<p>California's</a> higher education system could face decline - Los Angeles Times</p>
<p>Berkeley’s Chancellor responded to a similar article:
[07.24.2009</a> - Berkeley will remain great, but will it retain its public character?](<a href=“http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/07/24_ucbrip.shtml]07.24.2009”>07.24.2009 - Berkeley will remain great, but will it retain its public character?)</p>
<p>He says Berkeley will no doubt retain its academic reputation…it is the public access qualities of Berkeley that are under threat.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with UCB - the entire UC system, in fact – that a large dose of money and renewed passion won’t solve. I believe Cal can and will rebound. Its current problems won’t necessarily leave “irrveversible” damage as long as the people of California continue their commitment and financial support.</p>
<p>Even after the cuts the UC is one of the highest funded systems in public higher education. Many are doing as much with far less. A little house-cleaning and priority resetting is good for any large organization. Do we really need to get 70,000 journals or are 50,000 enough for 99% of our needs. Can we increase our average teaching load by a couple tenths per year so we can offer as many classes as we did before?</p>
<p>^ I agree… furloughs are a band-aid fix…they need to cut some dead wood and become more efficient.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol. I didn’t know about UC Riverside’s proposed plan for building a med school. Shouldn’t that privilige go to Berkeley after all these years?</p>
<p>^ Berkeley will never have a medical school on the Berkeley campus…it’s in San Francisco.</p>
<p>That’s really convenient.</p>
<p>The problems are overstated since every university system is under the same financial pressures. Because of this, the UC system is not going to lose their faculty or best students to other schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey, mark the calendar. On July 31, 2009, I had to agree with my friend UCB! ;)</p>
<p>
The real question, though, is whether that will ever happen. My conclusion, sadly, is that it won’t. 60 years ago (1950’s and 1960’s) CA had an educational system that was pride of the state and a leader in the country. Nobody would say that with a straight face about the education thru HS, and the UC system is starting to topple. 60 years ago CA was a much younger place, full of enthusiasm and populated by citizens willing to tax themselves to educate their children. The UC schools didn’t charge tuition and still don’t, although they do tack on $9K/year in “fees” these days. I know people who went to UC schools in the late 70’s when the total fees were only about $750/year (about $2600 in today’s dollars). You could earn that working during the summer with money left over for books and the like, even at minimum wage. Poorer people could get a UC education at those prices, saving money by living at home. Which many did, BTW; most dorms at UCs are a development of the last 15-20 years. Even UCLA was mostly a commuter school. </p>
<p>Today adults of that era are the senior citizens that helped pass Prop 13 that hamstrung the state. Their children, the baby boomers, are in their 50’s or beyond and don’t like taxes much either because they perceive most of the benefit goes to others and not their families. So the political climate is such that tax increases can’t pass, tax revenue is unpredictable because property taxes are limited by Prop 13, and the budget needs a 2/3rd’s majority to pass which allows a minority of Republicans to dictate terms to their liking. Things are bad and likely to get worse as those who can leave; CA was built by people who moved here in the 50’s and 60’s, and the better-off are going to gradually move out. Just as in the decaying cities in the Rust Belt and other depressed areas, people that own homes tend to stay (esp. if they are near retirement age) but their adult children leave in search of jobs and better places.</p>
<p>I’m glad you believe the state can & will rebound, my view is far less sanguine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps, we should read what the Brits have to say about the future of California, and the opportunities for other states to steal a bit of the west coast thunder. When it comes to education, one could read how the University of Texas at Austin is building a world-class neuroscience center. Things are far from perfect in Texas (see the differences between UT at Austin and the rest of the UT system) but if money talks, it will talk loud in Texas. When a young and talented professor might be able to acquire a house that is mansion-like in California for 2 or 3 years of salaries in a place such as Austin, and also work in a less politically volatile environment that California, he or she WILL listen. </p>
<p>On a personal note, I recently formed two “regular” companies and a non-profit one, and despite WANTING to have an anchor in California, it would have been foolish (almost suicidal) to do so on an administrative and tax basis. So, to other states it went … and so will 95% of the employment.</p>
<p>There are many attractions in California and the state will ultimately rebound, but it is extremely doubftul that it will ever regain much of its leadership. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[A</a> special report on Texas: : Lone Star rising | The Economist](<a href=“Lone Star rising”>Lone Star rising)
and fwiw
[California</a> v Texas: America’s future | The Economist](<a href=“America's future”>America's future)</p>
<p>I would definitely listen to xiggi’s post. Expect to see a lot of business influence transfer from California to Texas in the next couple of years.</p>
<p>^ That Economist article also talked about how Texas lacks the research universities California has…but oh yeaaaah, small privates and LACs are best for undergrads, right? :D</p>
<p>
Texas has a lot of things going for it…less business regulation is major. However, laws can change and California’s resources (natural beauty, higher educational systems, etc.) greatly exceed anything Texas has to offer.
Texas is a boom/bust state just like California is. It just happens to be riding a boom.</p>
<p>Yeah I sometimes do think the California university system, including the UC’s system can turn out to be a mess. It really does exclude largely out of state students, and can have many con’s. I’m not an expert on this topic ( haven’t done extensive research etc…) but one thing to point out such as the potentially out of state students California attracts ( or once may have) may have likely made a large work force within the state ( coming from there own since they drastically would like to live in California), though for students who have been living in California since forever likely may be a lot more open to job positions out of state.
Also to note, if California was going to keep it’s large leadership/ influence throughout, excempting and largely limiting education to out of state students can harm such for various reasons, just can’t list all.
I do think the California university system does help it’s residents a lot, which all plays in part that the state obviously is not trying to attract college students from around the country as they are within their own state… which may eventually through time lead to California recognition throughout ( I mean even some of their top institutions like the UC’s don’t even have at least 20% out of state population).
(Yes I do think Califorinia is a nice state, with many cities I’m attracted to)</p>
<p>Europeans have been predicting the fall of California, with gleeful applause from many american states, for decades. I remember a front page story in one of the big French weeklies entitled California: the end of the dream. That was in the late 80’s. Before the huge economic/high tech/real estate boom of the 90’s, when California became something like the 6th largest economy on the planet. So much for the end of the dream.</p>
<p>I don’t doubt things are bad right now in California and at UC. I also don’t doubt they will eventually rebound – if the people of the state and its leaders want it to.</p>
<p>California has always had a boom-and-bust economy and the UC system has taken cuts before, but never of this magnitude. Those unpaid “furloughs” are just a euphemism for 10-15% pay cuts. They probably could get by with that without too much hemorrhaging of talent if they had a plausible plan to right the ship financially, but frankly I don’t see one. A second year of “furloughs” and lots of the most capable people on the faculty are going to be listening a lot more closely to overtures from elsewhere; if it goes into a third year, they’ll start fleeing like rats from a sinking ship, with the top talent the first to go because they’ll be the ones getting the most attractive competing offers. I don’t wish this on them, but I honestly think the situation is much grimmer than UC administrators dare to admit publicly.</p>
<p>concur with bc. Obama convinced several of Cal’s top profs to work DC for a few years, but they will think long and hard before they go back. Even withing the state legislature, there is zero recognition of the resources required to maintain the state’s flagship(s). Instead, they pump money into Merced and Riverside.</p>
<p>Something does not compute-from COHE. Including stimulus money Cal is spending 23% more on higher ed than in 2008. What kind of cut is that?? Many other states are showing -5% to -20% changes on the same chart.</p>
<p>[Table:</a> Stimulus Funds Provide a Brief Reprieve from State Cuts - Government - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Table-Stimulus-Funds-Provide/47483/]Table:”>http://chronicle.com/article/Table-Stimulus-Funds-Provide/47483/)</p>
<p>State aid for higher education in 2008
Change in 2009, from 2008, with stimulus
Projected change in 2010, from 2008, with stimulus
- States that have received a waiver from the federal maintenance-of-effort requirement to spend at least as much on public schools and higher education as they spent in the 2006 fiscal year.
NOTE: The figures are the latest estimates available for each fiscal year.
SOURCES: State applications to the U.S. Education Department for funds under the stimulus law’s State Fiscal Stabilization Fund; Chronicle reporting
California
$8,857,000,000
23%
23%</p>