University ought to swallow cuts

Since the early 1960s, public higher education in California has
operated under the “Master Plan,” which divides
responsibilities among the University of California, California
State University system and community colleges. Under that plan,
the UC is designated as the state’s primary research
institution. Yet in many respects, its budget requests to the state
have been based on enrollment, much as the K-12 public education
system relies on average daily attendance to draw on state
funding.

When there is a budget crisis ““ as there is now ““
the UC ends up taking the position that either the state will fund
its enrollment under the Master Plan or will raise tuition. And if
tuition cannot be raised sufficiently, the UC will cut admissions
and enrollment.

Although that strategy may have benefited the UC in the past, it
will not do so in the future. To the general public, the UC’s
current position amounts to a declaration that the university wants
to charge more and do less. Instead of offering Californians a
vision of what the UC will do for the state, it threatens a
take-away from the state if the governor and Legislature do not
comply; otherwise eligible students will be rejected or diverted to
community colleges.

Ultimately, that threat is directed at the very electorate the
UC depends on for support ““ those same voters recently
replaced one governor who seemed to offer only cutbacks and a
political stalemate with the would-be replacement who exudes
optimism about California’s long-term prospects, even in the
face of a fiscal crisis. Voters will not be kindly disposed to a
message of take-away from the UC.

The UC’s focus on enrollment-based funding also has led to
an unfortunate controversy with the state Department of Finance and
the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The legislative analyst has
just issued a report suggesting the UC is admitting more students
than can be justified by the Master Plan target, which is the top
one-eighth of graduating high school students. The UC could enroll
all eligible students without diverting them to community colleges,
the LAO report states, if it only would reject more ineligible
students. There is also an implication in the report that the UC is
cheating the state by admitting too many students and billing it
for the excess.

In short, if the UC sticks with its current enrollment-based
strategy for obtaining state funding, it will engage in a harmful
debate over defining what the top one-eighth means.

A better strategy is to reframe the issue. Clearly, the current
budget crisis means tuition will continue rising. The UC therefore
must make the positive case that, although it is charging more, it
also is going to do more for California.

What kind of case would that be? The UC’s leadership must
emphasize the university’s willingness to help upgrade K-12
education so more California students will be prepared for higher
education, whether at the UC or elsewhere. The UC must upgrade its
ability to support the Legislature and governor in examining the
policy issues that face the state. And it must develop research
programs that can be seen as fostering economic growth in
California.

More is involved than just a public relations campaign to
communicate existing efforts. New and tangible programs must be
developed. For that to happen, UC’s top administrators must
all challenge and inspire the university community ““ faculty,
students, staff and alumni ““ to support the necessary and
painful changes that must soon occur.

Mitchell is Ho-su Wu Professor at the UCLA Anderson School
of Management and the UCLA School of Public Policy and Social
Research.