128 Comments - Scamp640 - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:00 pm: Public universities have a mission to provide a quality education at an affordable price. How is privatization going to help that? It will make education more expensive. Another Scott Walker idea that is bad for working and middle class families in Illinois. - Juvenal - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:05 pm: If you are going to slash state funding for the institutions and gut financial aid, you might as well auction off WIU, ISU, NIU and EIU. Maybe National Lewis University wants ISU? - Niles Township - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:05 pm: With the situation we find our state in, I believe everything should be on the table for discussion, even some extreme measures like this one. That doesn’t mean I’d want it done in the end, but we need to have a debate and discuss all the issues. Nothing should be off limits. - hisgirlfriday - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:07 pm: These ayn rand disciples just can’t leave any public good alone. But I suppose no distinction between public and private schools makes it even easier for guys like Brady to get away with funneling taxpayer money to their religious interests. Just sad to find out that the Republican party is not just content going after fdr’s achievements but now they’re taking aim at Lincoln’s like land grant universities? - PublicServant - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:09 pm: And what would happen to the state employee pensions that can’t be diminished or impaired? Huh Bill? - Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:09 pm: I said “Yes, discuss it.” I think it would be wrong for the state to do, but with the constant axe waving by the GA at our state’s public institutions and decades of funding reductions followed by outrage over resulting tuition increases, we might as well talk about the benefits versus consequences of privatizing the universities. - Norseman - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:10 pm: No way. Public universities provide a less costly and accessible option for higher education to Illinois residents. I would think some of the directionals would have to close. - Stones - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:11 pm: Voted discuss it. I’m not sure of all the pro’s & con’s. I see no harm in a discussion of the issue. - OneMan - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:15 pm: Public universities have a mission to provide a quality education at an affordable price. Yes, however how much time and talent is spend doing research and going after the research dollar and how much of that translates into improved undergraduate education? How is privatization going to help that? It will make education more expensive. Some of what we ask public universities to do is not directly related to undergraduate nor graduate education but to promote and operate various plans and programs, that may serve a greater public good but are not related to educating undergraduates nor graduate students… It seems worth asking the question. Can some entity provide a quality education at a lower cost. Lots of things way we fund education today (student loans, grants, etc) result in high costs because of the ability to defer or avoid the actual cost. As I investigate schools with my daughter it is amazing how often you hear, don’t let the tuition frighten you, no one pays that… Lets ask the question, what is it going to hurt? - illinifan - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:17 pm: I think it is worth the discussion. To me there is a difference between discussing and actually implementing. Public universities provide more affordable access to education and a diverse student body. That said do we need the number of public universities we have in Illinois, I am not sure. They are located within various regions of the state to help allow a local student to attend and still work and live at home. This is how I did college when UIC opened. I hope after the discussion takes place we get an answer of no to eliminating public universities since I believe they add value to the state and its residents. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:18 pm: Let’s discuss it. The fact is, over the last decade especially, public universities have become more private and private universities have become more public. One great example of what Brady is talking about would be to release the public universities from the state procurement code. That would remove huge barriers to efficiency in purchasing and save lots of money and manpower that is being wasted now. There are plenty of other areas of state involvement that don’t add anything but more costs to the education being provided by the public universities. Higher education as a sector is in the process of being disrupted by new models. This is the time to think about redefining what the higher education needs are for Illinois students and employers. I think everyone needs higher education, but not everyone needs to attend college to get it. The whole industry is changing. Let’s have the conversation while there is still time to change course. - Andy S. - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:19 pm: voted no. I see this as just a backdoor way of implementing Rauner’s pension proposal. I suppose if a university is privatized, then from that point forward its employees no longer work for the state and no longer participate in SURS, meaning their pensions are effectively frozen. Not sure how the courts would rule with respect to forcing the state to allow existing employees to continue in SURS after privatization. - OldIllini - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:21 pm: The US News list of top US universities has several things in common: all are private, all have less than 8,000 undergraduates, and all have annual tuitions over $45,000. Turning the University of Illinois into a top university with over 30,000 undergraduates and a tuition under $25,000 would be quite a challenge. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:22 pm: Discuss it. A dysfunctional institution such as Chicago State, that seems to only function as a dumping ground for South side political hacks could use some accountability and efficiencies. - anonlurker - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:24 pm: Voted no way. =what I’d like to find out is: How much do the regulations on the state universities weigh on those universities?= If he finds out this really is an issue, seems the discussion should start there, not jump to privatization. - Zaphod BeebleBrox - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:25 pm: Whenever a Republican complains of burdensome regulations, it strikes me as a cry-baby sense of entitlement. Whenever I observe the belief in someone that “rules are for other people”, that person is always a conservative. Rules and regulations exist for reasons that are usually well-founded. Don’t like regulations? Then don’t create the need for them. - DuPage - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:26 pm: A lot of public universities go way back and were given public land-grants and chartered as public entities. We should not be giving away or selling it for a one-time budget balancing stunt. It does sound like something Brady would suggest. I wonder if this was done on behalf of the Rauner administration. - South of Sherman - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:27 pm: There is no upside to even entertaining this crackpot idea. The best it could ever be is an end run around pension obligations; more likely it’s an attempt to force middle class families to sacrifice even more of their money just to try to keep pace. And the Illinois Policy Institute has just tweeted in support of the idea, which should, if the world is just, be enough to kill it in its infancy. - Jorge - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:28 pm: A discussion is needed. Is going full bore privatized correct? No, but some efficiencies of scale could be implemented from this discussion. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:28 pm: These are not sacred cows. Discuss it. Right now it is debatable how affordable these public universities are. We have too many. This is the 21st century. If we privatize ours now, we will get a lot more money for them than if we wait until the red states do it and the market become oversaturated, making Illinois universities worth less. - Sir Reel - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:28 pm: Higher Education, meet charter schools. I say discuss it. Find out how much State mandates cost. Figure out the differences between public and private. I believe public universities fulfill a different purpose but more information always helps. - D.P.Gumby - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:35 pm: The lack of state funding is virtually forcing that now! But, realistically, it is as absurd as privatizing police, fire, social security. This is a “starve the beast” argument for those who view government as a hindrance to profiting off the masses. - Honeybear - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:37 pm: I feel that privatization only advances the interests of the wealthy and almost never the interests of the “common good” of the citizens of the state. Yet another opportunity that will be denied to my generation, Gen X. There will be no affordable education for my children. Thanks again Boomers. Yet another institution that you will have destroyed. I know it’s unfair to hold a whole generation accountable, because there’s a lot of you that are really wonderful, but I look at those in power and the vast majority are Boomers. My generation won’t get a shot for another decade or so. By that time it will be way to late to turn things around. I hold ONE generation accounable for the destruction of the middleclass, public institutions, and frankly for the dismantling of the very concepts of the “common good”. - A guy - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:37 pm: Why in the world would we not discuss it? It’s not a wholesale answer all the way around, but there might be places where it could make some sense. If we don’t discuss it, how will we ever know what improvements we could make to strengthen public universities? It would be a great discussion given there are hundreds of thousands of stake-holders in this who are alumni, not even counting every tax payer who ever lived in Illinois. To say no, never, is to say everything’s fine. That’s an uneducated position. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:39 pm: I have been suggesting it for UIUC for more than 5 years, and even talked to Bill about it during his campaign in 2010. I don’t know whether it would work with the regional schools, haven’t even thought about it. One of the things that led me to thinking about UIUC was when a top higher ed guy explained to me how it didn’t really cost more to educate a student at a top-notch private school than at a top-notch public one. Duh! I doodled around with the approx $500 M that was being approped to U of I, and quickly saw that roughly half that amount would be sufficient to subsidize in-state undergrads at a level sufficient to keep their true cost of attending about the same as it is now. This is a very simplistic approach, but it convinced me that at least for flagship public universities it was worth exploring. - The Doc - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:44 pm: I voted for “Let’s discuss”. While the bill appears, at first blush, to be little more than a Trojan Horse to force public universities to pledge fealty to shareholders instead of students, clearly there are problems with the economics of higher education. If, as Brady claims, our public universities are being adversely impacted by excessive regulation, then perhaps he should craft legislation that relieves them of the specific burdens he obliquely refers to. - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:45 pm: As someone who works for a private university, absolutely not. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:47 pm: Doc, what are you taking about? Who are Northwestern’s “shareholders”. who are U of C’s? - HGW XX/7 - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:47 pm: NO WAY! This would only further drive up the costs making higher education even more difficult for the poor and working class to obtain. It should be well know the conservative’s not so hidden agenda is the eventual elimination of ALL public education. Predictable from their end since the last thing conservatives want is a well educated public more capable of actually voting in their own economic interests and not on behalf of the one percent. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:54 pm: Not really for it at this point, but I don’t think it hurts to have the discussion, maybe there are some that make more sense to privatize. - ??? - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:55 pm: Of course it should be discussed. What harm would a discussion do? It may ultimately end up not being the best way to go, but other potential solutions might emerge once the conversations get going. - Elite of Tuscola - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:55 pm: Yeah let’s discuss it. The state already owes UI a ton of money, and the school is so hard up for money, 10% of the freshmen class at UIUC is from China because the out of state tuition is needed to try to balance the books. - CapnCrunch - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:59 pm: The words “public university” used to describe an institution whose operations were paid primarily by the state. In the 1960’s the state provided 67% of the UI budget. In 1956 tuition covered less than 7% of operations. According to the UI 2014 budget the state provided only 15% of operations while tuition provided about 24%. In 1970 the UI received $12.80 from the state for each $1 of tuition revenue collected from students. In 2014 it received 63 cents per $1 of tuition collected. At what level of state support does the UI become a university in Illinois rather than the University of Illinois? Surely the UI Foundation could find the 15 cents of the budget $1 provided by the state. Of course they would have to also fund the pension contributions of $1.18 billion. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:01 pm: Selling out state assets what a bust scheme brilliant. - Anonymoiis - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:02 pm: At many private universities, while the listed tuition is higher, after grants and aid are awarded, it’s equal to or sometimes can even be cheaper for the student than some public universities - Quiet Sage - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:02 pm: This is part of the “theft of the commons” which has taken so prominent a role in conservative policy ideas lately. For example, in an effort to weaken the U.S. Postal Service, the only civilian branch of the U.S. government actually mentioned in the Constitution (Article 1, Section , Congress forced it to pay 75 years of pension obligations in advance. http://business.time.com/2013/02/07/how-healthcare-expenses-cost-us-saturday-postal-delivery/ Brady’s proposal is part of this same policy. Like the attack on the U.S. Postal Service, it is part of a campaign to weaken a venerable public institution, in this case, public colleges and universities, which date back to the Morrill Act of 1862. - east central - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:02 pm: At the very least the Statutes should be examined to determine what can be eliminated. Make a list of regulations for public and private universities comparing them side-by-side and keep only what is is absolutely necessary. On pensions, it depends upon Tier 1 versus 2. U of I Tier 2 pensions are not just at the bottom of the Big Ten, Tier 2 pensions are well below all others. - Frenchie Mendoza - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:03 pm: What the heck is it with republicans and regulations? The only reason the R’s want to get rid of “burdensome regulations” is to put more money in their pockets by removing money from the pockets of others. It’s blindingly obvious — yet folks still fall for it. “Yeah, those rules are really a headache.” Any state that doesn’t have a strong public university system is not a strong state. Period. - ROLLO TOMASI - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:04 pm: Northwestern, University of Chicago, IIT, Loyola, St. Xavier, or De Paul. If you a business are you hiring from a directional school or the one listed above? - ZC - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:06 pm: Discuss it? Sure, why not? Voted aye to that. My starting position would be extremely skeptical however, for reasons outlined above, i.e. the high probability that tuitions would go up. We’re doing enough already screwing the next generation in this state (now apparently also in terms of spending on basic infrastructure and transportation investments). - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:15 pm: It’s absurd. But you want to talk about privatizing U of I? Okay, let’s talk price. The whole kit and caboodle, fair market value plus goodwill that comes with 150 years of brand equity. Yeah, I thought so. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:16 pm: It’s a win win we can bring the chief back,what about a 99 year lease? - Long time listener - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:16 pm: There are certain institutions that “publicly” gave us the tools to develop into the kind of society that allowed us to embrace and benefit from the industrial revolution (and tool up quickly to defend freedom at least once). Let us debate whether or not that revolution is now relevant to our progress toward that “more perfect union” and a firm majority say no, then I say we shut it down, and let for-profit interests build from scratch what they desire. They will never be able or willing to pay the value that our public universities have provided. - Joe M - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:28 pm: When Illinois’ individual state income tax reaches those top rates for several years that some of our neighboring states have, and we still can’t pay our bills, then maybe that is a discussion to have. Top individual state income rates: Illinois: 3.75% Iowa: 8.98% Wisconsin: 7.65% Minnesota: 9.85% Missouri: 6% Kentucky: 6% - nothingsurprisesme - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:29 pm: I’ll say discuss it but only to find out what regulations are costing the universities. I’d prefer to let other states try this before we go too far. Economies of scale are gained by allowing land grant schools to do research in areas like food production. This is very expensive but I’d rather have them do it than have private industry take over with profit as the only incentive. If we allow Monsanto, Dupont, and Syngenta to do the majority of research will they eventually charge the consumer for it? Privatizing the research schools could save money in the short term, but eventually cost us more in the long term. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:32 pm: Brady your wanted career politician reward poster from Rauner was your resume? Running a bust-out for Bruce? - olddog - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:32 pm: Private nonprofit colleges and universities aren’t exactly flourishing these days — case in point, we have an undergraduate school closing in Springfield this year — and the for-profit sector is all too often fraudulent and exploitive. http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/the-downfall-of-for-profit-colleges/385810/ I can’t think of a worse business model for higher ed in Illinois. - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:39 pm: I wonder if any of the university administrators mentioned to Sen Brady, in passing, how the General Assembly has eviscerated state funding for public universities in recent years? Or was it all about the “regulations?” What’s the scam here, anyway? One of those “privatization” deals where you turn over already-paid-for, valuable public assets to private interests to operate at a profit, while they kick back peanuts over an extended “lease.” Any examples of this great idea involving flagship public universities in the real world? - A Jack - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:46 pm: What would happen to prepaid tuition program’s like College Illinois! or Bright Start? Would tuition rates still be locked in or would that go out the window with privatization? And how about the free tuition for veterans to public colleges? It seems to me that not only is this a grab from university employees, but a huge swath of Illinois’ middle class. - The obvious - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:46 pm: It’s nice to see fresh air and ideas blowing through the Capitol again. All over the board. What a nice change. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:47 pm: word, I don’t believe privatizing has to mean selling or even leasing - ZC - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:48 pm: I was assuming we would be transforming U of I into a privately-run, still-not-for-profit institution (like Northwestern or something). If the debate is about turning U of I into a full-fledged “for profit,” like the University of Phoenix or something, I hereby retract my “let’s discuss” and vote “no way.” - A guy - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:51 pm: Z, thus the reason to “discuss”. - Carhartt Representative - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:53 pm: I feel like my the value of my Illinois Wesleyan degree depreciates just a little every time Bill Brady opens his mouth. - Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:53 pm: I don’t get privatizing the state universities, especially the U of I - tuition hikes would be necessary to replace state-supported revenue, making an amazing public university less affordable. But I do get completely rethinking how the state pays for some of the other universities that are partially schools for commuters. Could the state save money by reducing classrooms and administrators by adding online learning classes for the freshman/sophomore 100-level courses that are taught elsewhere? Does the state really need to pay to have intro classes taught by faculty at Western, Eastern, Southern, and Northern when one faculty member doing an online class might be less costly, both for the state and for students? - Pink E. Kent - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:55 pm: talk-itty-talky-talk-talk Sounds like just another scheme to sell off public assets for a quick buck benefiting the “me and mine”. Sell the Tollways. Sell the Thompson Center. Sell the Mineral Rights. Sell the Lottery. Sell the Universities. SPOILER ALERT: SNARK AHEAD All these will work out just fine; you’ll see. - Shemp - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:56 pm: My gut instinct says bad idea in long term, but a discussion is not a bad thing. - Streator Curmudgeon - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:57 pm: Maybe we could just sell corporations naming rights, like they have on stadiums. Who wouldn’t want to graduate from Preparation H University? - Nobody - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 2:11 pm: An interesting article related to this topic. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/07/public-universities-cost-middle-class-students-more-than-harvard/ - AnonymousOne - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 2:17 pm: Public universities providing education at a more affordable cost is exactly what the problem is. It is part (a small part) of eliminating state responsibility for helping lesser income families afford a chance at improvement. I do not want to see this happen, but it looks like so much of what is happening all around us. Lower worker wages……decrease pensions…..privatize schools so that only the privileged can go to the “better” schools. This is a prediction I’ve had for years—-that privatizing upper education would be much more doable than other endeavors—after all, college is an option. This might be the future for higher ed. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 2:29 pm: ZC, I agree. I think the thread has been hijacked by people who are assuming Phoenix model in order to help discredit the concept - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 2:55 pm: Nobody, excellent cite. The past 10 years have resulted in, by avoiding general tax increases,a huge equivalent to a tax increase on middle-class families with college age kids. There is both governmental and institutional need based aid for the low income student, and the wealthy really aren’t devastated by tuition rates. But for the middle class the inability of government to keep up it’s end of the bargain with support for public universities universities and support for state scholarship programs. has been very harmful. - Toure's Latte - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:00 pm: Send them all to Harvard. Problem solved. - Mama - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:01 pm: Rauner & his Wall Street buddies would profit from private schools / colleges / universities. It is all about money. - Crunchy - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:07 pm: OldIllini–the U.S. News top 50 universities list includes Illinois, Michigan, UCLA, Berkley, UNC, Penn and a couple of other state schools that have 8,000+ student bodies. Look again. - NIUprof - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:07 pm: I meant credentialling - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:09 pm: I’ve said on this blog for years that IL has too many public universities. If we’re going to have a serious discussion about funding, the issue of closing one or more campuses should be on the table. Another big issue that must be discussed with privatization of universities is pensions. Once the faculty/staff cease to be public employees, they may no longer participate in SURS by Federal law. SURS will also require ongoing funding to pay down its unfunded liability. A replacement 401k plan for employees of the privatized schools will likely include Social Security, causing thousands of employees to be penalized by the GPO/WEP rules at retirement. I don’t see how you navigate around these constraints and design a plan that is reasonably fair to employees. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:10 pm: Discussion is always good. I’m not in favor of pulling the rip cord and letting go, but discussing, discussing anything, is always good. I’d like to hear all the angles, but I can’t see flipping as someone supporting it. Voted “Discuss” - Apocalypse Now - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:13 pm: Let’s stop paying the Coaches and Athletic Directors for poor performance and poor results! Universities are overburdened by regulations resulting in many more administrative positions than needed. Tuition rates have risen at levels far above the rate of inflation for years. - Crunchy - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:19 pm: Sorry, “Berkeley.” Also, the university system is supposed to belong to the people of Illinois, and it’s supposed to benefit them (and has done so, historically). It’s not just an asset that can be sold off under the guise of “cost savings,” with the true goal of providing yet more profit to a handful of Wall Streeters. - Belle - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:23 pm: Voted “no way” The bitter taste of the Parking Meters lingers on my tongue. I see little difference. Education has become the big scam of our country. We need to straighten things out by reducing tuition, fees, and salaries of the coaches and chairs making $M’s. Education shouldn’t be about making tons of money. - Anon221 - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:36 pm: Discuss- but be aware privateering has been going on for sometime now at many of our public colleges and universities. No more Assembly Hall, for instance. There’s even “eating” from within. When Grants and Contracts can take 30-40 percent (May be more now- this was in the early 00s) off the top of research grants, something is wrong in the land of public education and research. And in regards to large global companies “directing” research- it’s been happening for a long time, but much more in the open lately. - Juvenal - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:37 pm: Can’t everyone just send their kids to Dartmouth? - Carhartt Representative - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:43 pm: The US News list is complete and utter bunk. Go back 25 years and look at the rankings, you won’t find any correlation between their ranks and the success of the graduating classes. I went to Illinois Wesleyan, which was always rated as the top small private university on that list during my four years there. That was largely because of a large endowment and a good student to faculty ratio caused by not having any professors really doing research. We excelled in taking the top students in Illinois and turning them into teachers, college professors, nurses, and State Farm employees. Worth occupations to be sure, but not really the type of movers and shakers that make you think of the number 1 college in the country. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:47 pm: ===When Grants and Contracts can take 30-40 percent (May be more now- this was in the early 00s) off the top of research grants, something is wrong in the land of public education and research.=== No, this is not a sign of anything wrong with publicly funded research. 30-40% indirect cost rates are negotiated, proper and appropriate. The federal government can’t build laboratories all over the country to do the research they need conducted so they add a little extra to the grants to cover the cost of facilities and offices, utilities, etc. The feds pay a pro-rated share of the cost of these facilities. That’s as it should be. This might be one of the most misunderstood, misdirected criticisms of higher ed going around. - Cook County Commoner - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:51 pm: Voted to discuss. I’d like to see the issues in detail with verifiable numbers on the costs and other factors imposed on the public colleges/universities that are not imposed on private colleges. Perhaps, the remedy is in modification of the system , not privatization. - Steve - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 3:58 pm: There’s a much larger is here: if an Illinois university is privatized the employees are no longer accruing public pension benefits. Just a reminder. That’s what the issue is really about. - Loop Lady - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 4:04 pm: Um, because Bruce doesn’t want to support State universities/pensions? Pretty elitist, doncha think? No effen way…this guy is anti everybody who is not wealthy… - Loop Lady - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 4:07 pm: Schnorf: Since Rauner has been Gov, your comments seem to have drifted way right…kind of like the Governor’s… - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 4:14 pm: Steve Schnorf, what is the “concept?” What are we talking about? I assume money is involved. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 4:22 pm: Word, I don’t pretend to speak for Steve, but I work in higher ed, and the concept is to decouple the state universities (or in Brady’s example, UIUC) from state governance. Independent boards of Trustees, gradual withdraw of state subsidy, end of mandates like the procurement code, and yes, the employees would no longer be state employees. It would be very complicated. For example, to justify the forfeiting of several hundred million dollars in annual support, the state would have to give the new board of trustees title to the land and other serious give-backs. The hope is that a privately managed university, free from state interference, would thrive. Right now, the public universities are treated like state agencies. If you want public university facilities to match the quality of the Thompson Center or the Stratton Building, then we’re on the right track. If you want the universities to reach their full potential, set them loose from the red tape and micromanaging from Springfield. My two cents. Again, Steve can speak for himself. I didn’t mean to interrupt, but nobody is talking about selling off assets or monetizing assets. The concept is to make the universities self-sufficient while still top tier academic institutions. At least if it’s done right. - Anon221 - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 4:26 pm: 47th Ward- I will continue to disagree, respectfully, on this point regarding Grants and Contracts. If the lab already exists, little additional equipment is needed, and/or employees to carry out the work applied for, why take so much? Some grantors have come to realize this, and have limited the amount of overhead allowed. The Feds included. Either reduce the size of the grant and share the wealth among more institutions, or provide for a sensible amount of time and effort by the researchers to truly produce something worth the public dollars invested. - Crunchy - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 4:34 pm: Carhartt Representative, agreed that the U.S. News rankings are suspect, but they were mentioned earlier in a way that wrongly dismissed large public universities, so thought it was worth refuting that assertion with the actual list. The real issue is access to education for all, not just for the offspring of the wealthy elite. Anyway, I’m sure the teachers, professors, nurses, etc., Illinois Wesleyan has turned out are more valuable to society than some bloviating Ivy League blowhards I could name. Of course, that and a nickel will get you five cents. … - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 4:40 pm: ===Some grantors have come to realize this, and have limited the amount of overhead allowed. The Feds included.=== Respectfully, you’re arguing my point, which is the rates are negotiated. They are not set by greedy university bean counters alone. Yes, the indirect cost rate numbers are staggering. So is the cost of a genetics lab. Or a nanotechnology center. Or a research hospital. When I was an undergrad, nobody heard of nanotechnology and genetics was a very small, specialized field. Today, if you aspire to be a top tier research institution, you need top tier labs and facilities. Generating new knowledge isn’t cheap and if quality is important, don’t use the lowest bidder. - A guy - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 4:43 pm: As 47 suggests, there are models worth reviewing if it’s at least open to discussing. There are many more universities than U of I Urbana. Freshly off paying tuition there, I can report that it served a great purpose, but was not the bargain many state institutions are. In the search for schools, many state schools outside of Illinois were less expensive with out of state tuition than Illinois is with in state rates. A number of private colleges were willing to meet the instate tuition rate for our student, who happened to be a good student. I would continue to argue that this is worth looking at. - Enviro - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 5:03 pm: Privatizing the state universities would mean universities for profits, not better education. The private equity hedge funds and corporations can hardly wait to get their hands on the hundreds of billions they envision with this scheme. Privatizing the state universities? No thanks. - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 5:05 pm: Guy, what is “worth looking at?” What are you talking about? What do you mean by “privatization?” Do you have a clue? If so, don’t hide your light under a bushel. - Anon221 - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 5:07 pm: 47th Ward- Not all research is built upon the backs of high cost labs. Not all research is nano or biotech. And as far as negotiated, perhaps I’m being misunderstood. In applying for highly competitive grants that may only have 5-10 awards nationwide, and pay under 100k per year, very few of those are negotiated. The grantor states “so much and no more” in terms of overhead. I’ve worked for grants that were designed to produce a social good, and it was shocking to me that a university could take so much away from actual research and/or outreach (especially outreach and education) work. - Amalia - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 5:10 pm: talking about this will open the door to a wider discussion of university finances. - David Starrett - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 5:43 pm: I’m content to have this discussed, because I think the discussion may help to remind us why we created public universities in the first place. There is a reason that UCLA and Berkeley compete well with USC and Stanford, and I’m not talking about sports. It’s because the public decided to make accessible quality higher education a public investment priority. Land-grant universities were established in Lincoln’s time to provide a more level playing field and greater class mobility. Following WWII, the GI Bill made this promise an even more widespread reality for an entire generation, and we reaped the economic rewards for at least a quarter century. In an atmosphere of increased (and increasing) economic and wealth disparity, it is difficult to see any benefit to abandoning this model. I respect Steve Schnorff, and agree that UIUC has come to behave more like a private university than as a public one over the last 20 years or so. But the fault is not in its stars. If we privatize public universities, increased efficiencies will not make-up for the lost revenues. There is a reason that private colleges and universities cost at least twice what comparable public ones do. If we do this, we are giving-up much more than GRF and pension expenditures. We are finally abandoning the middle class fully. - Anonymous 88 - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 6:15 pm: Lousy idea–for lots of reasons. First, many of the public universities (not all, but many) are much more affordable for working class and middle income families than their private college counterparts–and they provide a high quality education. Second, having a strong (and affordable) public university system means that many students who have grown up in Illinois will go to college here and stick around afterwards. Remove the possibility of an affordable education, and those students will have much less of an incentive to stay in Illinois after they graduate. Third, education is a public good: it’s not simply a business designed to turn a profit. Sorry, I’m not buying Brady’s “let’s just have a discussion” angle. No one believes that several huge state universities are going to be bought up by not-for-profit entities. Everything about this proposal has education-for-profit written all over it. Hate to say it, but Brady is not looking out for the long-term interests of the state and its families. This is about creating an opportunity for select business folks (likely GOP donors) to reap huge profits for themselves. - lakecounty - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 6:18 pm: I’m really sick and tired to hear that privatization is the solution to all ills. Regulations are the administrative guidance developed from laws. Regulations are not inherently bad and keep parties honest, ethical, and transparent. Regulations protect citizens from dishonest vendors, politicians, and businesses. As far as I know private universities also must follow state and federal regulations. So what regulations are we talking about that cost so much? The ethical regulations, the contract safeguards?? The current model may not be ideal, but it sure beats private schools such as University of Phoenix, Corinthian College, etc. This looks like another set-up for a Chicago Parking Meters LLC situation, where the private investors get fabulously rich and the citizens are in the hole for generations. - walker - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 6:19 pm: Steve Schnorf’: with respect. If we are not talking about selling or leasing current state institutions to private sector entities, who would then operate the universities, with some supplemental income from the state, then what “privatization ” are we talking about? That’s the usual meaning of the term. Might be wililng to entertain it, if I knew what it was. The current system isn’t working as it should. - cranky? - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 6:40 pm: Brady understands his own political benefit in jumping out in front of what I believe is Rauner’s turn-the-tables mission to incrementally privatize virtually all sectors of government. Selling off these public entities will only make a lot of wealthy individuals wealthier. The Russian oligarchs are certainly ready and able to buy America at bargain prices. Is that what we want? No thank you. That is definitely not going to help the middle class, nor me and my children. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 6:42 pm: wealker, how about a state chartered non-profit corporation operating the school, exempt from most state regulation? How about tuition rates at a level sufficient to run the place well? How about scholarships (in addition to not instead of the current scholarship programs) for in-state students sufficient to bring real rates they pay down to what they pay now, or even lower? How about the fixed assets being held in a public trust? Those are just a few how-abouts. As I said, I don’t know it would work or not, but I think it’s worth discussing. Why do people keep bring up Phoenix? Straw man! - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 7:01 pm: Steve, I’m at a loss here. How do any of your points require “privitazation,” whatever that means in this context? –exempt from most state regulation–. Where that would be beneficial, why can’t you just identify the offending regulation and change it? –tuition rates, scholarships, sufficient….– I think you skipped a couple of steps as to how privitazation improves those two areas. – Fixed assets held in a public trust– Huh? The public owns it. Bought and paid for. What’s the benefit of a trust? Seriously, where is this coming from? Where’s it going? Where’s the obvious “wow factor” for doing anything? C’mon, let’s see your cards. - forwhatitsworth - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 7:25 pm: === “One is that the public universities told me how burdened they were by regulations from the Legislature, as compared to their private counterparts.” === Simple solution: Tweek the regulations that are so burdensome! - Joe M - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 7:31 pm: Let’s compare the costs to go to a private school like Illinois Wesleyan University, to a state university in the same area - Illinois State University. Illinois Wesleyan University: 2014-15 University charges: Tuition (full-time)$40,664 Room (double occupancy)$5,926 Board $3,520 Student Senate Activity Fee $180 TOTAL $50,290 ____________ Illinois State University: In-state tuition: $11,168 Health ins: $350.00 General Fees: $2517.12 Room: $5388.00 Board: $4472.00 TOTAL: $23,895.12 Not everyone can afford to go to a private school. - Illinoisvoter - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 7:50 pm: Well this model certainly has worked wonderfully for parking meters in Chicago, bankrupt Tollways across Indiana and let us not forget the marvels of private prisons with Judges sentencing children to personally owned facilities. - Under Further Review - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 7:56 pm: I do believe that if Chicago State University were not government sponsored several top administrators would be facing criminal indictments. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 8:17 pm: Joe M, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. A better way to compare affordability is to compare the average student loan debt of graduates. In this case, as of the class of 2013, Illinois State University grad owed an average of $29,121 in student loans for their education ( 71% of ISU grads had debt). At Illinois Wesleyan, the figure was only slightly higher, at $31,343, with 76% of graduates having debt. On that basis, they cost between them is competitive. $2000 more over four years? That’s nothing. College tuition at private nonprofit colleges is NOT transparent, but almost no undergraduates at these schools pay the full sticker cost of tuition. Published tuition is almost meaningless and is not a good metric to compare colleges. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 8:18 pm: Sorry, I meant to include this: http://projectonstudentdebt.org/state_by_state-view2014.php?area=IL - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 8:20 pm: Steve, my opinions usually align pretty closely with yours, but I’m failing to see the value add here. I get that we’re not talking about Phoenix or DeVry here. But why not fix the problems in the system we have first before tossing the system overboard for a highly speculative and untried alternative? I personally think the Procurement Code issue is a big fat red herring tossed out by UIUC brass because it’s one process over which they don’t have complete control. If it’s not working, let’s fix it for all of State Government first. The UI should also show some evidence of leadership stability and financial viability of the Chicago Medical Campus before we get too far in these “discussions.” The talks should also include the financial stability of SURS without university employees as contributing members. - Filmmaker prof - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 8:25 pm: I don’t think there’s any point in taking this conversation one step down the road until Brady tells us exactly what those burdensome regulations are that are damaging our public universities’ ability to thrive. Please list them. Then we can evaluate what the impact really is. I think this is a typical example of “some people say…” and then restating it as if it were a fact. First PROVE there is a problem. if there is, then we can discuss. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 8:30 pm: On what “privatization” means, take the Brookfield Zoo as an example. Does anyone think the Cook County Forest Preserve District could create one of the world’s finest conservation organizations? Why do we think state meddling will result in world class university? The Chicago Zoological Society operates the zoo on Forest Preserve land and with a generous annual subsidy from the tax payers of Cook County. It raises the money for new exhibits and new buildings. It also has to generate its own power and run it’s own sewage treatment plant. It’s like a small city populated with animals. Patronage and county politics would have ruined it decades ago, but the public ownership-private management model works there. It works with the Museums in the Park too. That’s a roadmap for what a private UIUC might look like. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 8:52 pm: Note to self: never, ever post a casual thought on Cap Fax blog!!! - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 8:58 pm: - steve schnorf -, It just speaks to how what you say…has significant weight. I’ve enjoyed reading the back and forth… - Enviro - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 9:26 pm: From the link in the above article: “Brady said he isn’t aware of any other case where a once-public university in the United States became private.” The public universities in Illinois are some of the best in the world. It makes no sense consider privatizing any of Illinois’ universities unless you are a Wall Street investor interested in making huge profits. - downstate commissioner - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 9:29 pm: Brady is my senator. Sorry he is a senator. Voted No Way. (Graduated form private 2-year college-back before Community Colleges, did not attend any university) - RNUG - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 9:40 pm: == Note to self: never, ever post a casual thought on Cap Fax blog!!! == LOL !!! My personal approach is write it, look at / edit it, repeat, then either erase or post. - Joe M - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 9:58 pm: 47th Ward, your figures from the link you gave, about the debt comparison between Illinois Wesleyan grads and Illinois State University grads doesn’t take into consideration how much each grad’s family paid each year while the students were in school. There is a good chance that the Wesleyan student’s families were wealthier families, with high Expected Family Contributions, and thus those families did a lot more pay as you go than did the families at ISU. Many of the ISU students are 1st generation college students whose families are not as wealthy, and thus they had a much lower Expected Family Contribution, and there was a lot less pay as you go. So the debt after graduation only tells a part of the costs of attending a university. An equally, in not more important component is how much the students and their families paid while the students attended the universities. - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:08 pm: Schnorf, you should be flattered that your comments are so well-read lol. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:12 pm: Thanks Joe. Next time don’t compare colleges using the sticker cost of tuition. The number you’re looking for is net tuition. You compare net tuition to get an apples to apples comparison. Since I couldn’t find that number, I looked at debt, also an imprecise figure, but much better than sticker price, which for private colleges is pretty meaningless. Also, while 25% of ISU students were Pell eligible (lowest family EFC), 19% of Wesleyan students were Pell eligible, so that erodes your argument a bit too. Middle income families have eaten almost all of the cost increases as Illinois cut funding for its public universities. - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:23 pm: Schnorf, 47, you’re killing me the “casual thoughts” and the “Brookfield Zoo.” Whatever you boys are selling, it ain’t soup yet. - walker - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 11:01 pm: Starting to get some of it. Institution for the benefit of the public, structured as a not-for-profit, run by a private-public board, but with controlling votes and executive management from the private side. The mission will still be regulated in some form by the state, and significant funding will come from the state, but private funding will be gained. A little like the private-public partnership structure by which Indiana pushes economic development with big business. Are we talking the same language? Not sure if this is a hard money saver. Not sure how much or little regulation will be required to meet its overall public mission, and not sure what the incentives are for the private partners. Charity, community service, special education or religious mission? That’s what drove the creation of many of the best private universities. - scott aster - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 11:19 pm: Very nice discussion…Champaign has been thinking about 401k for several years…..anyway the best idea in this dialogue is SELLING the Thompson Center. It looks terrible as anyone of you for Chicgo can attest. - Scarlet fever - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 11:20 pm: As someone who said no way on the other hand I have to say that they go into appropriations hearings with little reprecrussions whereas state agencies are scrutinized. They need the same scrutiny. - Harry - Wednesday, Mar 25, 15 @ 12:56 am: I can see no good reason not to discuss it. I am skeptical, but why rule anything out before we even understand it? - GraduatedCollegeStudent - Wednesday, Mar 25, 15 @ 12:56 am: ===From the link in the above article: “Brady said he isn’t aware of any other case where a once-public university in the United States became private.” The public universities in Illinois are some of the best in the world. It makes no sense consider privatizing any of Illinois’ universities unless you are a Wall Street investor interested in making huge profits. === Senator Brady, your most prominent example of public to private is Tulane, although it happened under vastly different circumstances (Louisiana being wracked by a bad depression/the aftereffects of the Civil War, basically let the Tulane foundation take over the school as a quid pro quo for a substantial cash infusion.) I’d like to know what accountability these trustees/regents would have and how they would be selected. Making them stand for election and serve set terms strikes me as a necessary part of this. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 25, 15 @ 7:23 am: Lol Word. I’m not selling any soup, just discussin’ recipes for now. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 25, 15 @ 7:30 am: Huge trust factor here….that this governor has not earned - AnonymousOne - Wednesday, Mar 25, 15 @ 7:57 am: Just about everything coming out of the legislature these days is something that impacts the middle class hard. Union busting, privatization of public schools, lowering wages, pension busting. Does anyone here see a pattern? As far as keeping Illinois students in Illinois— speaking only for my alma mater, Illinois, they do nothing to keep TOP students here. My top students (children) were actively recruited away from Illinois and settled in great jobs out of state. Although accepted to Illinois, there was little to no communication with them and certainly no merit scholarship attached to admission, as was the case in 6 other acceptances to comparable schools out of state.This is part of the problem in the population migrations talked about in other times. So we do a great job K-12 and send them elsewhere, apparently. - Anon - Wednesday, Mar 25, 15 @ 8:06 am: GOMB (Donna) probably had something to do with encouraging Brady to introduce this bill. Donna pushed for privatization of the California Public system. It failed. Now Californians more than ever support Public funding for State Universities because they have seen how far they have fallen. Illinois is next on this experiment unfortunately. - CEA - Wednesday, Mar 25, 15 @ 8:07 am: “Privatization” in this context refers to a not-for-profit institution administered by an independent Board of Trustees, like other private colleges and universities. Comparisons to the parking meter debacle, the skyway sell-off, or for-profit schools like DeVry and the University of Phoenix are misleading. At any rate, in recent decades Illinois’ state universities have largely become “public” in name only–the percentage of their budgets provided by the state is a fraction of what it once was, and the days when a gifted Illinois high school graduate from a low-income family could count on receiving a college education are long gone. Not to mention that robbing the university pension system has been one of the favorite methods employed by recent Governors and General Assemblies to live beyond their means. It is not at all clear whether autonomy would be financially and legally practical. One of countless potential problems: building projects have historically been paid for out of state capital bills rather than university budgets, and a newly independent university would presumably be required to lease its assets from the state or purchase them over time. But I see no reason not to talk about it. If anything, discussion of Brady’s proposal may make more Illinois residents aware of the extent to which the state has already turned its back on its universities with barely any public discussion at all. - Crispy - Wednesday, Mar 25, 15 @ 8:43 am: It’s been said a lot already, but I really wish there were a “Like” button so I could “thumbs-up” some of these comments (e.g., CEA’s). Also, as AnonymousOne points out, the University of Illinois is unfortunately famed for being skimpy with merit aid, which–again–is due, I believe, to the state’s chronic lack of support for higher ed. I think they do what they can. I, too, have a kid who was recruited by some top schools, both in-state and out of state, but was fortunate to get merit aid from Illinois that made it a better deal. That’s a lot rarer than it used to be, unfortunately. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 25, 15 @ 8:45 am: We can’t keep things the way they are. There aren’t enough Illinoisans as possible students for all the public universities supported. They expanded to meet demand, now that demand is declining, we are foolish to continue the same set up. - ParentOfStudent - Wednesday, Mar 25, 15 @ 12:57 pm: The real answer to the problem of public universities is for legislatures to INCREASE funding. After 30 years of cuts, the University of Illiois system currently gets only a small fraction (around 12%) of its budget from the state. The rest comes from research grants and increased tuition. If funding were restored (which would require increased state revenue from a progressive income tax), tuition would still be affordable for families in Illinois AND there would be more emphasis on excellent undergraduate education. Brady’s proposal is part of a national program, planned by ALEC, and implemented by so-called “reformers” to abolish public institutions and replace them with institutions that will profit corporations and the wealthy. The claim that these privatized universities will be “non-profit” is ridiculous. My health system is theoretically “non-profit,” but it is happy to gouge the public as far as it can. The same is true of charter schools (which generally perform about the same as public schools, but with more profit for the owners) and privatized universities. - David Starrett - Wednesday, Mar 25, 15 @ 7:23 pm: I think I land with Parent here: Public universities have been forced to follow the money, and so should we. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.