<p>Well PG, the nice thing about public companies is that they disclose more info. The facts are so over-whelming I’d be pretty confident saying it holds for major private companies too. But we’ll never know unless somebody does a study.</p>
<p>The most recent buildings at CU were not state funded. Dorms are self-funded. Many research heavy buildings are fed funded. Athletic buildings and student unions are privately funded. So the number of actual state funded buildings and their value are rapidly declining at CU. The state ownership of CU is becoming very much a minor amount.</p>
<p>barrons is correct. In fact, CU is an ‘enterprize zone’ - as are many of the bigger public research universities. This blend of a public school with vital investment and involvement in private enterprise is seen by many academics and businesspeople as more economically viable. </p>
<p>Sadly, none of this translates to lower tuition. Total COA at CU is now at over $25,000/year. This in a state where salaries tend to be much lower than on either coast.</p>
<p>I dont think that most state Us charge different room/board for instate or OOS. Nor do they charge differnt for football tix (for IS v OOS students). </p>
<p>The research heavy buildings – are they predominantly for use by undergrads? or grad students, most of whom are stipends?</p>
<p>And where did the land come from.</p>
<p>I still disagree with you as to state ownership being minor.</p>
<p>Katliamom – do business see this as vital, or just want subsidies? Is this the most effecient way to do it?</p>
<p>kayf, businesses get tremendous value from this, that’s why they do it. They get innovation, highly trained workers, and help create communities that are attractive to the highly educated workforce they need. It’s a symbiotic relationship, and you can see it at work nationwide. Miracle Mile outside of Boston is there because of MIT, Harvard, etc. Sillicon Valley is south of San Francisco because of Stanford and Berkeley. The research and high tech companies around Boulder are there for/because of CU. Not for the pretty views. Though those also help attract talent.</p>
<p>
What I find cynical is when someone agitates for change under the banner of “improvement for all” when mostly what they are interested in is increasing their own take.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could he be more transparent? And I don’t detect any sympathy for the 2/3 of students whose tuition will double overnight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does the author have tenure? If so, talking about accountability is disingenuous.</p>
<p>Why do people assume that having tenure means you’re not held accountable?
Oh, yea. Because they know nothing about how tenure works.</p>
<p>Research heavy would be mostly sciences and engineering–aka the areas CU is considered very good in. They are for use by all and the Feds funded most of them in the catchup to Sputnik days. </p>
<p>The point about dorms is they are paid off by the students living in them through rent used to payoff the bonds that built them. Yes, everyone pays the same.</p>
<p>Katilian, businesses want smart people. Especially tech busineses. I agree they want to locate near good colleges, but I do see public/private type investments as extremely susecptible to abuse. </p>
<p>Barrons, if you are pushing to limit aid to STEM, I agree with that. I think anyone should be able to study whatever they want – but any subsidies should be limited.</p>
<p>You may find it suspect but it is in fact quite common, and has been for at least the past half a century. </p>
<p>And not only in the US. In the past 20 years, government-supported schools in England, Germany and France have also been told to find ways of weaning themselves off public funds. Government dependence means only a handful of elite pubic schools have good facilities even in a rich country like Germany. This is one reason why you see an explosion of study abroad programs: it’s a source of cash. Not from companies, but rich American kids 
And while this may not seem at all suspect, it’s also an example of a university becoming entrepreneurial. As are, for example, lucrative extension programs conducted by universities. Investment in/by private companies in universities is simply a more visible form of this growing entrepreneurial nature of public colleges.</p>
<p>Katlian, just becuase something is common, does not mean it is not abused by politicians and businesses. </p>
<p>Right now NY is funding centers with the hope of, for example, biotech locating in Buffalo. Aint gonna happen. Trust me. High tech bus is NOT going to locate there.</p>
<p>So what do you advocate? How should schools get cash? If it ain’t gonna come from taxes, and it ain’t gonna come from enterprise, where’s it gonna come from? Tuition?</p>
<p>And about Buffalo: so should NY just wash its hands from the area?</p>
<p>No of course the state should not and does not “wash its hands” of the area. But to throw money at public/private enterprise is, IMHO, useless. The state can and does provide aid to that area (along with others).</p>
<p>I don’t think collleges should be “entrepeneurial.” I don’t think they have the background to do so. They should stick with their core mission. Attempts at being “entrepeneurial” can and do at times result in abuse of funds.</p>
<p>How should schools get cash? They do get plenty of cash. Maybe they should look at the expense side?</p>
<p>If you object to entrepreneurial universities send your child to a junior college where the mission is not to research but only to teach the basics. End of problem. </p>
<p>But don’t blame those of us who can’t afford elite privates, but whose children are interested in expensive STEM areas, from applauding innovative methods of funding the public universities our kids attend.</p>
<p>Katlia – I am not against research, and I never said that. What I object to is public/private partnerships. I question whether the state/univ is getting moneys worth for valuable intellecutual property. I question whether these deals are fair to the taxpayer.</p>
<p>Enron prided itself on innovative ways to raise money too.</p>
<p>I get it, you perceive your kid as getting a benefit. Thats fine, if down the road it doesnt come back to bite the taxpayers.</p>
<p>But research is expensive! So how do you fund it?</p>
<p>And you act as though these companies steal into universities in the middle of the night to do their dastardly deeds behind our unsuspecting backs. </p>
<p>Instead, they fund buildings in which funded – peer-reviewed! – research takes place by tenured faculty free to criticize it if it needs to, and is then reviewed by peers from other, unrelated labs and schools. There are more committees looking at these undertakings, and more competitive firms and schools following their progress than you can shake a stick at.</p>
<p>Katlia – Yes there have been many lawsuits over the terms by which the companies acquire use of any intellectual property generated. Do you not understand that they are entering these partnerships because they want something? They want the use of this property? Your reply does not address my question – which is OK, but what I have grave doubts over is whether the schools care either. Why should they? Its not their money.</p>
<p>Your discussion deals with the intellectual correctedness of the results, not who owns it.</p>
<p>No, I think we need another Sputnik type push to move technology and science in all areas–not just those of interest to business. In fact one was underway until the current budget mess which is leading to large cuts in research $$$$.</p>
<p>So government funding is the answer, barrons? Hey, I’m all for government funding but then people scream at me that I’m a piko commie agitator so…</p>