UC's and Stuff

Originally posted August 1, 2009:

The following is an excerpt from the letter signed by 23 department chairs at the University of California at San Diego. The letter was dated June 15, 2009 and was forwarded to the University of California Office of the President:

“3. Establish different budget priorities for the profiles of different UC campuses. Every state system of public education save California manages to sustain (at best) one flagship campus. Many, including such states as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, do not manage even that. We pretend we have ten such campuses. In better times, there were in reality four flagships (Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, and – in its highly specialized way, UCSF). Rather than destroying the distinctiveness and excellence at Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD by hiring temporary lecturers to do most of the teaching (and contribute nothing to original research, nothing to our reputation, nothing to the engine of economic growth a first rate research university represents), we propose that you urge the President and Regents to acknowledge that UCSC, UCR, and UC Merced are in substantial measure teaching institutions (with some exceptions – programs that have genuinely achieved national and international excellence and thus deserve separate treatment), whose funding levels and budgets should be reorganized to match that reality.

We suggest, more generally, that in discussions systemwide, you drop the pretence that all campuses are equal, and argue for a selective reallocation of funds to preserve excellence, not the current disastrous blunderbuss policy of even, across the board cuts. Or, if that is too hard, we suggest that what ought to be done is to shut one or more of these campuses down, in whole or in part. We have suffered more than a 30 per cent cut in our funding from the state, and we can thus no longer afford to be a ten campus system – only a nine, or an eight (and a half) campus system. Corporations faced with similar problems eliminate or sell off their least profitable, least promising divisions. Even General Motors, which for decades resisted this logic, to its near-fatal cost, is lopping off Hummer, Buick, GMC, Opel, Saab and who knows what else.”

It looks as if I chose the right time to leave the state. Ha, I’m kidding of course. Though I must admit that, to an extent, Princeton bought me off. In many ways I would have preferred UCSD. It has better weather and much much better fish tacos. But going to a University that has an obscene (if rapidly shrinking) endowment has its advantages.

In analyzing the hypothetical closing of smaller UC campuses, it is useful to consider which groups of people would benefit from the implementation of this proposal. By closing the smaller UC’s, the UC system would have fewer spots available in each year’s classes (unless they implemented plans to expand the size of the remaining universities, an idea not endorsed or even mentioned in the letter). The campuses would enjoy more funding/student. But, there would be less spots available. In a more competitive application environment, which students are most likely to be rejected? An alphabet soup of factors go in to making such a judgment. Surely, there are SAT’s and AP’s and IB’s and so on. The easy answer is poor students. You know, the students who don’t have access to expensive test preparatory resources. Students who don’t enjoy good college counseling and other advantages students like those from Westview and Torrey Pines do. Scores on standardized tests are strongly tied to socio-economic status. If you look how the UC considers eligiability in application, scores on SAT II’s and SAT’s weigh very heavily, thus aiding the rich students who would do well on standardized tests. :

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/educators/counselors/resources/materials/e_index.pdf

In light of what I wrote yesterday, this proposal concerns me. The reasoning is fairly simple. Having a smaller student body in so-called “flagship” universities would benefit students of higher socio-economic status. Perhaps creating economic elite happens at private universities. However, I am not convinced that this is not the proper role of a public university. The UC system exists as a means of educating the people of California. And I do not believe that the public benefits from a narrowing of the students who are educated. The state as a whole benefits when more students have access to learning.

There near a 0% chance this letter will amount to anything. There is substantial support for most of the UC campuses. Eliminating any of them would be a long, painful and difficult process. However, it useful as difficult economic times force us to question what is important, to question the role of the University of California system. Perhaps it is not Merced or Santa Cruz who are out of line for not being “flagship” Universities, but Berkeley and LA for betraying their role. Instead of broadening the scope of state education, they have sought to emulate private institutions.