Earlier this year the UC Regents seemed to acknowledge that they would not be seeking further fee increases as they would be counter productive.
Now, the UC Board of Regents is discussing raising the UC tuition by another 32 percent beginning in the Winter 2012 if the state passes an all-cuts budget that would increase to $500 million, cuts that were already signed into law.
“The UC has already been asked to absorb a variety of deep cuts over the last three years,” UC President Mark Yudof said. “And we have strived to maintain our bar-setting quality while also instituting a magnitude of lay-offs, furloughs, hiring freezes and numerous other efficiencies to accommodate those cuts. As a result, in the face of deeper disinvestment, our options are few. And this makes for very hard choices.”
President Yudof went on to call the idea of a 32% midyear fee hike a “nasty scenario.” He said, “It’s not desirable. But people have to understand the grave consequences to this university.”
Much as schools and other local governments are suffering under the uncertainty of state funding, the chancellors and UC Regents are having the same difficulty.
UC Regent Monica Lozano remarked this week, “The lack of predictability and the lack of stability is not good for the students, it’s not good for the families and it’s certainly not good for the chancellors who are trying to look ahead.”
The LA Times reported earlier this week, “The threat of such an increase is partly intended to influence debate in Sacramento.”
Moreover, while the state has about $6.6 billion more in revenue than expected, most of that will go to public schools which have seen their funding cut deeply, but none of it would go to higher education.
Two weeks ago the Vanguard reported that UC workers believe they could save hundreds of millions in cost-saving measures that would be able to protect workers from service cuts.
In their budget alternatives, UC workers say that they highlight hundreds of millions in savings that could be realized without balancing the budget on the backs of student and workers, and without risking UC’s ability to recruit and retain the best qualified patient care providers.
At the same time, UC Regents are planning for the worst, which might mean one billion in additional cuts.
According to their plan, they could achieve $260 million in savings simply by bringing UC’s management ratios in line with best practices, from 7-to-1 to 8-to-1. They write, “An analysis of UC’s payroll data reveals the system-wide ratio of non-management employees to management is about 7-to-1. In contrast, the Texas state government, where UC President Yudof formerly worked at the University of Texas, mandates a worker-to-management ratio of 11-to-1.”
They cite a UC Berkeley study on Operational Efficiency that supports the “conclusion that UC is saddled with growing layers of unnecessary management.”
They write in a briefing memo, “For instance, supervisors at Berkeley’s campus oversee an average of just 4 persons. Systemwide, UC’s employee-to-management ratio is 7 employees to 1 manager.”
The report adds, “Since at least 2004, UC’s management has grown twice as fast as non-management employees. In addition, $1.6 billion in cash compensation went to management in 2009. That’s 8% of the entire UC budget. Managerial bloat is a costly systemic problem throughout all levels of UC.”
They also find that more than $20 million in savings could be achieved by eliminating extra perks for 1,000 of UC’s highest paid. Senior managers receive a number of supplemental health, welfare, and retirement benefits. In addition, many who receive these benefits are paid through state funds, meaning a significant share of their benefits are also state funded.
Two years ago in July of 2009, I wrote of “The End of the California Dream.”
In the 1950s California led the way with an innovative and unprecedented higher education that would enable anyone who wished to, to attend a four-year college and get a college degree. For the next half century, California had a higher education system second to none in the world. There was the world-class University of California system that would take the top tier of studenta and the California State University system that would admit virtually anyone, initially at no cost and but even to this day one of the best deals around.
If this is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, one of the biggest victims will be the California Dream of an accessible and affordable college education.
Since then, things have only gotten worse as higher education has had to endure cuts, furloughs and repeated rate hikes. While California higher education may still be a good buy – a relatively inexpensive education that gives good quality, it is becoming increasingly expensive to put the next generation in school.
Moreover, CSU has taken on huge cuts as well. And the community college system is no longer the point of access for thousands of students to simply show up and put themselves on track for either an associate’s degree or a chance to transfer to a four-year school to get a bachelor’s degree.
We have cut deeply into our investment in the future from K-12, to the community college’s, to CSU and UC. We have priced higher education out of the range of many students, while cutting back on support programs and other services.
These are people that we rely on to run the economy of the future, which will be more reliant on high tech and other skills. These are people that we hope will enable the US to maintain its innovative and technical advantage over East Asian, China, Europe and the rest of the emerging world.
As I have called for so many times, it is time to re-think our priorities.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A sad but accurate assessment. We are pawning the future of the state.
As one who had little access to formal education in my youth, I valued what was available, prodding my, two, children to pursue every opportunity offered ! While I am proud and grateful that they largely acceded to my wishes, I fear that the financial cost of that education may be a lifetime burden . Indeed, the vocational training, once so readily available in community colleges is so attractive that private ” colleges “, offering one and two year certificate programs and job placement, continue to spread like kudzu . UC, while still a desirable brand name has competition in the market place .
[quote]We have cut deeply into our investment in the future from K-12, to the community college’s, to CSU and UC. We have priced higher education out of the range of many students, while cutting back on support programs and other services.[/quote]
Grim reality but all too true… yet some cost cutting measures must be instituted… very tough times ahead.
“These are people that we rely on to run the economy of the future, which will be more reliant on high tech and other skills. These are people that we hope will enable the US to maintain its innovative and technical advantage over East Asian, China, Europe and the rest of the emerging world.
This is exactly right. You capture here the function of the university for the state of CA. But what are the implications of your insight?
The university should expand in areas that help the state’s economy, such as science, medicine and engineering. On the other hand, it should cut back in areas such as humanities, arts and cultural studies. These areas cater to weaker students, so they do produce college graduates, but are of no use to the state’s “economy of the future”. These fields claim that they teach “critical thinking” and produce well rounded citizens, but many people realize that is nonsense. They often serve as majors for those who either can’t handle serious courses or who could, but would rather party for four (or five or six) years.
The majority of UC students come from affluent families so as long as financial aid is offered the tuition hike is bearable. $17k is still a bargain compared to private schools, though certainly not the bargain it used to be. No doubt the UC system has administrative overhead that could be trimmed but I don’t think that would solve the problem–Taxpayers don’t want to pay more taxes but they still want services.
I don’t believe this 32 percent increase was “suddenly discussed”. I think the original plan was to increase tuition by over 100%, but they knew there would be an immediate uproar, so they are spreading it around.
[quote]I don’t believe this 32 percent increase was “suddenly discussed”. I think the original plan was to increase tuition by over 100%, but they knew there would be an immediate uproar, so they are spreading it around.[/quote]
Interesting theory. Seems to me though, there ought to be some thought at cost cutting, instead of continuing business as usual. These are austere times… no more building new facilities for instance, that require facilities money to build, but operating expense funds to operate.
A few months ago they had argued that they had to find other ways to balance their budget rather than increasing student fees, now they are suddenly talking about increasing student fees again.
Musser
I do not see the university “spreading it around” as substantially different from the city “phasing in”increases in cost of water. While it is certainly true that it may have the effect of avoiding “an immediate uproar” phasing in cost increases also gives folks time to plan ahead to cover upcoming increased expenses. However, I do think that a long term projection, maybe three to five years rather than months,, would be more useful in helping a student decide where they can reasonably afford college.
And I would agree with Elaine that cutting back on non essential building would be a prudent step at all levels of public expenditure given the current economic reality.
David,
It would be nice to see a report regarding other options that had been considered and found wanting and the reasons fir their rejection.
I can look into that a bit more. But I think there are a lot of proposals out there like the UC Workers proposal that have some merit and might save some money. Not much is going to help if the UC system has to cut another billion. To me that is on the legislature and the voters.
[quote]To me that is on the legislature and the voters.[/quote]
How is that on the voters? I doubt the voters would have voted for a new Food and Wine Institute; a new Stadium; a refurbishing of the MU including new plasma screen TVs the students don’t even watch; a new concert hall; a new conference center, etc. ad nauseum…
How is it on the voters? It’s on the voters because we need to prioritize our spending. If the voters punished politicians every time they cut education as they have when they have been perceived as soft on crime or have raised taxes, I think politicians would look for other places to cut spending.
“How is it on the voters?”
I am with David on this one. In a representative society, it is ultimately up to the voters to control governance. While it is true Elaine that we do not get to vote on the specifics of each issue ( I would dearly have loved to vote against sending troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq ) we do at each election have both the right and responsibility to vote for those individuals and policies that we believe best represent our values and interests. So indeed, it does come back to the voters.
The Baby Boomers are at it again. They have created another bubble. This time it is the higher education bubble.
So here we are… the cost of higher education exceeding the COLA by orders of magnitude, massive student debt accumulated… sounds just like the housing bubble to me.
The bubble will pop because, just like what happened in the housing market, the cost already exceeds the value by an order of magnitude and the debt is unsustainable.
My idea would be to stop all money going to the UC and CSU system and give it all to the community colleges. Then the UC and CSU system can become a private system that can learn to succeed or fail on its own merit.
My recommendation to parents… keep your kids at home while sending them to a community college for four years for a two-year certificate (because they will be on a waiting list for all their classes). Then take the money saved and help them start a business selling stuff to the Chinese and Brazilians.
Actually, a common pattern now is two years (or so) in community college, then two years in UC. Community colleges are providing the undergraduate lower division classes at a much lower cost than UC, which is the market working just as I think you’d like it to. I’d support more money for community colleges, since this is the reality.
[quote]While it is true Elaine that we do not get to vote on the specifics of each issue ( I would dearly have loved to vote against sending troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq ) we do at each election have both the right and responsibility to vote for those individuals and policies that we believe best represent our values and interests. So indeed, it does come back to the voters.[/quote]
What choice do voters have? Swartzenegger? Brown? Hardly great selections, but the ones we were stuck with. Nor do voters get to vote on specific expenditures much. Sorry, but it is the politicians who have failed us, on both sides of the aisle, not the voters… unless you want to criticize those who fail to vote – in which case I’m somewhat with you…
[quote]Actually, a common pattern now is two years (or so) in community college, then two years in UC. Community colleges are providing the undergraduate lower division classes at a much lower cost than UC, which is the market working just as I think you’d like it to. I’d support more money for community colleges, since this is the reality.[/quote]
This is the wave of the future – not ideal, but okay. The problem is that the community colleges do not have the top notch facilities that a university system has, so students don’t have quite the educational opportunities in the community college system…
[i]”The problem is that the community colleges do not have the top notch facilities that a university system has, so students don’t have quite the educational opportunities in the community college system… “[/i]
As I understand, you are more apt to have the class taught by the actual professor at the community college. Also, with students focusing on GE requirements the first two years, it seems unlikely they would miss out on much going this route. It seems to me the only difference between UCD graduates having attended a JC or not having attended a JC is the level of student debt accumulated.
JB: “As I understand, you are more apt to have the class taught by the actual professor at the community college. “
I’ve heard this line of thought many times, and it may well be the case in some departments, but every class I attended at UCD was taught by the professor (though I wish some had been taught by their grad students…).
JB: “Also, with students focusing on GE requirements the first two years, it seems unlikely they would miss out on much going this route.”
Most majors, especially technical majors, build on previous courses and, as such, a lack of continuity can leave a student lost very quickly. Also, you’re assuming that general education courses are equivalent among JC’s and UC’s, which I believe is a largely inaccurate assumption.
JB: “It seems to me the only difference between UCD graduates having attended a JC or not having attended a JC is the level of student debt accumulated.”
This may be the case for some majors, but, in my experience, this is inaccurate for technical majors (i.e. engineering, math, & medicine related fields). I’m not exactly a fan of the way UCD (& UC in general) goes about thinning the heard through “weeder courses”, but the people I met in my tenure at UCD that leveraged a transfer agreement and jumped into an engineering or math curriculum at the upper division level simply weren’t prepared. Conversely, those that had survived the gauntlet of lower division courses at UCD had a pretty clear idea where they stood by the end of their first year, let alone the second.
The JC/UC model can work well, and I can happily share some impressive examples, but I think it is disingenuous to compare the freshman class at UC to its JC counterpart. In my opinion the JC/UC option is far from an ideal “solution”.
“Actually, a common pattern now is two years (or so) in community college, then two years in UC. Community colleges are providing the undergraduate lower division classes at a much lower cost than UC, which is the market working just as I think you’d like it to. I’d support more money for community colleges, since this is the reality. “
There are a few problems with this.
First, community colleges themselves are in trouble and suffering the same problems as UC and CSU.
Second, we are starting to lose the service that community colleges used to provide because they are starting to assume the role that you suggest as opposed to a very low cost entry point for all students.
The traditional CC student is getting priced out of CC and where will they go from there?
To AeroDeo: I couldn’t have said it better. The first two years at a community college really are not equivalent to the first two years at a UC campus. However, I think this is the direction we are moving, like it or not…
AeroDeo: You make some good points about the technical majors. However, what percentage of college students are pursuing degrees in these disciplines?
From my experience and observations, the first two years of undergraduate attendance at a four-year college are a waste of money for most students. This seems to support that opinion: [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-01-18-littlelearning18_ST_N.htm[/url]
Frankly, I think too that UC and CSU convolute the curriculum for transfer agreement students because of the financial impacts of the missing two years tuition. Or at the very least, they lack the incentive to coordinate with the JCs. This is part of the reason it took a state bill to force UC and CSU to better cooperate.
There was a good article in the Enterprise last night (or the night before) about the hundreds of billions of dollars in deferred maintenance expenses accumulating for the UC and CSU campuses. It is telling that the same problem is not afflicting the private schools.