Alternative Commission Survey Comments Q. 4
Question 4: In your own words please tell your opinion about the above
proposals and what they will do for the future of the University of
California if implemented. What proposals do you think are missing
that could address financial issues faced by the university?
1. Needs to get the UC objectives straight, set up the CORRECT
priority. One undergraduate class, 300+ students, 12 TAs (new
graduates with knowing nothing about teaching and life), 1 professor,
1 lecturer. Professor only talk 1/3 of term. 15 minutes of interview
for every month. If students felt pressure to see psy help, needs to
wait for 5 weeks, 1/4 of the quarter. What kind high education that UC
offered????? Where is my TAX money went ????? Full campus of staffs,
faculty with a good life, where those young students will do? I am not
willing to support such white elephant tower with my blod money. Sat,
Jun 12, 2010 6:34 PM Find...
2. I did not see a faculty contribution. A reduction in salaries might
be in order. I am a teacher and have told my union reps that I would
take a zero increase or reduction on future contracts to help district
out. Sat, Jun 12, 2010 4:49 AM Find...
3. What is missing the most is a big picture, or a vision. I am mostly
alarmed by what looks to me like local, panic-driven, short-term fixes
that don't add up to a whole. What is at risk is the very nature of a
great research university, with a balance between
Graduate/Undergraduate programs, teaching & research, etc. Fri, Jun
11, 2010 10:20 PM Find...
4. I believe it is all based on money and not education, sad. Fri, Jun
11, 2010 6:34 PM Find...
5. I do not see any advantage to creating online classes which are
just as expensive. However using technology to increase the number of
students who can be taught by a single instructor is a sound idea.
I question whether or not graduate students are qualified to teacher
undergraduates; they certainly cannot focus on teaching and this would
be reflected quality of education. A research professor only teaches
1-3 classes per year what would happen if the UC system created
teaching professor positions (not necessarily PhD level) who taught 3
classes per quarter?
I have a poor opinion of all fee increases. I would like to see cost
of education be affordable.
Decreasing Majors/Programs/Departments is more possible because of
digital information (research libraries and collections) than ever
before; however deciding which campuses end up with which programs is
a difficult issue. Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:37 AM Find...
6. riding roughshod over the faculty and staff, ignoring and
manipulating the senate, perpetuating administrative bloat, and
delivering all that with authoritarian manipulation: what's not to
like? Fri, Jun 11, 2010 9:47 AM Find...
7. There is too much focus on money and not enough focus on value.
Education is an investment, but not the kind that necessarily promises
a good return on PERSONAL wealth. UC Administrators need to think less
about their own financial gain and do what is best for our state's
future, and that means sticking as closely as possible to the original
educational plan for the UC from the 1960's. Fri, Jun 11, 2010 8:22
AM Find...
8. The UCs are a top tier public university, instead of accepting more
and more students enrollment should be limited. This would increases
the overall caliber of student and put less strain on the university
since it is not granted more money from the state for having more
students, while having more students does cost more. It is public yes,
but it does NOT have to enroll everyone who is meets minimum
requirements since other options do exist for students. By enrolling
more students I feel the overall quality is being undermined
significantly. Fri, Jun 11, 2010 8:21 AM Find...
9. The quality of a UC education will decline.
One way to save money is to cut the number of highly paid executives.
The number and salaries of the highly paid executives has increased
greatly over the past few years, Fri, Jun 11, 2010 7:52 AM Find...
10. Proposals will hurt the University's mission of teaching students
and getting them to graduate. A 3 yr only program would not enable
students to double-major as well as it would not give the students to
get the education they need. Raising fees would eliminate many
qualified students from attending UCLA. Eliminating
majors/programs/dept would also eliminate many qualifed students who
want to attend here. Doubling out-of-state enrollment is not fair to
the California students who are qualified to attend. Fri, Jun 11, 2010
7:48 AM Find...
11. I don't think it is fair to put the financial burden on the
students. The cost of living is not increasing 5-15% each year so why
are tuition costs? Look at administration costs and the salaries paid
out should be frozen. Fri, Jun 11, 2010 6:08 AM Find...
12. They need to systematically use profits generated from some
sources to subsidize serious purposes--particularly instruction.
Otherwise, the university should not allow such endeavors to exist in
college campuses at all! They need to curb the development of
expensive programs in research, and even consider reducing the size of
graduate programs in times of financial crisis. Stop glorifying how
much money certain programs bring in while hiding how much they
actually cost (and yes, that include certain sports programs). They
need to reduce administrative cost at the upper rung--including sharp
reduction of higher-level administrators' salaries and benefits. Many
respectable universities have had less than 50% of administrative
costs. Lastly, Supreme Court justices make about $225,000 per year
only, and no one claims that we need higher-paid justices in order to
increase quality of justice. How come? Because that institution is
developed on a PUBLIC model. We need institutional leaders think more
straighforwardly like good and rational planners with an understanding
of how public institutions ought to work. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 9:49
PM Find...
13. With the proper spending priorities at the national level, we
could have health care and university educations for everyone.
The money wasted on the Star Wars Missile Defense alone would fund a
national single-payer health plan. A national infrastructure plan
based on alternative energy would revitalise the economy and provide
thousand and thousand of jobs (never mind the work needed to keep up
the existing infrastructure).
No one would have to mortgage their very futures for a degree. Thu,
Jun 10, 2010 9:09 PM Find...
14. The University is for the people of California, not out of state
people, and not just rich people. Cut the 6 figure ($) people and
their 30% annual raises. The raises should be for the staff and
faculty that run the University. And stop increasing student fees. The
University should not be for the wealthy only. And cut the fat! Many
employees get paid for doing next to nothing. More funding from the
state. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 9:05 PM Find...
15. The UC in-state tuition is a steal for the education that is
available at most of the campuses. State tutitions seem to be more
expensive in less expensive cities/states. UC can raise tution. Thu,
Jun 10, 2010 6:50 PM Find...
16. Unsure, but raising tuition to unreasonable rates and making UC
more restrictive for California students/residnts is not the
answer. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 5:48 PM Find...
17. I think it is unfortunate that we have to make cutbacks at all,
but the reality of the situation is that the state is bankrupt and we
are trying to make everything remain afloat. Though it may not be
"fair", I think the UC system needs to be practical. For example, I
think the 3-year degree program and the doubling of out-of-state
enrollment is an excellent proposal because it saves/earns money
without making a huge sacrifice. Online classes are also a great idea
because you don't need to pay hefty facility maintenance, plus the
students don't have to spend money on textbooks since material is
online. If there is a "cyber campus", the number of students wouldn't
be as much of an issue since they would be telecommuting. Thu, Jun 10,
2010 5:01 PM Find...
18. Get rid of Fidelity and return UCRP investments back into the
hands of the group of UC employees who worked at UCOP. Because it was
personal, the latter group have no conflicts of interest; they had
only the interests of the faculty and staff at heart. (Of course,
those staff are no longer employed by UC because their jobs were
eliminated.) Thu, Jun 10, 2010 4:51 PM Find...
19. These proposals will all be detrimental to the quality and
accessibility of education at UC. One proposal that is missing is to
greatly reduce the size of the administration and administrator
salaries. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 4:29 PM Find...
20. Since it was Investment Administrators who started UC down this
disastrous path 10 years ago, they should all be replaced by younger,
cheaper, temporary help - the same way Upper Admin thinks it can
replace the middle levels of seniority and talent. UC claims to drill
down on staff and faculty because they have to be "competitive" to
draw top talent; that top talent didn't earn its competitive salary
over the last 10 years. That's not students' fault and they shouldn't
have to pay for it. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 4:11 PM Find...
21. Raise taxes on everyone Thu, Jun 10, 2010 4:09 PM Find...
22. Mostly stupid and unsympathetic. We are here to teach not torture.
Think more about that and less about money. If you need to make cuts
then cut administration. Get rid of facilities who charge too much and
take too long to do work. Out source the work to cheaper services who
would do a better job. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 4:05 PM Find...
23. This is quite blatantly privatizing a supposedly public
university. I believe the little money we are getting from the state
can be used in a more efficient way that does not necessitate the
raising of student fees. The ridiculously high salaries of some of the
regents is a place to start. A huge part of the problem, also, is that
the public, specifically students (who are most impacted) do not have
access to information telling us where our money is going. Thu, Jun
10, 2010 4:01 PM Find...
24. All of these proposals have no pedagogical basis--they are all
driven by economics, and bad economics at that. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 3:02
PM Find...
25. Raise out-of-state tuition fees and put a cap on total # of
out-of-state students allowed admittance. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 1:58
PM Find...
26. The curricula proposals reveal a lack of understanding of and
respect for education as anything more than a certification needed to
enter the work force or a professional school. Students already enter
UCs without the necessary writing and analytical skills -- regardless
of their 4.+ GPAs. Accelerating degree programs will ensure that these
students will never acquire these skills. Fast track education
represents yet another moment in "dumming-down." While I see the
potential for on-line education, given the motivations behind the
building of Cyber Campuses, I doubt that this potential will be
pursued with intellectual rigour and honesty. College education is not
just an academic experience. It is a social and culture experience. In
a highly individualistic society, it is the closest students come to
experiencing public life and collective living. While I support
bringing in out-of-state and foreign students. Doing so is an
important way to build a diverse campus and to expose Californian
students to other parts of the country and the world. However, I do
not approve of increasing out-of-state enrollment at the expense of
in-state enrollment. Money accrued from out-of-state tuition should be
used to increase in-state enrollment and strenghten the academic core
of the university. Fewer professors means larger classes. Staffing
undergraduate courses with graduate students means more graduate
students -- and thus the need for more tenured faculty. To separate
teaching from research undermines what is distinct about a Research
One University. Students learn from those doing cutting-edge research.
The balance of research and teaching is the most important way to
ensure that the university is not an ivory tower in two senses. First,
the curiculum is enlivened and made relevant by ongoing research.
Second, researchers are compelled to impart their research to a
broader audience and a larger public benefits from the intellectual
and practical engagements of this research. Finally, perpetual tuition
increases in a state with declining incomes reverses any commitment to
public education and turns education back into a thoroughly elitist
and class-based undertaking. This is not an appropriate model for a
liberal democracy. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 1:30 PM Find...
27. These proposals change the mission of the university system which
was to provide education for all students in California and not only
those of a more elite socio-economic status. It will also undermine
the integrity of programs and the caliber of teaching and
research. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 12:17 PM Find...
28. Increasing student fees while growing administration and reducing
programs, courses and teaching and support positions is an outrage no
California taxpayer, student, or parent of a current or prospective UC
student should stand for! The UC Regents are approaching undergraduate
instruction as a public relations campaign, not an academic
enterprise. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 11:07 AM Find...
29. I think the online programs will bring the UC into the 21st
century with its peers and make it more competitive. Reduction of
teaching staff and replacement with graduate students absolutely
screws the lecturers--but actually provides graduate students with
good experience. Increasing fees and tapping more out-of-state (and,
let's face it, foreign) students defeats the purpose of a state-funded
university that facilitates a college education for citizens of the
state of California--and pushes students who should be in the UC back
into the CSUs which pushes CSU-worthy students into the community
colleges, who don't have the funding to provide for the students they
have already. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 10:41 AM Find...
30. As is often the case, UC is much more interested in getting money
and maintaining high-cost administrators and programs than in
maintaining (or, preferably increasing, the quality of undergraduate
education). There's little justification in increasing the number of
grad. students teaching undergrads if the result will be bloated grad.
programs and a shifting of costs. (In their calculations of the costs
of undergraduate classes, administrators often seem to "forget" to
include the TA/reader costs AND the costs of educating the grad
students. (Grad. enrollments in some programs increase ONLY so that
Senate faculty don't "have" to teach undergrads, particularly
lower-division students and ONLY so Senate faculty will have grad
students to teach in their grad. classes.) The system might take a
cold, hard look at GRADUATE programs that are bloated, that overlap
with grad programs elsewhere in the system, and that produce mass
numbers of PhDs who can;t find jobs.
Online classes, as I've seen them taught elsewhere, are simply an
invitation to reduce real student-instructor contact and,
unfortunately, invite serious problems with instructors who can't
"bother" to be on campus and students who can't "bother" to do their
own work. Before we go down that path, I'd like to see much more
detailed systematic studies of outcomes--how many students actually
finish the courses? how many do their own work? how much do the value
an institution that can't "bother" to get to know them.
Differential fees on campuses in many way penalize the best students.
If someone is competitive at UCLA and Berkeley, that student should
get to go to UCLA or Berkeley without having to pay a higher fee
simply because he/she is an exceptional student.
Spread the money around: rather than pay astronomical salaries to
administrators, some coaches, and med school staff, pay them salaries
commensurate with faculty salaries elsewhere in the system. If the med
schools are part of the system--if they share the name and prestige of
the institution--they should share the money, too. It's disheartening
to see some program highly valued not because they educate--though
they may--but because they bring in money. If we're going to value
only those who bring in money, we might as well shut down the whole
institution because it's become a corporation and not a
university. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 10:35 AM Find...
31. The University is no longer a public learning Institution. The
fees are as high as private Universities. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 10:25
AM Find...
32. A 3-year degree program is not the answer, as students are ALREADY
overloading on classes with up to 20 credit hours each semester and up
to three classes each summer. The problem is that the number of units
required for a bachelor's degree has inflated to ridiculous levels.
Quantity does not equal quality. Cut the Mickey Mouse classes, keep
the high-quality classes; have students take fewer classes but more
challenging classes, and force students to write coherently, even in
natural science classes. Stop screwing out-of-state students for high
tuition (it's TUITION, not "fees")--I used to be one. They are
Americans too. If you have to cut back, cut back on the fancy
landscaping and custodial services--have students keep the campus in
shape. Cut back on the glossy brochures and manicured lawns and flashy
web sites, get back to the business of education and research. Thu,
Jun 10, 2010 10:24 AM Find...
33. These proposals will be disastrous for the UC, its students and
the quality of education it provides. There needs to be a massive
reduction in the bloated administration and executive functions before
the core mission itself is threatened. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 9:59
AM Find...
34. It would destroy educational equity and opportunity for California
residents/
It would effectively turn undergraduate education into a technical
factory and relegated some campuses to no longer provide a robust
university education
on-line teaching is the university of Phoenix for profit model and its
a disaster in terms of student accountability and creativity and
diminishes teaching to coaching students towards textbook and
standardized test mentality rather than any attempt to cultivate
critical thinking and engagement skills Thu, Jun 10, 2010 9:01
AM Find...
35. I strongly oppose these proposals. What I do propose is the
dismantling of the incompetent, inept executives who prove they are
only capable of opening their paycheck envelope- a paycheck they do
NOT earn. These individuals, who refer to themselves as the best & the
brightest, merely select their off- campus friends to do work they
won't do.
Each outside agency tells them whatever they wish to hear. The regents
and the entire executive branch are corrupt and the UC system will
only right itself once those parasitic, ego-bound, un-evolved,
corporate whores leave.
UC only cares about its image and any corporation (like UC) who
partners with the likes of BP is headed to the cesspit. There is a POX
on the HOUSE of UC. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 8:05 AM Find...
36. The idea of a three year degree program ignores the amount of
remediation we have to do with students who were underprepared to
start university after graduating from underfunded California high
schools. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 7:48 AM Find...
37. UC needs to address the uncontrolled bloat of non-academic
managers who make $100,000+/yr and do nothing to contribute to UC's
original mission of teaching, research and service to the State of
California. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 7:42 AM Find...
38. It seems like some U.C. campuses are expanding faster than they
should or need to. With less money spent on constant construction, the
U.C. could probably afford to run. As it stands now we're looking at
horrible alternatives that undermine the entire purpose of the U.C. as
an institution of affordable public education for the state of
California. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 7:40 AM Find...
39. This is really effecting our UCLA social welfare program- which
due to "the cuts" and other agendas our school went from public to
private- tuition that was once under $5,000 per year to get a MSW in
2000 is now nearly $20,000 per year. Which is a huge issue concerning
how low MSW salaries are and the ability to pay back student loans. I
choose UCLA over both USC and NYU because of the affordability - all
three schools had great reputation but I went with the school that I
could reasonably pay back my loans. I'm also concerned about the
increases to out-of-state tuition and the impact on immigrant students
who are ineligible for FAFSA. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 6:07 AM Find...
40. Mostly I think the proposals do not make education more accessible
in a time when education is more necessary than ever to the
individual, our state's future, our economic recovery.
There was no discussion of lobbying about bringing some balance back
to the tax structure, by reversing the decreases in taxes given to the
most profitable and wealthy businesses/corporations, taxing oil (which
seems to have more profit with each passing year), and the wealthiest
individuals in our society. Even a small per capita tax would go a
long way to pay for education. Thu, Jun 10, 2010 1:06 AM Find...
41. Most of these proposals are destructive to the very notion of a
quality university education, especially for undergraduates. They
would serve to lead the university away from its public mission, limit
accessibility to the university for middle and lower incomes families,
deprofessionalize university teaching, negate the importance of the
relationship between professor to student, decimate the chances for
undergraduates to receive a quality liberal arts background, and strip
smaller UC's of their value.
We need to explore and clearly define the present and future mission
of the UCs and their many facets. Only then can we make effective
decisions on how to move forward with an innovative and effective plan
of action, which should include increasing the tax base we draw on,
redistributing funds from the most profitable sectors of the
university, creating oppotunities for students to become
self-supporting in a way that is integrated with their academic
program... Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:58 PM Find...
42. ON the whole these proposals show UC moving in the WRONG
direction. The problem isn't revenue, it's distribution. Wed, Jun 9,
2010 11:14 PM Find...
43. THey will destroy the UC as we know it, in order to transform it
into the University of Phoenix. EVERYBODY WILL BE HARMED!!!! Wed, Jun
9, 2010 10:32 PM Find...
44. After working in graduate school admissions I know that 3 year
degrees are not good, nor are they respected by higher ed
institutions! Also, graduate students should not be exploited to teach
lower division classes that are used to get students into the majors.
Also, eliminating majors from universities hurts not only the faculty
members, but also the students interested. Some universities are much
more expensive, or have very different atmospheres than other
campuses. All I have to say is that I am glad I graduated when I did,
because I had an amazing experience and now I know that the UC
education is becoming more of a joke than a prestigious thing. Wed,
Jun 9, 2010 10:08 PM Find...
45. Why aren't any of the options above looking at what top
administrators earn??????? A big chunk of the budget is spent/wasted
on them. Why aren't their budgets being looked at and potential
suggestions beng made n thissurvey???? Wed, Jun 9, 2010 9:55
PM Find...
46. More transparent management of UC assets - why are the regents all
bankers? Wed, Jun 9, 2010 9:48 PM Find...
47. Has the Commission investigated the administrative bloat in the UC
system? Why is the number of administrators going up so much compared
with the number of students and faculty? This worries me a great deal.
Also, has the Commission investigated issues surrounding fee increases
and high bond ratings? Wed, Jun 9, 2010 9:39 PM Find...
48. Given the financial conditions in the state, the University of
California can no longer afford to enroll the top 12.5% of graduating
high-school seniors. If it cut back to 10% many of our problems would
automatically be solved. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 9:03 PM Find...
49. Some cannot be responded to in this linear manner Wed, Jun 9, 2010
8:46 PM Find...
50. The economy of the state of California, its security and future
depend upon excellence in public education. We can not afford to be
ranked 49th among states in education funding. In particular, the
California university system is fundamental to the state's success.
The lowering of academic standards, the increase in student fees
(excluding those who most need the opportunities provided by public
education), and in particular the replacement of classroom teaching
with online classes, are deplorable. Online classes are offered by
fly-by-night for-profit universities whose degrees mean nothing. Why
should students pay more for less? Why should students seek a degree
whose value is debased? The California public university system was
once the envy of the nation, and as the graduate of that system, and
the daughter of a graduate of that system, I fear for the future. Wed,
Jun 9, 2010 8:00 PM Find...
51. The UC will no longer attract a diverse student body -- only
students from wealthy families could contemplate coming to the world's
best public university. Others without substantial financial means
would not feel welcome to come after glancing at the fees. Online
courses might work for some general ed courses but would substantially
change the university experience to something akin to online
degree-mills -- how would we distinguish our offerings from those
provided by U of Phoenix or DeVry? There is something crucial missing
if you cut out the part the includes many community voices present at
the same time, coming & going from the same classroom, carrying their
discussions to the cafeteria or lawn, etc. A 3-year program is
achievable for those who took AP courses or who can pass a
comprehensive exam to substitute for general ed classes whose content
they've already mastered. Ramp up secondary ed & communicate in a
'real' way (not pompous or officious) that the state needs to provide
& adequately support a high-quality higher ed opportunity if it wants
to attract & build the workforce of tomorrow. Stop with furthering
'elitism' between the campuses & for professional degrees. Among the
professional schools, the Schools of Social Welfare & Public Health do
not lead graduates into careers that can support extravagant loan
repayments -- no more fee increases for careers in public service. Not
everyone can move to single-campus locations for degree programs --
this is 'rich people thinking'. How about understanding the
perspective of people who have no choice but a public institution --
it needs to be the nearest one in order to be affordable. If the
Regents are coming up with these proposals, they should be looking at
their own salaries & figuring out how much more they & their buddies
can pay in taxes after all the breaks they've had for the last 10
years, to support a world-class higher ed system in CA. If they can't
do that, as some of the most privileged people on the face of the
earth, they have no business being regents. They should be ashamed of
themselves, pushing the burdens of higher ed onto the people who can
least afford it -- students & underpaid faculty & staff. Wed, Jun 9,
2010 7:52 PM Find...
52. BAD, BAD, BAD Ideas Wed, Jun 9, 2010 7:00 PM Find...
53. I know I sound like a total pessimist on all of the above issues,
but I really dislike all of them and wish we could avoid putting any
of them into pace! The two that I graded as "C" are ideas that I don't
necessarily like, but seem like they are at least worth discussing
compared to the others. The worst option, in my opinion, is reducing
teaching staff. To reduce faculty even more seems like shooting
ourselves in the foot in terms of the quality we're known and
respected for. Further, there's no way a graduate student can possibly
provide anywhere near the "bang for the buck" as a knowledgeable and
experienced teacher!! Talk about cheating the students! They're
already being cheated enough with the larger class sizes, fewer
offerings, etc. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 6:29 PM Find...
54. They represent a failure of the imagination and a diminishment of
a respected and influential univ system... The bottom line of
education should be education not $. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 6:25 PM Find...
55. The University of California is not a business it's a public
institution for allowing all kinds of o information to spread. The
University is a meeting ground where people of of different
backgrounds can see eachother eye to eye and understand one another on
a much more profound level. This is truely a sad day when the Federal
Reserve can give out 17.5% TRILLION dollars to the financial
institutions using such mechanisms as little to no interest rates
(quarter of a percent) and at the same time we remove those mechanisms
and voices that would research and critique the power structure. As
these public institutions become fronts for financial institution it's
not surprising that they cut out the teachers and students out of the
equation and create cookie cutter "education" which pacifies and
directs the population to accepting their narrative becoming good
little consumers. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 6:15 PM Find...
56. I am extremely upset by the short-sighted and draconian measures
the university has proposed. The proposal is a disaster, and spells
the end of California's premier higher education system. Wed, Jun 9,
2010 6:10 PM Find...
57. I am fine with fee increases, just so long as there are additional
financial aid options, not only for low income students, but for
middle income students also (more merit-based scholarships, more
work-study jobs, more tuition grants, more teaching assistanships and
research assistantships, and more low interest loans). I believe that
many disciplines are not appropriate for online classes (e.g., art,
design, architecture) and that too much emphasis on online coursework
will deprive students of the in-person interactions that are so
important in forming our characters. In a time when so much is online,
depriving students of in-person interactions will make students much
less competitive in this global world. One of the great things about
the UC campuses is their diversity. I believe that this is lost
online. Plus it excludes students that are without computing access
away from campus. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 5:18 PM Find...
58. We are not the university of phoenix. We used to be one of the
best public institutions in the world. These recommendations,
particularly those that focus on online education, will destroy us. I
will personally leave UCSB before I teach or engage with an online
class. I know many of my colleagues feel the same way. I think you
should have more professors on the commission, particularly more from
the arts and humanities. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 4:55 PM Find...
59. All hinder teaching and hurt the quality of education. Cutbacks
should focus elsewhere. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 4:46 PM Find...
60. These proposals will turn the UC into a sausage factory rather
than an educational institution. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 4:19 PM Find...
61. I think all the above proposals will simply demolish the master
plan, and will end with UC as a public university. They are all aiming
at privatizing the UC system and put the burden on the students and
instruction. The only way we can avoid privatizing UC is by reducing
administrative expending, cutting administrative salaries and staff,
and going back to the master plan in which instruction was the primary
obligation of the university. The university of California needs to
stop the tremendous cost of having become a corporation instead of an
educational institution. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 3:43 PM Find...
62. Online classes are second-rate in several ways. 1. It's too easy
to cheat. 2. It's all of necessity visual and auditory, not
interactive. 3. It's lonely. 4. It's just reading! Not Education!
Increased use of grad student teachers: a grad student might be a good
teacher; but more often a grad student is inexperienced, stressed out,
and not interested in the subject matter being taught. Grad students
should not in particular be teaching composition courses (English OR
music), which are among the very hardest of subjects to teach. At some
campuses, grad students who are not English majors or even majors in
subjects which involve much writing, are teaching composition courses.
This is a crime! Wed, Jun 9, 2010 3:37 PM Find...
63. The UC needs to cut down on the number of highly paid
administrators. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 3:08 PM Find...
64. I believe eliminating teaching staff and implementing a Cyber
Campus will greatly decrease the credibility and educational quality
of the UC system. More fee increases will eliminate opportunities for
a large portion of CA residence who would otherwise greatly contribute
to our future. The current crisis beckons us to reorganize the UC
system and redistribute the wealth between programs, departments,
students, and staff. I understand the need to offer competitive
salaries to recruit and retain good people, but I do believe the
excessive salaries of the Regents and other high officials should be
reconsidered and cut. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:55 PM Find...
65. These proposals are stategies to continue the privatization and
corporatization of the UC system, betraying the mandate of FREE,
quality public higher education for all Californians. Wed, Jun 9, 2010
2:53 PM Find...
66. Theses prospals will further degrade the quality of undergraduate
education. Lobby for adequate funding from the state and reduce the
management-heavy administration and the exorbitant salaries. Wed, Jun
9, 2010 2:49 PM Find...
67. Spread the wealth. Where the UC's ARE generating income they ought
to be dispersing that to the the various universities to cover the
needs there. They should discontinue investing in outside enterprises
and capital projects. The direction toward privatization that the UC's
have taken recently must be changed!! Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:38 PM Find...
68. these proposals will gut the university. it takes the education
out of the university and makes it a business. it would help to get
people who understand how budgets work and put them in appropriate
positions. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:21 PM Find...
69. I think they are all proposals that impact students and the
University of California should be working to accomodate students, not
milk them for more money. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:20 PM Find...
70. There needs to be in the state budget a priority to fund higher
education instead of prisons. The UC system was created to give
qualified students an education with NO tuition. While I don't think
that registration fees fulfill that promise, I do think it is
reasonable for students to pay a MODEST fee for their education. Reg
fees have increased by 700% since I have been affiliated with UCLA
(about 20 years. That is 35% per year and that far outpaces the rate
of inflation. The state must face this dire situation head on and the
Regents should lead the charge. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:07 PM Find...
71. UC already charges undergraduate students the full real cost of
their education. Further fe increases and reduced quality of teaching
are unconscionable. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:05 PM Find...
72. No specific comments Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:30 PM Find...
73. Most PhD programs offer 4 years of funding. I have to pay tuition
for the final two years that is now doubled. How is this University
supposed to remain competitive if they put these financial pressures
on their PhD students? Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:04 PM Find...
74. UC needs to dig into its unallocated reserves to bridge the
temporary gap as the economy rebounds. Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:14
AM Find...
75. I came into the UC system because I was offered enough financial
aid to not have to take out a ridiculous number of loans. That was
until the fee was increased 32% and additional increases were
proposed. This has put pressure on trying to graduate in 3 years,
instead of 4 or 5 just to save my family money. I wanted to apply to
UC for Med School, but that doesn't seem very realistic anymore.
These changes, if implemented, will reduce the quality of what made
the UC system so grade, and identity to a system of private
universities. Not only will it be less diverse by eliminating
'nonprofitable majors', but it will be the exact opposite of what the
students and staff are demanding.
Where are the proposals to cut admin salaries, bonuses, etc? Where is
the proposal to vote no confidence in the Regents and Yudof/action
plans to put someone into the system who wants to HELP the system, not
corrupt it? Tue, Jun 8, 2010 10:04 PM Find...
76. I think this is just a way for the UC to move towards
privatization of higher education. The UC is supposed to an amazing
public school system in California that should strive to offer
education to ALL people; not just those that can pay for it. I think
what they should do to help with the financial difficulties it faces
is to make the administrators take a paycut. We do not need people
like Youdouf making over $400,000.00 a year. Tue, Jun 8, 2010 9:58
PM Find...
77. These changes will erode the quality of education in the UC and
make us not competitive. Tue, Jun 8, 2010 9:20 PM Find...
78. I am concerned about maintaining (or improving) the quality of
instruction if the teachng staff becomes a more transient population.
I think that in some respects tenure hampers the universities ability
to address budget problems. I think there are some senior faculty that
are not contributing much to the university any more and their
salaries could be put to better use. I hope there are creative
incentives in play to entice these people to early retirement. The
funding of public education in the state has been a problem since
Prop13. Can this bill be addressed in a way that will better fund
education and not cripple homeowners? It seems like a modest increase
in property tax could benefit the state greatly. I worry about what
will happen to the recent graduates of college who are up to their
eyes in debt and have tno job prospects. When people fell that things
are hopeless bad things can happen! Tue, Jun 8, 2010 11:59 AM Find...
79. The UC should see its mission as offering the best educational
opportunities to students from the State of California, at least at
the undergraduate level. That can only be accomplished by keeping fees
as low as possible and by offering classes taught by the best faculty
and lecturers.
My Ph.D.'d father moved my family to California in the 1960's
primarily because of the educational opportunities offered by UC. Six
of 7 children in my family have UC undergrad degrees and 3 have UC
advanced degrees. Mon, Jun 7, 2010 12:57 PM Find...
80. How about better advocacy at the state-wide level? UCOP has been
utterly hapless to date, on a 10-year timeframe. At least. Sun, Jun 6,
2010 8:31 PM Find...
81. The lack of transparency in the budget really doesn't allow for
others to take a whack at these problems. Sun, Jun 6, 2010 1:38
AM Find...
82. There should be more teaching by the Ladder Faculty--NOT the
Graduate Students (who are not prepared to teach in most cases). There
should be cuts made to Administrative jobs and perks. There is an
administrator for every 7 or 8 students?! That's ridiculous. There
should be cuts to perks across the board, as opposed to jobs. Sat, Jun
5, 2010 6:57 PM Find...
83. 1. Budgetary transparency
2. Accurate accounting of teaching and research expenditure.
3. A campaign to educate the public about the fact that 1) their taxes
are mostly used to pay for research, 2) research is a public good--top
level research at UC benefits California, 3) research is also
essential to education. Sat, Jun 5, 2010 3:28 PM Find...
84. All of these lower the standards of the once proud UC system and
abandon the mission of the system as stated in our state
constitution. Fri, Jun 4, 2010 7:04 PM Find...
85. The UC Commission of the Future proposals do not even begin to
address the complexities of the problems that the UC faces, but
recognize that this survey itself also fails to ask the kinds of
questions, give participants the kind of background information, and
offer them the opportunity to respond in such a way that would
actually target these complexities and be a helpful resource for
students, staff, faculty, the Regents, and the public.
Multi-year student fee increases: Students will no longer be able to
afford public higher education. Although the UC and especially Mark
Yudof love to talk about the Blue & Gold Plan and the fact that so
many students qualify for financial aid, recognize that the B&G
Program only covers the cost of tuition (not living expenses) and that
most financial aid packages are loan-based rather than grant-based.
Charging tuition/fees and sending students into tens of thousands of
dollars of debt for years for what should be a public service (free,
or at the very least, affordable) is unconscionable. The fee increases
surely will bar the middle class from accessing the university, and
even low-income students may stop coming to the UC because the
financial aid packages are loan-based and also require that students
still pay thousands of dollars out of pocket ($3000, I think) for the
family contribution. Does the UC Commission realize that most of these
students are already working several jobs a week and sending money
home in order to help their families to make ends meet?
Online classes/Cyber Campus: This is a ridiculous proposal. I have
heard that Edley is selling this as a way to increase diversity and
access to the UC, and yet he still wants to charge online students the
same amount of tuition/fees as residential students pay. How will this
increase diversity and access to the UC if people are being priced out
of the ability to take online classes? If the UC truly wanted to
increase its access and diversity, it would record ALL of its classes
and put all of the videos online to be viewed for free, and it would
open its classes so that all community members could attend. The
online system also paves the way for an increasingly casualized work
force whereby the majority of these classes will be "taught" by
lecturers, adjuncts, and graduate student instructors who will be paid
little to nothing and who will be unable to create and offer the kind
of educational learning environment that is conducive to students'
individual learning needs, to an interactive and peer-based classroom,
and to the kind of dynamic and social learning experience that is
critical to any kind of useful education. It will be very difficult in
an online classroom to assess students' learning needs and how well
they are understanding and applying what they are learning (especially
in the reading & composition classroom). Even more difficult in the
online R&C classroom: modeling the kind of analytical thinking,
question-posing, scaffolding, and revision processes necessary when
one is learning how to read and write for an academic audience;
providing students with the kind of face-to-face one-on-one tutoring
and discussions that often prove to be much more helpful than written
feedback; real-time debates and discussions about the course material
and each others' papers that help to build critical thinking skills
and the ability to talk about one's own written work and others' work
(both professional writing and their peers' writing) professionally.
3-year Degree Program: Bad idea. The emphasis that this places on
rigorous, intensive classes that pack information into a limited
amount of time (particularly in summer sessions, where classes are
often only 6 weeks long) is not conducive to student learning at all.
It reduces the learning process -- what should be the careful
examination of course materials over an extended period of time that
actually gives students the time and the space to learn, revisit,
question, discuss, revise their ideas, put texts in dialogue with each
other, etc. -- into a test of efficiency and speed. Bob Samuels has
also written very good articles about how summer classes negatively
impact lecturers, further affecting their already precarious jobs and
health benefits.
Doubling out-of-state student enrollment (without increase in total #
of students): The fact that UC sees out-of-state and international
students as cash cows rather than as students who also have a right to
a decent education or as individuals who bring valuable life
experiences and perspectives to the UC is repulsive. If this is really
a public university system, then out-of-state and international
students should have the same access to the UC as CA residential
students, and they should not have to pay thousands more for their
education simply because they don't live in CA. The conference of UC
administrators and chancellors on non-resident recruitment and
enrollment that is scheduled to take place next week speaks volumes
about how UC really sees international and out-of-state students (as
token figures and cash cows): to coincide with the theme of
non-resident/international student recruitment and enrollment, they
will serve themed lunches: "Asian Buffet Lunch" and "Taste of Italy
Buffet Lunch."
Differential Fees Between Campuses ("enhanced fees" for UCLA/UCB
students): It is highly problematic that UC prioritizes these two
"flagship" universities at the expense of its other campuses. The fact
that, according to Bob Meister's report, student fees/tuition from the
smaller, "non-flagship" campuses such as UCSC, UCR, and UCI are being
used to subsidize students' education at UCB and UCLA, is entirely
unfair and shows where the UC administration's priorities really are.
Rather than attempting to ensure that all UC campuses eventually
become as strong as UCB and UCLA, the administration continues to
prioritize and fawn over UCB and UCLA while failing to provide its
other schools with the kinds of resources that their staff, faculty
and students need. Rather than coming up with proposals that continue
to segregate students according to race, ethnicity, family income,
wealth, and one's willingness to go into debt to get an education,
perhaps the UC Commission on the Future and the UC administration
should find ways to devote more resources to the smaller UC schools
that are being impacted by the budget cuts even more than the
flagships and that serve students who often come from more underserved
communities but who are equally deserving of a decent education.
Additional fee increases of up to 15% for all professional schools and
programs: Again, is this a public institution or not? How do you
expect students in the professional schools and programs -- like the
law students -- to serve their communities with the skills and the
degrees that they they've earned if you are putting them in thousands
of dollars of debt -- debt that moves them towards accepting lucrative
jobs in the private rather than the public sector?
10% reduction of teaching staff, greatly increased use of graduate
students to teach lower division: The casualization of the workforce
is a serious problem at the UC and across higher education. Given the
incredibly low wages that graduate students earn for teaching
essentially the same classes that senate faculty and lecturers teach,
this is an obvious attempt on the part of the administration to get
cheap, casual labor and to avoid having to hire tenure-track and
career professionals who have specifically been hired to teach classes
because they specialize in that field, to avoid having to pay for
merit and step increases, and to avoid having to pay for retirement
plans. I have met many graduate students who are wonderful teachers,
but the reality is that they have too many demands placed on them at
UC: in addition to teaching, being readers, and being students for
their own graduate classes, they are also expected to do their own
research, publish articles, and attend conferences in order to begin
the process of professionalization. If the UC administration truly
cared about their graduate students, they would give graduate students
grants and scholarships that would pay them to focus on their own
research rather than forcing them to teach very demanding classes
(particularly reading & composition classes, which many grad students
are not even formally trained to teach! -- just because a grad student
is in english, comp lit or rhetoric does not mean that they are
qualified to teaching basic reading and composition to the specific
student populations that we see at the UC) that often prevent them
from finishing their own coursework, research, and dissertations in a
timely fashion. This also pits grad students against lecturers:
presumably, these graduate student instructors will replace or phase
out career pre-six and continuing lecturers. Fri, Jun 4, 2010 1:55
PM Find...
86. corruption and shitty financial management among middle managers
at UCB Fri, Jun 4, 2010 11:14 AM Find...
87. I am from a high-economic growth developing country that is in the
top 20 in the world for social inequality. I recommend the authors of
the report visit Chile - my country - to see what online,
market-oriented education means: it creates false expectations of
social mobility, plunges poor students into debt they will never be
able to pay-off, and does not train students to think, write or solve
problems. As a GSI, I taught students how to read and critically
assess how theorists like Marx, Ricardo, Hirschman, and Akerlof have
shaped unequal access to resources. There is near unanimous agreement
that discussions were critical to understanding the material, and
among those who disagreed, the request was for more not less
discussion. In addition, the world requires more and more public
speaking and information presentation abilities. It is impossible to
teach these things online. Rather than train drones and skip over
critical skills through online or short courses, it would be more
honest to close higher education all together.
I did my undergraduate studies in the England where degrees are 3
years long because they begin to specialize at age 11. My experience
is that at age 20 you are not mature enough to seriously work; my
intellectual growth occurred entirely in my 4th year (which I had
because I spent one year abroad on exchange). As we live longer and
longer, different cycles in life have expanded and most of us mature
later than our great-grandparent did in the 1910s. There are
sufficient opportunities for students to "hurry" if that works better
for them. It should not be a model for everyone.
In terms of reducing costs, I recommend: reducing scientific and
technology research equipment purchases because the main mission of
the university is teaching the population of California, reducing
management costs, and improving arguments made to the public. For
example, in one town hall meeting G. Breslar said, with regard to
donors, that "you have to see what makes their eyes twinkle". That
seems like a naive and shallow approach that leads to surrealist
paradoxes: Berkeley now has one of the premier library's about East
Asia, but will close East Asian languages. Who then is supposed to use
the library? Li Ka-Shing could not be persuaded to donate 3% of his
$40 million gift to create a fund to maintain East Asian languages?
The real problem is that biomedicine is the only thing that makes the
university administrators' eyes twinkle. Fri, Jun 4, 2010 10:05
AM Find...
88. Why are there no proposals to streamline administration and make
it more cost-effective? Fri, Jun 4, 2010 7:48 AM Find...
89. We are paying more for poor quality education is simply not
acceptable. We need to gain as much knowledge as possible to better
prepare us for post graduate and those working in the "real world" and
by limiting and increasing fee hikes will only limit us be detrimental
to us. Thu, Jun 3, 2010 6:44 PM Find...
90. I believe that many of these proposals are a recipe for
mediocrity, and also represent an abondonment of the master plan. UC
was designated a research university. Many of the above measures would
deprive students of the quintessential benefits of attending a
research university, namely taking classes directly from those engaged
in creating knowledge, and having the opportunity to do research
itself. Thu, Jun 3, 2010 2:09 PM Find...
91. I think these proposals are simply a way for UCOP to avoid a
serious discussion of the detriments to the University of California
by proposing cuts and fee increases; shortening the length of time
spent at the university will reduce the quality and outcome of student
education. We should require and demand for more resources for our
campuses not eliminate when the budget or monetary funds become
diminished. [How about we start by cutting back on the UCOP members'
salary, for instance?] Thu, Jun 3, 2010 2:02 PM Find...
92. From my experience as an adjunct faculty and librarian at other
institutions, I find the UC system woefully behind on distance
education. I think that part of the proposal is good, as long as there
is recognition that teaching online is a 'different animal' and that
there needs to be support for instructional design and training for
best use of distance and blended learning options. I don't see that
right now. Reducing duplicate programs and raising fees differentially
are less insightful ideas and hurt students who do not have the means
to enroll at other campuses. Making grad students pick up the teaching
slack likewise is not a high-quality idea, in terms of training or
their ability to teach well; it would have a lessening of the teaching
quality impact. Grad students are good, but not for widespread turning
over the teaching of undergrad classes. Thu, Jun 3, 2010 9:34
AM Find...
93. These are VERY generous grades because I assume there are
ameliorating details. E.g., older, part-time, working students who
can't be here might be able to benefit from online classes and 3-year
degrees. Out-of-state students could add diversity and maybe quality.
Prof school fees have gone way up in the last few years but some (not
all) might have room for more (not much). IF UC funding remains
inadequate, we'll probably be forced to have fewer, larger classes -
e.g., big lectures, lots of TAs and readers - so fewer faculty. Very
small specialized departments might have to be consolidated. There are
lots of other possibilities, all ugly, many tried overseas: different
fees for different majors; fees based on GPA; admit fewer freshmen but
accept those needing remedial courses conditional on success at CCC,
allow working students to take fewer units if they pay higher fees. Oh
- and abolish UCOP. Wed, Jun 2, 2010 7:27 PM Find...
94. Implementing these plans would destroy the quality and reputation
of the University of California. Wed, Jun 2, 2010 6:51 PM Find...
95. On-Line Education, although affordable, will further devalue a UC
degree. Nothing takes the place of classroom learning from profoundly
influential professors or lecturers and fellow students. At this pace,
the best and brightest & most talented professors (as well as
students) will leave CA public education. With larger class size and
shorter degree programs, a UC Degree has been devalued and private
colleges or out-of-state opportunities will become more attractive.
Private industry employers already are aware of the stress at the
public institutions and given the choice between 2 qualified
candidates, a UC degree Today does not carry same recognized status as
in the past. The UC system should be the higher public education model
for the nation and the world, and I would address the financial issues
by continuing to control expenses, find non-academic operating
efficiencies, expanding (rather than contracting) the UC model, by
offering for profit, license or lease, or partnership to out of State,
especially in the foreign countries, rather than selling more CA
college seats at a premium to out-of-staters. We have the best and
brightest, we should be able to develop new operating models to
achieve the UC's mission as well as balancing the books with less
stress and heartaches to CA residents and students. Admin. needs more
cooperative & meaningful active involvement from faculty and staff in
tackling these very challenging issues. Wed, Jun 2, 2010 4:21
PM Find...
96. Layoffs and reductions are on the rise whilst fee hikes continue
and yet----we know not the destination of these funds.
This plan makes no sense when you consider the amount of retirees that
are rehired with ample salaries (e.g., 6-figures). REALLY?????
The administration needs to come clean about going private. Wed, Jun
2, 2010 4:10 PM Find...
97. These proposals reflect the extent to which the Commission is
caught within neoliberal market logic and unable to think outside its
terms. The proposals are wholly lacking in imagination and show no
commitment to the educational mission of the University of California
as a public university. At the top of the numerous alternatives to
solving thebudget crisis that the Commission has failed to imagine, I
would include: permanent and signifcant paycuts to top paid
administrators; salary caps for professors in the professional schools
and full professors elsewhere; a halt to unsustainable building
projects; an overhaul of intercollegiate athletics (football coaches
don't need to make $million plus salaries; and--I kid you
not!--serious reduction in water and fertlizer use on campus grounds;
investment in energy and water efficiency on every campus. Wed, Jun 2,
2010 3:26 PM Find...
98. The real problem in the UC is the size, cost and inefficiency of
the research faculty. And that is a problem that the Commission didn't
talk about and seems reluctant to confront in any way. So students
suffer, undergraduate education suffers--because we don't have the
courage to re-examine our notions of what really constitutes an
excellent university system. Wed, Jun 2, 2010 1:36 PM Find...
99. We as a state need to re-emphasize education at all levels and
recognize that an educated citizenry is good for the future of our
state. We need to prioritize education at all levels within the state
budget and get back to the days where a world class education was free
or affordable to all qualified students, not just the rich. Otherwise,
or state and its people will continue down the road to mediocrity. One
way to do that is to make the UC Regents more representational of our
people and make them more accountable and transparent so that the
state and the citizens can once again trust UC. Wed, Jun 2, 2010 12:58
PM Find...
100. Potentially discriminates against middleclass families.
Many Senior faculty avoid teaching. They should feel that teaching is
an important part of their mission, not just research
Graduate student teachers should be vetted for pedagogical ability
before assuming full responsibility for teaching undergradsRE:
"Doubling Out-of-state Student Enrollment (without increase in total #
of students" This does NOT make sense
There are too many "administrators" and not enough competent ones at
that. Wed, Jun 2, 2010 11:30 AM Find...
101. Upon studying the recommendations, I now call the "Commission on
the Future of UC" the "Commission on the Future Mediocrity of UC."
Many of the recommendations, particularly increased teaching by
graduate students, thinking that online education is going to cost
less or otherwise be equivalent to face-to-face, and trying to make
3-year degrees the norm, will result in a significant decrease in
quality and the perception of quality by the world. We simply cannot
afford this! Wed, Jun 2, 2010 10:34 AM Find...
102. These proposals are so wrong in so many ways that I hardly know
where to begin. There already is a Cyper Campus and it's called
Phoenix University. These proposals, if implemented, would cause
terrible damage to the U.C. system and the state of California.
Proposition 13 needs to be rescinded or revised so that there is
adequate funding for education. And cuts in salary and staffing can be
made at UCOP. We might even consider closing one of the smallest
campuses. Wed, Jun 2, 2010 9:57 AM Find...
103. They are stripping away what public education stands for, there
needs to be better reform and a restructuring of plan initiative.
Cutting back classes will not resolve anything and it's taking from
the university's prestigiousness. Also, what is this increase going
towards? If it's increasing teacher's salaries then that approach is
wrong. Over all I understand that the budget cuts effects everyone, if
we continue with this plan of action we will be moving more towards a
private university rather than a public, and this is what the
university is not about. Wed, Jun 2, 2010 9:26 AM Find...
104. I think the proposals are RIDICULOUS. I am disgusted by the
announcements of fee increases, primarily because it is handing the
burden of poor fiscal planning by the State and UC over to students.
This is not fair. No one wants online classes; they defeat the purpose
of a "world-class education" which UC purports to offer its students.
I would throw away all of UCLA's so-called "prestige" for just one
class that doesn't make me feel like I'm just a number! Wed, Jun 2,
2010 12:03 AM Find...
105. Implementing these proposals would diminish diversity and the
adversity in the UC System. It would be HORRIBLE. Tue, Jun 1, 2010
11:11 PM Find...
106. You people are CRAZY if you follow any of the above! Tue, Jun 1,
2010 11:00 PM Find...
107. The fundamental problem is gross, unfunded, overenrollment. Thus,
since enrollments are assumed to stay the same or grow by the CoF, the
suggestions are all choices of various forms of grossly reduced
quality of education for each student enrolled. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 6:07
PM Find...
108. The Commission has merely rubber-stamped positions the UC
administration has wanted for a while. It's recommendations undermine
BOTH the University's role as a public institution and the quality of
the educational experience that students receive here. Tue, Jun 1,
2010 4:56 PM Find...
109. I am so disappointed to see the collapse of the UC system --
these changes would do a disservice to current and future students and
significantly degrade the value of the degrees earned by myself and my
family members. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 4:41 PM Find...
110. Most of these proposals severely compromise the mission of the
university of california. Adding online programs can be very useful,
but not at the expense of intensive, residential higher education.
Other universities have tried it, and there is a reason distance
learning has not taken off with the reputation for excellence that
on-campus education has: it does not provide as good an education.
Efforts and resources should be spent on demonstrating to the state
how much the UC gives back to the California economy - cutting our
ability to educate a range of CA students at a reasonable price will
only hurt the state in the long run (and the short run). Tue, Jun 1,
2010 4:40 PM Find...
111. These faulty recommendations flow from the lack of a political
consensus in this state to perpetuate its historic investment in UC.
Note the phrase "political consensus." That reflects the reality of
our 2/3 budget vote and tax increase provisions. We need a radical
solution and that is to eliminate these provisions so that this state
can once again be governed by its generally progressive majority. Tue,
Jun 1, 2010 4:33 PM Find...
112. The cost of college is already so high that as long as the UC
wishes to maintain its distinction of obscenely expensive private
colleges, the administration should make efforts to avoid
undergraduate fee hikes. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 3:32 PM Find...
113. California and the rest of this nation need a sustainable
infrastructure for financing a robust public education system which
values providing an excellent public education to all. It is clear
that financing salaries, benefits, and retirement plans for staff
serving the the essential role of a human interface for providing a
superior education to California students has become the lowest
priority for the State of California in both the UC and CSU systems.
Underfunding our K-12 and higher education systems guarantees a steady
stream of future prison inmates and job security for those employed by
the penal system; ensures an unskilled workforce; and protects the
entitlement of those with power and money. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 3:13
PM Find...
114. I appreciate the efforts being made by the members of the
commission, but regarding what seems to be a tendency to seek out
alternative income streams: I feel strongly that reshaping the
university toward market-based models won't sustain the caliber of
public education that Californians have had heretofore. If the
taxpayers and voters won't support budgets that accommodate the UC
system, artificial respiration won't help.
Finally, let me note that evident biases in the wording of the
questions on this survey undermine its credibility!!!! Whoever
sponsored this -- don't cut corners to make cheap political points
please -- you damage the cause we all share!!!! Tue, Jun 1, 2010 3:00
PM Find...
115. I think that these proposals come from people who have no idea
what an education appropriate to a community would look like. Instead,
they do a fantastic job of propagating an education appropriate to a
private market: I have absolutely no faith that a bunch of
millionaires, whose own financial futures will be greatly affected by
these decisions, could make decisions for the greater good of both
regional campuses and the state in general. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 3:00
PM Find...
116. These proposals are out of touch with the reality of what a great
university is, can be, and should be. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 2:57 PM Find...
117. The University has to do something, and sacrificing sacred cows
sounds like a good place to start. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 2:49 PM Find...
118. I am not a fan of filling UC campuses with out of state students
nor of differential fees, but they may be the best out of a bad bunch
of options. The University needs to downsize. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 2:12
PM Find...
119. Need to determine if we wish to retain the "State Univ" label or
wish to emulate private colleges/universities. As our fees rise and
approach those of private institution, we are pricing ourselves away
from the middle class student who wishes to become a professional.
Online learning could be terrific, but prefer to see lower fees for
online education. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 2:11 PM Find...
120. I believe the proposed changes will effectively destroy
accessible quality higher education in California. The corporate
modeling of the UC system, begun under Governor Reagan years ago has
by now very clearly failed. The prospect of "fixing" the corporate
modeled UC system with more corporate cutback measures is ludicrous.
Not everything thrives by way of the "invisible hand of the
market." Tue, Jun 1, 2010 1:34 PM Find...
121. These are hard to answer in survey format because to a degree
they depend on the circumstances and how things are implemented. For
example, right now UC is filling the gap between number of students
accepted and number funded by the state with out of state students:
that seems ok. I would prefer to end sports subsidies and eliminate
half of all high level administrators. Elimination of redundant majors
is a good idea but should be done on a case by case basis--for
example, why do we need UC Merced? Why do we need another law school
at UCSD? etc. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 12:20 PM Find...
122. This is a public university. I am strongly opposed to making it
unaffordable or less accessible to california students. Tue, Jun 1,
2010 12:17 PM Find...
123. UCLA should not have more online classes. Leave that to the
University of Phoenix and such. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 12:07 PM Find...
124. The thrust of the UC Commission on the Future is toward short
term solutions. We all know how well that worked out on Wall Street.
Over the decades UC has done quite well in meeting the needs of the
future without having non-educator Regents tinker with their pet
projects on behalf of UC. The Regents and the President should be
working on supporting UC politically and financially and letting the
educators worry about the structural and educational issues. Sadly it
took student protests go achieve political/financial support for UC in
this difficult budget year. The President and the Regents should have
done instead of trying to re-invent UC. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 12:05
PM Find...
125. My comments will sound sarcastic, but please believe that they
are entirely serious.
Fee increases will not solve the problem of poor financial managment
and will only decrease access to education.
ONLINE CLASSES????? Does the University of California aspire to be the
new University of Phoenix (the online "university")? This is a
terrible idea that will destroy what's left of the quality of
education at the UC. Does anyone really believe that the Internet is
the optimal environment for higher education--or that most students
will actually do the work if they never have to attend class? Human
beings require a certain level of interpersonal contact to master
complex fields of knowledge, which is why infants can't learn to talk
by watching television. (This is true; read the research). Your online
option will be the death of the university and the scholarly community
that sustains it. What a pity that university administration wants to
kill the goose that laid the golden egg. And by the way, if your goal
is to move to online classes, why the continual drive to erect more
and more new buildings? Your goal is to see them standing empty, isn't
it? This is exactly what I mean by poor financial management: You
allocate funds in areas where your own policies dictate they should
not be needed.
Three-year degree program: A disingenuous gimmick. Twenty-five years
ago I completed all requirements for my bachelor's degree (with a
double major when majors had more requirements than they do now) in
three and a half years although I started as a part-time student and
continued in that status for several semesters. I did it by always
carrrying a full load and by taking summer classes. You don't need a
three-year program for people to graduate in three years; you just
need students who actually act as if they are full-time students.
Time-to-degree statistics show that it's taking students longer and
longer to complete their BAs, and the main reason, as far as I can see
from my discussions with students, is because it's easier to stay in
school than to finish and have to look for a job.
Do you really think you will double out-of-state enrollment with this
kind of tuition? Oops, I forget; you don't call it tuition here. But
not all parents will want to send their sons and daughters to school
in a state that people in many areas of the U.S. already think is
wacky, just so that they can pay really high tuition. This idea also
disadvantages in-state families who are entitled to believe that the
UC exists primarily to serve the state. What more do you have to do to
prove that education is the last thing on your list of priorities? Why
not "reach out" to the real 'foreign' students, the ones from other
countries? You already know you can gouge them even more. And who
cares if they don't speak English? After all, a university education
isn't about education, it's about status (etc., etc.).
"Enhanced fees": How much more "enhanced" can they be????
Additional fee increases for professional schools: Sure, why not; that
way you can make sure that most people won't want to go there, and
that those who do want to will never be able to go into public-service
jobs because their debt load will be too high to allow them to take a
lower salary.
10% reduction of teaching staff: This appears to imply that this
stratgy will save money. I find that fascinating since my doctoral
degree is from UCLA, where I was a TA and later a TF when I was ABD.
As a TF I made more than I do now as a lecturer at the same
university. LOL, right? But reducing teaching staff is a bad idea
because classes at the university level should be taught by people who
have the appropriate academic credentials and experience. TAs should
lead discussion sections; that's where they obtain their initial
experience in how to teach. But teaching requires knowledge and
experience, and we're not talking about pre-school here, but about
instruction at the university level. I'm surprised you haven't
mentioned RAs, undergrads who supposed assist in teaching classes. Do
you know what? If an undergraduate can ACTUALLY teach a college-level
class, then why does anybody need to go to college? Maybe you should
just forget both in-person and online classes and sell various degrees
for various amounts of money that the administration could simply
pocket.
Eliminating (duplicative) majors/programs on different campuses: (1)
This implies that every, e.g., English Department is the same. Not
true. (2) This would mean that if you can't get into UCXX but only
UCYY, you can't major in Z. Bad idea.
With ideas like this, your commission should be called "The UC
Commission of No Future" because you are eating away at the adademic
mission of the university. The above proposals are not simply bad
ideas; they are gimmicks being presented as real ideas. Implementing
these proposals not only will not solve the UC's problems; it will
create even bigger problems. Please don't do this to California.
I have to return to the subject of the Internet classes. I'm almost 59
years old and I'm SOOO tired of the Internet, but my students are very
young and they love and are adept at navigating the Internet. They
don't need to go to college to learn to use the Internet; they've been
doing it since they were seven. A university is a place of HIGHER
education, where students learn about things they don't already know.
A couple of weeks ago a student spontaneously remarked to me that the
Internet "bells and whistles" that were being integrated into some of
our department's classes added nothing to the classes themselves.
This, of course, was a restatement of the obvious, but it was
interesting to hear her say it. You know, you really don't need a
university degree to use Twitter; all you need is to have nothing
better to do. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 11:59 AM Find...
126. The direction that the Regents and Administration want to move in
is clear. They are simply using the budget crisis to transform the UC
into an institution that serves corporate, rather than public
interests, and to further the process of conflating corporate with
public interests. Why is this a surprise - given that President Obama
appointed Arne Duncan to oversee the transformation of public
education in the country as a whole? And that studies of what works,
or doesn't work in education, are funded by private donors like the
Gates Foundation?
Additional fees for students in professional programs is not at all
fair, and will make law or medical school even harder for poor
students. On the other hand, they are assumed to be the most likely to
be able to pursue high earning careers when they finish. I would
eliminate the business school and all marketing departments since they
are simply a scourge. On the other hand, they attract high levels of
private donations, while departments that actually challenge students
to think, and to think hard, about why things are the way they are,
are increasingly under siege. Fee increases are simply a way to ensure
that education continues to serve as a way to reproduce social
hierarchies, rather than erode them. This is an ideological and
philosophical battle as much as it is a pragmatic or economic one -
good luck changing their minds. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 11:59 AM Find...
127. downsizing management has not been addressed in the proposal.
revising pension plan so that the abuse of the plan would not occur as
it has been the case in the last few years. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 11:38
AM Find...
128. This is ridiculous. I refuse to sit by and watch teacher be laid
off and programs cut while the administration purchases millions of
dollars of bottled water and compensates an incompetent president of
the UC! Tue, Jun 1, 2010 11:36 AM Find...
129. All for benefit of administrators--Chancellors, Pres, etc. Bad
for students. Put students first! Tue, Jun 1, 2010 11:24 AM Find...
130. The State of California, through tax revenues, should fully fund
the University of California. Eliminating faculty and programs,
especially those that do not enjoy strong internal political support
l;ike ethnic studies units, would be entirely foolish. Tue, Jun 1,
2010 11:19 AM Find...
131. The proposals will bring about a severe degradation of
undergraduate education at UC. They reflect an appallingly cynical and
anti-humanist view of students. What will be impoverished are real,
lived lives. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 11:19 AM Find...
132. Deal with the gross inflation of administrators. Their salaries
are outrageously out of step with the rest of the staff and faculty,
and their jobs are performed poorly.... Tue, Jun 1, 2010 11:17
AM Find...
133. In my opinion, the fee increases are necessary-- UC is much less
costly than other less distinguished state universities. Increasing
out of state enrollment will enhance the strength of the student
body-- and its diversity-- and while high expressed as "doubling" is
low overall. Differential fees between campuses also, regrettably,
needs to happen. And I think the professional schools do not pay their
share.
But the recommendations for more online classes (and the idiotic
"Cyber Campus"-- cyber?? really, this is 1980s) and the awful
reduction in time in the program, size of faculty, and eliminating
majors and programs, all gut the quality of a university.
Overall, the commission is a cynical and misguided attempt to change
the university into a technical school. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 11:01
AM Find...
134. Return focus of enrollment to California residents -- reduce
non-US and out of state enrollments -- UC should be first for
California residents. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 10:57 AM Find...
135. I am against any plan that hinders or dissuades California
residents from getting a college (undergrad and grad) education.
Increasing fees will only serve to keep middle- and low-income
students from getting the education they deserve. Tue, Jun 1, 2010
10:50 AM Find...
136. These proposals will greatly decrease access to the UCs for
California students of modest income without good alternatives. Tue,
Jun 1, 2010 10:48 AM Find...
137. These proposals represent the UC's watering down of undergraduate
education while at the same time raising the price. It reminds me of
the time back in 1974 when Snickers bars got smaller and went up in
price by a nickel, at which time the company shamelessly added "New
Size!" to the label (the exclamation point telling you that you MUST
be excited about this). Tue, Jun 1, 2010 10:28 AM Find...
138. UC should go on a campaign to redress the distorted fiscal basis
of our state. This is not a way to ensure quality education. It should
make strong alliances with all public education, from K - 12, to
community colleges and the state universities to organize a response
to the serious undermining of all education in the state. Going it
alone as the UC system is no longer viable, nor smart. Only a
concerted effort on the part of the educational systems in the state,
with intelligent coordination of strategy (both political and
educational) has a chance of ushering in a better future. Tue, Jun 1,
2010 10:24 AM Find...
139. I think on-line courses will decrease the quality of instruction
and eliminate the interaction with other students and professors that
makes UCB a great place to go to college. We don't want Berkeley to
become a degree factory, where students just come to try and get a
rubber stamped degree so that they can get a higher paying job without
any actual education taking place.
Things that are missing:
Reducing the size of the administrative staff, reducing salaries of
highly paid administrators. There is this idea that to get the "best
talent", UC must recruit administrators from other universities. Then
these people stay a few years until they are lured away by a higher
salary somewhere else, and UC ups the ante. Why not draw from an
internal pool, where people are just as qualified and may be committed
to the institution also, and could be paid less?
Stop building new facilities. This is especially inexcusable given the
poor state of many existing campus buildings. For example: at UCB a
new medical/biological research building is going up, while my
daughter's daycare center is rated seismically "poor" and in danger of
collapse in a big earthquake. To my knowledge, UCB does not even have
much of an applied biological research program in existence, but now
they will develop one because they got the chance to build a new
building. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 10:10 AM Find...
140. More transfer students- (from community colleges) to lower to
lower division needs of the universities. Less six-figure bureaucrats,
more teachers. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 10:05 AM Find...
141. Now is the time to consider program consolidations wherever
possible, starting with departments and programs with low enrollments
and few majors. What about designating certain campuses as focusing on
undergraduate education or lower division undergraduate education
(e.g. Merced, UCSC, Riverside, UCSB) and others as continuing to focus
on research. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 10:03 AM Find...
142. These proposals will negatively affect students, interfering with
their true education and/or preventing them from having an education
because of the fee increases. I think administrators should take a
decrease in their salaries to help the UC's maintain a high yet
affordable level of education that all students can access. Tue, Jun
1, 2010 9:57 AM Find...
143. On individual campuses we totally lack centralized services: ie
such as computer support, purchasing, Supplies.
UCOP is totally out of control regarding salaries - WE ARE NOT A
BUSINESS and the "Educators" who are supposed to lead us don't need to
be compensated like we are AT&T or Chevron. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 9:48
AM Find...
144. Instead of further destruction to this wonderful institution, how
about spending more time winning hearts and minds, and seeking a full
restoration of funding? Tue, Jun 1, 2010 9:21 AM Find...
145. Rather than eliminating academic functions that duplicate one
another (such as majors, programs and departments) it seems
eliminating duplicative administrative functions would be more useful
as it would not directly impact the core mission of the UC
system. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 9:14 AM Find...
146. The best proposal is convincing the voters and legislature that
taxes are not always bad and that a highly educated populace benefits
everyone.
Modify 'differential fees' to Higher fees for out-of-state to go to
ucb/ucla. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 8:59 AM Find...
147. Privatization of UC should not be an option. Highly paid
administrators should be cut in number (35% in the next two years) and
salary (no one, including Yudof and sports coaches, should make more
than the president of the United States). Their job is to advocate on
behalf of public education, not dismantle it. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 8:19
AM Find...
148. These proposals might be adequate in a corporate context but
certainly not in the context of a public University. They show that
the people in charge of the future of the University of California
mistake profit for excellence and are determined to make UC a private,
for profit institution. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 7:43 AM Find...
149. Many of the proposals make a UC education out of reach for the
children of first generation Americans/Californians. Others create
two-tier system, which will only serve to reinforce the divide that is
quickly emerging between the rich and the poor as the middle class
evaporates. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 7:41 AM Find...
150. Goodbye to the Berkeley I once knew and loved. I certainly
wouldn't contribute to the new Berkeley, though i have always intended
to leave it something in my will. This is crazy: imposing so much on
students--and what do they get in return? A guaranteed job (or maybe
just interview) with a corporation? Tue, Jun 1, 2010 7:03 AM Find...
151. We can do better than this, I know we can. I'm not antagonistic
to the cause of economizing, nor am I unrealistic, but I am sure that
we can find a way to make this work without cutting down variety,
quality, and availability to students, especially to lower income
students. I feel especially strong about online classes--these are not
good educational experiences; I know this because I have both taken
and taught them. It is NOT the kind of education that UC's should be
working to provide. Cutting sports budgets and high level
administrative salaries--two good ideas. Also, why are some professors
in my department making over 200K annually while lecturers make less
that 40K? I understand the difference in what they bring to the
university in terms of prestige, but many of the older faculty
contribute little but that. Why value prestige over quality education
at a rate of 160K annually per person? Let's work at reducing that gap
a bit by lowering salaries caps at the higher end. Tue, Jun 1, 2010
12:53 AM Find...
152. I would like to see a reduction of salary for top administration
which did not show up in the proposal--the above mentioned proposal is
only discussing impacts on students. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 12:06 AM Find...
153. I like th suggestion of the 3-year degree program with summer
enrollment. As a public university in CA, I think it's important to
focus on in-state enrollment dedicated to CA students, and not to turn
the University into a de facto private University catering to
out-of-state students. I object to the fees for professional schools
because, as a social worker, these are grossly unfair to people
entering my profession. As it is, recent studies have shown that
social workers' earning potential on graduation are quite low. We
certainly don't need extra fees, which are seemingly grounded in the
presumed greater earning potential or professionals in general! I
think on-line classes are a good idea in some cases - maybe for
introductory courses - but I don't think they replace the direct
experience of the classroom for more advanced courses or for seminar
courses. Tue, Jun 1, 2010 12:05 AM Find...
154. The purpose of the UNiversity is not only to educate the state of
California and to serve the world, but to also fashion its research to
the growing needs of the world. Reduction is an option, but hopefully
alternatives may be implemented instead. Mon, May 31, 2010 11:57
PM Find...
155. insane Mon, May 31, 2010 11:41 PM Find...
156. These proposals are undermining the UC's commitment to cutting
edge research, inclusivity, and its mandate to provide positive
benefits for all Californians. Fee increases adversely affect
low-income and ethnic minority students. Moreover, as the state
undergoes massive demographic changes, a shift to increase the
matriculation of out-of-state students will leave growing communities
of color shut out of higher education. Mon, May 31, 2010 10:26
PM Find...
157. If UC's decide to implement this, why would people not just go to
private schools where the amount of tuition is the same, but we get to
work more closely with our professors and not get such bad grades as
we do at UC's. Mon, May 31, 2010 3:31 PM Find...
158. Major fail. Stop trying to privatize public education! Mon, May
31, 2010 3:23 PM Find...
159. These atrocious proposals completely destroy everything that the
UC system is supposed to stand for - above all, equal educational
opportunity and access for all the people of California. Budget issues
should never be born on the backs of students and workers, while
millionaire administrators, athletics, and medical staff continue to
reap untold millions of dollars. Mon, May 31, 2010 2:24 PM Find...
160. Adopting Performance Excellence principles that eliminate waste
and defects from processes that could result in being able to do more
for less using process-based management, line of sight measurement and
focusing on vital few critical projects. The business world has had
great success with this and with some translation the principles could
be applicable to education. Mon, May 31, 2010 10:49 AM Find...
161. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, SHIFT THE BURDEN OF UNDERGRADUATE
TEACHING TO GRADUATE STUDENTS! MAKE TENURED AND TENURE-TRACK FACULTY
CARRY MORE OF THE LOAD OF TEACHING! Mon, May 31, 2010 9:52 AM Find...
162. Fee increases should be no higher than inflation. Most of the
university's revenue is not from student fees.
Online education and 3-year degree programs are pedagogically inferior
in their current forms, but I think fighting this trend is ultimately
pointless given the state of education in general. E-Learning and
restructured degrees ARE NOT going to go away.
I think the points we need to fight on are points regarding fees and
employment policies. There is no value in being nostalgic about the
university, structurally. 3 year degrees, elimination of redundant
programs, cyber learning etc, the value of these things are dependent
on their implementation and practice. In other words, they could be
good or bad. As long as we defend employee rights and protections and
affordability and protections for students, we increase the odds that
structural changes to the university (which are inevitable) will
benefit students and workers. Mon, May 31, 2010 9:42 AM Find...
163. The UC system has been one of the great educational systems in
the world, and access and quality were its hallmarks. Each of the
above proposals affects access, quality, or both. These proposals, if
enacted, will be to the great detriment of the people of California.
As a UC alum, I feel strongly that young people today should have the
same first-rate, accessible education offered to me decades ago. Mon,
May 31, 2010 9:16 AM Find...
164. This Commission of the Future "plan" is nothing but a neo-liberal
cover for the further privatization of public education in California.
It is a disgraceful snub at the public quality of the UC Master Plan,
the mission to offer a high quality, low cost post-secondary education
to *all* of California's citizens. This plan either ensures that
Californians will be sidled with unprecedented levels of debt to
attend the UC system, or it simply excludes those unable or unwilling
to pay. Such a plan should be fought by students, parents, graduate
instructors, professors, and CA citizens at every turn. In terms of
proposals, well, the first thing to do would be to cut costs by
restructuring the system away from corporate models; in other words,
the first thing to do is to reverse the decades-long administrative
bloat by firing the corporate executives of the university that have
perpetuated these detrimental corporate thoughts and policies. Second,
is to refocus the mission to actual teaching and away from high cost
building projects that either directly line the regents pockets or
earn them political capital. Before this, though, let's let the public
judge and have a say in the UC's budget woes--let us have a look at
the budget! Mon, May 31, 2010 7:02 AM Find...
165. Most of the proposals would not only weaken the overall quality
of education available at the UCs, they do nothing to address the
largest budgetary problem across the UCs, which is the explosion of
administrative personnel costs that are not tied to instruction or
research. Mon, May 31, 2010 1:38 AM Find...
166. it would suck and be pointless to go to a UC Sun, May 30, 2010
9:24 PM Find...
167. These proposals are all very short-sited; the fee hikes are not
correlated to the increased cost of education, but rather to a
consumer-based model of value. Cynically, these proposals assume that
as long as people feel insecure about their children's future, it will
be possible to keep raising fees, to keep persuading people that they
are entitled to less for more and that these cutbacks are inevitable
and necessary. Where are proposals that deal with inefficiency in
administration? Where are policies that question the use of student
fees to back bonds that produce profits for private investors? There
are many other proposals for increasing revenue that do not put the
squeeze on families struggling to put kids through school. The
university must begin to function more like an institution of higher
learning and less like a provider of financial services. Sun, May 30,
2010 8:02 PM Find...
168. The UC Commission on the Future's recommendations are all, in my
opinion, the worst possible. It is impossible for me to imagine a
"plan" that would be more destructive to the mission of education,
scholarly advances, and a good working environment--all of which are
mutually reenforcing--for the people who make the UC as important as
it is--the students, the professors, and the workers. Sun, May 30,
2010 7:35 PM Find...
169. The proposals will ensure that (a) there will be further
reductions in state support; (b) that middle-class families will face
greater financial pressures; and (c) that the prestige and reputation
of UC as a whole will diminish significantly. Sun, May 30, 2010 4:12
PM Find...
170. All these proposals not only discourage students of low income to
attend college but also shows them that there is very small support
for them to pursue their goals of achieving a college education. Sun,
May 30, 2010 2:41 PM Find...
171. Not very wise moves. Sun, May 30, 2010 2:31 PM Find...
172. These proposals are ludicrous. Sun, May 30, 2010 1:42 PM Find...
173. Fee increases are antithetical to one of the purposes of public
education in my mind, that is, the bringing together of people from
different parts of our society to explore the world, using each other
to define problems to which they can then pursue solutions, again,
together. Bringing in more out of state students will bring even more
perspectives to the table, and make visible California's relationship
to the rest of the country, and this relationship impacts our lives
here, and vice versa. Sun, May 30, 2010 1:35 PM Find...
174. All of these proposals reduce, and in some cases, eliminate
access to education in the State of California to California
residents. Increasing fees makes education impossible for those with
low income; the 3-year degree is "quick and dirty" --it is a
low-quality degree; there were already too many grad students teaching
when I did my grad and undergrad work. The UC is rapidly gaining a
reputation for poor-quality undergrad education. Why don't you look at
administrative costs? Also, eliminating majors on certain campuses
means lack of access again. Sun, May 30, 2010 12:37 PM Find...
175. These proposals, if passed, would guarantee that a significant
portion of the state's youths, particularly low-income and
first-generation college students, would not be able to afford a
university education = California NOT adequately preparing its
population to be competitive in the workplace of the future. Sun, May
30, 2010 11:51 AM Find...
176. I greatly oppose to the student fee increases, eliminating
majors/programs/departments, having online classes, and reducing our
teaching staff. These ideas will not be beneficial in any way, rather
would greatly negatively affect students like me. It is ridiculous to
even think of proposing a 15% increase each year until 2014 and then
7% per year thereafter. Is it not already expensive enough? Families
need to come up with thousands of dollars to assure their students a
spot in a prestigious university, and although some of those families
do not need to worry about money, there are already low-income
students who do not stand a mere chance in thinking about attending
college because of the fact that college tuition and fees are insanely
high. All that this student fee increase will do is prevent and deny
the opportunity to innumerable students who cannot afford to pay not
even a portion of the amount it requires to attend a university. Most
importantly, this is an EDUCATION we are talking about; in my opinion,
an education should be FREE. Just because a low income student like me
made it to a university like UC Berkeley does not mean that everyone
who is low income will eventually find a way to pay off their college
fees. Students cannot just 'deal with it' because everyone has
different opportunities to get where they are and the student fee
increase will remove one more opportunity from those who cannot afford
to make these payments. Not only will these fees prevent students from
ATTENDING a university, but it will also prevent students from
CONTINUING their education.
I also greatly oppose to eliminating majors/programs/departments that
are the same on different campuses. By setting forth this idea, it
will make it extremely difficult if not impossible for students to
pursue what they want because their campus choice may not provide
their choice major/program/department. The reason why it will make it
difficult for students to pursue what they want is because students
are not always guaranteed admission to the university of their choice
that provides their major/program/department of interest.
Online classes are not a good idea at all because I worked very hard
to get admitted to UC Berkeley and I feel that they will undermine the
quality education that we receive here. A big part of education is
public speaking but with online classes students will not be able to
participate or engage with each other. This is a huge problem because
it means that students will not be able to learn from each other, an
immensely essential part of learning. Students might not even be as
eager to learn because they will have to teach themselves instead of
having the original class organization where the professor is teaching
the student. Although there are many who prefer to do most things
online, education is the one thing that I feel will not facilitate
learning and overall will leave students with something missing.
It outrages me that you are raising our fees, yet taking away from our
education quality? The 10% reduction of staff is definitely not a good
idea because that means that many will lose a job that they are
qualified for. There are staff who love their job, are passionate
about teaching, and have much more experience in their area. It is not
fair to just take away their jobs in that way because the way things
are now it is incredibly difficult to find a job to replace another.
The teaching staff gave up many years of their life to study for years
before the qualifications to teach were met; that is why our education
in universities is of quality. I greatly oppose to this proposal
because it too, will undermine our quality education. Sun, May 30,
2010 11:47 AM Find...
177. I think cost cutting measures should be evaluated against the
risk of threatening the basic core mission of the University. There
are alternative ways to save money than to make the kind of
short-sighted "streamlining" decisions that have been proposed by
UCOF. Sun, May 30, 2010 10:50 AM Find...
178. Decrease the number of administrators. Sun, May 30, 2010 10:15 AM Find...
179. This plan does not take into consideration "quality education"
which requires master teachers mentoring students. It is a
pro-business, utilitarian approach to education and will, if
implemented, reduce the capacity of the UC to produce research talent
and new ideas. Sun, May 30, 2010 10:01 AM Find...
180. These are all terrible ideas based on a false premise. We
Californians need to increase state funding of our universities. Sun,
May 30, 2010 1:07 AM Find...
181. This approach of reducing the quality of education while raising
the price is an assault on students and public education and the first
steps toward creating a tier-class society where only the wealthy are
eligible for quality education. it will have the effect of undermining
the purpose of the establishment of the UC system: to make a
world-class education available to all, regardless of race, gender,
religion, or socioeconomic status. These measures will make a UC
education inaccessible to many who would use it to contribute greatly
to solving today's most pressing problems. Unacceptable. Instead, why
don't you cut administrator salaries to save money. Even if that won't
cover the costs, it should be done. It would be unethical not to. Sat,
May 29, 2010 10:48 PM Find...
182. I feel full-heartedly that this commission does NOT serve the
interest of the UC communities (students, faculty, staff, etc.). I
believe that the administrative body of the UC system (UCOP) should be
drastically reduced and these savings would not affect the quality of
education as much as the backward recommendations of this commission.
Another proposal would be a restructuring of the power structure of
the UC, with the aim of abolishing the Regents and eliminating UCOP
and having more local and direct governance and decision-making at
each UC, with a commission of UCs working together in lieu of 12-yr
appointed Regents that are not accountable to the taxpayers of
California. Sat, May 29, 2010 10:47 PM Find...
183. I am not a product! I do not want to be rushed through my
education. As an individual who loves knowledge and learning, it is
disrespectful for those who have already long since graduated to
determine what is best for me. I have a right to receive the type of
education that I feel that I deserve. Students should be looked at
holistically, not just as bags of money for the university to
manipulate. I should not feel forced into getting a degree in 3 or 4
years. I am not a product on an assembly line. Higher education should
be a right accessible to all persons! Sat, May 29, 2010 10:23
PM Find...
184. I think that all of these proposals would serve to make the
University of California a less accessible, less diverse school
providing a poorer education for more money. I think a reassessment of
the way the budget is handled is necessary, as well as decreasing the
number of administrators as the current 1:1 ratio of faculty to
administrators is totally unnecessary. As a student I value small
class sizes, a diversity of majors and well paid faculty far more than
new buildings, exorbitant regent salaries, and professors who are paid
for their research rather than their teaching. Sat, May 29, 2010 6:50
PM Find...
185. The future of the University is not in these proposals that erode
quality or chase dubious trends pushed by people with no real contact
with undergraduate or graduate education. We must restore competitive
total remuneration for faculty and staff, puttiing growth on hold as
long as necessary to preserve quality in our core mission. Sat, May
29, 2010 6:19 PM Find...
186. The UC needs greater transparency regarding budget matters. Any
measure that lowers the quality of education would harm the state in
general--where will we be when the UC does not set the standard? No
one should fool themselves or be fooled by others into thinking that
STUDENTS WILL LEARN AT ALL THROUGH ONLINE CLASSES and with grad
students teaching where professors ought to. Over-reliance on TA's
would not only lower the quality of education received by
undergraduates, but would also inhibit the grad students post-graduate
learning--they shouldn't be encouraged to teach prematurely. I sure
don't want to be taught by someone only slightly better qualified than
myself. I would personally rather see students bear the burden of
increases costs than to see higher education in California turned into
a joke. . Having said that, the Regents need to show clearly,
thoroughly and specifically that every thing that can be done to
prevent fee increases has in fact been done. This means not allowing
the Regents to implement fee hikes without complete transparency on
every step taken and every dollar spent. This University belongs to
California! Those appointed to manage its affairs are to be PUBLIC
SERVANTS. Sat, May 29, 2010 4:54 PM Find...
187. The university needs to find alternative methods of raising funds
without impacting students or prospective applicants. Education needs
to be a priority for the state of California. Sat, May 29, 2010 4:31
PM Find...
188. Caps on maximum administrator salaries
Caps on administrative positions. Reduction of unnecessary
administrator positions. Sat, May 29, 2010 4:27 PM Find...
189. The reduction in staff and the fee increase is not fair because
students would be paying more for less. It would reduce the
educational capability of the students. It would also make it hard for
minority students to attend a UC, specially AB540 students. Sat, May
29, 2010 1:56 PM Find...
190. stop cutting. increase taxes. stop doing non-essential
construction on campus. Sat, May 29, 2010 1:37 PM Find...
191. These proposals eviscerate the education principles of the
University of California. They target lower income students, which are
primarily students of color, as well as externalize the cost of
education--further burdening students and their parents with fees that
will begin to approach private school levels. Cuts do need to be made
in order to balance the UC budget--but they should not be cuts to the
quality and access to the quality for students. Students should NOT
bear the entire responsibility for mistakes made by the
administration. Sat, May 29, 2010 1:01 PM Find...
192. The regents need to re-examine their priorities, as it seems they
are determined to downgrade the UC system and create a overwhelmingly
overpriced community college system. Aside from the immediate adverse
reactions I have to making public education unaffordable, I think that
these changes will have devastating long-term consequences. These
proposals will significantly affect the quality of education we will
be able to receive and provide, and thus decrease the prestige and
desirability of the UC campuses. We will have a school system that
will no longer attract the top professors and students. Sat, May 29,
2010 12:55 PM Find...
193. Th UC is not a business. This is an education system, and the
quality of higher public education offered to Californians is being
severely compromised. The dire situation of the UC was not caused
because of less tax money from the state, the amount of which totals
less that 3% of the UC total budget. The fiscal problems the UC were
created by poor management decisions by the regents. Turning every UC
campus into a construction site, and gambling away endowment money in
shakey investments is not leadership. What is more productive in the
knowledge based economy we live in, a state and society of well
educated people, or a state and society full of people that did not
get the chance to attend a public research university in their home
state because it was too expensive, and inaccessible? Sat, May 29,
2010 12:47 PM Find...
194. privatization Sat, May 29, 2010 11:59 AM Find...
195. If these proposals are implemented, I believe they will greatly
lower interest in the University of California system, diverting local
students to CSU campuses and discouraging out of state students from
applying. Fundraising programs, pay cuts and furlough days should be
considered. Sat, May 29, 2010 11:35 AM Find...
196. These proposals transfer the burden of the budget cuts onto the
students and in addition decrease the quality of the education they'll
receive. Sat, May 29, 2010 11:00 AM Find...
197. They pretty much all sound disastrous. Is this a real survey?
That is to say, are these actually being considered? Sat, May 29, 2010
8:21 AM Find...
198. Online classes and reductions in teaching staff are perhaps the
worst ideas the committee could implement because they deteriorate the
quality of education that our students receive. Please do not consider
these ideas further. We are not University of Phoenix. Sat, May 29,
2010 4:56 AM Find...
199. I am a prospective UC parent as well as a UCB Ph.D. (1991) and a
UCSB faculty member of twenty years standing. I recognize the budget
problems that the financial crisis and the our dysfunctional state
government have created for the university. Given the fact that we are
unlikely to see a substantial increase in state support over the short
term, I would reluctantly support a provisional increase in
out-of-state enrollment provided that such students pay the full cost
of their education without aid from the university and, further, that
the income generated be distributed proportionately among the campuses
on the basis of total undergraduate enrollment. We must recognize,
however, that if put into practice, this proposal will increase the
divide between the university and the citizens of our state, who have
consistently sent Democratic majorities to Sacramento only to see them
prevented from fully funding public education because of the need for
a super-majority to pass a budget. We need their support. The rest of
the proposals range, in my view, from highly questionable to
appalling. Having recently received a 7% pay cut from the university
myself, I am very concerned about whether I will be able to afford to
send my own child to the university system I teach for if the proposed
fee increases are enacted. Since my son is ranked sixth in his high
school class, he may well have the opportunity to attend a highly
selective private institution at lower cost than the UC. But I am
proud of our university and would prefer to see him and students like
him remain in California. I oppose a flat fee increase, but I would
support the introduction of a sliding scale for fees with families
making over $200,000 paying the full cost of their students'
education. This seems to me more transparent and democratic than the
current system of remediating fees for low and middle-income students
through financial aid. Citizens should see what the costs really
are--and those who afford to should pay them. Of the remaining
proposals, the faculty reductions and departmental closures are the
most damaging. Such measures would effectively gut the university. The
proposal literally to decimate the faculty would dramatically reduce
the quality of undergraduate education at the university. But it would
also decimate the university's research capacity for years to come.
That such a proposal is even being entertained is beyond alarming. It
is tantamount to an admission of defeat on the part of the Commission.
While there may be some unnecessary redundancy in programs
system-wide, most of these are essential to the mission of any
respectable university. I don't think anybody wants to teach at or to
attend a university without an English department, or one that doesn't
offer French, or international relations. This is not a serious
proposal. The "enhanced fees" proposal would punish the states most
highly qualified students. Better to make those who are financially
capable pay in full. Online classes would dilute the UC brand. I know
high school students who have taken online courses at Santa Barbara
City College and found them totally worthless. It's an awful idea.
Adding surcharges to students at professional schools would discourage
students from pursuing careers in professions vital to the
state--teaching and medicine in particular. The university should
tread very carefully here. Sat, May 29, 2010 12:45 AM Find...
200. The mentioned proposals would diminish undergraduate general
education, put financial barriers to middle class and poorer
Californians and destroy the greatness of the unified system. Fri, May
28, 2010 11:11 PM Find...
201. These proposals are all self-destructive.
Other proposals: increased public funding; new funding distribution
formulae, budgetary reform in general; better oversight of Regents;
transparency; running Edley out of town; recovering indirect costs to
UC of funding extramural grants, especially corporate research
partnerships; distributing resources by workload; partnership with
Chinese universities (they want our humanities, we want their
engineers); stepped-up lobbying for federal funds; improved
fundraising and PR on behalf of liberal arts--i.e. grass-roots
fundraising Obama style; telethons. Fri, May 28, 2010 10:23 PM Find...
202. I take the recommendations Comission of the Future very
troubeling. It is clear that the interest of the students are no
longer a priority. The financial crisis is real but it seems that the
solutions are quite inadequate. We should take a look at our revenue
making units and take funds from them to funds deficits in other
units. The executive layer should be reduced, its salaries cut. We
should implement a equal salary ceiling for All employess and strive
to hire more faculty/staff and raise enrollment. Fri, May 28, 2010
8:57 PM Find...
203. The Fee increases will deter economically disadvantaged students
(especially students like me, whose parents make just enough money, on
paper, to have to supplement their children's education) from applying
to the UCs, 10% reduction in teaching staff will decrease the quality
of instruction (yes, graduate students are good but they are NOT
experts in their field of study), and differential fees between
campuses seems unfair--just because a student is smart enough and
hardworking enough to get into UCLA and UCB does not mean they should
have to pay higher fees--those students should be getting paid to come
to THOSE campuses to offer their brilliant minds. Doubling
out-of-state student enrollment will mean less spots are open for
California residents--and UCs should be comprised of mostly California
students---these are public institutions. It is almost like proposing
we bring more out-of-state students to public high schools in
California--it just doesn't make sense. The UCs are NOT private
institutions-they are PUBLIC. Fri, May 28, 2010 7:30 PM Find...
204. On line classes will eliminate teaching position but cannot fill
the importance of teachers' presence in class.
In eliminating majors or programs that are the same on different
campuses,the proposal eliminates the richness of quality of individual
campuses and thus forcing students to go elsewhere to get a divesified
education program. Fri, May 28, 2010 7:23 PM Find...
205. I don't like any of the above proposals. Fri, May 28, 2010 3:20 PM Find...
206. I'm shocked and appalled. Clearly, the values of public education
are not being upheld.
I think we should stop punishing undergraduate english majors, who
really do pay the entire bill for the cost of their education, and
start really looking at how much research development in the natural
sciences and engineering is costing. Also, could we please stop
treating the UC like a business? Why does parking need to have huge
cash reserves, exactly? Fri, May 28, 2010 2:13 PM Find...
207. I don't understand how any of what was suggested in the UC's
report helps contribute to the production of education as a public
good. Isn't the 3 year program just going to create 2nd class students
who have to tear through their studies and have terrible quality of
life? And how can the university just decide to use GSIs to teach more
lower division classes without talking to the union about this? I
think the online classes proposal troubles me the most -- who is going
to be responsible for teaching these classes? This is just a money
making tool. This seems like a prime spot to exploit GSIs. Fri, May
28, 2010 1:53 PM Find...
208. These proposals weaken the educational mission of the campus and
make it more and more difficult for students from lower middle class
backgrounds to complete their education without taking out student
loans. Fri, May 28, 2010 1:28 PM Find...
209. This is a blatant attack on students and workers. Why are we
facing cuts when the University could save money by eliminating
redundant administrative positions, by cutting administrative
salaries, and by backing off of unnecessary building projects? Why are
we not considering using our unrestricted reserve funds?
These reforms amount to the elimination of the UC's public
character. Fri, May 28, 2010 12:36 PM Find...
210. ruin this institution. period. Fri, May 28, 2010 12:08 PM Find...
211. Eliminating programs using various criteria might make sense, but
the fact that a program exists on a different campus does no good for
undergraduates on a campus that does not offer the program. That seems
a very poor basis for eliminating (say) an otherwise well-subscribed
and effective program. Is it a bad thing for every campus to have a
Physics Dept., a Philosophy Dept., an Environmental Studies
department? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:23 AM Find...
212. For anyone who has any familiarity with education (I obviously do
not include the regents in this category), these ideas are clearly
misguided. They will only lead to increasingly poor quality of
undergraduate education, while continuing to remake the graduate
student population into a "squadron" of under-paid instructors. The
University will cease to serve its public function in society, and
will instead increasingly cater to the needs of the rich and powerful.
Here's a different idea: enact a policy whereby nobody who works for
the UC can make more than 150k. I know plenty of people who would do a
much better than Yudof for much less money. If nobody made more than
150k I'm sure the savings would be in the hundreds of millions, and it
would have the added bonus of eliminating many class enemies from the
administration. Fri, May 28, 2010 10:46 AM Find...
213. no consideration about education and research Fri, May 28, 2010
10:24 AM Find...
214. Eliminating "return to aid" for fees. Set fees as low as possible
and have them go entirely to educating the student who pays them (no
share to UCOP, no subsidizing other students). Fri, May 28, 2010 10:18
AM Find...
215. 1) Fees are already too high, and the California middle class,
those who can buy homes in any of the urban areas, are getting priced
out as they qualify for very little in the way of financial aid, but
have very little disposable income. Californians tend to be house rich
and cash poor. 2) Online classes do NOT provide the same education, as
peer to peer learning and long term networking opportunities are
eliminated. Students also don't have the opportunity to develop
mentoring relationships with faculty and grad students in the same way
they do in a classroom setting. This will change the way that letters
of recommendation can be written and will make students less
competitive for grad school- even if it is only done at the Intro
courses level as it eliminates the long term relationship. The three
year degree is already doable for any student who wants it--but
capstone summer experiences, fieldwork with faculty and internships
are critical in many fields, so if students had to take classes then ,
again, you'd be eliminating an important aspect of the educational
opportunity of students. If you want to cut expenses cut entertainment
and catering for regular events, revamp HR, and get real with admin
pay (see below). Fri, May 28, 2010 9:48 AM Find...
216. There have been proposals by AFSCME Local 3299. I suggest that
you vote on them. Fri, May 28, 2010 9:31 AM Find...
217. every one of these proposals will either effect the diversity and
richness of the student body or significantly degrade the quality of
undergraduate education. In the end it will result in California
loosing its superior workforce to better educated offshore
competitors. Raise the tax base if necessary to maintain quality of
UC. Thu, May 27, 2010 11:11 PM Find...
218. A continued attempt at privatization by the regents. These people
are executives with only a profit motive, that should be obvious. Thu,
May 27, 2010 5:58 PM Find...
219. I don't believe on-line classes should replace regular classes; I
agree with online classes, but they should cost less not more and
should not replace courses but used to offer students more flexibility
and ability to enroll in courses. What the Commission is doing is
raising fees and calling for the lay-off of professors; this will only
lead to more poverty. People need jobs not to lose them. The cost of
education is already ridiculously high, it should not be increased.
This will put more strain on state and federal government who provide
funds for lower income students; additionally, middle class students
will suffer greatly because of these increases in fees. Thu, May 27,
2010 5:28 PM Find...
220. I would hope that the commission investigated ways on making
staff reductions, particularly in administrative areas. The university
is top-heavy in high paid adminsitrators and their staffs. Thu, May
27, 2010 5:01 PM Find...
221. I work in the Library so it would impact us if they did online
courses, less students!I am not suer of the impact whether it would be
good or bad. If enrollment increases, we will need more funding for
moer services to serve more students. Thu, May 27, 2010 4:33
PM Find...
222. Really looking at the tenured faculty and their REAL ability to
teach. Thu, May 27, 2010 4:27 PM Find...
223. All of the proposals are harmful to the UC system and its logic
of avaulable public education. Thu, May 27, 2010 4:07 PM Find...
224. Out-of-State enrollments might be also able to increase diversity
on campuses.
I think the idea of increased fees - and increased number! - of
professional programs. Thu, May 27, 2010 2:56 PM Find...
225. Reduce the salaries of highly paid administrators, reduce layers
of administration, pursue efficiencies that save money and are also
more environmentally sustainable, solicit recommendations from
students, overturn the 2/3 rule to pass CA state budgets, better
utilize the campuses in the summer. Thu, May 27, 2010 2:46 PM Find...
226. These proposals seem to imply that a UC would cost more for far
less quality instruction, devotion to students and learning. It sounds
like the UC will become a university of phoenix where people buy their
degrees. It cheapens my education as a UC graduate. I will not support
the UC if they decide to implement these changes. I believe that many
people will come to see the truth behind these changes and the UC will
lose it's standing as a world class institution of education and
research. Thu, May 27, 2010 2:37 PM Find...
227. California students should benefit from UC schools and have
priority over out-of-state students. The cost of a public university
should be AFFORDABLE. My suggestion is to lobby state officials and
lobby the public to get them behind the idea of supporting affordable
public education for the students of California. Thu, May 27, 2010
2:30 PM Find...
228. I do not find these proposals particularly creative.
I would suggest that students be charged a reasonable per credit fee
for all instruction up to a ceiling that is equal to the number of
credits required to graduate with a BA. All courses taken above that
ceiling would be very expensive. This would eliminate all the "course
shopping" that now goes on. Unfortunately it would also force students
to be proactive in their decision making about courses and majors,
which seems to be difficult for some students. Thu, May 27, 2010 2:27
PM Find...
229. Missing are proposals to trim administrative budgets; to increase
faculty-student interaction and advising (with compensation); Thu, May
27, 2010 2:23 PM Find...
230. 'education' by the not-fully-educated (= graduate students)
represents a watering-down of what a university has to offer;
it's a stopgap, short-term money-saver, tantamount to the financial
instruments that took some years to blow up in people's faces -- some
years down the road the unpredictable consequences of failing to
educate fully (w/ fully learned instructors) our young will show up
and there'll be a run to correct the system they're hoping to
implement now Thu, May 27, 2010 2:20 PM Find...
231. All of these proposals hurt the UC. The one with the least
potential for harm, if done well, is the use of online classes. Other
quality schools already use online classes and are none the worse for
it. The important point would be to put into steps ways to teach
people how to teach online, and then support them in doing so. This
includes not just pedagogical support but providing flexible and
sufficient computing support so that it does not become a burden for
all involved. Thu, May 27, 2010 2:15 PM Find...
232. All of these proposals are designed to save money; they have
nothing to do with the quality of education or with implementing the
master plan: to educate all of the children of California who are
eligible for enrollment in one of the UC's. Where does the commission
think that the future of the state lies - in its corporations? Haven't
we seen enough of what the business model has done to this country,
and isn't it time to reject the old, stale thinking of corporate
capitalism, and to embark on a genuinely enlighted future educational
project for the good of all? Thu, May 27, 2010 1:29 PM Find...
233. Adopting these proposals will not improve the quality of
education and life at the UC campus, but it will signal an end to the
Master Plan that provided the best learning and research opportunities
for the State of California's best and brightest high school
students.If pressed to find additional funding, the Regents and the UC
administrators on each campus should work together to change
legislation, secure long-term state funding commitments, and raise new
money for unsupported, but culturally important, research. What is
most threatened by the proposals is the culture of California. Thu,
May 27, 2010 1:26 PM Find...
234. UC should reduce the number of administrators/middle managers.
The bureaucracy on this campus (UCR) is medieval! Thu, May 27, 2010
1:10 PM Find...
235. Education should be free, or at least affordable. UC education is neither.
Why aren't UC execs and admins aligning themselves with the students,
staff, and faculty and fighting the state to get funding back? They're
being frustratingly passive and resigned on this huge point.
Each UC should be an organic place where young people who live in
nearby communities can easily afford classes and pursue whichever
disciplines spark their interests. Getting to "shop around"
academically, spending 4-5 years for my undergrad degree, and having
face-to-face contact with my fellow students and teachers was what
shaped my intellect in college. For most people, college is the last
time they get to be exposed to so much information in such a
concentrated, interconnected way. The proposals above strike me as a
conveyer-belt style of education, and it seems dismissive of the
intellectual and social growth spurts that happen during a young
person's college years. Thu, May 27, 2010 12:23 PM Find...
236. They will destroy the depth, breadth and uniqueness of a UC
education. Any difference between CSU level education and UC education
will have been erased. Thu, May 27, 2010 12:06 PM Find...
237. These proposals will all diminish the quality of education in
California. Unfortunately the Regents seem to see education as a
commodity to be sold and traded like oil futures. THey seem to have no
interest in the impact of their decisions on the University of the
State. For them and it seems for the administration, it's just a
business. Thu, May 27, 2010 11:35 AM Find...
238. All of the above proposals directly hurt the students. A few of
the proposals will devalue the worth of an quality undergraduate
education for many of the students at the non-flagship campuses like
Cal and UCLA. How ridiculous to think that future UCLA/UCB students
would be willing to pay more for online classes; less time to discover
themselves with fewer majors/programs/departments to choose from being
taught by mostly graduate students. Same goes for all the rest of the
future and current students at all of the other campuses. At least one
could make a reasonable arguement that increases in Student Fees will
allow the University to maintain and even enhance what it is offering
right now. But to expect students to pay MORE for LESS is smiply
ridiculous. Thu, May 27, 2010 9:57 AM Find...
239. The proposals do not take an "encompassing" approach to the
situation and fail to consider the state's commitment to the Master
Plan. These "solutions" do not consider how, in the long run, it is
more expensive not to invest in educating Californians. Last but not
least, why are we using a "corporate" ecnomic model that has very very
clearly failed since we are in the mess we are in because of that way
of conducting business? Thu, May 27, 2010 9:38 AM Find...
240. These proposals basically harm the educational mission of the UC.
Streamline administration. Ladder faculty teach more. Thu, May 27,
2010 7:37 AM Find...
241. 3 year degree program would reduce the prestige of a diploma from
the respective school. Online classes is a good idea, especially in
the summer. Wed, May 26, 2010 8:43 PM Find...
242. The University suffers because of mismanagement and conflicts of
interest between the UC administration (including Regents) and
University business. None of these proposal address this fundamental
problems. Wed, May 26, 2010 8:38 PM Find...
243. They will systematically destroy the UC reputation. Less people
from a low socioeconomic background, who want to go to college, will
be able to due to fee increases. The middle class will become the new
'poor' on campus, and pretty soon fee increases will force that
demographic out as well. As far as professional school increases, why
waste money on a graduate program if you won't be able to ever pay off
any accrued debts in a lifetime. Regarding three year degree programs
and online classes... Well, you're going to devalue education. I know,
I've taken such online college courses and they're a waste of time and
energy. They go back to the high school format of memorization and
regurgitation as opposed to helping teach students to think, to not
accept everything they read. Doubling out-of-state enrollment is the
only logical thing to do as it will help increase diversity.
Unfortunately that is not why the regents care to do it. It's all
about the money and it's going to kill the UC system. Wed, May 26,
2010 7:11 PM Find...
244. Real Community imput! Wed, May 26, 2010 6:25 PM Find...
245. It is incredible that these proposals are all so bad. Wed, May
26, 2010 6:13 PM Find...
246. Every one of these proposals is a way of cheapening the cost and
lowering the quality of higher education. They are also cynical, as
they are proposed as necessary in light of decreased funding, when the
right response is to reject the premise that reduced funding is either
necessary or in the interest of the people of California. UC should
begin full disclosure of all aspects of its funding, including
accounting for the use of every single dollar of student tuition. The
should particularly disclose cross transfers of funds between
department, colleges, and professional schools. Wed, May 26, 2010 6:06
PM Find...
247. Why not just sell off the assets - or better, let Goldmans Sachs
do it and keep all the profits? Wed, May 26, 2010 5:33 PM Find...
248. The University should concentrate on administrative bloat and
curbing runaway admin salaries to tackle its own financial
crisis. Wed, May 26, 2010 4:55 PM Find...
249. Essentially, these proposals are either fee increases or staff
turnaround. I don't like them. We need to cut costs: professor salary,
campus housing, athletics budget, office budgets, club funding,
financial aid, etc. By simply saying, "Let's just increase fees,"
you're condoning the current wasteful spending right now. If people
leave, so what? At the end of the day, we're still UC schools,
there'll be demand to go here, and there will be no dropoff in quality
students and faculty. Wed, May 26, 2010 4:48 PM Find...
250. What's missing: (1) recouping the true costs of overhead from
research funding to cover the costs of undergraduate instruction. If
the grantor wants the work done at a university, the grantor needs to
pay its fair share of what makes a university a university:
undergraduate instruction. (2) stop raiding the rainmakers on student
fees:the lower division and the humanities. Funds generated by
enrollment in lower division and undergraduate humanities courses
should fund those courses, not other, more expensive courses.
251. With these proposal, the University of California has no
future. Wed, May 26, 2010 4:10 PM Find...
252. Tax the oil companies in CA.
The right to an education for all who are competent to attend is an
American right. Wed, May 26, 2010 2:07 PM Find...
253. Shrink UCOP by 75% Wed, May 26, 2010 1:43 PM Find...
254. Possibly the University needs to decide that certain depts. at
certain campuses are not going to get the most presitigious and
expensive faculty around. Many professors are not teaching enough
students; these professors should to teach more students, either in
larger "non-boutique" classes or by teaching more classes total. Good
administration is important, but the administrator-to-student ratio
should not be as high as the faculty-to-student ratio. Graduate
students should not be teaching their own classes; they should be
teaching assistants. Wed, May 26, 2010 1:43 PM Find...
255. While it may be necessary to raise fees for undergraduates, it is
ridiculous to expect them to pay more and get less by having qualified
instructors replaced with TAs and courses moved to on-line, ala
University of Phoenix. You should add "cut administration costs to the
above list"; I would give that an A++ Wed, May 26, 2010 11:51
AM Find...
256. why not save money by actually implementing the promises made 10+
years ago of improving systems and managerial efficiency, which are
being re-proposed now? Wed, May 26, 2010 9:50 AM Find...
257. They are profit oriented rather than educational. Seems like the
result of a lot of business people who took U of Phoenix as their
model. Wed, May 26, 2010 9:35 AM Find...
258. Nobody needs to be told, but: Taken together, the proposals
discriminate against students from less affluent families, move to
restrict capable young Californians from California's public
university, de-value the undergraduate experience by reducing ranks of
and students' face-time with professional teachers, keep curious
students from selecting electives, and on and on. I think that
creative minds can come up with more creative and just solutions in
these tough times. Wed, May 26, 2010 9:34 AM Find...
259. will lower quality of education Wed, May 26, 2010 9:25 AM Find...
260. The university should stop short-term solutions to save mnney,
and look at the long term solutions of reducing the number of highly
paid people and increasing the number of faculty and new students. We
don't need online education or summer education, we need to make
undergraduate education a priority. Wed, May 26, 2010 9:00 AM Find...
261. All of these proposals go against what the UC was founded for-
quality public education for California students. While I am not
opposed to out-of-state students at UC campuses, doubling their
numbers without increasing overall enrollment is directly hurting
California students and should not be the solution to this so-call
budget crisis. None of these proposals will better my educational
experience. None of these will improve the quality of any of the UC's,
they are all harmful. If I could have given them less than an F I
would.
Proposals that are missing include salary caps for administrators and
chancellors, elimination of some administrative positions, halt to new
construction projects. Sun, May 23, 2010 7:22 PM Find...
262. this is effectively destroying the status and competitive ability
UC has with the private schools they are unreasonably trying to
compete with.
to eliminiate education from and educational institute is idiotic at
best Sun, May 23, 2010 6:07 PM Find...
263. Well for one thing, we could STOP CONSTRUCTING BUILDINGS THAT WE
CAN'T AFFORD TO HOLD CLASSES IN. Really? $99 million dollars on
McHenry when the libraries are only open 12 hours a day? Budget crisis
my ***. This is a crisis of priorities. Sun, May 23, 2010 11:23
AM Find...
264. It is not so much a question of what such proposals would do to
the UC system (it is clear that this would butcher everything that the
UC has stood for) so much as what this would mean for California. In
the global imaginary, California represents the dream of a better
life; UC has been the route to that better life. In the absence of an
independent and open public University, California will join the rust
belt in an endless period of decline and despair. Sun, May 23, 2010
10:43 AM Find...
265. these proposals will turn an already failing university system
into one that falls apart entirely. these things all go against the
vision of the UC and the master plan. Sat, May 22, 2010 3:17
PM Find...
266. These proposals will gut the university as a teaching
institution; most of the recommendations are truly appalling. If the
Regents were real stakeholders in the university or were accountable
in any way to students, faculty, and workers, this would never fly. I
think they should reduce the admin:faculty ratio and stop issuing
construction bonds. I have read some of the bond rating
recommendations by Moody's and the direction they insist we go in
order to keep a high bond rating is very scary. As long as UCOP and
the Regents hold this rating above all, the university will continue
to decline regardless of state funding. We basically need a
restructuring of the university that will reduce admin gluttony and
empower to students, faculty, and workers to run the university. Sat,
May 22, 2010 2:10 PM Find...
267. Your instrument is flawed (in my opinion) because it does not
consider people who are both an alumnus and a staff or faculty member.
That being said, as both an alumnus and employee, I understand that
given current economic realities, University salaries need to be held
stable (and top executives should have to trim theirs-- if they leave,
who gives a damn, someone else will take that job). The unions need to
temper their demands. As the economy recovers, so too, can salaries.
The Commission seems to neglect any concept of marketing the
importance of the University to the public in order to create pressure
on Sacramento politicians to fund education. Sat, May 22, 2010 1:18
PM Find...
268. we need to 1) move away from the market based "star" system of
compensating faculty and staff back toward the merit system and 2)
make a much stronger more effective effort to communicate the value of
UC and high quality, affordable public higher ed to the public to help
people understand the value of the tax dollars they spend on
this. Sat, May 22, 2010 12:01 PM Find...
269. All of the proposals listed above are atrocious, and would result
in a degraded quality of education for both undergrads and grad
students, higher exploitation of grad student instructors and
lecturers, and a much less accessible UC. They're ridiculous. Sat, May
22, 2010 9:49 AM Find...
270. I think these proposals move the UCs away from some of its core
missions including quality teaching and accessibilty. For me my best
educational experience at Cal has been interacting--in person--with
other students and my professors and GSIs. If you had taken this away
4 years ago my education, and I myself, would have been totally
different. Fri, May 21, 2010 7:46 PM Find...
271. These proposals are pathetic. Fri, May 21, 2010 8:44 AM Find...
272. We need to do the following:
(1) Democratize the Regents
(2) Pass the California Democracy Act (Eliminate the 2/3rds rule)
(3) Modify Proposition 13 so that property taxes are increased (but
not overwhelmingly)
(4) Elect a progressive governor in 2010 who will prioritize funding
for public higher ed (not at the expense of other public programs)
(5) Do studies on the negative effects of academic capitalism at
American universities, and use them to educate policymakers and
administrators Fri, May 21, 2010 12:53 AM Find...
273. Return to the Master Plan for Education that was adopted in the
early 1960s. Thu, May 20, 2010 12:43 PM Find...
274. There once was a time where the word future carried exciting
promises of opportunity. But today the future of the UC system looks
bleaker than 1984, at least the way this commission sees things. Even
the least offensive proposals will devalue and undermine the UC system.
-
- Log in to post comments