Monday, September 11, 2017

Hot dog , you don't say?!

See: When it comes to affordable college education, conservative Tennessee has so-called progressive California beat

Includes: "Pending on the state Senate floor is a bill that would take a significant step toward free community college throughout California and return it to more affordable public higher educations. AB 19 would waive fees for all first-year, full-time community college students taking at least 12 units....

his bill faces a tough slog to be sent to Gov. Jerry Brown before the year’s legislative session ends Friday. It’s considered a second-tier bill — the kind that becomes a leverage tool for legislative players seeking what they consider a bigger prize. “You want that, give me this!”

Moreover, Brown’s Finance Department is opposed to the measure. Although the community college system pegs the cost at around $32 million annually, Brown’s budgeters say it could hit $50 million. That’s too risky in an iffy economy, they contend.

Tennessee, however, somehow manages. And its program is a lot more liberal than Santiago’s proposal because it scrubs community college tuition for all state residents who haven’t yet earned a degree.

The Tennessee Legislature is even more Republican than California’s is Democratic. Talk about supermajorities: Tennessee’s Senate is 85% Republican and its House of Representatives is 74%.

That state’s outspoken tuition-free advocate is Republican Gov. Bill Haslam, who told legislators in his January State of the State address: “Wherever you might fall on life’s path, education beyond high school is critical to the Tennessee we can be.”

That used to be California’s philosophy too.

For generations, the Golden State charged no tuition at the University of California or state universities. Everyone benefited.

Democratic Gov. Pat Brown, Jerry’s father, often gets credit in revisionist history. Truth is, tuition-free college was created under Republican governors and legislatures.

It wasn’t just some feel-good social program. It was an investment in an economic engine that produced innovators and skilled professionals to grow California’s economy. It was in the state’s self-interest to get everyone as highly educated as they could be. It helped broaden the middle class.

What happened? Tuition crept onto campuses in the 1970s and steadily climbed. The state cut back on its higher education spending because it took on other obligations: making up for lost local property taxes because of Proposition 13, expanding costly healthcare for the poor, building more prisons.

And let’s be honest: Too many university administrators enjoy blue-plate pay and perks that didn’t exist back in the tuition-free days.

So here we are: Total tuition and fees at UC are $13,950 a year. At the state universities they’re $7,151. Then tack on room, board and books.

A full-time freshman year of community college with no fees seems a good place to start reinvesting.

In total, California has 2.1 million community college students — 900,000 enrolled full time — on 114 campuses. Many transfer to four-year universities. Many learn work skills and qualify for good-paying jobs. Many just drop out.

Several community colleges already provide some free tuition, financed with private money.

But “if current trends continue,” the Public Policy Institute of California reported last week, “California will face a large skills gap by 2030. It will be 1.1 million workers with bachelor’s degrees short of economic demand. Failing to keep up with the demand … could result in a less productive economy, lower incomes and tax revenue, and greater dependence on the social safety net.”

There’s a nonsensical argument that free tuition would benefit rich kids. But rich kids rarely choose community colleges. And creating a “means test” bureaucracy to check every student’s wallet would be fiscal foolery.

“We’re trying to go back to the future — to the programs that made sense and still make sense,” Santiago says.

They currently make sense in one Southern red state and we should follow its lead."

- wonder if UC Regent Ortiz Oakley read that piece?

Napolitano Sues Trump: Dealing with DACA Termination

"Second, colleges and universities will need to do a much better job of achieving racial equality. Higher education was meant to be part of the solution to race-based discrimination, but decades of cuts and austerity have impoverished the institutions that serve the majority of students of color, starting with community colleges. For example, there is a clear correlation between grossly unequal funding and unequal graduation rates (see Stage 7 of The Great Mistake or Separate and Unequal for details). The U.S. has been trying to equalize K-12 funding across school districts for decades, though the egalitarian principle is honored in the breach, and resegregation has been spreading everywhere. Higher ed needs to get serious about embarking on its own equalization project. The educational boon would be huge. So would the political benefits for universities: they would associate themselves with inclusive social development via an equality across aggregate populations this is efficient as well as just.

Third, racially egalitarian development will be credible only if universities break with their implicit 1990s-era economic model that has helped underdevelop much of the country. I mean the Clinton-style knowledge economy, which was to deliver general prosperity and instead produced stagnant wages for three-quarters of the workforce while devolving whole regions at a time. Democrat consent to low tax dogma, supported by leaders in tech and finance, has eroded the infrastructure and public services that would have held economy and society together. At the same time, universities have made their own workforces into microcosms of the dual economy that most voters hate: faculties are divided between a shrinking tenured elite and the contingent masses who comprise about 70 percent of the instructional workforce. Administrative bloat has not stopped the same segmentation in non-teaching staff: UCSF made national news this year by outsourcing to an offshore company exactly the kind of information technology jobs that universities are supposed to prepare their students to have. For the general public to care about universities's views on economics and immigration, they will need to set a better example. "

Reading that piece reminded also of
1- some high profile UC Fac econ and labor experts in interviews sometimes comment on DACA as just a necessary population to keeps things churning, simply a means to that end...


Napolitano's framing of DACA folk as almost differently 'resilient' ,. ". They represent the best of who we are — hard working, resilient and motivated high achievers."... a now pop psych branding word has reduced, destroyed it's original meaning-- Remaking U tweet pointed to this really good piece on it:

Read the full thing in imp. Context but it included:
"Resilience as an entrepreneurial imperative
As a result, an increasing number of institutional strategies for student support, staff development and learning and teaching highlight resilience, as a way of building individual “bouncebackability.” (Try Googling “University learning teaching strategy resilience”.) While the hope is that the student will become more resilient, what this actually looks like remains increasingly ill-defined. However, it is increasingly placed in a context that prioritises narratives of employability, entrepreneurship, and the ability both to pay down one’s debts and to survive flourish in an increasingly precarious world of work. Here, good mental health and productivity are intrinsically linked, and being entrepreneurial in maintaining good mental health is imperative. In a society that prioritises surplus value over humane values, all else is a sin.
While there has been some focus on dedicated, institutional student welfare and advice teams, there is an increasing focus upon the role of academic staff in developing student resilience, for instance as personal tutors. The #stepchange policy framework of UniversitiesUK discusses staff training in mental health literacy and health promotion, allocating time and resources to staff, aligning student and staff mental health, and crucially building “mental health – and health – into staff performance” (emphasis added). The risks here to both staff and students are phenomenal, and ignore the wider, structural issues that underlie poor mental health."

And wondered about the different or similar ways these not so diverse faculty panelists might read other paragraphs in that piece on speech and race relations etc- their 'clash' may be less pronounced than some might believe/highlight, right?

Also see there some good latest links there, like:

New Koch-Backed Institute at U of Utah Raises Questions About Academic Freedom and Whether it is Designed to "Rival" Economics Department


How does this interact with UC constitutional autonomy?:
California passes bill to protect scientific data from federal censorship - The Mercury News


A UC Merced Med school? see article:

UC cancer centers align to boost research into deadly disease

37th and 15%...numbers come up in:

Then see:

The Man Running the University of California's Lean, Mean ...


University of California 'looking into' viral hot dog vendor video

- recall that that part of campus is a big non no for that stuff, common knowledge -seems it needs to be made clear (signage etc.) once again maybe??...

No comments:

Post a Comment