LOOKING INTO THE UC BUDGET  --  Report #10     (e-mail version)

by Charles Schwartz, Department of Physics, University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720.        510-642-4427         April 24, 1994

[Dear Regents: One of you recently told me that he hasn't read these 
Reports. I understand that you are busy important people, and it is 
easiest just to follow the leader.  However, if you will make the 
effort to study this one, I believe you will find it both 
intellectually and politically rewarding.]


     In the second act of the Regents' discussion of LONG-TERM 
PLANNING, things take a divisive turn. (The first act was the topic 
of Report #9.) Two camps now emerge - one championing "quality" 
above all else, the other holding fast to the earlier consensus 
slogan of "quality and access" - in what appears to be fundamentally 
a political contest between competing values.

     The first task of this Report is to examine the language being 
used (What does "quality" mean?) and then to decode the regents' 
rhetoric and see what the actual conflicts amount to.  It comes down 
to that famous old issue: Should faculty spend less time at research 
and more time in the classroom?

     I present some startling new data, derived from UC sources, 
concerning the UC faculty's teaching and research workloads compared 
with those at other top universities.  It appears that we have 
within UC a stored surplus of faculty resources; and this might be 
re-deployed in such a way that both access and quality may be 
maintained in the future, although not in the same luxurious mode to 
which we have been accustomed in the past.

     To achieve the goal of maintaining both quality and access, 
this re-design of faculty work must be implemented with great care; 
and it will have to be accompanied by other reforms - including a 
reduction of the UC administration and a re-distribution of other UC 
finances - which I have documented and discussed in previous 

Recently, some mainstream press has paid attention to this work:

Sacramento Bee, March 16, editorial commentary by Peter Schrag
Los Angeles Times, April 18, article by Ralph Frammolino
Lingua Franca bimonthly magazine, April, extensive article by Irvin 

                    QUALITY  vs.  ACCESS

     At the Regents March 18 meeting one could see the battle lines 
being drawn in the struggle over the University of California's 
future. Here I report how members of the Board responded to a list 
of ten options in a "discussion document" prepared by the UC Office 
of the President (UCOP) on how to deal with the expected sharp 
increase in UC-eligible students in California and the expected 
inadequacy of State funds.

Regent Dean Watkins led off the discussion:
  It seems to me that our primary responsibility is to maintain 
  quality. That's got to be number one.  I think that most, if not 
  all of us, agree with that.  With the situation that we're in, 
  with the financial constraints that are imposed on us, and are 
  likely to continue ... we do not have a lot of choices.  And just 
  to indicate where I stand on this, it seems to me that the best 
  options, and they're terrible, are actually a combination of six 
  and seven.  Six is to reduce the eligibility pool [Historically, 
  the top 12.5% of the state's high school graduates are eligible 
  to enter UC.] to a lesser percentage ...; and seven, which is to 
  gain economies by reducing the University's commitment to 
  professional education on [a] selective basis. ... The only other 
  choice is to lower the quality of the institution and as long as 
  I am a regent I am not going to vote for  that.

Regent Roy Shults echoed this view, acknowledging the consequences:
  It is with great reluctance that I think that the University may 
  be forced exactly into what Regent Watkins has suggested for the 
  future.  If we do reduce the percentage of eligible students who 
  enter the University in the future we will ... have angry people 
  in the State of California, who look to those of us who 
  benefitted from the University and say to us, You are telling us 
  our children cannot. ... It is very difficult to slam the door of 
  opportunity to those who come along in the future and expect that 
  when we do that we will have their support.

Student Regent Darby Morrisroe took issue with her elders:
  I [understand] how important the issue of quality is to this 
  Board and the University ... but I think it is also important 
  that the University in its deliberations begin to address with 
  the same vigor the issue of access to the University of 
  California. ...
  I have a question that I think is pretty important for the 
  evaluation of option six, whether to reduce the eligibility pool 
  to a lesser percentage of high school graduates, say,  from the 
  current twelve and a half percent to, say, ten or six. ... [W]hat 
  effect that will have on the eligibility pool demographically? 
  ... I have a fear that ... reducing the percentage that we are 
  taking in [will have a] disproportionate impact on certain 
  demographics of the students.

At this point Regent Roy Brophy (chairing this meeting) interrupted 
  Do I understand you to say that we should not be as concerned as 
  we have been about maintaining quality but should put additional 
  emphasis on admissions and diversity and so forth.  In other 
  words we should bring more students in and not be so concerned 
  about what type of education or continuation of the type of 
  education we are providing now ?  If that is not the answer, then 
  what are you talking about?

And Morrisroe responded:
  No. That is actually not at all what I am saying.

Regent Ward Connerly also took the other side:
  I hope that we don't poise the issue solely as one of quality 
  versus access.  ...  Those of us who argue more for access don't 
  want an inferior University of California, not at all.  But we 
  are saying, I think, certainly I am, that when we talk about 
  quality that we not start off with that as the premise that 
  that's the only thing that we want to provide.  Because when we 
  do that it almost becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. ... When we 
  start off with both of those objectives in mind, then I think 
  that we can more appropriately reconcile the conflicts. 
Regent Meredith Khachigian tried to minimize the conflict:
  I strongly feel that access and quality go hand in hand.  I have 
  a real bias that access means nothing unless it's to a quality 
  institution.  I feel that, in purely business terms, that that UC 
  degree is a marketable commodity ... wherever we have taken it, 
  and it means something.  And we want to maintain that to mean 
  something when our students continue this.  I think that  our 
  commitment to high quality is what keeps this University what it 
  is, ... and I don't want to see that changed.

As did Regent John Davies:
  We have this flood of students beginning three or four years from 
  now, we just aren't going to have enough money to do what we want 
  to do. ... To the extent the other options don't work, we have to 
  go with six and seven.  I don't think we need to treat this as 
  choosing between quality and access, of course we all believe in 
  both; but the starting point for me is preserving the existing 
  quality.  That's the starting point, not that we are 
  disinterested in access.

Warren Fox, Executive Director of the California Postsecondary 
Education Commission (CPEC), gave an answer to Morrisroe's critical 
  I am asked by my colleagues in the state and outside the state, 
  What is the number one issue in California higher ed?  And my 
  answer is: growth and diversity.  That's obviously two issues but 
  here in California it's one.  The tidal wave, as Clark Kerr calls 
  it, Tidal Wave II, is coming just at the turn of the century and 
  we will have no  racial-ethnic group in this state a majority at 
  the turn of the century, and we will have large numbers of 
  students.  Our [CPEC's] eligibility study shows not only will we 
  have larger numbers of students but students are increasing their 
  eligibility to enter UC and CSU at ever increasing rates for all 
  racial-ethnic groups.  Now there are still underrepresented 
  groups and we have more work to do.  So just at the time when all 
  groups are preparing for eligibility at UC and CSU in larger 
  numbers, at the same time the State doesn't have the financial 
  resources to support their admission. ... [I]t is our feeling 
  that you ought not to reduce the twelve and a half percent. Our 
  preliminary indications are that there are disproportionate 
  effects on Californians if you reduce from twelve and a half 
  percent. ... [W]e would urge you to maintain the eligibility pool 
  so that your students resemble the citizens of the State of 

Lieutenant Governor and Regent Leo McCarthy offered his sympathy:
  This task of long term planning, when so much of costs that may 
  be heaped upon the University are beyond the control of the 
  University and the Board of Regents, it's a pretty tough task. 
  We've just got to do the best we can as human beings, but we can't 
  begin to do our job [without] the specifics. ... [S]omebody's 
  nose has got to get bloodied in the University. ... This is
  going to be a tough process, very tough.

And , finally, here is what UC President Jack Peltason had to say:
  I am very pleased, excited, that we are now getting this 
  discussion going.  This is a discussion that the Board will have 
  to have, the people of California will have to have, the faculty 
  and staff will have to have, and a sustained one.  There are no 
  easy answers and there are indeed some very tough choices and we 
  can't have it all.  But the point that I would like to emphasize 
  in that discussion is that we need to cut programs but that the 
  major cost is the total number of students that you educate.  And 
  even if one campus specializes and another campus specializes, to 
  keep up this same total number of students, that's your big cost.  
  And you can change the eligibility range up and down and still 
  the question is,  How many students are there in class? - that's 
  the cost.  And the real question we are facing is, If we don't 
  get enough money to educate all of the students, [what do we do?] 

                     A BIT OF BACKGROUND

     When the current budget crisis began, some 4 years ago, the UC 
President (David Gardner at that time) pronounced that the 
preservation of "quality" in this institution would be the 
University's number one priority.  As student fees began to escalate 
and the consequent socio-economic implications became a prominent 
issue, the word "access" was added to the official UC language.  
Throughout the regental discussions and debates leading up to their 
adoption in January of long term policies on student fees (tuition) 
and financial aid (progressive taxation), these two icons were 
treated as co-equal priorities:  "Preserving Affordable Quality and 
Access" was the titular phrase.  

     In this latest debate that harmony had been shattered.  What 
one sees now is an open political struggle, with what appears to be 
the dominant party grouped under the flag of Quality First.  One 
reason why I call this a political struggle is that the word 
"quality" is tossed about without ever being defined or examined;  
it is used for rhetorical purposes to represent some particular 
values and interests which are not apparent to the innocent 

     My first task here is explication; and the approach I shall use 
follows that given in my Report #9, discussing the new paradigm for 
financing the University.


     We can speak of the quality of research, which means the same 
thing as the reputational standing of the faculty who initiate and 
conduct the research work within the university.  Most of the time, 
when UC faculty and administrators use the word "quality", this is 
what they are talking about.

     We can also speak of the quality of graduate education, 
referring here to the academic (mostly PhD) program as distinct from 
the professional schools.  This is so closely tied to the quality of 
research that it is seldom necessary to separate the two.

     The quality of undergraduate education is quite a different 
matter.  There are many ways for teachers to teach and many ways for 
students to learn.  There are very different kinds of schools - 
liberal arts colleges, general four year colleges, research 
universities - each of which can provide a high quality 
undergraduate education.  The University's leaders often claim that 
high quality research faculty provide a high quality undergraduate 
education, but this is largely an exaggeration.  The true relation 
between these two might best be described by the phrase, "trickle 

     One can also speak of the quality of the professional schools 
(medicine, law, business, etc.) but I shall put this subject aside 
for now.

     Also, we often hear talk of the quality of administration, 
arising in justification for the high salaries paid to UC's top 
executives.  This is mostly nonsense that ought not to occupy our 
time but apparently the regents do need to be educated about this.  
I shall defer this discussion to a later Report.

                 HOW IS QUALITY MEASURED ?

     Quality, in any of its forms, is not an absolute thing; it is 
usually measured by some kind of comparison between one university 
and another.  There are a number of sources of such rankings, and 
they involve subjective judgments along with a variety of numerical 
measures.  If your school comes out at the top of somebody's list, 
you crow; if you find yourself ranked low down, you find reasons to 
criticize their methodology.  I don't want to get into philosophical 
wranglings here, so I shall stick with the same values, measurements 
and standards that the UC administration uses.

     For quality of research and graduate education, UC looks at a 
set of eight comparison institutions:  4 private research 
universities (Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale) and 4 public research 
universities (Illinois, Michigan, SUNY-Buffalo, Virginia.)  
Principally, these institutions are chosen for a comparison of 
faculty salaries.  Thus, maintaining quality here means being in a 
position not unfavorable in the competition for hiring and retaining 
research faculty, or for providing financial support for graduate 
students.  Salaries are not the only criterion in this competition:  
the teaching load of faculty members is another very important 

     For measuring the quality of instruction, UC chooses to look at 
Student/Faculty ratios, combining undergraduate and graduate 
students in this count.  However, as pointed out in my Report #8a, 
it will be important to look at this ratio separately for 
undergraduate students and for graduate students.

     There is a further important distinction to be made in 
discussions about quality of instruction and quality of research 
faculty.  This has to do with the self-evident fact that not all the 
professors on any given campus, or in any given department, are the 
same.  Even at the very best university, at any given moment some 
faculty members will shine considerably more than others - shine as 
research stars or shine as teachers.   From the perspective of an 
undergraduate student, it is the AVERAGE of the faculty that counts.  
From the perspective of a top notch faculty candidate deciding 
whether to take a position at this university or at that one, it is 
the BEST of the faculty present (looking primarily at the 
individual's own field) that counts. 

     These ideas form the necessary basis from which we can 
interpret the regents' discussion and proceed to examine 
intelligently the University of California's present condition and 
its future options.


     When  the word "quality" is used without further specification, 
it is usually safe to assume that University officials are talking 
about the quality of research;  and that usually means keeping the 
faculty (relatively) happy.  Thus, in the Regent's budget document 
for 1994-95 one reads of the urgent need for a salary increase for 
faculty: "To ensure future quality, it is critically important that 
the University return to a competitive position in the marketplace." 
[page 16]

     When the word "access" is used, it generally means: keeping UC 
open to undergraduate students according to the California Master 
Plan for Higher Education -  the top 12.5% of the state's high 
school graduates are eligible; and "access" also means that economic 
status should not be a factor in a student's ability to enroll at 
UC.  The word "demographics" is used to mean two things:  the 
increase in UC-eligible undergraduate students - an additional 
80,000 on top of the present 120,000 - expected to arrive by the 
year 2010;  and the representation of various ethnic-racial groups 
within any selected population.

     The conflict, as presented by the UC President's Office, arises 
from the expected increase in number of students and the continuing 
shortfall in State funding.

     Alternative proposals for dealing with this looming crisis have 
been presented by the UC Student Association and advocated by 
Student Regent Darby Morrisroe.  A key element of their plan is to 
have faculty members spend less time on research and graduate 
education and more time on undergraduate education.  While I do not 
know about the numerical details of their plan, something of this 
sort generally appears to make economic sense; and, of course, calls 
for such shifts in university priorities have been heard many times 
before from state legislatures and other critics of the university.

     The counter-argument is that increasing faculty teaching loads 
will make UC less attractive to top notch research faculty and we 
will lose our competitive standing among the nation's best research 
universities.  Ergo, QUALITY VERSUS ACCESS.

examine some more of what the regents said.

                     CRITIQUE OF OPTION SIX

"Option 6: To reduce the eligibility pool to a lesser percentage of 
the top high school graduates (for example, to the top 10% or the 
top 7-1/2%).  This strategy reduces the absolute numbers of 
students, avoids cost increases, and, in those ways, continues to 
provide those students who attend a quality undergraduate education. 
... it would move the University in an elitist direction."

     Putting aside for the moment the question of whether UC ought 
to limit undergraduate enrollment, let me ask the question: What 
would be the fairest way to do this if it should become necessary? 

     Using market forces (raising the price) is clearly unacceptable 
to everybody.  Thus, UC has a "commitment" to provide financial aid 
to needy students - although some of us question whether that 
program is now adequate or will be maintained.

     Raising the eligibility criterion, as proposed in Option Six, 
would probably have a significant discriminatory effect  - as Warren 
Fox of CPEC testified to the Regents - and that should make it 
morally and politically unacceptable.

     An alternative would be to keep the 12.5% criterion but add a 
lottery mechanism to choose among the eligible student applicants.  
If all students started out with equal opportunities of preparatory 
education, then a simple random lottery would be the fairest way.  
Given, however, that the historical underrepresentation of some 
racial-ethnic groups has not yet been remedied, the lottery should 
be weighted appropriately to right this imbalance.

                     CRITIQUE OF OPTION SEVEN

"Option 7:  To maintain the 12-1/2% principle for undergraduates, 
but to gain economies by reducing the University's commitment to 
professional education on a selective basis.  The University could 
... cut some of those professional schools, many of whose functions-
-except for granting the doctorate--are fully shared with the 
California State University system (for example, education, social 
welfare, and others)."

     How much money would this save UC?  The University has five 
graduate schools of Education and two of Social Welfare.  Their 
combined total expenditure of General Funds in 1992-93 amounted to 
about $28 million; and only a portion of this total pertains to the 
masters degree and credential programs (the PhD programs would stay 
with UC). Thus, this is not very much money compared to UC's roughly 
2 billion annual expenditure of general funds; but even that amount 
of savings is unlikely to be realized by UC.  These selected 
graduate programs, which are important to California,  would 
probably be shifted over to the CSU system and the Legislature would 
then most likely shift the allocated funds from UC to CSU.  There 
might be a net saving to the State, since CSU's per capita cost is 
generally less than UC's; but it could easily result in a net 
financial loss for UC since tenured faculty members are not easily 
got rid of.

                         "QUALITY FIRST"

     UC alumni (and that includes most regents) as well as students 
who are already enrolled in this University would naturally not want 
to see a degradation of the quality of this institution, however one 
might define quality,  since that might affect the value of their 
degree, or that of their children, etc.  This view should be 
identified, however, as an expression of bias - by which I imply no 
evil intent but merely a reflection of the particular interest of 
those who have been privileged to attend UC in the past.  Those 
other citizens whose opportunity to attend, or to have their 
children attend UC in the future may be foreclosed by the Regents' 
choice of policy would naturally have a different bias:  access is 
their first concern.

                      THE PRESIDENT'S FORMULA

     President Peltason has a simple view of the problem: "How many 
students are there in class? - that's the cost." 

     In the past, the State has agreed to fund UC on the basis of a 
formula that budgets one FTE (full-time equivalent) faculty 
position, and associated instructional support funds, for each 17.61 
FTE students of General Campus enrollment.  (General Campus means: 
excluding health sciences.)  In the current budget crisis this ratio 
has actually gone up to 18.6, but as a matter of policy it is 
supposed to come back down.   In this context, the Student-to-
Faculty Ratio is not a measure of pedagogical value but just a 
budgeting formula, whose origin lies shrouded in the mysteries of 
history and politics. 

     Can this be looked at differently?   Yes, that is what I plan 
to show.  President Peltason is saying that he can only visualize 
the University continuing into the future exactly as it has been in 
the past.  He allows no re-examination of fundamentals, and that is 
a capital fault.


A.  Formal Courseload Policies for Faculty
     The UCOP report,"Undergraduate Instruction and Faculty Teaching 
Activities," March 1994, gives authoritative data.  For UC, we find 
on page 28 the average number of regularly scheduled courses that a 
full-time faculty member is expected to teach, in the various major 
disciplines, expressed as a number of "quarter courses per year."   
For the 8 comparison institutions, we find on page 30 the data given 
as the average number of "semester courses taught per year."   
Superficially, the numbers seem very similar; and the UCOP report 
concludes: "practices related to teaching assignments in the 
University of California closely parallel those of its comparison 

     We need to look closer at these numbers.  Let's calculate the 
number of courses taught by a faculty member in any one term, be it 
a quarter or a semester,  averaged throughout the academic year:  
that is, divide the number of Quarter Courses per Year by 3 and 
divide the number of Semester Courses per Year by 2.  This will 
allow a direct comparison of the data for UC with that for the other 
universities.  This is also the most meaningful number from the 
perspective of a faculty member - and that is what really counts 
when you worry about faculty recruitment and retention.  The UCOP 
report notes that a semester at UC is 15 weeks long while at the 
comparison universities a semester averages about 13 weeks; this is 
at most a 15% correction. Also, It would be nice to have the 
disciplines more separated in the case of the comparison 
institutions but I shall have to be content for now with this data 
as it is provided in the more aggregated form.  Here is the final 

Table 1.  Average Number of Courses per Faculty in Any One Term

Disciplines                       UC             Comparison 8

Humanities & Social Sciences   1.33 to 1.67      2.0 (2.0 to 2.5)
Engineering                    1.33              1.5 to 2.0
All Sciences                   1.00 to 1.67      1.0 to 1.5

     This "apples-to-apples" comparison shows that faculty 
courseloads in the Sciences are indeed very close; but in the other 
disciplines the comparison universities have significantly higher 
faculty courseloads than UC - UP TO FIFTY PERCENT HIGHER. 
This is a startling discovery.  

B.  Student-to-Faculty Ratios

     In my Report #8a I gave some of this new data, using numbers 
provided by UCOP and CPEC, but choosing to look just at 
undergraduate students, rather than the usual practice of lumping 
both undergraduates and graduates together.   Here is the complete 
separated data for UC and the comparison 8 schools.

Table 2.  Student-Faculty Ratios - Disaggregated and Compared 

                                       All      Undergrad   Graduate
                                     Students    Student    Students
University of California               18.6        15.1       3.5
Avg. of 4 Public Comparison Univ's     17.8        12.9       4.9
Avg. of 4 Private Comparison Univ's    10.4         5.0       5.4

[Sources: Letter from L. Hershman, UCOP, 2/10/94; and CPEC Report 
93-2, April 1993,  p. 48.]

     Here, again, we make a startling discovery when we look 
separately at the graduate and undergraduate students.  
Undergraduate students at UC have a far higher ratio than those at 
the Private 4 - three times as much - which is usually interpreted 
to mean that they get a far poorer education, measured by their 
individual contact with the faculty.   For graduate students, on the 
other hand,  the situation is reversed:  the graduate student-to-
faculty ratio is 50% higher at the Private 4 than at UC!  

     I interpret these numbers, tentatively, as follows:  Compared 
to the nation's best private research universities, UC has far too 
few faculty for its undergraduate students and UC also has 
significantly too many faculty for its graduate students.  (An 
observer from another planet might suggest the alternative 
interpretation: that UC has too many undergraduate students and too 
few graduate students.)


     These two numerical displays, examining two separate measures 
of quality - quality of research and quality of instruction, using 
the definitions used by UCOP and using UCOP's own numbers - both 
point to the same powerful conclusion:  that the University of 
California has a large excess of its faculty engaged in the missions 
of research and graduate education.  The golden opportunity posed by 
this discovery is that a judicious redeployment of existing faculty 
resources may go a long way toward accommodating the expected 
increase in undergraduate students (i.e., maintaining access) 
without significantly damaging the quality of research and graduate 

                      IS IT REAL GOLD ?

     Several things need to be checked in more detail than the 
available data allow.  

     The numbers in A, showing lower teaching loads at UC, need to 
be further detailed by academic disciplines, and perhaps also 
separated according to public and private comparison universities.  
UCOP can and should do this.

     The numbers in B, especially the graduate student-to-faculty 
ratios, should also be broken down for various academic disciplines 
and then compared from one institution to another.  I have estimated 
this ratio for the individual campuses of UC and find a rather large 
variation from one to another; but this also calls for authoritative 
data that UCOP can provide.

     My interpretation of these numbers was called "tentative" 
because in the comparison between UC and other institutions one must 
also ask the question: How do faculty divide their time, on the 
average, between undergraduate students and graduate students?  I 
have made the plausible assumption that this division of time is 
approximately the same at the comparison institutions and at UC - my 
reasoning is that this is an important factor in the competitive 
hiring of top notch research faculty - but this is an assumption 
that should be checked by further data from UCOP.

     Looking further, I have found some additional data that helps 
firm up this analysis.

C. Faculty Time-Use Statistics

     In my Report #8 I used data from UC's latest (1983-84) survey 
of how faculty spend their work time.  Out of a total 61.3 hour work 
week, the average full time faculty member reported 23.2 hours spent 
on research, 26.0 hours on instructional activities and 12.1 hours 
on professional, public and university service.  The study also 
allowed one to separate part of the instructional time between 
undergraduate students and graduate students: it showed a 50-50 
split in terms of hours of direct student contact in classes.   
There are, however, two reasons for believing that this 
substantially underestimates the overall portion of time faculty 
spend on graduate students.  First, the time devoted by a professor 
to preparation for class is undoubtedly greater, on the average, for 
graduate courses than for undergraduate courses.  This is because of 
the more complex nature of graduate course material and also because 
of the greater sophistication of graduate students.  Second, faculty 
spend a great deal of time with their graduate students engaged in 
research - this apprentice relation is at the very heart of the PhD 
program.  Graduate students so engaged enroll in a departmental 
"research" course for up to the full 12 unit course load.  In UC's 
Faculty Time-Use survey, however, the respondents were told to 
report their time spent in contact with student research assistants 
as faculty research time and not as instructional time.

     The indication is that UC faculty, on the average, spend 
considerably more of their time devoted to graduate students than to 
undergraduate students.  Again, I do not have data to make this 
division precise or to compare it from one campus or one university 
to another; but UCOP could do this.

D. The Weighted Student-to-Faculty Ratio

     I previously spoke of the formula, 17.61 students equals one 
faculty member,  used as the basis for UC's budget request to 
Sacramento.  There is another formula, called the "weighted student-
to-faculty ratio," that counts: 
lower division undergraduate students         as 1.0
upper division undergraduate students         as 1.5
graduate students, before candidacy           as 2.5
graduate students, after candidacy            as 3.5

     This weighted formula was the basis of UC's budget requests to 
Sacramento until the early 1970s, when it was replaced by the 
simpler one using only the total number of students enrolled.  
However, according to a recent paper by a knowledgable UC 
administrator, the weighted formula has continued to be used, 
internally, by the UC President's Office in deciding how to allocate 
faculty FTEs to the several campuses. This would have a further 
impact on the balance between undergraduate and graduate/research 
priorities within the University.

     This leads to yet another important insight when we consider 
the growth of the University over long periods of time.  Over the 
past few decades, UC's undergraduate student population has grown 
very much faster than its graduate student population.  The result 
of applying the above formulas is thus a pattern of distortion:  
growth in undergraduates drives the increase in total faculty, but 
those faculty are preferentially directed to graduate/research 
programs.  It is well known that the faculty reward system - hiring, 
promotions, merit increases - favors research and graduate 
accomplishments over undergraduate teaching.  This analysis of 
faculty budgeting shows a separate phenomenon that works in the same 

E. Student Mix Over Decades.

     Table 3 shows data on the ratio of total undergraduate student 
FTEs to graduate student FTEs, including health sciences, for UC and 
for its comparison institutions.

Table 3. Student Mix Over 25 Years at UC and Comparison Institutions

  Ratio of Undergraduate Students to Graduate Students 
  (FTE, including health sciences)
                                  1964-65           1989-90
Private Universities                0.89              0.85
Public Universities                 2.13              2.24
UC                                  2.31              3.18

[Earlier data is from UC "Budget for Current Operations 1967-68," 
p. 236; privates are Harvard, Stanford, Yale; publics are Illinois 
and Michigan; UC is B, LA, D, SB, R.  Later data is from CPEC Report 
93-2, April 1993, p. 48; all 4 privates and all 4 publics and 8 UC 

     The data in Table 3 shows two interesting features.  First, the 
public research universities have a much larger undergraduate-to-
graduate ratio than do the private ones; this is due to their 
historic mission of providing higher education to the masses, not 
reserving it for an elite.  Second, this table shows that there has 
been little change in this ratio over many years for the private 
universities, but a very substantial increase at UC.

     This history of unbalanced growth can be seen in a slightly 
different way in Table 4, which shows UC undergraduate and graduate 
student enrollments (excluding health sciences) over the past 30 
years. [Sources: "UC Budget for Current Operations"]

Table 4. 30-Year Growth in UC Student Enrollments - Year Avg. FTEs

                              1963-64       1993-94      % Increase
Undergraduate Students         42,333       114,017        169%
Graduate Students              17,873        26,024         46%

     There are very different socio-economic dynamics that feed 
these two student populations - that is just a fact of our history.  
But the consequences of that history are very significant for 
understanding our present condition and our future possibilities.  
Even with the simple FTE budgeting formula (one more faculty for 
every 17.61 additional students) it is clear that an excess would 
build up in the ratio of faculty-to-graduate students.  Use of the 
weighted student-to-faculty ratio would appear to further exacerbate 
that imbalance.  Again, this study would be helped by having data 
for individual campuses and, perhaps, even for different 

     [NOTE.  One must be careful in taking numbers from various 
sources, because different definitions are often used by different 
authors and for different purposes.  For example, UCOP gives the 
total number of UC General Campus faculty in 1992-93 as 7620 FTE for 
computing student-to-faculty ratios, but as 5262 FTE for computing 
teaching loads.  In my work I have been careful to follow UCOP and 
CPEC, assuming that they have been consistent in making cross-
institutional comparisons.]


     The numbers and analysis presented above strongly indicate that 
UC has the potential for a redistribution of faculty workloads that 
can achieve very significant increases in the productivity of 
undergraduate education without doing serious damage to the 
productivity of faculty research and graduate education.  That is, 
we appear to have the opportunity to maintain both "quality" and 
"access" even without the levels of State funding that UC was 
accustomed to in the past.

     I must clarify and ammend this conclusion in several ways - 
especially because this conclusion seems similar to what one is used 
to hearing from a variety of not-so-well-informed critics from 
outside the university.

     First, I am not suggesting that faculty should work more hours.   
I believe that UC faculty members work very hard and long hours in 
dedicated service to the University.

    Second, I am not suggesting that faculty have in the past been 
negligent or selfish in spending too many hours on research and not 
enough on undergraduate teaching.  Faculty have done the various 
jobs they are called upon to do, and in that proportion as asked of 
them by the University, by the State and by the Nation.  What I am 
proposing is a change in policy - social policy and UC policy - 
concerning the balance of faculty efforts between these different 

     Third, the manner in which this re-distribution of faculty work 
is implemented is crucial.  Above all, the new policy must have a 
lot of flexibility built into it.  One immediately thinks of 
variations in teaching loads between academic disciplines and 
between campuses; but I would also strongly recommend a variation 
based upon the different phases in a typical professor's career.  
Research productivity, and the consuming intensity of research that 
can push one to block out all other activity, are things that are 
rarely constant over any person's lifetime.  And yet, the policies 
at UC (and at other but not all other universities) treat faculty as 
if this were so.  Thus, as faculty age, their research creativity 
will usually slacken but their devotion to the pursuit will not - 
because the culture of peer opinion and the institutional reward 
system both create strong incentives to keep at it.  One could say 
that the established system creates waste - many professors spending 
a lot of time on research that is not of much value. But 
alternatively one could say that the policies of the past decades 
have provided the University with a component of luxury, which our 
society can not presently afford to keep up.  It is the recognition 
of this "luxury factor" that presents us with the golden opportunity 
to maintain both access and quality.

     Fourth, one should not expect the faculty to shoulder the 
entire burden of adjusting to a changed future.  There are other 
beds of luxury within UC that must also be brought to contribute to 
the new restructuring:  in my previous Reports I have identified 
large amounts of financial resources wasted on an overgrown 
administrative bureaucracy, and also a huge amount of cash flowing 
into the hospitals and medical schools that ought to be shared with 
the rest of the University.

     Fifth, the structure and operation of the University's 
executive apparatus must be changed, in order to restore academic 
values where corporate habits have corrupted this institution.  This 
is necessary not only to provide the new leadership for a changing 
time, but also to rebuild public confidence in,  and public support 
for, the University.