Important Note to all Registered users of this blog (UniversityProbe.org):
All currently Registered user names and addresses will be deleted as of
September 1, 2010 – because there has been a lot of robot-generated spam.
If you wish to re-Register, please do so after September 1.
Thank you.
STATEMENT
to The Regents of the University of California, meeting July 14, 2010
by Charles Schwartz, Professor Emeritus of Physics, UC Berkeley
F is for Failure
It should be clear that the UC Commission on the Future has been a failure. Regent Gould and President Yudof have spent the last year rooting about in the underbrush of the University but have failed to come up with any plausible ideas on how to solve the long-term financial problem. The reason is simply that they never took the trouble to state openly and clearly what the problem is. It is not about funding for undergraduate education; it is about funding for the core research mission of the university.
The only path they offer will be a continued escalation of the tuition that you charge undergraduate students – although they are already paying for the entire cost of their own education – and that is how this great public university joins the club of private universities.
Let me show you another aspect of this same disease – the failure to provide a clear and truthful picture of how UC spends its money. I’ll quote from a recent article published by Jon Coupal, the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
“As California faces an unprecedented budget crisis, students at California colleges have been asked to pay a greater share of the total cost of their education, most of which is still borne by taxpayers. …taxpayers pay 60-70% of the cost of CSU and UC students’ education, without even counting financial aid.”
Those numbers are false; but they come right from here – from the Regents’ Budget, which is published by the UC President and his staff.
How can you hope to gain public support when you don’t tell the truth about where the money goes? This is the main duty of the Board of Regents; and you are all failing to meet your public obligations.
—————————–
for further related commentary, I recommend Chris Newfield’s latest post at
http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2010/07/unhappy-anniversary.html
Resolution on Senate Committee on University Governance and Leadership
In the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate of the University of California
Approved by a vote of 263 to 113 in a formal mail ballot, May 7-21, 2010
• Official Results of the Ballot
• Text of the Resolution
• Ballot Arguments For and Against
Read the rest of this entry »
On the Agenda for the April 22, 2010, meeting of the
Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate
3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m., Booth Auditorium, School of Law
New Business
A. Resolution on the formation of a special committee to develop reform
proposals concerning the governance and leadership of the University
Emeritus Professor of Physics Charles Schwartz will introduce the following resolution:
Whereas, There is widespread concern about the financial future of the
University;
Whereas, The Regents and the President of the University have established
a Commission to study alternative future arrangements;
Whereas, It appears that consideration of Major Reforms in the Top Level
Governance and Leadership of the University is unlikely to occur within
that Commission;
Whereas, Numerous members of the Faculty of the University have
thoughtful contributions to offer in that regard; and
Whereas, Such Reforms might be a significant factor in efforts to restore
public confidence in and public support for the University; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate asks its
Divisional Council to convene a special Committee charged to collect,
study and formulate a set of Reform Proposals concerning the Governance
and Leadership of the University, which will then be distributed to the
membership of the Division for a ballot assessment.
- – - – -
Some Background Materials available at
http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/meetings/meetings.html
Permalink Comments off
Letter to the Editor, San Francisco Chronicle March 9, 2010
http://www.sfgate.com
Education’s cost: a fact of life
What the public college students (and their parents) in this state must understand is that the days of the taxpayers subsidizing their higher education are over, sad as that may be.
Read the rest of this entry »
by Velma Montoya, Ph.D., UC Regent-emerita
Peter Schrag’s profile of UC president Mark Yudof in San Francisco Modern Luxury deserves an A grade for keeping Yudof happy. This article could have benefited from enhanced reporting.
Charles Schwartz, UC Berkeley
Rather than just waiting for delivery of the Governor’s proposed increase in funding for higher education, the University should engage in some needed fiscal reforms to convince the rest of the state that their reinvestment will be well spent. Foremost is a need to clean up some bad habits of the UC administration; and such reform is unlikely to come from the top. So here is a worthy campaign for the faculty to take on.
In the ongoing controversy over how the University of California uses student fees and other monies to back up the bonds it sells for construction projects – a new letter from UC’s Chief Financial Officer answers one question and exposes severe shortcomings in executive oversight.
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
Public Comments to the University of California Commission on the Future
meeting in Oakland, CA, November 12, 2009
by Charles Schwartz
Having sat through two of your public Commission meetings, the most interesting thing I have heard was the presentation at the beginning [today] by Mr. Baldassare [Mark Baldassare, President of the Public Policy Institute of California], who connects to the world of the people of California. And his most interesting comment was his response to a question from Mr. Pulaski. I hope I am quoting him correctly. Baldassare described the people as having mixed views about higher education and the University. He said: what the people want from higher education is efficiency, responsiveness and accountability.
Now I know the President’s Office uses those words a lot. They have a program for accountability. I have looked at a lot of the stuff that they have put out there. And I judge it to be primarily a public relations job; and I think most people see it as that. And therefore it fails to provide the people with what they say they want.
Let me give you a few examples. A familiar cliché: student fees go up; and the educational services that we provide to the students go down. Standard excuse: It’s Sacramento’s fault. No, that doesn’t wash. We take in a billion and a half dollars this year and two billion dollars next year of Educational Fees. How are you spending those monies? Nobody can find out.
There is a lively controversy between Professor Meister and Vice President Taylor. There is no transparency there. It is a PR game. You can’t win friends that way!
Another example, from my own research: The fantastic growth rate of administrative bureaucracy throughout this university. It’s been ignored, ignored, ignored for a long time. Well, maybe there will be some progress made on that now.
I think it would have been a wonderful thing if there were a Working Group appointed whose job was to bring forward specific critiques aimed at the top administrative structure, and that would include the Board of Regents, the President and the Chancellors and that whole non-academic activity; how is it funded; where is the money going; what’s going on?
Now, of course, since you are the people who created this structure, it wasn’t likely that you would appoint such a working group. But there is an idea.
Thank you.