<p>Jerry Brown is proposing to cut the budget by 17% for Univ of California. </p>
<p>But on the UCLA Today newspaper he said he will try to protect the quality. </p>
<p>That seems an impossible feat. Does anyone know where the cutbacks may occur?</p>
<p>I think he probably meant a 17% cut for Higher Education in California in which case I think the CSUs will bear the brunt of the cuts and funding for UCs will be largely preserved. I do not think that community colleges will suffer more than minor cuts since they are the pathways to the UCs and are attended by a very large number of people.</p>
<p>On the other hand the CSUs are very vulnerable. Except for a couple of top ones like Cal Poly SLO they are not very prestigious, do not bring in much outside research funding and graduate less than half the students that enter them. They exist largely to carry out the state’s pledge that all California high school graduates should have the opportunity to go to a four year university. This pledge is being abandoned as many CSUs are already rejecting applicants who meet the state’s minimum standards for admission to a CSU but do not meet the new higher standards that the individual CSUs are establishing for their individual campuses. It will be concluded that the state can no longer afford to guarantee access to a four year university to large numbers of the state’s high school graduates but it will still be imperative to maintain the quality of its research institutions. The CSUs that generate the least revenue, have the lowest graduation rates and require the most financial aid from the state are likely to be the first to be phased out in the next few years, with most of the rest being closed over the next decade. A few like Cal Poly SLO will likely survive but will probably be absorbed into the UC system.</p>
<p>Very insightful observation. I think the state of California is moving toward privatization of its entire higher education system. </p>
<p>No doubt there will be closing down of the smaller CSU and even possibly UC campuses in the grinding process of privatization. And meanwhile, all of the students suffer from the ever decreasing quality and the reputation of the California public university systems. Case in point, Cal Berkeley used to be ranked as one of the top 5 research universities in the world; but since 2002, Cal’s reputation and quality have been steadily eroded and it is fallen grossly behind its previous peers such as Princeton, and Stanford.</p>
<p>What I don’t really understand is why the state government created all these new CSU and UC campuses without consideration of the state’s ability to fully fund these institutions. Although I realize there is a need for a UC campus in the central valley area, but is creating UC Merced really the right move given the state’s dire financial situation since the dot com melt down?</p>
<p>As for Cal Poly SLO, I think they should bite the bullet and push hard to join the UC system instead of suffering a slow grinding demise. The state could reduce its deficit by closing down UC Merced, and Riverside, folding Cal Poly SLO into UC and reduce the number of smaller CSU campuses such as Channel Island, Monterery Bay, Bakersfield, Stanislaus, and East Bay.</p>
<p>Brown is proposing a $500 million funding cut to the UC AND $500 million funding cut to the Cal State System AND $432.5 million in cuts to the state’s community college system. Every public institution gets hit in California. </p>
<p>I agree that UC Merced should be closed down. It only has about 3000 students and it is costly to maintain that campus for such a small population. </p>
<p>I would be surprised if they shut down UC Riverside unless things got really ugly.</p>
<p>Okay half of you guys are delusional and insulting. Most tax dollars in the state of California are collected from the middle classes. The CSU’s and the consequent CC’s that feed most of the CSU’s are the very mills that produce the majority of middle class tax payers. As a result, cuts are not going to be made too deeply into the CSU’s and more so in the CC’s and the UC’s, especially since the CSU’s already saw the majority of the budget cuts during the last big slash. </p>
<p>Also, California is not by any means going to move towards “privatizing” the public universities. This is irrational, and there is little evidence to support this assertion. Just because you WANT something, that doesnt mean it is going to happen. All states have public universities for a reason. Most states have a system very similar the California’s in fact. California is in a very serious budget crisis right now, no doubt, but in a number of years that will be fixed and privatizing will serve no purpose. Besides, doing so only limits the number of college grads being put into the job market, and with less educated workers you have less people making a good salary to contribute to state taxes. Most California college grads stay in the state to work and many stay within the area at which they graduated. California has public schools utimately to help itself. By putting a better group of potential workers into different parts of the state you arent just centralizing the job market the certain cities, and thus expanding the states potentials. </p>
<p>The reality is Public Universities ARE designed to be accessible to a good majority, and if that is something that you dont like, then why are you attending a public university? I’ve never understood the argument against this besides the elitist jerks that claim that this forces Universities to lose “prestige” with a larger student body…whatever…There are plenty of good and viable private institutions within the state that offers the very things you think privatizing the UC’s will offer.</p>
<p>In regards to the opening of new campuses, you should really think about why this was done. Many UC’s are in very expensive areas of California. A lot of students that are good students, and could defiantly do well at a UC chose not too, and instead attend there local CSU because it is ultimately cheaper (when considering not only tuition but living expenses as well). Especially in an area like the Central Valley. The Central Valley is a vast and great part of California, and serves a large majority of California’s population. UC Merced was brought there for two main reasons: To offer the UC name to students that otherwise couldnt attend a UC for various reasons, and to bring in a commercial and potential job market to the Central Valley that only a UC or similar institution could produce. the UC system is highly recognized in the California job market. By making that name available to a larger portion of Californian’s (especially those that are seemingly marginalized) it is expanding the job market opportunities and the tax base for all of California. </p>
<p>The campus still needs time to gain recognition, and the town still needs time to grow around the campus. Unless a University is established in an already well-received and established city such as San Fran or LA, it is unlikely that it will see immediate success, but in fact it will grow overtime as the new grads open businesses and increase the quality of workers in the area. </p>
<p>In fact, the recent budget crises could actually help the campus gain recognition even faster. Fresno State is the main University feeding the central valley, and with the huge cuts it underwent in budgets recently, many students were turned away, had classes they were unable to take, or were dropped from the campus for a majority of disheartening reasons. UC Merced therefore acts as a natural feeding ground for these left behind students that want to stay in the area but still receive a good education. Not to mention the added benefit of attending a UC school. </p>
<p>If you notice most of the UC’s are in the southern part of the state. Providing more universities into different parts of the state only helps that cities they are in grow, and in the end helps the state. By strategically adding new campuses throughout the state it is shifting the workforce and could greatly benefit the economy. I think it is a very smart move that will be praised as the future unrolls and presents this to be true.</p>
<p>I know this was really long…lol…but as someone who grew up in the Central Valley, I have strong opinions about its opportunities.</p>
<p>“CSUs will bear the brunt of the cuts and funding for UCs will be largely preserved”</p>
<p>Don’t count on it. Both systems have used tuition increases to offset lower state funding. Both systems have their greater and lesser campuses which vary quite a bit in reputation and quality of students. CSUs may see larger percentage increases in tuition because they charge about half of what the UC schools do, but there is a LOT of room to increase tuition in both systems.</p>
<p>If large tuition increases result in lower enrollments then there may be a threat to individual campuses, but this remains to be seen.</p>
<p>I found this in the UCLA newspaper:</p>
<p>[Brown</a> proposes $500 million cut to UC’s funding / UCLA Today](<a href=“http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/brown-proposes-500-million-cut-190697.aspx]Brown”>http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/brown-proposes-500-million-cut-190697.aspx)</p>
<p>Here are two quotes that were interesting to me: </p>
<p>The $500 million cut to UC represents a “best case scenario,” said Patrick Lenz, UC’s vice president of budget and capital resources, and is dependent on successful passage of Brown’s tax extension package.</p>
<p>…His main priority, he said, is to protect as best as possible the quality of the university’s core academic and research missions.</p>
<p>It sounds to me that some sports, extracurricular activities and clubs, and other student services with get the ax first. And if the taxes don’t pass, then academics WILL suffer. Yikes!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then imagine this: A university that educates only a few thousand of the very best students in the world. Located in the heart of one of the most expensive cities in the world. That doesn’t make even the slightest pretense of providing access to the ‘majority’, however defined.</p>
<p>Ridiculous? Outrageous? But wait, we don’t have to imagine, for we, already have precisely such a school: UCSF. UCSF has fewer than 2/3 of the students than does even UCMerced, and the students that UCSF does have are truly amongst the very best. Yet last time I checked, UCSF was an integral member of the UC system despite offering educational ‘access’ to practically nobody. </p>
<p>I’ve therefore always wondered, if UCSF is allowed to get away with that, why can’t Berkeley become more like UCSF? For example, why is it so outrageous for Berkeley to reduce its undergraduate enrollment by, say, simply not admitting the bottom 10% who would probably be better off at another school anyway? After all, UCSF doesn’t have any undergraduates and nobody seems to mind. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I can’t speak for others, I will say that it’s not something that I ‘want’, but rather a concession to fiscal realities. If Berkeley wants to run with the Harvards, Stanfords, and MIT’s of the world, it may have to consider adopting some of their organizational structure, particularly if the state government cannot or will not provide sufficient funding to do so. </p>
<p>And besides, we have to be clear about what we mean by ‘privatization’. Obviously Berkeley will never become completely private during our lifetimes. But Berkeley could choose to accept a lower level of state funding in return for a loosening of government rules regarding in-state admissions and tuition. See below. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do they now? The other top public universities in other states that are perennial contenders with Berkeley for the title of the best public university in the country are the University of Michigan and the University of Virginia. Nearly 1/3 of all undergrads at UM and UVa are out of state students. I would argue that Michigan and Virginia, by virtue of their large out-of-state populations, are already somewhat privatized. I therefore do not see what would be so outrageous for Berkeley to do the same. </p>
<p>66% of undergraduates are Michigan residents</p>
<p>[Office</a> of Undergraduate Admissions: About Michigan](<a href=“http://www.admissions.umich.edu/about/]Office”>Explore & Visit | University of Michigan Office of Undergraduate Admissions)</p>
<p>*DEMOGRAPHICS (CLASS ENTERING IN 2008)</p>
<p>69.1% Virginian, 30.9% non-Virginian*</p>
<p>[Profile</a>, Admission Information, Undergraduate Admission, U.Va.](<a href=“http://www.virginia.edu/undergradadmission/profile.html]Profile”>http://www.virginia.edu/undergradadmission/profile.html)</p>
<p>Perhaps not coincidentally, both of them have substantially larger endowments than Berkeley does. Michigan boasts of a whopping $6.6 billion endowment - larger than that of the entire UC system as a whole - whereas Virginia had $4.5 billion. In contrast, Berkeley had only $2.4 billion. Put another way, both UM and Virginia enjoy an endowment-per-capita of more than double that of Berkeley. </p>
<p>[Rebounding</a> from losses, endowment grows 12.3 percent | The Michigan Daily](<a href=“http://www.michigandaily.com/content/updated-while-u-employees-see-modest-salary-boosts-executives-decline-merit-increases]Rebounding”>Rebounding from losses, endowment grows 12.3 percent)</p>
<p><a href=“http://uvm-web.eservices.virginia.edu/public/reports/AnnualReportFY2010.pdf[/url]”>http://uvm-web.eservices.virginia.edu/public/reports/AnnualReportFY2010.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://berkeley.edu/about/calfacts-2010.pdf[/url]”>http://berkeley.edu/about/calfacts-2010.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The argument for the ‘utilitarian’ nature of college education opens a Pandora’s box of paradoxes and possibilities. First off, if the purpose of state subsidies for college education is to increase the overall tax base, then that doesn’t necessarily require that the state needs to run its own public universities. The state could have instead provided vouchers for all state residents to attend whatever school they wanted within that particular state. After all, public universities are hardly the only schools that boost the state economy. Massachusetts benefits enormously from the presence of Harvard and MIT in attracting many of the best minds from around the world to foster the human capital in the state. Stanford provides substantial economic stimulus and development of human capital within the California economy - indeed, Stanford is responsible for sparking the Silicon Valley technology economy dynamo. CalTech is responsible for developing a substantial portion of the science and technology base within SoCal. Why should a California state resident enjoy a state tuition subsidy only if he chooses to go to UC or a CSU, but not to Stanford or Caltech? If he remains in the state after graduation, he will be contributing to the state economy no matter whether he attended a public or private school. One could even consider providing the same subsidy for a California state resident to attend a private out of state school such as an Ivy or MIT provided that he agrees to return to California after graduating. </p>
<p>Secondly, if the ultimate purpose of state subsidies is to foster the tax base by boosting the salaries of its graduates, then perhaps the state should not be offering subsidies for public universities to be offering those majors that do not provide high salaries. I don’t want to name names, but we all know which majors those are. Instead, the public universities should be encouraging its students to major in high-paying disciplines. If some students want to study those majors, fine, but the question is, why should the state be subsidizing it? As the state has only a limited number of tax dollars, it should be ideally directing them towards subsidizing those high-paying majors that will boost the future tax base of the state the most. </p>
<p>But thirdly, if the true purpose of a public university such as Berkeley is to foster the tax base of the state, then that seems to be all the more reason to attract as many out-of-state students, albeit for cynical reasons. Let’s face it. Somebody who has grown up in California is probably not going to leave, as California, for all of its problems, is still an attractive place to live. Furthermore , their families and friends are probably not going to leave, and so those people have therefore developed strong roots that deters them from even leaving. Hence, even if they didn’t go to UC, they would still stay in the state anyway. What Berkeley could do is then attract many of the best students from other states, many of which would then choose to stay after graduation, hence fostering the growth of California rather than those other states. California could therefore leverage the UC system - and Berkeley in particular - to steal the best minds from elsewhere. </p>
<p>And indeed, Berkeley already does precisely that within its graduate programs, particularly its elite PhD programs. The vast majority of Berkeley PhD students are not from California, but rather are drawn from the best talent pools from around the world. Many of them will choose to stay in California after graduation, hence boosting the economy of the state. If they had never gone to Berkeley at all, they would have instead earned PhD’s at, say, Harvard or MIT, and would have then likely chosen to stay in Massachusetts, hence boosting their economy.</p>
<p>blah blah blah…sakky! i can argue all your points right back at you but I wont because I dont have to patience for someone like you. You always take apart individual sentences from peoples posts and then write elaborate criticisms just for the sake of argument…However i did read your post, I just dont like you.</p>
<p>If someone else (that hasnt proved them self obnoxious on this board) responds and makes similar points I might respond to them, but I wont…to you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The epitome of irony: a response to my post saying that you won’t respond to my post.</p>
<p>paniikd got owned</p>
<p>hmm…well maybe I should remember how literal you are, I apologize. What I meant was, I wont respond with an adequate answer to your position…that really wasnt hard to understand…I was trying to let you know that you are worthless on this thread, nobody takes you seriously–so go away, please.</p>
<p>He does make good points.</p>
<p>Even though the UCs will lose money, and they say they have a higher population now than compared to 2000, what no one has pointed out is that the incoming classes for the next ten years will shrink naturally. The peak baby boom year for this generation was 1990 and decreased for at least ten or so years. Those 20 year olds are sophomore/juniors in college. In five years, the overall numbers of Californians going to college will shrink considerably. So the UCs should (SHOULD, not saying they will) consider reducing the number of incoming students in the coming years. </p>
<p>That is why closing UCMerced seems to be a common buzz phrase. Less “UC-worthy” students going to UC schools and the lowest gpas/sats on the list end up at Merced… but carrying the “UC Banner” along with the brightest crop of students from the state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you’ll still respond with something. Just not to the actual points I made. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If it is indeed true that nobody takes my seriously, then nobody will ever respond to my posts, and I’ll just be wasting my own time in writing them. So what’s the problem? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think I won’t. You don’t own this thread, so what gives you the right to tell other people who is allowed to participate? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And it should be clear that you’re the one who decided to resort to personal insults. Not me.</p>
<p>As I’ve always said, if you don’t like my posts, then don’t read them and certainly don’t respond to them. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.</p>
<p>Most of Sakky’s points are well written and well thought out. People don’t like his posts because they usually destroy their arguments, lowering their self esteem.</p>
<p>Paniikd, you have this silly idea that public universities were built to serve as many people as possible. Oxford and Cambridge are some of the most prestigious and selective universities in the world yet they are both public schools. UC’s weren’t designed to provide higher education for everyone who wants it. That’s the role of community colleges. </p>
<p>You’re right that most tax dollars are collected from the middle class, but you’re wrong about CSUs building the middle class. Most UC students become middle class workers too. Maybe upper middle, but for the most part, a UC student will generate more state tax dollars than a CSU student.</p>
<p>Finally, while there’s no evidence that Berkeley is going to privatize, and most will agree that it’s not, Berkeley is taking steps to become more and more similar to an elite private university by raising tuition. </p>
<p>tl;dr You are delusion and insulting if you think Berkeley (or public universities in general) exists is to serve as many Californians as possible. They’re public only because they get state funding and have to follow certain stipulations mandated by the gov’t.</p>
<p>I mostly agree with Sakky’s assertions. I think they are well said and thought out. </p>
<p>@paniikd</p>
<p>With regards to your earlier comments, the first few words out of you as a response to my previous post is: </p>
<p>“Okay half of you guys are delusional and insulting.”</p>
<p>So I would call that, and your other diatribe, a personal affront/attack instead of addressing the issues we have raised. So try to get yourself heard by first addressing the issues, and abjure from your condescending self-righteous lecture.</p>
<p>I don’t think any of us want to see the UCs or CSUs privatize. We need a strong publicly funded higher education system to keep CA competitive. Alas, we were merely stating the dark and insidious possible eventuality of CA’s higher education system as the result of our state’s gross financial mismanagement. </p>
<p>We all comprehend the specific and unique definition of “privatization” here, as applied to the UC and CSU systems. And by privatize, I don’t mean the systems becoming a “private school” run by private bodies. Rather, I mean students’ education will be largely self-funded rather than subsidize, if at all, by CA’s tax dollars.</p>
<p>And as a proof of this slow motion unintended privatization, this year is the first year in UC system that the total students’ tuition paid is greater the state’s total contribution to the UC system. I would call that a semi-private system on its way to becoming like Cornell’s semi-private model.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rather than closing UCMerced, I actually think that it ought to be expanded. After all, let’s be realistic - taxpayers have already sunk plenty of funding into UCM which they’re never going to get back. Hence, given that the sunk costs have already been paid, might as well turn it into a fully-fledged and fully-populated campus that, crucially, can take the overflow of students who right now represent the bottom of the class at the top UC’s. Let’s face it - all of those Berkeley and UCLA students earning less than 2.3 GPA’s frankly would have been better off at another school. While the UC system as a whole has an obligation under the California Master Plan to take the top x% of California high school students, that obligation doesn’t necessarily run to Berkeley or UCLA specifically. Those campuses should rightfully be reserved for the very best students, with the others free to attend the lower UC’s.</p>
<p>lagunal: </p>
<p>I like your argument about population reductions, very interesting…but I think even that is more complex. There are many different types of students that attend college these days. Especially with the decline of the economy, many public universities are increasing there transfer applicant pool because they are much cheaper in the long run on the school. Therefore it is safe to say that with an older student body you are greatly increasing the variables of students that would be attending University, and even though a drop of incoming freshman out of high school might occur for the very reasons you stated, that doesnt mean the UC’s shouldn’t supplement them by raising the acceptance of other types of students. </p>
<p>Also, it is common knowledge that when an economy collapses many big industries close down leaving behind more and more displaced workers. As a result, many of these people are attending community colleges in order to gain a new set of skills to apply to the new generation of industries, and I’m sure a good portion will move on to being transfer applicants to Universities in a number of years since today’s world doesnt put to much value in an AA degree anymore. I think it will all balance out, student population wise, and I think that is for the best—the more people you have in the world with higher education the greater it is for the economy. We just need to work on creating graduates with the skills of innovation in order to bring NEW industries to this country. Our biggest issue is that we don’t make anything anymore, and if you have more educated people, the chances of innovation is much greater.</p>
<p>In fact, I think the best thing the state could do is make more incentives for incoming students to attend the “unpopular” universities. That would be more beneficial then just cramming the populations into less campuses. I’m not sure what all these incentives could be of course, but perhaps there could be much cheaper tuition at these institutions, more research opportunities, etc. From a student perspective, I agree less students could make the experience more enjoyable. Not because of my worries about my schools reputation, but more so because of the benefits of having smaller classes, less competition in class selection, etc. So if more incentives are given and we spread out the student population to the various campuses more, then naturally it would seem that the UC’s can admit less students per campus and benefit from the advantages of such with lower class sizes, more student options, etc. I mean if I was told that I could go to UC Merced at a 1/4 of the price, be provided with guaranteed student housing, and whatever else could be provided, I would very seriously consider the offer. </p>
<p>Besides, a lot of people, especially at the top UC’s, forget that most students are going to college to gain a set of skills or a certification that puts them in a certain job market, while others are just going to learn. Many top UC students think that the only way to succeed is to be the best at everything: best GPA, best Uni, best whatever. This just is not true, however, when you consider the broader definition of the word “success”. There is always competition, in every university you have your “top students”…but that doesn’t mean that the “bottom students” aren’t going to benefit from there degrees and wont benefit the world once they graduate…it just means they will be doing different things than the ambitious “top students”. These students are often not competing for the same kinds of jobs either, they know there limitations, or will learn them once they get out into the world. So whether you add more students of varying qualifications to different universities it doesn’t change the fact that you will still have “top students” and “bottom students” and “average students”. So why does it matter if lower GPA’s are going to UC Merced or similar campuses? Does that mean they should have less opportunities? They must be doing enough to remain a student with a passing GPA, thus having a basic grasp on the material, so why should it matter it is an average GPA? The students that fail to maintain a certain GPA will be kicked out/drop out and everything will balance itself out. Nothing one student can do, can devalue the work of another. Increasing the applicant pool only increases competition…which is in my opinion, fundamentally okay.</p>
<p>Saaky, if students w/ <2.3 gpa are moved to another college, then other students will fill in that gap because of the grade distribution. Students who were getting B’s were beating the C students, but if the C students disappear, some of the B students become the C students.</p>
<p>The point is that the UCs budget in the best case scenario will lose $500 million. If the tax incentives are not passed, who knows how much more will be cut. </p>
<p>From the UCLA article online: </p>
<p>Brown’s proposed state general fund budget will return UC to 1998 funding levels when the system enrolled only 161,400 students, 73,600 fewer than today’s enrollment of 235,000 students. </p>
<p>If the budget is going back to 1998 levels and our student enrollment can be scaled back naturally (because of less college-age population) to the 1998 level, too, then the impact of the budget cuts may not be as severe on the university system as a whole. </p>
<p>Though more upper income students are applying to public universities due to the poor economy, lower income students increasingly are gaining entrance and enrolling into the private universities, especially since 2007 when Congress mandated that the private universities have to allow for a more economically diverse student body or lose tax exempt status. Since 2007, a majority of the top private universities and LACs have been offering practically free education to anyone who is accepted and can prove that his/her familys income is under a certain level. </p>
<p>The UCs will have to figure out a way to either increase revenue or to make severe cutbacks. Over time decreasing enrollment may happen naturally if they keep standards at current levels.</p>