Talk:Public university
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of Universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Contents |
[edit] Move
Shouldn't this be moved to Public university (United States) or something? That seems to be what the article is about. / Uppland 09:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it should. Other countries have public universities too, and the principle is generally the same. Darkcore 17:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
UC-Berkeley is 'Cal'. Stop changing it.
-I'd like to note that it's absurd that the University of Washington, Seattle was not included in the list of prestigious public universities. It's currently ranked 3rd in public institutions in the US and is one of the largest research institutions world-wide. It is also in the more updated list of public ivies by Greene's Guides, 2001. Moll's list was made over 20 years ago. It's outdated and misleading.
- This isn't the place to spat about UW, but just out of curiosity, where is it ranked 3rd? It missed top 10 by the US News rankings, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php. The Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranked it the #5 public school (although that ranking had a very suspicious west coast tint, as the public schools were berkeley, ucsd, ucla, wisconsin, uw, and ucsf to start). Washington Monthly ranked it 9th amongst publics.
- I mention this only because the sentence referring to it is suffering some serious bloat: Historically, the most prestigious universities in the United States have been private. However, public universities like University of California, Berkeley, University of Michigan, College of William and Mary, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Virginia, University of Washington, University of Illinois, University of California, Los Angeles, University of Texas at Austin, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and The Pennsylvania State University are highly prestigious as well. If it is public universities like, we really only need a school or two to make the point. I suggest, unless there is good reason otherwise, to reduce this to Berkeley and Michigan (neither of which I attended).Cka3n 05:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Private Schools cost less than Public Schools.
Public university tuition, if any, is typically lower than in private universities.
Is this refering to American Universities or Universities elsewhere? If it is refering to State Universities in the U.S., then it is misleading. Most research shows that State Universities, regardless of their "sticker price", charge more for tuition than private universities, not less.
- Above by DougRisk.
- The College Board reports that for 2005-06 average US private 4-year tuition is $21,235, vs. $5,491 for public tuition. Scholarships and financial aid affect the "sticker price" at both private and public schools, of course. Remember that the wording you modified in the article referred to the tuition fee, not a per-student cost that may somehow factor in state-subsidies. I'm inclined to revert the change you made without further evidence, along with a similar change at Public school, so please post links. Jkiang 18:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)"
Private universities offer far more endowment for people with incomes below 80,000 a year. Often--in fact, in most cases--if you make less than 60,000 a year, you can go to a private university (especially a prestigious one) for cheaper than a public university. I believe most of the Ivy League and Stanford have eliminated tuition for students whose family or personal income is below 45,000 a year.
[edit] Different Meanings of Public University
I believe it is important to stress the different meanings of the term "public university" as used in English-speaking countries and elsewhere in the world. In continental Europe or Latin America, a public university normally means an institution of higher learning that is actually run by the state (normally subordinate to some central or regional government ministry). By contrast, most British and several Canadian universities (e.g. McGill) are only "public" to the extent that most (though not all) of their funding comes from the state in terms of teaching or research grants. Otherwise, they are privately-managed, independent institutions meaning that: (1) they elect their own officials/administration normally without state interference; (2) they hire their own faculty and staff (who, unlike in France or Germany, are not career civil servants/governmment employees); (3) they own property and other (short and long-term) assets; (4) they define their own standards/criteria for the admission of students, again normally without state interference; (5) they independently set out the curricula for the different courses of studies they offer and specify the requirements that have to be fulfilled for awarding different academic degrees; and, finally, (6) they are free to charge tuition and other ancillary fees from matriculated students, although, in this case, that may be subject to government regulation in certain jurisdictions (in England for example, there are statutory limitations on tution fees that can be charged to undergraduate domestic students; those restrictions however do not apply to international (non-EU) or graduate students, who make up a considerable percentage nowadays of the student body). Furthermore, the fact that a few UK universities like Cambridge or Oxford actually have sizeable private endowments of their own (at least, by European standards) also helps to reduce their dependence on central government grants. 161.24.19.82 12:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] europe
it would be good to see what about italy, france, geramany, spain, austria and other estates of european community or european continent :)
[edit] Important: Public versus Private
The following quote from the LSE talk page seems to support the view that UK universities (and indeed a few older Canadian universities established by Royal Charter) are actually PRIVATE entities, although maintained mostly by public funds:
" The LSE is a private institution. Indeed, since the privatisation of the polytechnics in 1992, all higher education institutions in the United Kingdom are private entities. Most are incorporated by a royal charter. The LSE is incorporated under the UK Companies Act. Public bodies in the UK can only be established by a parliamentary act and cannot be established by Royal Charter only nor under the UK Companies Act.
The question of public vs private is indeed an ownership not a funding issue. Harvard University, a U.S. private institution, receives more public funds than some U.S. public institutions. The University of California is a public university system (with multiple campus) and its assets are owned by the State of California through its appointed Board of Regents (trustees of the state). The Swiss Federal Institute of Technologies - one in Zurich, the other in Lausanne - are both public institutions, its assets owned by the Swiss Federal Government.
Marcel Bigger Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee LSE Alumni Association"
Please note the important point above that the term "public university" applies only to institutions like German/French universities or state universities in the U.S. whose assets are actually owned by the State, and not to bodies like Cambridge or McGill whose assets are privately owned. I strongly believe the Wikipedia is making a serious legal mistake by referring to UK and Canadian universities as "public universities" and, accordingly, I think professional legal review of the contents of this article is needed. Mbruno 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The opening paragraph
A. Commonwealth v. Britain v. UK
I'm not sure if there is guidance elsewhere, but the article could use some clean-up to make its nomenclature more consistent. Right now, the opening paragraph reads:
A public university is a university that is predominantly funded by public means through a national or regional government. In The Commonwealth and most European countries the majority of universities are public. British universities have institutional autonomy, which is well respected as it has developed over centuries. In the 20th century they came to rely on the government for most of their funding. The only university which is wholly privately financed in the UK is the University of Buckingham, which has a low profile and caters largely for overseas students.
It appears (to me at least), that one political entity is referred to in that one paragraph by three different monikers: The Commonwealth, Britain, and the United Kingdom. (I realize that the terms may technically refer to different entities, but the paragraph reads as if they are being used as if they were interchangeable.)
Query, then: 1 - Am I reading that incorrectly? E.g., are those three terms actually referring to different entities? If so, the paragraph should be re-written to make clear what is being referred to by each term.
2 - If I am reading the paragraph correctly, then we should pick a consistent terminology. Although "The Commonwealth" might be clear to many readers, it wasn't clear to me. (I had a guess as to what it meant given the context, but I had to click on through to figure things out. While clicking on through isn't the worst thing in the world, articles should, presumably, be written with clarity in mind.) I'd guess the same lack of familiarity with the term is far from rare amongst Wikipedia's readers.
Moreover, given the European context, I am not sure that the broader political entity should be the focus of the sentence. Nor am I am sure that one could easily find a source for the public/private status of the universities in all 53 independent states in the Commonwealth or that there is a good reason for organizing the analysis by this organization (as opposed to the geographic organization followed in the rest of the article).
Accordingly, unless there are strong countervailing reasons, I'd suggest using either England or the United Kingdom.
B. Trimming the opening text
Regardless of the first issue, I suggest that the first text be trimmed substantially. Some of the text would be more appropriately placed in a region-specific section within the article, and the listing of schools is too long to be particularly useful other than to promote the listed schools.
Hence, I propose the text prior to the Contents tabled be replaced with:
A public university is a university that is predominantly funded by public means through a national or regional government. Worldwide, prominent public institutions are highly influential centres of research, and many of these universities are ranked among the world's best in The Times Higher Education Supplement and the Academic Ranking of World Universities.
(More could be added in terms of a general opening, but I want to at least take the initial step of pruning back.)
Some of the other text could certainly form the beginnings of a subsection on the history of the public university as an institution (e.g., "British universities have institutional autonomy, which has developed over centuries. In the 20th century they came to rely on the government for most of their funding." and "Many public universities were formerly private or religious institutions."). That, however, I leave for another day.
Given the scope of these changes, and the fact that they are essentially deletions, I wanted to set forth my reasoning for commentary prior to enacting them. Unless there are objections, I will make these changes (and then watch, of course, as they get instantly reverted). Cka3n 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
