Thursday, March 28, 2024

AdvertiseDonateSubmit
NewsSportsArtsOpinionThe QuadPhotoVideoIllustrationsCartoonsGraphicsThe StackPRIMEEnterpriseInteractivesPodcastsBruinwalkClassifieds

UC Board of Regents should grant autonomy to graduate schools seeking independence

By Jessica Lee

Feb. 29, 2012 12:04 a.m.

Diminishing state funds allotted to the University of California have encouraged a growing number of the UC’s professional schools to pursue increased autonomy.

Most recently, UC San Francisco and UCLA Anderson School of Management have been seeking greater independence from the system as their solution to precarious and inadequate financing.

While both offer different plans in the push toward freedom, the end goals are identical: Procuring the school’s financial and governing flexibility and thus, maintaining its competitiveness and prestige.

For such reasons, the UC should grant increased autonomy to professional schools that stand to benefit from it.

For example, during an address at the UC Board of Regents meeting on Jan. 19, UCSF Chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann presented a proposal seeking enhanced freedom from the UC system. The plan includes reforming financial and governing relationships between the campus and UC, which involves reconsidering its financial contribution to the UC Office of the President.

Because of rising faculty costs and market prices, UCSF will face a financial deficit if the status quo isn’t changed. UCSF is unlike the other campuses because it admits only graduate students and focuses exclusively on health sciences. As UCSF is an anomaly, it faces unique problems and constraints that system-wide policies from the regents don’t address.

Therefore, the campus needs an independent board of governors ““ a board comprised of individuals particularly familiar with the field. Having an independent board will prescribe decision-making authority to those who are best able to make those judgments, and it will more effectively devise new defenses to budget shortfalls.

Furthermore, it may be an efficient means of tapping into unexplored revenue opportunities such as new corporate partnerships.

The need for solutions specific to UCSF is made obvious with the recent tuition hikes. The UC has made tuition too increasingly expensive to combat dwindling state funds ““ most recently a raise of 9.6 percent in July of last year. Yet, with less than 3,000 students, tuition comprises only 1 percent of UCSF’s total revenue, meaning that the system-wide tuition surges have had little impact on the campus.

With this in mind, governing autonomy should be applied to Anderson and other schools similarly wanting independence. Every school has its own characteristics and an accompanying set of obstacles that a more individualized governing body would be better equipped to handle.

Anderson is well-respected and has a student body consisting mainly of entrepreneurs, finance professionals and future company executives. The solutions the regents implement will not have the same impact on Anderson as it does on other schools. In addition, financial autonomy will provide greater incentive for the campus to raise funds because it will be able to control its own budget and appropriately allocate money.

Currently, a flat tax rate system dictates the annual funds each campus gives to the UCOP budget. This year, the office collected 1.6 percent of each campus’ total revenue to support numerous system-wide services the Office of the President offers, such as pension payments and legal fees.

UCSF instead seeks a model where campuses pay only for the services it directly receives from the office. Since it wants to remain a member of the UC community, UCSF should still pay for services from UCOP.

However, the amount that it currently pays under the flat tax model is inappropriate because compared to other campuses, UCSF benefits less from UCOP services. If the push for autonomy is successful, UCSF will be the first professional school to distance itself from the UC.

Critics say this will be a Pyrrhic victory, setting a trend for other UC schools to seek independence. They believe this exodus may leave other schools less able to attract private fundraising, which may force them into another round of tuition raises.

This was also a chief criticism of the Anderson’s initiative for financial self-sufficiency, which was introduced in September 2010. However, Anderson Dean Judy Olian said tuition hikes will be less under the new business model than what the regents have implemented thus far. And greater revenue will allow for more generous financial aid for those in need.

Ultimately, dissents stem from the belief that such a movement will lead to the UC’s demise as a model public university. But Olian assures nothing will change. Rather, “(the proposal will) provide the flexibility to make sure the excellence is protected without, frankly, changing the mission,” Olian said.

Phil Hampton, UCLA spokesperson, said an updated version of the Anderson proposal is currently being considered by the Academic Senate and will be sent to the UCOP for final review later this academic year.

In some cases, financial and governing autonomy is best not just for the individual school, but for the UC as a whole.

Email Lee at [email protected]. Send general comments to

[email protected] or tweet us @DBOpinion.

Share this story:FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
Jessica Lee
COMMENTS
Featured Classifieds
More classifieds »
Related Posts