The fate of the UCLA Anderson School of Management’s push to make its flagship Master of Business Administration program financially separate from state funds remains undecided ““ weeks after the school’s proposal was sidelined by a University of California committee.
Earlier this month, the UC Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs voted to suspend the review process of the proposal until a new UC policy can be created to accommodate the Anderson school’s funding change.
UC President Mark Yudof created a policy in 2011 to address the creation of self-supporting programs. The policy, however, does not explicitly refer to programs currently supported by the state that want financial independence, said Rachael Goodhue, the former chair of the review committee.
Additionally, the Anderson school does not meet the requirements of the existing policy, under which a school must meet at least one of four categories to qualify to be self-supporting, Goodhue said. The categories include enrolling “non-traditional” students, such as fully employed students, and holding classes off-campus or at alternatively scheduled times, such as during the night.
The future of a new policy for self-supporting programs would depend largely on the new UC vice provost for academic affairs, Aimée Dorr, who took office on July 2, Goodhue said. Dorr formerly taught at UCLA since 1981, before becoming the dean of the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies in 1999, a position she maintained until leaving for her current job as provost.
What Dorr’s next move will be in terms of working on a new policy, however, remains unclear.
“The provost and President (Yudof) have not yet been able to study the letter from the Senate and assess the next step,” said Steve Montiel, a UC spokesman.
Dorr was not ready to comment on the situation to the Daily Bruin because she had not yet read the proposal, Montiel said.
In a recent statement, UCLA spokesman Phil Hampton said UCLA will continue to push forward the Anderson proposal, though it is unclear whether there will be changes in the UC policy. He did not give specifics about how the university plans to do so in light of the proposal’s conflicts with the current UC self-supporting policy.
“UCLA leaders remain committed to pursuing final approval of the proposal,” read the UCLA statement.
The proposal, which was first put forward in 2010 by Anderson Dean Judy Olian, would have allowed the school to no longer rely on state funds for its MBA program budget. Currently, state funds make up only 6 percent of the total budget for the program, according to Daily Bruin archives.
The budget change would give the MBA program more flexibility in managing its funds and allow it to set its tuition and salaries rates similar to those at other top business schools. The state funds that would no longer be allocated to Anderson would be redistributed back to the UCLA campus, according to the proposal.
Olian could not be reached for comment.
But changing the UC policy on self-supporting programs to allow Anderson’s proposal to fit should not be difficult, said former provost Lawrence Pitts, who retired this year and was involved with the UC Academic Senate’s review of the Anderson proposal.
During his term as provost, Pitts asked the UC Academic Senate to modify the policy to allow for programs such as Anderson’s, but the Senate was not willing to consider the change at the time because of the length of time the process would take, he said.
“I don’t think it’s necessary to have an all new policy created,” Pitts said. “Changes in funding for UC policies are allowed, and the policy just needs to be changed to address this.”
In light of repeated cuts in state funding for the UC system, Pitts said any proposal that aims to help the UC campus manage its funds should be considered.
“(The UC system doesn’t) have the luxury of sitting still while the state continues to underfund the university,” Pitts said. “Everything that the university can do to explore alternate funding, that is also reasonable, it is important for the university to consider.”
With the current review of the Anderson proposal suspended indefinitely by the committee, the school must wait until a new UC policy is developed or the old policy is changed before moving forward. If a sufficient policy is created, the school’s proposal must then be reviewed again by a UCLA committee before the UC suspension of review is lifted, according to the UC committee.
If it were to pass this review and qualify under a new or modified UC policy for self-supporting programs, then the UC graduate committee would continue its review of the proposal.