<p>Agree with above</p>
<p>Berkeley’s Pell Grant numbers are way higher than other colleges of the same calibre, and their loan numbers very reasonable for a public flagship. State support per student remains high despite the huge numbers of students but tuition income per student is one of the lowest in America. I don’t know enough about the writers various claims concerning loss of income due to capital projects but in a political environment where there’s pressure to lower taxes, the current Ca educational model is not sustainable. You can certainly look to make further cuts but increasing tuition income (privatization) is the way most other states have gone. Per capita income has zoomed in CA and most other states in the last 20 years or so, but there has not been the political will to tax it. The revenue available for higher ed has remained fairly flat and the tax rate around the national average, certainly not enough to sustain such a generous and popular higher ed system. Without massive cuts and restructuring and increased taxpayer support tuition is going to rise significantly.</p>
<p>That said, the university’s overly aggressive response to the demonstrators was disturbing, but was, no doubt, planned ahead of time. The “nip it in the bud” approach works well when numbers are relatively small. Had there been 10 thousand demonstrators that approach could well have backfired. I don’t think with the kind of students Berkeley is currently enrolling, there will be too many riots.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The vast majority of kids at Cal would find HYPSM, Dartmouth, Vandy and a whole host of other schools less expensive to attend. And they are all private (and wealthy) schools… Heck, even UoP gets down to Cal’s $$ range when merit aid is thrown in, which would be automatic for anyone who can get into Cal.</p>
<p>I’m embarrassed to go to the same school (UCB) as these idiots. Plain and simple.</p>
<p>Is it true that all the money is going to collateral for bonds and none of it is going to education? If it is true, then they don’t need tuition money for education and it should be free.</p>
<p>Stephen17, you have choices. If you don’t like your fellow students, you can switch schools.</p>
<p>Chancellor Robert J Birgeneau. We can save UC Berkeley $3,000,000 for students, faculty & staff at no cost to you! A legacy of waste in UC Berkeley Chancellors Office: easily grasped by the public, lost on University of Californias President Yudof.
The UC Berkley budget gap has grown to $150 million, & still the Chancellor is spending money that isn’t there on $3,000,000 consultants. His reasons range from the need for impartiality to requiring the consultants “thinking, expertise, & new knowledge”.
Does this mean that the faculty & management of UC Berkeley flagship campus of the greatest public system of higher education in the world - lack the knowledge, integrity, impartiality, innovation, skills to come up with solutions? Have they been fudging their research for years?<br>
The consultants will glean their recommendations from faculty interviews & the senior management that hired them; yet $ 150 million of inefficiencies and solutions could be found internally if the Chancellor & Provost Breslauer were doing the work of their jobs (This simple point is lost on UCs leadership).<br>
The victims of this folly are Faculty and Students. $ 3 million consultant fees would be far better spent on students & faculty.
There can be only one conclusion as to why inefficiencies & solutions have not been forthcoming from faculty & staff: Chancellor Birgeneau has lost credibility & the trust of the faculty & Academic Senate leadership (C. Kutz, F. Doyle). Even if the faculty agrees with the consultants’ recommendations - disagreeing might put their jobs in jeopardy - the underlying problem of lost credibility & trust will remain. (Context: greatest recession in modern times)
Contact your representatives in Sacramento: tell them of the hefty self-serving $s being spent by UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau & Provost Breslauer.
Let there be light!</p>
<p>Please give your mindless spiel elsewhere. First, this is a dead topic. Second, you’re late on the issue since the plan to hire outside consultants was announced sometime in Novemeber 2009 as shown by the article [url=<a href=“http://cio.chance.berkeley.edu/chancellor/Birgeneau/remarks/11-15-09-NYTimes.pdf]here[/url”>http://cio.chance.berkeley.edu/chancellor/Birgeneau/remarks/11-15-09-NYTimes.pdf]here[/url</a>]. Third, consulting firms exist because they provide a valuable service. If the Chancellor didn’t think the consultants could save the university far more than $3 million, he wouldn’t have hired them.</p>