Editorial: Taking autonomy away from UC does not prove state prioritizes education
By Editorial Board
Dec. 11, 2014 12:14 a.m.
The original version of this article contained an error and has been changed. See the bottom of the article for more information.
In an attempt to convince California voters that the state is working in the interests of college students, a bipartisan pair of senators proposed a bill last week that would wrest control of the University of California away from the Board of Regents and give it to the state.
Unfortunately for the senators, the attempt is entirely unconvincing.
The governor and legislature have shown over and over again that they are not invested in maintaining the quality of public higher education in the state of California. After a series of massive budget cuts to the University during the economic downturn, the state has done little to bring funding levels back up, forcing the UC to increase tuition rates.
This board is wary, to say the least, about handing over total control of the University to a group of legislators that would continue a trend of divestment likely to run California’s flagship public university system into the ground.
The proposed bill would strip the UC of its 136-year-long autonomy from the state, meaning that the state would have the final say on any University decision, from tuition increases to the compensation of UC administration.
Autonomy has thus far served the UC – and the state of California – well. The University has managed to maintain the quality of education and research in the face of massive state cuts, continuing to attract students from across the world and produce innovative, impactful research. Many of the tuition hikes and increases in nonresident enrollment necessary to maintain quality would have been subject to approval from a state that likely would have refused to allow them, while also refusing to increase state support.
The situation of the California State University system, California’s other four-year university system, proves that state control does nothing to protect the quality or affordability of higher education.
The CSU has faced the same kinds of cuts to state funding, and its tuition levels have risen at rates comparable to the UC, from $1,428 in 2001-2002 to $5,472 now. Unlike the UC, however, the CSU has not had the benefit of autonomy when making decisions about funding, and its quality has greatly suffered in comparison to the UC.
Six-year graduation rates at the CSU are a dismal 46 percent. The system has had to cut enrollment to cope with funding cuts, and it is still notoriously difficult for students to get the classes they need.
Graduation rates at the UC are at 83 percent. The UC has also managed to increase enrollment during this time.
The implicit suggestion behind the senators’ proposed bill – that the state would somehow run the University better than it has been running itself – is laughable.
To be sure, the regents are not without fault. Students at the UC are angry about tuition increases, and they have a right to be – they have long been left out of crucial decisions about UC governance.
But unless the state suddenly begins prioritizing higher education, giving it control of the University is not going to fix that problem, nor any of the major funding issues facing the UC.
Correction: The University has been guaranteed autonomy for 136 years, not 166.
