Out on the West Coast, former Penn Stater Judy Olian is doing what once was unthinkable for a public university.
She’s leading a plan that would end the UCLA Anderson School of Management’s dependence on state money.
Under the concept, the business school would forgo, by 2015, the $5.6 million that it receives yearly from the state of California and instead lean more heavily on private donations and tuition.
Olian, who was dean of the Penn State Smeal College of Business for five and a half years, became dean of the Anderson School in 2006.
‘We’ve got to change the way we operate if we are to continue being what we are,’ Olian said in a Los Angeles Times interview published earlier this month. ‘State support has declined so significantly that we’ve asked ourselves what is the best model to sustain the excellence of the school and the excellence of what we can do in this region.’
Business schools at the University of Michigan and the University of Virginia — both public universities, like UCLA and Penn State — have undertaken similar changes, according to the Times report.
The article indicates that some other public business schools are weighing whether to do the same.
Recent conversations with some key Penn State leaders, however, suggest that neither Smeal in particular nor the Nittany Nation overall is among those mulling a full rejection of state support. It’s not clear that, in legal terms, it’s even a current option here.
Here’s the thing, though: Maybe Penn State should try to get on this bandwagon. At the least, maybe it should start the conversation in earnest. After all, legal options can be rewritten.
Granted, the idea makes me shudder. It contradicts the university’s historic land-grant mission, its identity as a public entity. Penn State was supposed to draw on the common wealth of all the people; to give a hand up to the hard-working sons and daughters of Pennsylvania; and to do so for the benefit of all, for the good of society.
Its foundation is rooted in this wild idea — perhaps outdated now — that everyone benefits from an educated citizenry; that your ability to develop your intellect and become knowledgeable benefits not just you, but also me.
But let’s be real here: Harrisburg hasn’t exactly endorsed that theme for many years. In a sense, the state — the Legislature, the governor’s office — has already rendered Penn State a private school.
Can’t someone just pull the trigger and formalize what we already know to be true? Pennsylvania has allowed higher education to morph from a public good into a largely private commodity.
Consider this: About 18 percent of the UCLA-Anderson budget comes from the state, according to a Financial Times article. At Penn State, less than 10 percent of the overall budget comes from the state these days, down from nearly 37 percent in 1970.
In the meantime, increases in tuition have been key in making up the difference. Since the early 1990s, tuition for in-state undergrads at University Park has more than tripled. It now tops more than $13,000 a year — one of the steepest prices, if not the steepest, among public universities in the U.S.
Or should I say ‘public’?
And while the annual State of the University address got happy play Friday at the Penn State trustees meeting, the gathering made clear yet another stark reality.
In a worse-case scenario, the next academic year could see ‘the most significant budget cuts in our history,’ university President Graham Spanier told the trustees. He said there’s a chance that state appropriations could take a significant hit as federal stimulus money dries up, as it’s expected to do.
So what would be the value in giving up the state money entirely? The Los Angeles Times article suggests that a shift to more philanthropy — and even higher tuition — could bring more stability and ‘freedom in funding’ to the UCLA-Anderson school.
‘We have to find a way to educate the future leaders of California — given that the state is unable to do so,’ Olian said in the Financial Times article. ‘ … If the state wants to assure its future leaders (that it can educate them), it either has to pay for it … or it has to allow us, through our own resourcefulness, to do it ourselves.’
It’s a provocative approach. Penn State traditionally has used philanthropy to bolster the institution ‘around the margins’ — a supplemental source of financial support, but not a central one.
Rejecting state appropriations could allow Penn State to reform and recast its fundraising operation as a more primary income source. It could become a more urgent call to arms for generations of alumni, a rallying cry for better scholarships, more aid targeted at the underprivileged, more equity and diversity.
Perhaps the alumni and other individuals — that is, we — could uphold the university’s public-serving mission more effectively.
Plus, with more money coming in from alumni and other private sources, perhaps the university would be compelled — pressured? — to manage its expenses and tuition rates just a little more carefully.
It’s just a thought. Maybe it’s a pipe dream. Maybe it’s not realistic.
But here’s one reality: Barring a dramatic change of course, there’s little stability — and even less hope — in the future of state appropriations. And that begs the question: Should Penn State keep dealing with the devil it knows?
Or is it time to dabble in a dance with the devil it doesn’t?
From where I sit, it’s worth a public conversation.
