BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[briantrumpet]

Slippery slope. More like a pre soaped water slide, actually.

I'm not sure what @PurplePenguin means by 'privatised US universities' anyway.

https://scottgibb.substack.com/p/who-owns-americas-universities

I can't see any mention of them being owned by big businesses or private equity. In fact, it looks all terribly opaque and archaic.

Here's the response to my Gemini question about the ownership model of Ivy League universities:

All eight Ivy League institutions are private, non-profit corporations. They have no private owners, shareholders, or equity holders. Instead, they operate as charitable educational institutions held in trust for the public good and governed by independent boards.
The structure of their ownership and governance model consists of four core components:

1. Board of Trustees (Fiduciary Ownership)​

Legal authority and ultimate custodianship rest with a Board of Trustees (also referred to as the Board of Regents, Corporation, or Fellows depending on the school).

• Role: Trustees act as fiduciaries rather than financial owners. They hold legal title to university property and assets strictly to fulfill the university’s institutional mission.
• Composition: Members typically include alumni, donors, educational leaders, and industry executives who serve without financial equity in the institution.

2. Non-Profit Corporate Charters​

Each Ivy League school operates under a legal charter granted by its respective state (or, in colonial times, the British Crown).

• Charitable Status: They hold federal 501(c)(3) non-profit status in the United States.
• Reinvestment: Any operating surplus generated through tuition, research grants, or investments cannot be distributed as profits. It must be reinvested directly back into university operations, research, financial aid, and facilities.

3. Endowment Management​

Ivy League universities hold massive institutional funds managed in perpetuity.

• Trust Principles: Endowments consist of thousands of individual restricted funds given by donors.
• Legal Oversight: The capital must be managed according to state trust laws (such as the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act) and donor intent. Trustees cannot liquidate or spend down the core capital arbitrarily; they only spend a controlled percentage (typically 4–5% annually) of investment returns.

4. Legal Protection & Autonomy​

In 1819, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling Dartmouth College v. Woodward established that private university charters are protected contracts that state governments cannot unilaterally alter or seize. This guarantees complete institutional autonomy from public government ownership.

 

[First Aspect]

I'm not sure what @PurplePenguin means by 'privatised US universities' anyway.

https://scottgibb.substack.com/p/who-owns-americas-universities

I can't see any mention of them being owned by big businesses or private equity. In fact, it looks all terribly opaque and archaic.

Here's the response to my Gemini question about the ownership model of Ivy League universities:

Perhaps I have skipped a step. All of the Ivy Leagues are astronomically expensive. If you do this in the UK, if the funding is the same you will end up in the same place so there is no point. So if it happens, it creates pressure for other funding options. Perhaps more paid places from overseas. Sponsorship perhaps. Or perhaps just higher fees. Or different subjects. Science is expensive, for examples.

All this aside, there are vast numbers of other universities with more of an agenda in the US. Religious, mostly.

 

[briantrumpet]

Perhaps I have skipped a step. All of the Ivy Leagues are astronomically expensive. If you do this in the UK, if the funding is the same you will end up in the same place so there is no point. So if it happens, it creates pressure for other funding options. Perhaps more paid places from overseas. Sponsorship perhaps. Or perhaps just higher fees. Or different subjects. Science is expensive, for examples.

All this aside, there are vast numbers of other universities with more of an agenda in the US. Religious, mostly.

I asked about Ivy League universities, as they are the ones who have the international reputation, which I think PP was saying shows that 'privatised universities' could do well. They obviously have shedloads of money from various sources, not least very rich parents who can afford $62,226 yearly tuition fees for Harvard, say. Meanwhile, UK universities have had to get by on under £10k for UK students, a rate dictated by government. Given that, it's amazing that UK universities have held up so well in international terms.

 

[Rusty Nails]

What is it about 52/48?

View attachment 16719

I went from 52 to 50 a few years back, but the hills seem a lot steeper now so am considering going to 48.

Is that what you mean by 52 and 48?

 

[PurplePenguin]

I asked about Ivy League universities, as they are the ones who have the international reputation, which I think PP was saying shows that 'privatised universities' could do well. They obviously have shedloads of money from various sources, not least very rich parents who can afford $62,226 yearly tuition fees for Harvard, say. Meanwhile, UK universities have had to get by on under £10k for UK students, a rate dictated by government. Given that, it's amazing that UK universities have held up so well in international terms.

I meant privately funded more like private schools in the UK than state schools. Whilst they are non-profit, changing to for profit wouldn't seem such a jump for the US universities as it would for European ones. Some UK private schools are run for profit.

The UK model seems to be a halfway house with chunky fees and state support. Note they have a massive advantage when competing with many universities around the world which is language.

 

[briantrumpet]

I can't help feeling I'm missing a cheesy pun...

 

[First Aspect]

I asked Gemini.

It said things aren't looking gouda. The cheese makers aren't feeling grate about things.

 

[Beebo]

Whole thing stinks, if you ask me.

 

[First Aspect]

I meant privately funded more like private schools in the UK than state schools. Whilst they are non-profit, changing to for profit wouldn't seem such a jump for the US universities as it would for European ones. Some UK private schools are run for profit.

The UK model seems to be a halfway house with chunky fees and state support. Note they have a massive advantage when competing with many universities around the world which is language.

For some perspective, the UK model is not dissimilar to the US state universities or funding in Canada.

I looked up two examples I sort of rubbed shoulders with. If you live in Washington (state) tuition fees for an undergrad.are about US$13k per annum. $44k forgot of state students. At UBC in Canada, domestic undergrads (not limited by their province) pay about CA$7k per annum.

The balance of funding comes from federal, state and provincial grants.

On this one, PP, it seems that even less regulated countries recognise the intrinsic value of education and academia.

The key difference in the US is that they have a parallel system of private institutions. (Not sure about Canada). But in the US these existed first I think, and they in any case also receive federal funding. I am going to guess that the same applies to some of the more sketchy US institutions, but that there are also bodies that call themselves "university of the latter day Zarquonists" or somesuch that are just private bodies.

But for most purposes, there is no such thing as a fully privatised university in the US or Canada and all of their funding models are "hybrid".

Attendance rates at undergraduate level are similar for all three, and from memory I think that a lot of comparative countries are in the same range.

The UK is interesting in that it is fairly expensive (comparable to US state universities, but in an economy with lower wages and higher tax), but not at the point of delivery. The UK government therefore.funds.in advance and clawsoney back later. As we know but can't explain to the masses, most undergraduates never pay it back, so the actual fees are likely much closer to Canada's.

Personally I think Canada has it about right. And the US model is already at least incompatible with the UK economy - most aspiring parents have to build up a sizeable college fund (professionals I interact with are aiming for $100-$150k per child) and/or students end up with sizeable loans they are paying back well into their 30s. It's one of those hidden taxes in tried to explain to RC back in the BR days.

 

[PurplePenguin]

For some perspective, the UK model is not dissimilar to the US state universities or funding in Canada.

I looked up two examples I sort of rubbed shoulders with. If you live in Washington (state) tuition fees for an undergrad.are about US$13k per annum. $44k forgot of state students. At UBC in Canada, domestic undergrads (not limited by their province) pay about CA$7k per annum.

The balance of funding comes from federal, state and provincial grants.

On this one, PP, it seems that even less regulated countries recognise the intrinsic value of education and academia.

The key difference in the US is that they have a parallel system of private institutions. (Not sure about Canada). But in the US these existed first I think, and they in any case also receive federal funding. I am going to guess that the same applies to some of the more sketchy US institutions, but that there are also bodies that call themselves "university of the latter day Zarquonists" or somesuch that are just private bodies.

But for most purposes, there is no such thing as a fully privatised university in the US or Canada and all of their funding models are "hybrid".

Attendance rates at undergraduate level are similar for all three, and from memory I think that a lot of comparative countries are in the same range.

The UK is interesting in that it is fairly expensive (comparable to US state universities, but in an economy with lower wages and higher tax), but not at the point of delivery. The UK government therefore.funds.in advance and clawsoney back later. As we know but can't explain to the masses, most undergraduates never pay it back, so the actual fees are likely much closer to Canada's.

Personally I think Canada has it about right. And the US model is already at least incompatible with the UK economy - most aspiring parents have to build up a sizeable college fund (professionals I interact with are aiming for $100-$150k per child) and/or students end up with sizeable loans they are paying back well into their 30s. It's one of those hidden taxes in tried to explain to RC back in the BR days.

I can see the parallel between US state universities and the UK, but I think a more interesting comparison would be with European universities that still offer free degrees. The UK's introduction of fees seems to have changed a few things - now far more students graduate with 1st/2.1 degrees, and the universities seem incredibly reliant on overseas students e.g. I think for undergraduate maths at UCL something like 350 out 380 students were Chinese with an expectation that a significant number would fail the first year. So, for me, the key question is whether state subsidies achieve their objectives however these are defined, and whether European countries get a better return. I'd want to look beyond league tables for that, but who knows, maybe it is like car manufacturing in Newcastle and it just helps employ people in Exeter.

I do think though that some professional qualifications offer far better value for money than a degree, so I'd be happy for the whole system to be challenged. That said, like environmental regulation, it feels like something the free market would struggle with as they would all compete with each other and end up giving their students triple firsts.

 

[briantrumpet]

it just helps employ aging musicians in Exeter.

FTFY.

Joking aside - thanks for the perspective... not disagreeing with the questions you raise. At the same time, I don't think the current policy of (apparently) just letting a fair chunk of the sector (potentially) go to the wall is the most strategic way of changing the way it's developed and been run.

 

[briantrumpet]

For some perspective, the UK model is not dissimilar to the US state universities or funding in Canada.

I looked up two examples I sort of rubbed shoulders with. If you live in Washington (state) tuition fees for an undergrad.are about US$13k per annum. $44k forgot of state students. At UBC in Canada, domestic undergrads (not limited by their province) pay about CA$7k per annum.

The balance of funding comes from federal, state and provincial grants.

On this one, PP, it seems that even less regulated countries recognise the intrinsic value of education and academia.

The key difference in the US is that they have a parallel system of private institutions. (Not sure about Canada). But in the US these existed first I think, and they in any case also receive federal funding. I am going to guess that the same applies to some of the more sketchy US institutions, but that there are also bodies that call themselves "university of the latter day Zarquonists" or somesuch that are just private bodies.

But for most purposes, there is no such thing as a fully privatised university in the US or Canada and all of their funding models are "hybrid".

Attendance rates at undergraduate level are similar for all three, and from memory I think that a lot of comparative countries are in the same range.

The UK is interesting in that it is fairly expensive (comparable to US state universities, but in an economy with lower wages and higher tax), but not at the point of delivery. The UK government therefore.funds.in advance and clawsoney back later. As we know but can't explain to the masses, most undergraduates never pay it back, so the actual fees are likely much closer to Canada's.

Personally I think Canada has it about right. And the US model is already at least incompatible with the UK economy - most aspiring parents have to build up a sizeable college fund (professionals I interact with are aiming for $100-$150k per child) and/or students end up with sizeable loans they are paying back well into their 30s. It's one of those hidden taxes in tried to explain to RC back in the BR days.

Thanks FA.

 

[PurplePenguin]

FTFY.

Joking aside - thanks for the perspective... not disagreeing with the questions you raise. At the same time, I don't think the current policy of (apparently) just letting a fair chunk of the sector (potentially) go to the wall is the most strategic way of changing the way it's developed and been run.

That would imply that you think there are issues facing UK universities at present? Why do they all have a right to continue to exist?

 

[briantrumpet]

That would imply that you think there are issues facing UK universities at present? Why do they all have a right to continue to exist?

That's not what I said - of course there are issues, but the government just shrugging its shoulders and letting a fair chunk of the sector shut up shop, and others (potentially) being bought up by aggressive private equity businesses because of financial straits isn't strategic or 'managed'.

There ought to be a proper debate about what we want it to look like (at least Burnham has made noises about that, right or wrong) and how we get there. As we see with the water industry, 'letting the market decide' isn't necessarily the best way of getting out of a tricky situation.

But at the same time, we should also recognise that the UK university sector *has* been very successful by many metrics, domestic and international. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, eh?

 

[PurplePenguin]

That's not what I said - of course there are issues, but the government just shrugging its shoulders and letting a fair chunk of the sector shut up shop, and others (potentially) being bought up by aggressive private equity businesses because of financial straits isn't strategic or 'managed'.

There ought to be a proper debate about what we want it to look like (at least Burnham has made noises about that, right or wrong) and how we get there. As we see with the water industry, 'letting the market decide' isn't necessarily the best way of getting out of a tricky situation.

But at the same time, we should also recognise that the UK university sector *has* been very successful by many metrics, domestic and international. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, eh?

I definitely do not have a good enough knowledge of the sector to articulate the solution, but I think you should explain why universities are now failing. Is it because domestic students simply do not pay enough? If so, then that seems like a decent argument to increase the contribution per student. Is it because international students don't come as much? If so, then that is less straight-forward, because there needs to be an understanding why and whether fixing it will break something else. Is it because some universities simply don't appeal/ are not good enough and there is a reducing number of kids willing to be saddled with debt (note child population is decreasing from what is around year 8 I think)? If so, then the solution is not more money, it is something else, because those universities have failed, and I would be willing to consider offers. If Meta want to fund a degree in stalking/radicalising/spying then is that so bad? OK, other options could be considered.