Tradition!

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has issued a report on UC and CSU funding.  LAO is usually viewed as a neutral agency.  But it is a component of the legislature.  So it tends to favor approaches that add to legislative control as opposed to, say, gubernatorial control.  This report is no exception.

LAO seems to want to return to what it terms the “traditional” approach to funding, but with bells and whistles added to monitor legislative goals.  The traditional approach seems to be one focused on undergraduate enrollment.  But in fact the tradition – such as it is – has been to forget about tradition and cut the budget during state budget crises, in the knowledge that UC and CSU can raise tuition.  Indeed, as the chart above indicates, these traditional deviations from tradition dominate tuition decisions.

The LAO is uncomfortable with the habit of the governor of just proposing dollar increases not linked to enrollment and then extracting some promises from the university to do this or that, e.g., to spend $10 million on online education.

It might be noted that since LAO chose to lump UC and CSU together, it might have discussed a sore point namely the fact that CSU, as a part of CalPERS, gets its pension costs taken care of by the state whereas the state likes to stand aloof from the UC pension and its costs.

You can read the report at http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/education/higher-ed-budgetary-practices/budgetary-practices-021114.pdf

In any case, there is much nostalgia for tradition, albeit with some uncertainty as to what that is.  Sounds familiar!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw?feature=player_detailpage]

Oversize Load?

From the Sacramento Bee:

…(T)the University of California’s academic student workers union recently filed a complaint against the UC Office of the President demanding that discussions about class size be a part of their contract negotiations. The union has been bargaining with UC since last summer, and its contract expired at the end of the year…

The UC Student-Workers Union, which represents more than 12,000 teaching assistants, tutors and readers across the UC system, is seeking a regular forum to talk about class size with faculty and UC management, said Josh Brahinsky, a Ph.D. candidate in the history of consciousness at UC Santa Cruz and a member of the bargaining team. According to a 2013 UC study, the ratio of students to faculty increased more than 10 percent from the 2005-06 to the 2010-11 academic year…

The president’s office said it has received the complaint and its position statement is due in late February, but it disputed that the union’s complaint has any basis. “Wages and working conditions are the types of issues that are addressed in labor negotiations,” spokeswoman Shelly Meron said. “Class size is an academic issue, not a bargaining issue.”  She pointed to the academic student employees’ last contract, which states, “No action taken by the University with respect to a management or academic right shall be subject to the grievance or arbitration procedure or collateral suit.”…

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/09/6141029/concerned-with-growing-class-sizes.html#storylink=cpy

Full story at http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/09/6141029/concerned-with-growing-class-sizes.html

Note that there is a bit of a problem in citing a clause in an expired contract as binding after the expiration.  There does not seem to be any language in the now-expired contract that would continue the cited provision after expiration: http://www.uaw2865.org/about/current-uaw-contract/#article33  We will see if PERB takes the position that class size is inherently a management prerogative.  [PERB = Public Employment Relations Board, the state agency that would hear such complaints.]  If PERB does take that position, it would still be legal for the university on a voluntary basis to discuss the issue and even to come to some agreement about it; a PERB decision favoring the university’s position would just mean that the university was not obligated to do so.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/09/6141029/concerned-with-growing-class-sizes.html#storylink=cpy

Dividing the $5 Million Pie for Undocumented Students

The Daily Bruin is carrying a story on its website detailing how the $5 million for undocumented students allocated by President Napolitano is to be spent: [excerpt]

…UCLA will receive $848,000 of the total $5 million for undocumented student services and financial aid, the most out of any UC campus, according to the letter. UCLA currently enrolls more than 450 undocumented students, a 65 percent increase from last year. There are about 900 undocumented students in the UC system.  Of the amount allocated to UCLA, $250,000 will provide services for undocumented students and $598,000 will go toward undocumented student financial aid…

Community College Transfers to UCLA

Yours truly came across a news article indicating that Santa Monica College provided more undergraduate transfers to UC than any othre community college.  You can find the article at:

http://www.smmirror.com/articles/News/Santa-Monica-College-Number-One-In-Transfers-To-University-Of-California/39064

So he poked around the website for the community college system to find out which community colleges led in transfers to UCLA.  The pie chart above shows the results for all community colleges providing at least 100 transfers in academic year 2012-13.  [Click on the chart to enlarge and clarify.]  More than half of the transfers came from colleges providing under 100 students.  Santa Monica was again the leading transfer institution with Pasadena a distant second.  FYI.

Listen to the Regents Morning Session: Nov. 13, 2013 (including the Napolitano speech)

As noted in prior posts, yours truly is out of town and behind on listening to, and recording, the Regents meeting.  I am now current through the morning of Nov. 13.  That was the morning in which UC president Napolitano gave her speech on her goals for UC.  Blog readers will recall that there was supposed to be a similar unveiling of goals in a speech awhile ago, but that turned out to be a booster/dud.  This one was more significant, but more on that below.
Again, we provide audio archives of Regents meetings because regental policy is to preserve recordings only for one year.  Why?  No one will say.  
The meeting started with public comments.  Editorial: There is an extremely offensive group that comes and yells at the Regents about demands to fire Napolitano immediately.  What they imagine they are accomplishing, other than offending everyone but themselves, is an interesting question.  Obviously, the Regents are not going to fire Napolitano.  She may turn out to be a good choice or a bad choice, but it’s time to get real folks and move on.  They were there the day before, as blog readers will know.  Apparently, they will come back.  Apart from that group, there were representatives of AFSCME, which has a one-day strike scheduled for Nov. 20, and the union (UAW) that represents grad TAs.  There were complaints about non-resident tuition and grad student fees.  [It might be noted that towards the end of the open session, Assembly speaker Perez, an ex officio Regent, made somewhat cryptic remarks that suggested that some accommodation between the union(s) and Napolitano was under way.]
After the public comment session, there was a talk by UC-Berkeley Nobel prize winner Randy Schekman who lamented the squeeze on funding for public research universities. 
The main event that got the bulk of media attention was the Napolitano speech noted above.  In it she talked about concerns about affordability of UC, student aid, the one-time money she allocated from a “reserve” to undocumented DREAM students and grad students, freezing tuition for another year (2014-15), a search to avoid volatility in tuition, concern that the news media focuses on the “sticker price” of tuition rather than the actual price(s), the need for the state to do its part to pay for UC retirement plans and increased enrollment, a search for greater efficiency at UCOP, doing more to get additional funds from grants, donations, public-private partnerships, and tech transfers to industry, encouraging more community college transfers, and green energy goals for the campuses.
Editorial: Obviously, this speech was more substantive than the previous one.  But it tended to avoid trade-offs.  If you freeze tuition in good times, history has taught us that you get big jumps in tuition in bad times when the state pulls back.  You need only to look at what happened under Governors Davis and Schwarzenegger for examples.  If the governor won’t pay for increased enrollment and you encourage more community college transfers, that increase has to involve either a decrease in admissions of four year students (which she said she wants to avoid) or fewer dollars/student.  Later in this session in a discussion of PhD education, Governor Brown kept saying that UC was not going to be “ten Harvards,” so comparing it with Harvard was not a selling point with him.  That raises the nasty issue of whether UC is a tightly-knit system or a bunch of individual campuses in a loose federation, again a trade-off since it can’t be both.  Also later in the program in a session on fund raising, it was observed that donors like their names carved on buildings, i.e., physical capital rather than human capital.  In short, the speech was a shopping list of worthy goals.  But it avoided priorities and nasty trade-offs.  We provide a separate link to the speech below.
After the Napolitano speech, Academic Senate rep Bill Jacob reminded the Regents of the blending of research, teaching, and service.  It is not possible to isolate these three elements at research universities.  There was discussion of doctoral education with Brown’s “ten Harvards” comments and a review of fundraising with the lament (by Regent Lansing) of donors’ desires to see their names carved on buildings.  (Suggestion by yours truly: As long as the campuses have bond-and-build bureaucracies, donors might be reminded that buildings are temporary.  The bond-and-builders after a couple of decades will knock them down.  You get more longevity out of programs that endow research and/or scholarships since those go on as long as there is money left in the till.)  
Finally, there was a review of the Dept. of Energy labs with concerns expressed about changes in leadership on the UC side.  President Napolitano mentioned the $80 million that UC is owed for retirement by the Dept. of Energy due to the federal sequester.  (See our earlier post on this issue.)

UPDATE: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/nov/14/uc-board-of-regents-approves-operations-budget/ and

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/11/jerry-brown-offers-jesuitical-harshness-to-university-of-california.html

You can find a link to the entire open morning Regents session of Nov. 13, 2013 at:
For just the Napolitano speech, click on the link below:

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

TA Union Pushes for Lower TA-to-Student Ratio

The labor union representing TAs at UC has gotten some attention in the San Francisco Chronicle to its demands for lowering the TA-to-student ratio.  Excerpt: …The students are asking UC to create a Committee on Class Size at each campus so that problems can be addressed on a continual basis, said Josh Brahinsky, a graduate student in history at UC Santa Cruz who serves on the bargaining team… But UC says class size is not an appropriate topic to discuss with the union.”Issues related to class sizes and quality are academic issues, not bargaining issues,” said Shelly Meron, a spokeswoman for UC…

Full article with link to a union report at http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UC-classes-too-big-teacher-aides-few-report-says-4958381.php

Alternative Entrance

From the Daily Bruin:

University of California student leaders are proposing a new admissions criterion that would give preference to applicants from low-income schools that have special partnerships with UC campuses. Under the criterion, UC campuses would look at whether an applicant comes from a Title I high school – a school that serves a significant number of low-income students – or a community college with low transfer rates that has a partnership with a UC campus. The partnerships would involve academic preparation and outreach programs that the UC would create for these schools. Students proposing the new factor, including UC student regent Cinthia Flores and Undergraduate Students Association Council External Vice President Maryssa Hall, say it would reinforce what they believe is the UC’s responsibility to ensure that students from disadvantaged backgrounds make it to college. They also say it will help the UC’s focus on recruiting in-state students instead of admitting out-of-state and international students to increase revenue, a strategy the UC has utilized in the past few years since nonresidents are required to pay more in tuition…

George Johnson, chair of the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools – a committee of UC faculty that recommends admissions criteria to the UC Academic Senate – said some of the existing admissions factors may already serve the purpose that the proposed factor aims to address… Since a majority of state schools already receive Title I funding, a school’s Title I status might also not be a very distinguishing factor in finding schools to partner with, Johnson said. In the 2010-11 year, about 60 percent of public schools in California received Title I funding…

Full story at http://dailybruin.com/2013/10/22/uc-student-leaders-propose-new-admissions-criterion/ 

Affirmative Action Case at Supreme Court

Blog readers will undoubtedly know that the U.S. Supreme Court is looking at the constitutionality of  Michigan ballot proposition that bans affirmative action in, among other things, public university admissions.  The Michigan proposition was a copy of California’s Prop 209.  Were the Michigan proposition voided, the same would likely happen to Prop 209.  Most observers seem to expect the court to uphold the Michigan proposition.  Prop 209 followed the UC Regents’ action banning affirmative action in admissions.  (The Regents later repealed their ban after 209 was enacted on the grounds that it was redundant.)

Inside Higher Ed has an article about the Court’s consideration of the case at
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/10/16/supreme-court-justices-appear-skeptical-overturning-michigan-ban-affirmative-action

It also has a related article on other preferences the Court debated in the Michigan case such as preferences for children of alumni.  See
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/10/16/unexpected-exchange-supreme-court-alumni-child-preferences

You can see a video of the UC Regents and its enactment of a ban on affirmative action below:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBB1vM6RNZA?feature=player_detailpage]

Supreme Court Challenge to Michigan Proposition Could Void Prop 209

Prop 209, banning affirmative action in public university admissions, was passed by California voters in 1996.  The final vote count in favor was actually slightly higher than the chart here – from preliminary data shortly after the election – shows.  (54.6% yes rather than 54.5%.) 

Prop 209’s history goes back to an earlier action by the Regents banning affirmative action at UC.  (The Regents later repealed the ban but, by that time, Prop 209 took precedence and the repeal had no effect.)

The LA Times today carries a report of a challenge at the Supreme Court to a similar proposition in Michigan and indicates that a voiding of the Michigan ban would likely apply (would likely void) Prop 209.  California’s attorney general supported the challenge. [Excerpt]

California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris urged the Supreme Court on Friday to strike down a Michigan voter initiative that bans “preferential treatment” based on race in its state colleges and universities, a ruling that would likely invalidate a similar ban approved by California’s voters in 1996…For a second term in a row, the high court is set to consider a major test of affirmative action in state universities. In June, the court revived a white student’s challenge to a race-based admissions policy at the University of Texas. In October, the court will consider a constitutional challenge that comes from the opposite direction. Lawyers representing black and other minority students are contesting Michigan’s ban on affirmative action. Separately, the University of California’s president and 10 chancellors filed their own brief Friday highlighting the ban on affirmative action. “More than 15 years after Proposition 209 barred consideration of race in admissions decisions … the University of California still struggles to enroll a student body that encompasses the broad racial diversity of the state,” they said…

Full article at http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-affirmative-action-20130831,0,2784755.story

You can see the action of the UC Regents banning affirmative action below:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBB1vM6RNZA?feature=player_detailpage]

The Bus Plan for Higher Ed

The White House released the plan for higher education this morning.  As per yesterday’s post, the plan will be promoted via a presidential bus tour.  Before I get into the plan, I might note that like the Regents and governor, the President is interested in use of technology – think MOOCs – to reduce costs, etc.  And like the Regents and governor, he seems to have problems with his own use of technology.  The screenshot you see here was take 3 hours and 45 minutes after the plan was officially released, but it doesn’t show the plan.  All that was available was info from yesterday that the plan would be released today. 

However, Inside Higher Ed does have a lengthy article on the plan and a copy of the White House media release (which has yet to appear on the White House website).  The full article is at:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/22/president-obama-proposes-link-student-aid-new-ratings-colleges

Excerpt from the article: President Obama appears to be making good on his vow to propose a “shake-up” for higher education. Early Thursday, he released a plan that would:

  • Create a new rating system for colleges in which they would be evaluated based on various outcomes (such as graduation rates and graduate earnings), on affordability and on access (measures such as the percentage of students receiving Pell Grants).
  • Link student aid to these ratings, such that students who enroll at high performing colleges would receive larger Pell Grants and more favorable rates on student loans.
  • Create a new program that would give colleges a “bonus” if they enroll large numbers of students eligible for Pell Grants.
  • Toughen requirements on students receiving aid. For example, the president said that these rules might require completion of a certain percentage of classes to continue receiving aid.
The White House media release, courtesy of Inside Higher Ed, is at:
It’s unclear at this stage how much of the proposed agenda can be done by administrative regulatory fiat and how much would require cooperation from the currently-gridlocked Congress.