• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Like a few other top public graduate schools in the country, the UCLA Anderson School of Management is setting the groundwork to become a self-funding institution to preserve its high ranking.

By lessening its reliance on state funding, the school would avoid being unsettled by the tumultuous and unpredictable California state budget, financial analysts say.

This new financial model would rely on student activities to generate funds for the school. If the school continued to rely on the state for funding, it is predicted by financial analysts that it would not be able to stay competitive against other graduate schools, especially those in the Ivy League, which are self-supporting already.

Most Anderson School student fees, which have almost doubled in the last three years, go to the UC system, not back to the school. This can be detrimental to student education because the quality of faculty and services are compromised. With the new model, student fees would be raised, but for the specific goal of enhancing what Anderson offers them in programs.

The school currently holds the 12th rank out of 82 business schools, according to U.S. News and World Reports’ 2005 rankings.

A 2003 study by McKinsey and Co., a management consulting firm, predicted that the Anderson School and the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley had allotted low funds for student programs which “hinders the competitive position” of the schools. In addition, the schools were found to be disadvantaged in the realm of faculty compensation and non-instructional spending.

The recommended increase in fees and privatization of funding by receiving state financial support would not limit access to the schools for students, McKinsey and Co. also reported.

The dean of the Anderson School, Bruce Willinson, who has been pushing the new self-sustaining model for three years, said he would rather not use the term privatization since it implies alienation from the larger UCLA campus. Rather, he said he would like to make it clear that Anderson would very much like to stay affiliated with the community though it might keep its finances a separate issue.

Current and prospective students alike may wonder how much they will be affected by raised fees. Though Anderson graduate students have expressed concern over fees, they say they are more affected by the thought that Anderson’s name may lose its effect in their job interviews after graduation.

“Of course the risks are that Anderson will lose its ability to be top school,” said Willinson. “If the name were to be diluted, it would have a huge impact on our future.”

This has not happened yet and is not predicted to, as the school now receives 10 applicants for every spot available. In addition, the school intends to make up for the higher price of student fees with increased student services.

“It would be incumbent on us to retain the top professors, career management services and to provide fellowships that will attract students to come,” Willinson said.

Conferences held for students and alumni describing necessary changes the model would entail have received much support.

Students should not have a problem paying for increased fees, Willinson said. “If prospective students decline coming to Anderson it is not because of the inability to pay fees,” he said. “It would be because they decide on a better school.”

Student fees at the Anderson School are about half of what many private graduate schools charge, Willinson said. Anderson fees are $23,516 for in-state students and $33,829 for out-of-state students according to Assets, an Anderson publication. If the new model is approved, student fees would go up but the school would also receive funds from self-supporting executive programs and increase rigorous management of the school’s expenses.

Alumni contributions are expected to increase as well with the new model. “If they realize that the money they give is going directly to the school then they will be more inclined to help,” Willinson said

Willinson said he is confident that the model would work with time. According to Anderson’s budget history, the school has relied less on state funding every year. In the 2002-2003 fiscal year, the school’s operating budget was $53 million, 36 percent of which was from the state. In 2003-2004, the school had a larger budget with only 27 percent coming from state funds.

The Anderson School intends to continue to work with the UC Office of the President in getting the self-supporting model approved and implemented.