That is, free from state funding, financially self-sufficient, and operationally autonomous:
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/09/20/uclas-plan-to-take-its-b-school-private/

Is that something Cal is doing or thinking of doing as well?

And I'm a student there, starting today (I've worn Cal colors to multiple events, to anyone worried)

But I think Haas is at least as independent financially as Anderson... back when I came to Cal Day in 2002, the guy at Haas said that the school was 'effectively private.'

WWWSJD? What would the Wall Street Journal do?

If the Anderson school wants to get privatized, they should be viewed like any other sort of asset. Let UCLA keep it's good name and the real estate and sell off the rest. Perhaps the University of Phoenix would be willing to purchase the remaining assets and set up in some business park in the Valley. Then we'd be able to see how this "privatization" plan really works.

:rollinglaugh:

93gobears;574154 said:

---

WWWSJD? What would the Wall Street Journal do?

If the Anderson school wants to get privatized, they should be viewed like any other sort of asset. Let UCLA keep it's good name and the real estate and sell off the rest. Perhaps the University of Phoenix would be willing to purchase the remaining assets and set up in some business park in the Valley. Then we'd be able to see how this "privatization" plan really works.

:rollinglaugh:

---

I gaurantee Haas is funded the exact same way. I'd surmise this is true of most top public business schools (and probably law schools) - you can't compete with a Stanford GSB and HBS on public funds.

Hmmmm......90K+ for an MBA? They better DAMM well be showing some amazing placement statistics for that kind of "investment". Know a FEW people in So Cal from Anderson but surprisingly not that many. If you have a tech background Rady (UCSD) would seem a much sounder investment if an MBA rocks your boat.

SadbutTrue999;574176 said:

---

I gaurantee Haas is funded the exact same way. I'd surmise this is true of most top public business schools (and probably law schools) - you can't compete with a Stanford GSB and HBS on public funds.

---

Yep. Haas is almost, if not entirely, self sufficient.

FingeroftheBear;574152 said:

---

I think that's the wave of the future at UC schools. UC is funded by the state currently at around 30% (?).

---

And I think Cal and UCLA are about half of that - approaching private school status.

SadbutTrue999;574176 said:

---

I gaurantee Haas is funded the exact same way. I'd surmise this is true of most top public business schools (and probably law schools) - you can't compete with a Stanford GSB and HBS on public funds.

---

So why use the moniker "private" to describe a graduate business school that for the majority of it's history recieved its current benefits from the founding, stability, branding, and funding by the University of California.

I wonder what exactly is the problem with the current model whereby California students don't enjoy most of the benefits from a graduate business school established by their own state's public University. No one would dare think that California kids could not occupy and serve well the interests of the state of California.

The whole "plan" seems ill conceived by the current Anderson school Dean Judy Olian, because giving up all state funding, in return for freedom from some state rules and freedom to raise tuition, there will be relatively little incentive to rein in costs and California student access will suffer.

Incredibly, Dean Olian pronounced that these new measures are "not privatization.... We will continue to be part of UCLA and part of the state[]" despite the decreasing number of California (40% and US students attending her business school.

Perhaps Dean Olian feels that her duty is to serve BlackRock and Pimco while serving as dean of a UC graduate school, but I think different. I think she owes a duty to the People of the State of California, despite the fact that she has only spent 5.5 years as a resident of California (born and raised in Australia, she holds a B.S. degree in Psychology from the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Industrial Relations from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and prior to becoming Dean at Anderson she was dean and professor of management at the Smeal College of Business Administration at Pennsylvania State University).

OK, read this: UCLA has a hot Aussie blond Dean, sauced in psychology, managing their Business School who wants to take it private so people like her can increase their salaries.

Sound about right? Oh and just for emphasis, the last school she headed was Penn State.

93gobears;574436 said:

---

So why use the moniker "private" to describe a graduate business school that for the majority of it's history recieved its current benefits from the founding, stability, branding, and funding by the University of California.

I wonder what exactly is the problem with the current model whereby California students don't enjoy most of the benefits from a graduate business school established by their own state's public University. No one would dare think that California kids could not occupy and serve well the interests of the state of California.

The whole "plan" seems ill conceived by the current Anderson school Dean Judy Olian, because giving up all state funding, in return for freedom from some state rules and freedom to raise tuition, there will be relatively little incentive to rein in costs and California student access will suffer.

Incredibly, Dean Olian pronounced that these new measures are "not privatization.... We will continue to be part of UCLA and part of the state[]" despite the decreasing number of California (40% and US students attending her business school.

Perhaps Dean Olian feels that her duty is to serve BlackRock and Pimco while serving as dean of a UC graduate school, but I think different. I think she owes a duty to the People of the State of California, despite the fact that she has only spent 5.5 years as a resident of California (born and raised in Australia, she holds a B.S. degree in Psychology from the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Industrial Relations from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and prior to becoming Dean at Anderson she was dean and professor of management at the Smeal College of Business Administration at Pennsylvania State University).

OK, read this: UCLA has a hot Aussie blond Dean, sauced in psychology, managing their Business School who wants to take it private so people like her can increase their salaries.

Sound about right? Oh and just for emphasis, the last school she headed was Penn State.

---

I'm not exactly sure what your contention is. Would you rather UCLA (and Cal) force their business schools to rely on state funding, potentially resulting in it ceasing to be competitive with top private business schools? What major rules do you think Anderson will break if its free from state funding? Increased tuition... thats happening everywhere, and the gap between a Cal/UCLA fulltime MBA and a private has been closing for a while. More out of state students? Also happening all over the UC system at every level. Not sure why you think Anderson remaining a true public would fix or slow either of these problems, and I'm not sure what you'd prefer they do. Those problems permeate the entire UC landscape.

93gobears;574154 said:

---

WWWSJD? What would the Wall Street Journal do?

If the Anderson school wants to get privatized, they should be viewed like any other sort of asset. Let UCLA keep it's good name and the real estate and sell off the rest. Perhaps the University of Phoenix would be willing to purchase the remaining assets and set up in some business park in the Valley. Then we'd be able to see how this "privatization" plan really works.

:rollinglaugh:

---

We're not talking about handing HBS over to Citigroup. This is about making HBS finacially (and presumably administratively) self-sufficient. "Privatize" is probably the wrong word, it's "self-sufficiency," which is the way we should be going with HBS (and the law school), and hopefully soon our athletic program.

Seriously, what possible value would there be in WANTING tax dollars to go to HBS, or any other aspect of the university that can be made finacially self-sustaining, if we don't have to allocate them there?

BeachyBear;574483 said:

---

We're not talking about handing HBS over to Citigroup.

---

For a second I thought you wrote HSBC. Ha. My bad.

SadbutTrue999;574459 said:

---

I'm not exactly sure what your contention is. .

---

It was stated fairly clearly, I don't understand how you missed it: "why use the moniker "private" to describe a graduate business school that for the majority of it's history recieved its current benefits from the founding, stability, branding, and funding by the University of California. ... The whole "plan" seems ill conceived by the current Anderson school Dean Judy Olian, because giving up all state funding, in return for freedom from some state rules and freedom to raise tuition, there will be relatively little incentive to rein in costs and California student access will suffer."

SadbutTrue999;574459 said:

---

Would you rather UCLA (and Cal) force their business schools to rely on state funding, potentially resulting in it ceasing to be competitive with top private business schools?

---

Yes. I could care less about the Business schools, and I went to Haas. UC Business Schools do not need Pimco or Blackstone to infiltrate the young minds of America's next generation of business leaders.

The new Haas B School once had an arthur andersen lecture hall. You know, the Big 5 accounting firm prohibited from issuing audit reports because of their systematic proclivity to LIE.

SadbutTrue999;574459 said:

---

What major rules do you think Anderson will break if its free from state funding? Increased tuition... thats happening everywhere, and the gap between a Cal/UCLA fulltime MBA and a private has been closing for a while. More out of state students? Also happening all over the UC system at every level.

---

I already answered this, but I will add that such lack of standards and supervision by an upper body is an invitation to a race to the bottom.

SadbutTrue999;574459 said:

---

Not sure why you think Anderson remaining a true public would fix or slow either of these problems, and I'm not sure what you'd prefer they do. Those problems permeate the entire UC landscape.

---

Well if I don't object to such practices and I feel they're wrong, who will object?

First off, people need to realize that even if these professional schools accept NOTHING in outright state funding, they are not private entities. Because they are still using university owned facilities that they have not purchased from said university. As such they are still drawing a direct subsidy from the university (i.e. free rent). That subsidy dictates that the university still should have some control/influence over the professional school regardless of outright funding.

LethalFang;574111 said:

---

That is, free from state funding, financially self-sufficient, and operationally autonomous:
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/09/20/uclas-plan-to-take-its-b-school-private/

Is that something Cal is doing or thinking of doing as well?

---

.. is dead meat. Not today, or tomorrow, but the day after that.

Just like paper based news is toast.

#Sorry Kids!

#Sinical For A Reason

Cal84;574704 said:

---

First off, people need to realize that even if these professional schools accept NOTHING in outright state funding, they are not private entities. Because they are still using university owned facilities that they have not purchased from said university. As such they are still drawing a direct subsidy from the university (i.e. free rent). That subsidy dictates that the university still should have some control/influence over the professional school regardless of outright funding.

---

I could take the reverse argument and say that alumni donations from professional schools far exceed donations from non-professional schools, and those funds are often earmarked as general use funds for the entire university.

Cal and UCLA do have influence over these decisions, and these are conscious decisions they are making.

Having gone to B-school, I can tell you that public funding is not enough to maintain a top 20 ranking (or wherever Haas is rated). There's no way any public institution could keep professors, maintain/upgrade facilities (especially with how quickly technology changes) and attract recruiters.

Even where I attended (a private B-school), there were significant enough donations from regular recruiters that there were classrooms, conference rooms, etc. named after them.

93gobears;574436 said:

---

So why use the moniker "private" to describe a graduate business school that for the majority of it's history recieved its current benefits from the founding, stability, branding, and funding by the University of California.

I wonder what exactly is the problem with the current model whereby California students don't enjoy most of the benefits from a graduate business school established by their own state's public University. No one would dare think that California kids could not occupy and serve well the interests of the state of California.

The whole "plan" seems ill conceived by the current Anderson school Dean Judy Olian, because giving up all state funding, in return for freedom from some state rules and freedom to raise tuition, there will be relatively little incentive to rein in costs and California student access will suffer.

Incredibly, Dean Olian pronounced that these new measures are "not privatization.... We will continue to be part of UCLA and part of the state[]" despite the decreasing number of California (40%) and US students attending her business school.

Perhaps Dean Olian feels that her duty is to serve BlackRock and Pimco while serving as dean of a UC graduate school, but I think different. I think she owes a duty to the People of the State of California, despite the fact that she has only spent 5.5 years as a resident of California (born and raised in Australia, she holds a B.S. degree in Psychology from the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Industrial Relations from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and prior to becoming Dean at Anderson she was dean and professor of management at the Smeal College of Business Administration at Pennsylvania State University).

OK, read this: UCLA has a hot Aussie blond Dean, sauced in psychology, managing their Business School who wants to take it private so people like her can increase their salaries.

Sound about right? Oh and just for emphasis, the last school she headed was Penn State.

---

First, I don't believe that Haas was majority state funded throughout the majority of its history. If you have a citation, I'd like to see it.

Second, the issue here is that income from the state is nowhere near enough to subsidize the discount in tuition for California residents. This is a conscious decision by the California voters. You simply can't have your cake and eat it too.

Third: I don't see the connection between privatization and the academic integrity of the university (and its professional schools). I'm not sure how you are arguing that the integrity of Haas would decline if it moves from 95% private to 100% private. If it has continued thus far without bowing to corporate interests, another 5% isn't going to do it.

slider643;574714 said:

---

Even where I attended (a private B-school), there were significant enough donations from regular recruiters that there were classrooms, conference rooms, etc. named after them.

---

It's been that way forever. Still doesn't change the fact that every professional school at a state university still continues to take in support from said state university.

If the argument is that these professional schools need external sources of funding (or higher tuition, or both) in order to remain competitive, then you will not find any rational counter-opposition. But if they the expectation is that professional school administrators believe that they will get no political flak from raising their own salaries, then they are setting themselves up to be disappointed.

BearEatsTacos;574717 said:

---

First, I don't believe that Haas was majority state funded throughout the majority of its history. If you have a citation, I'd like to see it.

---

If Haas was privately funded ala Harvard, I want my money back. No citation, but I did endure Haas while it was centered at Barrows Hall (3rd floor for admin). I thought the place was a corporate hell-hole.

BearEatsTacos;574717 said:

---

Second, the issue here is that income from the state is nowhere near enough to subsidize the discount in tuition for California residents.

---

So why can't California afford a good University sytem?

BearEatsTacos;574717 said:

---

Third: I don't see the connection between privatization and the academic integrity of the university (and its professional schools). I'm not sure how you are arguing that the integrity of Haas would decline if it moves from 95% private to 100% private. If it has continued thus far without bowing to corporate interests, another 5% isn't going to do it.

---

Another shift to the bottom.

This is not hard math, CA.

BearEatsTacos;574710 said:

---

I could take the reverse argument and say that alumni donations from professional schools far exceed donations from non-professional schools, and those funds are often earmarked as general use funds for the entire university.

Cal and UCLA do have influence over these decisions, and these are conscious decisions they are making.

---

To quote you, you have a citation to back that up? :p

When I get calls from Cal, if it's from Haas, then it is for the Haas annual fund. No one asks me to make a donation to the general fund.

full time enrollment at Haas is 500 students, they donate more then the other 30,000 students? And Haas can't claim Don Fisher and Warren Hellman since they didn't attend the school. :gobears:

93gobears;574775 said:

---

If Haas was privately funded ala Harvard, I want my money back. No citation, but I did endure Haas while it was centered at Barrows Hall (3rd floor for admin). I thought the place was a corporate hell-hole.

---

Very few departments in Berkeley are majority state-funded, and this has been the case for decades now. In fact, I think even the most expensive departments (those with no external funding opportunities), such as Philosophy or English, are no longer majority state funded.

Quote:

---

So why can't California afford a good University sytem?

---

Because taxpayers won't pay for it? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Quote:

---

Another shift to the bottom.

This is not hard math, CA.

---

You've missed my point. Where is this fall of integrity you are speaking of? You are essentializing your ideal of business school into a mythical utopia which does not reflect any business school in the nation. Reminisce as you'd like, but don't conflate these two trends and place blame at the feet of the UC.

buster99;574776 said:

---

To quote you, you have a citation to back that up? :p

When I get calls from Cal, if it's from Haas, then it is for the Haas annual fund. No one asks me to make a donation to the general fund.

full time enrollment at Haas is 500 students, they donate more then the other 30,000 students? And Haas can't claim Don Fisher and Warren Hellman since they didn't attend the school. :gobears:

---

On a alumni vs. alumni basis, yes this is true (I did not say Haas alumni donate more than ALL of the rest of the alumni combined):

http://haas.berkeley.edu/groups/alumni/giving/haasfund/societies/levels.html

At $1.95 million a year to just the Haas fund from 624 sources. More than enough to cover annual rent.

I suppose that my main objection is the use of the word "privatization" by a Dean of a UC Business School. I understand that this point may be minute to most, however there is a significant distinction from it's use.

Not only is the word's use innacurate under these circumstances, it is also "politically charged".

Not to mention that the "privatize" campaign was started by a career administrator with little ties to California.

And given that business school Dean "Aussie Blonde" can't/won't use the proper characterization of the word "privatize" (while pushing forth changes that may affect the entire UC system) leads me to view her opinions and leadership as circumspect.