In any other year, the new budget plan supported by Governor Brown and the Democrats in the legislature would have been considered a major victory for fiscal conservatives. Not only does the budget reduce vital services by billions of dollars, but it does virtually nothing to increase future revenues. In fact, in the great tradition of Californian governors, Brown can only make his plan seem balanced by projecting wildly optimistic tax returns, and if $4 billion new dollars don't come in, another round of budget cuts will be triggered.
What I do not understand is why the progressive caucus in the legislature did not try to block the deal and put on the table progressive solutions. Perhaps our only hope is that Brown will work with unions to put progressive taxes on a special election ballot. Brown has even hinted that he might support modifying Prop 13.
In terms of the UC, the news is mixed. We did not get the full $1 billion cut, but more reductions will occur if the rosy tax revenue predictions do not come to fruition. Of course, the total cut of $650 million will justify a new round of tuition increases and a faster slide towards privatization.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
The State of the State: A Progressive Solution
The current California budget conflict is unlike any other; not only has the governor vetoed an entire state budget for the first time in history, but it is unclear whether his own party knew that he was going to reject their complicated budget proposal. I personally find it hard to believe that the Democratic leadership did not know that the governor was going to veto their plan. After all, I predicted that the legislators would come up with some plan just to make sure they could meet their June 15th deadline in order to get their paychecks. I also know that the governor is dead set on having citizens vote on tax extensions, and he believes that he can get the four Republican votes he needs to put the taxes on the ballot; however, everything has become complicated by the new voting districts, which give the Democrats the hope that they can win a super-majority in the legislature, and therefore they may not need the Republicans at all in the future.
As I have previously written, all of the plans being discussed are bad, and if Brown decides to use the unions to fund a petition-gathering effort, the unions should insist that the current tax extensions be discarded, and a whole new set of progressive taxes must be presented. Not only would it be easier to pass a tax on the wealthiest Californians, but it would be more just and fair. Moreover, a tax on oil extraction to increase funding for higher education would also be a popular tax, and it is even worth the effort to put a majority vote for new revenue on the ballot.
The best possible strategy would be for Brown to pass a modified version of the budget he has just vetoed and then work with the unions to place progressive taxes on a special election ballot. Brown could also use the new projected tax revenue to reduce the state cuts to higher education and other needed public services. If the unions work together and present a united front to the governor, we can push for a progressive solution to help all Californians.
As I have previously written, all of the plans being discussed are bad, and if Brown decides to use the unions to fund a petition-gathering effort, the unions should insist that the current tax extensions be discarded, and a whole new set of progressive taxes must be presented. Not only would it be easier to pass a tax on the wealthiest Californians, but it would be more just and fair. Moreover, a tax on oil extraction to increase funding for higher education would also be a popular tax, and it is even worth the effort to put a majority vote for new revenue on the ballot.
The best possible strategy would be for Brown to pass a modified version of the budget he has just vetoed and then work with the unions to place progressive taxes on a special election ballot. Brown could also use the new projected tax revenue to reduce the state cuts to higher education and other needed public services. If the unions work together and present a united front to the governor, we can push for a progressive solution to help all Californians.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Jerry Brown’s Bad Budget Deal
It looks very possible that Governor Brown will get enough Republican votes next week to pass a state budget and put tax extensions on a special election ballot for September. The remaining stumbling block is the extension of the current taxes, which are set to expire July 1, and Brown wants them to continue until the special election. Here is why I think the whole budget deal is very bad:
1. Brown has basically endorsed the conservative argument that our state and national fiscal problems are due to governmental over-spending. While he is calling for a vote on the tax extensions, his budget relies on deep cuts to needed social programs coupled with a scaling back of pensions and an elimination of several state offices. In other words, he is endorsing the conservative push for austerity during a time when we need increased support for jobs and benefits.
2. It is possible that the voters will reject the tax extensions, and then we move to an all-cuts budget, which only an extreme right-wing proponent of government and taxes could support. Once again, it has taken a Democrat to fulfill Republican promises.
3. In order to push for the tax extensions, which place most of the burden on struggling middle-class and lower-class workers, unions and Democratic politicians will have to spend huge sums of money fighting for a very bad deal.
4. Even if the tax extensions do pass, they serve as a temporary fix, and they do not address the fundamental revenue problem of the state. Moreover, if the budget comes with a spending cap, the horrible cuts to social programs will be locked in.
The only solution is for the Democrats to simply refuse to sign onto any budget deal and to turn their attention to a special election to support real progressive solutions like the end of the rule requiring a super majority vote on taxes in the legislature.
1. Brown has basically endorsed the conservative argument that our state and national fiscal problems are due to governmental over-spending. While he is calling for a vote on the tax extensions, his budget relies on deep cuts to needed social programs coupled with a scaling back of pensions and an elimination of several state offices. In other words, he is endorsing the conservative push for austerity during a time when we need increased support for jobs and benefits.
2. It is possible that the voters will reject the tax extensions, and then we move to an all-cuts budget, which only an extreme right-wing proponent of government and taxes could support. Once again, it has taken a Democrat to fulfill Republican promises.
3. In order to push for the tax extensions, which place most of the burden on struggling middle-class and lower-class workers, unions and Democratic politicians will have to spend huge sums of money fighting for a very bad deal.
4. Even if the tax extensions do pass, they serve as a temporary fix, and they do not address the fundamental revenue problem of the state. Moreover, if the budget comes with a spending cap, the horrible cuts to social programs will be locked in.
The only solution is for the Democrats to simply refuse to sign onto any budget deal and to turn their attention to a special election to support real progressive solutions like the end of the rule requiring a super majority vote on taxes in the legislature.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
More Questions and Answers Regarding the UC Budget
One of the most surprising facts that have come out of my exchanges with the budget office of UCOP is that only 38% of the cost of instruction is spent on faculty salaries and benefits. Another interesting fact is that the university claims it spends almost the same amount of money on departmental support as it does on faculty salaries. Furthermore, in a new response to my questions regarding this data, I have been told that only 62.8% of state funds go to support general campus activities; in other words, 37.2% of state funds go to the health sciences, research, and public services.
While the UCOP budget office feels that I have unfairly called them non-transparent, they also freely admit that none of these calculations of the cost of instruction can be found on any of their web sites. They have also added that their budgeting methods are highly complex, and there is often no clear way of tracing how funds are actually spent. For example, in response to my inquiry into how much state funds go to support summer instruction, I got the following: “The amount of State funding dedicated to summer sessions is not easily determined due to the variety of funding arrangements both within and across the campuses and the fact that recent budget cuts have reduced significantly the amount of funding available for all of instruction.” I think this is an honest answer, but it shows how difficult it is for the university to have any type of real budget transparency.
This problem of following the money is evident in UCOP’s response to my question concerning the different costs of educating undergraduates versus graduate students: “Due to the costs and the cross-subsidization of undergraduate and graduate instruction and research, and at the suggestion of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, these analyses were discontinued. No analyses were done to determine the undergraduate versus graduate costs of operating libraries, maintaining facilities, or managing the University.” Since the university cannot figure out how to separate costs for graduate and undergraduate students, it now simply uses a generalized average that makes it impossible to tell how the system is actually spending its money.
The problem of budget transparency is so important because even though the university claims that reducing undergraduate enrollments is a way to save money, they really do not know if this true. In fact, while the official policy of the regents is to increase the number of graduate students versus undergraduates, it is clear that the campuses are doing the opposite, and I suspect the reason for this conflict is that the local leaders realize that undergraduates are the only real source of flexible income.
In order to correct these problems, we need to work with the Legislative Analyst and the Department of Finance to require the university to calculate the real cost of educating undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. We should also require the university to report on its non-instructional costs with the goal of seeing how much the campuses are spending on administration.
While the UCOP budget office feels that I have unfairly called them non-transparent, they also freely admit that none of these calculations of the cost of instruction can be found on any of their web sites. They have also added that their budgeting methods are highly complex, and there is often no clear way of tracing how funds are actually spent. For example, in response to my inquiry into how much state funds go to support summer instruction, I got the following: “The amount of State funding dedicated to summer sessions is not easily determined due to the variety of funding arrangements both within and across the campuses and the fact that recent budget cuts have reduced significantly the amount of funding available for all of instruction.” I think this is an honest answer, but it shows how difficult it is for the university to have any type of real budget transparency.
This problem of following the money is evident in UCOP’s response to my question concerning the different costs of educating undergraduates versus graduate students: “Due to the costs and the cross-subsidization of undergraduate and graduate instruction and research, and at the suggestion of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, these analyses were discontinued. No analyses were done to determine the undergraduate versus graduate costs of operating libraries, maintaining facilities, or managing the University.” Since the university cannot figure out how to separate costs for graduate and undergraduate students, it now simply uses a generalized average that makes it impossible to tell how the system is actually spending its money.
The problem of budget transparency is so important because even though the university claims that reducing undergraduate enrollments is a way to save money, they really do not know if this true. In fact, while the official policy of the regents is to increase the number of graduate students versus undergraduates, it is clear that the campuses are doing the opposite, and I suspect the reason for this conflict is that the local leaders realize that undergraduates are the only real source of flexible income.
In order to correct these problems, we need to work with the Legislative Analyst and the Department of Finance to require the university to calculate the real cost of educating undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. We should also require the university to report on its non-instructional costs with the goal of seeing how much the campuses are spending on administration.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
How the UC Calculates the Instructional Cost and Funding per Student
In response to my research on how much it costs to educate each undergraduate student in the UC system, the UCOP budget office has written a report entitled, “Cost of Education Calculations at the University of California.” While I am waiting to receive responses to questions I have recently posed to the writers of the study, I wanted to stress some important facts. First of all, although they argue that they have been highly transparent in their budget information, it is apparent that this important information has never been posted on any of their web sites. Second, as you will see from the excerpts that I will present below, these budgetary calculations are very complex and counter-intuitive.
The two main topics of this report regard how much funds the UC receives per student and how much it spends on each additional student. I have been arguing that the UC already makes a healthy profit on each student, and so there is no reason to raise tuition or reduce enrollments. In fact, according to my calculations, it is financial suicide to reduce enrollments since undergraduate subsidize everything else going on at the university. To refute my claims, UCOP argues that I do not understand how the UC calculates state support, student fees, and the cost of educating each additional student.
Starting with the latter topic, the UC argues that the marginal cost to educate each additional student in 2009-10 was calculated to be $16,574. To get this amount, they add together the following average costs:
• Faculty salaries
• Calculated as the average annual salary of new professors assuming a student-faculty ratio of 18.7:1. In other words, for each 18.7 students, the University needs funding to hire one additional professor.
• The average salary of new faculty hired during 2008-09 was $95,657.
• The faculty salary component of marginal cost for 2009-10 was $5,115 per student.
• Faculty benefits
• Calculated as the base benefit amount of health, dental, vision, life, and disability insurance for new faculty in the current year
• In 2009-10, the annual base benefit amount per new faculty FTE was $17,577.
• The faculty benefits component of marginal cost for 2009-10 was $940 per student.
• Teaching assistant (TA) salaries
• Calculated as the average annual salary, not including mandatory fee remissions, of a full-time TA and a student-TA ratio of 62:1.
• In 2009-10, the average 2008-09 TA salary was $33,274.
• The teaching assistant salary component of marginal cost for 2009-10 was $537 per student.
• Instructional equipment
• Calculated as the average annual cost to replace depreciated instructional equipment.
• The instructional equipment need estimated for 2006-07 and used in the 2009-10 marginal cost calculation was $103,867,314.
• The instructional equipment component of marginal cost for 2009-10 was $523 per student.
• Instructional support
• Includes technology and departmental support.
• In 2009-10, the instructional support component of marginal cost was $4,284 per student.
• Academic support
• Calculated based on average expenditures for libraries, general campus vivaria, and other related expenses. Does not include health science clinics and vivaria, demonstration schools, museums and galleries, and intercollegiate athletics.
• The total budgeted amount for academic support in 2008-09 used in the 2009-10 marginal cost calculation was $267,781,860.
• The 2009-10 marginal cost per student of academic support was $1,349.
• Student services
• Calculated based on average expenditures for admissions and financial aid administration, counseling and career guidance, student activities, and other educational services. Does not include student health program costs.
• The total budgeted amount for student services in 2008-09 used in the 2009-10 marginal cost calculation was $247,255,543.
• The 2009-10 marginal cost per student of student services was $1,246.
• Institutional support
• Calculated based on average expenditures for general administrative services (such as computer centers, information systems, and personnel) and fiscal operations (accounting, audit, and contract and grant administration); executive management, logistical services, risk mitigation and controls, and community relations are excluded and not funded by the State.
• The total budgeted amount for institutional support in 2008-09 used in the 2009-10 marginal cost calculation was $144,084,750.
• The 2009-10 marginal cost per student of institutional support was $726.
• Operation and maintenance of plant
• Calculated based on average expenditures for maintenance of building and grounds, utilities, refuse, janitorial service, and fire departments. Does not include plant administration and non-instruction and research space.
• The total budgeted amount for operation and maintenance in 2008-09 used in the 2009-10 marginal cost calculation was $367,666,404.
• The 2009-10 marginal cost per student of operation and maintenance was $1,853.
I have not edited any of these figures, and so we learn that the UC’s estimation of the direct instructional cost is actually lower than my calculation of $9,000. The question then is why is their total cost estimate so much higher, and the answer is that they assume that the indirect instructional costs make up over 60% of the total cost; in fact, they argue that the university pays almost the same amount for faculty salaries as it does for departmental support.
While I have several questions concerning this method of calculation, if we do accept it, we still have to ask how much funding the university brings in per student. Using UC’s own budget numbers, I have calculated that each student brings in a total of $23,000 in state funds and tuition dollars, but the budget office disputes this figure because they argue that much of the money coming from the state goes to programs that are unrelated to educating students: “A sizable portion of the funding provided by the State has little or nothing to do with educating enrolled students, but rather supports organized research, public service, or financial aid, all of which are part of UC’s mission, but none of which should be included in a calculation of resources available for instructional programs.” I do think this position would surprise many legislators and citizens who assume that the budget for “general instruction” would go to things having to do with educating students.
In order to calculate the state support per student, I simply took the total money the UC got from the state this year ($3 billion) and divided it by the total number of resident students (200,000), but the UC uses a much more complex formula: “The figure represents the estimated total funding from State General Funds, UC General Funds, and student fees on a per-student (again, general campus only) basis that is available to support general campus instruction (faculty salaries and benefits, instructional support, instructional equipment and technology) and support activities such as libraries, student services, administration, and operation and maintenance of plant. It excludes financial aid, as that is an expenditure to support access, not an expenditure to provide the instructional program. The State and UC General Fund components also exclude funding for health sciences instruction, research, and public service, as well as the health sciences, research, and public service components of support activities. The sum of the general campus share of State, UC, and student funding is divided by all general campus students—resident and nonresident—since the average cost of education is the same for residents and nonresidents alike.” If you have a hard time understanding this formula, you are not alone. Firstly, it should be pointed out that UCOP is including nonresident students in state support, and it also includes summer session when it counts student FTE. Secondly, it looks like they put together all of their sources of funding for the general fund, and then they divide it by the number of general campus students, but to do this, they have to subtract funding for health sciences, research, and public service. My big question here concerns how they calculate the cost of the things they subtract; in other words, what part of the health sciences, research, and public service is paid for by the state?
Since the budget office argues that much of the state funds go to non-instructional activities, they estimate that the state funding per student is under $10,000: “As noted above, the average cost of instruction should not include non-instructional costs such as health science instruction, research, public service, or non-instructional support activities; therefore, we remove these items from the numerator. For the non-instructional share of support activities, we determine the proportion of core mission activities (instruction/research and public service) that is non-instructional and remove the corresponding share from support activities.” Once again these calculations are centered on a judgment call over what proportion of the core mission budget is non-instructional; in other words, they have to estimate which parts of shared administration and staffing should be supported by the state and the students.
From my perspective, this report shows that students and the state are paying for the enormous increase in administrative costs on the campuses, and thus the economic solution is not to reduce enrollments or raise tuition; rather, the solution has to be to decrease the cost of non-instructional services. Faculty, citizens, students, and workers concerned about instruction and research should question these budgetary policies.
The two main topics of this report regard how much funds the UC receives per student and how much it spends on each additional student. I have been arguing that the UC already makes a healthy profit on each student, and so there is no reason to raise tuition or reduce enrollments. In fact, according to my calculations, it is financial suicide to reduce enrollments since undergraduate subsidize everything else going on at the university. To refute my claims, UCOP argues that I do not understand how the UC calculates state support, student fees, and the cost of educating each additional student.
Starting with the latter topic, the UC argues that the marginal cost to educate each additional student in 2009-10 was calculated to be $16,574. To get this amount, they add together the following average costs:
• Faculty salaries
• Calculated as the average annual salary of new professors assuming a student-faculty ratio of 18.7:1. In other words, for each 18.7 students, the University needs funding to hire one additional professor.
• The average salary of new faculty hired during 2008-09 was $95,657.
• The faculty salary component of marginal cost for 2009-10 was $5,115 per student.
• Faculty benefits
• Calculated as the base benefit amount of health, dental, vision, life, and disability insurance for new faculty in the current year
• In 2009-10, the annual base benefit amount per new faculty FTE was $17,577.
• The faculty benefits component of marginal cost for 2009-10 was $940 per student.
• Teaching assistant (TA) salaries
• Calculated as the average annual salary, not including mandatory fee remissions, of a full-time TA and a student-TA ratio of 62:1.
• In 2009-10, the average 2008-09 TA salary was $33,274.
• The teaching assistant salary component of marginal cost for 2009-10 was $537 per student.
• Instructional equipment
• Calculated as the average annual cost to replace depreciated instructional equipment.
• The instructional equipment need estimated for 2006-07 and used in the 2009-10 marginal cost calculation was $103,867,314.
• The instructional equipment component of marginal cost for 2009-10 was $523 per student.
• Instructional support
• Includes technology and departmental support.
• In 2009-10, the instructional support component of marginal cost was $4,284 per student.
• Academic support
• Calculated based on average expenditures for libraries, general campus vivaria, and other related expenses. Does not include health science clinics and vivaria, demonstration schools, museums and galleries, and intercollegiate athletics.
• The total budgeted amount for academic support in 2008-09 used in the 2009-10 marginal cost calculation was $267,781,860.
• The 2009-10 marginal cost per student of academic support was $1,349.
• Student services
• Calculated based on average expenditures for admissions and financial aid administration, counseling and career guidance, student activities, and other educational services. Does not include student health program costs.
• The total budgeted amount for student services in 2008-09 used in the 2009-10 marginal cost calculation was $247,255,543.
• The 2009-10 marginal cost per student of student services was $1,246.
• Institutional support
• Calculated based on average expenditures for general administrative services (such as computer centers, information systems, and personnel) and fiscal operations (accounting, audit, and contract and grant administration); executive management, logistical services, risk mitigation and controls, and community relations are excluded and not funded by the State.
• The total budgeted amount for institutional support in 2008-09 used in the 2009-10 marginal cost calculation was $144,084,750.
• The 2009-10 marginal cost per student of institutional support was $726.
• Operation and maintenance of plant
• Calculated based on average expenditures for maintenance of building and grounds, utilities, refuse, janitorial service, and fire departments. Does not include plant administration and non-instruction and research space.
• The total budgeted amount for operation and maintenance in 2008-09 used in the 2009-10 marginal cost calculation was $367,666,404.
• The 2009-10 marginal cost per student of operation and maintenance was $1,853.
I have not edited any of these figures, and so we learn that the UC’s estimation of the direct instructional cost is actually lower than my calculation of $9,000. The question then is why is their total cost estimate so much higher, and the answer is that they assume that the indirect instructional costs make up over 60% of the total cost; in fact, they argue that the university pays almost the same amount for faculty salaries as it does for departmental support.
While I have several questions concerning this method of calculation, if we do accept it, we still have to ask how much funding the university brings in per student. Using UC’s own budget numbers, I have calculated that each student brings in a total of $23,000 in state funds and tuition dollars, but the budget office disputes this figure because they argue that much of the money coming from the state goes to programs that are unrelated to educating students: “A sizable portion of the funding provided by the State has little or nothing to do with educating enrolled students, but rather supports organized research, public service, or financial aid, all of which are part of UC’s mission, but none of which should be included in a calculation of resources available for instructional programs.” I do think this position would surprise many legislators and citizens who assume that the budget for “general instruction” would go to things having to do with educating students.
In order to calculate the state support per student, I simply took the total money the UC got from the state this year ($3 billion) and divided it by the total number of resident students (200,000), but the UC uses a much more complex formula: “The figure represents the estimated total funding from State General Funds, UC General Funds, and student fees on a per-student (again, general campus only) basis that is available to support general campus instruction (faculty salaries and benefits, instructional support, instructional equipment and technology) and support activities such as libraries, student services, administration, and operation and maintenance of plant. It excludes financial aid, as that is an expenditure to support access, not an expenditure to provide the instructional program. The State and UC General Fund components also exclude funding for health sciences instruction, research, and public service, as well as the health sciences, research, and public service components of support activities. The sum of the general campus share of State, UC, and student funding is divided by all general campus students—resident and nonresident—since the average cost of education is the same for residents and nonresidents alike.” If you have a hard time understanding this formula, you are not alone. Firstly, it should be pointed out that UCOP is including nonresident students in state support, and it also includes summer session when it counts student FTE. Secondly, it looks like they put together all of their sources of funding for the general fund, and then they divide it by the number of general campus students, but to do this, they have to subtract funding for health sciences, research, and public service. My big question here concerns how they calculate the cost of the things they subtract; in other words, what part of the health sciences, research, and public service is paid for by the state?
Since the budget office argues that much of the state funds go to non-instructional activities, they estimate that the state funding per student is under $10,000: “As noted above, the average cost of instruction should not include non-instructional costs such as health science instruction, research, public service, or non-instructional support activities; therefore, we remove these items from the numerator. For the non-instructional share of support activities, we determine the proportion of core mission activities (instruction/research and public service) that is non-instructional and remove the corresponding share from support activities.” Once again these calculations are centered on a judgment call over what proportion of the core mission budget is non-instructional; in other words, they have to estimate which parts of shared administration and staffing should be supported by the state and the students.
From my perspective, this report shows that students and the state are paying for the enormous increase in administrative costs on the campuses, and thus the economic solution is not to reduce enrollments or raise tuition; rather, the solution has to be to decrease the cost of non-instructional services. Faculty, citizens, students, and workers concerned about instruction and research should question these budgetary policies.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Will the Regents Protect the Middle Class?
When the UC Regents meet this week, they will be asked to endorse a plan to raise tuition 40% next year if the state reduces the UC budget by an additional $500 million, which will occur if tax extensions are not approved. The Office of the President will also present a modified financial aid plan that funds the tuition increases for families making less than $120,000 a year. The idea here is that middle-class Californians will be protected against giant tuition increases because these increases will be offset by additional financial aid, but we must ask how is middle class being defined here.
If a married couple is comprised of two wage earners, and both people make $61,000 a year, this family does not qualify for the UC financial aid plan, but can they really afford tuition at $15,000 and a total cost of over $35,000 including room and board? Not only does California continue to have one of the highest costs of living in the nation, but with the loss of home values and 401ks since 2006, most middle-class families will have a very hard time sending their kids to a UC.
Perhaps most regents do not understand this problem because they are multimillionaires who simply are out of touch with the middle class. Likewise, with the steady increase in salaries of UC administrators, we cannot expect people making over $200,000 a year to understand the plight of middle-class people earning $61,000. With the rising income inequality outside and inside of the UC system, the ability of people to understand the hardships of others is being diminished.
In the case of the UC system, it is the huge growth of managers and their salaries on the campuses, which is a major part of the problem and solution. While the number of employees over the last twenty years has gone up 47%, the number of managers on the campuses has gone up 220%. Moreover, during the last three years of our “budget crisis,” the number of administrators making over $200,000 has grown considerably.
It should be clear that faculty, students, workers, and unions should join together to demand a halt to tuition increases, an increase in state funding, and a push for a major reduction of administrative costs.
If a married couple is comprised of two wage earners, and both people make $61,000 a year, this family does not qualify for the UC financial aid plan, but can they really afford tuition at $15,000 and a total cost of over $35,000 including room and board? Not only does California continue to have one of the highest costs of living in the nation, but with the loss of home values and 401ks since 2006, most middle-class families will have a very hard time sending their kids to a UC.
Perhaps most regents do not understand this problem because they are multimillionaires who simply are out of touch with the middle class. Likewise, with the steady increase in salaries of UC administrators, we cannot expect people making over $200,000 a year to understand the plight of middle-class people earning $61,000. With the rising income inequality outside and inside of the UC system, the ability of people to understand the hardships of others is being diminished.
In the case of the UC system, it is the huge growth of managers and their salaries on the campuses, which is a major part of the problem and solution. While the number of employees over the last twenty years has gone up 47%, the number of managers on the campuses has gone up 220%. Moreover, during the last three years of our “budget crisis,” the number of administrators making over $200,000 has grown considerably.
It should be clear that faculty, students, workers, and unions should join together to demand a halt to tuition increases, an increase in state funding, and a push for a major reduction of administrative costs.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
UC Considering Raising Tuition 40%
While the UC has already decided to raise tuition 8% next year, UCOP is warning that if the university budget is cut by another $500 million, they will have to raise tuition and fees by an additional 32%. You can find this information by going to the agenda for next week’s regents meeting and clicking here. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/may11/f5.pdf
The regents will also be considering a new financial aid formula that moves the system towards a high tuition/high aid model.
The regents will also be considering a new financial aid formula that moves the system towards a high tuition/high aid model.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)