How come we never hear the words: “the State cut its support, so we cut costs”?
Because the market says there are still plenty of students who want what they offer.
And because, believe it or not, the staff expects to get paid.
Jonathan: I think you missed the point. Cutting costs in a service business means laying off excess people and cutting the compensation of those who remain.
Second, charging what the market will bear is not the reason we maintain publicly sponsored educational institutions.
You used the words “charging what the market will bear” not I.
Service businesses don’t generally lay off people and cut pay when demand for what they offer is increasing, as it generally has been in public higher education.
You may think that you can just cut faculty salaries in response to, say, a 50% cut in state support (inflation adjusted, per student). But in the real world of the higher education market, that just doesn’t work.
P.S. You might ask the author of this piece if he is advocating a pay cut in his chaired position at his expensive little college with its nearly $50K tuition.
When he leads the way at Bard, I might be more open to cutting costs at the local public college, where the expenditure per student is a small fraction of what it is at Bard.
Face with declining support from the state, public universities are in denial. It’s especially ironic, given the rapid depreciation in the value of an MBA, that UCLA is taking its Business School private. One wonders whether the administration consulted the department. If so, either the faculty is clearly incompetent or the advice was ignored,
Maybe they know something about their business that you don’t?
Privately funded business schools are not exactly a new thing — e.g. Stanford, Chicago, Harvard, Wharton …. and there already are some elite public business schools that have essentially gone private, see the link you posted.
UCLA is a highly ranked program, I don’t see why they should not be able to make it as an essentially private operation.
As I said, perhaps they know something about their business. Of course, that could be wrong. But I would not bet on it.
Just how does your response address “But evidence suggests many students are misguided in their belief that an MBA will transform their prospects. Indeed, it appears many are being encouraged to take on student debt they might never be able to repay.”?
My response addressed your original post, if you remember it. About the viability of UCLA’s path.
Is an MBA not worth it? I won’t go by the word of a cynical Stanford business school (!) professor.
It varies from person to person, I’m sure. If people don’t think UCLA is worth it, they should not attend. But I think UCLA will do just fine.
It’s ironic that a professor at one of the spendiest little schools in the country is always celebrating the supposedly coming higher education “revolution.”
Might I suggest that it’s an expression of intellectual integrity. Isn’t it rather exceptional for a member of the academy to promote its modernization?
I’m more inclined to think it’s cynicism and a feeling of being above it all.
Now if he quit his tenured professorship at Bard to demonstrate his “intellectual integrity” I might be impressed.
I don’t know if it will be Udacity, or Sal Kahn, or somebody else, but SOME entrepreneur is going to do a compete end run around the traditional college model—-including around that of the existing for-profits. It’s only a matter of time until someone cracks the “accreditation” egg and develops alternatives that employers will accept.