Wednesday, March 30, 2016

FU all over the place...

Prof. Schwartz detailed analysis on
Management Bloat at UC - How Big is it? Where is it? Why is it?

In light of, see this link:
"We also identified key areas in which the university could have reduced its costs in recent years, thus making funds available to enroll more residents. For example, the university's spending on employee salaries increased in eight of the last nine fiscal years despite the State's fiscal crisis. By fiscal year 2014-15, its annual salary costs had risen to $13 billion. The university also paid its top executives significantly more than employees in other high-level state positions receive: 14 of 15 of those in its top leadership positions earned at least $400,000 in fiscal year 2014-15, which was significantly more than the executive branch paid the governor and directors of several large state departments. Although the salaries of the university's chancellors rank low in comparison to other higher education and research institutions, the university could do more to help justify its salaries and benefits by conducting regular compensation and benefits studies.

Moreover, the university could have engaged in cost-saving efforts related to one of its initiatives and to recruiting. Specifically, the university did not maximize the benefits that it could have achieved through an initiative it developed in 2010 called Working Smarter, which the university asserts generated $664 million in savings and new revenue. The university's goal for Working Smarter was to generate administrative savings and new revenue sources that it could redirect to the university's academic and research missions. However, the university is unable to substantiate the $664 million of savings and new revenue that it asserts the initiative achieved or even how much the university redirected to its academic and research missions. In addition, the university does not require campus participation in the initiative, nor does it centrally manage the savings or revenue that the campuses generate. The university estimates that if it had achieved a campus participation rate of 80 percent for one program alone, it would have generated $9 million of additional savings. We also found that in fiscal year 2014-15, the university spent $4.5 million to recruit undergraduate nonresidents, a 400 percent increase over the previous five years. A reasonable limit on nonresident recruiting expenditures could have resulted in significant savings for the universiity."

And there's
From January:

Student Debt Rohit Chopra and Susan Dynarski talked about whether there was a student debt crisis in the U.S., and, if so, who was in default and why.

No comments:

Post a Comment