<br>
<br>
<p>A perfect example of throwing good money after bad.</p>
<p>Not when the political fallout is added to the equation.</p>
<p>Plus, the costs of maintaining and/or disposing of the campus would be high, both fiscally and politically.</p>
<p>Maintenance and shut down costs? Just transfer all the students to Riverside or Santa Cruz (their choice) and torch the buildings. Burn 'em to the ground. They never should have been built and no one will miss them.</p>
<p>As a matter of California Realpolitik, the Merced campus was built to give the Central Valley’s state legislators a stake in having a successful UC as opposed to being a bunch of reflexive naysayers.
There may not have been an academic justification but at this point it’s moot.</p>
<p>The fallout from burning the campus to the ground would be much worse than that due to the incremental budget load at this point.</p>
<p>California’s budget has skyrocketed in the last five years, far outpacing inflation. That was suppose to end after the last governor was recalled. It only got worse. The taxpayer’s hard earned money spent on education (K-12 and college) has continued to spiral out of control. </p>
<p>Most people don’t realize that much more of the overall funds for UC comes from the federal government than from California.</p>
<p>Harvard and most of the Ivy League schools have made substantial layoffs and cost reductions. That is the Harvard with the $25 billion plus endowment. Harvard’s faculty is cooperating with the administration to lower costs. Maybe these high priced UC scientists on the government payroll could learn a lesson.</p>
<p>To Inthebiz who stated, “Even universities with hiring freezes (like the one I work for) is using this opportunity to snatch the best and the brightest from their competitors.” ……Give me one name of a “best and brightest” scholar that your university has recently snatched from another school.</p>
<p>I’m well aware of Hood had a cup of Coffee at UW and then moved on. Maybe he helped the biotech community but he did little for the Udub. I thought we were discussing universities here–not the biotech industry.</p>
<p>Hood was at Washington for 8 years. That’s a pretty big cup of coffee.</p>
<p>How many classes did he teach? I guess I just remembered his leaving was not without rancor about some UW rules and policies. For all the fanfare with is arrival it did not seem he around too long. It’s alluded to here</p>
<p>[March</a> 2000 Columns Magazine - Briefings: Hood Starts Institute](<a href=“http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march00/hood.html]March”>March 2000 Columns Magazine - Briefings: Hood Starts Institute)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t teach any beyond a few graduate-level seminars. When he was recruited from Caltech he was a famous researcher, inventor, and Nobel contender, not a famous teacher. UW is not an LAC. I doubt they recruited him for his teaching or expected much of it from him.</p>
<p>When he left, UW’s own announcement chose to brag about his achievements during his stay rather than express any rancor:</p>
<p>[uwnews.org</a> | Leroy Hood leaving University of Washington to establish private institute | University of Washington News and Information](<a href=“http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=1793]uwnews.org”>http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=1793)</p>
<p>Excerpt:</p>
<p>“Hood’s research interests have focused on molecular immunology and biotechnology. His former UW laboratory has played a major role in developing automated microchemical instrumentation for the sequence analysis of proteins and DNA and the synthesis of peptides and gene fragments. More recently, he has applied his laboratory’s expertise in large-scale DNA mapping and sequencing to the analysis of the human and mouse T-cell receptor loci – an important effort of the Human Genome Project. His laboratory is also interested in the study of autoimmune diseases and new approaches to cancer biology.”</p>
<p>Yes, but the local papers were full of the other side and his unhappiness with UW. Of course UW will put a rosy spin on it. Nothing to gain from bashing the guy. They even put a rosy glow on McCormick getting fired.</p>
<p>“the problem of solving the budget mess is a matter of political will, not applying brainpower of the 300+ UC scientists.”</p>
<p>Political will could magic up money, but nobody is willing to redress Prop 13 and other flawed contributors to CAs fiscal problem. Brainpower can also magic up money, and its results are frequently dubbed win-win situations. A brainpower solution is much more likely to be well received by Californians than any solution that results from political will, and a brainpower solution is much more likely to succeed over the long term. I am a native Californian who happily left the state where most of my family still resides, because CAs problems have been roiling for years and are much bigger than they appear.</p>
<p>No amount of brainpower can ameliorate the structural handicaps, such as Prop 13, which require the political will—including by the voters—to accomplish.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t underestimate the severity of the budget crunch facing the state of California and the UC system. People talk about the State of Michigan’s financial problems which are real and substantial; but California’s budget deficit is well over an order of magnitude larger, and its universities are far more heavily dependent on state aid. This portends a period of wrenching readjustment. There won’t be a lot of lateral movement of faculty in the short term because no college or university is rolling in cash at the moment. Besides, most UC faculty like being where they are for the lifestyle, the prestige, and the comfort of the familiar. But over the medium and long term, the UCs are going to face great difficulty recruiting and retaining the faculty they want unless they radically restructure their financial model to make the University far less dependent on state aid than it has been historically. That almost certainly means substantially raising tuition (or “fees”), admitting a much larger percentage of OOS students, and making serious strides towards building a major endowment----an area where the UC system lags badly. In short, partial privatization a la Michigan or Virginia. It won’t be easy, and it won’t be fast. In the meantime, I’d expect the UCs, even the UC flagships like Berkeley and UCLA, to lose a lot of recruiting wars to better-funded rivals. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and that’s just as true in academia as in any other sector of the economy. You can’t just cut and cut and cut, and not expect some major loss of blood.</p>
<p>TheDad is correct. </p>
<p>Balancing California’s budget is really simple, (but the political will does not exist to do so). In general, state expenses exceed income by 20-25%. If that happened in our own households, most of us would take a meat-ax to expenses, sell assets, and raise revenue (make sure every able-bodied family member was working). But the Dems don’t want to do the former, and the Reps won’t concur on the latter: stalemate. And the masses (aka voters) won’t agree to change Prop 13.</p>
<p>bc is also correct in post #33. Unlike Michigan and Virginia, which have ONE flagship which receive’s state attention (W&M is almost), the Regents of the University of California (not to mention the legislators) don’t see it that way on the Left Coast. Indeed, they’d like nothing more than to reduce Berkeley’s and UCLA’s stature and raise Riverside and Merced, i.e., all UC campuses should be equal in this blue state. Thus, they will let the big two flounder. Expect to see UVa surpass Cal in August 2010.</p>
<p>I pray you are wrong about Berkeley & UCLA, blue. But on your and TheDad’s other points, you are both 100% correct about Prop 13 and “the will of the people.” I’ve tried to explain this to OOS’ers; it’s hard for many of them to see the entrenched assumptions of the voters. The Democratic legislators answer to constituents who expect More of the Same; had those legislators the courage to pick up that meat-ax, said legislators would be out of office next go-round, and would never have been elected in the first place had they been honest about such intentions.</p>
<p>We need a visible and vocal Center in this State to become politically active about these financial realities and the future of UC, whose future is indeed tied to the economy of the state as well!</p>
<p>Va Tech, James Madison, VCU and the rest all get pretty good funding form the state of Va.<br>
Yes the UC’s will have to make the adjustments many others made in the last 20-30 years. There lack of preparation for the future in not the problems of the citizens of California. And they will be OK. Research $$$$ is flowing and it papers over many other shortfalls. Meanwhile with some of the largests and richest alumni bases in the US they can start moving forward on that front as some of the UC campuses have already. And yes they can up the OOS quota to more like 25%. That is a HUGE untapped market for them. Will state residents complain-sure. Too bad. There is no alternative except a smaller UC.</p>
<p>epiph:</p>
<p>yeah, I was too harsh in my assessment of the politicos in Sacramento and Oakland (home of UC Regents). Of course, the powers-that-be would prefer that Cal and UCLA keep their high lofts, but at the same time they also want to increase the prestige of the other campuses. But dollars are finite, so when push comes to shove, increasing the prestige of the other campuses becomes a higher priority than whether Cal remains #1 public, or whether UCLA beats out UMich. Thus, UCR builds a med school, Irvine builds a law school, Merced spends millions for a graduation speaker, etc.</p>
<p>blue,
No, I <em>don’t</em> think you were too harsh in your assessment, necessarily. I omitted the “that” (I pray that, I hope that…). I completely agree that they are in denial about the finite feature of cash. And I think that’s irresponsible & I’m glad you point that out. Their irresponsiblity could reduce quality in all campuses, not just the flagships.</p>
<p>The situation at the UCs is not pretty, and some campuses were better prepared than others to deal with the current mess. Part of the problem is that campuses like Merced get a lot more state money than some of the other campuses, which is why it was the subject of the petition. Students are already struggling to finish in four years, and it seems that if classes are offered less often, or fewer sections are offered, it can only get worse.</p>
<p>Living in California is becoming more of a chore. It will be interesting to see if any smart ideas come out of this budget deadlock. I want to be optimistic, but I’m too much of a cynic.</p>
<p>Aren’t UC Berkeley and most of the other UCs are getting a lot of stimulus money. That was my impression after talking with somebody in the “trying to get money” business.</p>