Transparency 101, part 2
Tuesday night (March 16) was the second part of UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus Charles Schwartz’s Transparency 101 presentation. The turnout was much lower than the first part of his presentation, probably due to factors such as midterms and the closeness of spring break. More detailed notes from both parts of the presentation will be up by early next week.
Topics discussed:
- There is a lack of information available about how student fees are spent.
- State funding is referred to as “state education funds” in documents, as opposed to “state education and research funds,” which would more accurately denote how state funding to the UC is spent.
- Administrative growth–Schwartz said middle and upper management positions have grown 200 percent while overall employment has grown by 44 percent.
- Cal Profiles, “an interactive database containing multiple years of institutional data for all UC Berkeley campus units.” (description from the Cal Profiles overview page.)
The seminar also had a heated discussion of a Daily Cal article published today, “Athletics Department May Be in Violation of State Policy,” which states that the athletics department at UC Berkeley may be violating a state policy. People at the seminar said the article is inaccurate. Professor Stanley Klein (optometry), who brought up the topic of the article, said he thinks the title is incorrect but did not specify exactly why. Klein is on a task force that researches UC Berkeley athletics funding.
What do you think?
- How would California citizens feel about their money going towards education vs. education and research?
- Is the Daily Cal article inaccurate?
- Why can only people with student or staff IDs get into Cal Profiles? Should California citizens who are not a part of the university be able to access this information?
UCOP Report on Academic and Administrative Growth
The Institutional Research unit of the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) has released a report about the growth of the number of the UC’s administrative positions between the 1997-98 and 2008-09 fiscal years. Read the report here.
Summary of the Report
UCOP’s findings, quoted from the report: “While increases in student enrollment have played a significant role in employment growth across the University, increases in employee FTE have been driven primarily by expansion in Teaching Hospitals, Research and Auxiliary Enterprises.”
According to the report’s introduction, the proportion of the UC’s full time equivalent (FTE) employees who hold non-academic positions has been “stable” since 1997-98. Most FTE employees—about 75 percent—hold non-academic positions because, the report says, “UC does much more than just educate students.”
The introduction goes on to explain that non-academic positions are often supported by restricted or earmarked funds that go toward things like research and teaching hospitals and cannot be applied to other purposes.
The report also includes a background information section.
Controversy
UCOP’s claim that “the rate of growth has been slightly higher among non-academic personnel” is at odds UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus Charles Schwartz‘s assertion that the number of management positions in the UC has grown disproportionately more than the total number of positions.
An editorial from the Sacramento Bee dated February 28, 2010, summarizes the statistics underlying Schwartz’s allegations:
Systemwide over the past 10 years, student enrollment at the University of California has increased 40 percent. During the same period, total employment has increased 30 percent. That looks reasonable.
But two categories of UC employment stand out. As the accompanying chart shows, the number of full-time senior administrators has nearly doubled – from 4,299 to 8,470, a 97 percent increase. In contrast, the numbers of full-time tenure-track faculty have grown from 7,175 to 8,851, a 23 percent increase.
leave a comment