When I was an undergrad at Berkeley in the late '90s we paid around $4400 in "student fees." It was higher than it should have been given the cost of living at the time, but the state of California had held UC costs at a fixed level from 1995 to 2001.
Of course, during the 1960s the state and the UC system actually held to the promises of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, which included a promise to never charge students for the cost of instruction. In the 1960s when state treasurer Bill Lockyer attended UC Berkeley his total cost - for all 4 years - would have been $880. Figuring inflation and that's $5,808 in 2007 dollars.
UC tuition will rise $490 to $7,126 plus campus fees, which average $881 this year. The tuition would reach $8,180 if raised to the 10 percent total.
Hume said students at UC's nine undergraduate campuses can expect a more difficult time registering for some classes, larger class sizes, and cuts in student services.
"We will be less efficient. They will take longer to graduate. They will not be able to get classes. They will not be able to get their majors," Hume said.
The CSU is following suit with a 10% increase of its own:
CSU Chancellor Charles Reed said during the same editorial board meeting that he is recommending that the CSU Board of Trustees approve a 10 percent tuition increase next week but that he will not go back for more later in the year. Fees at CSU will rise by $276 to $3,048 plus campus fees, which were an average of $749 per student this year.
These increases are going to make it even more difficult for qualified Californians to attend college, improve their earning power, and strengthen the state economy. With the credit crunch reducing the availability of student loans these increases leave me wondering whether this isn't a sly way to drive students away - applications and freshman classes have been soaring year after year.
It's also a further step in the privatization of our higher education system. With decreasing public support the onus is now on students to self-finance their education, which is in direct contravention to the principles of the UC and CSU systems as laid out in the 1960 Master Plan. If California is to have an economic future in the 21st century - if we are to keep pace with European and Asian economies - we need trained and skilled Californians able to handle the tasks of a 21st century civilization. Instead the state of California is abandoning that mission - for the sake of preserving the 20th century, we are going to sacrifice the 21st.
California higher education has not been having a good decade. When Arnold first took office a series of major cuts were made to the UC, CSU, and community college budgets. In 2004 a compact was agreed to between the UC and CSU leaders and Arnold, guaranteeing a stable, if low, level of funding. That agreement has been heavily criticized for having accepted a lower standard of state support - and that criticism looks to be merited, as Arnold now proposes to violate that agreement with his 10% cut of higher ed funding.
As a new study by the Campaign for College Opportunity shows, the proposed cuts would have the effect of severely curtailing enrollment by as much as 27,000 over the next two years, which is the size of an average UC or CSU undergraduate campus enrollment. And a study by the UC Academic Senate found that "to maintain educational quality" student fees would have to rise from $7,500 to $10,500 - a staggering increase from an already high level.
"The Schwarzenegger revision accelerates the redefinition of the University of California away from a public university and toward a 'public-private partnership,' " the UC study said. "The university becomes dependent on high student fees for delivering its core educational mission. . . . The university becomes quasi-private or poor -- or perhaps both at once."
UC has been suffering for years from what the Academic Senate study called a "hollowing out" because of lack of money. "From a distance, all appears normal; once one goes inside, the damage is clear," it said. Leaky roofs go unrepaired; valuable faculty leave for better-paying universities...
The problem of "faculty brain drain" from public to private institutions is a serious one across the country but is hitting UC and CSU the hardest, as their funding has been the most dramatically impacted.
The study and the cuts were the subject of an article in today's LA Times which contained some quotes from higher ed leaders about the impact of these cuts:
Diane Woodruff, chancellor of the California Community Colleges, said the governor's proposed cut would mean those campuses would not be able to provide classes for more than 50,000 students. An additional 18,500 would not receive financial aid.
The cutbacks would most affect low-income, first-generation and nonwhite students, who generally depend more on university services, she said...
"By 2025. if we continue on this same course of cumulative budget cuts on a cyclical basis, the California workforce will be 3 million short and California will not be competitive," Cal State Chancellor [Charles] Reed said.
In other words, Arnold's proposed 10% cut of higher education would have a crippling effect on California's economy. The student fees increases would squeeze middle-class families even more dramatically, and would be difficult for young students to pay - especially as student loan availability is shrinking due to the credit cruch - even the notorious Sallie Mae claimed "we're at the cusp of peak lending."
But this is sadly part of a larger pattern for Arnold and his Republican allies. Don't let their occasional bickering and infighting fool you - they stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to this state's future. They all agree that our economy and the middle- and working-classes should be sacrificed for the sake of a few wealthy Californians who don't want to pay more taxes. They agree that to save voters $150 a year in vehicle license fees, public education - from kindergarten to undergraduate - should be destroyed.
The article notes that "Despite the dire situation the universities and community colleges find themselves in, education leaders have been reluctant to challenge the governor." It looks like that task is going to fall to the students who, abandoned by their schools' administrators, are launching a statewide protest on Monday, April 21 to oppose these cuts.
A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled across a brilliant metaphor for how the debate over problems often totally misses the root of a given problem itself: "How Best to Fill a Sieve With Water":
There are many arguments over which is the correct course of action which I liken to debating how best to fill a sieve with water. By this I mean that they ignore the fact that their premise is wrong.
Obviously the first thing an impartial observer would say when the two camps are debating whether to use a spoon or a cup would be to point out that one can't fill a sieve without first plugging the holes. This seems to be my current role, pointing out assumptions which are either wrong or taken as being obvious without any examination.
University of California President Robert Dynes, who was pressured earlier this year to step down by next June, is expected to get an over-scale faculty salary of $245,000 for research and teaching at UC San Diego.
[...]
Dynes had been at the center of controversy after The Chronicle disclosed that millions of dollars in extra compensation and questionable perks had been handed to some top executives without telling the public or regents. The Chronicle's findings, reported in 2005 and 2006, were followed by three state and university audits that showed how UC administrators sometimes flouted, circumvented and violated university policies governing pay and perks.
In 1960, the Master Plan for Higher Education in California was adopted, with Democratic Governor Pat Brown having played the key role in brokering the deals that produced the remarkable document. Among its core principles were access - from the guarantees of UC or CSU acceptance for students in the top levels of their high school classes, to community college transfers - as well as affordability with an outright ban on tuition and the expectation that "student fees" would be limited, and used for things such as student activities and dorms. The state would provide the support for instruction.
But ever since Reagan took office in 1967, these promises have been under attack. In a political or especially an economic crisis, state politicians have repeatedly undermined the Master Plan, limiting access by reducing affordability. After a truce in the 1990s, the budget crisis of the 2000s saw another sustained attack on higher ed and the first acknowledged abrogations of the Master Plan's promises. Today, a UC or CSU education is no longer affordable, and reduced state support not only limits access, but is impoverishing those who work in its ranks.
All this is the subject of a fantastic LA Times article this morning titled "Less to Bank on at State Universities: Educators fear a 2004 funding deal has schools sliding toward mediocrity." But the article is about more than just the problems of reduced funding. Instead it outlines how this is a deliberate policy of the Schwarzenegger administration, an effort to privatize California colleges and put them out of the reach of those who have been promised access to them.
The story does not end there. An unstated, but equally important aspect of the piece also shows how this crisis is also the product of a stunning failure of public officials to protect the institutions and historic policies they have been charged with defending. Whether it is the UC Regents, the State Legislature, or the Democratic Party, these officials have done little to nothing to protect one of the most important projects in California history.
(brilliant ideas - promoted by Robert in Monterey)
In a recent report in the Bee, CA State Treasurer Bill Lockyer brainstorms ways to balance the state budget, including a suggestion that that we consider cutting the UC system off of all public funds, and having "public" universities raise their own funds by - you guessed it - raising student fees. As if the state hasn't already kicked students in the gut repeatedly by jacking up tuition and fees, turning our public universities into de facto private institutions.
This from the same "Democrat" who proudly said he voted for Schwarzeneggar for the recall in 2003. And a graduate of UC Berkeley in 1965, back when tuition was so low as to be nearly free. But I guess those were different times, eh Bill?
But in a sense, Lockyer is right despite himself. The state infrastructure is woefully underfunded and underbuilt, given our growing population. We've got a 25 million person infrastructure in a 37 million person state, and we're headed towards 50 million in the decades to come. Yet his proposals largely suck. So what else could we do, since we're in modest proposal mode?
From the Academic Student Employee union (UAW #2865) at UC Davis:
As an important step toward winning our bargaining demands for improved workload protections, UAW 2865 members around the state are having a grade-in/tutor-in during finals week. Our action will demonstrate to the University of California just how much work it takes to ensure the students at UC Davis get the quality education they deserve. Come out and show your support for increased workload protections while you get your work done.
WHO: All TAs, Graders, Tutors and Grad Students
WHAT: Grade-in/Tutor-In
WHERE: Memorial Union Patio
WHEN: Tuesday, June 12, 11:30am – 1pm
Well, we haven't quite reached that milestone yet, but it is only a matter of time. A very short time.
As the costs for fixing the state's troubled corrections system rocket higher, California is headed for a dubious milestone -- for the first time the state will spend more on incarcerating inmates than on educating students in its public universities. Based on current spending trends, California's prison budget will overtake spending on the state's universities in five years. No other big state in the country spends close to as much on its prisons compared with universities.
***
"California is just off the charts compared with other states in corrections spending," said Michael Jacobson, director of the Vera Institute of Justice in New York, a leading research organization. (SF Chron 5/22/07)
During the Arnold Administration, prison spending has leaped from just under $6B to an expected $10B in the 2007-2008 Budget. That kind of growth would make even a CEO of an Indian software firm jealous.
There are many, many reasons that our prison expenses are so out of line, even when compared to other states. But one reason surely must be ToughOnCrimeTM:
"I'll tell you what, it's clearly not a statement of our priorities," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles. "Our policies are hurting the economy of California. This is a disservice to our economy."
Núñez blamed the prison spending on a get-tough-on-crime mentality among politicians that equates more prison spending with safer streets, when that is hardly the case.
First, congratulations to the Speaker for saying this. This should be shouted from rooftops: ToughOnCrimeTM is ruining our prison system, and apparently our budget as well. ToughOnCrimeTM fails us when we try to rehabilitate prisoners, ToughOnCrimeTM fails us on race issues, ToughOnCrimeTM fails us on efficient use of resources. Todd Spitzer, the outspoken OC Assemblyman, can crow all he wants about how Tough he is, but where has the success been for ToughOnCrimeTM?
The UAW Local 2865 bargaining team met Monday, April 16 with university representatives to discuss changes the university would like to make to our contract.
Unfortunately, the bargaining team was alarmed by the uncooperative, antiunion tactics of the university. The university is proposing to cut a number of critical benefits and roll back several groundbreaking union victories. Not only would these cuts and rollbacks have a negative financial impact on all our members, they would also undermine the ability of UC to continue to be competitive, encourage diversity, and attract the best and brightest.
Sen. Leland Yee (D-SF) introduced SB 190 a while back. It brings a sense of transparency to the Executive Salary system. And a whole lot of sunshine. I'm not actually sure that I'm really that appalled by UC Executive Pay, but some sunshine would sure be welcome.
Over the flip, you can read the press release about the "faculty and students uniting to support SB190". You know, I really love press releases. I mean, the language is always so grand. You just feel like the campuses are demanding this action. How much you want to bet that next time I go to Berkeley, that I could go around asking on campus all day about it, and nobody would have heard of this bill. Maybe a few will have heard of the executive pay "scandal", but I bet most of those are concentrated in the polisci department and the student government. But sure, I'll go with it: they united to support SB 190.
As the California Aggie reported today, State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) has just introduced a bill, SB 190, that would mandate that the CSU board of trustees and UC board of regents hold public, transparent deliberations on executive compensation. Given the repeated ethical violations and soaring payraises and benefits that the regents and trustees have voted for themselves over the past several years (and that to have the gall to make everyone else fill out ethics questionaires?), given the stagnant wages paid to professors, TAs, clerical and service workers by the same regents and trustees, and given the ever-skyrocketing tuition hikes at both the CSU and UC systems (not to mention the community coleges), I think this is a reform long overdue.
Public universities shoud not just be plum patronage positions for an unaccountable ruling class of free-floating executives, who vote each other raises with public monies. They are intended for the public good, to produce research for the people of the state of California, and to educate the youth of California. The state government and the university regents and trustees have reneged on this intent, and can no longer be trusted to conduct public affairs in private, free of all oversight and beyond reproach.
Thank you Senator Yee. It is time to remind the regents and trustees exactly who they work for, and for whose benefit the public university system is intended to work for.
