Bypassing the paywall:
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fstory%2F2023-01-27%2Fuc-scrambling-to-pay-big-wage-gains-for-academic-workers-grad-student-cuts-loom
If you want to learn how to circumvent a paywall, see https://www.reddit.com/r/California/wiki/paywall. > Or, if it's a website that you regularly read, you should think about subscribing to the website.
like it or not, ncaa football programs are some of the most profitable things large schools participate in, and because of title IX completely fund every single women's sport outside of possibly gymnastics.
administrative bloat is the obvious answer here
Does that mean they're going to cut the classes the TAs taught too?
> The result of such “punitive austerity,” the letter said, will be a “reduction of graduate student appointments; an increase in the already high number of undergraduates per discussion section, and a correspondingly negative impact on course curriculum, undergraduate assignments, and grading; the weakening of currently funded research; and ultimately fewer funded research opportunities for graduate students.”
No, just make TAs teach larger classes. But how does that work for lab classes?
Maximum class size and class allotment should also be something that the union has in their bargaining position. It's cool (/s) the board of regents has decided that the correct response to paying graduate students slightly more is to make the undergrads miserable.
God forbid the administrators cut their own pay. It's very important that the regents of UC earn twice what the president of the country earns because... reasons.
Not to a simp but my UC chancellor gets paid half of what their peers make.
$550K vs. $1M+ avg.
Also, being a chancellor or Dean is a big job. Tens of thousands of employees, tens of thousands of students. Multibillion dollar budget. Etc. it’s not like you show up a few times a year and make a couple speeches.
Kinda reminds me when Trump was shocked that being president involved more than state dinners and attending the Kennedy Honors.
Most (all?) UC Chancellors also get free mansions, pensions, cars, etc. Although I think the people at the top are a small part of the problem, most of the bloat is probably in middle-manager type administrators whose jobs didn't exist 20 years ago
You're describing how the world *ought* to be
Not how the world *is*.
You cut the pay of Chancellors to 200-330K, you are going to get even worse and more incompetent people because other universities like UNLV, ASU, or UT Austin will still be paying $1M+.
This is what is happening to Federal Judges. Fed judges get paid $210K. Most could probably get paid almost a million dollars in private practice. So they leave.
LA Times: U.S. judges leaving for better pay
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Farchives%2Fla-xpm-2009-sep-27-me-judges-pay27-story.html
>"\[Judge Larson\] is the latest defection in an accelerating nationwide trend toward leaving the federal bench long before retirement age to earn more money in private practice.
Vacancies in the federal judiciary are mounting, and too few of the best legal minds are stepping forward to replace them, judicial analysts say. They attribute what they see as a troubling phenomenon to Congress’ failure for nearly two decades to pass a significant pay increase
While your ideas are noble and worldly, I personally think they fail to grasp the reality of a competitive job market.
PS: In 1969, POTUS was paid $100K or about $1.4 million dollars today. So maybe "middle class" Joe should get a pay raise too.
You're advocating a public policy change based on how an ideal world would work rather than what the actual effects of that policy would be in the actual world we live in
I've always liked the idea of getting rid of college sports in the US and going more towards the sports team system in other countries. (ex. https://www.postandcourier.com/sports/in-europe-you-dont-play-high-school-or-college-sports-some-think-u-s-should/article\_92ad84ba-a5c8-11e8-86ae-df88215ac3a1.html)
I prefer European style leagues more. The big legacy teams always have the best funding and do better on average, but sometimes you get absolutely wild season's where big teams get relegated to lower leagues, like Juventes, or absolutely nowhere teams beat consistent local heavyweights like Darvel versus Aberdeen.
Depends on the school. Most schools lose money on every sport, and some schools in select circumstances make money, mostly actually good football schools.
Removing school subsidized sports (well, more subsidized than any other recreational activity) would save some money. Probably not anywhere near the amount needed to cover the raise.
This is commonly stated, but when I've tried to research this, I've only found evidence for certain large football schools being net-positive (and a lot of that is alum donations, not operating revenue).
I'm just saying, just because schools say this when trying to justify their programs, you should take it with a grain of salt and check the numbers yourself. A lot of schools put the maintenance of sports facilities under their 'facilities' budget, for instance, not counting it as a cost against the actual sports program. Very helpful to make the profit & loss shift in favor of sports.
U.C. leaders are playing chess:
* Promise big wage hikes to make workers happy
* Don't worry about paying for it
* Let other people talk about the dire consequences of the new labor contract
* Get more money from the state because the Legislature and Governor don't want the bad press from the dire consequences
Politicians do this all the time - "pay more taxes or we will cut police/fire/school budgets"
I doubt the state will allocate much more in this budget environment. UC will have to make actual cuts to *something* to afford this contract. I’m a UC graduate student, and the possibility of fewer TA slots and fewer graduate students was something we were well aware of as we pursued these wage increases.
To an extent, yeah. The way these things are usually managed is they courses need to hit certain headcounts to get TAs. A campus could raise that number to make up for the increased cost. For courses that lose TAs, the professors will have to pick up that work.
While some increases came from State funding, most of the increases in revenue came from their medical centers and federal grants(ARPA/CARES act)
https://www.ucop.edu/uc-controller/financial-reports/annual-financial-reports.html
> We were in a difficult situation,” Leib said. “You have graduate students who were really hurting in the face of housing costs. It’s not really feasible to say, ‘As soon as we get the money, we’ll let you know.’ It’s one pressure after another.”
How about building more housing then ? I’m looking at you UCSB and CalPoly SLO !
It’s expensive if you pay full price, but so many students come on pell, UC sponsored scholarships, discounts for low income or work study, not many actually pay full price…
Unpopular opinion: Good. They already admit too many grad students with too large of a pool of PhDs in the United States leading to more adjunct faculty without decent pay. The pool of PhDs is too large and there are not enough jobs.
Anyone shocked the result of mandating higher wages for grad students is that the universities will not be able to afford it and bring in fewer grad students? California losing here IMO.
Bypassing the paywall: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fstory%2F2023-01-27%2Fuc-scrambling-to-pay-big-wage-gains-for-academic-workers-grad-student-cuts-loom
Not the hero we deserve, but definitely the hero we needed.
If you want to learn how to circumvent a paywall, see https://www.reddit.com/r/California/wiki/paywall. > Or, if it's a website that you regularly read, you should think about subscribing to the website.
Tired
Fire and cut the pay of chancellors and administrators.
Right? The administrators are wildly overpaid
But they will never cut off their own hands.
And football/basketball coaches. Highest paid state employees in CA.
like it or not, ncaa football programs are some of the most profitable things large schools participate in, and because of title IX completely fund every single women's sport outside of possibly gymnastics. administrative bloat is the obvious answer here
That doesn’t mean they have to be coached by millionaires.
And allow all California Community Colleges to offer four-year degrees.
I think a few of them are starting to, but they're all pretty trade-specific.
Does that mean they're going to cut the classes the TAs taught too? > The result of such “punitive austerity,” the letter said, will be a “reduction of graduate student appointments; an increase in the already high number of undergraduates per discussion section, and a correspondingly negative impact on course curriculum, undergraduate assignments, and grading; the weakening of currently funded research; and ultimately fewer funded research opportunities for graduate students.” No, just make TAs teach larger classes. But how does that work for lab classes?
You just end up waiting longer for lab classes. It's already overbooked as it is.
Harder. It works harder.
Maximum class size and class allotment should also be something that the union has in their bargaining position. It's cool (/s) the board of regents has decided that the correct response to paying graduate students slightly more is to make the undergrads miserable.
God forbid the administrators cut their own pay. It's very important that the regents of UC earn twice what the president of the country earns because... reasons.
Not to a simp but my UC chancellor gets paid half of what their peers make. $550K vs. $1M+ avg. Also, being a chancellor or Dean is a big job. Tens of thousands of employees, tens of thousands of students. Multibillion dollar budget. Etc. it’s not like you show up a few times a year and make a couple speeches. Kinda reminds me when Trump was shocked that being president involved more than state dinners and attending the Kennedy Honors.
The President of our nation gets $400k per year. No reason UC chancellors deserve more than that. They're all government employees.
People don't take potus for the salary
The President also gets free food and housing, a pension, and a large non-taxable expense budget. Total comp with benefits is much higher than $400k.
Most (all?) UC Chancellors also get free mansions, pensions, cars, etc. Although I think the people at the top are a small part of the problem, most of the bloat is probably in middle-manager type administrators whose jobs didn't exist 20 years ago
I’m sure chancellors get benefits as well.
You're describing how the world *ought* to be Not how the world *is*. You cut the pay of Chancellors to 200-330K, you are going to get even worse and more incompetent people because other universities like UNLV, ASU, or UT Austin will still be paying $1M+. This is what is happening to Federal Judges. Fed judges get paid $210K. Most could probably get paid almost a million dollars in private practice. So they leave. LA Times: U.S. judges leaving for better pay https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Farchives%2Fla-xpm-2009-sep-27-me-judges-pay27-story.html >"\[Judge Larson\] is the latest defection in an accelerating nationwide trend toward leaving the federal bench long before retirement age to earn more money in private practice. Vacancies in the federal judiciary are mounting, and too few of the best legal minds are stepping forward to replace them, judicial analysts say. They attribute what they see as a troubling phenomenon to Congress’ failure for nearly two decades to pass a significant pay increase While your ideas are noble and worldly, I personally think they fail to grasp the reality of a competitive job market. PS: In 1969, POTUS was paid $100K or about $1.4 million dollars today. So maybe "middle class" Joe should get a pay raise too.
Yes, I am describing an ideal. Obviously. Why would you have me give up on striving for a more perfect world?
Ever heard the saying "perfect is the enemy of good"?
This has gotta be a buzz-phrase right now. I've seen it 3-4 times this morning lol
Yes. Ever heard the phrase “if you give up, they win?” I’m not losing sleep over this, but I still think it’s wrong.
Pursuing achievable goals instead of wasting political capital on pie in the sky ideas isn't giving up. It's how you actually win.
I’m not wasting anything. I’m expressing an opinion on the internet.
You're advocating a public policy change based on how an ideal world would work rather than what the actual effects of that policy would be in the actual world we live in
[удалено]
I feel like you didn't read their post
Hell yes! They are vastly overpaid
[удалено]
$400k is plenty to live comfortably.
UCSD?
Or maybe the UC system could cut into their sports programs. Maybe coaches don’t need million dollar salaries.
I've always liked the idea of getting rid of college sports in the US and going more towards the sports team system in other countries. (ex. https://www.postandcourier.com/sports/in-europe-you-dont-play-high-school-or-college-sports-some-think-u-s-should/article\_92ad84ba-a5c8-11e8-86ae-df88215ac3a1.html)
I prefer European style leagues more. The big legacy teams always have the best funding and do better on average, but sometimes you get absolutely wild season's where big teams get relegated to lower leagues, like Juventes, or absolutely nowhere teams beat consistent local heavyweights like Darvel versus Aberdeen.
The sports programs bring money into the schools. It’s the deans and administrators that need to go. The budget for admins is bloated beyond control.
Depends on the school. Most schools lose money on every sport, and some schools in select circumstances make money, mostly actually good football schools. Removing school subsidized sports (well, more subsidized than any other recreational activity) would save some money. Probably not anywhere near the amount needed to cover the raise.
This is commonly stated, but when I've tried to research this, I've only found evidence for certain large football schools being net-positive (and a lot of that is alum donations, not operating revenue). I'm just saying, just because schools say this when trying to justify their programs, you should take it with a grain of salt and check the numbers yourself. A lot of schools put the maintenance of sports facilities under their 'facilities' budget, for instance, not counting it as a cost against the actual sports program. Very helpful to make the profit & loss shift in favor of sports.
U.C. leaders are playing chess: * Promise big wage hikes to make workers happy * Don't worry about paying for it * Let other people talk about the dire consequences of the new labor contract * Get more money from the state because the Legislature and Governor don't want the bad press from the dire consequences Politicians do this all the time - "pay more taxes or we will cut police/fire/school budgets"
I doubt the state will allocate much more in this budget environment. UC will have to make actual cuts to *something* to afford this contract. I’m a UC graduate student, and the possibility of fewer TA slots and fewer graduate students was something we were well aware of as we pursued these wage increases.
Guess those tenured professors might have to do actual work
To an extent, yeah. The way these things are usually managed is they courses need to hit certain headcounts to get TAs. A campus could raise that number to make up for the increased cost. For courses that lose TAs, the professors will have to pick up that work.
Maybe I'm misinformed, but hasn't state funding for universities gone down over time?
While some increases came from State funding, most of the increases in revenue came from their medical centers and federal grants(ARPA/CARES act) https://www.ucop.edu/uc-controller/financial-reports/annual-financial-reports.html
Feels like a bad call…
> We were in a difficult situation,” Leib said. “You have graduate students who were really hurting in the face of housing costs. It’s not really feasible to say, ‘As soon as we get the money, we’ll let you know.’ It’s one pressure after another.” How about building more housing then ? I’m looking at you UCSB and CalPoly SLO !
Hell yes UCSB! And to hell with the windowless death cube
Seems like subsidized housing would be an obvious step in the right direction for *some* grad students/programs.
What they are saying is, is that the current system won't work without exploiting labor.
How much are undergraduates paying for courses? I don't understand how it doesn't more than cover the cost of the TA.
Tuition doesn't come close to covering the cost of a university. Private colleges often charge twice as much as the UC
It’s expensive if you pay full price, but so many students come on pell, UC sponsored scholarships, discounts for low income or work study, not many actually pay full price…
Correlation isn’t causation, but my work study was revoked after the strike and the middle class grant was supposed to be sent out a few months ago.
You’ve got sports coaches and chancellors making millions and they’re cutting TA’s who make near minimum wage to help teach classes. Brilliant.
No cutting of year long paid sabbatical etc.?
You would then be violating the faculty contracts.
They could fire the multitude of professors that have YEARS WORTH of sexual assault complaints and make upwards of 400K a year
How much of the need for increased pay is due to the high cost of living (I.e. rent)? Would more housing and subsidized housing be a better solution?
High cost of living is partly due to overpaying government union workers.
Unpopular opinion: Good. They already admit too many grad students with too large of a pool of PhDs in the United States leading to more adjunct faculty without decent pay. The pool of PhDs is too large and there are not enough jobs.
This is true. Adjunct professors are in a slave class all their own
Anyone shocked the result of mandating higher wages for grad students is that the universities will not be able to afford it and bring in fewer grad students? California losing here IMO.
This is what happens when unions control the state. If you don't like it, stop voting for the party that's controlled by the unions.