Gas station without pumps

2016 May 26

Not so proud of UCSC undergrads this year

Last year I wrote a post, I’m proud of UCSC undergrads, in which I praised UCSC undergrads for rejecting a fee to subsidize the approximately 250 Division III athletes on campus:

  • Measure 62. Athletics Operations Enhancement Fee: Shall the undergraduates of UCSC provide funding for the operations for Intercollegiate Athletics by implementing a compulsory fee of $117 per student, per quarter, starting in the fall of 2015? FAILED: 60.33% No, 39.67% Yes.

This year, I’m not so proud of the students. After enduring an unrelenting propaganda barrage by the athletics staff, the students voted on an opinion poll that just allows them to vote on a fee measure next year:

Would you support a new student fee of approximately $90 per quarter ($270 per year) to retain the current NCAA Athletics program at UC Santa Cruz?
Votes Percent
Yes 3976 63.53%
No 2282 36.47%
Total Turnout 6258 40.89%

[http://deanofstudents.ucsc.edu/elections/]

On other parts of the ballot, the students voted overwhelmingly to support fees for maintaining the Office of Physical Education, Recreation, and Sports (OPERS) facilities (about 80% in favor of each of two measures), which I approve of—these are facilities open to all students and which encourage students to participate in physical activity, both individual exercise and social team sports.

I’m not so happy with their theoretical support for subsidizing elite athletes—I have no patience for spectators—sports should be something students do, not pay to watch other people do. In the past UCSC students understood this distinction, with the result that intramurals were far more important to students than interscholastic sports.  When I came to UCSC, 30 years ago, there were no NCAA Division III teams—all sports were intramurals or club sports, and students recognized that participation in sports was something one did for pleasure (and paid for, if needed), not something that was a “service” or for the benefit of others.

It makes sense for students to pool their money to pay for services and facilities that many will use, but not to pay for coaches, trainers, and separate locker rooms for the varsity teams (who make up less than 2% of the student body).

I have been bothered by the Admistration’s $1 million a year subsidy for NCAA athletics for the past couple of years (and for next year). That money could have paid lecturers for about 100 more courses, benefiting several thousand students who can’t get into the courses they need.

I was very bothered by the Academic Senate’s response to this boondoggle, actually encouraging the Administration to continue pouring money into something that really has no reason for existing at UCSC, when basic needs like adequate classroom space and sufficient faculty and TAs to reduce classroom sizes are not being funded.

Oh, well, maybe the students will come to their senses when the athletes actually ask for money next year, as they have done in prior years.

(All that said, the UCSC student elections look much more reasonable than the dysfunctional student government at UCSB, which seems to consist almost entirely of political infighting, if the UCSB student newspapers are to be believed.)

 

2016 January 1

Student-to-university-employee ratio

Although many universities and summary websites collect student-to-faculty ratios (with “faculty” variously defined), it is hard to find student-to-employee ratios. Total student enrollment is fairly easy to find, and total number of employees not too hard to find for public universities, so one can compute ratios, as I have done for a small number of schools.  I’ve not been particularly careful about definitions (like whether headcount or full-time equivalent numbers were used for either student enrollment or employment, nor how student employees are counted), so these numbers should be taken as only roughly indicative and not suitable for direct comparison.

Note: I’ve seen lots of summaries of the growth of administration (variously defined) relative to faculty, but not much about total number of employees.

In 2015, University of California had about 195,000 employees [http://universityofcalifornia.edu/news/ucs-top-10-stories-2015] and about 238,000 students [http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/uc_at_a_glance_011615.pdf], for a ratio of only 1.2 students per employee.  Note: postdocs are counted as staff, which is correct for the ways postdocs are used at UC, but if one pretended that they were students the ratio could go as high as 1.8 students per employee (actual numbers of postdocs are hard to come by, but the “other academic (postdocs, etc.)” is given as 42,700).

Similarly, University of Michigan had 43,651 students [http://www.ro.umich.edu/report/15enrollmentsummary.pdf] and 45,397 employees [http://orsp.umich.edu/develop-proposal/frequently-required-proposal-data], for 0.96 students per employee.

In contrast,  in Fall 2014, California State University (a non-research university) had about 47,417 employees [http://www.calstate.edu/hr/employee-profile/2014/staffing/employees_occupation/em_occupation_headcount.shtml] and 460,200 students [http://www.calstate.edu/AS/stat_reports/2014-2015/f14_01.htm] for  ratio of 9.7 students per employee. Michigan State University (a research university without a med school) had about 3.3 students per University employee [Student to University Employee Ratio | Michigan State University].

The California Community Colleges had about 1,555,500 students in Spring 2015 [http://datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Student_Term_Annual_Count.aspx] and 28016.5 full-time equivalents in Fall 2014 [http://employeedata.cccco.edu/asa_code_14.pdf] for 55.5 students per employee.

I suspect that the biggest differences in student-to-employee ratios come from the research/teaching distinction (there are a lot of employees involved in running a research operation), and the biggest differences among research universities come from how large a part of the university budget is dedicated to medical schools, as they have huge numbers of employees and tiny numbers of students.  (UCSF has 22,500 employees and  4,560 students+residents [https://www.ucsf.edu/about/facts-figures] for 0.2 students/employee.)

I’m not an economist nor social scientist, so digging up the necessary numbers and doing the appropriate statistical tests to validate this guess is too much bother for me, but I would be interested in reading someone else’s carefully done summary of university employment patterns, particularly for public universities.  Anyone know a good source?

 

 

 

2015 December 24

Sports At Any Cost

In November 2015, Huffington Post had an article, Sports At Any Cost, about the ridiculous amounts some colleges are spending on intercollegiate athletics:

A river of cash is flowing into college sports, financing a spending spree among elite universities that has sent coaches’ salaries soaring and spurred new discussions about whether athletes should be paid. But most of that revenue is going to a handful of elite sports programs, leaving colleges like Georgia State to rely heavily on students to finance their athletic ambitions.

They included a list of some of the most outrageous subsidies in collegiate sports, where the college is pouring millions of dollars into propping up their semi-pro athletic departments—money extorted from the students (student fees) or diverted from educational purposes (“institutional support”).  Note: these figures aren’t for intramurals or recreational facilities used by all students—just for the team athletics.

Some of the worst offenders are state schools.  For example, University of California, Riverside comes 7th on their list, with 87% of the athletics budget being subsidized ($67 million out of $76 million for a 4-year period), with 32% of that being student fees and 68% being institutional support. This comes to each student paying (through fees and diverted general funds) about $3656 over four years to support the UCR athletic teams.

The measure they sorted on (percentage of the athletics budget that is subsidized) is not the right one—what matters more is the subsidy per student.  If the athletics budget is tiny, it doesn’t matter if it is 100% subsidized, just as other entertainments on campus are subsidized at low levels.  What matters is the subsidy per student, by which measure UC Davis is doing even worse than UCR with a subsidy of $114million out of $144million (79%), or $4411 per student.  Other UCs on the list include UCSB ($3171/student), UCB ($1852), and UCI ($2694).

UCSC doesn’t make the list, because we have no Division I teams.  There has been some institutional subsidy of our Division III athletics (I estimate under $100/student), but that was a one-time administrative grant to give the athletics department a chance to convince the students to assess themselves a fee to support the teams.  So far the students have wisely resisted this, though they have been supportive of fee measures that support all students (not just elite athletes).  The fee that the athletics department tried to get passed was $117/quarter, which would be a subsidy of $1404 over 4 years—less that many of the other UCs but still far more than the entertainment value of the sports teams. I suspect that if the Office of Physical Education, Recreation, and Sports had floated a fee measure to increase the intramural program, buy more recreational sports equipment, or fund more surfing and scuba classes, the students would have passed it—it isn’t an aversion to the activities, but to the subsidy of a few “elite athletes” that is anathema to UCSC students.

I’m hopeful that UCSC will exit Division I this year, returning to having only club sports (as they did when I first came to UCSC) and intramurals, in which all students can participate.

I have spent significant time on  sports-mad campuses (I was an undergrad at Michigan State and a grad student at Stanford), and I’m convinced that UCSC has a much healthier attitude towards sports and exercise than those colleges. The value of sports in college is in the exercise and practice at cooperating in teams, which is best done by maximizing the participation (intramurals) rather than by subsidizing a small number of elite athletes as entertainers.

 

2015 May 28

I’m proud of UCSC undergrads

I recently got an administrative e-mail, pointing me to the results of the recent student elections at UCSC (Campus Elections). There were 3 undergraduate fee measures on the ballot for undergrads:

  • Measure 61.CruzCare Access for All—Injury and Illness Health Center Fee: Shall the undergraduate students of UCSC provide funding for on-campus medical and mental health care for all undergraduate students by implementing a compulsory fee of $110.00 per student per quarter, starting Fall 2015?FAILED: 51.58% No, 48.42% Yes.
  • Measure 62. Athletics Operations Enhancement Fee: Shall the undergraduates of UCSC provide funding for the operations for Intercollegiate Athletics by implementing a compulsory fee of $117 per student, per quarter, starting in the fall of 2015?FAILED: 60.33% No, 39.67% Yes.
  • Measure 63. Amendment to Measure 30: Strengthening Access to Learning Support Services: Shall the undergraduate students of UCSC provide funding for Learning Support Services, including tutoring and Modified Supplemental Instruction by increasing Measure 30 by $5.36 per student per quarter, resulting in a total fee of $12.00 per student, per quarter?PASSED: 84.99% Yes, 15.01% No.

The undergraduates clearly understood that it is not the point of the University to support varsity athletes in their pursuit of pleasure (and UCSC is unique among the University of California campuses in this recognition), nor to require everyone to further subsidize a student health care system (students are already required to have health insurance, and the student health center is available to all who choose the UCSC student health insurance—the measure was intended to open the services to students who opted to have other, less-expensive health plans), but it is appropriate for students to tax themselves modestly to increase the availability of tutoring and other learning support for those who need it.

I believe that even much lower-cost student athletic fees have failed in the past, but that fees for increasing recreational facilities or opportunities for all students have passed fairly easily.  The students are not opposed to sports, just to subsidizing play for a tiny elite, rather than opening it up for participation by all. One outcome I expect to see from this election is the withdrawal of UCSC from the NCAA Division III and a return to club sports and a focus on intramural athletics for everyone, as there was when I first started teaching at UCSC.

2015 April 29

UC messes with 403B plans

Filed under: Uncategorized — gasstationwithoutpumps @ 21:21
Tags: , , ,

This week I got a letter from the University of California Retirement Savings Program saying

If you take no action: After 1 p.m., Pacific Time, on Thursday, July 2, 2015, your existing balances in any affected funds, and any future contributions currently set to be directed to any of the affected funds, will be directed to the UC Pathway Fund 2015.

What they are saying is that unless I stop them, they will take all the money that I carefully allocated in my 403B fund and dump into an untested new fund that they are creating.  The alternatives provided are to transfer the money to other UC funds, or to start paying Fidelity for a BrokerageLink account.

Why?  Well, they claim

UC is streamlining the fund menu to help RSP participants make better investment choices by reducing overlap between options and simplifying the fund-selection process. For those participants who desire more choice, the BrokerageLink® option will still be available.

Also the smaller menu allows for more efficient monitoring so that we can continue to offer high-quality funds in a range of asset classes, with expenses that are generally lower than many similar publicly traded investment options.

Quite frankly, I don’t believe them.  Not that many people are currently using the wide range of options that are available, and those of us who are chose to do so despite hassles in setting up the accounts this way.  Only those who already believed that they could make better choices than the UC managers are affected by the changes.  So it isn’t to help us make better choices—it is to take choices away from us.  So why?

  • One possibility is that the current deal they have with Fidelity to manage funds and provide access to many non-Fidelity funds was not being lucrative enough for Fidelity, and Fidelity wanted to start charging brokerage fees. That is plausible (though not very), but if this were just a matter of charging fees, then the University would have informed people with the accounts that were affected that Fidelity was about to start charging fees, but people could avoid those fees by transferring the money to UC-managed funds, rather than sweeping up the money if they weren’t stopped.  In fact, BrokerageLink® isn’t going to charge fees for Fidelity funds (beyond the management fees built into the funds), so this isn’t a bid by Fidelity to get more fees (though it is possible for them to collect rather large fees if people choose funds unwisely and it may cost me more to keep the Calvert accounts if I do it through BrokerageLink®).
  • Another possibility is that the University wanted to terminate the Fidelity deal and keep as much money in UC funds as possible.  But Fidelity is still in the loop so they aren’t terminating a Fidelity deal (though perhaps the terms have changed—neither UCOP nor Fidelity talks about the details of the arrangements they make with each other).
  • What seems most likely is that UC has recently hired a new manager for the retirement program, and randomly changing policies with no thought to the consequences is what new managers do. Sort of like dogs pissing on fire hydrants—it isn’t for the benefit of the hydrant.

Because of the botched way that they implemented this reduction in investment options (from hundreds of plans to 15 UC-managed plans) with this stop-us-if-you-can fund snatch, I’ve lost all faith in the UC Office of the Chief Investment Officer of the Regents (the official title they claim in the letter).  I no longer believe that they are investing retirement funds on my behalf, but are only interested in playing games with my money.

I suppose I should call up Fidelity Retirement Services and find out how much it would cost me (in time and in fees) to “do nothing”—that is, to set up a BrokerageLink® account with my funds in exactly the same allocation as currently and with future 403(b) contributions allocated exactly as now.  That is what UC should have done as their default option, not sweeping all funds not on their short list into one of the UC Pathway funds.

Luckily, I’m over 59.5 years old, so I can roll all my 403(b) money into traditional IRAs, and that is currently what I plan to do—not only with the plans that they are trying to shut me out of, but all the 403(b) money, including that in UC-managed funds. But I don’t know what I can do about the “defined contribution” plan (401(a))—I believe that can also be rolled over into a traditional IRA.

Switching to an IRA means that I’ll have to find some mutual funds that I trust to move the money to.  I’ll be looking for socially responsible investment funds (two of the funds they are shutting out are Calvert funds that I’d chosen years ago for socially responsible investing), for a more general stock fund (I have some money in Fidelity Magellan), and for corporate bonds (taking my money out UC bonds, because of my lack of trust in UC’s new fund manager). For socially responsible investing, I’ll probably start by looking at http://charts.ussif.org/mfpc/?, which provides statistics from Bloomberg on various socially responsible funds—then digging a bit into what the funds claim their principles are.

I don’t really have time to deal with all this hassle this quarter—I’m sure they counted on most faculty and staff not having time to think about the investment and just follow the manager’s default choice.  I wish they had made the “change nothing” choice the default, even if it meant that some of us would have been charged some fees.

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 349 other followers

%d bloggers like this: