Editorial published in the San Diego Union Tribune
FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 2010 AT 12:04 A.M.
In California, the ongoing waves of budget deficits were forecast years ago. Like a fiscal tsunami, the shortfall kept getting closer and when it hit we reacted as though it was unforeseen. The first wave that hit San Diego State University resulted in a reduction of part-time faculty by 224, an increase in the workload for teaching faculty, increased class sizes, reduced enrollment, enforced furloughs, increased student tuition fees and the elimination of core and elective classes. In brief, the university reduced access to education, diluted our product and minimized our support of the professors and staff, resulting in a diminished quality of the education that we are providing.
We know now that there is another wave of budget deficits coming and that deficits will continue for the foreseeable future. But, despite a unanimous front by the administration and faculty union to challenge the state to restore funding for higher education, we cannot expect more funds when those resources do not exist and the ones that do will continue to diminish. We need to reallocate existing funds; we need to change how we do business.
It is prudent to expect these shortfalls to be all but permanent, perhaps lasting longer than a decade. Despite economic forecasts that label the current downturn as “temporary,” long-term economic forecasts indicate that we are in a recession for the long haul. The state faces a $6 billion budget deficit in the fiscal year that ends June 30, and a projected $14 billion deficit looms in the following fiscal year. At the federal level, Social Security obligations become greater than receipts by 2017 and Medicare costs are mushrooming and the program will become insolvent by 2018.
Data indicate that we will not recover within the next few years, regardless of the optimism of some commentators. This leaves the younger generation having to bear the cost of our excesses. Who is working toward a solution? Who is changing how we do business?
Is SDSU adjusting to the new economic reality? So far, we have done much to exacerbate the situation rather than to mitigate it. The 60s adage, “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem” holds true again. At a time of economic crisis, when unemployment in San Diego County is 11 percent (with Imperial County at a Depression-level 27 percent), the way out is to retrain individuals for emerging new labor markets. Yet, just when we need new educational opportunities for the unemployed, SDSU is shrinking. We are doing the opposite of what the problem demands; we are reducing enrollment and restricting access to qualified local students. When we needed to keep people employed in the county, SDSU eliminated 700 part-timers (faculty and employees). When we needed to ensure that students are better informed and better educated, we restricted their choice of classes and made it harder for them to graduate.
The university’s leadership responds that all of these decisions have been forced by a decrease in the budget. But the hierarchy can’t just fall back in this misery, blaming everyone and everything but itself. The lack of fiscal creativity at SDSU is worrisome.
How do we do more with fewer resources?
I suggest that the first thing we need to do is abolish the college system within the university. This system of placing academic units within a framework of “colleges” was a relatively new addition in management at SDSU when funding was bountiful.
The college system sits above the academic units and they report to the provost. In general, they have no academic role. Eliminating this tier would result in more highly qualified academicians going back to their roots of teaching or research. As with the U.S. health care system that pays six times more for administration than comparable countries, our higher educational administration is a bloated, self-preserving bureaucracy. We need to work more cleverly in this new age of fiscal austerity.
I am not talking only about saving money, but also making the system more efficient. We only need to look at Stanford and Harvard. They have no “college” system there. If SDSU were to fund academic units directly, we would not only streamline the system, we would promote academic excellence in teaching and research. Academic units can regulate their own student intake, manage the budget and look after the integrity of their programs and research more efficiently.
College deans often reallocate funds generated by the Full-Time Equivalent Student (FTES) formula to favor priorities as they see fit. As an example, a small department like gerontology, which I chair, would generate over $1.1 million per year at $12,633 per FTES (with 87.8 FTES). But, my allocated instructional budget is only 5 percent that income, or $57,000.
This meager allocation has to pay for four programs, including a master’s of science degree in gerontology. So the question that we need to ask, when someone says that this is a budget issue, is: Where does the rest of the money go?
Does it go to more costly and needless administrative overhead? How does that serve the best interests of students? Where is the long-term planning? How are we part of the solution?
Garrett is chairman of the Department of Gerontology at San Diego State University.
