As you can well imagine, things can be a bit busy in the office on a Monday after a long holiday weekend...
On my way into the office this morning, I noticed a logo spray painted on the pavement a few times along the way: "hypocritiCal." The "Cal" part was in UC Berkeley traditional font based on our nickname here. I assume the artists mean that the institution espouses one set of values, priorities, and mission while completely undermining these high ideals through major budget cuts and funding priorities? I'm just guessing.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Day 86
Along the highway I commute on every day are several billboards as with most highways (or "freeways" as I should be calling them now that I'm a Californian). They are usually advertising a phone service, a newly released film, or some other consumer good. This week, one of them depicts a small portion of the torso of a stout man in a suit with a wad of cash sticking out of the handkerchief pocket of his suit jacket. The text reads, "Whose University, Yours...or Yudoff's." I did a real life double-take when I noticed it the first time (then, just like last Friday, had to remind myself to pay attention to my driving). The UPTE appears to be the primary sponsor.
According to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, UC student protest groups are in a bit of a disagreement about whether to continue their activities focusing on UC administration, or to shift attention to Sacramento. They don't agree about whether the administration is the real problem and/or potential solution, or the legislature. I would find the Sacramento shift more promising if we were seeing evidence that Yudoff and his Chancellors were kicking and screaming about the state's cuts, but they just aren't. Yudoff seems to be just trying to divert the river from flowing full force into his office with a few bags of sand rather than a full blast-and-dam project. He practically ignores student, faculty, and staff outcries (though he obviously can't ignore this recent bout since it made national headlines and completely disrupted the whole system for an entire day), and doesn't seem to be doing anything outside of occasionally rolling his eyes at the legislature and whining to students and faculty, "don't look at me, blame the state!" How are we to believe in his sincerity when he's just socking it to campus constituents without taking up his own bullhorn and leading the parade to Sacramento? This could all be going much better for him and maybe even for the university, but he seems to be just screwing it all up.
We're being let go a few hours early today to get a head start on the long weekend. Happy Thanksgiving all!
According to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, UC student protest groups are in a bit of a disagreement about whether to continue their activities focusing on UC administration, or to shift attention to Sacramento. They don't agree about whether the administration is the real problem and/or potential solution, or the legislature. I would find the Sacramento shift more promising if we were seeing evidence that Yudoff and his Chancellors were kicking and screaming about the state's cuts, but they just aren't. Yudoff seems to be just trying to divert the river from flowing full force into his office with a few bags of sand rather than a full blast-and-dam project. He practically ignores student, faculty, and staff outcries (though he obviously can't ignore this recent bout since it made national headlines and completely disrupted the whole system for an entire day), and doesn't seem to be doing anything outside of occasionally rolling his eyes at the legislature and whining to students and faculty, "don't look at me, blame the state!" How are we to believe in his sincerity when he's just socking it to campus constituents without taking up his own bullhorn and leading the parade to Sacramento? This could all be going much better for him and maybe even for the university, but he seems to be just screwing it all up.
We're being let go a few hours early today to get a head start on the long weekend. Happy Thanksgiving all!
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Day 85
Yesterday, we received an email from the Chancellor in reflection of Friday's events. The all-day protests were covered nationally, and expanded on into yesterday when protesters staged a sit-in at the president's office in Oakland (where they later had a lengthy discussion with administrators...Yudoff was out of the office reportedly on one of his furlough days). Below, I've pasted in its entirety, the email sent to everyone on campus:
The student paper here on campus reports that the student protesters at the President's office gave the administrators they had been talking with red armbands in solidarity with the student group. Solidarity in what? Blaming Sacramento!
Monday, November 23, 2009
Dear Campus Community:
Last week was a very difficult week for everyone across the University of California as the Regents voted to increase fees by 32% in response to the extreme funding cuts imposed on the University by the State of California. Protests occurred on many campuses, including our own, as students, faculty, and staff are justifiably angered by the fee increases, by lay-offs, and by other difficult decisions necessitated by the state budget reductions.
On Friday, 40 individuals, the majority of them students, took over the second floor of Wheeler Hall, refusing to come out unless the administration agreed to reinstate 38 laid-off custodians. Supporters and on-lookers gathered at Wheeler Hall, urged on by fast-spreading electronic communications. We urged the police to be as respectful as possible of our students. As the size of the crowd grew and false fire alarms were repeatedly set off in many campus buildings, our police chief recommended bringing in additional officers from outside the UC Berkeley police department to help maintain order and ensure safety. As safety barriers were brought in, confrontations began to occur between the police and the quickly growing crowd.
118 classes were scheduled in Wheeler Hall that day. We have a responsibility to provide instruction to students who rightfully expect to attend their classes and decided that we needed to remove the protestors swiftly and safely in order that classes could proceed.
Many of you have written to us expressing concerns that police action at Friday's demonstration in front of Wheeler Hall showed brutality toward individuals who did not appear to be presenting any imminent threat. Concerns have been raised about the calling in of outside police and the excessive use of force that may have caused injury to those who had come to support the protestors inside Wheeler Hall.
The images that have appeared on YouTube and videos do not reflect our values and those of our entire campus community and may not accurately reflect the whole sequence of events. As are many of you who have written to us, we are distressed at the portrayal in the media of our campus. Our priority in dealing with the demonstration was to provide for the safety and wellbeing of the entire campus community.
We truly regret the incidents that brought physical and emotional injury to members of our community. UCPD has already begun conducting an operational review that entails collection of all the available information including reports, videos and pictures taken by UCPD, students, the public, and media, to ensure that actions were reasonable given the situation presented and the information known at the time. This includes a review of uses of force. Additionally, we will ask that there be an independent investigation by the Campus Police Review Board. The Board includes representatives of students, faculty, and staff. It will receive the report of the UCPD.
Any tactics to exercise crowd control on campus must provide a safe platform for expression of free speech and freedom of assembly and we expect that, as a result of this review, modifications will be made. We must strive to ensure that there is no possibility in the future of the alleged actions of police brutality and that our actions are guided by non-violence.
We are facing extraordinarily challenging times as we work to find solutions to one of the most difficult financial situations in the history of the university. While last week's protests were difficult for everyone, we have been encouraged by the outpouring of concern, support, and offers of assistance from almost every area of our community to work together. Many key members of our student and faculty leadership are very engaged with us to help address issues concerning the future of the university and the experience we offer our students.
We must sustain our two paramount goals: access and excellence. State budget cuts are extremely damaging to UC. We continue to encourage everyone to express your outrage to your elected representatives at the state's disinvestment in UC; we share your passion and commitment to this effort. As we stated on Friday, we must work together to advance our cause. We hope that last week's events will mark the critical moment which mobilized all of us to focus our collective energies together.
As many of us leave campus this week to reunite with family and friends for Thanksgiving, we urge everyone to reflect upon the week with the benefit of distance from the events that we have experienced. However difficult the challenges we face, we should all remember to give thanks that we are part of this great university and reaffirm our commitment to work together to ensure its future.
Robert J. Birgeneau
Chancellor
George Breslauer
Executive Vice-Chancellor & Provost
Harry Le Grande
Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs
The student paper here on campus reports that the student protesters at the President's office gave the administrators they had been talking with red armbands in solidarity with the student group. Solidarity in what? Blaming Sacramento!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Day 81
I wrote most of this early in the morning yesterday, but the day was cut short for my department, and undoubtedly, many on campus. At about 10:30 or so, with the occupation and protests at Wheeler Hall fully underway, the fire alarm in my building sounded, and we all evacuated the building. A colleague and I joked that "Smith Hall" was officially going on strike and kicking us all out. The fire department came, they checked the building, shut off the alarm and let us back in. About ten minutes later, the same thing happened. Then again. And again. And again. Each time we left the building, we learned more about what was taking place elsewhere on campus, and that protesters were pulling fire alarms in most of the other major buildings on campus and the whole of Berkeley's daily operations were completely disrupted. We could see the alarm lights flashing through the windows of the building next to ours. I answered exactly three emails at work yesterday, and that was pretty much all I accomplished between each evacuation before my boss decided she'd had enough, and told us all to go home sometime around noon. I think the chaos on campus Friday answered my question about what the groups meant by "escalate" on their strike posters. Now, onto my thoughts from yesterday...
On my way into work this morning, I heard on the news that students at UC Berkeley had successfully occupied Wheeler Hall, one of our classroom and office buildings. I started clapping right there in my car (then quickly reminded myself that my hands belonged on the wheel). From what I understand, building occupations are also taking place at the Santa Cruz, Davis, and LA campuses, and maybe others as well. The Berkeley student interviewed on the radio said that students at other colleges and universities around the country and the world are also holding protests in solidarity. The news is on the homepages of the New York Times and CNN (top headline news on all sites seems to be that Oprah has canceled her show. Priorities, America), but strangely enough, not on the LA Times where the Regents meeting is actually taking place. The New York Times headline blurb says, "A Crown Jewel of Education Struggles With Cuts: Students and faculty worry that deep budget cuts are pushing the University of California into decline."
On my way into work this morning, I heard on the news that students at UC Berkeley had successfully occupied Wheeler Hall, one of our classroom and office buildings. I started clapping right there in my car (then quickly reminded myself that my hands belonged on the wheel). From what I understand, building occupations are also taking place at the Santa Cruz, Davis, and LA campuses, and maybe others as well. The Berkeley student interviewed on the radio said that students at other colleges and universities around the country and the world are also holding protests in solidarity. The news is on the homepages of the New York Times and CNN (top headline news on all sites seems to be that Oprah has canceled her show. Priorities, America), but strangely enough, not on the LA Times where the Regents meeting is actually taking place. The New York Times headline blurb says, "A Crown Jewel of Education Struggles With Cuts: Students and faculty worry that deep budget cuts are pushing the University of California into decline."
While thinking about the cuts and Yudoff's response to them, I felt dismayed by the fact that in everything he says about the situation, he blames the state. Of course, out of the other side of his mouth, he says he fully supports the Governor and understands that the legislature has no money to give us even if they wanted to (despite the fact that he has just asked them for a $900 million or so increase in state funding next year). The state is an "unreliable partner" I keep hearing. Our hands are tied, we have no choice, blame the state, BLAME THE STATE! Now don't get me wrong. I blame the state, too. But isn't it a little whiny and childish to never take any of the blame or responsibility ourselves? Yes, I understand that our endowment income has dropped, state funds have dropped, and we will likely lose the crutch we have for this year with federal stimulus money. I don't have the answer, but shouldn't our leader? If he's trying to step in solidarity with the student body and their tuition-paying parents by pointing the finger at Sacramento and taking the heat off himself, it's not working.
My other new favorite financial crisis on campus is the issue of post-retirement benefits. As I've mentioned before, nobody was paying into the UC pension fund for 20 years because it was 100% funded. Now, everyone is panicking because the fund is expected to drop by 60% or so next year, and we suddenly won't be able to afford retirement benefits for anyone. Employees and the university are going to have to start dumping money like mad to keep the program afloat, and the university is scrambling to revamp the program so it won't go under. Way to plan for a rainy day, guys.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Day 80
On NPR this morning, a report of the proposed fee increases and system-wide student protests was reported as national news from Washington DC, right between a report about the safety of the H1N1 vaccine and something related to the war in Afghanistan. When I walked by Sproul Plaza at lunch time, parked on Bancroft Avenue were four TV news vans including the local NBC and CBS affiliates, and another two unmarked. The headline "Regents Raise College Tuition in California by 32%" tops the New York Times homepage.
When I arrived on campus this morning, much like yesterday morning, I could hear chanting from Sproul Plaza, and it's been going steady, interspersed with speeches from the steps of Sproul Hall, all day. Someone in the office said that it was a lousy time of the semester for these protests since everyone's got papers and mid-terms due. I noted that the timing was based on the Regents meeting taking place in LA, and that I really don't blame students for at least trying to do something about the enormous fee hikes. Her response was, "Well you know it's not going to make a damn bit of difference. They're going to raise the fees anyway." The attitude made me a bit sad, not only because she was acting flip about something obviously so hugely important and momentous for the students, the university, the state, and public higher education as a whole. But because, at least for the moment, she turned out to be right.
I attended a lecture yesterday afternoon given by Dr. Hanna Holborn Gray, former provost and interim president of Yale University and former president of the University of Chicago. With a voice like Julia Child and speaking style like the dullest of college professors, Dr. Gray proposed that universities need to pare down their functions and get back to focusing on the specifics of what each institution does best. This solution was aimed at boosting the quality of our universities and dealing with declining financial resources. During these discussions about the UC budget cuts, many have asserted that the issues are not entirely a problem of resources, but of priorities. The UC system as a whole, and certainly Berkeley campus have about a zillion functions (give or take) with a good deal of overlap, inefficiencies, and all of the typical problems of major research universities and state systems. As it seems now, when history reflects on the presidency of Mark Yudoff, it will not look at him as a leader who re-focused the university system on its most important functions and mission during a time of financial crisis, but as one who marked the end of an era of one of the greatest free public services to the students and citizens of the state of California. His and the Regents' claim that the fee increases are the only answer to this budget crisis, but that we shouldn't worry because they will only affect wealthy students is a huge load of crap.
When I arrived on campus this morning, much like yesterday morning, I could hear chanting from Sproul Plaza, and it's been going steady, interspersed with speeches from the steps of Sproul Hall, all day. Someone in the office said that it was a lousy time of the semester for these protests since everyone's got papers and mid-terms due. I noted that the timing was based on the Regents meeting taking place in LA, and that I really don't blame students for at least trying to do something about the enormous fee hikes. Her response was, "Well you know it's not going to make a damn bit of difference. They're going to raise the fees anyway." The attitude made me a bit sad, not only because she was acting flip about something obviously so hugely important and momentous for the students, the university, the state, and public higher education as a whole. But because, at least for the moment, she turned out to be right.
I attended a lecture yesterday afternoon given by Dr. Hanna Holborn Gray, former provost and interim president of Yale University and former president of the University of Chicago. With a voice like Julia Child and speaking style like the dullest of college professors, Dr. Gray proposed that universities need to pare down their functions and get back to focusing on the specifics of what each institution does best. This solution was aimed at boosting the quality of our universities and dealing with declining financial resources. During these discussions about the UC budget cuts, many have asserted that the issues are not entirely a problem of resources, but of priorities. The UC system as a whole, and certainly Berkeley campus have about a zillion functions (give or take) with a good deal of overlap, inefficiencies, and all of the typical problems of major research universities and state systems. As it seems now, when history reflects on the presidency of Mark Yudoff, it will not look at him as a leader who re-focused the university system on its most important functions and mission during a time of financial crisis, but as one who marked the end of an era of one of the greatest free public services to the students and citizens of the state of California. His and the Regents' claim that the fee increases are the only answer to this budget crisis, but that we shouldn't worry because they will only affect wealthy students is a huge load of crap.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Day 79
Everyone in the office got a kick out of a sign on our building's front door this morning (which, for the sake of this story, we'll call Smith Hall):
Smith Hall is on Strike!
The student-created poster goes on to explain that we are all going to meet at 11, then march over to Sproul Plaza at noon to join the rally. When I first saw this sign on the front door this morning, I thought to myself, "Well, how is the building going to hold picket signs? Will the building be marching over to Sproul Plaza? I'm not sure that all the buildings on campus would fit on the plaza if other buildings are also on strike!" Another staff member wondered what would happen if some sort of altercation started, and a fight were to break out with the building. I chimed in that I would put my money on the building winning that battle. My boss joked that we are obviously failing as an institution of learning and that we should kick out all the students for making such a ludicrous sign. This conversation started after a staff person received a scathing note from a faculty member about her inappropriate use of the word "impact" as a transitive verb. So through some sort of psychological twist, our collective shame at a member of our ranks having been wrist-slapped by a higher grammatical authority was passed along to the dipstick students beneath us for attributing Smith Hall with principles.
Sproul Plaza was crowded at the noon rally today, but maybe not quite as crowded as I expected. The stairs of Sproul Hall were covered with students holding giant signs and banners, but at the meeting point along Telegraph Avenue, maybe a hundred or so demonstration signs sat idle, leaning upside down against the wall. The crowd looked to be made up primarily of students, several hundred or so, but for a campus that has in the tens of thousands of students, it was a little light. My theory is that students have taken this opportunity to skip class and stay home to work on a paper or watch Oprah.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Day 78
As with the September 24 walkout, the Director of Human Resources issued a letter to campus managers explaining the university's position and policies about the campus UPTE strike scheduled to begin tomorrow. Again, the university finds the strike illegal, and uses the same sentence as last time about expectations: "...All employees are expected to report to work and meet their job obligations." Here is the HR director's statement on the campus' stance on the strike:
It is the University's position that the UPTE strike is not protected under HEERA as the parties have not yet completed the bargaining process, much less the statutorily mandated impasse process. While UPTE has filed unfair practice charges, which the University believes are unfounded, the mere filing of a charge does not confer a legal right to strike and therefore there is no legal basis for this activity by UPTE.Posters are all over my building, and I assume all over campus. Professional posters from UPTE (in conjunction with the CUE and other supportive campus and union groups), as well as separate flyers from student groups. The student groups see the campus-wide strike as a protest against fee hikes, which will be decided upon by the Regents this week. The UPTE posters also include protest against further layoffs and cuts to student services, which they list as other considerations on the table for the Regents. According to the union posters, the schedule is as follows:
- November 18: Walkout
- November 19: Reclaim
- November 20: Escalate
Friday, November 13, 2009
Day 74
This flu has finally gotten the best of me, so I'm spreading my germs over my own laptop rather than my computer at work. My fellow staff--including me--are a little testy about people coming to work sick, so for most of the week I've been retracing my steps with clorox wipes on the water cooler handle, the buttons on the microwave, and the door handle to the office's main entrance. Today, however, the only other people who could be exposed to my flu are my butler, cook, and housekeeping team. Oh, and my fund manager who came to give me updates on the millions I've earned today, and to tell me how he's found a loophole that will make me exempt from the CA increase in tax withholdings. In my defense, I've had hand sanitizer dispensers installed in all two of the rooms in my apartment so each member of my household staff can be responsible for his or her own health. Priorities, you know.
I heard on the radio this morning that the University of California Small Farmer's Program will be closing its doors at the end of December. This program is an example of the many things the university system does for the state, its businesses, and citizens. Apparently, it is largely responsible for things like California's rich supply of organic salad greens and heirloom tomatoes, and provides scientific agricultural advice and assistance to California's small business farmers. Farmers interviewed for the report have attributed their success to the program, and fear for their businesses upon its demise. A university spokesperson said that while the office/department is closing, it's faculty experts are not losing their jobs, and that the university is still committed to the program. This sounds like a chapter for a future Freakonomics volume that will explain how the Mexican takeover of the former state of California can be attributed to cuts in the University of California system that led to the collapse of the small, organic farmer. Store my number in your rolodex for interviews when that day comes, because I'm calling it now.
I heard on the radio this morning that the University of California Small Farmer's Program will be closing its doors at the end of December. This program is an example of the many things the university system does for the state, its businesses, and citizens. Apparently, it is largely responsible for things like California's rich supply of organic salad greens and heirloom tomatoes, and provides scientific agricultural advice and assistance to California's small business farmers. Farmers interviewed for the report have attributed their success to the program, and fear for their businesses upon its demise. A university spokesperson said that while the office/department is closing, it's faculty experts are not losing their jobs, and that the university is still committed to the program. This sounds like a chapter for a future Freakonomics volume that will explain how the Mexican takeover of the former state of California can be attributed to cuts in the University of California system that led to the collapse of the small, organic farmer. Store my number in your rolodex for interviews when that day comes, because I'm calling it now.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Day 73
Great news: California is going to increase the amount of income tax it collects on paychecks issued after November 1! More specifically, the collection rate is going up rather than the actual rate. So I'll receive the extra money back in my refund early after I file next year, but the state is taking more now to build up the state's in-hand cash. Brilliant! Everyone in the state is going to get another pay cut just in time for the holidays. California government never ceases to amaze me.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Day 71
This morning, I had every intention of attending the staff forum on retirement benefits. Once I finally found the building (college campuses can be so confusing), I found myself looking at a crowd of people staring into the narrow doorways of Sibley Auditorium, straining to hear the speaker. The room was packed, and a hundred or so staff spilled out of the doorways on either side, unable to make it into the room. I stood in the crowd for a minute or so before realizing that I couldn't see the screen where they were projecting information, nor could I really hear the speaker, so I left comforted by the fact that the event was supposed to be recorded, and I'd be able to find it online somewhere in a few days. As I walked out the front door, I overheard a woman telling a few of her colleagues that she was surprised and disappointed at how quiet the crowd was being, saying, "I thought 'oh good old Berkeley,' but no one is saying a word!" Perhaps she would have preferred the melee that these meetings sometimes become. Maybe once the speakers were finished, her wish would come true.
Once I'd made it back to my office I felt ready for a nap because my cold is starting to win the war against vitamins and warm tea.
Once I'd made it back to my office I felt ready for a nap because my cold is starting to win the war against vitamins and warm tea.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Day 70
Tomorrow is the big day for the first listening tour forum on campus. I received a reminder this morning from the Chancellor, which included a more generous description of the session compared to the one in his message last week. He says that the Q&A session will be a time to "answer your questions and listen to your concerns." Before, it was just to answer our questions. I wonder if this addition to the description was intentional.
We are having another strike on campus to protest the fee increases. The Regents meet on November 18 to decide on tuition hikes, so the entire campus community is being asked to strike for three days. The Daily Californian credits the UC Berkeley Student Worker Action Team, which they describe as consisting of "students, staff, faculty, and community members" with organizing the protest. I haven't heard much talk about this strike compared to the buzz before the walkout on September 24, but I imagine the tension will build over the coming week. Faculty have been divided over whether it is right to leave the classroom empty in protest, and this will undoubtedly be another showing of divided opinions.
I read an article this morning in the Chronicle of Higher Education on whether too many students are going to college. The article consisted of opinions from a handful of professors and other authorities on economics and college access and affordability. No one could deny that at least some college statistically increases the income for individuals, but the panelists were divided about whether our system is sustainable, whether the government should pay for higher education, and whether students leave college with the actual education to back up the degree and its increased earnings. Some argue that student learning from college is valuable to their careers, others say its a wasteful bunch of elitist bologna, while some say that the earning potential is not a fair way to judge whether a college degree is worthwhile since it could hold other value besides financial. My education has made me a far better speaker, writer, and thinker on all subjects. I am also a better employee because I know how to find information and solve problems better than I believe I would if I hadn't gone to college. However, my education cost FAR too much, and I will literally be paying the price for a very, very long time. Working in the public sector with high college debt already puts me in the category of people who may not see any financial gain from my degrees, and possibly even a loss over the long term. In retrospect, I wouldn't give back the degrees I've earned because I have gained more from them than a raise (though I got that, too) including an invaluable social and professional network, increased confidence and abilities, and increased awareness about the world around me and in my field. However, I would have managed the costs of those degrees better so that I would never have to feel like a slave to them. My education has given me upward mobility, but I was a lower-middle class kid, so I had to take out loans to pay for this mobility. I also believe that not all degrees are created equal and some students with BAs have had a better education than others. This leads me to my final thought on the issue which is that I believe that yes, too many students are going to college. The traditional model of college is not right for many, and calling all four-year degrees the same thing is ridiculous and inaccurate. Sending everyone to college will set many up for disappointment and failure, not to mention wasted time and money (yes, I know that even one year of college is better than none for future earnings). Do a better job of educating kids and teenagers in K-12 so that students and taxpayers no longer have to spend money on college tuition for people to learn "essential workplace skills" like how to read and add.
We are having another strike on campus to protest the fee increases. The Regents meet on November 18 to decide on tuition hikes, so the entire campus community is being asked to strike for three days. The Daily Californian credits the UC Berkeley Student Worker Action Team, which they describe as consisting of "students, staff, faculty, and community members" with organizing the protest. I haven't heard much talk about this strike compared to the buzz before the walkout on September 24, but I imagine the tension will build over the coming week. Faculty have been divided over whether it is right to leave the classroom empty in protest, and this will undoubtedly be another showing of divided opinions.
I read an article this morning in the Chronicle of Higher Education on whether too many students are going to college. The article consisted of opinions from a handful of professors and other authorities on economics and college access and affordability. No one could deny that at least some college statistically increases the income for individuals, but the panelists were divided about whether our system is sustainable, whether the government should pay for higher education, and whether students leave college with the actual education to back up the degree and its increased earnings. Some argue that student learning from college is valuable to their careers, others say its a wasteful bunch of elitist bologna, while some say that the earning potential is not a fair way to judge whether a college degree is worthwhile since it could hold other value besides financial. My education has made me a far better speaker, writer, and thinker on all subjects. I am also a better employee because I know how to find information and solve problems better than I believe I would if I hadn't gone to college. However, my education cost FAR too much, and I will literally be paying the price for a very, very long time. Working in the public sector with high college debt already puts me in the category of people who may not see any financial gain from my degrees, and possibly even a loss over the long term. In retrospect, I wouldn't give back the degrees I've earned because I have gained more from them than a raise (though I got that, too) including an invaluable social and professional network, increased confidence and abilities, and increased awareness about the world around me and in my field. However, I would have managed the costs of those degrees better so that I would never have to feel like a slave to them. My education has given me upward mobility, but I was a lower-middle class kid, so I had to take out loans to pay for this mobility. I also believe that not all degrees are created equal and some students with BAs have had a better education than others. This leads me to my final thought on the issue which is that I believe that yes, too many students are going to college. The traditional model of college is not right for many, and calling all four-year degrees the same thing is ridiculous and inaccurate. Sending everyone to college will set many up for disappointment and failure, not to mention wasted time and money (yes, I know that even one year of college is better than none for future earnings). Do a better job of educating kids and teenagers in K-12 so that students and taxpayers no longer have to spend money on college tuition for people to learn "essential workplace skills" like how to read and add.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Day 65
Today, Vice Chancellor Nathan Brostrom sent an email to all campus faculty and staff offering us "FREE!" tickets to a men's or women's Cal basketball game. The men's game is November 24 (the week of Thanksgiving) vs Jacksonville, and the women's is November 15 vs Idaho State. A generous menu of options. He offers the tickets as a "special 'thank you' for your dedication to our university," and concludes with, "Thank you for all you do to support this great campus."
Oh, Nate, you're welcome!
Oh, Nate, you're welcome!
Monday, November 2, 2009
Day 63
November already?
Next week will be the first forum on Berkeley's campus for the "listening tour" for the President's Commission on the Future of UC. The topic will be "Post-Employment Benefits." The task force has been charged with finding a sustainable way to go forward with retirement benefits, since they do not believe that the current model meets that requirement. According to a posting on the UC Berkeley News Center site, "The university is committed to offering competitive post-employment benefits to attract and retain faculty and staff, but fiscal pressures are making it increasingly harder to so." Unlike at many--maybe even most--other institutions, we haven't had to make contributions to our retirement plan in years. The fund for our retirement has been at or near 100% for quite a while because it was performing so well, so it was decided (forgive the passive voice, but the precise origins of decisions like this seem to vanish into the ether over the years) that the university and employees should stop contributing. This year, the fund lost a good deal of money, so we will all have to start putting money into the pot beginning in April (meaning everyone's take-home pay will decrease AGAIN). Now we are being invited to an event on a listening tour where we will hear a 30 minute talk, then have 90 minutes to ask the panel questions. The language of the invitation doesn't give the impression that there will be a whole lot of actual listening by the task force, but it is easy enough to make an opinion sound like a question, so I'm sure we'll hear plenty. I have been to many administrative meetings over the years, including union meetings, so I am curious about how useful and productive this meeting will be as opposed to--pardon my French--a bitch-fest by frustrated, angry, money-strapped staff who are sick of the university taking things away from them. Even if the meeting turns mildly hostile toward the administration, at least they will know how we are feeling, and how important things like a great retirement plan are to people with mediocre paychecks. Oh, and I don't want to forget to mention that the faculty will have their own separate meeting. While I understand the differences in the university system between the compensation of faculty and staff, and that both meetings will likely be more productive by separating the groups, I resent it just the same. Unionized members of the staff and those of us who are exempt, salaried staff members are compensated in very different ways from each other, too, so the split isn't entirely that simple and straight forward. Maybe separating the groups is part of a secret conspiracy to enhance divisions amongst the members of the masses so we won't organize and rebel. But I'm willing to bet that the conversation at the faculty meeting will be very similar to the one at the staff meeting, just with bigger words.
Next week will be the first forum on Berkeley's campus for the "listening tour" for the President's Commission on the Future of UC. The topic will be "Post-Employment Benefits." The task force has been charged with finding a sustainable way to go forward with retirement benefits, since they do not believe that the current model meets that requirement. According to a posting on the UC Berkeley News Center site, "The university is committed to offering competitive post-employment benefits to attract and retain faculty and staff, but fiscal pressures are making it increasingly harder to so." Unlike at many--maybe even most--other institutions, we haven't had to make contributions to our retirement plan in years. The fund for our retirement has been at or near 100% for quite a while because it was performing so well, so it was decided (forgive the passive voice, but the precise origins of decisions like this seem to vanish into the ether over the years) that the university and employees should stop contributing. This year, the fund lost a good deal of money, so we will all have to start putting money into the pot beginning in April (meaning everyone's take-home pay will decrease AGAIN). Now we are being invited to an event on a listening tour where we will hear a 30 minute talk, then have 90 minutes to ask the panel questions. The language of the invitation doesn't give the impression that there will be a whole lot of actual listening by the task force, but it is easy enough to make an opinion sound like a question, so I'm sure we'll hear plenty. I have been to many administrative meetings over the years, including union meetings, so I am curious about how useful and productive this meeting will be as opposed to--pardon my French--a bitch-fest by frustrated, angry, money-strapped staff who are sick of the university taking things away from them. Even if the meeting turns mildly hostile toward the administration, at least they will know how we are feeling, and how important things like a great retirement plan are to people with mediocre paychecks. Oh, and I don't want to forget to mention that the faculty will have their own separate meeting. While I understand the differences in the university system between the compensation of faculty and staff, and that both meetings will likely be more productive by separating the groups, I resent it just the same. Unionized members of the staff and those of us who are exempt, salaried staff members are compensated in very different ways from each other, too, so the split isn't entirely that simple and straight forward. Maybe separating the groups is part of a secret conspiracy to enhance divisions amongst the members of the masses so we won't organize and rebel. But I'm willing to bet that the conversation at the faculty meeting will be very similar to the one at the staff meeting, just with bigger words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
