by Thomas Jue and Jerold Theis –
Certainly, the housing market collapse and the ensuing recession have led the State to the brink of a $26 billion financial abyss. At the brink, legislators have fractiously cobbled a budget that meets a 2/3 majority approval and sustains initiative designated expenditures. The budget reduces by 25% the 2008 allocation ($3.3 billion), which represents 17% of the total $19 billion budget. Student fees ($1.6 billion), medical center activity ($6.1 billion), and research grants ($2.7 billion) comprise the other major revenues.
To many the Yudof plan appears non-egalitarian, because administrators have escaped a fair share of salary reduction, euphemistically termed as furloughs. But they have ironically rejected the unanimous voice of all the Academic Senates, which asks for flexibility in taking furloughs on instruction-designated days.
Meanwhile, the public remains skeptical, because it awaits an accounting of the budget’s spending side and an explanation of the 89% increase in administration component over the past 10 years, when the teaching faculty rose only 29 %. Why did cash-poor Yudof approve 115 new positions at Office of the President, totaling over $7 million plus associated cost, and recent chancellor pay packages exceeding $0.5 million/year?
These unresolved but omnipresent questions about an administrative bloat ensnare the search for any long-term budget solution, because they rankle. They also divert the attention from a critical stark reality: California invests a paltry amount in higher education. Since student fees represent an expandable revenue source, they will continue to rise as the State’s commitment diminishes. In effect, UC will transform de facto from a public to a private institution, where current student fees exceed $35,000/year. The prospect of higher education for only the privileged and wealthy lurks as the real crisis.
But UC has painted itself with such discoloration of mismanagement, excessively compensated personnel, and bureaucratic insensitivity that no Commission on UC Future can facilitate a constructive public discourse. No verbal flourishes about the greatness of UC or exhortation to transform the UC into a “strategically dynamic” organization or “business” can ever resonate.
In fact, modeling the university as another corporation has bankrupted the thinking. A premier university differs dramatically from a corporation. A university serves as a fountain of knowledge to ensure a free flow of new ideas that can transform knowledge for future prosperity. A corporation makes money. Equating money with knowledge abuses the “profit” metaphor.
Moreover, blaming consensus governance as an impediment overlooks the unique strength of shared governance in UC’s history, which has provided a system of checks and balances and gives the faculty a voice and ownership in promoting academic excellence.
Indeed, the system of checks and balances stands in disrepair, as the selection of Regents illustrates. Even though Article IX of the California constitution created an Advisory Committee to assist the Governor in selecting Regents, the Committee has never met from 2004-2009. Yet, the Senate confirmed 9 Regents without deliberation or hearings and exerted no oversight to check the Governor’s appointments, usually along political party lines.
In 1967, Clark Kerr received $38 thousand as the UC President. He warned his successor, David Gardner, to reject the Regents’ push to compensate UC Executives like Corporate Executives. Gardner ignored the advice and started remodeling UC into a corporate entity. UC stands, however, as a public institution, not a corporation, and must serve the people. It cannot function effectively, unless it earns the public trust by implementing accounting transparency, by adhering to the Constitution, and by championing shared governance. Only courageous leadership without a monolithic corporate UC vision can help reshape public policy, so that California can race to the top of an academic pinnacle and avoid the precipice.
Thomas Jue and Jerold Theis are professors at the University of California Davis, who must take mandatory furloughs. Jerold Theis has served as the Chair of the UC Davis and UC Systemwide Committee on Academic Freedom. Both he and Thomas Jue have published a number of articles on academic freedom.
David,
I read and thoroughly enjoyed reading both articles in the Vanguard this morning. UCD has many outstanding Profs. like Thomas Jue and Jerold Theis and are one of the reasons I chose to attend UC Davis.
Student fee hikes to the tune of $203 million!! That is outrageous! And, we have a whining columnist in the Enterprise attacking young people for earning money by delivering literature in precincts around town. It must be a slow news day in downtown Davis.
Excellent article. It hits several nails right on the head. Exec pay hikes and the lack of transparency (which are very much a problem) are distracting everyone from the real issue – that UC is quietly be privatized. In fact, I would go as far to say Yudof and Katehi were brought in for that express purpose. Remember, Katehi bragged UCD was going to be one of the top 5 research universities. I think the UC system has really lost its way, and is truly going away from its primary mission to teach students. Another example of this is the building of a new “convention center” at UCD – the corporatization of our public university. The state legislature had better wake up and smell the coffee, and start making some real changes in how it funds UC and how there is no oversight as to what is going on – there is literally no accountability for the Board of Regents/Yudof/Chancellors. The whole thing is sickening…
Good article. Thanks for writing it.
“UC is quietly be privatized. In fact, I would go as far to say Yudof and Katehi were brought in for that express purpose. Remember, Katehi bragged UCD was going to be one of the top 5 research universities.”
I’m losing the logic, here. Why does being a research university = privatization?
Yes indeed, excellent points. Let’s make UCD just like Sac State.
If UC is choosing a strategy of privatizing, I wonder if they can adequately compete with Stanford, USC, or Caltech.
If I’m a student/parent faced with a decision to pay the increasingly higher UC fees, at some point (if I could actually afford the fees) I would start considering other established private universities, and then UC would lose my business.
I wonder if a privatization strategy would really be sustainable at current enrollments — 30K+ students, ~24K undergraduates at UC Davis. There is a point where fees get too high to attract that number of students, and then you have diminishing revenue.
If UC education isn’t accessible, students and families will go elsewhere, possibly out of state. That has consequences for an available workforce and future economic potential in California.
Or the burden for accessible education is shifted to the CSU and community college systems. They are already at capacity and aren’t funded to take any more students than they already have. Students will be denied education in some way.
Maybe in the future we further burden social and correctional programs in the state and further shrink our tax base because we have a less educated citizenry.
[i]If UC is choosing a strategy of privatizing[/i]
One of the silliest ideas that the protesters are promoting is the idea that UC is “choosing” privatization as a “strategy”. The truth, if you look at the chart at the bottom of this page ([url]http://ucpay.globl.org/funding_vs_fees.php[/url]), is that the state only gives UC one-third as much money per student as it did historically or even 10 years ago. One-third as much, in constant dollars per student.
UC didn’t choose to have the state pull the plug on education funding. The legislature decided not to pay. The only choice left to UC is to privatize or disappear.
Thanks for the clarification, Greg.
[i]UCD has many outstanding Profs. like Thomas Jue and Jerold Theis and are one of the reasons I chose to attend UC Davis.[/i]
I respect Jue and Theis as colleagues at UC Davis, but I just don’t see what people see in this piece that’s so gratifying. People perceive some kind of solidarity with them, but I just don’t get the common interest.
For instance, when you say that you chose to attend UC Davis because of Jue and Theis, were you planning on taking their courses? Are you perhaps enrolled in graduate school in molecular medicine? Theis teaches a couple of undergraduate courses, but as far as I can tell, Jue only teaches graduate courses lately.
Again, I personally have nothing against teaching graduate courses. Obviously not; I’ve done it too. I just don’t see the common ground with those who want UC to concentrate on undergraduate education. It seems that the one thing that UC’s critics truly agree on is the need to overthrow the jerks who make hard choices. After that, solidarity would vanish instantly and completely.
The truth, if you look at the chart at the bottom of this page, is that the state only gives UC one-third as much money per student as it did historically or even 10 years ago. One-third as much, in constant dollars per student.
Greg – you and I have debated this before, but I still think we should expect some economies of scale. When you add another math class due to increased enrollment, you should be able to absorb administrative work without hiring additional support staff, and not require additional infrastructure costs.
As an aside, there was an interesting opinion piece in the Bee a few days ago projecting the University of Phoenix buying the CSU system from the State and running it as a for profit system. A part of that article made great sense… having to do with the fact that more and more students will need to attend part time while they work to afford school… thus better matching the University of Phoenix model. Related to this, I think the most pressure for change at UC and CSU will be from the growing gap between parent and student wages and the cost of public services like college education. As a past and present hiring manager, I can tell you that a UCD undergrad education compared to most other 4-year degrees won’t make much of a difference. It may be a tie-breaker for the less prestigious school if all other things are equal. Of course this would depend on the area of study and the profession, but an undergrad degree is often just an undergrad degree. My point here is that the old model of higher education may join newspapers on the endangered species list some day.
[i]I still think we should expect some economies of scale.[/i]
If you ask any competent business manager how much more economy of scale you can expect from 24,000 undergraduates (UC Davis enrollment in 2008) than from 20,000 undergraduates (UCD enrollment in 2000), the answer is hardly any economy of scale at all.
[i]University of Phoenix buying the CSU system from the State and running it as a for profit system.[/i]
That is an incredibly pessimistic proposal. The University of Phoenix is a notorious “university” that milks what it can from public financial aid to students, while providing as little actual subject expertise or even contact time as possible. The favorite type of student at the University of Phoenix is one who uses course web sites, and never shows up in person. They don’t even have a math major. The courses are as easy as it gets in higher education; despite that, the 6-year graduation rate at some campuses is in the single digits.
And were you thinking about executive compensation? The founder of the University of Phoenix and his son are each worth $1.5 billion. If they wanted to, they could pay their home janitors more than Yudof is paid.
“I’m losing the logic, here. Why does being a research university = privatization?”
If it gets to the point that all a university’s funding is from private companies, to fund research, then teaching students as a priority is way down on the list. If the state sees that the university is getting tons of dollars from private sources, their thought (not correct) is “Oh well, the UC system is getting along fine with private donations, research funding, so we don’t need to kick in very much.” The legislators don’t realize the money is being given with strings attached for research, but not for teaching students. This phenomenon has been going on for years. So many of our legislators have a very limited capacity for understanding! Now am I making any sense to you? Sorry if I wasn’t clearer in my thinking…
“UC didn’t choose to have the state pull the plug on education funding. The legislature decided not to pay. The only choice left to UC is to privatize or disappear.”
I will agree with you, except for one thing. When Yudof goes to the state legislature, asking for more money, he doesn’t have much credibility with the likes of Leland Yee, when Yudoff himself is making a salary 100% more than his recent predecessor. Nor does Yudof have much credibility when the UC system continues to expand, even in the face of a dire economy (look at UCD – new stadium, convention center, wine institute, musical auditorium, etc, etc, etc). Or how about Katehi’s statement that UCD is now going to become one of the top 5 research universities in the country? To Leland Yee, it sounds like UC is doing just fine w/o funding from the state. Perception is often 9/10ths of reality!
If you ask any competent business manager how much more economy of scale you can expect from 24,000 undergraduates (UC Davis enrollment in 2008) than from 20,000 undergraduates (UCD enrollment in 2000), the answer is hardly any economy of scale at all.
I completely disagree with that statement. If an insurance company adds 4,000 policy holders, the operations cost per policy holder should go down. That is one of the reasons that companies strive to expand their membership or customer base… to allow them to lower their price by leveraging the economies of scale. The other reason an organization strives to expand is to satiate the egos of senior management.
I think your are overly critical and maybe a bit hostile about the University of Phoenix. Remember, these are undergraduate degrees. Are micro and macro economics classes really that much better at UC? A lot of students attending these so called “diploma mill” (your term I think) report receiving a more useful and practical bit of instruction instead of so much theory. There is no doubt that the business model relies on student aid, but complaining about that is like complaining about grocery stores that accept food stamps. Besides, doesn’t UCD accept student aid? Yes more web-based instruction, but that was my point… the person-to-person model is expensive… especially with college employee wage inflation exceeding overall wage inflation. My expectation for the future is that traditional colleges will be populated by the wealthy and the poor, while the middle class is priced out and has to find a more affordable model. That model will likely include part time student status and more web-based instruction. Just like the newspapers failing to accept and embrace the new media business model, I think colleges will too fall behind the change curve and see their share of the market decline and their student demographic change. Then looking even farther forward, you have a lot of University of Phoenix grads becoming hiring managers… then how much clout will the UCD degree buy?
As far as the $1.5 billion net worth for the University of Phoenix founder and his son… this is where you and I might get into a completely different (but related?) debate. I think it is wonderful that anyone in America can build a successful company and grow wealth. John Sperling was raised dirt poor, got his PhD from Cambridge… working his way through school, became a history professor and then a successful business man. He in a major liberal and backs a lot of liberal political causes with his wealth, and give a tremendous amount away to charity.
Yudof have much credibility when the UC system continues to expand, even in the face of a dire economy (look at UCD – new stadium, convention center, wine institute, musical auditorium, etc, etc, etc). Or how about Katehi’s statement that UCD is now going to become one of the top 5 research universities in the country? To Leland Yee, it sounds like UC is doing just fine w/o funding from the state. Perception is often 9/10ths of reality!
Exactly! It never ceases to amaze me how one group can point out the inappropriate behavior of another while doing the same or similar bit of PR damage. We get to hear about those large Wall Street and bail-out bank bonuses being paid. The reality has been contractual obligations and a continuing need to hire and retain talent. However, the stupid banks shoot themselves in the foot by not attempting to rein in the practices. UCD seems in the exact same boat… demanding more from the state while it builds ego shrines. The bonues and shrines may both be justified by a solid cost-benefit study; however the negative perception is a PR cost that few decision makers seem to be able to accurately consider. Many funding policy decision today are played out in the court of public opinion. If you are strapped for money, you might want to take a few acting classes so you can at least look the part.
[i]If an insurance company adds 4,000 policy holders, the operations cost per policy holder should go down.[/i]
But not by very much, if it already had 20,000 policies. Maybe it would be 1% cheaper. This is not remotely the same thing as the state ditching two-thirds of its support per student.
[i]Remember, these are undergraduate degrees.[/i]
Actually, it is more like warmed over community college even in the best case.
[i]Are micro and macro economics classes really that much better at UC?[/i]
Intro economics at UC Davis is the very beginning of the economics major. It is basically the same course as AP Economics as it is taught at Davis Senior High. Our son is taking it and the material isn’t all that hard.
By contrast, intro economics is one of the most advanced and theoretical courses at the University of Phoenix. If it is taught the same way as many courses are taught at UPX, basically you have to learn it on your own. Besides using part-time lecturers for almost everything, UPX counts study groups for class time.
[i]a more useful and practical bit of instruction instead of so much theory.[/i]
Yes, practical instruction such as writing an essay about the Black-Scholes model of options pricing. Not the highly theoretical question of deriving the Black-Scholes model or deciding when to use it. That would require calculus, which if you’ll notice is not part of the University of Phoenix business model. (At least not their business model of education. I’m sure that calculus is part of their business model for profitability.)
[i]Besides, doesn’t UCD accept student aid?[/i]
Yes, but the difference is [b]deregulation[/b]. The University of Phoenix can take financial aid and keep some of it as profit. Or even most of it as profit.
[i]I think it is wonderful that anyone in America can build a successful company and grow wealth.[/i]
I agree, Jeff, it’s wonderful. But why is it a thousand times more wonderful for the Sperlings to grow wealth than for Yudof? I have long argued that UC has no choice but to pay Yudof a realistic, typical salary for public university presidents. I have never thought that it would be wonderful for Yudof or any university figure to gain $3 billion. Especially not if much of that money came from public financial aid.
[i]We get to hear about those large Wall Street and bail-out bank bonuses being paid.[/i]
It would be nice if you used a sense of proportion. There is a difference between Yudof getting paid less than one million dollars per year, and Richard Grasso taking $140 million from the non-profit New York Stock Exchange. It is a difference of two orders of magnitude. Like if you bought a TV for $1,000, then maybe you paid too much and maybe you didn’t, but it would be a little different if you bought a TV for $100,000.
It would be nice if you used a sense of proportion. There is a difference between Yudof getting paid less than one million dollars per year, and Richard Grasso taking $140 million from the non-profit New York Stock Exchange. It is a difference of two orders of magnitude. Like if you bought a TV for $1,000, then maybe you paid too much and maybe you didn’t, but it would be a little different if you bought a TV for $100,000.
Oh, count me in as incensed about a $140m bonus to Richard Grasso. I will join the crusade against any head of a non-profit, or heads of government-supported or government-bailed out anything, making copious compensation. However, to compare Yudof to a CEO of a large for-profit company is a little like comparing a rat living in NY Central Park and one struggling to survive on the Serengeti. For-profit CEOs lose their jobs (lives) in a fiscal drought year, Yudof and other public sector rats survive by blaming the drought and pleading for more rain. Yudof is a government employee and therefore is subject to the whims and failures of that generally dysfunctional body. Private-sector CEOs already have to navigate a sea of regulations and trail attorneys. Unless they get assistance from the government, it is really nobody’s business what employees of the company make. This is my not so humble opinion.
[i]However, to compare Yudof to a CEO of a large for-profit company[/i]
Except we’ve already been over the fact that the University of Phoenix profits from billions of dollars in federal financial aid. Your answer to that was so what, UC gets financial aid too. You can’t have it both ways. It’s naive and false to watch people get rich from public money, then turn around and call them competitive and self-made.
It would be one thing if the University of Phoenix never got involved in the government decisions that steer financial aid. But as the Wikipedia page explains, UPX is perfectly happy to “plead for rain” too. When the federal government became suspicious of fake-looking education at UPX and threatened to pull its accreditation, the university lobbied to change the rules.
I am willing to listen to the argument that UPX provides a convenient, remedial, self-service education to older students. It would still seem dubious that they get so much profit from public sources, but I would consider holding my nose and calling it an overall good thing. But if I’m supposed to admire the captains of UPX because they’re billionaires, then I would yank its federal accreditation immediately. Free-market wealth should mean the actual free market, not Pell Grants.
Anyway, there is a place in the capitalist world for bottom feeders, and maybe a place in the education world too. It would still be a sad end to CSU if it became another arm of the University of Phoenix. It would be like selling the Davis Farmers’ Market to McDonald’s.
“If it gets to the point that all a university’s funding is from private companies, to fund research, then teaching students as a priority is way down on the list.”
So do you advocate more public (government) funding of research so that research money isn’t overwhelmed by private sources?
“So do you advocate more public (government) funding of research so that research money isn’t overwhelmed by private sources?”
No, research should be equal to the priority of teaching students. But that means the state has to be fair in its funding practices of teaching students. Instead, the state sees universites getting tons of funding for research, assumes that translates to funding for teaching (which it doesn’t), and pulls back on full funding our universities as unnecessary. Perhaps a certain percentage of research funding must be spent on teaching students, as a matter of course. That would be OK by me too. That could be the cost of doing business at a public university.
“No, research should be equal to the priority of teaching students.”
There are some faculty at UCD who are excellent classroom teachers.
Nevertheless, long before now I’ve seen UC campuses as a better deal for grad students than for undergraduates. Most undergrads are probably better off getting two years at a community college and then transferring in for their last two years. Grad students are typically there to do research to get their degrees, and maybe start getting teaching experience. I don’t think any of this will change with time.
Grants and research money fund overhead (utilities, facilities maintenance, support staff) and salaries for researchers and grad students.
The more grant money (private or public) that the university gets, the more grad students the university can fund. I think the lack of adequate state money will probably push undergrads to enroll elsewhere.
[i]Nevertheless, long before now I’ve seen UC campuses as a better deal for grad students than for undergraduates.[/i]
That’s true. I went to Berkeley for grad school and I got a tremendous amount out of it. I would not have wanted to go to Berkeley as an undergraduate.
This largely reflects the fact that the federal government invests more in the University of California than the state of California does. Research funding helps graduate students both implicitly and explicitly.
People are having trouble with the fact that UC will do what it is paid to do. If the state makes big cuts, and if fees don’t go up to compensate, then undergraduates will have fewer resources when they are at UC. People think that the state can command UC to rob Peter to pay Paul, but except at the margins UC can’t do that. Ultimately it just destroys the state legislature’s credibility when someone like Leland Yee sees the money cut off, and then threatens to seize control. The federal government, which is by now the greater sponsor, isn’t talking this way. It could weaken UC a bit when Yee makes these threats, but it weakens Yee himself even more.
Except we’ve already been over the fact that the University of Phoenix profits from billions of dollars in federal financial aid. Your answer to that was so what, UC gets financial aid too. You can’t have it both ways. It’s naive and false to watch people get rich from public money, then turn around and call them competitive and self-made.
Two issues with this argument:
One – You need to factor the state and fed inflows to UC that do not flow to UPX. UC’s state inflows are on the decline, but as I understand UPX gets neither fed money nor state money.
Two – Your problem with the founders of UPX getting rich from Pell Grants I think is quite an overstatement. First, there are many private schools doing the same but few have grown like UPX. This seems to indicate UPX is doing something very well. Second, only some students of UPX are funded by federal grants. But let’s assume that this is a major reason why Sperling is a billionaire… so what? He is providing a service that this government money is apparently intended for.
I don’t understand the issue with individual wealth. Would you have less of a problem if UPX was replaced with 10 schools all 10% of the size of UPX with founders that were worth $150 million each? …or how about 100 schools with founders worthh $1.5 million each? What is the limit under which successful business people no longer qualify for demonization? Who sets that limit?
Another consideration… Sperling is 83… he made most of his $1.5billion in the last 10 years. That is still at least 8 years after most UC employees retire with a pension and full heathcare benefits.
Jeff, you said yourself, “[b]Unless they get assistance from the government[/b], it is really nobody’s business what employees of the company make.” But when it comes to an actual example, you haven’t followed your own wisdom. Instead, you’re taking philosophy of laissez faire for government contractors.
Obviously, UPX does get assistance from the government. Massive assistance. According to Wikipedia, it spent $2.5 billion in federal financial aid to students in 2008, which is more than half of its total revenue. It truly is a company whose majority customer is the Pell Grant Program.
[i]This seems to indicate UPX is doing something very well.[/i]
UPX clearly is excellent at taking in Pell Grants at a profit. It’s not hard to see how. It’s common advice at universities that students should join study groups. But when I teach, study groups are in addition to contact hours. At UPX, study groups count as contact hours. That step by itself makes UPX 50% more “efficient” than an ordinary university.
[i]He is providing a service that this government money is apparently intended for.[/i]
There are people at the Department of Education who do not in fact think that UPX is doing what they intended with DOE’s money. But, surprise, surprise, UPX has lobbying power over them. Again, you should remember your words, “unless they get assistance from the government”.
[i]Another consideration… Sperling is 83… he made most of his $1.5billion in the last 10 years.[/i]
I feel very strongly that you should apply a sense of proportion. Yes, larger institutions would naturally have higher-paid leaders. But as measured by revenue, UC is more than 4 times the size of UPX. Also, Sperling did not make $1.5 billion, he made $3 billion and split it with his son.
So to make my point about proportions, let’s let “$” represent 8 million dollars. Here is how much Yudof would make in 10 years, total compensation including retirement benefits: $
And here is how much Sperling has made from UPX, which has a much smaller budget: $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$.
Now in the abstract, I don’t necessarily think that Sperling is a bad person just because he’s a billionaire. I met a billionaire heir when I was in college and he was a fine dude. But if you can justify such an enormous stash, how can you possibly tell me that Yudof is overpaid?
wdf: “Most undergrads are probably better off getting two years at a community college and then transferring in for their last two years.”
My son had all kinds of problems transferring from Sac City to UCD. So did a lot of other students. It was seen as such a huge scandal, there was a formal investigation as to why UCD was accepting so few transfers from Sac City. What UCD was doing is skimming the top 5%, then would discourage the rest, even if the rest actually qualified for admission. This is what happened to my son. Despite the nonsense perpetrated by the UCD counselor, my son was eventually admitted to UCD, but only after he had wasted another year at Sac City that he didn’t need to. If I hadn’t stepped in as his parent, my son would never have made it to UCD at all. I would never advise a student to start at a junior college, then try and transfer to a four year university. It is a risky move, w no guarantee the student will be able to transfer.
Obviously, UPX does get assistance from the government. Massive assistance. According to Wikipedia, it spent $2.5 billion in federal financial aid to students in 2008, which is more than half of its total revenue.
Actually no. Pell grants go to students who decide where to spend it (which school to attend). It is disingenuous and distorting to directly attribute the student grants as government payments to the school. Most other colleges can accept students who qualify for Pell Grants. Also, students of UPX only pay for one course at a time. If a UPX student is not satisfied with the University after trying a course, they can quit or transfer to another college or university. Pell grants cover only about 25% of the tuition payments and this is equal to many other colleges and universities.
It’s common advice at universities that students should join study groups. But when I teach, study groups are in addition to contact hours. At UPX, study groups count as contact hours. That step by itself makes UPX 50% more “efficient” than an ordinary university.
I’m not an expert on higher learning education methods, so maybe you can help me understand why this is such a big deal for you. I think I read somewhere that study groups and group projects are proven successful methods and may better prepare students for the workplace. It seems your beef should be with the college accreditation boards if this is such a big problem. UPX serves non-traditional students, so maybe these do better in study groups.
There are people at the Department of Education who do not in fact think that UPX is doing what they intended with DOE’s money. But, surprise, surprise, UPX has lobbying power over them.
So let’s review the logic here… The Pell Grants are from a Federal government (DOE) program intended to provide money to low income students so they can get a college education. The DOE continues to release the funds to these students to spend at UPX even though the same agency thinks UPX is breaking the rules, or misusing the funds. Meanwhile lobbyists somehow prevent the government from fixing the “problem”. And yet… somehow UPX and Sperling are the entity and individual worthy of scorn?
I can’t help but get political at this point… I will probably never understand a worldview that blames private business and private citizens for exploiting the giveaways from government considered incompetent and corrupt, while also demanding more government. My liberal friends think more government would prevent the Sperlings of this country from getting too rich. This strategy is analogous to bringing in more cats to control the fat rat population in New York City. The rats may end up being fewer and skinnier, but then a new problem of fat cats will develop, and before too long we will all be knee deep in cat shit.
Now in the abstract, I don’t necessarily think that Sperling is a bad person just because he’s a billionaire. I met a billionaire heir when I was in college and he was a fine dude. But if you can justify such an enormous stash, how can you possibly tell me that Yudof is overpaid?
I don’t know if Yudof is overpaid or underpaid. Apparently he lacks the same lobbying skills as Sperling, so maybe that is one reason he is worth less. Seriously though, didn’t someone somewhere say that life isn’t fair? Yudof could always quit and start a UPX-clone private “diploma mill” college that sucks in Pell Grants. My guess is that he does not have the same talent and drive as Sperling, but maybe I’m wrong.
By the way, like most billionaire founders and CEOs, most of Spering’s wealth is company stock. It was only after the IPO in 1994 that he hit it big (by that time Sperling was 74 years old… about 10-15 years older than most retiring UC Presidents). Even so, Sperling’s actual monetary compensation is probably more in line with Yudof’s; it is the equity of his Apollo stock holdings that make the difference.
By the way #2, I don’t like Sperling’s politics too much… he is a socialist and global warming fanatic… yuk!
[i]I’m not an expert on higher learning education methods, so maybe you can help me understand why this is such a big deal for you.[/i]
It’s a simple example of double-counting. Of course study groups are a good idea. I encourage my students to use them too. However, at UC Davis, study groups do not and should not count as classroom time.
To make it more explicit, a 3-unit course at UC Davis means 30 hours of lecture. On top of that, the students are encouraged to have study groups. Suppose that UC Davis used the UPX method of saving money, by reducing the lectures to 20 hours and counting 10 hours of study group time as just as good. Would you call that a more efficient education, or a scam?
[i]The DOE continues to release the funds to these students to spend at UPX even though the same agency thinks UPX is breaking the rules, or misusing the funds. Meanwhile lobbyists somehow prevent the government from fixing the “problem”.[/i]
It’s as simple as that UPX spread around enough campaign donations to get DOE to declare that there is no problem. In this case, the problem was not even this business about counting study groups as class time. The problem was that more than half of UPX courses are web-only, with no class time at all.
If you want to tell me that it’s the fault of those idiots at DOE, so that I don’t badmouth UPX itself, fine. Either way, DOE should go back to its old rules regarding contact hours and revoke UPX’s accreditation for federal financial aid to students.
And certainly CSU should not be sold to UPX, for the same reasons that the Davis Farmers’ Market should not be sold to McDonald’s. Again, UPX does not have a single undergraduate course that uses calculus. They do not have majors in math, physics, chemistry, biology, or engineering. They teach calculus, but in their system it’s a rote topic that is used for nothing. No undergraduate course explains how to model a transistor or price a stock option, because those questions require calculus. At the most, some courses could teach canned answers to the very simplest of these questions, but they can’t possibly explain why the answers are right.
[i]Yudof could always quit and start a UPX-clone private “diploma mill” college that sucks in Pell Grants. My guess is that he does not have the same talent and drive as Sperling, but maybe I’m wrong.[/i]
Most people in the world have a degree of self-respect that certain businessmen equate with a lack of talent. For instance, prostitution in Nevada can be a lucrative profession, but most beautiful women do not have the “talent” of making themselves do it.
I couldn’t make myself work for a diploma mill no matter how much they paid me, and I suspect that the same is true of Mark Yudof. But it’s a little different if you’re offered exactly the same job for different pay in two different states. Being a real professor or leading a real university are honorable professions, and it’s hard to argue that Californians deserve this labor for less compensation than Texans do.