Privatization of Public Colleges, Reaction Paper Example

There is no secret in regards to the fact that budgetary issues are a problem for everyone at this time in the history of the United States; from the federal government to the individual household, and everyone in between, the effects of an ever shrinking income is being felt by all. Of course, then, that means that it is time to do something to make the stranglehold of financial issues loosen, even if it is just a little.

As a result of this thought process, many programs, both federal and state, have either been cut or reduced to make sure that there is money for everything deemed ‘imperative’ to keep. This has, unfortunately, meant that schools in general, and colleges in particular, are being forced to downsize, receiving less money from their governments even when operating costs are higher than ever before.

Naturally, these cuts in funding have then been translated to tuition and other institutional fees making it harder for any college student to pay their way to a better future. This, in addition to cuts in scholarships have actually forced a lot of individuals to pick up extra jobs, decreasing available time devoted to studying, or even forcing them to drop out all together.

What, then can be done to help remedy the current situation, and lead kids to that bright future that they have been promised under the condition that they gain a higher degree? Although there are indeed several decent arguments against such a practice, the privatization of all public colleges is the one guaranteed way to see that students can receive the education that they have been promised and not be so subject to the whims of an unstable economy.

Historical Context

Universities have been on American soil since the land was simply dubbed the colonies. Over time, these institutions have grown and become a vital part of the United States today. With the passage of the “Morrill Act” in “1863” by “President Lincoln,” the “federal government granted large tracts of land to each of the states, the sale of which was to provide the money for the establishment of universities in each of the states,” thus the “land- grant universities” were formed (Berdahl). Since then, the welfare of the American universities has been provided for, at least in part, by the federal government; even if the means was indirect.

Of course, too, these forms of aid and grants from the government had another purpose; “they were intended to educate a larger percentage of the population for life in a democratic society,” which at the time was a rather revolutionary concept (Berdahl). Additionally, they were tasked with the responsibility to conduct “research and provide training” in fields such as agriculture and engineering (Berdahl). In reality, not too unlike what is expected of universities today, preparing students for jobs in the market upon graduation and providing information and statistics to help solve problems as they come up.

Still, now, in a nation where one is born to democracy, a concept one’s parents begin teaching basically from birth, and that is only reinforced from the time one enters kindergarten, the first point seems almost invalid after 300 years. Additionally, it is a well known fact that the majority of college graduates do not go into a field related to their degree, but rather depend upon on the job training to prepare them for any position they mind gain. So really the Morrill Act worked in the 1800’s  but is irrelevant now.

What does this mean? It means that the government was instrumental in its original purpose of founding universities but they were never really intended to be such a drain on governmental resources in such a long term capacity. As a result, it really only makes sense for private industries, sponsors, and investors to take of the mantle so that the government can step back and look to other, more important endeavors.

That is not to say that education is not important, on the contrary, it is an imperative part of the running of the nation of the United States. Still, one raises a child to a certain age and then set him, or her, out into the world to make their own mark and find their own ways of support. The metaphorical child cannot be reliant upon its parents for its entire existence; so too, then, public universities cannot be forever reliant upon the federal government, it’s time to make a change.

Semi- Privatization

As the economy toes the line of recession, and the economy of the United States continues to fluctuate from bad to dismal, funding has already been drastically cut from educational facilities; particularly universities and colleges. As a result, higher educational institutions are becoming more and more dependent upon increased fees and tuitions from students, donations and grants from private investors and philanthropists, etc…

Still, regardless of the fact that federal and states governments are providing funding for such places is at an all time low, the governmental regulations placed upon universities and colleges is either remaining the same or even becoming more strict. Most of the newest “infrastructure” on campuses is actually “using donor money rather than state support” (Thomas 2005). Additionally, most “faculty now come to” universities “as endowed chairs funded from private sources” (Thomas 2005). At the “University of Oregon the percentage of state support is 13%, down from 32% in 1990 and the share of that from tuition, i.e. out of student’s pockets, has risen substantially during that time. And if you include all the fees that have been shifted onto students that are billed separately from tuition, their share has risen even more” (Thomas 2005).

So, it is easy to see that the state governments are really doing all they can to pull funding so that it can be diverted to other more ‘important’ sectors and the private sector is having to rise to the challenge of keeping universities functioning during the lapse of government support. With most of the current funding for the higher education system coming from outside sources, then, the question seems to be why not just privatize the entire ‘industry?’ Especially since “critics warn that semi- privatization could turn into a debacle for taxpayers and possibly the schools themselves,” (Clark 2009).

For Privatization

With evidence that a decision needs to be made, either one way or the other, what is the most logical choice? Well, with colleges less dependent upon states budgets and the whims of the economy, the stability may help to push higher education to a higher caliber. Additionally, it will increase competition which theoretically lowers cost.

It is no secret that “privatized colleges tend to charge comparatively high tuition,” (Clark 2009). Still, it is also well known that “inserting market-based reforms though the contracting process will increase competition for government services resulting in improved quality at lower costs” (Laguzza-Boosman 2008). Especially since it has been made clear that public institutions are charging more than ever before as far as tuition is concerned; it would make sense that the current rates between private and public are, at this time, comparable in their own rights. (See Figure 1 in Appendix).

Furthermore, it is a common conception that government employees, and the government itself, are fairly “inefficient” and sometimes “unresponsive” (Laguzza-Boosman 2008). Though the validity of such a comment would need testing before it could be acknowledged as fact, privatization would put people who ‘care’ behind the wheel. That is to say that privatization will make the overall system more efficient and could even improve quality.

Look, for example, at the hassle of going to the Department of Motor Vehicles. There are forms, and lines, and half of the time something goes wrong and a person has to wait even longer; government run with a whole lot of red tape to get through. Then take a look at buying a car. From the private side, there is a lot of paperwork, but one person will help the same person through the entire process so that it is not confusing and runs relatively smoothly.

Aside from that, the article by Laguzza-Boosman makes one more superb point, “the private sector is more capable of innovations, which can increase efficiency and lower costs” (Laguzza-Boosman 2008). Returning to the concept of red tape, it can take proverbial ‘ages’ to get anything accomplished within a government run institution, like a school. A privately owned university, however, decides what it wants and writes the check to get it installed as soon as possible; end of story.

Against Privatization

Regardless of how much more efficient and stream- lined everything would be with privatization, no research can be said to be thorough without explaining both sides of the argument. As such, it is important to take a look at what the opposing side claims so that one can make the decision for oneself.

In a personal interview with Chris Wilkes who attained a political science degree from a university in Georgia just last year, it was pointed out that “when corporations are in control then the motives of the corporation are the driving force behind the institution” (Wilkes). That is to say that when the government is in charge, regardless of how clunky the functioning may appear, the main goal is still the same, the betterment of students as they further their education in their chosen field. When the private sector is in charge, businesses and investors are going to use every resource they have to further their own interests and bank account. “The loss of common ground, common unity, common purpose within the university,” is something that should be feared (Berdahl).

Additionally, take a look at the air line industry, as soon as it was privatized chaos broke loose. Prices are higher than ever before, and so are industry profits, according to some of the most recent news reports at least. The same can be said for the oil industry and privatized weapons manufacturers. Many argue that the same would happen with education given the chance.

Furthermore, “privatization’s critics say the high tuitions charged by semi- privatized schools undermine access. ‘State-related’ Penn State is ranked as one of the least affordable public universities in the country. At the University of Virginia, only about 8 percent of the students come from low-income families” (Dillon, 2011). There is worry that socio- economic discrimination, as well as inequality on other fronts, could potentially become a problem.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while there are decent arguments against privatization, most of them sum up into what ifs and hypotheticals. Ultimately no one will know what will happen until it happens. There are risks to be sure, but is that not the case in every endeavor undertaken by anyone; why should the government be any different, everyone knows that they are not infallible.

As the economy continues to pitch and roll like an airplane out of control, contingencies have to be formulated, and even tested, so that some sort of effective plan can be formed. Simply put, privatization is merely an attempt to put the government to right and in the event that it is a failure, which seems unlikely, then there is nothing that says that the government cannot resume control.

Still, as can be confirmed in Figure 2 of the appendix, the government is already spending a mind- blowing amount of money on basic education, being able to save even the amount generally sent towards higher education could go a long way in slowly mending the tremendous national debt. With everyone in the nation scrambling to save money and cut corners wherever possible, it only makes sense to at least try privatization as an alternative to government funding of public universities. Although there are indeed several decent arguments against such a practice, the privatization of all public colleges is the one guaranteed way to see that students can receive the education that they have been promised and not be so subject to the whims of an unstable economy.

Works Cited

Berdahl, Robert M. “The Privatization of Public Universities.” University of California- Berkeley. Erfurt University, Erfurt, Germany. 23 May 2000. Speech. 3 June 2011.

Clark, Kim. “Would Privatization Help Public Universities Excel?” USNews.com. 2009. Web. 3 June 2011.

Clark, Richard W., and Patricia A. Wasley. “Renewing Schools and Smarter Kids. (cover story).” Phi Delta Kappan 80.8 (1999): 590. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 June

2011.Dillon, Sam. “At Public Universities, Warnings of Privatization.” The New York Times.  2005. Web. 3 June 2011.

Eddy, John Paul, and Donald J. Spaulding. “Privatization of higher education services: Propositional pros and cons.” Education 116.4 (1996): 578. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 June 2011.

Hughes, Vincent. “Money Matters February 2011 Education Investments—A Look Back.” Senate Democratic Appropriations Committee. Washington, D.C. 2011. Web. 3 June 2011.

Kaplan, George R. “Profits R us.” Phi Delta Kappan 78.3 (1996): K1. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 June 2011.

Laguzza-Boosman, Kristi D. Issue: Does Privatization at the Federal Level Serve the Public Good? Walden University. 2008. Web. 3 June 2011.

“Martha Minow, Privatization and the Public Good.” Youtube.com. Web. 3 Jun 2011.

McPherson, Michael S., and Morton Owen Schapiro. “Funding Roller Coaster for Public Higher Education.” Science 302.5648 (2003): 1157. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 June 2011.

Ravitch, Diane. “Why Public Schools Need Democratic Governance.” Phi Delta Kappan 91.6 (2010): 24. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 June 2011.

Thomas, Mark. “The Privatization of Public Universities.” Economist’s View. 2005. Web. 3 June 2011.

Priest, Douglas and St. John, Edward. Privatization and Public Universities. Indiana University Press. 2006. Print.

Wessel, Robert H. “Privatization in the United States.” Business Economics 30.4 (1995): 45. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 June 2011.

Wilkes, Chris. Personal Interview. 15 May 2011. 3 Jun 2011.

Annotated Bibliography

Berdahl, Robert M. “The Privatization of Public Universities.” University of California- Berkeley. Erfurt University, Erfurt, Germany. 23 May 2000. Speech. 3 June 2011.

This speech aids in the arguments presented within this paper through two aspects: history of the development of a public university within the United States and why it is not advantageous to privatize such an institution. By using detailed arguments supported by history, and giving a very detailed narrative on the inception of the University since the founding of this nation, an overall picture is drawn that makes one start to understand why privatization may not be such a good thing. The arguments themselves, however, seem to be lacking in direct focus and seemed to be based more in hypothetical’s and personal perceptions; as such, while this is definitely a good source, it does not argue effectively against the thesis.

Clark, Kim. “Would Privatization Help Public Universities Excel?” USNews.com. 2009. Web. 3 June 2011.

In this articles Clark argue that while there is reason behind the privatization of public universities, the side- effects are going to harmful and hard to reverse. That is to say that traditionally moving a school to the private sector tends to make it more expensive, shutting out students from lower to middle income families. While the article is well laid- out and argued, there are not enough examples to solidify the arguments. As such, while this work is helpful in the research being done within this paper, as a stand- alone source there are too many holes to make it credible.

Clark, Richard W., and Patricia A. Wasley. “Renewing Schools and Smarter Kids. (cover story).” Phi Delta Kappan 80.8 (1999): 590. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 June 2011.

One of the few articles that were not all that helpful in the search for information, Clark strayed off topic onto little details that made the article a little confusing. Still the question was asked as to what the real focus is money or creating better students? This is important because while saving money is one of the biggest benefits to privatization, it should not be gained at the cost of the students.

Dillon, Sam. “At Public Universities, Warnings of Privatization.” The New York Times. 2005. Web. 3 June 2011.

This article, working very well to be supplemental to other sources, also goes into the concept that privatization is already upon the university systems in America. Of course as such practices gain momentum, it is time for the regulations imposed by the states to let go. Making an excellent partner for Mark Thomas’ article, Dillon only stands to re- affirm the position that as states withdraw more and more funding, they also need to relinquish their control and regulations. Additionally, it was able to provide the image for figure 1 in the appendix.

Eddy, John Paul, and Donald J. Spaulding. “Privatization of higher education services: Propositional pros and cons.” Education 116.4 (1996): 578. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 June 2011.

This was another of the academic articles that provided insight into both sides of the argument for privatization. While, at this point, the arguments seem to get a little generic, this article was unique in that it thoroughly detailed both sides for a full picture. Useful in aiding in the understanding of the overall situation, it was an excellent supplemental piece.

Hughes, Vincent. “Money Matters February 2011 Education Investments—A Look Back.” Senate Democratic Appropriations Committee. Washington, D.C. 2011. Web. 3 June 2011.

This article provided several graphs and charts to show financial trends within the United States in recent years. This was very useful as it provided the image for figure two and also demonstrated the truly mind blowing numbers that are sent towards education every year. While this source will most likely not end up being cited for the paper, the images provided will be excellent graphical representations of the points being made.

Kaplan, George R. “Profits R us.” Phi Delta Kappan 78.3 (1996): K1. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 June 2011.

This was an excellent all- around and informative article; explaining not only benefits to privatization but all of the interactions that will take place in the event American businesses ‘converge’ with the university system of the United States, valuable insight was gained in just what direction America could be heading. Evaluating consumerism and education in the same context, this article was one of a kind in all of the research completed and was excellent background information.

Laguzza-Boosman, Kristi D. Issue: Does Privatization at the Federal Level Serve the Public Good? Walden University. 2008. Web. 3 June 2011.

This article took an interest in the privatization of most public services at the federal level. It was interesting because it provided good arguments both for and against such a process. In addition, there was an in- depth background analysis formed so that one could gain a well balanced understanding and form their own opinions. All- in – all, this was very useful in providing reasons both for and against privatization of public universities that could then be further dissected by other sources.

“Martha Minow, Privatization and the Public Good.” Youtube.com. Web. 3 Jun 2011.

This video on Youtube was actually very interesting; a member of the faculty from Harvard University School of Law, made many good points towards the fact that privatization would not only be helpful to universities in general, but would actually be an aid to the overall ‘public good.’ The problem with the video, however, was that it addressed privatization as a whole and not specifically on that of education. While this is not necessarily unhelpful, it was not the most applicable source to be found. Regardless, it was helpful in gaining the overall picture on how it is important to privatize so that the government will not be under such strain.

McPherson, Michael S., and Morton Owen Schapiro. “Funding Roller Coaster for Public Higher Education.” Science 302.5648 (2003): 1157. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 June 2011.

In this academic article, the authors expound on the correlation that as the economy worsens and families are less able to pays for colleges, so too does public funding decrease so that education is made more expensive than before. As, of course, the economy has had its ups and downs over the years, so too have universities been negatively affected. While this article does not specifically talk on privatization, it is an excellent source that describes why such a measure is needed; so that education is not subject to the economy and whimsical funding provided therein.

Ravitch, Diane. “Why Public Schools Need Democratic Governance.” Phi Delta Kappan 91.6 (2010): 24. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 June 2011.

This article is one of the more recent sources in that it evaluates President Obama’s take on implied privatization of schools. Ultimately, says Ravitch, while there may be benefits to such an act, there is a big risk involved. This piece take a more ‘on the fence’ point of view but still provide valuable insight into the issue at large.

Thomas, Mark. “The Privatization of Public Universities.” Economist’s View. 2005. Web. 3 June 2011.

Though acting largely as an opinion paper, this article makes the interesting claim that decreased funding has actually already encouraged the partial privatization of colleges, even though they are still deemed to be in the domain of the state. Ultimately this means that while the state gets away with paying less and less towards their sponsored institutions, colleges are still bound under their restrictions and price fixes. This article is a fresh take on events as they already stand and where they may be headed. While it is without the citations and resources that would make it undoubtedly credible, the information is solid when one keeps the perspective that it is an opinion.

Priest, Douglas and St. John, Edward. Privatization and Public Universities. Indiana University Press. 2006. Print.

Priest and St. John have put together a book that examines the current economy and public policies and analyzes their effects on the institutions of higher education. Ultimately it is an exploration into how to improve education, facilities, and the like even while finances are being cut short. Ways to generate revenue and reduce cost, naturally, are high on the list of priorities. This book is a valuable asset to the paper in that it supplies good reasons behind privatization; as the primary focus is to expound upon the challenges faced by the universities and their options,  however, it can really only back up what other sources say.

Wessel, Robert H. “Privatization in the United States.” Business Economics 30.4 (1995): 45. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 June 2011.

This article is a discussion of all of the broad prospects and benefits of privatizing several different areas, public schools among them. Looking at privatization as a way to increase production and efficiency, Wessel sees it as a true solution rather than the so- called ‘fad’ most people consider it to be. This article was good in that it helped to provide further perspective into the pros portion of privatization but could have been a little more in- depth.

Wilkes, Chris. Personal Interview. 15 May 2011. 3 Jun 2011.

In this personal interview with a political science graduate from a university in Georgia, a lot of insight can be gained. It is one thing to read an article and gather what the author is attempting to day but another thing entirely when a person can ask for clarification right from the source. Though he admits he does not know all the ins and outs of the topic he claims that it appears privatization of any public institution would lead to a shift in quality; instead of working towards the mission and goals of the school, one is really just acting as the puppet of the corporation. This was extremely useful in the argument of the con side of privatization.