So, throughout the past few decades the UC has disproportionately hired more non-instructional staff or senior management group/management senior professionals (SMG & MSP) in comparison to the general UC student body and to tenure track faculty.
The question then is how much does this cost the university?
The UC discloses total employment compensation by employment group between years 2009 and 2013 (1). By subtracting the compensation between 2013 and 2009, we can get a general idea of how much more money has been spent in increased employment during those years. Keep in mind though that these were generally the years of the worst UC and state budget crises.
What we immediately see is that although UC has been spending more money on tenure faculty and non-tenure track faculty (clinical professors, lecturers, and other teaching faculty), much more money is being spent on non-instructional staff positions between 2009 and 2013.
Between 2009 and 2013, UC has increased spending by:
Tenure Track Faculty - $137 million
Clinical Professors, Lecturers and Other Teaching Faculty - $359 million
Academic Administrators - $38 million
Student Services - $60 million
Fiscal, Management & Staff Services - $266 million
Health Care & Allied Services - $548 million
Management - $138 million
Though one important aspect to highlight is that in terms of top executive positions like those of the Chancellor, spending has actually DECREASED in this period by:
Executive Program - $16 million LESS
This highlights that a lot of spending has been due to recruiting more professional or lower level positions rather than just "executive salaries." I also would like to stress that the UC expects to make only $100 million from the five percent increase in tuition next year (2).
Is the raise in tuition justified then in comparison to these other increased costs of the university? Are the increased costs in non-instructional staff necessary for the goal of public universities?
The question then is how much does this cost the university?
The UC discloses total employment compensation by employment group between years 2009 and 2013 (1). By subtracting the compensation between 2013 and 2009, we can get a general idea of how much more money has been spent in increased employment during those years. Keep in mind though that these were generally the years of the worst UC and state budget crises.
What we immediately see is that although UC has been spending more money on tenure faculty and non-tenure track faculty (clinical professors, lecturers, and other teaching faculty), much more money is being spent on non-instructional staff positions between 2009 and 2013.
Between 2009 and 2013, UC has increased spending by:
Tenure Track Faculty - $137 million
Clinical Professors, Lecturers and Other Teaching Faculty - $359 million
Academic Administrators - $38 million
Student Services - $60 million
Fiscal, Management & Staff Services - $266 million
Health Care & Allied Services - $548 million
Management - $138 million
Though one important aspect to highlight is that in terms of top executive positions like those of the Chancellor, spending has actually DECREASED in this period by:
Executive Program - $16 million LESS
This highlights that a lot of spending has been due to recruiting more professional or lower level positions rather than just "executive salaries." I also would like to stress that the UC expects to make only $100 million from the five percent increase in tuition next year (2).
Is the raise in tuition justified then in comparison to these other increased costs of the university? Are the increased costs in non-instructional staff necessary for the goal of public universities?
References:
Composed by: Todd Lu, UCLA undergrad from Student Collective Against Labor Exploitation (SCALE)