Center for Studies in Higher Education

This year marks the University of California’s (UC) 150th anniversary. In part to reflect on that history, and to provide a basis to peer into the future, the following report provides a history of the University of California’s revenue sources and expenditures. The purpose is to provide the University’s academic community, state policymakers, and Californians with a greater understanding of the University’s financial history, focusing in particular on the essential role of public funding.

In its first four decades, UC depended largely on income generated by federal land grants and private philanthropy, and marginally on funding from the state. The year 1911 marked a major turning point: henceforth, state funding was linked to student enrollment workload. As a result, the University grew with California’s population in enrollment, academic programs, and new campuses. This historic commitment to systematically fund UC, the state’s sole land-grant university, helped create what is now considered the world’s premier public university system.

However, beginning with cutbacks in the early 1990s UC’s state funding per student steadily declined. The pattern of state disinvestment increased markedly with the onset of the Great Recession. As chronicled in this report, the University diversified its sources of income and attempted to cut costs in response to this precipitous decline, while continuing to enroll more and more Californians. Even with the remarkable improvement in California’s economy, state funding per student remains significantly below what it was only a decade ago.

Peering into the future, this study also provides a historically informed prospectus on the budget options available to UC. Individual campuses, such as Berkeley and UCLA, may be able to generate other income sources to maintain their quality and reputation. But there is no clear funding model or pathway for the system to grow with the needs of the people of California. UC may be approaching a tipping point in which it will need to decide whether to continue to grow in enrollment without adequate funding, or limit enrollment and program growth to focus on quality and productivity.

Funding support was provided by the Center for Studies in Higher Education of the Goldman School of Public Policy, Speaker Emeritus John A. Pérez, and UC Berkeley Deans Henry E. Brady and Bob Jacobsen. The views expressed are those of the authors.

The study is framed by two questions:1. What contributed to the successful completion of a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Ph.D. by minority graduate students at the University of California between 1980 and 1990?2. Did their subsequent careers after the Ph.D. correspond to their training and aspirations? Answering these entailed learning about participants’ entire lives from birth to the present, and studying individuals of all ethnic groups to look for similarities and differences in background, experiences, educational path, and careers. 158 Ph.D.s were interviewed: 33 African Americans, 35 Asian Americans, 24 Chicanos, 13 Hispanics, 5 Native Americans, 52 European Americans. The latter were matched to minority students from the same lab, with the same advisor, and similar degree year. Interviews averaged between two and three hours and used a standard questionnaire.Funding: Spencer Foundation Major Grant Program, Grant No. 200000265 P.I. Anne MacLachlan [Initially with Arnie Leiman, Professor and CSHE Director]. May 1, 2000–May, 2004. UC President’s Industry-University Cooperative Research Initiative Grant, June 1, 1998–May 30, 1999.

This is a universal tracking of all 6,377 Berkeley Ph.D.s granted between 1980 and 1989) for which 4,853 (76%) first positions were identified. The study is likely the first comprehensive tracking of ALL Ph.D. recipients from any US University. As a path-breaking work it altered the attitude of many UCB departments and schools toward keeping track of their own doctorates. In the period between December 1980 to June 1989 UC Berkeley granted 6,377 Ph.D.s. and UC Berkeley was the largest doctoral granting university in the US at the time. Women were 29% of all recipients, whites 65%, Asians 5.6%, Blacks 2%, Chicanos 0.8%, Latinos 1.1%, Native Americans 0.3%, foreign students 21.5%. After four years of data collection 4,853 or 76% of the total were found with information on at least the first position. It could not have been achieved without the moral and financial support of both the then Dean of the Graduate Division, Joseph Cerny, as well as that of the then Vice President of Academic Affairs, Eugene Cota-Robles along with many others.Funding: Berkeley Graduate Division, UCOP Academic Affairs, UCB Career Planning and Placement Center.

This study arose from the previous study because doctoral recipients when found and asked about their employment raised many other issues. It is based on 338 interviews using a structured questionnaire asking former students to rank their experience with dissertation advisors and their departments. Women and minorities were oversampled out of the total UCB doctorate receiving population of 6,377 in this period and almost all members of smaller ethnic groups were interviewed. While the responses were broadly positive about advisors, 82% ranked their overall experience with the 2 highest scores, they were less positive about departments. Around half of interviewees made unsolicited comments about racism, sexism, classism, and other negative aspects of their experience, even if they provided generally positive rankings. After this study was concluded questions remained about what made those who finished so successful in earning their degree when they had expressed many areas of dissatisfaction? This led to the following study to learn the basis of their success.Funding: Berkeley Graduate Division, UCOP Academic Affairs, UCB Career Planning and Placement Center.