The proposed financial self-sufficiency model for the UCLA Anderson School of Management, which plans to end the school’s reliance on state funds, has generated debates between graduate students and administration alike, while awaiting review and approval by University of California President Mark Yudof.
The new funding model, which calls for replacing about $5.6 million in state funds with increased private donations, expanded self-sufficiency programs and increased student fees, is unprecedented in the UC system.
Controversy has arisen on campus and in the L.A. community, because while the proposal will allow for a more flexible program, it also creates concerns over the increasing possibility of public universities becoming private.
Although the school is already almost 90 percent self-sufficient, Anderson Dean Judy Olian said the move toward complete self-sufficiency would allow for greater predictability in the school’s budgeting model, greater flexibility to invest in student programs and faculty, and the redirection of funds to undergraduate initiatives on campus.
Though the program is supported by UCLA senior administrators, including Chancellor Gene Block, and 80 percent of Anderson’s faculty, strong opposition to the proposal has been found on campus and in the L.A. community because it means increasing student fees, said Lincoln Ellis, president of the UCLA Graduate Student Association.
“I still don’t have all the details, but I am initially suspicious because I think that it represents students having to carry the burden of the budget crisis,” Ellis said. “I don’t think that is the direction we should be heading in.”
While the new student fees have not been determined as of yet, Olian said the increase would be modest compared to the increases that have already occurred under the current model.
A $5,000 price difference in student fees would remain between California residents and non-residents, and student financial aid would increase 30 percent in the proposed model, according to an Anderson brief.
“With or without state support, tuition is unfortunately trending up, but we expect it to be more moderate than it has been,” Olian said.
To some students, the possibility of a more dynamic program, which Olian said the model allows, is enough of an incentive to pay increased student fees. The self-sufficient model would provide Anderson with flexibility in faculty hiring, setting salaries, and investing in student programs.
“I think they have the long-term in mind. Of course nobody wants a hike in tuition, but that’s part of the price you pay to have the long-term benefits,” said Allison Silvers, a business administration graduate student.
After a year of budget cuts and student fee increases in the UC system, however, many are wary of any change in the cost of attending the public school. With the increases, student fees at Anderson will likely be comparable to those at business schools at private universities.
“You are looking at usually $150,000 in debt, by the time you count in living expenses and tuition ““ that is a huge deterrent to attending graduate school if you don’t have financial support,” Ellis said.
Ellis added that student fee increases will also hurt the state, as it may reduce the number of business leaders who come from low-income backgrounds.
Anderson is following in the steps of business schools at two other public universities, the University of Michigan and the University of Virginia, that have successfully become self-funded. This may spur other graduate schools in the UC system, including UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, to forgo state funding if the model is approved.
Chancellor Gene Block said in a September UC Regents meeting that Anderson’s model is consistent with the UC Commission on the Future’s objective of establishing self-sufficient models where appropriate.
Despite the current financial crisis facing the UC system, Olian said Anderson’s self-sufficiency model is not the answer to the UC’s funding problem and very few schools can follow Anderson’s model because most schools are not already as self-sufficient as Anderson.
And while a mix of skepticism and approval for the proposal is found on campus, Olian said the school’s affiliation with UCLA and the public mission of the UC system will not differ.
“From the outside in, nothing will change,” she said. “What I think it does is provide the flexibility to make sure the excellence is protected without, frankly, changing the mission.”