The first set of recommendations from the working groups of the UC Commission on the Future were released a few weeks ago, and several campus committees are reviewing the content. This public 153 page document can be found on the UC Commission on the Future website: http://ucfuture.universityofcalifornia.edu/
You can download the document directly from us as well: FirstRecommendations
I took a close look at the recommendations proposed by the Funding Strategies working group appearing on pages 73 to 106. Here are my observations:
First I’ll say that I need to be reminded who the audience is for these documents. This factors in to the extent by which arguments must be explained.
There’s an interesting point on page 73 (first bullet) about the necessity of state funding to support the efforts of attracting outside funding. Perhaps this area needs both a louder voice with a better explanation to garner support. Obviously it takes world class faculty and graduate students to compete for outside funding but retaining this talent does not rest solely on the outside funding they are able to obtain. In order to attract and retain this talent, the state needs to make efforts to restore funding. Essentially, we need to get the talent here before you can reap the benefit of their abilities to attract outside funding.
First bullet, page 74: What exactly is the endowment size of each UC campus? How has this money increased/decreased over time? What have been the factors contributing to the increase/decrease of UC endowments? This information would lend more support to any efforts to compare our resources to the private institutions eluded to in this section. Of course, disclosing this information will lead to questions about how the endowments are managed.
Regarding administrative efficiency principles in general: A reduction does not necessarily equate to an increase in efficiency. With respect to staff, the work conducted by those who are laid off falls on the backs of those who remain. This puts strain on the administrative infrastructure of our university system while doing little to boost positive employee morale. The university cannot operate without the support of our hard working dedicated staff who are already stretched thin.
Page 75, the second bullet should include collecting data on graduates. How many stay in CA, contributing to the economy? The “campaign” should also draw upon historical voter trends with respect to educational taxes. Over the last few months, arguments have been presented that votes are in support of education, but the details of this support need to be highlighted to support the arguments. Additionally, there is something to be learned about public opinion by observing the comments left on news blogs that posted articles related to the current state of our university system.
Page 76, fourth bullet: Yes, an advocacy campaign will absolutely be costly no matter how you approach it. Even time is money. Perhaps we can garner support from celebrity alumni and professional athletes who got there start at a UC. Surely there are many and their public support has the ability to reach a very large audience.
Page 77, challenges: We really need some stats on the number of graduates who stay in California to strengthen this argument. Regarding next steps for implementation, we have seen many grass roots organizations spring up around the current issues associated with our university system but it’s unclear how much effort went into providing these organizations with accurate information. It will be important in the future to support these organizations with as much information as possible. Incorrect or misinterpreted information disseminating from these organizations inadvertently weakens our efforts to collectively advocate for reform.
Page 78: We need to vote to stop future cuts. Additionally, we need more information on a potential bill to cap fees: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9F1HPP80.htm
Page 79: The last bullet addresses the prison funding vs education funding debate. In my opinion, this is an excellent argument that is easy to understand and communicate to the general public comprised of the tax payers we need to support us.
Page 80: As stated earlier, part of the current model cuts staff and redistributes the work among remaining staff. This practice is not sustainable.
Page 81: Challenges: We’ve established our ability to generate reports, why haven’t prior recommendations been implemented? The answer to this question will give us an idea of the level of success we can expect with the reports we are currently generating. Of course, we have to obtain some level of commitment to do something.
Page 84 & 86: Indirect cost recovery (ICR) is out of balance with the true cost of research. Obviously this is problematic, but what are the implications of raising the rates the university charges? Will we become less competitive in our bids? Will the resulting grants cover fewer quarters of support for graduate students tasked to work on these research projects? An investment in resources will have to be made to obtain a higher rate. If we attempt to follow the model of other universities that have established a “permanent government costing group”, a definitive commitment of transparency would be absolutely necessary for this to fly, particularly when the perception is already characterized by the belief that faculty are not receiving a fair share of the ICR.
Page 88: Drop the term “student fees” in favor of “tuition”. I’m in agreement with this recommendation but would still like to know if there are any potential unintended consequences. Who might be in opposition of this change?
Page 89: What constitutes “low-income”? “middle-class”?
Page 92: As the state continues to disinvest, non resident tuition will become a more important line item in the budget of the UC. Will a cap be set or suggested for non resident students? 10%? 30% of the total number of students? Keep in mind that public support hinges on accessibility, not just for low income students, but for all. More and more news articles are highlighting the highly selective admissions process. Highly qualified students are not getting admitted to their campus of choice. Any displacement that appears to be attributed to the enrollment of non resident students will inevitably ignite a political fire storm. With public opinion cited as an important component of garnering the support of tax payers expected to vote on state funded education issues in the future, we cannot afford to alienate. With this in mind, perhaps Option 2 described on page 93 in the Fiscal Implications would be a better place to start should this funding recommendation progress towards implementation. In the mean time, we really need to know the numbers. How many non resident applicants do we currently review? How many are admitted as a percentage of the total?
Page 98: There’s a table suggesting that an increase in core funds of roughly $100,500,000 would have been awarded in 2008/2009 to the UC if the Pell Plus suggestion was in place based on a 70% graduation rate of Pell Grant recipients. Skipping over to the first paragraph on page 99, there is a statement about the amount of federal Pell Grant funding expected to reach $68 billion in fiscal year 2011. Requesting the Pell Plus program equates to roughly 0.15% of the expected $68 billion. This seems quite reasonable, yet I am not familiar with what the specific intended outcomes were for the dramatic increase in Pell Grant funding. Obviously, the intention is to make college more accessible for a larger percentage of the population, but I’m just not sure how accessible those funds will be for something like the Pell Plus idea regardless of it’s good intentions to support education. Additionally, take care to avoid unintended consequences like quotas for admission. Also keep in mind that Pell Grant recipients often benefit from an added network of support. Support centers on campus have been downsizing considerably due to budget cuts.
Page 101: This whole section just seems like a soft-money nightmare. I can’t advise on this section, but know that graduate students are interested because many of us hope to join the ranks of our UC faculty. I think about that President’s Postdoc which was designed to provide FTE opportunities within the UC for UC graduates. The decisions made in this area impact my decisions to apply. I will point out that the second bullet under Rationale / Existing precedent seems to contradict efforts to balance ICR. The challenges on page 102 are compelling, particularly with respect to equity issues.
Page 103: I’m against differential tuition for all of the same reasons that have already been expressed. The report seems to suggest that there will not be an impact on student demand, but this can only apply to students with money. Arguably, even they will be impacted because as the cost of a UC degree creeps closer to that of a private institution, we lose a portion of our competitive edge to recruit the brightest and the best. It seems obvious that UCLA & UCB will be the first slated to adopt a differential campus fee increase should this recommendation come to fruition. It’s important to factor in the cost of living around these campuses. My argument is that the cost of living around our most selective campuses are already differentially higher. With less formal articulation, I have to say that parents will freak out if differential campus fees come to pass.