The statewide budget crunch is so bad that many school districts are not only having to abandon after-school sports programs, but are also cutting music programs, and closing down the school libraries. http://www.nbc11.com/education/2907807/detail.html
rite of birth...as long as the applicant can jump over the bar. The bar just got raised again. Oh, and I am a California native. And you? My wife works at UCLA for 10 years. In the last 4 she has not received a raise. Interesting news today from the SF Chronicle. www.sfgate.com Big salary increases for UC top brass Faculty pay is flat, tuition is rising -- $350,000 for new hire Tanya Schevitz, Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, April 22, 2004 é2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/22/MNGHD692E41.DTL The University of California faces its most severe budget shortfall in years, but that doesn't appear to be a factor when it comes to setting the salaries of two new top administrators, critics say. The same critics predict that high salaries for the two administrators will cause a domino effect for incumbent administrators in similar or identical jobs. "Each time they raise one person's salary, it becomes a justification for raising the salaries of other people in similar positions and those below them, " said Claudia Horning, state president of UC's clerical union, whose membership did not get a raise this year. "But of course this logic applies only at the top administration." "More and more, they are running the university like a business; not like a responsible business, but like Tyco or Enron," said Horning, a library assistant at UCLA. Last week, UC President Robert Dynes recommended, and the university's Board of Regents approved, hiring Marye Anne Fox of North Carolina State University to replace Dynes as chancellor at UC San Diego. Her salary was set at $350,000 a year, nearly $70,000 more than Dynes made as chancellor and well above what most of the other campus chancellors are paid. In addition, Fox, like the other chancellors, will be provided with on- campus housing and a car service. It was the second big salary bump recommended recently by Dynes and approved by the regents. In February, UC Santa Cruz Chancellor M.R.C. Greenwood was appointed provost of the UC system with a salary of $380,000. That is almost $100,000 more than the previous provost got and $111,000 more than Greenwood was paid as chancellor of the Santa Cruz campus. With searches now under way for new chancellors at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz, observers expect the trend to continue. That could start a domino effect, critics said, that eventually could boost the salaries of many of the university's top officials at a time when faculty and staff salaries are stagnant and the system is raising student tuition and fees dramatically. But UC spokesman Paul Schwartz said the salaries of UC's senior administrators, including chancellors and the president, have significantly lagged behind pay at comparable institutions for several years. According to an independent consultant's report commissioned by UC, the average UC chancellor's salary of $290,490 is 34 percent less than the average salary for chancellors at 26 public and private institutions. For public institutions alone, the lag is 2 percent. Some who have been involved in the chancellor searches said several candidates dropped out over salary issues. "Market realities" "Market realities make clear that if we are to attract top candidates, either from within the university or from outside, we have to move closer to market,'' Schwartz said. "There are no plans to request increases for sitting chancellors or for other administrators unless they receive firm offers from other institutions and UC wants to retain them." However, Lawrence Pitts, a regent by virtue of his position as chair of the UC faculty Academic Senate, said, "Everybody has a terrible fear that if suddenly the salaries of the chancellors go up, then you have the problem of the next level of senior administrators. It is a price creep." He said he is torn about the rising salaries because UC needs to attract the top candidates. However, he added, he is uncomfortable with it because salaries for faculty and staff are not going up and students are being asked to pay more. And nobody knows how to solve the dilemma so it just continues, he said. Assemblywoman Carol Liu, the Democrat from La Canada Flintridge (Los Angeles County) who heads the Assembly committee on higher education, said UC needs to pay what the market demands for leaders even in these difficult times. "While I understand the choices that have to be made, we can't afford to attract people without giving them perks," she said. George Blumenthal, vice chair of the faculty academic council, said that the $281,600 salary of the provost had to be increased when Greenwood came in because she is second in command to the president but at least one executive below her, senior vice president Joseph Mullinix, was making $370,000. Mullinix's salary was increased in June from $291,900 when he received an offer from a competing institution. After his raise, he was making more than then-President Richard Atkinson at $361,400. However, when Dynes was hired in October 2003, the president's pay was increased to $395,000. "You are damn right I'm concerned,'' said Blumenthal. "I think there is a morale issue for the university, and a sense that the rich are getting richer and the poor aren't." On the other hand, he said, the market is demanding these salaries. "I want the best people" "I feel kind of irritated that people are getting these raises," he said, "but I want the best people, and I want to pay them what they deserve." UC Regent Matt Murray, a student at UC Berkeley, voted against the salary for Fox and said that the national market for university administrators is soaring out of control. "Certainly we need to get the best people for these positions," Murray said, "... but at a time when we are not giving cost of living increases to faculty and staff and people are getting laid off, when enrollment is being cut, we need to push back against this troubling trend." E-mail Tanya Schevitz at tschevitz@sfchronicle.com. é2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ Page A - 1
In the hyper-competitive admissions environment, admissions of underrepresented minorities dropped dramatically at the system's flagship campus, UC Berkeley, as did the admission of low-income students who were unable to afford the 30% increase in tuition that was assessed in July of 2003. At UC Berkeley, the number of African American freshmen admitted for fall 2004 dropped 29.2 percent from 298 to 211. The number of Chicanos and Latinos admitted fell 7.3 percent from 1,030 to 955. And the number of American Indians admitted decreased 21.6 percent from 51 to 40. Meanwhile, admissions increased 10.6 percent for white students, from 2,785 to 3,081, and 4.7 percent for Asian American students, from 3,380 to 3,538. Total Undergrad Population at UCB: 23,269
In a sense, they did NOT have the money - the $5858 is a whole lot less than it ACTUALLY costs to attend UCB - out of state students pay over $20K just in tuition. For residents, state taxes are used to provide a subsidy. If they're forced to cut back, it's because the state doesn't have the money to subsidize as many students - because those students were NOT paying the actual cost of attending UCB. Um, 1320 on the SAT isn't that big of a deal. Plus, we don't know any of the specifics for these students except that they had an average GPA of 3.46 which is lower than the overall average UCB entrance GPA.
I only mentioned Stanford as another example. The average GPA overall for incoming freshman at UCB is 3.76 - while the average GPA of those students rejected was only 3.46. And an SAT of 1330 isn't a particular high target so the combination of 3.46 GPA and 1330 SAT doesn't seem super compelling (especially if the state is going to have to fork out $14K per student per year to subsidize them.
Except that if you don't have the money (thank you Gray Davis, et al), you either cut expenditures or raise taxes. Is there a third alternative?
The trend in state sales tax, income taxes and all other revenue streams have been down for several years. The previous Davis admin still spent money at an ever increasing rate and concealed the mess for a time. Gov. Schwarzenegger was "hired" to clean the mess up, it often can be ugly and unpopular when programs are "cut" (or at least the rate of increase being cut back). Arnold had to come in and "cut up the credit cards" exactly like the people of the State of California mandated him to do. Waggie, what would you have him do exactly? I could be not remembering this exactly right, but it seems like in the mid/late 70's the entrance GPA requirement was 3.0 for UC? Lessor students attended CSU campuses or JC. Goes to show you with the ever increasing GPA requirements that there are not enough UC campuses to handle all the population growth. That goes back to the "is higher education a birthright argument"
We do not lag in science and engineering because schools are having budgets cuts. We lag because todays american youth has gotten lazy and does not want to put in the effort required to succeed and excel in math, science, and engineering. Even in Texas where my cost per year of school was about 10-12k (including summer), I had to worry more about my upper level physics classes having enough students to make a class. I had several classes with 8-12 students when the university population was over 13,000. I see the same trend in gradute school. In an engineering graduate program, the majority of the students are either asian or middle eastern with about 20-30% being americans. Face it, todays american kids have had it too easy and do not know how or do not want to put in the effort required for science and engineering. And to make matters worse parents very rarely instill the proper work ethic required for science and engineering.
I am not arguing with you regarding your point that a UC student's education is subsidized and that out-of-state students pay three times a resident student does in tuition. My point is that there wasn't a surge of applications that necessitated this. It wasn't the demand side of the equation in comparison to last year's incoming freshman class that caused a change in adhering to the 1960 California Master Plan. Without an opportunity to attend a very distinguished institution such as CAL or any other 4 year California university, you have taken away the dreams of a lot of kids and not rewarded them for their good study habits and discipline. Moreover, we all know that these budget cuts also hit the poor and minority students the hardest. It's not like everyone out of the inner-city can only come to CAL or UCLA if they know how to hit the three, or rush a quarterback. And people still wonder why we are loosing high-tech jobs to the Far East. Duh.
Yes, I believe that the minimum GPA ifor an applicant back in the late 70's was around 3.00 or perhaps 3.30 and at that point the SAT was basically an "after-thought". But in agreeing wholeheartedly with Burtakus, I also feel that it is a shame that some of the kids that are motivated to do well in high school, gain admissions into the UC system, ARE NOT BEING REWARDED FOR THEIR HARD WORK! I see a ton of upper middle class white "punks" at one of our local high schools that show no respect whatsoever for the education system. They are extremely lazy and their priorities are absolutely beyond me. The kids talk back to the teachers and the parents are totally out to lunch, only care about ordering fast food and driving around in the latest SUV's and getting their latte at Starbuck's on the way to work and couldn't care less about their kids doing any homework. Meanwhile, 43% of the undergrads at CAL are Asian. Case in point.