University that is funded from public

My university has offered the most reasonable price for tertiary studies such as foundation (RM 8000 = 200 USD) and bachelor degree courses (RM 40,000 - RM 50,000 = 10,000 - 15, 000 USD). Besides that, the university has received good ranking and reception from overseas.

And most interesting part is, this University is not associated with any political parties, do not receive any loans from banks and independently funded by public. From history, people who have different backgrounds, walks of life and classes believed in education and donated 150 million Ringgit Malaysia to build the university , and now the university still receiving donations from public.

My question is, is there any possibility that an university can be built by people for people? Without any help from government or bank.

And my university is Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia and I do proud for my university for being prestigious and affordable for public.

It's extremely possible it's just also extremely unlikely. Then there's also the concern that the university itself would also become a slave to its donors which could result in all sorts of weird policies and courses.

In the U.S., it's unlikely, but it's not impossible. Public colleges are still a thing here, but they're funded by the government, which opens up a lot of shit when people start debating about what those colleges can do in regards to policy, especially when it comes to free speech (see: U.C. Berkley riots). The idea that the people will fund a college isn't one that'll stick here at the moment, though. We don't exactly have a giving culture. It's why private universities and reduced government regulations are so popular here.

Trev said:

In the U.S., it's unlikely, but it's not impossible. Public colleges are still a thing here, but they're funded by the government, which opens up a lot of shit when people start debating about what those colleges can do in regards to policy, especially when it comes to free speech (see: U.C. Berkley riots). The idea that the people will fund a college isn't one that'll stick here at the moment, though. We don't exactly have a giving culture. It's why private universities and reduced government regulations are so popular here.

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure if this version of public education is any better than private education tbh. It seems to me that a educational facility without proper oversight, that is funded by donors, is open to all the same issues present with private universities ie. regulation, social issues, donor control, exclusivity etc etc.

Trev said:

In the U.S., it's unlikely, but it's not impossible. Public colleges are still a thing here, but they're funded by the government, which opens up a lot of **** when people start debating about what those colleges can do in regards to policy, especially when it comes to free speech (see: U.C. Berkley riots). The idea that the people will fund a college isn't one that'll stick here at the moment, though. We don't exactly have a giving culture. It's why private universities and reduced government regulations are so popular here.

Click to expand...

Not really because a ton is given to charity every year in the US. Wanting reduced government regulations is unrelated to donating money. And people want private universities, not because they hate public universities and philanthropy, but because they believe the private universities provide a better education. I personally would disagree because there are great public universities in the US with lots of scholarship opportunities, but that is how they feel.

https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-20...014-highest-total-in-reports-60-year-history/

https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/

Universities need a lot of donation money. This isnt evidence that private universities need private donations, but it is evidence that people are interested in donating to public universities, which contradicts the claim that the US is not very philanthropic.
https://www.dailycal.org/2012/02/20...rivate-donations-to-fund-public-universities/

From personal experience, I attended a private middle school that relied totally on donations to keep tuition much cheaper and affordable. The administration was also saying how that for most private schools, tuition actually only covers between 70-80% of operating costs- the rest from donations. The school I went to relied more on donations because, like I said, they wanted to keep tuition as low as possible. So private schools do rely on philanthropy, and I'm sure this also applies to private universities.

gimmepie said:

I'm not really sure if this version of public education is any better than private education tbh. It seems to me that a educational facility without proper oversight, that is funded by donors, is open to all the same issues present with private universities ie. regulation, social issues, donor control, exclusivity etc etc.

Click to expand...

It has its ups and downs. Public education tends to be a bit more on the affordable side (though there are exceptions to both public and private), and part of why that's important is because it helps low-income students get a decent college education, so donations would help keep tuition costs down. Public universities are also really great because some of them offer trade training, which is great for more rural areas, where trade jobs are far more frequent than corporate/arts jobs.

On the other hand, the word "public" gives a lot of preconceived notions about policy regulation and what the university can/can't dictate. For example, my university, which is a private uni, made a public announcement to all students that any students that would have been affected by the first version of the travel ban would still be allowed to attend this university and were offered the services of our diversity and inclusion office in case they were needed. Additionally, we directly prohibit explicit hate speech/discrimination and students who participate in it are subject to a range of punishments, including expulsion. Can't imagine the former ever happening at a public uni, the latter maybe.

As far as exclusivity goes, I know that for private colleges, an effort has to be made to diversify the student body. My college is a Catholic college in Ohio, so as you'd expect, it would be predominantly white. However, our college participates in affirmative action and makes an effort to bring in more diversity with each coming class (they've been successful so far - each class is getting more diverse), so our student body (despite having a larger presence of white people vs. non-white people) is still very diverse, and we have many students from several varying backgrounds and cultures. Public colleges, if I'm not incorrect about this, are required to do the same thing, whereas private colleges don't necessarily have to.

BadSheep said:

Not really because a ton is given to charity every year in the US. Wanting reduced government regulations is unrelated to donating money. And people want private universities, not because they hate public universities and philanthropy, but because they believe the private universities provide a better education. I personally would disagree because there are great public universities in the US with lots of scholarship opportunities, but that is how they feel.

https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-20...014-highest-total-in-reports-60-year-history/

https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/

Universities need a lot of donation money. This isnt evidence that private universities need private donations, but it is evidence that people are interested in donating to public universities, which contradicts the claim that the US is not very philanthropic.
https://www.dailycal.org/2012/02/20...rivate-donations-to-fund-public-universities/

From personal experience, I attended a private middle school that relied totally on donations to keep tuition much cheaper and affordable. The administration was also saying how that for most private schools, tuition actually only covers between 70-80% of operating costs- the rest from donations. The school I went to relied more on donations because, like I said, they wanted to keep tuition as low as possible. So private schools do rely on philanthropy, and I'm sure this also applies to private universities.

Click to expand...

That is very interesting! Thank you for telling me about this, I wasn't aware of how charitable we'd become haha.

I'm a Socialist so I'd love to see the Universities run and funded by us. Public ownership and collective responsibility for our society is the best way forward

In Canada the prices vary but they're mostly reasonable and National Student Loans loans you out money comparable to the price, then you can get grants for disability (like I did) or other shit (Like low income)

But I think in rich countries like these they could be cheaper/free yeah. Especially in the US where I have friends spending like 10k a semester is really unreal.

Hands said:

I'm a Socialist so I'd love to see the Universities run and funded by us. Public ownership and collective responsibility for our society is the best way forward

Click to expand...

But without the government involved?
Not thanks. That just sounds like private education by another name.

gimmepie said:

But without the government involved?
Not thanks. That just sounds like private education by another name.

Click to expand...

I agree. Private universities rely on the community's contributions to function, and in return, provide the community an education. Technically private universities are owned by individuals, but they have to listen to what their students and whomever is paying them/donating to them want. After all, without any consumers, they wouldnt exist. So while not being publicly owned, private universities are still heavily invested in the interest of their students, which essentially has the same effect.

gimmepie said:

But without the government involved?
Not thanks. That just sounds like private education by another name.

Click to expand...

In Socialism the state is already ran and owned by the people. The Govt is representative of the people. That's how it should be. Anything publicly owned is via the state. By nature, it's the exact opposite of private education.

Hands said:

In Socialism the state is already ran and owned by the people. The Govt is representative of the people. That's how it should be. Anything publicly owned is via the state. By nature, it's the exact opposite of private education.

Click to expand...

Which is what I'm fine with, but that's not what is being described in the OP.

gimmepie said:

Which is what I'm fine with, but that's not what is being described in the OP.

Click to expand...

But he's talking about university under capitalism. It's a different ball game.

Hands said:

But he's talking about university under capitalism. It's a different ball game.

Click to expand...

Fair point.
I assume you're not fond of the ideas he expressed then?

gimmepie said:

Fair point.
I assume you're not fond of the ideas he expressed then?

Click to expand...

I mean, under the current system the govt serves corporations and interest groups. People like that shouldnt be allowed near education. In our current system I dont think OP has such a bad idea. You only have to see what the Tories have done in the UK with education to understand what a bad idea trusting govt with education can be

Hands said:

I mean, under the current system the govt serves corporations and interest groups. People like that shouldnt be allowed near education. In our current system I dont think OP has such a bad idea. You only have to see what the Tories have done in the UK with education to understand what a bad idea trusting govt with education can be

Click to expand...

How do you propose that public education under a socialist government would avoid serving interest groups or ruining public education?

BadSheep said:

How do you propose that public education under a socialist government would avoid serving interest groups or ruining public education?

Click to expand...

Socialist govts aren't likely to take state schools, sell them off at dirt low prices to their friends who run "academies" who consistently run bias and failing institutes that abandon anyone who doesn't meet their standards,

Hands said:

Socialist govts aren't likely to take state schools, sell them off at dirt low prices to their friends who run "academies" who consistently run bias and failing institutes that abandon anyone who doesn't meet their standards,

Click to expand...

Do you have evidence? I would like an example of a successful socialist country with a good public education.

BadSheep said:

Do you have evidence? I would like an example of a successful socialist country with a good public education.

Click to expand...

That the tory academy project is bust:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35492433

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/10/academy-chains-come-under-fire-from-ofsted-chief

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hewett_Academy

just a few. Virtually every academy is failing. All of them push pro tory propaganda as curriculum and many were acadmised despite fierce resistance from locals, parents and local authority figures.

As for socialist

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000874/087420eb.pdf

It's a little harder with Socialism since there's only a couple of actual socialist countries in the world and most of them are third world due to US trade embargoes or being the victims of imperialism in their past.

BadSheep said:

Do you have evidence? I would like an example of a successful socialist country with a good public education.

Click to expand...

Finland.