455.Paper.Peter Qu.UC Budget Cuts.AUT08

Howevertheseassessmentslacksthe

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: the
scope
of
the
decision
within
strategic
level.
 Overall,
the
frame
of
decision
is
well
bounded
to
the
problem.

Decisions
that
are
too
narrow
or
 too
wide
in
scope
were
not
explicitly
included
in
the
decision
making
process.

In
term
of
frame,
 this
decision
received
a
score
of
90.
 
 VI. Alternatives:
No
practical
alternatives
 Practical
alternatives
are
important
to
a
good
decision
making
process
because
it
provides
 choices
for
the
decision
makers
to
evaluate
and
choose
from.

With
regard
to
the
budget
cut
 decision,
the
governor
has
not
proposed
enough
meaningful
and
practical
alternatives
beside
 the
$223.4
million
funding
reduction.

Some
alternatives
have
been
proposed,
but
none
are
 practical
enough
to
implement.

Examples
of
the
impractical
alternatives
includes:
 1) Recover
loss
in
funding
through
45%
hike
in
undergraduate
tuition
fee.
 In
the
“The
Cuts
Report”
drafted
by
the
University
Committee
on
Planning
and
Budget,
 the
committee
has
suggested
that
one
solution
to
recover
funding
loss
is
to
increase
 undergraduate
tuition
to
an
annual
amount
of
$9636
(Newfield,
2008).

The
committee
 has
listed
this
example
as
an
illustration
of
the
severity
of
proposed
budget
cut,
not
a
 viable
alternative
solution
to
the
budget
problem.
 2) Recover
loss
in
funding
through
curtailment
or
reduction
in
UC
enrollment
 The
UC
system
has
acknowledge
that
this
alternative
is
not
viable
in
light
of
the
political
 pressures
faced
by
the
UC
(Newfield,
2008).
 Perhaps
other
practical
alternatives
can
be
proposed
to
resolve
the
budget
crisis.

Below
is
a
...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/17/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online