As it happened, US News did not calculate a tuition in its report for the U of Michigan which is often credited with the funding model UC adopted - the so-called "Michigan Model." (The U of Michigan wouldn't supply data.) As we have pointed out at various points in this blog, the difference between what UC did, particularly in the wake of the Great Recession, and the earlier Michigan Model was not the funding, i.e., get the extra revenue from non-residents to cross-subsidize residents and thereby offset (in part) what the state had cut back. It was in getting some kind a agreement with state politicos and interest groups to do so. There was no deal in the UC case; there was a deal in the case of the U of Michigan.
The lack of a deal here means that UC's arrangement continues to be a matter of controversy. Even the ongoing problems UC is having with the state auditor stem partly from that lack of a deal. Now maybe a deal couldn't have been reached in the UC case. No one knows for sure because reaching an accord of the Michigan type was never tried. UC and the Regents just announced what they were doing.
What wasn't done, wasn't done. But maybe now there should be an attempt. Isn't it worth trying? What is the alternative? The old 1960 Master Plan concept of essentially zero tuition for residents (with the state picking up the tab) died not long after it was written down. The state now has picked up other priorities for its money. Back in 1960, for example, there was no Medi-Cal program. Now there is, and it has acquired even more need for funding as part of the Affordable Care Act.
===
*https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/22/the-10-most-expensive-public-universities.html
No comments:
Post a Comment