UC Stands for Unnecessary Compensation
The cost of living (and inflation) goes up in many aspects of our lives: food, transportation, goods, services. Some of it is unavoidable, while in other areas, it's herd mentality-- x company raises prices, others eventually follow. You see this a lot with the airlines. United raises fares, no one complains, Delta, Northwest, American jump on board. At that point, you aren't going to see the fares decline markedly again.
Of course, this is somewhat of an oversimplification, as I'm sure the economists among my readers will no doubt let me know. But you get the point, yes?
In some arenas, though, some of the rise in prices and affordability is pure greed. We've seen it to some extent in the housing market. I remember a few years back my parents' neighbors tried selling their house for something like $50,000 above the going rate for that particular neighborhood, simply because they thought they could get it. Their asking price was more than double what they had paid for the home, just a few years earlier. It wasn't even a particularly nice home, to begin with-- small, on a concrete slab, with a horrible layout. A prefab post-WWII home in the suburbs, a starter home of the type a returning veteran would have bought with help from the GI Bill. But because the market was way out of whack, they tried angling for the most money they could get-- probably because they were moving to a McMansion in a newer area of town.
Eventually they had to lower their price substantially, as their house sat on the market way too long, considering it was during the time when the market was superheated. But their reasoning wasn't based on the rising cost of goods, services, fuels-- it was based on desire and greed.
One particular arena where pricing has gotten way out of hand is the cost of a college education. What makes it even more galling here in California is that historically, attending the University of California at any of its branches was tuition-free. You paid for your books, room, and board, and that was it. Getting in wasn't as easy, and never has been, but historically, a college education here in California was not priced out of reach.
That is, until the 1960s. Beginning in that turbulent decade, there still was no "tuition," but the UC Board of Regents started tacking on "fees." Eventually these "fees" reached the point where they became the equivalent of tuition.
Now, you might say, fair enough-- and I'd be the first to agree. It'd be nice if a college education was free, but it doesn't work that way. But I have always felt that a nation as rich as ours could definitely funnel more funding towards education, rather than, oh, say, missle defense systems, $700 toilet seats, and the like. But the last few years, UC "fees" have spiraled out of control, as the state gummint has insisted on balancing the state budget on the backs of the students, in a desperate attempt to avoid raising taxes. For four consecutive years, student fees went up, and up, and up... The state's portion for UC funding (and California State University (CSU)) has declined, from 50% during the early 80s to about 27% now.
Take for example my wife's "fees" for law school. The first year she entered, the "fees" for the school year was $11,000. Ok, it's law school-- we can deal with that and assume loans. It's a long-term investment in our future, right?
Well, by the time she graduated, just three years later, the cost ballooned to $24,000 per year. That's more than double the fees we started out with. Yes, it's the cost borne by professional students, so you probably don't have much sympathy, eh? Well it wasn't just the graduate and professional students (my own fees as a grad student skyrocketed as well), it was also the undergrads who were being asked to pay more.
Where was all this money going, you might ask? Well, according to the excellent series of articles published by the San Francisco Chronicle, the UC system has been making sure its top brass are swimming in the bucks. Take today's article, for instance: "Low-rate loans for UC's elite on homes." While it's one thing to financially aid a fledgling professor, a junior staff member, or someone else that needs help, I don't think it's appropriate that a dean gets a $200,000+ loan at 1.28% a year. Considering the number of articles exposing UC's financial shenanigans lately, I'm surprised the top UC brass aren't more forthcoming. While I don't think the University needs to justify everything they do with their funds, they are a public university drawing their funds from state monies, which come from taxpayers-- which means they have a moral, ethical, and fiduciary responsibility to be as transparent as possible when it comes to public funds. It's also outrageous that student money is helping to fund someone's loans at 1.28%.
Lest you think this is the UC administration's only transgression, they've also failed to give the regents required reports, handed out tons of perks that weren't approved (especially in the President's Office-- a secretary made more than a newly hired professor), and massive severance checks. This last one really galls me-- it's one thing to make sure someone who's fired or laid off has enough money to keep them afloat, but a six-figure check?? UC has complained that they are "forced" to raise student funds, but then they're able to hand out money for moving expenses, six-months rent, and the like to top executives? Somehow I don't think this is welcome news to students, staff, and the average working stiff in the UC system.
Part of the problem is, of course, the massive sense of entitlement we have in our society. When corporate executives earn 400 times what the average worker makes, it instills a sense of desire in other forums for top brass to say, "me too." Of course, once you raise salaries across the board, no one wants to go back down again. But then it becomes a vicious cycle, to the point where compensation gets totally out of whack. It isn't just in the corporate world either-- when a race-car driver makes $80 million a year, or A-Rod gets a 10-year, $252 million deal, something's seriously wrong. I'd love to see a public school teacher get a 10-year, $252 million deal-- now THAT would be worth it.
Fortunately for the students, some concerned individuals didn't just moan and groan during late night bull sessions, or write a letter to the school paper, and then move on. A group filed suit, and won this past March in court. The decision isn't final, of course, because these things always get appealed. I'm hopeful though that at some point, we'll receive a "refund"-- I say "refund" because whatever we eventually get back will go straight to paying off our loans.
Some campuses have jokes about their university acronyms/abbreviations-- at UC Davis, for example, the joke is that UCD stands for "Under Construction Daily." I have a better one for the UC system right now-- UC stands for Unnecessary Compensation.
Of course, this is somewhat of an oversimplification, as I'm sure the economists among my readers will no doubt let me know. But you get the point, yes?
In some arenas, though, some of the rise in prices and affordability is pure greed. We've seen it to some extent in the housing market. I remember a few years back my parents' neighbors tried selling their house for something like $50,000 above the going rate for that particular neighborhood, simply because they thought they could get it. Their asking price was more than double what they had paid for the home, just a few years earlier. It wasn't even a particularly nice home, to begin with-- small, on a concrete slab, with a horrible layout. A prefab post-WWII home in the suburbs, a starter home of the type a returning veteran would have bought with help from the GI Bill. But because the market was way out of whack, they tried angling for the most money they could get-- probably because they were moving to a McMansion in a newer area of town.
Eventually they had to lower their price substantially, as their house sat on the market way too long, considering it was during the time when the market was superheated. But their reasoning wasn't based on the rising cost of goods, services, fuels-- it was based on desire and greed.
One particular arena where pricing has gotten way out of hand is the cost of a college education. What makes it even more galling here in California is that historically, attending the University of California at any of its branches was tuition-free. You paid for your books, room, and board, and that was it. Getting in wasn't as easy, and never has been, but historically, a college education here in California was not priced out of reach.
That is, until the 1960s. Beginning in that turbulent decade, there still was no "tuition," but the UC Board of Regents started tacking on "fees." Eventually these "fees" reached the point where they became the equivalent of tuition.
Now, you might say, fair enough-- and I'd be the first to agree. It'd be nice if a college education was free, but it doesn't work that way. But I have always felt that a nation as rich as ours could definitely funnel more funding towards education, rather than, oh, say, missle defense systems, $700 toilet seats, and the like. But the last few years, UC "fees" have spiraled out of control, as the state gummint has insisted on balancing the state budget on the backs of the students, in a desperate attempt to avoid raising taxes. For four consecutive years, student fees went up, and up, and up... The state's portion for UC funding (and California State University (CSU)) has declined, from 50% during the early 80s to about 27% now.
Take for example my wife's "fees" for law school. The first year she entered, the "fees" for the school year was $11,000. Ok, it's law school-- we can deal with that and assume loans. It's a long-term investment in our future, right?
Well, by the time she graduated, just three years later, the cost ballooned to $24,000 per year. That's more than double the fees we started out with. Yes, it's the cost borne by professional students, so you probably don't have much sympathy, eh? Well it wasn't just the graduate and professional students (my own fees as a grad student skyrocketed as well), it was also the undergrads who were being asked to pay more.
Where was all this money going, you might ask? Well, according to the excellent series of articles published by the San Francisco Chronicle, the UC system has been making sure its top brass are swimming in the bucks. Take today's article, for instance: "Low-rate loans for UC's elite on homes." While it's one thing to financially aid a fledgling professor, a junior staff member, or someone else that needs help, I don't think it's appropriate that a dean gets a $200,000+ loan at 1.28% a year. Considering the number of articles exposing UC's financial shenanigans lately, I'm surprised the top UC brass aren't more forthcoming. While I don't think the University needs to justify everything they do with their funds, they are a public university drawing their funds from state monies, which come from taxpayers-- which means they have a moral, ethical, and fiduciary responsibility to be as transparent as possible when it comes to public funds. It's also outrageous that student money is helping to fund someone's loans at 1.28%.
Lest you think this is the UC administration's only transgression, they've also failed to give the regents required reports, handed out tons of perks that weren't approved (especially in the President's Office-- a secretary made more than a newly hired professor), and massive severance checks. This last one really galls me-- it's one thing to make sure someone who's fired or laid off has enough money to keep them afloat, but a six-figure check?? UC has complained that they are "forced" to raise student funds, but then they're able to hand out money for moving expenses, six-months rent, and the like to top executives? Somehow I don't think this is welcome news to students, staff, and the average working stiff in the UC system.
Part of the problem is, of course, the massive sense of entitlement we have in our society. When corporate executives earn 400 times what the average worker makes, it instills a sense of desire in other forums for top brass to say, "me too." Of course, once you raise salaries across the board, no one wants to go back down again. But then it becomes a vicious cycle, to the point where compensation gets totally out of whack. It isn't just in the corporate world either-- when a race-car driver makes $80 million a year, or A-Rod gets a 10-year, $252 million deal, something's seriously wrong. I'd love to see a public school teacher get a 10-year, $252 million deal-- now THAT would be worth it.
Fortunately for the students, some concerned individuals didn't just moan and groan during late night bull sessions, or write a letter to the school paper, and then move on. A group filed suit, and won this past March in court. The decision isn't final, of course, because these things always get appealed. I'm hopeful though that at some point, we'll receive a "refund"-- I say "refund" because whatever we eventually get back will go straight to paying off our loans.
Some campuses have jokes about their university acronyms/abbreviations-- at UC Davis, for example, the joke is that UCD stands for "Under Construction Daily." I have a better one for the UC system right now-- UC stands for Unnecessary Compensation.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 11:10 PM
<< Home