A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
=============
More students, more tuition, more alumni donations, more government
subsidies.

No students, no tuition, no alumni donations, no government subsidies.

Pretty simple, really.
===========

But WHY med schools?! They're so damned expensive to set up and run!

But there's profit to be made nonetheless.


And please, forget about "alumni donations". Yeah! Right! We'll rely on
donations to fund our med school. GOOD LUCK! You're losing it Scotty!

Hey, the CU med school gets millions and millions and millions from alums.


And as to "Our government doesn't mandate anything." Are you quite
sure? Are you saying that although the government funds Whazzits State
University and the University of Whazzit State, this state government
exercises "no" control over what happens there? How positively
generous.

Well, if you had heard about the Ward Churchill scandal (among others) at CU
Boulder, you would know that the state legislature's control over CU is
tenuous at best. CU receives less than 7 percent of its funding from the
state. The rest is tuition, donations and some research/patent income.
Believe me, if the legislature had any effective control over CU, Ward
Churchill would have been fired long ago. While the Governor does appoint
regents for all other colleges, CU (including the med school) Regents are
elected officials, and as such, have nearly plenary power.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser