<p>"California's higher education system, created to offer the opportunity for advancement to any resident, rich or poor, has seen hard times before. But the deep cuts imposed by the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this year are raising the question of whether the University of California, the California State University system and the nation's largest community college network can maintain their reputations for quality, or whether a public higher educational system that has been lauded as the world's finest may be in serious decline....</p>
<p>Already, campuses from Humboldt to San Diego are raising fees, shedding courses, slashing enrollment, and compelling faculty and staff to take unpaid furlough days. Class sizes are up, library hours are down, and long-held dreams for new programs and schools are on hold....</p>
<p>So how bad is it [now]?</p>
<p>According to the Department of Finance, the state is expected to spend about $8.7 billion in general revenue funds on UC, Cal State and the community colleges in the coming fiscal year. That would be a 17% drop from two years ago, the department reported.</p>
<p>Federal stimulus money will offset some of that, but there remains much uncertainty about the level of funding from Washington, and how long it will last.</p>
<p>UC's state general revenue fund budget of $2.6 billion will be 20% less than it was two years ago. Cal State is seeing a similar percentage drop to about $2.3 billion.</p>
<p>California's community colleges are not taking quite as big a hit as the two university systems -- down 7% from the past two years, according to the state Legislative Analyst's Office. But they are feeling the pain too. And the reductions come just as the recession is driving newly laid-off workers to their doors...." California's</a> higher education system could face decline - Los Angeles Times</p>
<p>Every State is under the same pressure. If the States were private sector companies they would be doing a coordinated “Jack Welsh” downsizing with mandatory firings of 10% of their workforces and deep reductions in the salary pools for the middle 80% of the workforces (who fear being in the bottom 10%) with outsize raises for the upper 10%(so that everyone has a carrot to go along with the stick of the mandatory firings and the deep cuts). Everyone gets their defined benefit pension frozen or benefits reduced in some manner (new workers, or new divisions etc.)This system has operated in our private sector for the last 20 years and seemed to work until September, 2008. I have my doubts that this would be best for our university systems but this model is clearly how the private sector would deal with things now.</p>
<p>Not so. The financial situation at the UCs is pretty dire. Faculty at the UCs, including Berkeley and UCLA, are being forced to take up to 24 unpaid “furlough” days per year. That’s effectively a 10% pay cut. Other schools are going to be doing some headhunting among UC faculty, and since the UC system has no credible plan at the moment to replace the lost revenue so as to ensure that the “furlough” policy isn’t a one-year phenomenon, my guess is there will be lot of receptive UC faculty when the headhunters come around. UC President Mark Yudof is already talking about a second year of furloughs, stating that he hopes the University can continue to contribute to faculty pensions on the basis of pre-furlough salaries “for at least this year,” hinting at a more dire situation in the out years.</p>
<p>^ It is my understanding profs whose salaries are fully funded through research grants are exempt from the furloughs…any idea what percentage of the faculty falls under the exemption?</p>
<p>^ That’s probably true. But, the best profs in science and engineering are likely fully funded… The burden will fall more heavily on liberal arts profs.</p>
<p>Most profs in sciences, engineering, some social sciences, and any other tech field worth their salt will be fully or nearly fully funded by their research grants. For example the average Wisconsin prof has nearly $500,000 per year in research grants. That’s counting every prof at UW from anthro to zoology. I’m quite sure UCB and other top UCs are similar. </p>
<p>As to overall UC funding–the choice of furloughs is a UC choice and one that is being done at a number of schools including Wisconsin. With so many publics and privates in survival mode the number of fat offers in the next year will be very few and far between. Many profs are reluctant to move away from a place that has always been more destination than stepping stone.<br>
Beware numbers given out by public oficials. Often they are cooked to reflect their message such as when they asked for $1 Billion and only got $900 million they call it a 10% cut when in reality it’s an increase from the $850 Million they had prior year. Also they are not talking much about all the extra stimulus money and fee hikes they will be collecting. Many schools in the recent past have endured real cuts year over year in funding far greater than UC is looking at and done OK. Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington and many others. The UC gets more press because they are bigger and in larger media markets but this has happened before in many states. And the UC President is the biggest BS crybaby in higher ed. He’s done the exact same act at UMinn and U Texas before landing at UC.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to know what would happen if “the influence of San Francisco” weren’t handcuffed by the small minority of Republicans that have the power to block any budget. But I guess details of California politics don’t always make it to Bombay…</p>
<p>^ The amount of research money a faculty member pulls in and the percentage of their salary that comes out of the research grant are not always closely connected. The more typical arrangement is that the school continues to pay for the faculty member’s teaching time, and research grants (in fields where they’re available) pay for all or a portion of the research time. Research grants generally can’t be used to pay for faculty members’ teaching time anyway–so basically you can assume anyone who is actually teaching is not 100% supported by research grants, therefore not exempt from the furlough requirement.</p>
<p>I agree there’s likely to be less lateral movement by faculty in the next year than in the recent past. Many schools have imposed hiring freezes or are doing extremely limited hiring. But I’ve already heard the subject come up among other faculties, and my guess is the headhunting conversations are already beginning. UC payscales are not all that high anyway, especially given the cost of living in the Bay Area and LA where the top UCs are located. One recent salary survey calculated UC salaries lag the market average by 8%. There’s a load of talent on those faculties. Believe me, when you whack 10% off the salaries of top people who in many cases feel they’re already underpaid already relative to their peers at other comparably prestigious institutions, there’s going to be a cost. Not many will leave for less prestigious schools, because at the end of the day prestige, reputation, and recognition are equally critical drivers of faculty career decisions. But money does matter at the margins. My guess is you’ll see some top people at Berkeley and UCLA giving a little more serious attention to the siren call of places like Stanford, Caltech, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and a handful of others—schools that generally pay more handsomely, shine just as brightly in the academic firmament, and despite their own recent financial reversals are not whacking their top faculty with 10% pay cuts. </p>
<p>It’s true, as barrons says, that “the choice of furloughs is a UC choice.” The University may have had other options. But that is no comfort to the faculty who are bearing the brunt—it just suggests that the Regents and key administrators making these decisions are not necessarily on their side, and more painful cuts may lie ahead. Some are not going to stick around to find out.</p>
<p>From the Cal Legislative Analyst’s office report on the new budget:</p>
<p>"Unallocated Reductions to Universities. Reduces General
Fund support for the University of California (UC) and the California
State University (CSU) by an additional $1 billion each.
When combined with cuts approved in February, and adjusting
for new federal funds and fee revenues, the universities will experience
cuts of about 8 percent in base funding.</p>
<p>8%–hardly the end of the world. And that does not include the jump in research funding coming down the pipeline.</p>
<p>while (politically) painful, the Univ of California should shrink a couple of % by raising admission standards. The $$ saved could be redirected to the Cal State and juco systems (where it is less expensive to educate students).</p>
<p>^ A press release I read said the UC system is overenrolled by 11,000 students… seems disingenuous when they also claim the budget cuts will hurt access.</p>
<p>that “overenrollment” figure is against state “budget” and that happens for numerous reasons, including higher frosh/transfer yields, second bachelor’s degree, taking longer to graduate, etc. Moreover, it may also be a figment of our imagination, or at least the legislature’s, i.e, if Sacramento “plans” for 10k less students, they can give the UC less money, and balance the state budget.</p>