Meanwhile, in South Dakota ...

Well, it looks like South Dakota's Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard might have a bit of a problem on his hands when it comes to faculty salaries at the state's four universities, which have been frozen for the past three years:

Higher education officials tired of watching talented faculty jump to private industry and out-of-state universities for better pay want Gov. Dennis Daugaard to end South Dakota's salary drought. After three years of frozen wages, the Board of Regents says its priority in Daugaard's next budget is at least a 4 percent salary bump for all state workers. [...] State officials and Board of Regents members say they understand the toll that the wage freeze is exacting and intend to address it as best they can in the next legislative session. Daugaard's spokesman, Tony Venhuizen, said the governor is just beginning to formulate next year's budget, "and deciding on a salary policy number is an important part of that process."

  Perhaps there is a lesson here for the great state of California, too?

Small consolation

It's small consolation nowadays, as we learn of his lovechild with the housekeeper, to realize that we are not the only ones he screwed.

UCOF recommendations

Here is a long document summarizing recommendations from UCOF's Working groups:

UCOF first recommendations

It's a long document (153pp), I will peruse and post some comments, but in the meanwhile I make it available here for public scrutiny.

Calls to save access to higher ed in California

Looks like finally people are beginning to notice the dismal state of higher ed in California, and that the famed Master Plan for higher education, on which much of California's global success was built, is now not worth the paper it's printed on (or, in this case, the bandwidth needed to access it). As an example of this renewed awareness, see the unsigned editorial in the Pasadena Star-News:

There are signs everywhere that the state's pillars of higher education - access, affordability and quality — are crumbling.

Access, affordability and quality are precisely the three historical components of the Master Plan. The editorial calls for "a robust public discussion about the future of public higher education." Unfortunately, higher education does not seem to be high on the priority list in Sacramento, or on many people's minds for that matter (unless they have a direct involvement in higher ed — the students, their families, the faculty and staff at California colleges and universities, and their families).

The new hybrid model and the future of UC

As is well known, UC Pres. Mark Yudof has been a staunch proponent of a "hybrid" model for the University, i.e., a public-private partnership characterized by high(er) tuition, less public funding, and corporate sponsorship. Now, UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau and Vice Chancellor Yeary have come forward with an alternative hybrid model, this time characterized by a federal-state partnership. (The proposal can be found — appropriately — in the WaPo, but has been published elsewhere as well.)

Based on the (correct, but too often forgotten) principle that public universities deliver a public good, Birgeneau and Yeary advocate a new Morrill Act that would see unprecedented (for this country) direct participation of the federal government in higher education.

According to this proposed plan, the federal government would make a direct commitment to a few "great" public institutions such Michigan, Illinois, Rutgers, and of course Berkeley to

provide sufficient additional funding for operations and student support to ensure broad access and continued excellence.

In addition the federal government would enter a 10-year agreement to match 2-1 any private funds raised toward the endowment along with a 1-1 commitment on part of the state. So if, say, Berkeley were to raise $150M a year for 10 year it would end up with a $6B endowment.

These are the outlines. What to make of it?

Like Yudof's own public-private hybrid model, the Birgeneau-Yeary proposal moves from the assumption that state support is gone for good. This might well be true, but so far no serious arguments have been put forward for it, except exhortations to Realpolitik (which are just that, and no arguments at all). The assumption itself might not be as well entrenched anymore, now that the pain caused by fee increases has finally become visible, at a time where other powerful economies around the world are investing more and not less in higher ed.

If we grant the premise, then again I think UCB is correct to try every possible avenue available to them to save such a great University. California is better off with a hybridized UCB than with none at all. That much is clear. And the Birgeneau-Yeary model would certainly appear to be more stable than the Yudof model, which would rapidly accelerate towards complete privatization.

But notice how both hybridization models so far proposed will inevitably lead to the break-up of the UC system. This is much is clear in the UCB plan: Berkeley would get a federal bail-out, and the other campuses will be left to sink or swim, as the case might be. But the same would happen on the Yudof model: the ten campuses cannot conceivably privatize (or hybridize) at the same speed, and this again would lead to a top tier (UCB, UCLA, maybe UCSD) raising tuition and establishing private partnerships, while the rest would be gradually be absorbed by the CAL State system. There is certainly not enough demand in the State for college instruction at the private price point, and even any out-of-staters would naturally gravitate towards the flagships.

Blogging hiatus

Apologies for the light or non-existent posting the last few days — the beginning of classes finally caught up with the California Professor. The weekend provides the opportunity to pause and look back at the past week or so:

• The Sept. 24 walkout came and went. Participation was substantial on every campus (between 500 and 1000 people attending the rallies), but not overwhelming, except of course at Berkeley. 
• Demonstrators at UCSC even occupied the student center, and nobody noticed. The occupation is now over, and nobody notices that, either.
• A few Chancellors (UCB, UCR, and — belatedly — UCD) were politically shrewd enough to release letters to the faculty, students, and staff saying "We are with you, not against you!" Chancellors on other campuses were silent (as far as I know: corrections welcome). At least someone in the higher echelons of UC's administration has some political sense. Birgeneau for UC President, anyone?
• President Yudof's NYT interview continues to cause an uproar. We had already commented on the interview, but keep being astonished by the man's lack of political savvy. Yudof then swings the other way by offering a more balanced piece in the Chronicle, basically echoing his remarks to the Regents. This is representative of Yudof's difficulty staying on message: the NYT interview really is part George Costanza and part Silvio Berlusconi (without the sex addiction), and the Chronicle piece more representative of what a university president should be saying, even if we disagree on some parts.
• In the meanwhile, UCD gets hit by one more scandal, the over-reporting of sexual assault statistics, which, according to Inside Higher Ed, might cost UCD as much as $3M in fines from the federal government. 
  

Among the various articles and op-ed pieces that have recently come out, the following are noteworthy (in no particular order):

• Bob Herbert's well-meaning if not completely accurate NYT op-ed.
• T.D. Elias's calling the furloughs and fee hikes for what they are: a tax on public employees and students.
• The Guardian's wondering how the world's 8th-largest economy came to be broken.
  

Students voting with their feet

The SJ Mercury News reported of a rising trickle of California students looking for an education away from the Golden State. Many take advantage of the Western Undregraduate Exchange run out of the University of Colorado, a program which allows students from the Western States to enroll at reduced (out-of-state) tution at a number of institutions outside their state of residence. But many students just plain look for an education elsewhere: the article quotes admission officers from Duke to University of Washington seeing the largest number of California applicants ever.  (Oregon apparently does not take California applicants throught the WUE program for fear of being swamped.)

With the increased fees on their way to Regental approval, we can only expect the numbers to grow. When out-of-state tuition at a respectable institution is lower than in-state fees at UC, the incentives to look elsewhere become pretty strong, especially combined with lower costs for room and board. The trickle of students looking elsewhere might even turn into a rushing river if, as some predict, higher education will be the next bubble to burst. 

UCOP's and the Regents' strategy of making up for lost state revenue by raising fees might hit diminishing marginal returns if it drives more and more students out of UC. For each students who elects to attend school out of state, not only does UC lose the fees the student would have paid, it would also lose the (ever decreasing) FTE money handed down from the state.

Mark Yudof on the "hybrid" university.

Back in 2002, when he was President of the University of Minnesota, Mark Yudof wrote a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education (which can still be found here) describing the prospects for the development of a "hybrid" university system in the era of diminishing state support for public universities. It is a very compelling read, because it allows us a close look at the current UC President's thinking in the present fiscal crisis.

When Yudof refers to a "hybrid' system, he means a system of higher education that is "mixed" in that it  follows in part the traditional public model and in part the traditional private model. The current model of a public university comprises high support from the state budget accompanied by low tuition, at least for in-state students (to the point where in California in-state students pay no tuition, just a few thousand dollars here and there in "fees"). The hybrid university would have a more balanced source of funding —what this means in the present situation of low general fund appropriations from the state is that students would pay "dramatically" higher tuition (although perhaps not quite as high as at the privates) while state funding would remain about the same.

According to Yudof, diminished state support is already here, so we need to re-balance the other side of the equation and "dramatically" increase tuition for students. This is based on the idea that higher education is more and more a private good, and that as such those who stand to reap its benefits should pay for it. There is nothing new here, in many ways this is what here in California was already envisaged in  the 2004 "higher Education compact" between UC and the Governor.

But there is more in Yudof'a article than just this re-balancing of funding sources. First of all, Yudof points to the causes behind diminished public support, and second he describes the effects that such a funding shift would have on the internal functioning of the university. These are important aspects that have not been sufficiently addressed.

Among the former, two factors would seem particularly relevant:

1. Demographics: as the US population gets older, resources are shifted from education to other areas of interest to seniros, such as health care and security.
2. Globalization: as multi-national corporations get less and less tied to a specific geographic location, they have less interest in developing a well-educated local workforce.
   

The combined effect of demographics and globalization is precisely the diminished support for public universities around the country. To the extent that these causes are at work in the present situation, there is not much that can be done to counterbalance them, and certainly nothing that UC faculty can do to reverse them.

Rather interesting, on the other hand, is Yudof's take on the internal effects of this funding shift. Fully embracing a market-oriented approach, Yudof points out that

As tuition pays more and state dollars pay less of the freight, accountability will shift more toward students and their needs and away from the priorities of legislators and other state leaders.

This means greater investment in those areas where there is greater demand for instruction (instruction, not research): business, pre-med, pre-law, social sciences, etc. Instruction in these areas will have to be "delivered" in the most efficient (i.e., cost-effective) possible way. This means "new partnerships with foundations, school districts, non-profit organizations, and corporations" and either eliminating or start charging fees for "outreach" activities that are not of immediate benefit to the "customers" (once referred to as students), such as free legal or medical clinics in low-income areas.

In this market-oriented institution, "cross-subsidizing," as Yudof refers to it (i.e., revenue sharing from, say, medical centers to humanities programs), will be subject to strict scrutiny and it will not occur as a matter of course. It will be limited to those cases where it will bring the university a very specific competitive advantage, for example in building a highly ranked humanities department at relatively little cost to boost the institution's ranking and attract more paying customers.

What has been described so far is no different from the mission of a private, market-driven institution. In fact, traditional private institutions of higher learning are arguably less market-oriented than the "hybrid" university described by Yudof.

There is of course the residual problem with this model that, especially in the case of the professional schools, even increased tuition will not be enough to cover actual costs. These are so expensive in fact that, as Yudof points out, no private medical school has been started in the US in the last 23 years.

So we already have a tension in the hybrid model, as Yudof himself acknowledges. But there is more: what about the "public" part of the hybrid model? What happened to it? Public universities, in particular land-grant institutions (such as UC) provide benefits to the state as a collective subject that go beyond those provided to the individuals. They train doctors and other professionals, and at the same time attract resources and stimulate growth. But if higher education really is a private good, there is no incentive for state legislatures across the country to pour resources into such hybrid institutions. There is no principled reason why, if growth is the goal, states should not deploy their resources (assuming they have any) into a direct stimulus as opposed to funding public institutions. Or,   if affordability and access are the goal, there is no reason why any such extra resources should not be distributed directly to students in the form of financial aid and other direct grants.

This is a challenge that Yudof acknowledges, but he fails to follow the logic wherever it may lead him. If we do follow the logic, the conclusion seems to be that the hybrid model is inherently unstable. Once funding is shifted from state appropriations to tuition, fees, and revenue-generating "partnerships," there is no longer any incentive for the state to step in and make sure that the university also delivers the public good besides the private one. In a slippery slope that is all too familiar, once emphasis is shifted to tuition, and absent widespread pressure to keep delivering the public good, states will feel all the more justified to cut the university loose.

There is no such thing as a "hybrid" university, or at least not for very long, anyways.

We should rather go back to the beginning of the analysis, the causes of the decline in public funding that were identified at the outset: demographics and globalization. Whatever else is true, and however irreversible these trends might be, California is perhaps in a somewhat better position than most other places. The state is still a hotbed of economic activity, and start-ups (supported by local venture capital) mostly rely on the local workforce, hence a need for the proper production of locally grown talent through affordable, high-quality institutions of higher education. Moreover, California's burgeoning immigrant population is mostly younger, tax-paying and child-bearing. These two factors combined constitute the basis for possible political action to restore adequate levels of public funding for higher education, along the lines laid down in the Master Plan. Perhaps ironically, far from being a burden on the state's finances, immigration might just save California.

So our best hope is not to give in to the myth of the hybrid university. At least here in California there are other options, and as long as we can represent and organize our own students' and their parents' needs and aspiration, there still might be a future for UC.

Giving the profession a bad name

This is a bit belated, but well worth commenting on. First, the facts: a group of UCI faculty from the School of Humanities have signed an opinion piece calling for the exploration of

viable alternatives, which range from levies on the state’s petroleum production and closing corporate tax loopholes to, yes, raising state income taxes, which are among the lowest in the country.

The full text of the letter is available courtesy of the OC Register. As you will notice if you follow the link, the proposal has raised a veritable barrage of criticism, much of it admittedly wide of the mark.

But the point is different. Beside being obviously oblivious of California's political climate, the esteemed colleagues are clearly misinformed. California's personal income tax rate is among the highest, not lowest in the country, as one can easily check. And the reason is well known: thanks to Proposition 13, California has to rely on income and capital gains taxes, as well as the highly regressive sales tax (also quite high). And while it has been often pointed out how intrinsically unfair Prop. 13 turned out to be (with young couples paying property taxes several times higher than those of their older and more affluent neighbors), it has also resulted in cash flow for the State that is extremely subject to the vagaries of the economic cycle, whence the current disaster.

All of this is well known and not at all difficult to find out. Why the Irvine colleagues never bothered to check their facts, it is indeed hard to understand. The whole thing just confirms prejudices and stereotypes about academics — how aloof, privileged and uncaring they are. In sum, the whole letter was just stupid not well thought-out.

The esteemed colleagues could have instead insisted on the oil severance tax (which they do mention), or repealing Prop. 13 while keeping protections for families and individuals (e.g., repeal the part about commercial properties, or second homes, and especially repeal the part about the 2/3 majority requirement). But advocating an increase in income taxes solely for the purpose of supporting the University, with no mention of the plight of the poor, the sick and the disabled was unconscionable.