Follow the Money: UC Salaries

Miranda Conway

The higher administration of UC San Diego receives a disproportionately large salary compared to professors, according to a database of California public employee salary records compiled by the Sacramento Bee. This reflects the appeal of finding a job in the UC administration, which has increased in numbers by more than 200 percent in the entire UC system. As the salaries of the UC administration seems to have been prioritized over that of teaching faculty, several high-ranking professors have made the choice to seek employment elsewhere.

It is no secret that UC San Diego professors earn less than their contemporaries at equivalent universities. UC San Diego compares itself with 8 other universities: Harvard, MIT, Stanford, SUNY-Buffalo, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, and Yale. Harvard, for example, pays its professors on average $193,000 a year.

In 2010, the average salary of all full-time professors of the Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Economics, Linguistics, History, Literature, and Music departments was a whopping $129,300. This includes overtime, bonuses, housing allowances, sick leave pay, vacation pay, and many other forms of cash compensation. The average salary varied between departments, as Linguistics professors earned an average of $84,000 while Molecular Biologists earned around $169,700.

But even the compensation for science professors seems pathetic in comparison to the salaries of our upper administration. In 2010, the average income of our Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, Assistant Chancellors, Assistant Vice Chancellors, and Deans was $262,850. On average these members of UC San Diego’s upper administration earned $130,000 more than instructors.

Of course, the state government bears responsibility for this disparity to an extent. Indeed, it is disheartening to see that a professor of UCSD who uses computational modeling and psycholinguistic experimentation to explain cognitive language processing earns considerably less than a correctional officer at the Fairfield State Prison. Obviously, there are many fiscal decisions on the state level that demand serious reform, but the UC system can no longer afford to blame the state budget for the severely unbalanced allocation of funds.

As the system stands, there is a greater economic incentive for professors to set aside their lectures and pursue a position of authority within the administration. The primary difference between the responsibilities of senior administrators and instructors is essentially a matter of power.

The Vice Chancellor for External and Business Affairs, for example, has worked for the past twenty years managing business operations for the entire campus (at least his salary of $286,215.96 would appear to suggest so). There’s no denying that his job is potentially demanding, yet there are many tenured professors at this university who have been teaching for over 20 years and barely make six figures. This income disparity is even more disconcerting after recognition of the unquestionable authority of our professors in their respective fields of studies and their devotion to the education of their students.

What motivation is there for decent professors to maintain their teaching positions at UC San Diego, when they are offered more money to work as an administrator or teach at a competing university?

For the UC regents, the solution is a fancy accounting gimmick. In August 2011, the majority of the UC faculty that currently earn less than $200,000 was granted a three percent pay raise. However, this pay raise is actually a pay cut, because professors are now obligated to contribute 3.5 percent of their income to the University of California Retirement Plan, effective as of last July. Effective next July, they will have to contribute 6.5 percent, which ultimately reduces their take-home pay to less than it was before the “pay raise.”

In a letter addressed to the chancellors regarding the “three percent pay raise,” the University of California President Mark Yudof surprisingly acknowledged that most of the senior faculty across the board are compensated below market levels.

Yudof explained, “During the furlough program, employees at the higher end of the scale saw their salaries reduced at a proportion far greater than their colleagues in the lower ranges. But, I am confident that these senior employees, notwithstanding their enormous contributions to the University, will understand that the fiscal pressures we are under make it imperative that we focus this merit pool on our faculty and those of our non-represented staff who are not at the high end of our compensation range.”

Even President Yudof seems to sense the danger of losing more research professors to higher paying institutions at the expense of compensating the administration. It is no coincidence that his letter was released shortly after the top physicists Jose Onuchic and Herbert Levine and the biochemist Peter Wolynes, left UC San Diego to conduct research at Rice University, where they will now earn 40 percent more than they did at UCSD.

Economic incentives aside, the UC regents should consider what their students want. Students have made our opinion clear time and time again: we just want to be taught. Students in the UC system compete for internships and lab positions in the hopes of having an opportunity to work directly with our instructors. UCSD students boast an average GPA of over 3.0 – the result of an exceptional discipline to our courses. It is a figure reflected during the final exams of Fall 2011 when at least a hundred students were caught breaking into the closed Center for Library & Instructional Computing Services (CLICS) just to study. CLICS library had been permanently closed by the administration last spring in a desperate effort to save $450,000. Yet the Vice Chancellor of Health Sciences raked in $737,500 just the year before. Granted, the library budget and that of Health Sciences are separate, but the former is a direct service to the students. Ultimately, the UC regents need to ask the question, “Who is worth more?”

California Failing On A Winters Day

California Failing On A Winters Day

Brian Chapler

Several recent state-by-state studies paint a bleak picture of California. These surveys on “best and worst run states,” economic freedom, state services and benefits, income inequality, and interstate migration reveal California is the worst-run state in the nation and is ranked 24th for economic freedom. Although California has some of the highest levels of services and benefits amongst the states, it also has some of the highest levels of income inequality. Given these rankings, it is perhaps not surprising that Californians are fleeing California faster than the residents of any other state.

A review of financial health, standard of living, and government service data was conducted to determine how well each state is managed by 24/7 Wall St., LLC, a Delaware financial news and opinion company. According to their analysis, Wyoming is the best-run state in the nation, and California is the worst. California scored below average in every category except median household income—scoring last (tie with Texas) in high school graduation rates—and next to last in unemployment and foreclosure rate. California also has the worst credit rating, being the only state in the country to be rated A-, the lowest rating ever given to a state by S&P.

In their 2011 Economic Freedom of North America report, the Frasier Institute – an independent non-partisan research and educational organization based in Canada – compiled comprehensive economic freedom ratings for US states and Canadian provinces. The Frasier institute develops an index of economic freedom that measures the extent to which rightly acquired property is protected and individuals engage in voluntary transactions. Their annual report consistently finds economic freedom to be a powerful driver of growth and prosperity, which is confirmed in the 2011 report. California came in 24th amongst the US states at the “all government” level but falls to 43rd at the subnational level. The overall scores are based upon rankings of size of government, takings and discriminatory taxation, and labor market freedom.

In another survey by 24/7 Wall St., government spending was examined to identify how much states spend on their residents. Naturally, those states that provide the most money and benefits to their residence have higher tax burdens. The analysis also finds that these states have particularly high costs of living. California is ranked 10th in providing money and benefits and ranks in the top ten for average pension benefits (8th), temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) per month (2nd), and number of months of TANF received (7th). Interestingly, the study finds that these states also have high levels of income inequality, despite the fact that the poor and the dispossessed receive the most from government services. According to this study, California has the 7th highest level of income inequality. This result is supported by a study conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, which finds the gap between California’s richest and poorest families to be the 8th largest in the nation, and the gap between the richest families and middle-class families to be the 3rd largest in the nation. This study finds the growth in income inequality in California since the late 1980s between the richest and poorest families to be the 18th largest, and 5th largest between the richest and middle-class families.

Altogether, Californians may be becoming increasingly dissatisfied by the poor performance of their state and are now “voting with their feet”. In their recent Geographical Mobility: 2011 Report, the US Census Bureau reveals that Californians are leaving California at a faster rate than residents leaving any other state. In fact, four out of the top ten most common state-to-state relocations from 2009 to 2010 were from California. These include California to Nevada (35,472 movers), Washington (39,468), Arizona (47,164), and the most common state move in the nation, California to Texas (68,959).

Brian is a gradute student in the Physics Department.

For further details on these studies (And where the information for the graph was gathered) see:

ASUCSD To Vote on Abandoning Their Resolution of Neutrality

Alec Weisman, Alumni (Editor-in-Chief 2008-2011)

Originally posted on The Word From the Wise, Alec’s personal blog.

According to Samer Naji, the Vice President of External Affairs for the Associated Students at the University of California, San Diego, due to complaints and “various concerns raised about the Occupy Resolution, the External Affairs Office decided to draft a different resolution directed mainly towards our campus.”

Therefore, instead of passing a resolution to support the occupy movement, they decided to focus their efforts on passing a resolution in support of Reclaim UCSD.

However, the AS office of External Affairs does not stop there. Instead, their new resolution decides to overturn their former Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community that was passed last April. The new resolution states: “LET IT BE RESOLVED, the ASUCSD shall rescind their decision to maintain neutrality in regards to world events and political issues and instead shall take a more proactive approach to allow the association to partake in relevant political affairs that deeply impact students and are significant to their student lives.”

This clause effectively overturns AS decision to remain neutral regarding world events and national political issues. Sadly this clause in the current resolution is completely unnecessary. The Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community only restrains AS from remaining neutral on “divisive external political issue[s].” Although divisive, Reclaim UCSD is an on campus issue and does not fall under the purview of the Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community. Therefore, the AS Office of External Affairs is effectively trying to once more assert itself as a partisan organization by seeking to repeal the Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community.

It was your actions and your emails that got the AS office of External Affairs to update its resolution. Keep up the hard work. To express your disapproval for the Associated Students at UCSD passing this resolution, email asvpexternal@ucsd.edu or contact the council members directly: http://as.ucsd.edu/council

Attached is the updated resolution: Resolution in Support of Reclaim UCSD

Iran Walking the Tight Rope

Steven Perlin

Iran dug itself into an even deeper hole on Tuesday when a collection of United States federal agencies foiled an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington. In addition to this plan, it is also widely suspected that Iran was planning on attacking the Israeli embassy in Washington.

As the story goes, two Iranian citizens held a meeting in Mexico in May of this year seeking assistance with the assassination of the Saudi ambassador. That is when U.S. federal agents began to infiltrate the plot which then led to the September 29 arrest of Mr. Arbabsiar, one of the two men believed to be a part of the conspiracy.

Politically, this has come at a very bad time for Iran. The Iranian regime is currently seeking a nuclear program, whether it is for power or weapons. In response to these Iranian actions, the U.S. Congress has passed sanctions against Iran in order to slow down the Iranian financial sector. Congress’ hope is that this pressure will grind Iran’s nuclear program to a halt. Not only does the United States fear a nuclear armed Iran, but so do regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and Israel and others as confirmed by Wikileaks. Although up to this point the United States has spoken somewhat rhetorically in regard to an attack on Iran in order to prevent the advancement of their nuclear program, it seems that this Iranian attempt might be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Continue reading

Graph of UC Administrative Growth

A graph showing the growth of UC administration, faculty, state funding and student fees was designed by the California Review alumni James Wu. See the startling results below.

UC student costs 1997-2011 vs CA state funding
• Also: # of Faculty and # of Senior Administrators.
• Student Fee is full student fee. State Funding is CA funding to the UC General Fund. Both are adjusted for inflation to CPI-U.
 • The # of Faculty is full-time-hours equivalent of regular ladder-based faculty (most common type of faculty).
• The # of Senior Management is full SMG (Senior Management Group) & MSP (Manager and Senior Professional) count.

Mo’ Money, Mo’ Problems

***Editors Note: This article appeared in our May issue of the California Review.

Angad Walia

In anticipation of Sun God Festival 2011, I’d like to take a second to talk about what the festival exactly is now, and what it used to be. We’ve all heard people say it before, or experienced it by comparison ourselves if we’ve been around for that long: Sun God really, really sucks now; it is nothing like what it used to be. This phenomenon, which has taken place over the past few years, is now referred to as the “caging” of Sun God, and we are reminded of this every year during Spring Quarter in the promises of those hoping to get elected to AS. Now the focus of this article will not be to inanely bash the administration and AS for taking away the most beloved event by the student body at UCSD. What I am going to do is lay out some information detailing various aspects of the festival from the past few years, in particular the scope and quality of the concert, ease of admission, and funding.

Continue reading

Divestment: Ignorance and Aggression Cloaked in Pacifism

Michael Tartre

The Divestment Resolutions that routinely appear before the UCSD Associated Students negatively impact UCSD on every level by its very conception. The method of misallocating political blame towards engineering companies is directly contrary to the interests of UCSD students. The spirit of these resolutions is anti-Israel in a divisive, disingenuous, and inflammatory manner. Real progress on the Israel/Palestine issue requires calm and careful understanding of people on both sides of the situation.

Setting aside for a moment the motivation behind these resolutions, the method belies ignorance unbecoming of serious scholarship. Out of disapproval for the military and political actions in Palestine, these recent resolutions blame General Electric and Northrup Grumman for engineering parts of Apache helicopters because some of those helicopters have been used in the conflict.

Continue reading

AS Election Results – Final

Campus-Wide Results

President: – Alyssa Wing

VP Finance: Kevin Hoang – Board the Wing
VP Student Life: Meredith Madnick – Board the Wing
VP External: Samir Naji – Board the Wing

Biological Sciences Senator: Randze Lerie Palmaira – Students First
Arts and Humanities Senator: Cyrus Kiani – Independent
Physical Sciences Senator: Kevin Fish – Independent
Social Sciences Senator: Alexander Choi – Board the Wing

All Campus Senators:
– Annie Yu – Tritons First
– Clinton Anthony Rodriguez – Board the Wing
– Carlos Molina – Board the Wing
– Amanda Malamud – Board the Wing
– Karen Liang – Board the Wing
– Kirk Freeman – Board the Wing
– Ashton Cohen – Board the Wing
– Matt Bradbury – Board the Wing

$5 PC Referendum: Didn’t Pass
$22 Recreation Referendum: Approved

The Most Coddled Industry in America

Kara Henderson

Since the Great Depression the American government has wasted taxpayer money on unnecessary farm programs. At a time when the US government is looking at ways to cut the federal budget, farm subsidies should be an major target for any budget buster. Taxpayers shell out $35 billion every year to subsidize 5 crops: cotton, wheat, soybeans, rice and corn.

Mowing the Money

There are 3 types of subsidy payments that farmers can receive. The first type is the most offensive to anyone who holds to any free market ideas. These “direct payments” go to farmers and landowners regardless of the current crop price. Therefore even if crop prices and farm profits are at record highs, the government still issues these direct payments. In fact, recipients do not even need to have planted anything to receive payment. Leave it to the US government to pay people to do absolutely nothing and pretend that they are saving the family farm. Since 2005 the average direct payments have totaled around $5 billion a year.

The other two types of subsidy payments are essentially the same because bureaucrats just love to make redundant programs. “Counter-cyclical” payments and “market loss” payments are sent out when crop prices fall below a standard set by Congress. Yet Congress has help deciding this “price level” from the very influential agribusiness lobby industry, which spent $121 million in 2010. These duplicate programs serve as key components to “farming safety” that many farm interest groups desire. Yet the farm industry acts as if it deserves its own taxpayer-funded safety net.

These wasteful subsidies are marketed to the public as essential for the survival of the small family farmer, who guarantees the country’s food supply and keeps the country from starving. No one could possibility argue against a program that does so much good, right? Wrong, because it’s all lies. In fact, it is not the small farmer that gets subsidy money, but rather it is the giant corporate farms. Current subsidy programs serve as welfare for corporate farms that take advantage of and manipulate the subsidy system. According to the Environmental Working Group 10% of the recipients of subsidy payments receive a whopping 70% of the benefits. Riceland Foods is the single largest recipient of subsidy money, receiving $68.9 million in 2003. That is more than all the farmers in Rhode Island, Hawaii, Alaska, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, and New Jersey combined. Subsidies ensure that the small farmers have to struggle to compete with multimillion-dollar agribusiness firms, like Riceland Foods.

During a time of economic hardship, every taxpayer can rest easy knowing their hard earned money is going to ensure that millionaires can make ends meet. In fact, even millionaires such as David Rockefeller receive farm subsidy benefits.

But while most of the subsidy money is paid to millionaires and massive corporate farms, the remainder goes to another group of people who live better than the average American, the farmers themselves. Farmers make significantly more than the average American. According to the Cato Institute, in 2005 the average farm household income was $79,965, while the average income of all US households was $63,344, 26% less.

Subsidies also serve to inflate the price of food. In a time when enrollment in food stamp programs is higher than ever, why are taxpayers funding programs that make food more expensive? Inflated food prices hurt the poor who must spend a disproportionally larger proportion of their income on food and makes them more dependent on food stamp programs. Most industries must respond to market pressures thus prices are balanced by supply and demand and efficient production is incentivized. However, this is not the case when an industry is subsidized and can ignore the market mechanisms. Farm programs encourage overproduction of subsidized crops and the under-producing of others, thus inflating food prices.

Most farms do not receive subsidies and most crops are not subsidized yet the farmers’ stay in business and the food is well priced. The farm industry does not need a safety net made of taxpayer money. It needs free market principles, principles that would drive down the cost of food and production. Farms should be allowed to adjust to market demands, planting different crops and diversifying their income sources. A stronger and more innovative industry would form as a result to ending farm subsidies.

Kara is a junior in Warren College majoring in political science.

UCSD Libraries are Dust in the Wind

Alec Weisman, Editor-in-Chief

Four libraries are scheduled to close by the end of the 2010-2011 academic year. Budget cuts are blamed for the shortfall in money to operate the libraries, and soon the IR/PS Library and CLICS will be closing their doors for the last time in most UCSD students’ academic career. Over the last 3 years, the UCSD libraries have had to adjust to cuts of upwards of $5 million dollars. Of this amount, $4.8 million has been cut from services and operations. This is primarily comprised of eliminating 38 positions (out of 306) and keeping 42 positions vacant (out of 284). By cutting additional positions and closing the libraries they will save $345,000 from the closure of IR/PS, $450,000 from the closure of CLICS, and $645,000 from the closure of the Medical Center Library, Science and Engineering Library, and the Scripps Library. In addition, $600,000 will come from eliminating 10 vacant positions. Looking at the numbers, the library staff was grossly exaggerated in size and composed of a very large bureaucracy. According to an Associated Students presentation on the UCSD libraries, 55% of the libraries budget goes to compensation for staff. Only now that the UCSD libraries can do nothing else are they finally forced to confront their leviathan size and begin downsizing. In addition, these cuts are only the beginning, according to head librarian Brian Schottlaender. But why is it that the libraries have to be the first to go? Why is it that the funds could not be taken from somewhere else within the UCSD administration first?

In fact, these cuts could easily be taken from other sources. The campus core budget is approximately $635 million, while the department of Academic Affairs core budget rests at approximately $255 million. In contrast, the entire core budget for the UCSD libraries rests at around $25 million. The campus core budget is facing cuts of nearly 10%, nearly $63.5 million. Therefore, logically the libraries should be facing either a total cut of 10% or the academic affairs and libraries face those 10% cuts together, which regardless amounts to between $2.3 and $2.5 million in required cuts for the libraries rather than $5 to $6 million dollar cuts. Yet the decision of where to make cuts comes directly from the UCSD administration. Who does the administration look out for? Themselves.

Our administrators do not have a “right” to a job, especially when that job is provided by taxpayer dollars. Administrators (both executives and middle managers) within the UC System have spiked since 2000, increasing by nearly 200%. Salaries and benefits of administrators have jumped as a result, comprising most of the UC financial crisis in the process. At the same time, faculty salaries have declined and services provided in the UC system have continued to face the brunt of the budget cuts. Administrators want to keep their benefits and refuse to sacrifice their salaries during these economic times. It is in their interests to continue to serve as looters taking money from taxpayer dollars. If UCSD were a private institution our administrators would be within their rights to continue to maintain their benefits and their private salaries. Yet this is not the case in the UC system. Although UC executives claim to be underpaid in relation to their private university colleagues, they do not face the same rigorous oversight as their private counterparts. As the UC system serves as a mechanism of a bureaucratic governmental body, these employees should be fired as a drain on the system and face consolidated and reduced fees during this time of fiscal crisis. If the job of an administrator needs to be cut to save money for the university, or if added work needs to be assigned to that role, then these administrators must face reality.

Continue reading