Sunday, February 14, 2016

V Day - 'Can this UC Berkeley (Chancellors) and Californians Marriage Be Saved?'

<3? See on the Birgeneau and Dirks legacy decisions at Cal: 'UC Berkeley’s tuition break is nearly erased' http://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/Tuitionbreakis-nearly-erased-at-Cal-6829326.php?t=4ddabe081c00af33be&cmpid=twitter-premium
"Californians seeking professional degrees have for years enjoyed big tuition discounts to attend the public law and business schools at UC Berkeley. But that benefit is nearly gone, because the university has raised prices for state residents at a rate faster than for students from out of state, a Chronicle analysis has found."


In the spirit of old columns like this or this etc.

___
Other marriage troubles:
There is the sense that UC faculty are out of touch, that by their own admission they don't want to engage, do the committee work, fill leadership positions internally etc.
See this comment in full

"In my department we cannot convince anyone to be chair anymore. Lots of challenging and difficult problems that require considerable sacrifice and expertise, but the perception is, it is smarter to seek outside offers and/or retire and leave the hard internal problems to somebody else." Here:
http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2016/01/uc-faculty-associations-oppose-proposed.html#comment-form

- So where will broad support come from for such faculty (above the 117k mentioned) pay? See , in the other comments here in this new post:
http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-virtues-of-defining-benefits-two.html#comment-form

And UCLA Fac Blog has this
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2016/02/stop-pension-train.html
"It is likely that the UC prez and probably the governor did not understand the mechanics of the "cap" they proposed to be imposed on the pension for new hires. A cap sounds like a simple lid that only has an impact when the pension formula produces a number that exceeds the cap. In fact, the specific cap mechanism they proposed is far more complicated and degrades the pensions of many who would not exceed the cap. (If you think they DID understand the cap, you are left with the implication that they didn't care about the consequences. Take your choice.)"

And
"The governor considers himself the adult in the room, fixing UC in spite of itself. The UC prez went along with the governor on some political calculation. Somebody needs to stop the pension train if she won't do it."

---In light of the Crane appointment-then non confirmation, which several Regents lamented in open session -then his placement as ongoing adviser to the UC Regents -and the fact that senior UCOP Staff were also part of Committee of Two meetings-- how is it possible to think the Committee of Two or the UC Regents aren't aware, on board w/ the details? If the faculty are fully engaged in these events, paying attention etc., they likely are aware of this prior history , prior comments, so why the surprise, confusion? If a current Pension perks protected and disconnected faculty is just an indicator of new hires perks protected future disconnectedness faculty...it makes it more difficult to make the case to fight for above $117k en masse protectons, unless ...
____
On other fronts,
It is easy to see the fairness in DB for those making under six figures.
It is difficult to see fairness in five year vesting for senior managers making high six figures, particularly if the length of their time at UC is almost exactly five years, it would be good to see that changed somehow.

No comments:

Post a Comment