[BostonCard]

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.

http://www.marketplace.org/2016/02/25/ed...on-deficit

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

http://www.marketplace.org/2016/02/25/ed...on-deficit

BC

[yvonne]

That's certainly not something I'm celebrating.

[yvonne]

That's certainly not something I'm celebrating.

[BostonCard]

I agree, Berkeley's fiscal mess is not something to celebrate.  Even in the best of circumstances, it means that the educational breadth and depth that Berkeley can offer will suffet, and I don't think anyone wants to see that (and selfishly, I have kids who I would be proud to send to Berkeley if they got in, and I would hate for their educational opportunities there to be hurt).  At its worst, those of us who are California taxpayers could be on the hook for that deficit.  Either way, I though the Chancellor did his best in less than ideal circumstances and hopefully UC's new focus on fundraising will pay off.  That being said, historically berkeley grads have not had that relationship with their school.

BC

[BostonCard]

I agree, Berkeley's fiscal mess is not something to celebrate.  Even in the best of circumstances, it means that the educational breadth and depth that Berkeley can offer will suffet, and I don't think anyone wants to see that (and selfishly, I have kids who I would be proud to send to Berkeley if they got in, and I would hate for their educational opportunities there to be hurt).  At its worst, those of us who are California taxpayers could be on the hook for that deficit.  Either way, I though the Chancellor did his best in less than ideal circumstances and hopefully UC's new focus on fundraising will pay off.  That being said, historically berkeley grads have not had that relationship with their school.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

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. 

This is why so many Ca.l grads have it in for Stanford.  They feel they got no help from the university and were basically told to go it alone.  At private schools like Stanford, you can't have that mentality.  When students are paying so much they are given more support.  When they go on to have success in life post-graduation, they feel a little more comfortable making donations back to the school they feel gave them support.

As Ca.l develops a more private-like donor culture and offers more support to students as a result, I'm imagining the degree of hate Ca.l grads feel toward Stanford will ebb considerably. 

[OutsiderFan]

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. 

This is why so many Ca.l grads have it in for Stanford.  They feel they got no help from the university and were basically told to go it alone.  At private schools like Stanford, you can't have that mentality.  When students are paying so much they are given more support.  When they go on to have success in life post-graduation, they feel a little more comfortable making donations back to the school they feel gave them support.

As Ca.l develops a more private-like donor culture and offers more support to students as a result, I'm imagining the degree of hate Ca.l grads feel toward Stanford will ebb considerably. 

[Nan3cy]

As Ca.l develops a more private-like donor culture and offers more support to students as a result, I'm imagining the degree of hate Ca.l grads feel toward Stanford will ebb considerably.

Not holding my breath waitiing for the hate to subside...  ::)

[Nan3cy]

As Ca.l develops a more private-like donor culture and offers more support to students as a result, I'm imagining the degree of hate Ca.l grads feel toward Stanford will ebb considerably.

Not holding my breath waitiing for the hate to subside...  ::)

[CowboyIndian]

Let's ask the denizens of Bear Insider....LOL!!

[CowboyIndian]

Let's ask the denizens of Bear Insider....LOL!!

[Mick]

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. 

This is why so many Ca.l grads have it in for Stanford.  They feel they got no help from the university and were basically told to go it alone.  At private schools like Stanford, you can't have that mentality.  When students are paying so much they are given more support.  When they go on to have success in life post-graduation, they feel a little more comfortable making donations back to the school they feel gave them support.

As Ca.l develops a more private-like donor culture and offers more support to students as a result, I'm imagining the degree of hate Ca.l grads feel toward Stanford will ebb considerably.

My roommate right out of college was kal alum, class of '83.  He would agree, quite vociferously, with everything you just wrote.

[Mick]

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. 

This is why so many Ca.l grads have it in for Stanford.  They feel they got no help from the university and were basically told to go it alone.  At private schools like Stanford, you can't have that mentality.  When students are paying so much they are given more support.  When they go on to have success in life post-graduation, they feel a little more comfortable making donations back to the school they feel gave them support.

As Ca.l develops a more private-like donor culture and offers more support to students as a result, I'm imagining the degree of hate Ca.l grads feel toward Stanford will ebb considerably.

My roommate right out of college was kal alum, class of '83.  He would agree, quite vociferously, with everything you just wrote.

[winflop]

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. 

This is why so many Ca.l grads have it in for Stanford.  They feel they got no help from the university and were basically told to go it alone.  At private schools like Stanford, you can't have that mentality.  When students are paying so much they are given more support.  When they go on to have success in life post-graduation, they feel a little more comfortable making donations back to the school they feel gave them support.

As Ca.l develops a more private-like donor culture and offers more support to students as a result, I'm imagining the degree of hate Ca.l grads feel toward Stanford will ebb considerably.

The other problem is the public perception that since they are state schools they are funded by the state government, and therefore alums who live in state are already "donating" to the school through state taxes.  In reality only a small portion of the budget comes from the state government, but the other reality is that if they ever were at risk of bankruptcy Sacramento would bail them out which removes any moral hazard and leads to situations like what you see at Low APR U.

[winflop]

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. 

This is why so many Ca.l grads have it in for Stanford.  They feel they got no help from the university and were basically told to go it alone.  At private schools like Stanford, you can't have that mentality.  When students are paying so much they are given more support.  When they go on to have success in life post-graduation, they feel a little more comfortable making donations back to the school they feel gave them support.

As Ca.l develops a more private-like donor culture and offers more support to students as a result, I'm imagining the degree of hate Ca.l grads feel toward Stanford will ebb considerably.

The other problem is the public perception that since they are state schools they are funded by the state government, and therefore alums who live in state are already "donating" to the school through state taxes.  In reality only a small portion of the budget comes from the state government, but the other reality is that if they ever were at risk of bankruptcy Sacramento would bail them out which removes any moral hazard and leads to situations like what you see at Low APR U.

[Redrum]

I only got a (truncated) Stanford undergrad experience.  That surely skews my perceptions of the university as a whole.  But over time it seems that all the news about Stanford both from inside the school and in the media are about the phenomenal growth of endowment, spending and graduate program development and influence.  And Stanford is so good at that.  Some Stanford moles must have worked their ways onto the editorial staffs and NPR News shows and Marketplace.  Seems you can hardly go a day without a story being graced comment from some Stanford scientist, economist, dean of some school or other, or professor.  All identified by repeating credit: "Stanford"  .  Paints a (true ) picture of riches, power and influence.  UC Berkeley gets its share oef mentions but not as many and hardly any (in my perception) about big donor giving or new program initiatives.  Perhaps time an distance have put me out of touch with the reality of the situation.  But something besides just football must be making UCB grads and fans so grouchy and whiny on the subject of $$$.

But Stanford undergrad seems static.  Using the metaphor of the campus and programs...it feels like undergrad is in the annex out back.  Maybe that's why undergrad college sport plays an outsized role when I think of the place.

[Redrum]

I only got a (truncated) Stanford undergrad experience.  That surely skews my perceptions of the university as a whole.  But over time it seems that all the news about Stanford both from inside the school and in the media are about the phenomenal growth of endowment, spending and graduate program development and influence.  And Stanford is so good at that.  Some Stanford moles must have worked their ways onto the editorial staffs and NPR News shows and Marketplace.  Seems you can hardly go a day without a story being graced comment from some Stanford scientist, economist, dean of some school or other, or professor.  All identified by repeating credit: "Stanford"  .  Paints a (true ) picture of riches, power and influence.  UC Berkeley gets its share oef mentions but not as many and hardly any (in my perception) about big donor giving or new program initiatives.  Perhaps time an distance have put me out of touch with the reality of the situation.  But something besides just football must be making UCB grads and fans so grouchy and whiny on the subject of $$$.

But Stanford undergrad seems static.  Using the metaphor of the campus and programs...it feels like undergrad is in the annex out back.  Maybe that's why undergrad college sport plays an outsized role when I think of the place.

[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.

[82 Card]

I only got a (truncated) Stanford undergrad experience.  That surely skews my perceptions of the university as a whole.  But over time it seems that all the news about Stanford both from inside the school and in the media are about the phenomenal growth of endowment, spending and graduate program development and influence.  And Stanford is so good at that.  Some Stanford moles must have worked their ways onto the editorial staffs and NPR News shows and Marketplace.  Seems you can hardly go a day without a story being graced comment from some Stanford scientist, economist, dean of some school or other, or professor.  All identified by repeating credit: "Stanford"  .  Paints a (true ) picture of riches, power and influence.  ....

In the pre-Murdoch days, the Walls Street Journal had a printing plant in Stanford Industrial Park. At one time, that plant included a news room and TV studio. I seem to recall Wall Street Journal funder clips at the beginning and end of NPR and PBS shows in those days. Although the Wall Street Journal editorial operation moved to San Francisco, I suspect that some established patterns of interaction have continued.

[82 Card]

I only got a (truncated) Stanford undergrad experience.  That surely skews my perceptions of the university as a whole.  But over time it seems that all the news about Stanford both from inside the school and in the media are about the phenomenal growth of endowment, spending and graduate program development and influence.  And Stanford is so good at that.  Some Stanford moles must have worked their ways onto the editorial staffs and NPR News shows and Marketplace.  Seems you can hardly go a day without a story being graced comment from some Stanford scientist, economist, dean of some school or other, or professor.  All identified by repeating credit: "Stanford"  .  Paints a (true ) picture of riches, power and influence.  ....

In the pre-Murdoch days, the Walls Street Journal had a printing plant in Stanford Industrial Park. At one time, that plant included a news room and TV studio. I seem to recall Wall Street Journal funder clips at the beginning and end of NPR and PBS shows in those days. Although the Wall Street Journal editorial operation moved to San Francisco, I suspect that some established patterns of interaction have continued.

[Rally]

Well, the voters of California, both of them, based on recent turnouts, have expressed their priorities as voiced by their repeatedly elected representatives.  Instead of properly supporting the UC system we will build a high-speed railroad from Lancaster to Sacramento at a cost of undetermined billions, save the handful of delta smelt possibly surviving by spending over a billion dollars to provide environmentally sensitive water to farmers, assure illegal aliens, per Governor Brown's recent statement, that all are welcome here regardless of the cost, and siphon lottery profits and redevelopment funds to Sacramento for use on pet projects.  Baring a transformational leader I doubt much would change if there were a change in party dominance.  As long as rich, talented people continue to appreciate California's weather, spectacular scenery, and buy politicians, California will survive and, when times are good, thrive.  But "we" ain't voting to put money into the "elitist" UC system.

[Rally]

Well, the voters of California, both of them, based on recent turnouts, have expressed their priorities as voiced by their repeatedly elected representatives.  Instead of properly supporting the UC system we will build a high-speed railroad from Lancaster to Sacramento at a cost of undetermined billions, save the handful of delta smelt possibly surviving by spending over a billion dollars to provide environmentally sensitive water to farmers, assure illegal aliens, per Governor Brown's recent statement, that all are welcome here regardless of the cost, and siphon lottery profits and redevelopment funds to Sacramento for use on pet projects.  Baring a transformational leader I doubt much would change if there were a change in party dominance.  As long as rich, talented people continue to appreciate California's weather, spectacular scenery, and buy politicians, California will survive and, when times are good, thrive.  But "we" ain't voting to put money into the "elitist" UC system.

[BostonCard]

Delta smelt was a court decision (specifically, a reversal of a district court reversal by the 9th circuit court http://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/documents/...cision.pdf), not a result of California voters.

BC

[BostonCard]

Delta smelt was a court decision (specifically, a reversal of a district court reversal by the 9th circuit court http://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/documents/...cision.pdf), not a result of California voters.

BC

[Treebound]

OF hit the nail on the head.  Most of the UC's grad schools are in the midst of privatising.  This has been happening since the mid-90's with alumni fundraising becoming more and more of a focus.  Why UCB undergrads have not given more to their alma mater is just sad and concerning.  Even our local public elementary schools are leaning much more heavily on neighborhood fundraising via school foundations, pto's and even corporate support where they can secure such dollars.  It's the new reality.  Too many bare alums from this area believe that state funded education is their birth right.  That model doesn't hold anymore at any level.  The UC system was once great, but the decline is well underway and as a native Californian, that's sad to see. 

As to Redrum's comments about Stanford undergrad programs being an annex...After attending parents weekend, I think the program is in great shape!  Hennessy has really done a fantastic job across the university and I'm sorry to see him step down.  Sorry to hear your truncated experience wasn't up to your expectations.  My undergraduate time at Stanford was fantastic and our son is loving his experience.

[Treebound]

OF hit the nail on the head.  Most of the UC's grad schools are in the midst of privatising.  This has been happening since the mid-90's with alumni fundraising becoming more and more of a focus.  Why UCB undergrads have not given more to their alma mater is just sad and concerning.  Even our local public elementary schools are leaning much more heavily on neighborhood fundraising via school foundations, pto's and even corporate support where they can secure such dollars.  It's the new reality.  Too many bare alums from this area believe that state funded education is their birth right.  That model doesn't hold anymore at any level.  The UC system was once great, but the decline is well underway and as a native Californian, that's sad to see. 

As to Redrum's comments about Stanford undergrad programs being an annex...After attending parents weekend, I think the program is in great shape!  Hennessy has really done a fantastic job across the university and I'm sorry to see him step down.  Sorry to hear your truncated experience wasn't up to your expectations.  My undergraduate time at Stanford was fantastic and our son is loving his experience.

[CTcard]

Why UCB undergrads have not given more to their alma mater is just sad and concerning.  ...  Too many bare alums from this area believe that state funded education is their birth right.  That model doesn't hold anymore at any level.     

Let's not get carried away and pretend this is somehow a particular problem of Berkley and their alums, or the UC system.

These things vary a lot year by year, as they are heavily dependent on a few super-donations (like Mr. Knight's), but in 2015, among public universities, UCB was #5 in the nation in private fund raising*, #20 overall.
The top publics:
1. UCSF **
2. UCLA
3. UW
4. Michigan
5. Berkeley

The amount raised is dwarfed by Stanford and Harvard, and of course ucb is a far larger enterprise so their per capita is far lower, but it's not as if they simply don't raise private money.

This comes from a report by the Council for Aid to Education.
http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/VSE_20...elease.pdf

*Alumni contributions are a little under 30% of the pie they are talking about in this report, and individual giving ony about 50%. How the pie breaks down for UCB versus the others isn't clear.

** UCSF says that only 3% of their revenue comes from the state. They are a special case as they are only a grad school - mostly a med school. Thus their income from grants is a particularly high fraction and they don't have vast teaching costs. Grouping them in with UCLA, UW, Michigan, and UCB thus seems odd, though it does point out another issue. Among the schools listed here, UCB is unique in not having a med school, which tends to drive a lot of charitable giving.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/01/401486...ising-2015

[CTcard]

Why UCB undergrads have not given more to their alma mater is just sad and concerning.  ...  Too many bare alums from this area believe that state funded education is their birth right.  That model doesn't hold anymore at any level.     

Let's not get carried away and pretend this is somehow a particular problem of Berkley and their alums, or the UC system.

These things vary a lot year by year, as they are heavily dependent on a few super-donations (like Mr. Knight's), but in 2015, among public universities, UCB was #5 in the nation in private fund raising*, #20 overall.
The top publics:
1. UCSF **
2. UCLA
3. UW
4. Michigan
5. Berkeley

The amount raised is dwarfed by Stanford and Harvard, and of course ucb is a far larger enterprise so their per capita is far lower, but it's not as if they simply don't raise private money.

This comes from a report by the Council for Aid to Education.
http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/VSE_20...elease.pdf

*Alumni contributions are a little under 30% of the pie they are talking about in this report, and individual giving ony about 50%. How the pie breaks down for UCB versus the others isn't clear.

** UCSF says that only 3% of their revenue comes from the state. They are a special case as they are only a grad school - mostly a med school. Thus their income from grants is a particularly high fraction and they don't have vast teaching costs. Grouping them in with UCLA, UW, Michigan, and UCB thus seems odd, though it does point out another issue. Among the schools listed here, UCB is unique in not having a med school, which tends to drive a lot of charitable giving.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/01/401486...ising-2015

[81alum]

Well, the voters of California, both of them, based on recent turnouts, have expressed their priorities as voiced by their repeatedly elected representatives.  Instead of properly supporting the UC system we will build a high-speed railroad from Lancaster to Sacramento at a cost of undetermined billions, save the handful of delta smelt possibly surviving by spending over a billion dollars to provide environmentally sensitive water to farmers, assure illegal aliens, per Governor Brown's recent statement, that all are welcome here regardless of the cost, and siphon lottery profits and redevelopment funds to Sacramento for use on pet projects.  Baring a transformational leader I doubt much would change if there were a change in party dominance.  As long as rich, talented people continue to appreciate California's weather, spectacular scenery, and buy politicians, California will survive and, when times are good, thrive.  But "we" ain't voting to put money into the "elitist" UC system.

All true, but you leave out one of the main competitors for dollars.  Fortunately, the political climate nationally has begun to change on prison spending, as several conservative governors are embracing prison reform.  I think as corrections funding begins to taper off, UC and CSU may see some brighter days ahead.
http://universityofcalifornia.edu/infoce...-education

[81alum]

Well, the voters of California, both of them, based on recent turnouts, have expressed their priorities as voiced by their repeatedly elected representatives.  Instead of properly supporting the UC system we will build a high-speed railroad from Lancaster to Sacramento at a cost of undetermined billions, save the handful of delta smelt possibly surviving by spending over a billion dollars to provide environmentally sensitive water to farmers, assure illegal aliens, per Governor Brown's recent statement, that all are welcome here regardless of the cost, and siphon lottery profits and redevelopment funds to Sacramento for use on pet projects.  Baring a transformational leader I doubt much would change if there were a change in party dominance.  As long as rich, talented people continue to appreciate California's weather, spectacular scenery, and buy politicians, California will survive and, when times are good, thrive.  But "we" ain't voting to put money into the "elitist" UC system.

All true, but you leave out one of the main competitors for dollars.  Fortunately, the political climate nationally has begun to change on prison spending, as several conservative governors are embracing prison reform.  I think as corrections funding begins to taper off, UC and CSU may see some brighter days ahead.
http://universityofcalifornia.edu/infoce...-education

[OutsiderFan]

Putting aside the merits of private donations versus public funding, isn't the funding model for colleges and universities fundamentally broken?

Does it really make sense for young people right out of high school to be saddled with brobdingnagian debt to pay for school?  They have no money.  There are what 20, 30, 40x more alumni than current students?  Doesn't it make a bit more sense for those who have graduated (and have money), to "pay it forward" on behalf of current students?

Considering the loans, you add what, 6-7% interest to the current tuition and fee total cost?  But this isn't just a "they don't have money so why charge them" argument.  How much more money would be being spent into the economy from college graduates if they weren't facing crushing debt service?

To me, this hits on one of my biggest socioeconomic theories.  That is, I don't believe nobody wants to pay taxes or otherwise contribute to the public commons.  My theory is what we don't like about paying taxes is 1) not knowing where our money is going and 2) not approving where it is being spent.  For instance, if you had to pay 30% of your annual income in taxes, you wouldn't mind doing so if you could choose where it is spent.  I mean we all understand having roads, clean water, police and fire protection, etc. costs money and we have to pay for it, right?

I frankly wouldn't mind if everyone who went to public school signed up knowing they wouldn't have to pay anything for it while going to school, but they would pay for it every year after graduation, sort of like payroll taxes.  This approach would basically create lifetime funding sources for schools, eliminate student loan debt, and put a lot more money into the economy. 

[OutsiderFan]

Putting aside the merits of private donations versus public funding, isn't the funding model for colleges and universities fundamentally broken?

Does it really make sense for young people right out of high school to be saddled with brobdingnagian debt to pay for school?  They have no money.  There are what 20, 30, 40x more alumni than current students?  Doesn't it make a bit more sense for those who have graduated (and have money), to "pay it forward" on behalf of current students?

Considering the loans, you add what, 6-7% interest to the current tuition and fee total cost?  But this isn't just a "they don't have money so why charge them" argument.  How much more money would be being spent into the economy from college graduates if they weren't facing crushing debt service?

To me, this hits on one of my biggest socioeconomic theories.  That is, I don't believe nobody wants to pay taxes or otherwise contribute to the public commons.  My theory is what we don't like about paying taxes is 1) not knowing where our money is going and 2) not approving where it is being spent.  For instance, if you had to pay 30% of your annual income in taxes, you wouldn't mind doing so if you could choose where it is spent.  I mean we all understand having roads, clean water, police and fire protection, etc. costs money and we have to pay for it, right?

I frankly wouldn't mind if everyone who went to public school signed up knowing they wouldn't have to pay anything for it while going to school, but they would pay for it every year after graduation, sort of like payroll taxes.  This approach would basically create lifetime funding sources for schools, eliminate student loan debt, and put a lot more money into the economy. 

[81alum]

Putting aside the merits of private donations versus public funding, isn't the funding model for colleges and universities fundamentally broken?

Does it really make sense for young people right out of high school to be saddled with of exceedingly large proportions debt to pay for school?  They have no money.  There are what 20, 30, 40x more alumni than current students?  Doesn't it make a bit more sense for those who have graduated (and have money), to "pay it forward" on behalf of current students?

Considering the loans, you add what, 6-7% interest to the current tuition and fee total cost?  But this isn't just a "they don't have money so why charge them" argument.  How much more money would be being spent into the economy from college graduates if they weren't facing crushing debt service?

To me, this hits on one of my biggest socioeconomic theories.  That is, I don't believe nobody wants to pay taxes or otherwise contribute to the public commons.  My theory is what we don't like about paying taxes is 1) not knowing where our money is going and 2) not approving where it is being spent.  For instance, if you had to pay 30% of your annual income in taxes, you wouldn't mind doing so if you could choose where it is spent.  I mean we all understand having roads, clean water, police and fire protection, etc. costs money and we have to pay for it, right?

I frankly wouldn't mind if everyone who went to public school signed up knowing they wouldn't have to pay anything for it while going to school, but they would pay for it every year after graduation, sort of like payroll taxes.  This approach would basically create lifetime funding sources for schools, eliminate student loan debt, and put a lot more money into the economy.

Stanford and most elite liberal arts and Ivies now guarantee that they will meet 100% of "need" as defined by the Profile (a fancier and more elaborate version of the FAFSA) with no loans.  Saddling young people with loans is actually more common at public universities these days.  For many lower middle class kids who have the support to figure out how to fill out and submit the arcane financial aid paperwork, elite privates are now more affordable than publics.  The problem, however, is often convincing them to do the paperwork while they are still in high school.  The poorly funded public high schools they attend often do not have enough counselors to lead them through the financial aid process, and most privates only give financial aid to students who initially applied for financial aid with their applications.

In a curious way, this is one reason that athletic scholarships still do promote social mobility.  On the one hand, they are not based on financial need.  But on the other hand, poor and lower middle class kids can get them with a minimal amount of paperwork--the athletic staff do most of the work.  Compare that to what a needy student without an athletic scholarship needs to do--the Profile, submission of tax returns before March 1 when taxes are not even due until April 15, etc., and if you don't know to do all of that in January of your senior year in high school, you might lose the chance for decent financial aid for all four years.  No wonder so many kids who could get grants-in-aid do not.

[81alum]

Putting aside the merits of private donations versus public funding, isn't the funding model for colleges and universities fundamentally broken?

Does it really make sense for young people right out of high school to be saddled with of exceedingly large proportions debt to pay for school?  They have no money.  There are what 20, 30, 40x more alumni than current students?  Doesn't it make a bit more sense for those who have graduated (and have money), to "pay it forward" on behalf of current students?

Considering the loans, you add what, 6-7% interest to the current tuition and fee total cost?  But this isn't just a "they don't have money so why charge them" argument.  How much more money would be being spent into the economy from college graduates if they weren't facing crushing debt service?

To me, this hits on one of my biggest socioeconomic theories.  That is, I don't believe nobody wants to pay taxes or otherwise contribute to the public commons.  My theory is what we don't like about paying taxes is 1) not knowing where our money is going and 2) not approving where it is being spent.  For instance, if you had to pay 30% of your annual income in taxes, you wouldn't mind doing so if you could choose where it is spent.  I mean we all understand having roads, clean water, police and fire protection, etc. costs money and we have to pay for it, right?

I frankly wouldn't mind if everyone who went to public school signed up knowing they wouldn't have to pay anything for it while going to school, but they would pay for it every year after graduation, sort of like payroll taxes.  This approach would basically create lifetime funding sources for schools, eliminate student loan debt, and put a lot more money into the economy.

Stanford and most elite liberal arts and Ivies now guarantee that they will meet 100% of "need" as defined by the Profile (a fancier and more elaborate version of the FAFSA) with no loans.  Saddling young people with loans is actually more common at public universities these days.  For many lower middle class kids who have the support to figure out how to fill out and submit the arcane financial aid paperwork, elite privates are now more affordable than publics.  The problem, however, is often convincing them to do the paperwork while they are still in high school.  The poorly funded public high schools they attend often do not have enough counselors to lead them through the financial aid process, and most privates only give financial aid to students who initially applied for financial aid with their applications.

In a curious way, this is one reason that athletic scholarships still do promote social mobility.  On the one hand, they are not based on financial need.  But on the other hand, poor and lower middle class kids can get them with a minimal amount of paperwork--the athletic staff do most of the work.  Compare that to what a needy student without an athletic scholarship needs to do--the Profile, submission of tax returns before March 1 when taxes are not even due until April 15, etc., and if you don't know to do all of that in January of your senior year in high school, you might lose the chance for decent financial aid for all four years.  No wonder so many kids who could get grants-in-aid do not.

[Rally]

Putting aside the merits of private donations versus public funding, isn't the funding model for colleges and universities fundamentally broken?

Does it really make sense for young people right out of high school to be saddled with of exceedingly large proportions debt to pay for school?  They have no money.  There are what 20, 30, 40x more alumni than current students?  Doesn't it make a bit more sense for those who have graduated (and have money), to "pay it forward" on behalf of current students?

Considering the loans, you add what, 6-7% interest to the current tuition and fee total cost?  But this isn't just a "they don't have money so why charge them" argument.  How much more money would be being spent into the economy from college graduates if they weren't facing crushing debt service?

To me, this hits on one of my biggest socioeconomic theories.  That is, I don't believe nobody wants to pay taxes or otherwise contribute to the public commons.  My theory is what we don't like about paying taxes is 1) not knowing where our money is going and 2) not approving where it is being spent.  For instance, if you had to pay 30% of your annual income in taxes, you wouldn't mind doing so if you could choose where it is spent.  I mean we all understand having roads, clean water, police and fire protection, etc. costs money and we have to pay for it, right?

I frankly wouldn't mind if everyone who went to public school signed up knowing they wouldn't have to pay anything for it while going to school, but they would pay for it every year after graduation, sort of like payroll taxes.  This approach would basically create lifetime funding sources for schools, eliminate student loan debt, and put a lot more money into the economy.

I don't see how your proposal changes anything very much.  Currently, students get loans then pay them back over years, sometimes a great many years.  This takes money out of the economy you say.  Unde your plan, students don't take out money but pay annually ("sort of like payroll taxes") for the rest of their lives, thus taking the same money out of the economy. What's the difference?  You're just changing the name of the payment from debt repayment to tax.

[Rally]

Putting aside the merits of private donations versus public funding, isn't the funding model for colleges and universities fundamentally broken?

Does it really make sense for young people right out of high school to be saddled with of exceedingly large proportions debt to pay for school?  They have no money.  There are what 20, 30, 40x more alumni than current students?  Doesn't it make a bit more sense for those who have graduated (and have money), to "pay it forward" on behalf of current students?

Considering the loans, you add what, 6-7% interest to the current tuition and fee total cost?  But this isn't just a "they don't have money so why charge them" argument.  How much more money would be being spent into the economy from college graduates if they weren't facing crushing debt service?

To me, this hits on one of my biggest socioeconomic theories.  That is, I don't believe nobody wants to pay taxes or otherwise contribute to the public commons.  My theory is what we don't like about paying taxes is 1) not knowing where our money is going and 2) not approving where it is being spent.  For instance, if you had to pay 30% of your annual income in taxes, you wouldn't mind doing so if you could choose where it is spent.  I mean we all understand having roads, clean water, police and fire protection, etc. costs money and we have to pay for it, right?

I frankly wouldn't mind if everyone who went to public school signed up knowing they wouldn't have to pay anything for it while going to school, but they would pay for it every year after graduation, sort of like payroll taxes.  This approach would basically create lifetime funding sources for schools, eliminate student loan debt, and put a lot more money into the economy.

I don't see how your proposal changes anything very much.  Currently, students get loans then pay them back over years, sometimes a great many years.  This takes money out of the economy you say.  Unde your plan, students don't take out money but pay annually ("sort of like payroll taxes") for the rest of their lives, thus taking the same money out of the economy. What's the difference?  You're just changing the name of the payment from debt repayment to tax.

[OutsiderFan]

Good point, ferrari.  The big difference is you would be taking the interest payments away from lenders. 

[OutsiderFan]

Good point, ferrari.  The big difference is you would be taking the interest payments away from lenders.