At the University of Virginia, a board of visitors believed that rapid and radical change was necessary. Universities face declining public support yet cannot continue to raise tuition. Thus, they need to find new streams of revenue. Stanford, for example, is experimenting with raising money through massive online courses while hidebound Virginia sits on its hands. Meanwhile, Virginia squanders resources on small, expensive programs, especially in the humanities, which do not prepare students for jobs in the brave new world.

That, anyway, was the thinking of a board of visitors led by a real estate developer and composed in large part by business school graduates. Or at least that seemed to be what the board was thinking for, despite a couple of attempts, the board failed to communicate its thinking clearly to the outside world.

Less than two years earlier, the board had hired a new university president. Now the board decided that that U. Va.’s new president, Theresa A. Sullivan, was the wrong person for the job. Sullivan was a self-professed incrementalist. But Virginia could not wait. So the board fired Sullivan – only to be forced through a firestorm of protest by U. Va. deans, faculty, alumni, students, and donors to unanimously decide to reverse itself and retain Sullivan.

What does this episode mean, not just for Virginia, but for higher education more broadly?

The fundamental question is: Who should fund state universities? Should students fund universities through their tuition dollars? If students are the beneficiaries of the educations they receive, should they not be the ones paying for that education? Should state universities look for ways to fund themselves through profit-making courses and programs? Or perhaps by having professors collaborate with for-profit businesses in research and development?

The best answer to all of those questions is no.

The entire Commonwealth of Virginia benefits from a first-rate university. Does Virginia benefit, for example, from having smart, well-educated, and dedicated public school teachers? Does Virginia not want some its best and brightest to become teachers? That will not happen if Virginia says: Become a teacher if you want, but pay the full freight for your own education, by saddling yourself with heavy debt if necessary.

Teachers are, of course, just one example. All of Virginia’s citizens benefit from having insightful, creative, and well-educated architects, engineers, physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers, librarians, journalists, judges, lawyers, police officers, chemists, pilots, accountants, entrepreneurs, business managers – and even poets, novelists, playwrights, and artists who create “content” that profitable businesses sell.

A healthy society and thriving economy require well-educated citizens, including a cohort of superbly-educated citizens who are free to pursue their passion without having to pay off enormous debt.

State universities should be principally supported – not through tuition dollars – but through income taxes. It is rational, fair, and in the best interests of society as a whole for graduates who make more money over the course of their careers to pay more, and for graduates, such as teachers and social workers, who make less to pay less. The income tax does this most efficiently. It’s also fair and sensible for all taxpayers to support a great state university, whether or not they attended it, because even those who did not study there benefit from the contribution that university makes to society at large.

It’s appropriate for Virginia to reserve most of its places in its flagship university for its own residents and charge out-of-state students market-rate tuition. It’s appropriate for state universities to have reciprocal agreements with other state universities, so that they can trade students at in-state tuition rates and each university does not have to programs in every field. It’s appropriate for alumni and others to support universities with donations. It’s important that state universities be careful stewards of taxpayers' money. Dormitories, for example, should be comfortable but not palatial.

Virginia’s board of visitors was reportedly upset that Virginia was losing ground to “peer” institutions in the U.S. News rankings. Among other things, they wanted to increase faculty salaries to better compete in the marketplace. They wanted U. Va. to be both better and cheaper, to be a great public university and generate its own revenue. But there are no magic wands, no free lunches.

Like many other states, Virginia wants to have a great state university without paying for it. State universities across the country are receiving diminishing public support – blurring the distinction between public and private universities. A state that does not want to support its flagship university should stop pretending and cut that university free – allowing it to have its own governing board; take whatever students it wants from whatever states they may come; charge whatever tuition it wishes; and otherwise set its own course. A state that does not want to pay the piper should stop calling the tune.

We are heading increasingly in this direction – and that’s a tragedy. Private universities are wonderful institutions. But we will all be impoverished without great state universities.

No one should think that the underlying issue was solved when the board of visitors reversed its decision. The fundamental problem will remain until the Commonwealth of Virginia forthrightly confronts two fundamental questions: Does it want a great state university? If so, is it willing to pay for it? Moreover, the Virginia episode will be played out in different forms across the nation until other states honestly confront those questions as well.

I have served on our law school’s admissions committee on and off for years, and chaired that committee this past year. One thing that worries me is our – and every other law school’s – use of undergraduate grade point averages for admissions purposes. Yes, of course, an applicant’s college performance should be an important factor in the admissions process. It’s one of two critical considerations, the other being performance on the Law School Admissions Test. But the sad truth is that GPA no longer tells us much about a student’s performance.

Let’s say a student had a 3.2 GPA at a well-regarded college or university. I don’t have the data but I believe that not very long ago a 3.2 generally placed students within the top fifth of their college classes. What about today? I don’t know.

Let me repeat that: When I, the member of a law school’s admissions committee, am looking at the college transcript of an applicant for the purpose of voting to admit or deny that applicant, I don’t know where that student placed in her class. Neither does our dean of admissions. College transcripts don’t contain that information.

We do know something important: where that student’s GPA places him among all students at that college or university who took the LSAT within the past three years. This is probably a more selective group than all undergraduates because it’s composed of students considering graduate training. Arguably, it’s also more relevant because it is the group within which the student is now competing, that is, law school applicants. Okay, where does a 3.2 place students among this group today? I’ve picked four schools at random: two Big Ten universities, the flagship public university in another state, and a well-known liberal arts college. Today a 3.2 places a student – not in the top 20% – but within the top 58% to 66% of students taking the LSAT at these colleges. Thus, most students applying to law schools in these colleges had higher GPA’s. In fact, even 3.6 places students just within the top quarter, but still outside the top fifth, among their peers.

This means that B’s at the undergraduate level are pretty much meaningless, and A’s may not that meaningful either.

There may well be exceptions to that last statement, but people involved in law school admissions don’t know what they are. Let’s say that a particular liberal arts college is exceptionally rigorous, and the philosophy department especially so. Every grade in philosophy courses must be truly earned, B’s signify genuinely strong performance, and A’s are only given for truly outstanding performance. A 3.2 places one in the top fifth among students majoring in philosophy at this college, a 3.5 places students within the top five percent. Should those of us evaluating these students’ law school applications know that? Of course we should. Do we? Except for rumors and impressions, we do not.

Moreover, we have strong incentives not to know.

In significant part, our own institution is measured by our published admissions credentials. Let’s say we have two applicants before us – one majored in philosophy at the hypothetical college described above and the other majored in marketing at a management school at a university. Both have identical LSAT scores. The philosophy major has a 3.2 GPA and the marketing major has a 3.4 GPA, but while the first student ranks within the top fifth of his program the second ranks right in the middle – at the 50^th percentile – within his program. We only have room for one student. Who will it be? Even if we were to know all of this information, we would have an incentive to take the marketing student because his 3.4 is better for our own numbers – which are so important to our school’s reputation. That’s not the case just at my law school. That’s the case at every law school.

We should dispense with GPA’s as the yardstick for law school admissions. We should be using class rank instead. Even better would be a student’s rank within a major at her college. Even better than that would be a measure that combines class rank and the competitiveness of colleges and universities. Ranking in the top third at a highly selective college should be worth more than ranking in the top third at a less selective college. The service that provides law schools with admissions data should be charged with developing such a measure.

Such a system would have profound benefits that extend well beyond evaluating applicants for admission. It would end some of pressures for laxity and grade inflation at colleges and universities. For example, based on the performance of their alumni who have found their way into my classroom, my impression is that Franklin & Marshall happens to be an exceptionally rigorous college with comparatively low grades, and a place of high intellectual stimulation. More than once, I have asked our dean of admissions to please do all he can to recruit more students from Franklin & Marshall. Yet we live under a system that penalizes Franklin & Marshall and rewards less worthy colleges. We need to reverse that.

While we’re on it, a word for those who employ law school graduates: For similar reasons, in comparing graduates of different law schools, you too should focus on class rank rather than GPA.

As I previously stated, Romney will select Senator Rob Portman of Ohio as his running mate. You can find that piece here. Nothing has changed my thinking. I said you could take that prediction to the bank, and I stand by that bold, brazen, unequivocal statement. But in case we needed it, Romney effectively confirmed yesterday that he is not considering Senator Macro Rubio of Florida for the ticket.

Romney appeared briefly before reporters in Holland, Michigan to deny a report by ABC News that Rubio was not being vetted for the vice presidential nomination. “Marco Rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process,” Romney said.

This means that Romney has no intention of selecting Rubio.

Why is that?

Romney has every reason to stoke up speculation about his potential running mate. Heightened interest keeps his campaign in the news and makes the selection appear valuable. The Romney campaign wants as much buzz as possible. Moreover, Romney flatters politicians by signaling that he is considering them. It gives them stature. Conversely, with one exception, it’s an indignity to have it known that one is not being considered. So we can expect that as time goes on we will be hearing plenty of rumors.

Romney wants to work as much misdirection in the process as possible. He needs the ultimate choice to be at least a bit of a surprise. He hopes the announcement will be big news. That’s when he wants profiles of the vice presidential nominee running in broadcasts and newspapers. That’s when he wants to bask in the reflected glory of his so very wise and savvy choice. Romney does not want the selection, when announced, to be greeted with a yawn.

As mentioned in passing above, there is one exception to the rule that it’s an affront when everyone believes that one is not being considered. That exception is person ultimately chosen.

Romney said yesterday: “I can’t imagine who [ABC’s unnamed sources] are. But I can tell you this: They know nothing about the vice presidential selection or evaluation process. There are only two people in this country who know who are being vetted and who are not, and that’s Beth Myers [who heads the selection team] and myself. And I know Beth well. She doesn't talk to anybody. The story was entirely false.”

If he were seriously considering Rubio, Romney would have stopped there. But he didn’t stop there.

Romney went on to add that Rubio was being “thoroughly vetted.” That, as poker players and con artists put it, was “the tell” – the unintended giveaway that, in fact, he is not considering Rubio.