4 ms·

The UC system spends $120K/year per student, roughly 10x the tuition and fees a California resident will pay to attend. The UC system also has an absurdly high

The UC system spends $120K/year per student, roughly 10x the tuition and fees a California resident will pay to attend. The UC system also has an absurdly high ratio of administrative staff to academic staff, and administrative staff to undergraduates. It has become something of a jobs program for the state of California, and is the third-largest employer of a state that is the 6th-largest economy in the world. Something has to give.

laurencerowe 10y ago
I don't know where your $120K/year per student figure comes from, but it seems highly misleading. The most recent figures I could find (AY 2012-2013) put the cost at $16,890. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/uc-educational-expenses-lower-today-20-years-ago-report-finds https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/uc-educational-e... Research focussed universities like UC do of course spend a lot more on research, but those activities have their own dedicated funding streams, mostly Federal grants.
- handedness 10y ago
  That core fund report seems to be missing something, as if the total total per-student cost were $16,890, the vast majority of that would be covered by the current $12.3K annual tuition (to say nothing of +$27K from out-of-state students). The UC system would therefore be unlikely to have the underfunded pension problem they currently face, for example. Their annual budget is pushing $30B, and their student population–expensive post-graduates included–clocks in at around a quarter million. Those numbers have changed from year to year, but last I checked, their total expenditures came out to around $120K/student. Texas A&M by comparison is around $90K/student, with Harvard pushing $200K (their tuition is 5x what the UC system's is, for comparison).
  - laurencerowe 10y ago
    These figures show that research intensity varies significantly between Texas A&M, UC, and Harvard. Number of students is not a terribly useful denominator when most of a university's income and expenditure is for research.
  - canttestthis 10y ago
    Your calculations are oversimplified. The real cost to a student should be around $20k. Does the $30B per year not cover the funding for the UC medical centers, museums, athletic programs, etc.? The amount of money actually spent on students (through faculty salaries, financial aid, lab equipment, etc) is closer to $7B. Also you need to remove grad students from the calculation entirely, they disproportionately affect the numbers and they don't have out of state cap. Once you take all those factors into account you get ~$20k.
    - handedness 10y ago
      I'm not sure why those areas can be selectively dismissed. That the UC system overextends itself in a variety of non-instructional areas isn't a compelling case for its fiscal health and management acumen. If I ran a training business with a negative P&L and couldn't fully fund my employee's pensions, I would hardly be able to say, "your calculations are oversimplified. Our losses include our museum and lacrosse team."

laurencerowe 10y ago

I don't know where your $120K/year per student figure comes from, but it seems highly misleading. The most recent figures I could find (AY 2012-2013) put the cost at $16,890. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/uc-educational-expenses-lower-today-20-years-ago-report-finds https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/uc-educational-e... Research focussed universities like UC do of course spend a lot more on research, but those activities have their own dedicated funding streams, mostly Federal grants.

handedness 10y ago
That core fund report seems to be missing something, as if the total total per-student cost were $16,890, the vast majority of that would be covered by the current $12.3K annual tuition (to say nothing of +$27K from out-of-state students). The UC system would therefore be unlikely to have the underfunded pension problem they currently face, for example. Their annual budget is pushing $30B, and their student population–expensive post-graduates included–clocks in at around a quarter million. Those numbers have changed from year to year, but last I checked, their total expenditures came out to around $120K/student. Texas A&M by comparison is around $90K/student, with Harvard pushing $200K (their tuition is 5x what the UC system's is, for comparison).
- laurencerowe 10y ago
  These figures show that research intensity varies significantly between Texas A&M, UC, and Harvard. Number of students is not a terribly useful denominator when most of a university's income and expenditure is for research.
- canttestthis 10y ago
  Your calculations are oversimplified. The real cost to a student should be around $20k. Does the $30B per year not cover the funding for the UC medical centers, museums, athletic programs, etc.? The amount of money actually spent on students (through faculty salaries, financial aid, lab equipment, etc) is closer to $7B. Also you need to remove grad students from the calculation entirely, they disproportionately affect the numbers and they don't have out of state cap. Once you take all those factors into account you get ~$20k.
  - handedness 10y ago
    I'm not sure why those areas can be selectively dismissed. That the UC system overextends itself in a variety of non-instructional areas isn't a compelling case for its fiscal health and management acumen. If I ran a training business with a negative P&L and couldn't fully fund my employee's pensions, I would hardly be able to say, "your calculations are oversimplified. Our losses include our museum and lacrosse team."