UC Budget Challenges Start At Top
Being only a few years removed from college, I have a unique perspective on the fee hikes that the UC Board of Regents approved earlier this week. A previous article on HOGUE NEWS comprehensively covered the waste that exists in the University of California, but there are still several glaring problems with the UC, some of which can easily be solved.
To begin with, all of the members of the Board of Regents are appointed by the governor to serve a 12-year term on the board. Many times the individuals on this board are no more qualified than you or me to make these decisions about the direction of the best public university system in country, instead they are appointed as political favors. Take for instance Sherry Lansing former CEO of Paramount Pictures or Richard Blum, husband of Senator Diane Feinstein, or even Frederick Ruiz Chairman of Ruiz Foods. Worst of all would be UC President Mark Yudof, who is the former head of Wachovia and has pushed several poor UC investments into mortgage backed securities and real estate.
The point is that the people at the top have no vested interest in the success of the UC improve and have never had to show that they have the ability and vision to move the UC system in the right direction. And because the regents are not accountable to the students and teachers, rather they are accountable to the governor who appointed them to this cush position, nothing ever seems to go the way a responsible, civic-minded person would think it would.
The solution to this would be to change the way that members of the Board of Regents are selected. There is a movement to democratize the UC Board of Regents, but this organization’s radical stance on other issues has put them in the fringe category. With more mainstream support, it would make sense that we could elect qualified candidates with a record of proven leadership as executives and experience in education. The regents would then be accountable to the voters who selected them and the voters would have the power to replace them if they were compelled to do so. At the very least we would be able to prevent the Board of Regents from continuing to be the easy appointment governors make to political allies in return for favors.
Aside from the incredible waste that the regents try to hide such as their salaries and a private island, there are other burdens on the budget that continue to get worse. Earlier this year the UC Board of Regents approved a proposal to pay full tuition for all students whose families make less than $60,000. To make it worse, a month ago UC President Mark Yudof announced plans to raise $1 billion in private funds over the next four years in order to raise that maximum threshold to $70,000.
This is all on top of the fact that the UC Regents lowered admission standards at the beginning of this year by eliminating the SAT II and lowering the minimum GPA in order to make more students eligible for admission. Rather than looking at concrete factors such as grades and test scores, admission standards would emphasize ‘life experiences’ and other intangible factors. So basically they lowered admission standards to let less qualified students in and then decided they were going to pay for them to go to school.
Now maybe it is just my ‘life experiences’ of working a night job stocking shelves in one of the worst neighborhoods in LA in order to pay for my education, spending two years in junior college and not getting a dime from the state. But I can cut a huge portion of the UC budget by eliminating a significant portion of the financial aid. No one needs to go to a UC school right out of high school, especially if it means the tax payers have to foot the bill. I know this will shock some people who will say that means education will only be for the elite, but there are plenty of alternatives to going to a UC school.
Having more students not going to a UC out of high school does not mean UC schools will only be for the elite. It means that during a budget crisis those that cannot afford to go, and do not qualify for private merit scholarships, can go to a community college and transfer in when they have proven they are dedicated have the grades and savings to do so.
People talk about California having a low rate of high school students going directly to universities as though it is a bad thing; to me community colleges are less expensive and provide a more tailored education. Not to mention the fact that if the tax payers are paying for your education anyway, it might as well be at the least expensive school possible.
Again this may be my perspective of having worked and more importantly saved my way through school, but $11,000 a year in tuition for school is not that much to come up with. Budgets need to be tightened at all levels, so students have to make sacrifices too and make their education their #1 priority. Maybe if so many college students would get their priorities straight and stop thinking each pay check has to be spent before you get the next one, they would be able to save enough money from a part time job to pay the bills. That means no designer jeans, no Starbucks every morning, no trips to bars on weekends and certainly no extravagant trips to Mexico for spring break.
You go to community college for two-three years, get a job, save your money and if you want it bad enough you will make it happen. You don’t sit there feeling sorry because your parents were poor and continue the cycle of government dependence and expect taxpayers to send you to school.
The issues with the budget and the increase in tuition speak to the broader problem, which is that the primary goal of the UC system is no longer the education of California’s students. When the budget was slashed by the state earlier this year, the regents turned around and loaned $200 million back to the state.
When asked how the UC could loan back money to the state and still raise students’ fees, Yudof responded, “When we lend money to the state, we make a profit from interest. When we spend money just on teachers’ salaries, that money just disappears.” Disappears? Does he not know what the purpose of the UC is? They can make a lot investments and make money, but UC revenue is supposed to be spent investing in the minds of students not loaning money back to political allies.
The star faculty and administrators are making more and more money to do research rather than teach students. While research is important, if the goal is to educate the next generation, paying professors hundreds of thousands of dollars to do research to improve the reputation of the university certainly does not help the students directly. And at the same time as they increase the salaries for a few elite teachers and administrators, they are firing part-time faculty and eliminating core classes so that students have to stay there longer to graduate. Now I am not against paying teachers high salaries, but they should be paid to teach and tenured teachers should not just continue to get the same check regardless of how much effort they put into their classes. The priority needs to go back to educating students and there will be plenty of money available to make that happen.
Based on the facebook statuses from several friends at the top UC schools, I worry that many of the students protesting these fee hikes are just doing it as a way to get out of class. They do not understand the context of the fee hikes and that the government will always raise taxes or fees instead of cutting the benefits for those one top.
Still, $11,000 a year is deal for a top-notch education and many students can make it work if they make a few sacrifices. To make any real changes, it has to start on top with the regents, but unfortunately the way things look up there, the regents will continue to put big business and political favors ahead of the students for years to come.
Here is the problem. The UC system has both domestic and foreign students standing in line to take the place of students who cannot afford the increased tuition. Until the regents feel the pain of their poor decisions (decreasing enrollments), they can continue to live the high life. It’s not about students, instructors and learning, it’s about making money and caring for the politically elite.
I attended UC Riverside for a short time, but was turned down from the two UC schools I actually applied to. It was quite a shock since the UC system was required to accept me because of being in the top 2% of graduating seniors. My taxes go to subsidize a portion of the cost of tuition for current students, and maybe it’s selfish on my part because I didn’t get into the school I wanted, but frankly my tax money should be going to educate the best and brightest at the college level and those from my state. I agree completely with programs in our k-12 schools that put more focus on lower performers to get them up to par than pushing the folks in the middle to reach the top, but wish we could do both. When it comes to college, those at the top should be pushed even further, and as many as possible from the middle should be brought along.
All of this is a charade to make up for the failings of non-performers. The UC system would be devoid of Hispanics and blacks were it based strictly on merit, and the regents know this. So in order to feel better about themselves, the regents, the boards, and the professors have invented ways of funding their little schemes through financial aid (because heaven knows these affirmative action admits can’t pay for their own schooling. And heaven knows all administraters and faculty need massive bonuses. And pretty new buildings).
Forcing people to “get along,” while it sounds nice, is not in the best interest of this nation. We need to be producing skilled workers if we are to compete in the world. Indeed, the US should be producing a lot more scientists, engineers, and the like if it is to at all maintain any economic footing. So all the while, our nation is playing the politically correct game when we should be about the business of securing the future. Oops.
There’s a reason tuition at private universities increased from about $19,000 to $36,000 in less than ten years. And it ain’t due to inflation or increased costs, either. Same thing with the UCs.
The hefty price of University of California Berkeley OE Program. The UC Berkley budget gap has grown to $150 million, and still the Chancellor is spending money that isn’t there on $3,000,000 consultants. His reasons range from the need for impartiality to requiring the consultants “thinking, expertise, and new knowledge”.
Does this mean that the faculty and senior management of the UCB world-class research & teaching institution lack the knowledge, integrity, impartiality, innovation, and professionalism to come up with solutions? Have they been fudging their research for years? The consultants will glean their recommendations from faculty interviews & the senior management that hired them; yet $ 150 million of inefficiencies and solutions could be found internally if the Chancellor and his & Provost Breslauer were doing the work of their jobs.
The victims of this folly are Faculty and Students. $ 3 million consultant fees would be far better spent on students & faculty.
There can be only one conclusion as to why creative savings & solutions have not been forthcoming from faculty & staff: Chancellor Birgeneau has lost credibility & the trust of the faculty & the Cal Academic Senate leadership – C. Kutz/F.Doyle. Even if the faculty agrees with the consultants’ recommendations – disagreeing might put their jobs in jeopardy – the underlying problem of lost credibility and trust will remain.
Contact your representatives in Sacramento: tell them of the hefty $ being spent by California Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau and Provost Breslauer.
Sorry Tale of UC Berkeley Chancellor’s Office: easily grasped by the public, lost on University of California’s President Yudoff. The UC Berkley budget gap has grown to $150 million, & still the Chancellor is spending money that isn’t there on $3,000,000 consultants. His reasons range from the need for impartiality to requiring the consultants “thinking, expertise, & new knowledge”.
Does this mean that the faculty & management of UC Berkeley – flagship campus of the greatest public system of higher education in the world – lack the knowledge, integrity, impartiality, innovation, skills to come up with solutions? Have they been fudging their research for years? The consultants will glean their recommendations from faculty interviews & the senior management that hired them; yet $ 150 million of inefficiencies and solutions could be found internally if the Chancellor & Provost Breslauer were doing the work of their jobs (This simple point is lost on UC’s leadership).
The victims of this folly are Faculty and Students. $ 3 million consultant fees would be far better spent on students & faculty.
There can be only one conclusion as to why inefficiencies & solutions have not been forthcoming from faculty & staff: Chancellor Birgeneau has lost credibility & the trust of the faculty & Academic Senate leadership (C. Kutz, F. Doyle). Even if the faculty agrees with the consultants’ recommendations – disagreeing might put their jobs in jeopardy – the underlying problem of lost credibility & trust will remain. (Context: greatest recession in modern times)
Contact your representatives in Sacramento: tell them of the hefty self-serving $’s being spent by UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau & Provost Breslauer.