actually know what their talking about. We talked about how creativity is essential for innovation and how private interests don’t fund things that are not directly profitable.
By the way, if you are a donor, you can direct where your money is spent on campus to a degree, so knock off the bullshit about private interests being forced to fund off shoot studies or what-have-you. You’re spurting out nonsense not backed up by facts.
I read all the comments, however I see no need to respond to every silly blathering remark, as I prefer to stick to the central point in the discussion. I am quite aware that donors can direct their funding as desired, which is exactly what the whiners are complaining about in the first place when they bleat and whimper about “privatization”.
The figures below are based on an analysis of 2011 Current Population Survey data by Northeastern University researchers and supplemented with material from Paul Harrington, an economist at Drexel University, and the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank. They rely on Labor Department assessments of the level of education required to do the job in 900-plus U.S. occupations, which were used to calculate the shares of young adults with bachelor’s degrees who were “underemployed.”
About 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years. In 2000, the share was at a low of 41 percent, before the dot-com bust erased job gains for college graduates in the telecommunications and IT fields.
Out of the 1.5 million who languished in the job market, about half were underemployed, an increase from the previous year.
Broken down by occupation, young college graduates were heavily represented in jobs that require a high school diploma or less.
In the last year, they were more likely to be employed as waiters, waitresses, bartenders and food-service helpers than as engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians combined (100,000 versus 90,000). There were more working in office-related jobs such as receptionist or payroll clerk than in all computer professional jobs (163,000 versus 100,000). More also were employed as cashiers, retail clerks and customer representatives than engineers (125,000 versus 80,000).
According to government projections released last month, only three of the 30 occupations with the largest projected number of job openings by 2020 will require a bachelor’s degree or higher to fill the position _ teachers, college professors and accountants. Most job openings are in professions such as retail sales, fast food and truck driving, jobs which aren’t easily replaced by computers.
College graduates who majored in zoology, anthropology, philosophy, art history and humanities were among the least likely to find jobs appropriate to their education level; those with nursing, teaching, accounting or computer science degrees were among the most likely.
Read more:
http://townhall.com/news/us/2012/04/22/1_in_2_new_graduates_are_jobless_or_underemployed
This disregards the fact that private investments come with private interests. Furthermore, there is a logical fallacy that alumni would donate more if there was not already tax revenue going towards the University.
1. We are, even with tax revenue, falling short in many places. Alumni have yet to cover the gap. Widening the gap doesn’t have the logical consequence of private alumni support.
2. Correlation is not causation. You cannot just assert that alumni do not donate because the institution receives public funding.
The concept of privatizing the top public institution in the world is an absurd notion. There are factors that differ between Public and Private institutions. Privatizing a public university is a step towards breaking down the Jeffersonian notion that education should be a right to all. As Jefferson so eloquently put it: “”An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”
While we should not ban private institutions as people should have a choice as to where they get their education from, we should provide an excellent public institution available to all.