Yesterday’s news

Christmas day tends to be a slow news day. However, for those who didn’t see it, the LA Times carried a front page story about UC’s online offerings which allow cross-campus credits. You can find the article at:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-me-uc-online-20131222,0,6798231.story

Blog readers will be familiar with these offerings. We noted in a prior post that UCLA seems to be a taker rather than a giver in this endeavor. That is, other campuses’ online courses are available to UCLA students. But UCLA is not offering courses to the other campuses. Berkeley, Irvine, Davis, and Riverside seem to be the offerers.

Now, how about next year’s UC budget, governor? The headline above should make you happy:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U-rBZREQMw?feature=player_detailpage]

Listen to the Second Half of the Regents Meeting of 9-17-2013

Our earlier post had the Regents audio for the first part of the meeting of 9-17-13. There was then a closed session. The audio link below picks up the meeting again when the public component resumed. We also noted in the previous post that there was a inadvertent hot mike at the beginning of the meeting in a supposedly closed session which transmitted sensitive material online. We have not archived that portion. However, when the meeting reopened in a public session, apparently some Regents were not sensitive to what was going out. The audio begins with one Regent telling another that he let Nathan off easy on Blake House. Blake House is the possible residence of the incoming UC president that would require renovations and repair. There is more of that in the link below towards the end.

In this session, there was discussion of installation of solar panels at two campuses: Davis and Riverside. Both campuses indicated that the electricity cost – after various govt. subsidies – would be comparable to the cost from outside sources. An interesting point was that having solar installations would not help were there to be an external power failure. The solar component would shut down in such events to prevent damage. UC-San Francisco presented an upgrade and construction plan involving seismic work, among other elements. There was discussion of a new ocean pier for Scripps/UC-San Diego. UCLA sought authorization for design of a new engineering building. A question was raised about how, given that this was the design phase only, UCLA somehow had rather precise estimates of construction costs. It was noted also that because of the release of such advance estimates, it would be unlikely that UCLA’s prospective contractors would come in with lower bids, even if costs were actually lower. Lt. Gov. Newsom asked what was really being committed here. If you start down the road of just approving design costs, doesn’t that effectively commit you to the entire project? He was assured that the costs approved were just for design. Good question, Mr. Lt. Governor. The answer was not so good. In fact, once you get a train rolling at the Regents, it does leave the station.

Then we come to the Blake House discussion for which Nathan was let easily off the hook, as per above. Apparently, the house is not in good shape and has a leaky roof and related damage. The approval sought was to do repairs. There were questions about whether UC could just sell the building and land and use the proceeds for something else. It was noted that the location, 4 miles from Berkeley, was not ideal for a president’s residence or other uses. Nonetheless, repairs were authorized with promises from UCOP that there would be a more thorough evaluation forthcoming in the future.

You can hear the audio at the link below:

Alternative Rankings

The Washington Monthly publishes a “social” ranking of universities on the basis of affordability, access by lower-income students, “service” to the society, as well as research. UC comes in very well in that ranking with UC-San Diego on top and Riverside is second. Berkeley is fifth and UCLA is tenth. The introductory article to the ranking concludes with the following statement:

…State lawmakers, meanwhile, must be told that the free ride of college budget cutting is over. The U.S. Department of Education should establish new standards of state support for higher learning, and set deadlines for states that don’t meet them. The prospect of losing federal student aid and research money would galvanize state business leaders and college officials to fight budget cuts that are currently being passed along to families who can ill afford them. It would be easy to let the great American higher education compact gradually crumble under the weight of expediency and institutional ambition. We know this because the process is already under way. But that kind of shortsighted thinking isn’t what built America’s best colleges, and it won’t give us all the system of higher learning we badly need.

Full article at: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/september_october_2013/features/introduction_a_different_kind046446.php?page=all.

Now with all that said, I am generally skeptical of such rankings and, although a methodological statement is included, I am not sure exactly what gets rewarded how. The purpose of such rankings is mainly to attract readers to the magazines that publish them (You didn’t know that?) more than to achieve any other goals. Absent an actual database, it is hard to know what is going on. And the weighting schemes tend to be subjective (arbitrary?). But the methodological statement is at: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/september_october_2013/features/a_note_on_methodology_4year_co_2046455.php.

The rankings are at: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2013/national_university_rank.php.

Listen to the Special Regents Meeting of Aug. 8, 2013

A special meeting of the UC-Regents was held by teleconference to approve the appointment and compensation of incoming Riverside chancellor Kim A. Wilcox, formerly provost at Michigan State U. There were no public comments made by non-regents at this session, although time was available for such comments. Governor Brown voted “no” on the compensation package which included an 8.9% raise in salary relative to the previous chancellor. He cited concerns about growing income inequality in society, the fact that there were chancellors on other campuses who were paid less, and the labor dispute with AFSCME. Lt. Gov. Newsom also voted no on the compensation package but made no comments. Outgoing president Yudof made general remarks endorsing the appointment. At the conclusion, the new chancellor – who officially starts Aug. 19 – made some remarks.

We continue to provide audio recordings of the Regents meeting because of a regental policy to retain the file on the meetings for only one year.

You can hear the recording at the link below. The governor’s comments start at about minute 8:20:

The Trail from Riverside to Oregon

Earlier posts on this blog have noted an idea developed by some UC-Riverside students to make tuition free in exchange for a percentage of future student earnings. (Actually, the idea has been around for a long time.) In any event, although UCOP is supposedly studying the proposal, it seems to have found its way to Oregon where it is being considered in the legislature. From Inside Higher Ed today:

…The Oregon plan is similar to, and has its origins in, one proposed by students at the University of California at [sic] Riverside that made headlines last year. Since last winter, a group of University of California students have been in talks with the system administration to address some of the logistical challenges raised by the plan, but there has been little public movement. In contrast, the Oregon plan moved quickly from being an idea to getting legislative approval. Chris LoCascio, one of the students involved in the UC effort, said he and his team worked with the Economic Opportunity Institute, a liberal think tank in Seattle, to help develop the plan. The institute then proposed a version of the plan for Washington…

Full article at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/09/oregon-plan-would-shift-tuition-payment-after-graduation

Want a Riverside Med School? Legislature Says (Commands?) Do It Yourself

There has been ongoing agitation from UC-Riverside and UC for the state to put up money for a med school. As bits and pieces about the state budget leak out, it appears that the legislature has not provided extra money but instead has told UC to take it out of its general allocation. Apparently, the legislature doesn’t view this matter as a suggestion; more of a command.

From the Riverside Press-Enterprise:
The Legislature’s budget conference committee late Monday altered the funding mix for a school of medicine at UC Riverside, eliminating a $15 million augmentation but directing the UC system to allocate money to the school from its budget. The compromise means the school will finally get the state money it has sought unsuccessfully since 2010. It effectively saves the state general fund $15 million. And most importantly, it has the support of the Brown administration, which did not include any money for the medical school in its January spending proposal or May revision…

Full story at http://blog.pe.com/2013/06/10/medical-school-no-new-money-but-uc-told-to-allocate/

Of course, the Regents and UCOP could assert their constitutional autonomy but the legislature might object:

The Never-Ending Story of the UC-Riverside Med School

UC-Riverside’s quest for $15 million from the state budget – not supported by the governor – seems unending. From the Desert Sun:

An Inland Empire lawmaker’s bill to secure $15 million in annual state funding for the UC Riverside School of Medicine cleared its first legislative hurdle Tuesday. AB 27, sponsored by Assemblyman Jose Medina, D-Riverside, was approved by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and is now bound for the Assembly Appropriations Committee…

Much of the school’s start-up funding has come from philanthropic and other non-state sources, though the county committed $20 million over the last two years.

Full story at http://www.mydesert.com/viewart/20130319/NEWS04/303190033/Committee-OKs-bill-UC-Riverside-School-Medicine-funding

Note: It’s a long path from this step to an actual $15 million from the state. The quest has gone on for a long time and it may continue for a long time. A little music while we wait:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tokxcbu_Uo?feature=player_detailpage]

UC-Riverside Pushes Ahead With Med School

UC-Riverside pushes on with its med school despite lack of state support. From the Desert Sun:

PALM DESERT — University of California, Riverside officials should know within two weeks whether the state will OK a land transfer critical to its new medical school’s presence in the Coachella Valley. At issue is 11.5 acres along Frank Sinatra Drive, just east of UCR’s existing Palm Desert campus… The medical school plans to build an outpatient medical clinic there that can be used as a teaching facility for students and medical residents, Dean G. Richard Olds said…

Olds said there is no plan B should the state decline to release the land. “I guess we’ll have to build it somewhere else,” he said. A rejection would stretch out the unclear timeline. If UCR does get control of the land, what happens and when it happens still rests largely with the state. The clinic could range in size from 10,000 square feet to about 40,000 square feet and cost $20 million to $60 million depending, in part, on how much the state is willing to commit. Olds said a newly elected state senator and representative from the Riverside area have just introduced bills to restore $15 million a year in state funding for the school, after Gov. Jerry Brown squashed state contributions for the project in order to cut costs…

Full story at http://www.mydesert.com/article/20130308/NEWS04/303080023

Hmm. Frank Sinatra Drive. I guess the dean wants to do it his way despite lack of state support:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egY8rUpxqcE?feature=player_detailpage]

Gov. Jerry Brown on Executive Pay at the University of California & Many Other Topics

At the University of California (UC) Regents meeting of Jan. 17, 2013, Regent Leslie Tang Schilling asked Gov. Brown not to protest about UC executive pay. The state portion of executive pay can be capped, she seemed to agree, but the Regents should then be free to raise private donations for increments of pay above the state portion. She argues that UC will need high-quality leadership and must be free to compete for talent. She expresses skepticism about psychic income.

Brown responds at length with a learned discourse ranging from his one-time vow of Jesuit poverty to the history of higher education in California and more generally. He resists the idea that he opposes high pay for “political” reasons. He is uncertain about what terms such as “quality” mean in the context of research. He questions rankings of educational institutions. Brown also talks about his support for high-speed rail, the need for water infrastructure to avoid floods, and global warming. Income inequality is a concern for the governor and California is big enough, he thinks, to resist that trend rather than endorse it. Brown says we don’t really know where online higher education will lead but that we should go for it (anyway). On the other hand, he is skeptical about the need for a new medical school at UC-Riverside. He cites the two-decade holiday of contributions to the UC pension fund as showing that even smart people can make bad decisions.

As prior posts have noted, the problem with the governor’s approach is that – while entertaining – it doesn’t lead to more than regental seeming agreement. No one wants to offend the governor. The main challenger to the online education pushed by the governor is from a student regent. But no process is being set in motion that would lead to something like a new Master Plan to deal with the challenges and issues about which the governor is concerned.

You can hear Schilling and then Brown’s response below:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ohbaPKQnus?feature=player_detailpage]

UC-Riverside Apparently Still Dogged by No Meds

We have produced prior posts from time to time on UC-Riverside’s quest to get some state money to set up a new medical school. Apparently, the governor’s budget proposal that was released yesterday did not provide that money:

…State Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside, said he was “very disappointed not to see specific funding identified” for the medical school, where classes for the first group of 50 students are set to begin this fall.

…Local officials have sought state money for the medical school since 2008. In 2011, officials delayed the first freshman class because of the lack of state funding, and the school’s medical accreditation was in peril at one point. Last March, Brown said he wanted to hold off allocating state money for the school until California got its fiscal house in order. And although Brown bragged Thursday about the budget having a surplus for the first time in years – thanks to voters’ earlier acceptance of his Prop. 30 tax proposal – his spending plan did not specify any money for the medical school…

Full story from the Riverside Press-Enterprise at:
http://www.pe.com/local-news/politics/politics-headlines-index/20130110-california-budget-where-are-ucr-medical-school-funds.ece