The results come from the systemwide 2012 UC Undergraduate Experience Survey, with questions on academic engagement, community involvement and financial background.

According to the survey results, 82 percent of UC students responding said they were content with their overall education. Despite more than $900 million in state funding cuts to the university over the last five years, this percentage has remained relatively constant since 2006.

“I think that shows that despite the economic recession and the decreased funding to UC in recent years, we’ve been able to continue serving our students really well,” said Shelly Meron, spokesperson for the UC Office of the President, in an email.

But while academic approval has remained relatively constant, students are increasingly unhappy with the cost of getting a degree. The survey found that student satisfaction with the value of a UC education is now at 60 percent, down from 71 percent in 2006. The percent of students worried about the cost of tuition has increased from 64 to 71 percent over the last two years alone.

“Obviously we’re concerned about tuition increases, and we’re continuing to work with state legislators and the governor to resolve UC’s funding issues,” Meron said in the email.

Sereeta Alexander, research analyst at the UC Berkeley Office of Planning and Analysis, said that the campus’s own survey of new students has found similar results — that students are concerned about financing their education in the next few years.

“(The results) show that we should be thinking about how we should support students more with financial aid and scholarships — even if tuition and fees are rising,” Alexander said.

CalSERVE Senator and Executive Vice President-elect Nolan Pack said that higher student costs may reduce campus involvement, another issue studied in the survey.

“The more a college education costs, the more students have to work while they’re in school and the less time they have to do other things like public service or civic engagement,” Pack said. “The more we increase tuition, the more we’re chipping away at the holistic college experience.”

Pack also criticized possible plans to make tuition more affordable through online education, pointing out that the high academic satisfaction rates show that students value a classroom education.

“It’s clear that the quality of a UC education remains very high, but the state’s continued divestment from higher education puts that at risk,” Pack said. “The fact that students are overwhelmingly satisfied with faculty and instruction should say something. Online education … contradicts the experience of being in the classroom.”

Contact Alison Fu at afu@dailycal.org.

The post Survey finds UC students satisfied with quality of education appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The vote to strike — which passed with more than 97 percent support — comes after the university and the union failed to come to an agreement during ongoing contract negotiations, which began last June. The union alleges that the university’s prioritization of profits reduces patient-care quality, while the university argues that the strike is an attempt to gain bargaining leverage and divert attention from the union’s refusal of pension reforms during negotiations.

The suggested pension reforms include an increased contribution from both the university and employees toward the costs of pension benefits as well as revised eligibility rules for retirement health benefits, according to Shelly Meron, a media specialist with the UC Office of the President.

However, AFSCME, which represents nearly 13,000 patient-care workers from medical centers and student health centers across all 10 UC campuses, said the union is striking because the suggested pension reforms are another attempt by the university to maintain high-paying executive pensions. Representatives from AFSCME say those funds should instead be used for patient care.

“At this point, (the university has) certainly made clear they will not negotiate until we agree to protect their entitlements,” said AFSCME 3299 President Kathryn Lybarger. “Pension reform subsidizes their massive benefits. We are not going to stand for that.”

Such pensions and high-paying executive salaries have caused understaffing and cost-cutting in the UC medical system that is impacting the quality of patient care, said union spokesperson Todd Stenhouse.

The union says these new cuts and financial decisions have left the medical centers unable to provide the care patients deserve due to unnecessary stress and inadequate training on the use of hazardous materials in patient-care areas.

“The (university) needs to get its priorities straight,” Stenhouse said. “They need to stop this idea that executive salaries are their top fiscal priority … These are publicly funded hospitals that are here to serve California, and we are here to make sure they stay the crown jewels of the state.”

However, Meron asserts that the pension reforms are needed to ensure the university’s pension programs are financially sustainable.

“We are dealing with a $24 billion unfunded liability,” she said. “We want to make sure the (pension programs are) sustainable over time.”

In a press release from April, the university stated that AFSCME is trying to use patient care as a tool in contract negotiations, which can endanger the patients’ health. Meron said the university will prepare contingency plans for medical center operations — which include patient care — in case of a strike.

But a report published by AFSCME last month alleged that the UC hospitals have increased executive payroll by $100 million since 2009 and are the ones endangering patients by cutting care jobs and outsourcing them to less experienced workers.

The union is also preparing to take patient protection measures, including a 10-day notice of a strike and the formation of a Patient Protection Task Force in the event of an emergency.

The dates and duration of the union strike have not yet been finalized.

Alyssa Neumann covers city government. Contact her at aneumann@dailycal.org and follow her on Twitter @AlyNeumann.

Clarification(s):
A previous version of this article may have implied that the University of California will prepare contingency plans for patients. In fact, the university will prepare contingency plans for medical center operations, which include patient care.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the vote to strike came after the University of California and the union failed to come to an agreement during contract negotiations last June. In fact, the vote to strike comes after the university and union failed to come to an agreement during ongoing contract negotiations, which began last June.

A previous version of this article also incorrectly quoted Meron as saying that pension that the UC wants to make sure the UC medical centers are sustainable over time. In fact, she said that the university wanted to make sure that pension programs are sustainable over time.

The post UC healthcare workers vote to strike appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Following months of controversy, UC Berkeley announced that it will withdraw from the systemwide UC Student Health Insurance Plan in the fall.

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau announced the decision to withdraw Thursday, joining four other UC campuses that are abandoning at least some parts of UC SHIP. The announcement comes after the systemwide Council of Chancellors approved various changes to UC SHIP, including campus withdrawal, in a meeting Wednesday.

“Today I am stating my support for the students’ position and, following their urging, announcing that UC Berkeley will be withdrawing from UC SHIP and returning to a UC Berkeley-operated student health insurance plan,” Birgeneau said in a statement.

Beginning Aug. 15, UC Berkeley will transition back into a campus-managed, fully funded insurance plan similar to what the campus had in place for decades before joining UC SHIP in 2011.

UC SHIP follows a self-funded model in which those paying the costs, in this case the UC system, are responsible for absorbing the plan’s risks, according to Bahar Navab, UC Berkeley’s student representative to the UC SHIP Advisory Board. Fully funded plans place risk on a separate insurance provider but generally have higher premiums.

UC SHIP currently has a $400,000 lifetime cap and a $10,000 prescription drug coverage cap. As a fully funded plan, UC Berkeley-provided insurance would also have to comply with the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits these coverage caps.

In a letter sent to Birgeneau last month by UC Berkeley student representatives, Navab and ASUC President Connor Landgraf wrote that poor management from the UC Office of the President and a desire for more local control were some of the reasons students favored withdrawing from UC SHIP.

“I think that localized control and more decentralized governance is what’s best for our campus right now,” Navab said. “It’s a two-year plan, and we can always re-evaluate after two years. If UC SHIP has changed enough that we want to go back to it, we always have that option.”

UC Berkeley’s decision to withdraw comes in light of UC SHIP’s projected $46.5 million net deficit, which earlier prompted the possibility of premium increases across the board.

According to Kim LaPean, communications manager at the Tang Center, the new plan is expected to include a 13 percent premium increase for undergraduates and a 20 percent increase for graduate students, though the campus has yet to finalize rates. LaPean said benefits will not decrease under the campus plan and that officials are working to ensure that students will be able to see the same outside carriers.

“Berkeley students were really clear that they did not want to lose benefits,” LaPean said. “The changes that they’re going to see are all going to be in the favor of the student.”

Other campuses that decided to partially withdraw from UC SHIP include UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Riverside and UC Santa Barbara. Some campuses, like UCLA, have opted to stick with UC SHIP.

Students with coverage through UC SHIP next year will also see changes, including lifting the lifetime maximum, annual pharmacy cap and other caps on essential care. The UC Office of the President is currently reviewing options to close the deficit, but UC spokesperson Brooke Converse said students will not have to pay for the deficit through premium increases.

“Our job right now is to respect the campuses that want to leave,” said Scott Arno, the UCLA student representative to UC SHIP Advisory Board. “No campus should be forced into this plan. We need to make it run better so that they’ll want to come back.”

Mitchell Handler covers academics and administration. Contact him at mhandler@dailycal.org and follow him on Twitter @mitchellhandler.

The post UC Berkeley to abandon SHIP appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The campus accepted 9,219 in-state freshman applicants for fall 2013, a decrease of 1.4 percent from 2012 numbers. The drop in in-state admissions follows a year of continued debate about the role of nonresident students within the UC system. Despite a drop in nonresident admissions last year, UC Berkeley saw a 26 percent jump this year in out-of-state student admissions and a 46.4 percent increase in international student admissions.

This increase is intentional, according to Amy Jarich, assistant vice chancellor and director of undergraduate admissions, who said the campus has been working toward a goal of 20 percent nonresident undergraduate enrollment, a target she said the campus could meet by the 2014-15 school year.

“(Rising admission for nonresidents) is something that we’re doing just to be able to bring the numbers in line with the available state funding from California,” Jarich said. “The increase definitely is a reflection of the campus’s ongoing effort to build the overall percentage of undergraduate nonresident students.”

The university saw a similar decrease of 2.2 percent in admission for in-state students systemwide. The university admitted 14.3 percent more out-of-state students and 28.5 percent more international students, as compared to last year.

According to a statement from the UC Office of the President, “The slight decline in the number and proportion of admitted students who are Californians reflects the fallout from years of severe budget cuts to UC, which has enrolled thousands of California students for whom it received no state funding.”

Michael Trevino, UC director of undergraduate admissions, echoed this sentiment in a press conference Thursday, noting that nonresident students pay around $23,000 more than resident students annually.

The university has looked to nonresident tuition as a source of potential revenue in the past. The UC Board of Regents considered adopting a formal policy to increase out-of-state enrollment at its November meeting, but UC Student Regent Jonathan Stein and others have voiced concern about further opening the university to out-of-state students.

“There are consequences to dramatically increasing our out-of-state student body,” Stein said at the November meeting. “There’s far less racial diversity, and because the tuition for out-of-state students is higher, there is a corresponding lack of socioeconomic diversity.”

According to UC Berkeley admissions data, 3.6 percent of newly admitted students from California are African American, 0.7 percent are American Indian and 17.7 percent are Hispanic/Latino. Jarich said the campus is looking to increase these rates — which have remained relatively stable over recent years — in part by continuing to work with campus groups such as bridges, the UC Berkeley multicultural center.

The data also report that UCLA had the lowest admission rate across the system, accepting 20.1 percent from an applicant pool of more than 80,000. UC Berkeley accepted 20.8 percent of its applicants.

Libby Rainey covers higher education. Contact her at lrainey@dailycal.org and follow her on Twitter @rainey_l.

The post UC Berkeley boosts nonresident admission, maintains similar ethnic composition in admits appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The campus accepted 9,219 in-state freshman applicants for fall 2013 enrollment, a decrease of 1.4 percent from 2012 numbers. Meanwhile, UC Berkeley saw a 26 percent jump in out of state admission. Around 14,000 freshman applicants were admitted from a pool of nearly 68,000.

“The slight decline in the number and proportion of admitted students who are Californians reflects the fallout from years of severe budget cuts to UC, which has enrolled thousands of California students for whom it received no state funding,” read a statement from the UC Office of the President.

Systemwide, the UC saw a 2.2 percent decrease in admittance for in-state students compared to 2012 rates. Meanwhile, the university admitted 14.3 percent more out of state students, and 28.5 percent more international students, compared to last year.

According to UC Berkeley admissions data, 3.6 percent of newly admitted resident students are African American, 0.7 percent are American Indian and 17.7 percent are Hispanic/Latino. The admission rates of different ethnic groups for campus have remained relatively stable over recent years.

UCLA had the lowest admittance rate across the system, accepting 20.1 percent out of an applicant pool of over 80,000. UC Berkeley accepted 20.8 percent of applicants.

See the full document of admissions data below:

Fall 2013 Admissions table1 (PDF)

Fall 2013 Admissions table1 (Text)

Libby Rainey covers higher education. Contact her at lrainey@dailycal.org and follow her on Twitter @rainey_l.

The post UC Berkeley accepts fewer in-state applicants for fall 2013 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In my time in senate, I seriously considered what the role of the ASUC was for the broader student body. I was motivated to run for ASUC President last spring because I saw problems on our campus and in my community.  I saw the rising price of tuition, textbooks and housing. I saw the school I love struggle through a number of campus climate issues. But I saw something else that both aggravated and inspired me — I saw the failure of recent ASUC officials to use our collective power to solve problems that students face every day.

I still believe that we have yet to reach our potential. The executives with whom I served were content to throw dance parties on Memorial Glade and hold press conferences that never translated into action.These events contribute to our Cal experience, but they can’t be all that the ASUC does. This year, I was disappointed with our president’s leadership when he apparently chose to negotiate with UC Office of the President to build a new gym on Fraternity Row instead of using his influence as ASUC president to fight UCOP’s proposed Student Health Insurance (SHIP) fee increases.  The ASUC is not here to rubber-stamp administrative policy decisions, but instead to be critical and ensure that administrators have students’ best interests in mind.

To me, the ASUC can be so much more. When we know that the campus’ sexual assault policy is largely dismissive of the experiences of sexual assault survivors, the ASUC should be working with the Center for Student Conduct to change this.  When we see a campus that is no longer financially accessible to middle and working-class students, the ASUC should be mobilizing students to fight for expanded financial aid and lower tuition costs. When we see a campus whose employment policies don’t reflect the real needs of student employees and don’t afford respect and dignity to career employees, the ASUC has an obligation to fight for new policies.  This is my vision for the ASUC, the reason I ran with CalSERVE and why I continue to support this year’s CalSERVE executive candidates. Together, we can make the ASUC activate our power and advance what students need to be successful.

Currently, students do this work without the power of the ASUC. However, how much more powerful is it when the ASUC can use its resources, voice and administrative clout to further the student cause? We know from experience that administrators take us seriously when we take ourselves seriously. When the ASUC voted last year to divest $3.5 million from Bank of America, the campus CFO immediately acted to facilitate a smooth transition to corporate responsibility. The chancellor stood with ASUC senators in Sacramento last year to lobby for the DREAM Act and to overturn Proposition 209. The ASUC is a vehicle through which students can address the most pressing issues on campus, in our city and throughout the state, if we would only hold ASUC officials accountable to using their full potential.

Andrew Albright is a former ASUC senator with the CalSERVE party.

Contact the opinion desk at opinion@dailycal.org.

The post A more perfect ASUC: Realizing our potential appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 3299, a union that represents UC workers, joined with University Professional and Technical Employees 9119, a union that represents UC technical workers, to protest recent layoffs at the UCSF Medical Center and the standoff in labor negotiations with the UC Office of the President.

“There’s a fundamental message that this rally is all about today,” said AFSCME 3299 spokesperson Todd Stenhouse. “That’s ‘put patients first.’ We need to send a message to the people of San Francisco that come into this hospital that the administration is not putting their priorities first.”

UCSF Medical Center recently cut 300 positions through layoffs, transfers and elimination of unfilled positions, which comes in the wake of a recent whistleblower report published by AFSCME in March detailing inadequate patient care at UC medical centers due to understaffing.

“Medical centers are going to continue to deteriorate,” said Wendi Felson, a retired UCSF employee and systemwide health care coordinator for UPTE. “All five UC medical centers have been cited for patient care violations.”

Since last November, the UC system and AFSCME have also been at an impasse over creating a new contract for UC workers focusing on pension reform.

Among the protesters were recently laid-off UC workers, including Miguel Herrera, a full-time custodian who was fired three weeks ago, and Connie Salguero, a former patient-care assistant who was fired this week.

“This was my only job here,” Salguero said. “Where will I get my food?”

According to UC spokesperson Dianne Klein, the protest is a tactic used by the union in labor negotiations, and AFSCME refused the contract without offering counter-suggestions.

“Bargaining in the media is not something we support,” Klein said about the protest. “We believe bargaining should take place at the bargaining table.”

State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, and San Francisco Supervisors John Avalos and Eric Mar also appeared at the protest to support the workers.

“They’re understaffed in terms of things not being properly sanitized, and those are things that put patients at risk,” said Yee’s press secretary, Dan Lieberman. “As far as pensions go, there’s going to be a lot of continued discussions, particularly pensions that are for the executives that are quite substantial.”

The meeting for pension negotiations, which was scheduled for April 3, has been postponed to later this month.

“We hope to reach a multiyear contract that’s fair to employees … and the university that rewards employees for their hard work,” Klein said.

Contact Tara Hurley at thurley@dailycal.org.

The post 10 arrested at UCSF protest against medical center layoffs appeared first on The Daily Californian.

On March 24, Landgraf issued two executive orders to place the Class Pass and Health and Wellness referendums on the 2013 spring ASUC ballot. The referendums, which would extend the contract for student bus passes and collect funds to build new recreational facilities, missed the deadline to be placed on the ballot because the senate did not receive confirmation on the referendums’ language from the UC Office of the President in time.

”Well, in terms of thinking of the students’ perspective, I think it (was) important to get the referendums on the ballot,” said Elections Council chair Jina Yoo. “It’s really important that the students are voting on (them). It’s something I know for sure that (Landgraf) did for the students.”

According to the ASUC Constitution, the ASUC president may issue an executive order on “actions which are urgent and necessary to maintain the functioning of the ASUC.” Landgraf said that the executive orders were the only way to place the referendums on the ballot, but there has been dispute as to why the deadline was missed in the first place.

“(Landgraf) was so focused on the Health and Wellness referendum … that he forgot to put the Class Pass referendum on the ballot in time,” said ASUC Senator Nolan Pack. “It wasn’t necessary. They were separate bills — there is no reason he should have put those bills together.”

ASUC Senator Klein Lieu said he was also critical of the use of executive order for the Health and Wellness referendum and said it potentially reflected an imbalance of power between the president and the senate.

“Given the fact that the Class Pass is something that everybody uses, I can see the dire need to use executive order,” Lieu said. “I personally don’t think executive order needs to be used so frivolously like that. I don’t think that the Health and Wellness (referendum) is something that’s needed to keep the ASUC functioning.”

The use of executive order has varied from president to president, and the constitutional bylaws do not specify the frequency allowed for its use. During the 2011-12 academic year, former ASUC President Vishalli Loomba issued four executive orders during her time in office.

Pack also believes that regardless of the outcome of the vote on the Health and Wellness referendum, it could potentially be nullified by the Judicial Council due to the its placement on the ballot by executive order.

According to ASUC Judicial Council chair Suneeta Israni, no official actions can be made at this moment by the Judicial Council on the executive orders since the council has not yet received a formal petition.

Contact Jennie Yoon at jyoon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC President Connor Landgraf sparks controversy among senators for use of executive order appeared first on The Daily Californian.

“There are no substantive concerns with the referenda being placed on the ballot, as I am sure few people would want to disallow the student body from having the opportunity to vote on these two extremely important issues,” Tran said in an email. “But I do understand that a few procedural concerns have been brought up.”

UC Berkeley students face the prospect of losing their bus passes next year due to a failure to submit the necessary referendum for the spring 2013 ballot.

The bill — which was authored by ASUC President Connor Landgraf — was voted on by the ASUC Senate at Wednesday’s meeting. However, according to ASUC bylaws, any referendum for the ballot must be voted on by the end of the candidate-filing period — which was Tuesday.

The Class Pass Referendum would extend the campus’ contract with AC Transit for seven years. Without this, students will lose unlimited access on AC Transit and campus shuttles, including the night safety shuttle.

ASUC Senator Mihir Deo and former ASUC senator Noah Ickowitz raised the deadline issue during the Wednesday night meeting. The ASUC attorney general, whose duties include approving the referendums and initiatives for the ballot, was not available for comment at this time.

Another referendum, the Health and Wellness Referendum , which asks students to vote on whether or not to finance construction and operation of the Wellness Center and the new Memorial Stadium Fitness Center, was also intended for an ASUC Senate vote during the Wednesday night meeting. However, Deo called attention to the issue with the bylaws before this vote could take place, and as a result, the bill — also authored by Landgraf — may not appear on the ballot as well.

Landgraf could not be reached for comment. Senators said it was unclear whether Landgraf was aware that he had missed the deadline to submit the referendums.

ASUC Senator George Kadifa said that one option might be for Landgraf to issue an executive order to place it on the ballot. According to the ASUC Constitution, executive orders can only be issued when such a mandate is needed to maintain the functioning of the ASUC until the senate can meet again.

Kadifa added that without placing either referendum on the ballot, the Health and Wellness program would most likely be delayed by a year.

According to ASUC Senator Daley Vertiz, Landgraf submitted both referendums to the UC Office of the President at the same time. Vertiz said that Landgraf wanted to bring them both to the senate at the same time, which caused the delay.

“There was a lot of frustration and a lot of confusion … over why the deadline would be missed,” Vertiz said of the senate’s immediate reaction. He added that having the Class Pass is a priority because students directly depend on the service provided.

The Class Pass referendum was also on the spring 2012 ballot, one year earlier than necessary, in order to ensure that the contract with AC Transit could continue. However, due to misprints in the election guidebook, the referendum was invalidated.

Although it is unclear what steps will be taken next, some senators speculated that Landgraf’s only option will be to issue an executive order to get the bill placed on the ballot.

“We cannot compromise on getting students access to public transit,” Vertiz said. “The executive order might be only way to get it on the ballot.”

Contact Chloe Hunt and Sara Grossman at newsdesk@dailycal.org.

The post Class Pass may not be placed on spring ballot after possible bylaw violation appeared first on The Daily Californian.

If passed, Assembly Bill 199, the “Choose California” bill, would mandate that state institutions purchase foods from California farms so long as their prices are not more than 5 percent more expensive than identical items from outside the state.

Public schools would be exempt from this 5 percent threshold and would only be required to purchase from in-state producers if competing out-of-state products cost the same amount or were less expensive, according to Noelle Cremers, director of natural resources and commodities at the California Farm Bureau Federation.

The bureau, a nonprofit nongovernmental organization made up of 53 county farm bureaus whose stated purpose is to protect and promote the state’s agricultural interests, supports the legislation.

“(The bill) would help promote California-grown agricultural products,” Cremers said. “The state should play a leadership role in supporting our farmers and showing the importance of purchasing homegrown products to its citizens.”

AB 199 was introduced in late January by Assemblymember Chris Holden, D-Pasadena. The bill will soon be heard in the state Assembly’s Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review as well as the Committee on Agriculture, said Wendy Gordon, Holden’s press secretary, in an email.

“Fresh, locally-sourced produce and products are always a plus for public institutions such as state hospitals, prisons, and other state-run organizations,” Gordon said in the email. “We are optimistic the lawmakers and governor will see the value in this bill — not only to farmers but also those who will be eating fresher, locally sourced foods.”

The bill’s potential impact on the state budget is still unknown, as is whether it will benefit large farms or smaller ones and whether it will affect the amount of conventional produce grown in the state in comparison to organic crops. Cremers said she does not think the bill would change the current balance between organic and conventional products.

The UC Office of the President has yet to review the bill to take a position on it, according to spokesperson Brooke Converse. In 2008, Cal Dining worked with Buy Fresh, Buy Local, an initiative of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, to pledge that the campus food service will purchase a minimum of 10 percent of its food products from local sources. Cal Dining is currently purchasing 60 percent of its produce from within a 16-county radius of campus, according to its website.

Schools in the Berkeley Unified School District would not be affected by the bill’s passage because the district does not purchase from out-of-state, according to district spokesperson Mark Coplan. Berkeley’s geographic location allowed it to more easily adopt a local foods model compared to other districts throughout the state, he said.

Coplan noted that 30 percent of the food in the schools is organic and comes from within 50 miles.

“It’s something that the Legislature needs to help school districts achieve,” Coplan said. “It’s something everyone needs to do, and it’s something that schools need help funding.”

A similar bill was passed by the state Legislature 2001 but was vetoed by governor Gray Davis, and a 2010 effort ended shortly after the bill was introduced in the state Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Levon Minassian covers food news. Contact him at lminassian@dailycal.org.

The post Bill could mandate that state institutions purchase food locally appeared first on The Daily Californian.