Thanks for joining in the discussion. I think there are two questions related to the cost of undergraduate education. One is: What does UC now spend on undergraduate education (as reasonably separated from the cost of other worthy missions). And the other is: What should we charge undergraduates as a fair (or market driven) payment for the value of the education we provide?

Private universities consider only the second question. We, as a public institution, have some obligation to provide an answer to the first. Indeed, I think answering the first question is a necessary precursor to any rational debate over the second question.

At the outset, one should be aware of how absurd is the present method for calculating the cost of undergraduate education: ALL of the cost of professors’ academic year salary (plus departmental support staff) is counted as an expenditure for Instruction and is the basis for calculating the per-student cost of education. I agree that there is some contribution of faculty research to undergraduate teaching (and this is included in my analysis); but the accounting standard used by UC (and other research universities) implies that there is no other purpose for faculty research other than to enrich their teaching of undergraduates. That is nonsense, of course, but that is the official habit of accounting.

This bloated accounting habit has definite negative impacts, as follows. When UC says that student fees cover only 30% or 40% of the cost of their education, that tells legislators (and other citizens, as recently noted in an article from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) that those students are getting a 60% or 70% free ride at taxpayer expense – so let’s cut UC’s budget and have the students pay more of the cost for what benefits them personally.

Charlie

I agree that the Commission on the Future seems not to have tackled the full depth of the funding problem at the University, providing only suggestions for trimming at the margins and a set of inconsequential affirmations of the University’s purported mission. I would have preferred a more focused presentation of scenarios along the lines of “If State support for the University drops permanently by another X billion dollars per year, the University must operate as follows.”

I disagree with your premise that the costs of the teaching and research activities of the University need be separately identified and funded. It is plausible that the cost to students of a college education should match the value of that education, for example and crassly in terms of increased lifetime wages. In this light it may be argued that the research activities of the University add value to its educational offerings; certainly this is the pricing model for a private University. It is then up to the California taxpayer to decide whether this per-student cost should be borne by the society as a whole, in the form of State support, or by the student. The present political trend, in California and nationwide, is to place the burden more fully on the student who receives the value of a University education, rather than regarding education as contributing to the greater good. It is not up to the Commission for the Future or the UC faculty to make this political decision. Rather, it is our obligation to figure out how to operate once the politics are decided.

Thanks for promoting such discussions,

Sincerely,
Dan

The UCB budget gap has grown to $150 million, and still the Chancellor is spending money that isn’t there on expensive outside consultants. His reasons range from the need for impartiality to requiring the “innovative thinking, expertise, and new knowledge” the consultants would bring.

Does this mean that the faculty and management of a world-class research and teaching institution lack the knowledge, impartiality, innovation, and professionalism to come up with solutions? Have they been fudging their research for years? The consultants will glean their recommendations from interviewing faculty and the UCB management that hired them; yet solutions could be found internally if the Chancellor were doing the job he was hired to do. Consultant fees would be far better spent on meeting the needs of students.

There can be only one conclusion as to why creative solutions have not been forthcoming from the professionals within UCB: Chancellor Birgeneau has lost credibility and the trust of the faculty as well as of the Academic Senate leadership that represents them. 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.

-as it relates to research projects/ done deals like the British Petroleum project with UC Berkeley?

-what should the taxpayers and state pay?

-and what parts of the research should British Petroleum be allowed to privatize?

Like many citizens, I have maintained a sense of ignorance and subjugation of the UC system believing that I am powerless to its monolithic hegemony over higher public education in California.

I have been asked by my children to take action toward the cause of accountability of the UC/CSU system. To that end, I am contacting my assemblyman, state senator, the governor (including prospective gubernatorial candidates) and the press to investigate and resolve the issue of UC/CSU expenditures and accountability. Though I am of limited financial means, I am duty bound by my parental obligation to my children to stand up and take an activist role for their benefit.

Many thanks to Professor Schwartz and others who are leading the charge in this most important crusade. Working together, we can make our voices heard by our elected representatives and seek the fiscal prudence and justice that California’s populace deserves; a UC/CSU system with a focus on its core mission – to provide higher education to all students who wish to achieve a post-secondary degree.

Lay-offs continue here at Office of the President. The Office of General Counsel continues to hire very expensive consultant attorneys and is laying off support staff as if that would cut their spending. Now that many departments here have been slashed there are inefficiencies and swift responses to campuses no longer exist. UCOP has spent a large percentage of their S&E budget to move over 150 people to different office spaces in the same building. I’m still getting the figures. More high level management is being hired and no unrepresented staff have gotten raises – only furloughs.

We have a history of hiring consultants who provide recommendations to streamlining business practices and not using the data issued. Recently a retired Director had been taken out of retirement to help conduct a study to ensure that UCOP’s largest liability – the Capital Programs – continues to mitigate risk, streamlines their processes, and provides a good program for the campuses. Few of those recommendations were heeded. This is just a drop in the bucket. Years of OP knowledge are gone. The staff either were encouraged to retire early (Mr. Hume’s plan) or they were laid off. This bodes badly for the next ten years. I could give you more details about Mr. Yudof’s bad behaviors but that’s for another blog.

I can tell you that we are exhausted and frustrated. We believe in the University and want it to remain a viable public institution of higher learning. We want to provide support and service to the University’s programs by supporting the President. Unfortunately the President doesn’t appear to have the University’s best interests to heart so we are working at cross purposes. Finally, I have to say that the Board of Regents are responsible for hiring Dr. Dynes and Mr. Yudof. Blaming one regent, though he is terrible for the University, and his wife shows a lack of character. Dr. Montoya and the rest of the Board are to blame for both bad regimes and that would have been heartening to read as well.