Why Not Privatize UW?

[GooooMarquette]

Ah I see. I don't disagree. IF you privatized UW, you'd want to ease into new pricing. There are plenty of ways to do this so as to not "shock" the market.

Of course, for a proper recommendation of exact pricing, you'd want to do a study on the willingness to pay, and price at or below that amount.

Agreed...but easing in would cost $$$.  Would they want to spend their endowment on going private?

[GGGG]

Agreed...but easing in would cost $$$.  Would they want to spend their endowment on going private?

Their endowment is mostly restricted so that the earnings may only be spent at donor direction.  It's not like a large savings account that can be drawn down.  Furthermore, that endowment only encompasses the Madison campus.

[GooooMarquette]

Their endowment is mostly restricted so that the earnings may only be spent at donor direction.  It's not like a large savings account that can be drawn down.  Furthermore, that endowment only encompasses the Madison campus.

Interesting.  That makes it even harder to fathom how they would subsidize the cost of easing their way from state tuition rates to private school rates.

[brandx]

There's gotta be way more with 20k+ students. I can think of 3 others off the top of my head. Harvard, Northwestern and Stanford.

Harvard & Northwestern just hit 20,000. Stanford quite a bit less.

[GGGG]

Interesting.  That makes it even harder to fathom how they would subsidize the cost of easing their way from state tuition rates to private school rates.

Right.  Which is why they would never "become private" in a manner similar to Marquette.  It isn't part of their mission anyway.  The whole point of public higher education is that the public decided that it was important for society at large to subsidize higher education for its citizens.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Right.  Which is why they would never "become private" in a manner similar to Marquette.  It isn't part of their mission anyway.  The whole point of public higher education is that the public decided that it was important for society at large to subsidize higher education for its citizens.

Not to be difficult but if that's the case, they should lower their admissions standards and let in as many as is possible to have access to a serviceable education. That Madison is taking any kind of pride in exclusivity (which is debatable), seems counter to that public service message. Kind of like the police starting to take pride in a reputation of only protecting the celebrities in a given town (like a VIP security service)... would be missing the point.

On the switch from public to private, it wouldn't be tough if there is a will to do it. Right now the state funds ~$500M per year to UW-Madison. If I were the Czar of Wisconsin I'd recommend the following:

1) Reduce the $500M to $200M over five years ($60M each year). Over that period, boost the tuition for students 20% per year over that period. Note that out of state kids are already willing to pay >$44k per year. This means that a UW degree has a market value of at LEAST $44k/year, so any amount charged below that is still a deal for in-state kids. However, by adjusting that mix gradually, it's not a gigantic shock to bring everyone toward a consistent $44k number.

2) That remaining $200M per year in state funding should still be used to benefit taxpayers. But instead of the entire state footing a half-a-billion dollars for 28,000 undergrads (Chances are your kid doesn't go to UW but you pay anyway) to get a discount regardless of merit or academic pursuit, I'd recommend an approach that, I believe, would provide a greater boost the economic benefit to the state as a whole: Subsidize degrees based on merit and degree demand. For example, the State could say, "The 100 top SAT scores admitted pay $22k/year," or, "Admitted students to UW who pursue biomedical engineering will pay $22k/year."

This is a more sensible incentive than state of residence. Currently, some meh student from Rhinelander gets subsidized ahead of a rockstar from Connecticut. Why? Wouldn't Wisconsin benefit more from attracting talent to the state than trying to retain anyone with a WI birth certificate?

Right now UW is forced to admit 2/3 of their class from the state of Wisconsin. Even IF it legitimately was as good as Havard, there is no way it could field talent to even come close to an elite school. Maybe 1/3 of the class (out of state kids) and the top 1% of WI kids may be up to that level out of high school, but then they are forced to take in 67 goddamn percent of their class from a single state. How do you expect to have a high-achieving, diverse, elite cohort with that limitation?

This goes for all states BTW - I'm not crapping on kids from Wisconsin. It's just math: you're not going to be able to field an incoming class at a top-ten university with 67% of them coming from any single state.

I know everyone has different opinions, but it seems to me that state universities should be seen less as community property and more of a 100-year Kickstarter. UW would not exist without the government funding and starting it. However, it will not be able to provide a GREATER value to Wisconsin taxpayers, and compete with the actual elite universities without being able to select talent from a wider pool, and be more independent altogether.

(Apologies for the multiple edits... Composed on an iPhone and not 100% right on first try!)

[HouWarrior]

Has any public university ever "gone private"?

On the surface, I would think more major public universities would want to simply for the autonomy, and I can think of several that would be better candidates than UW to make that happen (tOSU, Michigan, Purdue, Texas, TAMU, Cal/UCLA).  There's got to be a reason they haven't (or can't), and it may have less to do with public funding/financing than one would think.

I agree. I was pondering the same thing, and cant think of a single public university that has ever "gone private". The for profits would never do it--- Their business model works best with no brick and mortar...easier to profit online. Except for religions no not for profit could afford the huge buy in cost (UW faclilities are worth how many billions?), and religions dont access the publicly backed bond money source with which the schools are built or maintained. Remember in NW ordinance public land was apportioned for schools...back when the land was nearly free.

Autonomy is much greater in most univ. and it sounds like UW control issues are more of recent "political" aberration. Heck there have been decades of university support by states with little press or haggling. We dont have any big issues like UW with those in Texas. Even with the rich privates like Harvard and Yale their states still fund and support UMass and UConn.

The USA leads in quality university level education in the world. Hassles like the battling now over UW issues shouldnt tilt us away from permanent taxpayer supported universities ---it is key infrastructure for our competitive future

[keefe]

UCLA's Anderson School went private - eliminated public funding and raised tuition. Devil's in the details but certainly a manageable project.

[GGGG]

Not to be difficult but if that's the case, they should lower their admissions standards and let in as many as is possible to have access to a serviceable education. That Madison is taking any kind of pride in exclusivity (which is debatable), seems counter to that public service message. Kind of like the police starting to take pride in a reputation of only protecting the celebrities in a given town (like a VIP security service)... would be missing the point.

The problem is you are focusing only on one of the 13 four-year schools.  Less than a fourth of the students enrolled in the UW System are in Madison.  The other 12 four year schools have much more open policies, and the UW Colleges (2 year schools) are complete open enrollment with a two year degree.

So yes...Madison is more exclusive.  The others aren't.

[GGGG]

Not to be difficult but if that's the case, they should lower their admissions standards and let in as many as is possible to have access to a serviceable education. That Madison is taking any kind of pride in exclusivity (which is debatable), seems counter to that public service message. Kind of like the police starting to take pride in a reputation of only protecting the celebrities in a given town (like a VIP security service)... would be missing the point.

On the switch from public to private, it wouldn't be tough if there is a will to do it. Right now the state funds ~$500M per year to UW-Madison. If I were the Czar of Wisconsin I'd recommend the following:

1) Reduce the $500M to $200M over five years ($60M each year). Over that period, boost the tuition for students 20% per year over that period. Note that out of state kids are already willing to pay >$44k per year. This means that a UW degree has a market value of at LEAST $44k/year, so any amount charged below that is still a deal for in-state kids. However, by adjusting that mix gradually, it's not a gigantic shock to bring everyone toward a consistent $44k number.

2) That remaining $200M per year in state funding should still be used to benefit taxpayers. But instead of the entire state footing a half-a-billion dollars for 28,000 undergrads (Chances are your kid doesn't go to UW but you pay anyway) to get a discount regardless of merit or academic pursuit, I'd recommend an approach that, I believe, would provide a greater boost the economic benefit to the state as a whole: Subsidize degrees based on merit and degree demand. For example, the State could say, "The 100 top SAT scores admitted pay $22k/year," or, "Admitted students to UW who pursue biomedical engineering will pay $22k/year."

This is a more sensible incentive than state of residence. Currently, some meh student from Rhinelander gets subsidized ahead of a rockstar from Connecticut. Why? Wouldn't Wisconsin benefit more from attracting talent to the state than trying to retain anyone with a WI birth certificate?

Because one of the primary missions of the UW System, which includes UW-Madison, is to educate people from the state of Wisconsin.  Simply put, the tax payers of the state pay money so that its citizens can get that education.  Using your above numbers, each citizen pays about $35 on average to fund UW-Madison.  Why would they agree to do that if it wasn't primarily to educate students from their state?

But yes the state does benefit from getting students here from Connecticut, mostly because they pay more than it costs to educate them, which subsidizes in state students further.  The problem is that they usually don't stay in the state to generate economic activity after they graduate.

That being said, I agree with the concept in general that taking less money in exchange for freedom and less political interference, is a good idea in general.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Because one of the primary missions of the UW System, which includes UW-Madison, is to educate people from the state of Wisconsin.  Simply put, the tax payers of the state pay money so that its citizens can get that education.  Using your above numbers, each citizen pays about $35 on average to fund UW-Madison.  Why would they agree to do that if it wasn't primarily to educate students from their state?

But yes the state does benefit from getting students here from Connecticut, mostly because they pay more than it costs to educate them, which subsidizes in state students further.  The problem is that they usually don't stay in the state to generate economic activity after they graduate.

That being said, I agree with the concept in general that taking less money in exchange for freedom and less political interference, is a good idea in general.

Sounds like we would agree more than we disagree.

Also it would seem that the "elite" and "exclusive" labels claimed by our neighbors to the west are incompatible with the mission of providing a good education to the masses. If I have to pay for UW out of my tax dollars, but are unable to take advantage of that education for my kids, that's not a good deal for me.

I would suggest it would be a better deal to have an actual elite school in my state which attracts the best and brightest.

[GGGG]

Sounds like we would agree more than we disagree.

Also it would seem that the "elite" and "exclusive" labels claimed by our neighbors to the west are incompatible with the mission of providing a good education to the masses. If I have to pay for UW out of my tax dollars, but are unable to take advantage of that education for my kids, that's not a good deal for me.

You keep saying this.  But you are forgetting that UW-Madison is one of 13 schools in the System.  There are plenty of other places where your kid can go, including the two year campuses (not to mention the tech schools) who only require a high school diploma and that your check doesn't bounce.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with different schools within the System having different levels of access...as long as everyone has access.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

You keep saying this.  But you are forgetting that UW-Madison is one of 13 schools in the System.  There are plenty of other places where your kid can go, including the two year campuses (not to mention the tech schools) who only require a high school diploma and that your check doesn't bounce.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with different schools within the System having different levels of access...as long as everyone has access.

sure - so why would it matter if the top school broke off? UW becoming private wouldn't significantly change access to education in Wisconsin. Just it would be through UWM-on-down.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Because one of the primary missions of the UW System, which includes UW-Madison, is to educate people from the state of Wisconsin.  Simply put, the tax payers of the state pay money so that its citizens can get that education.  Using your above numbers, each citizen pays about $35 on average to fund UW-Madison.  Why would they agree to do that if it wasn't primarily to educate students from their state?

But yes the state does benefit from getting students here from Connecticut, mostly because they pay more than it costs to educate them, which subsidizes in state students further.  The problem is that they usually don't stay in the state to generate economic activity after they graduate.

That being said, I agree with the concept in general that taking less money in exchange for freedom and less political interference, is a good idea in general.

BTW - your math of $35 is off. For UW-Madison ALONE every man woman and child spends $86 per year in taxes. That doesn't account for any of the other UW system schools. If you went by household, the total would be (on average) $218/year for just UW-Madison. I am assuming this is the most expensive school to the state (but I haven't checked yet). Why not cut it loose?

[GGGG]

BTW - your math of $35 is off. For UW-Madison ALONE every man woman and child spends $86 per year in taxes. That doesn't account for any of the other UW system schools.

I was basing it on your $200M proposed figure.

[Eldon]

Sounds like we would agree more than we disagree.

Also it would seem that the "elite" and "exclusive" labels claimed by our neighbors to the west are incompatible with the mission of providing a good education to the masses. If I have to pay for UW out of my tax dollars, but are unable to take advantage of that education for my kids, that's not a good deal for me.

I would suggest it would be a better deal to have an actual elite school in my state which attracts the best and brightest.

No, man.  If Madison starts accepting EVERYONE, then, perhaps with the passage of some time, it no longer remains elite.

As Sultan said, UW is a system.  There are 12 schools (and a bevy of state-funded community colleges).  If your grades/ACTs aren't good enough to get into Madison, then you can go to Parkside, take classes, do well, and transfer to Madison. 

Across the twelve schools in the System, there is actually quite a bit more standardization than many people know, e.g., Calc II at Parkside completely transfers over to Madison's Calc II, etc.  There's even a transfer-wizard website that allows you to see which classes from University of Wisconsin @ X to University of Wisconsin @ Y.

[Eldon]

Sounds like we would agree more than we disagree.

Also it would seem that the "elite" and "exclusive" labels claimed by our neighbors to the west are incompatible with the mission of providing a good education to the masses. If I have to pay for UW out of my tax dollars, but are unable to take advantage of that education for my kids, that's not a good deal for me.

I would suggest it would be a better deal to have an actual elite school in my state which attracts the best and brightest.

You still get benefits. 

Before your kid takes the ACT, he has a shot at getting into Madison.  In expectations, this is an actual number.

Furthermore, even if you never considered Madison as a school for you, your kids, your spouse, etc., you still reap at least some benefits.  For example, your boss may have received his MBA from Madison and he paid a substantially lower tuition than he otherwise would have.  More generally, to make an analogy, my tax dollars pay for public transit even though I never use it.  And even though I never use it, I still benefit from its existence.