[CTcard]

NPR's marketplace had an interview with the chancelor of UC Berkeley, in which the uncomfortable $150 million structural deficit got brought up.  In the interview, Kai Rysdal (who spent six months at Berkeley's Journalism schhol) adked the chancellor whether he oppened the local papers and saw the gift Stanford got and "nearly spit out his coffee".  Ouch.  That has got to chap the hide of the Betkelians.  To his immense credit, Dirks was pretty gracious and mostly didn't wine about it.

I heard that interview on my commute home yesterday as well. Somewhere behind all of this is a pretty important, and complicated, question.
Our public universities are fantastic institutions that have produced an amazing amount of knowledge for the world and educated a large number of talented people who have made great contributions to our society. And right now they are in trouble.

In our thread on the Knight endowment, there was some discussion that in many ways one's money could do more good spent on good institutions that are strapped for cash rather than on places that are already the richest institutions in the world. While I wouldn't exactly advocate for this, it's quite possible to think that Knight's $400 million would do more net good across the bay.

[I am guessing you were posting from your phone. Is Betkelians a thing? ]

The problem with state schools have with creating donor cultures is they mostly started out as free for students.  There really was no need to cultivate a donor culture with adequate public funding.  At a place like Berkeley, it was made worse because with no need to cultivate a donor culture, the school evolved a "sink or swim" culture for the students. 

Berkeley has evolved more of a sink or swim culture than Stanford simply because it has a lot bigger student to resource ratio. However, this effect is much greater in the minds of Berkeley grads than in reality - as their overall 91% graduation rate attests.


However, the reasons it's hard for Berkeley to get lots of donor money go far beyond that. In general, people do not donate money towards government institutions. I cannot think of many, perhaps local libraries. Certainly nobody is donating money to their DMV.

So, as the reality shifts and state supports goes from about 60% of operations at state flagship schools to something more like 20-30%, these universities are desperately trying to ramp up private donations, with mixed success. At some point I think I read that there are more funds donated towards athletic programs at public universities than to the universties themselves (but can't find that now so can't vouch for it).

I hope this, or something, works. Our public flagship universities are a national treasure that would be sad to see wither.

[CTcard]

NPR's marketplace had an interview with the chancelor of UC Berkeley, in which the uncomfortable $150 million structural deficit got brought up.  In the interview, Kai Rysdal (who spent six months at Berkeley's Journalism schhol) adked the chancellor whether he oppened the local papers and saw the gift Stanford got and "nearly spit out his coffee".  Ouch.  That has got to chap the hide of the Betkelians.  To his immense credit, Dirks was pretty gracious and mostly didn't wine about it.

I heard that interview on my commute home yesterday as well. Somewhere behind all of this is a pretty important, and complicated, question.
Our public universities are fantastic institutions that have produced an amazing amount of knowledge for the world and educated a large number of talented people who have made great contributions to our society. And right now they are in trouble.

In our thread on the Knight endowment, there was some discussion that in many ways one's money could do more good spent on good institutions that are strapped for cash rather than on places that are already the richest institutions in the world. While I wouldn't exactly advocate for this, it's quite possible to think that Knight's $400 million would do more net good across the bay.

[I am guessing you were posting from your phone. Is Betkelians a thing? ]

The problem with state schools have with creating donor cultures is they mostly started out as free for students.  There really was no need to cultivate a donor culture with adequate public funding.  At a place like Berkeley, it was made worse because with no need to cultivate a donor culture, the school evolved a "sink or swim" culture for the students. 

Berkeley has evolved more of a sink or swim culture than Stanford simply because it has a lot bigger student to resource ratio. However, this effect is much greater in the minds of Berkeley grads than in reality - as their overall 91% graduation rate attests.


However, the reasons it's hard for Berkeley to get lots of donor money go far beyond that. In general, people do not donate money towards government institutions. I cannot think of many, perhaps local libraries. Certainly nobody is donating money to their DMV.

So, as the reality shifts and state supports goes from about 60% of operations at state flagship schools to something more like 20-30%, these universities are desperately trying to ramp up private donations, with mixed success. At some point I think I read that there are more funds donated towards athletic programs at public universities than to the universties themselves (but can't find that now so can't vouch for it).

I hope this, or something, works. Our public flagship universities are a national treasure that would be sad to see wither.