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

Toimprovefuturedecisionprocesswe

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: will
enable
UC
to
absorb
the
reduction
in
funding.

The
table
below
is
 the
proposed
budget
cut
estimations
(Lapp,
2008).
 Table
2.
UC‐wide
Budget
Cut
Proposal
on
January
17,
2008
 
 Impact
 Reduce
core
academic
support
 Reduce
graduate
student
support
 Reduce
instructional
budget
 Reduce
Service
 Reduce
student
mental
health
services
 Eliminate
certain
educational
initiative
 Eliminate
certain
research
initiative
 Eliminate
5%
faculty/staff
salary
 Reduce
 increase
 Compensation
and
 Eliminated
accelerated
faculty
salary
 Non­salary
Cost
 Reduce
non‐salary
cost
increase
 Reduce
Enrollment
 Curtail
enrollment
growth
 Cost
Avoidance
 $30.8
million
 $10.0
million
 $10.0
million
 $8.0
million
 $5.0
million
 $10.0
million
 $168.8
million
 $20.0
million
 $25.0
million
 $92.4
million
 
 Based
on
the
estimated
budget
cut,
the
University
Committee
on
Planning
and
Budget
has
 offered
examples
of
the
negative
impact
of
budget
reduction.

The
lists
of
examples
provided
by
 the
Committee
are
mostly
anecdotal
and
lack
in
detail
quantitative
assessment
(Newfield,
2008).

 The
assessment
of
the
budget
cut
by
the
UC
is
copied
below:
 “The
result
of
these
actions
will
be
significantly
reduced
investment
in
‐
and
the
lowered
 quality
of
‐
UC’s
core
activities
of
teaching,
research,
and
public
service.
These
actions
will
 lower
the
value
the
state
receives
from
its
(substantially
reduced)
investment
in
UC.”
 (Newfield,
2008)
 This
assessment
may
be
qualitatively
correct,
but
it
failed
to
quantitatively
capture
the
impact
of
 the
budg...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/17/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online