At the University of California, Berkeley students around me push mental health care to the side, intake exorbitant amounts of caffeine, sleep four to five hours each night in pursuit of a magical little bundle-- consisting of a high GPA, a diploma, and a dazzling resume that will somehow guarantee a successful future. How little we know. In the meantime, our university administration grapples with nearly a 170 million dollar budget deficit, little to no expansion for space, a housing crisis, a series of undergraduate workers protests, and the exposure of public sexual assault lawsuits between highly visible faculty and their students. Wow, whoever said that political economics was a dismal science hit it right on the nose, this however, does
…show more content…
Firstly, they recognize that the university is an innovator. Secondly, they demonstrate that the state took a backseat to private individuals when it came to the funding of the university. Thirdly and most importantly, they highlight why UC Berkeley had to take on the actions of a business in the first place. For example, as an innovator, the UC Berkeley Professional School of Optometry revolutionized the field of optometry when they developed the eye chart featuring progressively smaller letters to test vision-- reflecting Mazzucato’s concept that public institutions organize real change. However, Mazzucato’s concepts do not fit perfectly. In fact, it is the California State government’s stark decrease of funding that has put such stringent stress on the university's budget.This means that UC Berkeley has to rely on outside donations and philanthropy now more than ever. In effect, the government has shoved all the risk that comes with funding the university onto UC Berkeley administrators. In recent times, the issues plaguing UC Berkeley have been counterarguments to the idea that the government is the true actor taking risks in the economy. When it comes to the relationship between the state and public higher education, it becomes obvious that UC Berkeley’s debt management placed the risk onto private individuals and organizations to fund and increase university …show more content…
Friedman is necessary to discuss in the context of this paper however misguided he may be, because he is one of the few theorists that thoroughly discusses the position of the government in its role of managing our public education system. If Friedman had his way, education would be “imposed upon the by parents without further government action, just as the owners of buildings… are required to adhere to specified standards to protect the safety of others”. In consequence, Friedman would likely argue that it is state intervention that gave UC Berkeley it’s 110 million dollar budget deficit, and if UC Berkeley had been entirely funded by private families through tuition and benefactors it would not be in this situation. Additionally, he was in the position that the competition between various types of schools would account for a more efficient utilization of their resources. Friedman would likely applaud Berkeley’s business like tactics and say that the budget deficit is necessary for the university to transition towards what he would see as a more sustainable, liberal, and realistic position for an education system. For Friedman, the more bureaucracy costs you, the less money you can
Firstly, they recognize that the university is an innovator. Secondly, they demonstrate that the state took a backseat to private individuals when it came to the funding of the university. Thirdly and most importantly, they highlight why UC Berkeley had to take on the actions of a business in the first place. For example, as an innovator, the UC Berkeley Professional School of Optometry revolutionized the field of optometry when they developed the eye chart featuring progressively smaller letters to test vision-- reflecting Mazzucato’s concept that public institutions organize real change. However, Mazzucato’s concepts do not fit perfectly. In fact, it is the California State government’s stark decrease of funding that has put such stringent stress on the university's budget.This means that UC Berkeley has to rely on outside donations and philanthropy now more than ever. In effect, the government has shoved all the risk that comes with funding the university onto UC Berkeley administrators. In recent times, the issues plaguing UC Berkeley have been counterarguments to the idea that the government is the true actor taking risks in the economy. When it comes to the relationship between the state and public higher education, it becomes obvious that UC Berkeley’s debt management placed the risk onto private individuals and organizations to fund and increase university …show more content…
Friedman is necessary to discuss in the context of this paper however misguided he may be, because he is one of the few theorists that thoroughly discusses the position of the government in its role of managing our public education system. If Friedman had his way, education would be “imposed upon the by parents without further government action, just as the owners of buildings… are required to adhere to specified standards to protect the safety of others”. In consequence, Friedman would likely argue that it is state intervention that gave UC Berkeley it’s 110 million dollar budget deficit, and if UC Berkeley had been entirely funded by private families through tuition and benefactors it would not be in this situation. Additionally, he was in the position that the competition between various types of schools would account for a more efficient utilization of their resources. Friedman would likely applaud Berkeley’s business like tactics and say that the budget deficit is necessary for the university to transition towards what he would see as a more sustainable, liberal, and realistic position for an education system. For Friedman, the more bureaucracy costs you, the less money you can