FAQs
Q. Has Governor Schwarzenegger fundamentally changed his plan to privatize higher education in California?
A. No. While, thanks to the political pressure mounted by students, families, staff and faculty, Governor Schwarzenegger spared UC and CSU from the major cuts he proposed for most other public services, he only partially reversed the huge cuts to higher education he pushed through last year.
The $370 million increases he proposed for UC and CSU only restore about 1/3 of his recent cuts and he leaves high fees (and plans for further 10% per year increases) in place. They are only a tiny fraction of the $4.6 billion that is needed to restore quality and access to California public higher ed.
The governor also proposes to eliminate new awards for the Cal Grant Competitive Program beginning in 2010. This program provides financial assistance to under-served students based upon their academic performance.
And his proposed constitutional amendment to “protect” higher education is a hollow PR exercise that will have no effect.
In short, this budget mostly consolidates the governor’s privatization plan, while appearing to be backtracking and trying to head off public protests.
Q. Are the huge 32% fee increases approved by the Regents in November, 2009 large enough to compensate for Governor Schwarzenegger’s ongoing cuts to the UC (and CSU) budgets?
A. No. Even if there are no further cuts in state support for higher education, substantial continuing tuition increases will be necessary just to get the quality of a UC education back to where it was a few years ago. In the 2007 “Futures” report, the Academic Senate estimated that a “public funding freeze” would require tuition to increase to $15-17,000 a year. The governor has cut support for higher education well below the levels in the most pessimistic scenario in the Futures report, so, absent a change in the governor’s budget priorities, students and their families should brace for continuing large tuition increases, continued declines in quality or both.
Q. Is the privatization of UC just part of a national trend beyond the control of UC leadership and Governor Schwartznegger?
A. No. In a September 27, 2009, New York Times interview UC President Mark Yudof responded to the question “UC is facing a budget shortfall of at least $753 million, largely because of cuts in state financing. Do you blame Governor Schwarzenegger for your troubles?” answering “I do not. This is a long-term secular trend across the entire country. Higher education is being squeezed out. It’s systemic.”
In fact, the cuts Governor Schwarzenegger, adjusted for student enrollment and inflation have been much larger and the fee increases have been much larger than the average for other colleges. California used to be different because its students got exceptionally high value for their educational dollar. Governor Schwarzenegger’s policies are rapidly increasing costs while cutting quality.
Q. Why do executive salaries keep increasing at the same time that student fees climb, quality erodes, and faculty and staff salaries backslide?
A. Administrators justify these compensation packages on the grounds that higher education systems are complex enterprise and that market demands such salaries. This view reflects a corporate mentality that sees the quality of higher education as determined by top executives, not the students, faculty and staff at the bottom.
More important, it is a symptom of the creeping privatization of higher education. As the governors reduce public support for UC and CSU, more and more of UC and CSU’s leaders’ time goes to private fundraising, less to administering higher education as a public trust. From this perspective, privatized universities have to pay private sector salaries to the people at the top.
Q. Why not just increase the number of out of state students as a way to make money?
A. It is unlikely to work and has real costs. While in 1986 California imported 4124 freshmen than it exported to other states, by 2006 this situation had reversed, with 2384 more freshmen leaving California than coming. Price probably contributed to this trend. At the flagship UC Berkeley campus 2008 tuition and fees were $8385, higher than the national average for other flagship universities of $7029. UC fees had increased by 60% between 2004 and 2008, the third highest increase among all flagship universities during this period (Details). Increasing out-of-state enrollment will necessarily come at the expense of reducing the number of opportunities for California students, further reducing higher education’s claim on state resources. And, like other privatization schemes, it won’t solve the financial problem.
Q. Isn’t the University of Michigan a good model for UC in the face of declining state support?
A. When the University of Michigan moved to a semi-privatized model, it reduced access for residents to allow greater enrollment of non-residents who are charged much more for tuition. Admission standards were relaxed to increase out-of-state enrolment. Over half of Michigan’s 2003 freshman class came from families with six-figure incomes in a state where only 13% of families earn that much. The result has been significantly diminished access for the residents of Michigan, especially the most disadvantaged, and a reduction in the quality of the University as seen in its drop in rankings by U.S. News and World Report.