<p>It’s an interesting idea … I wouldn’t expect students or faculties to really go along with it, though. When the UC Regents raised fees last year, most of my teachers had something to say about how the UC system is being “privatized.” I thought it was funny when a professor of mine described it in a way that made it seem like Halliburton or something was going to be taking over, but the “private” entities are students who pay to go to UC campuses.</p>
<p>Ghostbuster makes a good point about how subsidized most public university students’ educations are, and after running the numbers at the site I’ve linked to below, it looks like somewhere between two to three times is about right for many universities. ([Here’s</a> a PDF of the site’s report, since it can’t be linked to directly.](<a href=“2shared.com - free file sharing and storage”>2shared.com - free file sharing and storage)) Maybe it’s because I don’t go to a school with a huge sports presence (compared to UCLA, Cal, Davis, etc.), but I don’t think most schools’ funding issues can be helped that much by messing with their athletics departments. I’ve always gotten the impression that they spend a lot of money, but bring in a lot of money too - along with other tangible and intangible benefits.</p>
<p>I recently read about this website where you can chart data about the revenue and spending of many universities - it’s pretty interesting: [Delta</a> Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability](<a href=“http://www.tcs-online.org/Reports/Report.aspx]Delta”>http://www.tcs-online.org/Reports/Report.aspx)</p>