<p>In California, between 2008 and 2013 spending per student decreased 29.3% while tuition increased 72%.</p>
<p>Many institutions, including those in other states and CA community colleges responded by cutting staff and programs. Community college teaching staff were particularly vulnerable as many are in non-tenured adjunct positions. UC’s responded with slowed hiring of faculty and virtually no increase in support staff (Physical Plant personnel etc.), even while class sizes and facility expansion continued. Major capital projects such as new buildings are funded years in advance of construction, so those had to continue forward. In contrast, growth of upper level management positions has exploded over the past decade. Each campus has a legion of people holding positions with titles preceded by “Vice or Associate” -Dean, Provost, Chancellor, and my favorite “Assistant Vice-…”. These titles come with increased salaries and perks. Each college within a campus has an army of these administrators, and it is unfathomable what they actually do. For an informative and entertaining critique of this phenomenon check out this blog:
<a href=“http://universityprobe.org/2013/08/uc-101-educating-our-new-president-lesson-4/”>หวยหุ้นไทย หวยหุ้นไทยแม่นๆ เว็บหวยออนไลน์ จ่ายจริง หวยออนไลน์24;
<p>Indeed; the very definition of a blue-blue state. </p>
<p>However, most folks can be realists when presented with transparent facts (which UC refuses to do).</p>
<p>If offered a chance to attend Cal/UCLA for say, $5k more than Davis/SB/Irvine, I would bet that many upper-middle income folks would do that deal. Readily.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, that is even more true for the OOS’ers!</p>
<p>momsquad,
In other threads and news articles, it has been asserted that the employee-to-student ratio at the UCs is about 1:1. Another horrifying optic that scares off the taxpayer. </p>
<p>The issue is the relative growth of administration vs faculty/staff and lack of transparency from the Office of the President in explaining the trend. Professor Schwartz has addressed med school staff, title creep (inflating someone’s title to provide a salary increase during freezes) and other factors and still considers the growth of administrative staff problematic. </p>
<p>I found this: <a href=“UC Application - Message from the system”>UC Application - Message from the system, which shows that in 2012 there were 228,408 students system-wide, and 190,932 employees by headcount. Not 1:1, but close. (I don’t know how many were medical personnel. It may be designated on the charts, but I don’t have time to decipher it right now)</p>
Sixty two percent of Merced students receive State benefits, 90% receive some form of financial aid. Of Cal students, only 25% receive State benefits with 69% getting some form of subsidy. (Source <a href=“College Navigator - University of California-Berkeley”>College Navigator - University of California-Berkeley)
The “Flagships” are subsidizing the dingys in the system. Most Merced kids are not paying out of pocket more than most Cal kids. </p>
<p>UMich has slightly less employees than undergrads (25K to 28K) while the numbers for the UCs is 208K to 184.5K. So it does seem as if the UCs have more staff.</p>
<p>While perhaps true, I guess I’m too dense to get the point…and how that is relevant to the fact that Merced charges more tuition than Cal and the same as UCLA.</p>
<p>@bluebayou, point is that while it may be tough for CA residents to get in to Cal/UCLA, CA residents still have a plethora of other in-state options that are better than the in-state options available to the residents of many other states.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with the way college is funded in US. However, I think it is positive for universities to be upfront about future tuition increases on coming years, such that, at least, families don’t have an unknown shock every year when they reveal new prices. </p>
<p>Seriously, the statement of 55% of UC students are getting free tuition has to be taken with a grain of salt. UC does not open their books or publish their audited reports. </p>
<p>I find that number totally believable. There certainly are a large number of families that earn less than $80k…especially when you take into account single moms or those who pretend to be separated in order to qualify. </p>
<p>Exactly. And the illogic thing about the protest (and the earlier Occupy UC movement) is that they should support the increase. Charging the middle-upper class more so others can attend for zero tuition is win-win (for them). Obviously, not Econ majors. </p>
<p>The UC Regents (well 2/3 of them) are trying to hold the legislature and Brown hostage to raising their budget. Remember that the tuition increases apply only if the UC doesn’t see enough additional budget coming their way for next year. There was already going to be some increase for them because revenues are coming in above expectations this year, and perhaps there will be general fund savings due to the passage of Prop 47 (prisons compete with education for funding in CA).</p>
<p>I expect haggling. I expect secret deals in (perhaps) smoke-filled rooms. I expect a fair bit of media coverage of excessive admin salaries within the UC system. I expect the $23K addition for OOS and international students to be increased. I expect coastal UC communities to be frustrated and powerless about the additional construction going in at some of the campuses to increase UG enrollment (despite the drought). I expect students to keep protesting. I expect the regents whose terms end in the next 4 years won’t get reappointed if they didn’t vote with Brown (and there are a number of those). He will appoint termed-out liberal legislators. Brown has enough money in his war chest post election, that he could fund whatever state propositions he wants to make things difficult for the regents.</p>
</p>