To the UC Commission — A Better PLAN
TO: The Working Groups of the UC Commission on the Future
AT: Their public Meeting on the Berkeley Campus, December 3, 2009
FROM: Charles Schwartz, Professor Emeritus Schwartz@physics.berkeley.edu
For Your Consideration, I submit the enclosed proposal:
A BETTER PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
3 pages summarizing this comprehensive PLAN, followed by 20 pages of relevant background material from my recent seminar on this topic.
In submitting this proposal, I request a thoroughgoing review that will produce a critical response: first identifying any faults you may find in my assertions of fact or logic; then offering whatever opinions you may develop about the feasibility and desirability of the changes that are proposed. That is the caliber of work we expect in the University.
The overall concept of this PLAN is to seek a partial renewal of state funding for the University of California together with substantial changes in the way that UC handles the money it receives. This approach (“walking on two legs”) should be the best way to bring the University and California together again and thus avoid the perils of UC either decaying from its preeminent academic standing or abandoning its invaluable public character.
To be perfectly frank, these proposals do step on the toes of certain factions of the University, namely, the Board of Regents and their chosen executives. But, please remember, our primary goal is to preserve the University, this center of great learning in the service of the public good.
I will be happy to provide an electronic copy of this presentation, so that it can be posted on the central website of the Commission for any interested persons to access.
Thank you,
Charles Schwartz
The PLAN is also posted at http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz
Bob Samuels said,
December 4, 2009 @ 11:11 am
I like your plan a lot, but don’t you think the state would rather pay for instruction and not research or some mixture of the two. There are two ways of reading your calculation of the actual costs of instruction: one is to say that the students are already paying for all of their costs, and the state is paying for things other than instruction, or, one can say that the students are paying for some instruction, but mostly research and administration, and the state is also paying for a confusing mix. Bob
admin said,
December 5, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Bob;
I understand that your comment is derived from interpreting a recent report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office(LAO); and here is the relevant quote:
“The Master Plan also called for students to assume a greater share of their education costs by periodically increasing fees so they would cover the operating costs of noninstructional services (such as laboratories, student activities, and athletics). Financial aid would be made available for students who could not afford these costs, and for all California residents
direct instructional costs (such as faculty salaries) would be paid by the state. Ancillary services (such as parking and dormitories) would be self-supporting.”
I interpret that quite differently from what you imply. The “noninstructional” things they refer to are what have been covered for some time now by Registration Fees (Student Services, athletics) and some campus based fees (for student labs). That LAO language continues the old game (which I am trying to unmask) of hiding faculty research costs under “instructional costs”.
So, I believe you are a bit confused about what “the state” wants to do regarding funding for UC. In fact, we are all unclear about that question. It would be most helpful if UC provided meaningful data about what they spend on undergraduate instruction and what they spend on faculty research and related graduate programs. Those are both important contributions to the welfare of California, and the two missions do certainly overlap somewhat; but we can ask for a reasonably honest accounting of their separate costs rather than lumping them all together and calling it “the cost of education.”