I submitted the following modest proposal for serious market-based reform of our cash-strapped public university to the campus paper. They declined to publish it, as one would expect for those benefitting from an outmoded system. Since the issues facing my university are so similar to those facing others, I'm publishing the note below the Kos squiggle, in the hope that it will stimulate more discussion of university reform.
It is no secret that our University, like many others, is facing major budgetary problems. We see this challenge, brought on by reduced public funding, as a wonderful opportunity to incorporate true market efficiencies into the outmoded university structure. We need a lean, mean, efficient system, not some relic of medieval traditions.
Fortunately, we have a visionary Governor and Chancellor who understand the challenge, and have personally set a wonderful example of seizing market-based opportunities. In small ways, market-based efficiencies have already been incorporated here and there in daily university functioning, e.g. in the differential rates charged for different majors. What the University needs, however, is a massive restructuring around market principles.
Currently, for example, students are registering for Fall courses. They are arbitrarily assigned registration times based on academic status, rather than on market-demonstrated need. This system not only is unfair but also means that the University is passing up a major potential revenue stream, in effect leaving money on the table. We are not saying that any student should be deprived of the right to register, just that the order in which they get this opportunity should be distributed by a fair and open auction. Students seeking scarce course openings might well pay several thousand dollars for high slots. Likewise students from fortunate families might easily pay similar amounts just for convenience. The millions of dollars thus raised each semester should more than pay for the contractor who would manage the auction and the administrators who would negotiate the contract.
Rationalizing registration procedures would obviously help, but we really need to redo the day-to-day operations. Seating in classrooms is now typically done by a chaotic first-come-first-served scramble. Few modern airlines operate that way. We need a demand-based auction-style seat-pricing system. Some remodeling will be needed to create tiers of seats with different legroom, writing facilities, and electronic access. Really significant revenue increases, however, will require following the examples of our major sports franchises. Underutilized balconies in large classrooms can be converted to luxury boxes, and priced accordingly. The University can further profit from franchises to private vendors servicing these boxes. Even those students unable to afford the more desirable seats will benefit, as jobs open up with the vendors and with contractors auctioning and policing the seating assignments.
Obviously, one could go on at great length describing further reforms, given how archaic our current arrangements are. Instead we want to address an anticipated objection from the entrenched interests who benefit from the current system and resist reform. No doubt they will say that reform will drive students with less financial resources out of the University. That, however, is a feature, not a bug. It's the market's way of saying that those students belong in institutions whose facilities are more aligned with their resources. Market reform will send a strong message to more prosperous students that at this University their opportunities will not be cramped by outdated rules and regulations. As more of these prosperous students are drawn here by those opportunities, the competition for better slots will increase and prices will rise in a virtuous spiral.
The University already sells naming rights to some of our facilities. Given our current reputation as just another bloated public-sector institution, there would be little point in selling the naming rights to the University or its various departments right now at bargain-basement prices. Once our leadership in market-based reforms is well-established, then renaming should bring in a more equitable return. Whoever wins the bidding, I'm sure we will all be proud to work at, for example, the Adelson Institute of Stochastic Studies or at Koch University.