A proposal that would allow the UCLA Anderson School of Management to move away from public funding will be voted on next Thursday, raising concerns about the possible privatization of other UC graduate programs.
The Legislative Assembly of the Academic Senate, Los Angeles Division, will vote next Thursday on the proposal, which would make the business school’s full-time Master of Business Administration program “self-sustaining.” If the proposal passes, it will be submitted to the university-wide Academic Senate and UC Office of the President for further review.
UC spokesperson Dianne Klein said in an email that professional schools like Anderson could benefit from altering their relationship with state funding and that the proposed shift would make Anderson a hybrid of public and private university models.
“(T)he proposed self-supporting MBA degree remains congruent with the mission of the University: a focus and commitment to the creation and application of knowledge to better the lives and well-being of those around us,” reads the proposal. “The self-supporting MBA program will be identical to the current state-supported program.”
However, according to Hans Johnson, senior policy fellow and Bren fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, the move shows that state public higher education is suffering, leaving graduate schools to pursue some dramatic options in order to protect themselves.
“(If a school stops using public funds), it won’t necessarily need to respond to public concerns,” Johnson said. “Access could become an issue. Public institutions have a charge to serve as many students as they can. Private institutions don’t.”
UCLA’s Graduate Council — the equivalent of the UC Berkeley Graduate Assembly — voiced similar concerns about access for nontraditional students, though Anderson representatives have responded by saying that most of the school’s students are nontraditional because they typically work for several years before enrolling.
If the Anderson proposal moves forward, it could lead other UC graduate programs to attempt to privatize, according to Johnson.
When the proposal first gained steam in 2010, Dean of UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business Rich Lyons said that Haas was not planning a similar move. According to Haas Media Relations Manager Pamela Tom, that position has not changed.
In a press release, Lyons does acknowledge that the Anderson proposal raises the question of whether Haas should make its full-time MBA program self-sustaining to match its part-time programs. In 2010, about 20 percent of the Haas budget was public funds, according to Lyons.
Despite the criticisms, Suzanne Shu, an assistant professor at the Anderson school, said she believes making the program self-sustaining would allow Anderson to compete with top business schools like Yale, Harvard and Stanford. This year, US News and World Report ranked Haas 7th and Anderson 15th among the nation’s graduate business schools.
“Gaining full control of our resources would allow Anderson to be seen in the same light as those other schools,” Shu said. “It sends a signal to prospective students that we’re competing with those private schools.”
Regardless of the possible benefits of moving away from public funding, Johnson cautions against viewing the change as a positive one.
“For the state, it’s students and even the state’s economy, no outcome (in going private) will lead to more opportunity or greater economic growth for state,” he said.
Christopher Yee is an assistant news editor.
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.
ERRATUM: The Graduate Council is not a student association, it’s a subcommittee of the faculty senate which includes a few students, but mostly faculty (Berkeley has it too:
http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/committees/gc)
The University should pay back property taxes for all the land they occupy!
Since the beginning of selling off public education’s land grant mission, the University has profited and gained from its property tax exemptions throughout the state. Now that the University is attempting to ground-lease certain lands for commercial uses, it will still profit from the leases even after property taxes, while desecrating its land grant function. The most recent statistic I read was that the University still is publicly funded by 11%. That’s 89% private funding. Where does this private funding come from?
I do not believe the Regents even have to pay for attorneys firms to represent them.
I would like to hear thoughts in the community about this. Please share.
I am assuming you are not a Cal student, because you are advocating a tax that would seriously increase the cost of going to Cal. I have no problem with land that is being sold becoming part of the property tax pool or even taxing leased land that is making a profit for the university. However, the university is the reason for Berkeley’s economic strength, and the city residents don’t often appreciate that fact.
Most of the private funding comes from tuition, government contracts, and sales. Sales include things like the campus dining facilities.
And they privatized state owned enterprises to survive and grow. The commies had it right.
“Anderson a hybrid of public and private university models” is questionable. California tax payers should avoid rash decisions and consider the consequences of slippery sloop to the “privatization” of our public schools/values.
Dont worry, non academic programs in race/gender/ethnic studies will not go private.
Take a guess why….
“Dont worry, non academic programs in race/gender/ethnic studies will not go private.”
Plenty of private colleges and universities have race/gender/ethnic studies departments.
But you didn’t guess why for Cal. FAIL
To what do you think that slippery slope will lead? The horror of a more stable education? Or the value system of a private school graduate like the President?
Going private would seem the smart move for the graduate school of business. The cost of a year at Cal in Haas for a resident is only a savings of a few thousand when compared to an out of state resident, which isn’t much when the cost is $75K plus a year. In return, the students will get a better program that is not subject to the whims of the legislature. I don’t really think Johnson is correct when he says that a private school would be less likely to respond to public concerns. The schools know more about public concerns that anyone on the legislature.
The reason is that the professional degree fee for Haas (and at the Law School) is higher for residents. These schools actually make more money from residents currently (the total tuition for nonresidents is higher, but the nonresident part goes straight to the central campus, not the school).
I noticed that. It is crazy that residents would pay a higher fee than non-residents, but there it is.
Is there any evidence that students will get a better program under the proposed scheme, as opposed to faculty paying themselves higher salaries?
I think your evidence would come from the current rankings of business schools, which show private MBA programs dominating. And not just current rankings. If you look back over the last couple of decades through good and bad economic times, the private schools have consistently dominated the rankings. They have developed quality programs that consistently excel even in rough academic times.
I love the public aspect of the UC that has helped to keep things affordable, while providing a quality education, but the legislature doesn’t share my love, and they make it very hard for the UC schools to stay at the top of their game.
Johnson is a fool. Anything to release a school from the Lib induced fiscal death spiral is good.
Bye bye High Tax Cali….take money and run….meanwhile Moonbeam yammers about more Taxes….TOTAL FAIL
California is known for more onerous taxes and regulations, and the Tax foundation shows similar trends of migration from there to other states like Texas and Arizona.
The Tax Foundation ranked the Golden State sixth highest in the nation for state and local tax burden in 2009.
Between 2000 and 2010, the most recent data available, 551,914 people left California for Texas, taking $14.3 billion in income. Texas has no state income tax or estate tax.
A total of 48,877 people moved to Texas from California between 2009 and 2010 alone, totaling $1.2 billion in income. Another 28,088 from California relocated to Nevada and 30,663 to Arizona, a loss of $699.1 million and $707.8 million in income respectively.
Overall, California had the most departures between 2009 and 2010 – 406,883 people, representing a loss of $10.6 billion in income. Over that year 365,763 people moved there, representing a net loss of 41,120 residents.
Since 2000 1.2 million more people have left California than have moved there, the second biggest net loss, after New York.
Libs continue to FAIL on Tax Policy….
Texas has a much higher property tax rates than California and the assessment value is the market value of the home.
http://www.davedowns.com/propertytaxes.htm
But your link shows that they have no income tax. For renters, Texas is a tax haven.