UCSC is now facing the repercussions of mass firing TAs. Gee, who could’ve seen this coming?
Good luck getting profs to teach huge classes without TAs.
FWIW, the UCSC students make less than per month than I do and I live in the suburban midwest. My entire house payment is less than half of the average rent in SC.
Large research universities thrive on the cheap labor of PhD students. Even U of M, where I go, which gives us very good funding, plus cover our (and our family’s) health insurance, AND offer perks like maternity/paternity leave come out far, far ahead with regards to how much money PhD students save them vs needing to fill our positions with non-students.
(Sorry for long link - otherwise it comes up behind a paywall)
Agree that by violating their negotiated union contract that the TA grad students put both themselves & the university in a difficult situation.
Graduate student TAs were paid about $2,100 a month take home pay with a 3% annual raise, $3,300 per year child-care, health insurance, & free tuition.
Complaint is that housing in the area costs about $2,600 per month. Wasn’t this the case when they negotiated their union contract ?
Have the strikers provided a solution for finding additional funds to meet their demand of a $1,420+ monthly wage increase (over 67% increase in monthly pay demanded) ?
A key to successful negotiations is to give something in order to get something.
P.S. It should be noted that the university did offer the strikers a bonus of $2500 each to help supplement cost of rent.
Not certain, but I suspect that when TAs at two other UCs joined the strike as a sign of support, that this sealed the fate of the 54 UC-Santa Cruz strikers.
Sure, it’s tough to live in this state. Housing is extremely expensive due to demand, NIMBY-isms, and all kinds of (anti-growth) regulations. But the cost of things – utilities are also outrageous – is just part of the charm/challenge of living in this Deep Blue state.
Perhaps the students shoulda worked harder for a bid to UoM or better-funded Uni? Perhaps they should have a heart-to-heart with their Union who is not serving them well?
“It was unclear who would fill the undergraduate courses that would have been taught by the teaching assistants. More than 500 graduate students have pledged not to fill the spots vacated by dismissed teaching assistants.”
Here’s how it all could play out:
Without enough money top grad students will not be applying to UCSC.
Without enough TAs, the top professors will leave.
Without the top professors and top grad students, the rankings of UCSC will go down, as will the research money these professors bring.
With fewer professors and TAs, class size will zoom. Students will find themselves in classes of hundreds, taking computer-graded tests because there aren’t enough humans to do the work. (Quite the education.)
If this happens, it’s of course California students (and their parents) who will pay the ultimate price here: spending major money on a diploma-mill experience at a campus with a plunging reputation.
K-mom: I totally agree, but I don’t think the State cares. The name of the game is access for all, not highest quality education/research for all. The UC gurus have made clear that attending Merced is just as good as Berkeley or UCLA (and I assume UCSC). And I’m sure that they would be just as happy if many of the UCSC students transfer to Merced and enjoy those cheap housing costs.
Or perhaps the TAs could be offered housing on campus, in a dorm. Or perhaps they could get roommates to share the costs.
Yes, I get that some TAs have families, but wages in the US aren’t based on what the person needs to live but on what the job market can support. The UCs can’t discriminate on hiring because of marital status, but UCs can say “This is what we can pay, and you can have a dorm room, but we can’t pay for your $2600 apartment. If you need that amount, you’ll have to work a second job, or take in a roommate, or your spouse will have to work. This is what this job pays.”
It’s a job. The job comes with tuition (worth a lot), medical insurance (worth a lot), and it looks like day care reimbursement, and a stipend.
How about the grad students without a funded program? They pay the tuition, fees, find housing and pay for that too. They work, or have rich parents.
Most University of California campuses, Santa Cruz included, has a lack of housing, period. That is why most undergrads move off campus after their freshman year. Putting TAs in dorms is not a viable option most of the time. And most already are sharing living quarters with roommates!
Why don’t students represented by a union as powerful and experienced as the UAW negotiate a better contract ?
If a suitable arrangement cannot be agreed upon, then the TAs should consider other programs which meet their needs. And the university should find TAs who can come to an agreement after fair negotiations, and honor that agreement, so that the university can budget in accordance with expenses.
There is a real problem here, one that is experienced even by well paid techies in Silicon Valley, and it should be acknowledged.
But the university & the state of California also have real concerns about money, funding, and budgeting.
No one is forced to live in California and no one forced the workers to ratify the negotiated agreement which contains a no-strike clause and is binding through 2022.
The most readily apparent solutions seem to be raise tuition and fees to a level that will support a living wage for university employees or to accept more out-of-state students willing to pay the full non-resident tuition. Otherwise, another method to raise additional funds needs to be found.
Not sure, but I thought that I read that it was in the second year of a four year agreement.
If a recently negotiated & agreed upon contract, it is disturbing that the TAs are demanding a 67% percent raise in addition to violating the no-strike provision.
Spot on. Most campuses struggle to offer two years of on-campus housing for undergrads. The Grad students are on their own.
Read an article in the local newspaper that said its a four-year agreement expiring in 2022. (It looks like June 30, 2022)
Btw: rather interesting that UCSF is exempted. While UCSF is comprised primarily of professional schools, they still have plenty of Grad Students and post-docs conducting research.
Exactly. Obviously, the State could send more money to UC, but not sure that is on Sacto’s list.
And while UCSC does likely have the most expensive housing costs outside of UCSF, the problem SC has is that their grad budgets are similar to the other UC’s. If Santa Cruz gets a greater housing budget, why not other high cost areas such as UCLA? Berkeley? Santa Barbara? With the exception of Riverside, Davis & Merced, the other UC’s are located in high cost areas. Good luck with negotiating local wages/benefits on a per campus basis as it would be a nearly system-wide increase.
fwiw: I ran some quick and dirty numbers for nearby Stanford in high housing cost Palo Alto. Outside of tuition (which is just a pass thru), most budget expenses (COA) are similar to UC, but the big difference is that Stanford provides ~$5k more in personal budget funds. Just huge.
Run the math for the financial impact for UC to do the same for its Grad students.
Raising in-state tuition (even if it is offset with in-state FA grants for the bottom 80-90% income families) tend to get a lot of complaining from undergraduate students and parents (particularly wealthier ones who have more other college options and louder political voices that having money gives). So does increasing the number of out-of-state undergraduate students (who tend to be mainly willing to attend UCB and UCLA, not so much UCSC).
Meanwhile, the same wealthy parents who complain about increased UC tuition or more spaces taken by out-of-state undergraduate students vote NIMBY against more housing development, particularly higher density or more affordable housing. And they historically voted for lower taxes (Proposition 13) and unfunded state mandates (Proposition 184 “three strikes”) whose effects are still cramping state budgets today (despite a partial rollback of “three strikes” and some recent tax increases).
…and since their kids may not get into Cal or UCLA, they’ll send their kids to a private, perhaps with merit money. (creating a downward cycle for political support to UC.)
There are a lot of embedded assumptions in this, such as it’s always better to be taught by “top professors.” Often, the top professors in research are the worst teachers in undergrad classes.
I said nothing about it being better to be taught by top professors. Top professors translate into money - they bring private and federal research grants, which translate into higher rankings, which translate into more selective graduate programs, which translate to higher rankigns, which translate – well, you get it.