The University of California: overbuilt, underfunded, and a reckless investor

1-6-09Modesto BeeLowering UC's standards has several costs...Doug Ose. Ose, of Granite Bay, is a developer who served three terms in Congress. http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/v-print/story/553747.htmlEditor's note: This article was submitted in response to The Bee's editorial "Changes in UC admissions should improve process" (Jan. 2, Page A-1).Recently the University of California Board of Regents considered a proposal to lower admission standards for incoming freshman. At the heart of the proposal is the elimination of the SAT subject tests and the establishment of a "holistic" admissions process called Entitled to Review.The concern is that eliminating subject tests removes a long- established path to admissions that has a proven record in predicting a student's readiness for success in college. Changing to this new policy invites legal mischief. UCLA has been using "holistic" admissions practices and now faces scrutiny for potential violations of Proposition 209, which outlawed college admissions based on race or ethnicity. Fortunately, a significant public outcry from students and others forced the regents to postpone making any decision until early 2009.Concerns about lower standards have fueled much of the admissions policy debate, but the costs associated with these changes have received considerably less attention. UC officials statewide reviewed the proposal last year and a December 2007 report showed that "divisions and committees listed a number of concerns, which included costs/resources" connected to the proposal. These higher costs were explicitly laid out during the September 2008 regents meeting when the board was informed that "(University of California Office of the President) costs ... are anticipated to increase by at least $1 million annually."The regents were also informed that if the new admissions policy "achieves its goal of substantially increasing the number of students who apply to UC, both UCOP and campuses will see increased costs."The proposal for changing the admissions policy must take account of the changing fiscal situation confronting UC. The global financial crisis has sent shock waves through the state budget and nothing is immune to spending cuts, including the state's higher education system. Gov. Schwarzenegger has proposed more than $65 million in additional cuts from the UC budget after previously slashing spending by $48 million.Making things worse, the UC endowment has lost $1 billion over the first nine months of 2008, and UC Treasurer Marie Berggren bluntly informed the regents during their November meeting, "It's going to get worse."Financial problems at UC are so severe that the regents warned in November that the university may have to cut freshman enrollment. There's also talk of a possible $215 million hike in student fees. The regents voted against the hike at their most recent meeting, but lawmakers in Sacramento may be forced to revisit the issue.It appears that one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing.Prudent fiscal management would have UC on a cautious approach during these economic times, with a focus on core missions and competencies. Yet UC President Mark Yudof is recommending that the Board of Regents approve a new admissions policy that increases costs while lowering academic standards. This is a lose-lose situation: an admissions policy that dumbs-down academic standards in a costly exercise in social engineering while siphoning scarce resources from a cash-strapped system.Where will the money come from to pay for these new initiatives?The more closely one examines these proposed changes to the UC admissions policy, the worse it looks. Lower standards risk the university's legacy of academic excellence. Higher costs threaten the resources available for scholarly pursuit. The process dashes the hopes of applicants seeking admission to an institution that cannot afford to accept them. It is a trifecta of folly that must be rejected.