Jul 22 2009, 7:33PM
UCB RIP
When my son was trying to decide on a college a few years ago, his choices ultimately narrowed down to two: a fancy Ivy League institution or the University of California at Berkeley. After some soul-searching, he ended up opting for the Ivy League, and my wife and I certainly didn't object. But we did impose one condition: Whenever, in future years, the well-endowed university he would be attending hit him up for a contribution, he would cheerfully give one...to the University of California at Berkeley.
My affection for the place is only incidentally related to the fact that UCB is my alma mater. I have as much smoke - and mycological-fueled sentimentality about my '60s college years as the next baby boomer, and as much nostalgia for all the riots and strikes and protests in which I participated, but what I'm expressing here has nothing to do with any of that, or with rah-rah school spirit. Rather, it's that the creation of the university in 1868 embodied a genuinely noble democratic idea, one simultaneously embracing egalitarianism and excellence. The state of California determined to establish an elite public university that could rival any private institution on the East Coast, and one that, in addition, would be effectively tuition-free to any qualified California resident. There's something admirably American, and perhaps admirably western, about the whole notion. This would be an institution free of class and familial and financial restrictions; it would pursue excellence without regard to such feudal vestiges, and it would open up opportunity to those formerly excluded.
The revised state Constitution of 1879 guaranteed the University a substantial measure of independence from California's political organs. Significantly, its charter also guaranteed, contrary to the urgings of some in the state legislature, that the university need not restrict its curriculum to engineering and agriculture and mining and other areas of practical economic significance to the state, but could also be free to cultivate the liberal arts. For decades, legislatures and governors of both parties viewed the University of California as a special jewel in the state's crown, worthy of nurture and protection. This pride in what the state had wrought paid dividends: Cal has long been regarded as one of the greatest universities in the country, and in the world. A remarkable, and unique, achievement for a public institution.
But it now looks as if those days are over. It won't happen overnight, and it won't happen completely. But absent an unlikely, massive injection of private funding, the university is on an inexorable glide path downward.
The current budget crisis is wreaking havoc with all of the state's services, of course, and it's impossible not to find distasteful the special pleading for one budgetary victim over another. Police and fire-fighting funds are shrinking. Inmates of the state prisons are about to be released into the general population. State medical services are going to be cut. A variety of pre-school and elementary school programs are headed for the axe. Vital agricultural programs are in jeopardy. Programs to assist the elderly are being curtailed or canceled. Bad times are like that: Good programs, even necessary programs, suffer. People suffer. Intelligent public investment suffers as well; health and education may be vital to the state's future prosperity - most of the engineers in Silicon Valley were trained at Berkeley, for example; the state recouped on that investment in a big way - but it's not news that the poor are unable to invest. Each program has its own constituency, and often that constituency seems to feel more deserving of consideration than other constituencies who are also being injured. Lobbying for exceptional treatment can be an unseemly exercise.
But still, without intending any particular political agenda, and without adducing on UCB's behalf any hierarchy of injustice or worthiness, I still would like to acknowledge the tragedy of what's about to happen. It's not the only tragedy, nor even necessarily the worst tragedy, but it's a very great tragedy. The damage to the university is likely to be irreversible. It will be less able to compete with other institutions in the hiring of distinguished faculty. Funding for complex research will be less accessible. Tuition fees will inevitably rise, as they've already risen, putting the place out of reach for the underprivileged. Staff will be let go. Programs will be zeroed out. No doubt Berkeley will remain an estimable institution, and a significant player in the intellectual and economic life of the state. But its days as one of the very greatest universities in the country are clearly numbered.
It's a great loss. Not merely for the university itself, nor even solely for the state of California. It's a loss for everyone who cherishes a certain notion of how higher education, and society itself, ought to function.
(Photo: Flickr User Thomas Claveirole)
Erik Tarloff
This is an important and rallying piece by a thoughtful friend. The elegiac tone lends great poignancy and power to a genuine patriot's polite call to action: unless there is a change in the status quo, the dual founding commitment to excellence and genuine egalitarianism of an uniquely American education system is at fatal risk. And why? Because the current scarcity of public resources makes that commitment seem, dangerously and with the shortest of sightlines, like a luxury. No, this son of Berkeley protests, it is essential. Bravo.
I think this sad transition can be seen in a number of places besides California. Those elite public institutions in other states that are in UCB's league, Madison, Iowa City, Austin, Ann Arbor, to list just a few, are in similar straits.
The issue is greater than just budgetary insufficiencies. In some cases there exists a stated strategy on the part of the legislative bodies to reduce the support of the University system even when there is no fiscal crisis. I attribute this to the "why should my taxes go to support those students - my kids didn't to to college!" mind set. I have observed this first hand here in Wisconsin, where support for the UW system has fallen dramatically over the past 25 years, particularly during the period when Tommy Thompson was Governor, and Republicans controlled both houses of the Legislature.
This is particularly sad in Wisconsin, where the University has a history of serving the entire state, not just "those elites" who attend. The University's outreach efforts are extensive and long-standing, and appear to have gone for naught.
On the other hand, to UCB's credit, since all the likely competitors for their disaffected faculty are in the same or similar boats, there might not be the freedom to jump ship. Just saying...
UCB should solve its funding problem by raising its tuition. Part of all the UCs current attraction is that they charge less than competitors, but discount pricing isn't "greatness".
Each student attending UCB has the opportunity to earn far more than the average taxpayer who is asked to subsidize their education. (If the student squanders that opportunity, the subsidy is even more questionable). First, why should UCB staff that will never earn as much as the students could, pay more taxes to support those students? Second, why should California subsidize a competitor to California's private schools? Is this a version of France's "national champions" industrial policy?
UCB's greatness should rise or fall on its merits, not its subsidy.
The thing is debt. Graduating with either a lot or a little. That makes for life and career choices. Berkeley and the rest of the UC system compete by offering young people a famous degree that does not carry the price of taking the first high paying job offered. So, the graduates can afford to, say, teach or work in the public sector. The graduate engineer might take a risk with a startup. The physician might move to an under-served rural area. The lawyer might be a assistant DA. That was the investment California made -- in its people, itself, and the country. It was assumed that the Return on Investment from great research universities would be substantial, and it has been. Like any ideal competitive circumstance, this was good for UC, and good for Stanford or USC too. While it lasted it certainly was good for California, and we will pay a price for its loss.
As Chancellor of Berkeley, I see the real challenge as not whether Berkeley can remain one of the greatest universities —there is no doubt that it will — but whether it can do so and still retain its unique public character. Read my full response at: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/07/24_ucbrip.shtml
$3,000,000 of carefree spending on consultants by UCB Chancellor Birgeneau on consultants when the work can be done by world class faculty, staff and UC/UCB executive management internally (It's a recession!) University of California President Yudof Approves $3,000,000 to Outsource the UCB Chancellor’s work.
The UC President has a UCB Chancellor that should do the high paid job he is paid for instead of hiring a consulting firm to fulfill his work responsibilities. ‘World class’ smart executives like Chancellor Birgeneau need to do the analysis, hard work and make the difficult decisions of their executive job!
Where do consulting firms like Bain ($3,000,000 consultants) get their recommendations?
From interviewing the senior management that hired them and will be approving their monthly consultant fees and expense reports. Remember the nationally known auditing firm who said the right things and submitted recommendations that senior management wanted to hear and fooled government oversight agencies and the public?
Instead of demonstrating his capacity to fulfill his executive accountabilities, Mr. Birgeneau outsourced them. Doesn't he engage University of California and University of California Berkeley (UCB) people at all levels to help examine the budget and recommend the necessary $150,000,000 trims? Hasn't he talked to Cornell and the University of North Carolina - which also hired Bain -- about best practices and recommendations that might apply to UCB cuts?
No wonder the faculty and staff are angry and suspicious. Three million dollars is a high price for Californians to pay during a recession when a knowledgeable ‘world-class’ Chancellor is not doing the work of his job.
Please help save $3,000,000 for teaching our students and request that the UC President Yudof require the UCB Chancellor to fulfill his executive job accountabilities!
due respect, your response is a bit naive if you read JUST A FEW of the following stories you will understand why i say this:
* Big raises for CSU, UC-executives prompt bill
* After Livers, Cash to UCLA
* Big Oil Buys Berkeley
* UC Piling Extra Cash On Top of Pay
* Schwarzenegger vetoes whistleblower protections for UC workers
* Journalism Students Data Breached
* 6,000 UCSF patients' data got put online
* Japanese Mob Boss Gave $100,000 to UCLA, rewards after controversial liver transplant
* UC Berkeley Faculty Endorse Cut in Athletic Aid
* UCLA Kidney Program...
* UC Irvine to fire whistleblower nurse?
* New UC Davis Chancellor Linked to "Clout" Admissions Probe
* UCSF refuses to release outside review of its finances
* Whistleblowers at Los Alamos Fired in Retaliation
* UCLA Dentist Whistleblower Resigns Post
* When Scientists Kidnap Embryos
* Claims Against UC Irvine's Fertility Clinic
* UC Irvine Med Center still out of compliance
* LANL Whistle-Blower Beaten
* The Case of the Battered Whistle-Blower
* Audit Firms backs up fired UCSF dean claim
* WhistleBlower Dean Kessler Fired From UCSF
* Meet Linda Morris Williams, in charge of whistle blowing at Cal
* UC Berkeley Alums Get Breached...AGAIN!
* UC Spending Big Despite Budget Crisis (video)
* UC Davis Chancellor's Actions Cause Concern
* UC Admits Misleading Public About Buyout Taker
* Robert Dynes example of larger UC problem
* Senator Grassley Supports UCSF Whistleblower
* Cal/OSHA chief to oversee criminal investigation of fatal UCLA lab fire
* Deadly UCLA lab fire leaves haunting questions
* What can be learned from the death of a young biochemist at UCLA?
* UC Irvine and Liver Transplants...
* Kin of 9 who died waiting accuse UCI
* UCLA acknowledges sale of body parts as donors' families sue school
* UC Berkeley computers hacked, 160,000 at risk
* UC 's Egregious Actions
* A Tangled Web At Berkeley
* Data security breach at UCSF may have exposed thousands
* Scandal Mars UC Chief's Legacy
* The scandal, the scapegoat, and the suicide
* UCIMC Administrators Ignored Federal Warnings
* Farrah Fawcett helped prove UCLA leaked her health records
* UC regents award huge pay increases to execs while furloughing staff
* UCLA suspends its Willed Body
* UCSD Big Money and the Ball Club
* UC Regents Math Lesson
* Berkeley chancellor's perks raise eyebrows
* Regents excuse UC president in salary scandal
* UC Chief Yudof Changes Buyout Policy
* After the Fall
* Union protest pre-empts chancellor's annual meeting with staff
* Berkeley Chancellor delivers grim budget news..
* How industry is undermining academia. Adapted from the book University, Inc. by Jennifer Washburn
* An interview with author, Jennifer Washburn. by Jennifer Borden, Special to CorpWatch
* Interview with Jennifer Washburn
* Jennifer Washburn, author of University, Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education
* Court Rules Against University of California Whistleblowers
* POGO Supports UC Employees
* Whistleblowers may have a friend in the Oval Office
ALL OF THE STORIES ARE AVAILABLE HERE:
http://cloudminder.blogspot.com/
The problem is too many of the folks running the university are not alum, California natives or long term residents. They come from all over to get their tickets punched after 5 years or so and move on. They might be good people but they lack any passion for the institution. Its just a Job. The students of Cal deserve better. We need new Regents, who will in turn I hope give us a new president and new chancellors. The school still attracts and will continue to attract the best and the brightest students. It will though slide into second rate status do to second rate leaders.
I myself graduated from Cal a year ago with a BA in Film Studies and Political Science and I could not have imagined going to a better school. The faculty, the students, the level of academic rigor Cal exposed me to has made me so proud to be a bear. It would be devastating to see a revered public institution that has embraced diversity and progressiveness (and has supplied the Obama administration with such bright talent) be unable to compete against our nation's elite private universities. Though I disapprove of how much CA is taking away from its school system, I'd rather see tuition rise than witness the school's top programs slide into mediocrity. The competitive edge of UCB (and other UCs) is ultimately what will help grow the State of California's economy.
Berkeley alums have generously been given educational capital by their fellow citizens. They have been asked to ply that education in an open and diverse society such has been seen only rarely in Western civilization. The intellectual and personal freedom that California represents appears to be the mysterious ingredient that creates, or at least, attracts, entrepreneurial spirit. It is why, despite greater financial resources, and a near monopoly on intellectual pretentiousness, and group reverence, neither of the Cambridges can claim anything close to the contributions to the greater good that have flowed from CAL over one small century. A substantial part of the financial gains from that education have also been privatized, but the state has benefitted mightily from the Bears intellectual and creative efforts and the jobs they have created for others. But if Harvard, which produces a pathetic 2000 graduates a year, and those groomed for Wall Street and the courts, can raise $36 bln from its alumni because of their belief in their own blessedness, surely the Bears can reach into their pockets, demonstrate that our faith in them was well placed, and help us maintain the engine for a standard of life well-lived that others so clearly envy and resent.
As a native Californian and UCB faculty for nearly 20 years, I actually have a rather unique perspective on the California electorate's continual distaste for funding their own government. First, I thank Mr. Tarloff for his insightful comments. I'm struck that there are very few faculty that are actually California natives, particularly in my department (Anthropology/Archaeology). Indeed, this seems to be the root of California's anti-tax Democrats inability to wish to support the state in any real way - most Californian's were not born and raised here. This includes many in the legislature and government. There is no real tie to the state by the electorate. It seems that they think that since this is the "Golden" state that manna falls from heaven, or "someone else can pay for it". One commenter here suggested that UC should just raise tuition. UC is already one of the most expensive public universities in the nation, and for some campuses around the Bay Area and Los Angeles, much more expensive when you factor in the cost of living (this also goes for faculty and staff, of course).
While it's predictable that Chancellor Birgeneau would defend UC as the greatest and predict continued greatness, this is his job. You'll note that those on the "rah-rah" team at UC are those making the highest salaries. The rank and file are not on that bandwagon.
As a native Californian and one who believes in the original intent of higher education for the masses, I am ashamed of California's electorate and UC administration. I wish that my Chancellor's prediction of continued excellence was true, but as one who has lived in California much longer, I disagree. In my 20 years at Berkeley, there have been few, if any, years when funding has increased. And sadly, the electorate could care less. This is why I think that the future for the university is grim.
When people think of California, they think of the beach, freeways, and crazy liberals. Perhaps if they think a little further, they might think of Berkeley, and thus more crazy liberals. Then, they can go deeper, and remember that there is a really good public university there.
Because of the budget crisis, this great university will have to make some sacrafices, unfortunately, but delliott27 makes a very good point. There was a crisis here before Lehman Bros. and AIG were household names, and public U's have been trying hard for some time to replace lack of public investment with private funds. By doing this, they risk compromising the very integrity of their core missions as independent institutions, not beholden to any interest.
Berkeley has certainly struggled in this regard, and some of its more questionable deals with companies such as BP have made the press over the years. Even by becoming more dependent on alumni donation has its risk, as legacy students will increasingly fill the ranks (think about that populists, who don't think subsidizing education is a worthy cause).
This, I think is the great tragedy here. Universities, especially public ones, are supposed to be isolated from special interests. So, Mr. Chancellor, if you are still reading, I'd like to know how you will deal with that problem. How do you replace public money with private money, when these new funds come (at least in theory) with more strings attached?
Cal is also my alma mater and where I have worked as staff for many years.
I highly recommend that you read stories posted on this blogspot
http://cloudminder.blogspot.com/
it will give you some sense of where Cal has been since Birgeneau came to Cal- via Bell Labs like his friend Robert Dynes, former UC President who was in the headlines year after year for all sorts of stories revolving around corruption at Cal.
Yudof, the new president, is turning out no better than Dynes.
They both maintain an arrogance to staff and the state legislature.
Yudof simply dismisses his critics as "immature" or people who simply think he is a "stuffed shirt" but does not address their concerns. He tells the alumni "its a new day" --but where is the substance?
They both only look to alumni as a fund raising source and not as stakeholders.
Many in the state legislature are also alumni, yet if they utter one word of constructive criticism they are regarded as the enemy by the senior management group at UC.
and here is the latest :
"UC regents award huge pay increases
to execs while furloughing staff"
http://www.upte.org/about/press/2009-07-23.pdf
I am an alum and I am glad your son decided not to go to UC-
how does a land grant institution accept so much private corporate money so many professors named to endowed chairs from private corporations - all the buildings on campus are being named after corporations- even when the endowment and good times were rolling this was going on...
Last Monday the BBC news (on radio) reported that public universities in Germany, Great Britain and Japan were experiencing the same move to more private funding and elitism as UC and other US universities, and education costs are rising there too. But in many countries, great education is still public and free. I work at UCLA (for over 35 years), and many upper level students, medical residents, volunteers in research are from all over the globe and are successfully becoming integrated into the US professional job markets because of their education. Rather than we pay for educating our population, we are importing many educated professionals.
It seems crazy to me that we California citizens are abandoning the educational system that in part has made this state great. Will this action make us better off collectively in the future? Won't it just end up costing us all a lot more if we don't invest in the basic education of our citizens so they can contribute to CA? Also, many lower income citizens, and some of these are recent immigrants to CA and the US, DO VALUE education, but our leaders have mixed ideas about keeping low cost higher education available to an increasing diverse citizenry. We citizens need to decide what we want for the future of CA and speak up and fight for it. We can't allow a minority of well-to-do folks decide what public services will be available to the majority of the population.
There is no reason that California education should be falling apart except that we have repeatedly chosen to not fund it. It was tops in the US when I was in CA grammar school and high school, the decline to what we now have is heartbreaking. We don't have to accept that, but it will take a different political will than currently exists.
You get what you pay for.
I agree with almost all of what previous comments have said, and as an academic myself (and former California resident) I feel a professional indentification with the threats to the UC system. But I'm old enough to remember the era that made Berkeley = Berserkly, and I don't have quite the warm memories of that time that the author does. Some of the lack of sympathy and support for UCB is the result of a self-inflicted wound. When then Governor Reagan went after the university, he and his political supporters had to be grateful to have been given such a juicy target (go read the relevant pages of Perlstein's Nixonland if your memory has faded or if you were born too late to have been there).
complicated situation. As a UCLA grad (1979), I too like many of these posters experienced the amazing (and for me surprising) excellence of the UC system. Visiting UCLA for the first time in 25 years a few years ago, looking at it with my son, it seemed to be the same first-rate institution as previously, only with a decidedly more Asian cast to the student body (not a dig, just an observation), and with the increased competition, both to enter and to attend, that can be seen at universities across the nation (my other child was wait-listed before acceptance at Western Washington even though for decades prior, one could enter WWU at will).
The financing picture is also complicated. part of the reason for the inflation in cost at universities is the flood of money that has been sent to them for the past thirty years. Additionally, California's budget woes are not easily described in a pat formula, from either side of the political spectrum. Care needs to be taken to address the universities' demand for more "investment" while at the same time, the California style of funding their state government is quite broken.
Some of the posters (many in fact) are employees of the UC system and make references to former glorious chancellors and their superior stewardship - this is beyond my experience or knowledge.
One can only sigh with nostalgia at the wonderful experience gained at the UC, while also hoping that the will exists to maintain this fabulous system in some semblance of its past excellence.
As an alum I have a great love of UC Berkeley that conflicts with my disgust of it as a staffer. I chose to work at Cal because I wanted to be there and I believed in its mission. But over the years I have watched as UC has attracted and paid top dollar to people who have no passion for the campus but were running from Silicon Valley while many who made a career there lagged behind salary-wise.
However what the UC system stands for - a top notch education for all despite their income levels - needs to be preserved. The UC system has an impact around the world that is felt at all levels. And I hope that will remain.
I am a UCSC alum who now is a faculty member at a flagship public institution in a midwestern state. I am deeply saddened by what has become of California public education - both K-12 and higher education. I think about the California Master Plan and what this has meant for access to education for generations of California residents since the 60s.
When I was a student in the '80s, I could work part-time at a department store for 10-12 weeks in the summer and be able to pay my tuition for the year (and some $$ for books, etc.) I graduated with no debt, my parents kicked in a small amount for room & board and I received an excellent education. Given the current fiscal crisis, how will middle-class and low-income students be able to afford to go? What will happen when the UCs student population shrinks and it become even more exclusive, when the talented faculty leave and go elsewhere in search for higher compensation and greater staff support.
I'm sad that the fiscal climate in California - mostly as a result of short-sighted Republican economic policies (if they hadn't lowered the automobile registration fees, there would still be $$ for public services) - is taking a toll on revered institutions and likely shortening the life of low-income elderly and sick.
In response to the previous post from a woman who graduated "with no debt." I am not sure you can be proud of this. You were essentially taking away from all others who did not benefit from societal largesse, did not go to college, flipped burgers, swept floors. I am tired of sponging others through tax and spend (tax others, spend on me). Let us all pay fo what we want.
There is no need for a tone of lamentation. The current crisis is not inevitable, but rather the result of fiscal policies that have been supported by both the Democratic and Republican parties. I thank the author of this article for starting this discussion, but I disagree with the historical starting point of this article: I do not believe that California legislators in 1868 built Berkeley out of a "noble idea," out of a vision of egalitarianism. UC-Berkeley's own history tomes root the founding of UC-Berkeley in providing stable state funding to scientific research for agriculture and other economic fields. To the extent UC-Berkeley became more egalitarian was the extent that freedom movements compelled institutions like UC-Berkeley to open their doors and offer programs, and compelled the government to establish financial aid programs, etc.
There is nothing UCB can do on its own to keep up with what have been termed the "superprivates." If left to their own devices, universities such as Harvard, Yale, and Stanford will always be able to gather a geometrically greater amount of alumni donations than public universities. It's a reflection of the greater gap between rich and poor that has occurred in the past few decades. UC-Berkeley can't beat the big boys at their own game.
The only way Chancellor Birgeneau will preserve the long-term viability of state-funded public higher education is by speaking out plainly about the wrong priorities of legislators in Sacramento and Capitol Hill. But there is silence on this question, not because of principle, or even an acceptance of economic reality - it is the fact that too many individuals are currently not prepared to openly question BOTH the Democratic and Republican parties. It's time for organizing, not lamentation and adaptation.
Hi,
I'm a UCSC alumnus, and grew up on the edge of Berkeley, I still remember both the library and the armored personnel carriers of the National Guard.
That said, the reduction in the funding of UCB, and probable loss of at least some academic distinction and reputation seems to me to be part of a larger transformation in American society. To some degree, the prominence of UCB was the result of both widespread support for science and a belief that the US elite needed to be open to people who weren't descendants of people in that elite.
Both of these beliefs seem to be eroding. Science is still somewhat supported, but let's face it, it is less important in the US now than it was in the 1960's. If the country does not want to compensate for class differences in university education, and basically just needs to replace a fairly small current elite, Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and Stanford will produce enough people to maintain that elite.
Which is a polite way to say that my parents believed in UC and its ideals, and many of my contemporaries do not. I'm ambivalent. If the purpose of the University is to train computer programmers, it is not clear to me that UC is enough better than SJ State to justify the extra cost. If we're trying to keep entry to the US elite open to people who aren't the sons and daughters of people who are already in it, then the decline of UCB is something to be concerned about.
But this is a complicated issue. I just want to suggest that what is happening to UC Berkeley is part of a larger trend away from science and egalitarianism, and towards creating a stable self replicating elite. The importance of what is happening to UCB depends on what people think of these trends.
Anyway, I regret the likely impact of changes at UCB too.
Some thoughts from another UCB graduate: I believe the lack of funding on the horizon for Cal is a symptom of a larger problem: the state of California is poorly managed and no longer a desireable place to live.
The California cities that I grew up in and love have become too expensive to live in on my public-sector attorney salary; crowds, traffic, and filth abound; and state taxes are unreasonably high. After 7 years on the East Coast, I chose to move back west to Seattle, where costs are relatively low, streets are relatively clean, and the state imposes no income tax, although it also seems to run a decent public university system, which -- incidentally -- is also in trouble financially. It feels like California 20 years ago, as California now feels like a Northeastern state, just with better weather. I would like to move back to California sometime and support Cal with my tax dollars, but since my parents lived there and paid taxes for for 30 years, I'm not inclined to give a donation now to UCB, although I see no harm in the school pursuing private donations.
But I think there are some silver linings: first, if the other good public universities are also having funding issues and the good private universities' endowments took a hit in the stock market, isn't all of U.S. higher education in a similar boat, running aground on the ebbing tide? And second, ins't this also an opportunity for Cal (and the UC system as a whole) to closely review its programs and make some long-needed cuts?
As a Berkeley staffer, my perspective on the demise of Berkeley is virtually the opposite of my fellow staffer Mary (above).
It's not the research/industry superstars who are dragging the university down. They add to the richness and success of the campus. The primary drag, both financially and intellectually, comes from the overwhelming incompetence and inefficiency among the staff and middle management.
We are rife with vertical management structures, with org charts that show 4-5 or more levels of supervision within a single research administration unit. We have specialists who barely know how to do the work they 'specialize' in, and generalists who are required to become 'universal specialists' because the de facto responsibility for moving things through the bureaucracy fall on them. And we have functional silos where processing units are so concerned with their audits that they spend all their time perfecting their data entry at the expense of actually providing service to the researchers and faculty they are meant to support.
Had Berkeley been willing ten or fifteen years ago to move toward accessible, online systems that required fewer staff to manage, we might be in a better position today. But as it is we are still largely an over-staffed, paper-bound organization. We have upper-middle management with hardly any management training and very little willingness to implement wide-scale changes. We don't reward innovation, and we hire people from outside only to denigrate any successful outside experiences they might bring to the table.
If we had a staff that was 15% smaller, we could weather this financial crisis more gracefully, but on the administrative side we are set up to be more an employment service than we are to provide top-notch, efficient research and academic administration.
I think losing our public character may be the only way for Berkeley to pull out of the downward spiral. Taking the administrative staff off state-funded payroll and truly implementing merit-based employment standards may be the only way we will ever be able to implement the sorts of efficiencies and cost-saving measures we'll need to stay viable in the long run.
The President of the Univ of California is in the New York Times Magazine today, in an interview with Deborah Solomon, acting like a schlub. It is this the best you can do CAL? He has never thought about fund raising, seems to think it is something you do in Sacramento. He doesn't know were Hollywood is and seems intensely focused on his own pay and pension. Meanwhile, students can't get more than four units this term because Yudof has done such a bad job estimating how many kids would stay in state due to the recession. He says he grew up in West Philly, so send him back. He is one of the key players in shaping the future of the California economy, and he clearly has no great passion for the state or the institution he heads. Surely CAL has produced leaders who know what Berkeley, or UCSF or Irvine or San Diego has given them and can help to pass it on.
$3,000,000 Reckless Spending Universityof California: University of California President Yudof Approves $3,000,000 to Outsource UCB Chancellor’s Job
The UC President has a UCB Chancellor that should do the high paid job he is paid for instead of hiring an East Coast consulting firm to fulfill his responsibilities. ‘World class’ smart executives like Chancellor Birgeneau need to do the analysis, hard work and make the difficult decisions of their executive job!
Where do consulting firms like Bain ($3,000,000 consultants) get their recommendations?
From interviewing the senior management that hired them and will be approving their monthly consultant fees and expense reports. Remember the nationally known auditing firm who said the right things and submitted recommendations that senior management wanted to hear and fooled government oversight agencies and the public?
Mr. Birgeneau's executive officer performance management responsibilities include "inspiring innovation and leading change." This involves "defining outcomes, energizing others at all levels and ensuring continuing commitment." Instead of demonstrating his capacity to fulfill his executive accountabilities, Mr. Birgeneau outsourced them. Doesn't he engage University of California and University of California Berkeley (UCB) people at all levels to help examine the budget and recommend the necessary trims? Hasn't he talked to Cornell and the University of North Carolina - which also hired Bain -- about best practices and recommendations that might apply to UCB cuts?
No wonder the faculty and staff are angry and suspicious. Three million dollars is a high price for Californians to pay when a knowledgeable ‘world-class’ Chancellor is not doing his job.
Please help save $3,000,000 for teaching our students and request that the UC President require the UCB Chancellor to fulfill his executive
Why does one of the top universities in the world have to spend $3 million of taxpayer money for consultants to do what should be done internally by UCB Chancellor Birgeneau?
Who teaches auditors how to audit? Do UC professors not have the knowledge to perform what they teach?
Having firsthand knowledge of consulting, I know one cardinal rule, "Don't bite the hand that pays you."
In a nutshell, we have a high-paid, skilled UCB Chancellor who is unable or unwilling to do the job he is paid to do. Why do we wonder that UC and California are in a financial crisis!
I'm sure taxpayers would not object to the $3 million payout if the money is reimbursed by taking money from the UCB Chancellor's salary over the next 10 years.
Stop the spending of $3,000,000 on consultants by President Yudof and the UCB Chancellor and do the job internally
Respectfully
Doye O Sivils
San Ramon Ca
As someone who is not in any way affiliated with Berkeley (although a number of my friends attend), I regard the change with a degree of sympathy and sadness, although I am not certain the author is right in his prognosis. The fact of the matter is, Berkeley has pretty much ceded the greatest-excellence role on the West Coast to Stanford, its crosstown peer, a long time ago. In terms of graduate work Berkeley is still quite competitive; but in general, Berkeley has fallen behind its private competitors in a multitude of ways. And on some level, it's difficult to see how it could catch up.
I guess i have one final question for the author of this piece -- Given what has been written in the comments section, where would you recommend your son send his check? would you still tell him to mail a check to UCB - would you tell him to send it with caveats? what caveats, if any?