Believe it or not, 15 out of the 19 people running the University of California have been CEOs or lawyers.

For a panel which, according to the board’s bylaws, is supposed to be “broadly reflective of the economic, cultural and social diversity of the state,” it is starkly disconcerting that so few of the UC Board of Regents are from professions outside of business and law.

Business strategies and corporate influence are increasingly used in education, much to the chagrin of educators like UCLA education Professor Mike Rose, who feel that economists shouldn’t be the ones planning students’ futures.

The regents comprise the elite board responsible for many critical decisions, including those involving salary and student fee increases. The board has only one student representative, and all members are appointed by the governor. Except for the student representative, members serve 12-year terms.

How are we to trust the people in charge of the University of California when almost none of them have a background in education?
It is very difficult to expect change in these ranks when the appointment process is done quietly, lastingly and without oversight.

To combat a government-heavy system, chancellors (who are actually academics and, in my opinion, therefore better qualified to lead universities than their CEO counterparts at the UC Office of the President), faculty and students should consider leading a movement to disband the undeniably political system of regents.

The first change should be to democratically elect members instead of using the monarchial system of appointments. After all, if the university wants to use incentive to facilitate better quality, why not make the regents compete for the top spots?

Elections should follow the format of student government elections, but they should be open to students and faculty across the UC. The board should also be more diverse and include students and faculty from various fields of study.

Currently, the regents are actually defined as a “corporation” in the board’s bylaws, and one regent even referred to students as “consumers” during the meeting on tuition increases. For a board that we can only assume is meant to benefit students and faculty, it has yet to cut executive salaries and lower student fees in the midst of the budget crisis.

Using corporate lexicon adds to the ever-widening chasm between students and administrators, and lessens transparency in an already bureaucratic system. Students shouldn’t be treated as consumers of a product, because ultimately, the students, not the degrees, are the product.

I’m not arguing that competition, particularly against private schools, doesn’t benefit the university because school rivalry certainly does add to the gung-ho attitude of researchers.

At the undergraduate level, however, the UC seems to have become more about enrolling as many qualified students as possible (especially out-of-state students who’ll pay the biggest bucks), minimizing degree requirements, and doling out countless diplomas as soon as possible, rather than improving the quality of education. As a result, “consumers” are paying more for a shoddier “product.”

Corporate mentality and language have very real consequences. The most recent and incriminating decision the regents made was to increase salaries for 1,500 UC San Francisco employees and three executive salaries by about 10 percent despite the state’s proposed budget cut of $500 million.

One of these executives is the chief financial officer of the UCLA hospital system, who will now be making $420,000 – up from $380,000. And the new vice chancellor for administration and finance at UC Berkeley will actually be making 9 percent more than the midpoint salary at other universities.

The argument here, which has been constantly repeated by UC President Mark Yudof, is a pure business strategy: The university is simply meeting market value. But it is this argument that has led to the appalling demands of some executives who are already making more than $700,000.

Public universities should not – and really can’t even afford to – meet administrators’ market values. While we need some administrators, the UC should save its dollars for faculty members and graduate students, who are the key components of a university’s reputation and the true determinants of a quality education.

I personally would not mind if we lowered the standards for administrators – or even better, recruited administrators from a diversity of fields – and simply paid them less. I wouldn’t, however, be pleased if we started cutting faculty or failing to procure top-notch educators. I have a feeling $200,000 is enough to recruit qualified individuals for executive positions.

To their credit, at least the regents did not give into the additional pensions demanded by 36 other executives; maybe this would have caused too much bad press or would have required too big a policy change.

In any case, surely a student-led, faculty-invested system with fewer businesspeople would be far more appropriate and in step with the somewhat forgotten mission of the UC: to teach, research and provide public service.

Think the regents are too regal? E-mail Nijhawan at anijhawan@media.ucla.edu.
Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu._