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.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
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.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The Battle Over Online Education Continues
UC-AFT has put together a web page with links to several articles regarding the UC push for online education. We have also outlined some of the ways we are seeking to use the collective bargaining process to restrict the use of distance education and to protect the rights and jobs of lecturers. Since we are currently bargaining the Unit 18 contract, we have the opportunity to engage the administration in a discussion of how the move to online courses will affect faculty workload, intellectual property, merit review, and promotion.
While it is clear that UC is trying to cut costs and generate profits by moving large enrollment courses online, we know that most research university online programs have failed because of the high cost and poor student retention. Distance Education also waters down the prestige of a university degree; after all, why should someone pay $40,000 to sit at home in front of a computer.
Of course, one of the risks of moving classes online is that the faculty can become subject to surveillance and political intimidation. This threat has just become reality at the University of Missouri where an instructor has lost his job after a video of his class appeared to show him advocating violence in labor activism. According to the Inside Higher Ed story, the infamous Right-wing blogger, Andrew Breitbart, the same person who brought down ACORN and Shirley Sherrord, obtained the video from a student who copied it off of the university’s online course management system. The video was then reedited, and although university officials acknowledged this manipulation, they still forced the non-tenure-track instructor to resign.
We see in this example the failure of academic freedom to protect instructors and students, and we also learn here how online courses open faculty to public scrutiny and political witch hunts. In this particular case, students were motivated by a conservative group to post video of their teachers endorsing unions and other forms of labor activism. This example is similar to what happened at UCLA a few years ago when a conservative alumni group offered money for students who recorded their professors saying anti-American or anti-Israel things. Not only is Big Brother watching, but with new digital media, little brother also has access to our private words and actions.
Online courses then not only get rid of the need for “bricks and mortar,” but they also remove any sense of education as a protected sphere. Since anyone can now copy and edit digital recordings, online lectures and course material become subject to political manipulation. While the UC faculty will be assured that privacy protections will be in place for online courses, these safeguards will be easily transgressed by any high-tech political hack.
In related news, UC Berkeley is contemplating putting student evaluations online, and this move will also render faculty vulnerable to outside political manipulation. As we have seen at UCLA, disgruntled students can try to sabotage their professors by claiming that these teachers are Left-wing ideologues, and once these evaluations go online, you cannot control whose hands they end up in. Online student evaluations also turn teaching into a market where students search for the easiest classes or the most entertaining lectures.
It should be clear that faculty and students should resist this move to place all of our views and experiences online.
While it is clear that UC is trying to cut costs and generate profits by moving large enrollment courses online, we know that most research university online programs have failed because of the high cost and poor student retention. Distance Education also waters down the prestige of a university degree; after all, why should someone pay $40,000 to sit at home in front of a computer.
Of course, one of the risks of moving classes online is that the faculty can become subject to surveillance and political intimidation. This threat has just become reality at the University of Missouri where an instructor has lost his job after a video of his class appeared to show him advocating violence in labor activism. According to the Inside Higher Ed story, the infamous Right-wing blogger, Andrew Breitbart, the same person who brought down ACORN and Shirley Sherrord, obtained the video from a student who copied it off of the university’s online course management system. The video was then reedited, and although university officials acknowledged this manipulation, they still forced the non-tenure-track instructor to resign.
We see in this example the failure of academic freedom to protect instructors and students, and we also learn here how online courses open faculty to public scrutiny and political witch hunts. In this particular case, students were motivated by a conservative group to post video of their teachers endorsing unions and other forms of labor activism. This example is similar to what happened at UCLA a few years ago when a conservative alumni group offered money for students who recorded their professors saying anti-American or anti-Israel things. Not only is Big Brother watching, but with new digital media, little brother also has access to our private words and actions.
Online courses then not only get rid of the need for “bricks and mortar,” but they also remove any sense of education as a protected sphere. Since anyone can now copy and edit digital recordings, online lectures and course material become subject to political manipulation. While the UC faculty will be assured that privacy protections will be in place for online courses, these safeguards will be easily transgressed by any high-tech political hack.
In related news, UC Berkeley is contemplating putting student evaluations online, and this move will also render faculty vulnerable to outside political manipulation. As we have seen at UCLA, disgruntled students can try to sabotage their professors by claiming that these teachers are Left-wing ideologues, and once these evaluations go online, you cannot control whose hands they end up in. Online student evaluations also turn teaching into a market where students search for the easiest classes or the most entertaining lectures.
It should be clear that faculty and students should resist this move to place all of our views and experiences online.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Update on Campus Funds
I have recently updated my information on how much each campus is funded per student to include the latest 2009-10 information. As I have previously pointed out, UCOP redistributes state funds to the campuses in a very unequal way, and although they are now going to let the campuses keep their student fees and tuition, most of the uneven distribution is in the allocation of state funds. Leaving aside UCSF for the moment, the biggest differences are between UCSC and UCLA. In 2009-10, UCLA received $29,775 per student ($11,720 in tuition and $18,035 from the state), while UCSC only got $16,516 per student ($8,461 from tuition and $8,055 from the state). (I have deducted financial aid from all of these figures). For a spreadsheet on all of the campuses click here.
While UCSF received $12,189 in tuition and $76,120 per student from the state for a total of $88,309 per student, the average of the other campuses was $9,825 from tuition/fees and $13,280 from the state for a total of $23,108 per student. It is important to point out that these amounts do not include funding from the campuses’ general funds, and the state support does not include Cal Grants. I would also like to add that the average financial aid per student dollar is 21% and not 33%, which the university often claims.
These statistics bring up several questions. First of all, why doesn’t the state and the UC administration differentiate between undergraduate and graduate costs and revenues in its statistics? A related question concerns whether it is ethical and even legal for students and parents to pay for tuition on one campus when the funds are spent on another campus? Also, it appears that the different cost between undergraduate and graduate education only accounts for part of the differential funding of the campuses, and so we must ask, what else determines this redistribution of wealth?
As I have argued before, this system of UCOP redistributing funding is even more important than the level of support of funding from the state. While we need to maintain our state support, we have to realize that even if the state increases UC funding, UCOP might still starve some of the campuses. Furthermore, during this time of decreased state funding, it becomes even more vital to demand transparency and fairness in the distribution of resources.
While UCSF received $12,189 in tuition and $76,120 per student from the state for a total of $88,309 per student, the average of the other campuses was $9,825 from tuition/fees and $13,280 from the state for a total of $23,108 per student. It is important to point out that these amounts do not include funding from the campuses’ general funds, and the state support does not include Cal Grants. I would also like to add that the average financial aid per student dollar is 21% and not 33%, which the university often claims.
These statistics bring up several questions. First of all, why doesn’t the state and the UC administration differentiate between undergraduate and graduate costs and revenues in its statistics? A related question concerns whether it is ethical and even legal for students and parents to pay for tuition on one campus when the funds are spent on another campus? Also, it appears that the different cost between undergraduate and graduate education only accounts for part of the differential funding of the campuses, and so we must ask, what else determines this redistribution of wealth?
As I have argued before, this system of UCOP redistributing funding is even more important than the level of support of funding from the state. While we need to maintain our state support, we have to realize that even if the state increases UC funding, UCOP might still starve some of the campuses. Furthermore, during this time of decreased state funding, it becomes even more vital to demand transparency and fairness in the distribution of resources.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The New Funding Model for the UC System
It looks like UCOP will allow the campuses to keep all of the revenue they generate and then charge each campus unit a 1.6% tax on all fund sources; however, the UC has not decided how to distribute state funds. One reason why it is easier to let the campus keep their tuition and fees than it is to let them keep their state funds is that UCOP has been giving certain campuses a much greater share of state funds compared to other campuses. In fact, in 2007-8, UCLA got $10,602 in student fees/tuition per student, but Santa Cruz only got $7,658. However, if we look at state funds per student, the spread is even larger: UCLA got $18,754 and Santa Cruz received $7,763. In other words, an even distribution of state funds would hurt campuses like UCLA more than an even distribution of student fees and tuition. It should also be pointed out that UCSF got over $61,00 per student from the state in 2007-8 (this is the last year I have solid statistics for, but there is no indication that anything has changed).
While the administration has sought to keep everyone’s focus on the reduction of state funding, a bigger issue is how the Office of the President redistributes state funds. It is also clear that the campuses receiving the largest state funding per student (UCLA – $18,754, UCD - $16,055, and UCB – $14,788) will use their power and size to fight to retain their extra funding. Moreover, if the state cuts the UC budget by $1 billion next year, the fight over the shrinking pie will become even more intense. While the figures used above are only slightly higher than the funding per student in 2010-11, a state cut of $1 billion would reduce state funding per student by 25%. In turn, if tuition and fees make up for the loss of state funds, and campuses keep all of their revenue, the campuses bringing in the most nonresident students will be able to increase their funding relative to the other campuses.
One thing the current funding system reveals is that undergraduate students at UCSC, UCR, UCI, and UCSB have been subsidizing graduate students and research at UCLA, UCB, UCSD, and UCD. While the university likes to claim that undergraduate students benefit from the research done on their campuses, it is unclear how students at UCSC benefit from research performed at UC Davis.
I predict that UCOP will use the current state funding reductions to stall on distributing state funds in a more equitable manner, and the result will be that wealthier campuses will become even wealthier, and they will use their power and income to prevent a fairer distribution of funds. It appears that everything falls to the top in our trickle-up economy.
While the administration has sought to keep everyone’s focus on the reduction of state funding, a bigger issue is how the Office of the President redistributes state funds. It is also clear that the campuses receiving the largest state funding per student (UCLA – $18,754, UCD - $16,055, and UCB – $14,788) will use their power and size to fight to retain their extra funding. Moreover, if the state cuts the UC budget by $1 billion next year, the fight over the shrinking pie will become even more intense. While the figures used above are only slightly higher than the funding per student in 2010-11, a state cut of $1 billion would reduce state funding per student by 25%. In turn, if tuition and fees make up for the loss of state funds, and campuses keep all of their revenue, the campuses bringing in the most nonresident students will be able to increase their funding relative to the other campuses.
One thing the current funding system reveals is that undergraduate students at UCSC, UCR, UCI, and UCSB have been subsidizing graduate students and research at UCLA, UCB, UCSD, and UCD. While the university likes to claim that undergraduate students benefit from the research done on their campuses, it is unclear how students at UCSC benefit from research performed at UC Davis.
I predict that UCOP will use the current state funding reductions to stall on distributing state funds in a more equitable manner, and the result will be that wealthier campuses will become even wealthier, and they will use their power and income to prevent a fairer distribution of funds. It appears that everything falls to the top in our trickle-up economy.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Online Education and the End of UC Education
As the UC moves to put high-enrollment courses online, professors need to wake up and see what is about to transpire. Even though the administration said it would only go ahead with the project if it raised funds from private sources, it has now been leaked by the Chronicle of Higher Education that the university will borrow seven million dollars from itself. First of all, it is important to note that this new funding model goes against the requirement of the academic council, and it appears that the faculty only found out about this plan when it was discussed in the national media. Thus, we should read this secret plan for self-borrowing as a sign that the administration intends to go ahead with its online project regardless of what the faculty senate says.
More troubling is that the target classes for the first round of the pilot program will be courses taught at all of the undergraduate campuses. This move is the first step in getting rid of “departmental duplication.” If senate faculty think that the only people who will be hurt here are the lecturers and graduate students who are currently teaching most of the required undergraduate courses, they should think again. Once the UC establishes that it can teach the same Spanish class on all of its campuses, there is no longer a need for a Spanish department on each campus. Moreover, since language courses taught by lecturers and graduate students cost a fraction of the cost of courses taught by senate faculty, language departments will lose their cash cows and their source for cross subsidization. In short, language departments will be bankrupt and a prime target for departmental closure.
It is vital to stress that when classes are taught on a system-wide basis, it becomes unclear who controls the courses and the funding. At a recent conference on higher education, I heard how at a research university, the central administration has simply stepped in to staff and manage system-wide courses. While this may not be the intention of the Office of the President, we must remember that this entire initiative has sidestepped shared governance.
Another possibility is that once departments put their classes online, they will be taxed at a high rate by the system and their own campuses. For instance, at the University of Nebraska, departments once kept 92% of their profits from distance education, but now, they keep less that 40%, and this money fails to cover the cost of staffing the courses. Moreover, once departments start running a deficit, they are prime targets for restructuring and the laying off tenured professors.
If you think this is a delusional conspiracy, you should look at the way language programs throughout the UC and the country are being reduced or eliminated by simply not filling vacant tenure-track lines. By using a rhetoric of crisis, administrators are getting faculty to participate in their own downsizing. The first step was to use money from the Gates foundation to bribe faculty to come up with online courses. Since many faculty have obliged, the university can now say that it has faculty buy-in, and so the project should be extended to all impacted lower-division courses. This is simply a plan for financial suicide and the covert effacement of shared governances.
In fact, I have spoken with several people who are participating in the development of the pilot courses, and they are all good people thinking that they can make a positive contribution, but they all fail to see how their good intentions can be misused by the administration. For some reason the faculty believe they can control the process, while every step of the way, this project has been dictated by the central administration.
We should start a letter writing campaign to President Yudof explaining why we do not think this online project will save the university. By the way, total revenue in the UC has gone up by $3 billion during the last three years of our fiscal crisis.
More troubling is that the target classes for the first round of the pilot program will be courses taught at all of the undergraduate campuses. This move is the first step in getting rid of “departmental duplication.” If senate faculty think that the only people who will be hurt here are the lecturers and graduate students who are currently teaching most of the required undergraduate courses, they should think again. Once the UC establishes that it can teach the same Spanish class on all of its campuses, there is no longer a need for a Spanish department on each campus. Moreover, since language courses taught by lecturers and graduate students cost a fraction of the cost of courses taught by senate faculty, language departments will lose their cash cows and their source for cross subsidization. In short, language departments will be bankrupt and a prime target for departmental closure.
It is vital to stress that when classes are taught on a system-wide basis, it becomes unclear who controls the courses and the funding. At a recent conference on higher education, I heard how at a research university, the central administration has simply stepped in to staff and manage system-wide courses. While this may not be the intention of the Office of the President, we must remember that this entire initiative has sidestepped shared governance.
Another possibility is that once departments put their classes online, they will be taxed at a high rate by the system and their own campuses. For instance, at the University of Nebraska, departments once kept 92% of their profits from distance education, but now, they keep less that 40%, and this money fails to cover the cost of staffing the courses. Moreover, once departments start running a deficit, they are prime targets for restructuring and the laying off tenured professors.
If you think this is a delusional conspiracy, you should look at the way language programs throughout the UC and the country are being reduced or eliminated by simply not filling vacant tenure-track lines. By using a rhetoric of crisis, administrators are getting faculty to participate in their own downsizing. The first step was to use money from the Gates foundation to bribe faculty to come up with online courses. Since many faculty have obliged, the university can now say that it has faculty buy-in, and so the project should be extended to all impacted lower-division courses. This is simply a plan for financial suicide and the covert effacement of shared governances.
In fact, I have spoken with several people who are participating in the development of the pilot courses, and they are all good people thinking that they can make a positive contribution, but they all fail to see how their good intentions can be misused by the administration. For some reason the faculty believe they can control the process, while every step of the way, this project has been dictated by the central administration.
We should start a letter writing campaign to President Yudof explaining why we do not think this online project will save the university. By the way, total revenue in the UC has gone up by $3 billion during the last three years of our fiscal crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)