Not all college chiefs pig out at "G'REED'Y" trough

Originally posted December 1, 2008

During the past couple of weeks, the Daily Forty-Niner has called out California State University Chancellor Charles Reed for doing us students dirty. He answered Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s call to return more than $31 million at a time our system hurts for cash.

We face enrollment caps, higher tuition, larger class sizes, fewer courses and tougher admission requirements. At the same time, Reed gives up to 19 percent pay raises to starving CSU vice presidents and hires a bunch more. Times are tough and maybe they need the dough to avoid the corporate welfare lines.

Reed essentially stood in front of his office and said he felt our pain. He gets paid $421,500 per year to run an education system, a threshold of pain none of us can imagine. Comparatively, the president of the United States earns $400,000, but then he only has to run a country.

Wouldn’t it be great if somehow university presidents could help students through tough economic times? Wait a minute; some have! A few of the highest paid university presidents in the country are giving back to their respective universities, according to The New York Times.

The chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis will take a 5 percent cut from his base salary. Granted that salary is about $560,000, making what CSU leaders earn seem paltry by comparison.

Similarly, the president of the University of Washington relinquished a pay raise and the president of Washington State University will take a $100,000 cut.

The actions taken by those starving administrators are commendable. They do not have to return one red cent, yet they each volunteered to give back by taking less. Those leaders are backing students with their own wallets, making CSU administrators appear unsympathetic.

While university presidents in a few other public systems might earn more, CSU presidents and executives can hardly cry broke. The combined salaries of our 23 campus presidents consume approximately $6.7 million per year, averaging roughly $292,000, according to the CSU Executive Compensation Summary for 2007-2008.

The highest paid president in our system is Warren Baker at CSU San Luis Obispo, who manages on a meager $328,209. Barely edging over the national university presidential poverty line is William Eisenhardt at the CSU Maritime Academy, squeezing by on a lowly $258,680 worth of crumbs. CSULB’s own Pres. F. King Alexander — third highest on the list — subsists on $320,329.

To help them through tough times, CSU presidents get either free campus-provided housing or a $50,000 to $60,000 housing allowance. To keep from having to rely on public transportation, system execs are given university cars — not the little electric campus utility carts — or $1,000-per-month gas cards.

Add in other perks like retirement packages and it’s easy to empathize with the neediness of being a CSU administrator fallen on hard times.

Of course, it might be unfair to whine about what CSU executives earn, given that many could probably earn much more in the private sector. We don’t doubt that innovative leaders deserve to be paid equitably in relation to their national peers. In fact, the Chronicle of Higher Education places the national median salary for public university presidents at $427,400.

Since his appointment in 1998, Reed has not adequately represented student affordability concerns. We have seen tuition increases in six of the last seven years, literally doubling the cost of a CSU public education from the 1998 rate of $1,600 per year in undergrad tuition to the current $3,048. During that span, Reed’s salary has nearly doubled from the original $254,000.

The California Master Plan for Higher Education was meant to make college degrees possible for all who qualify academically, regardless of economic status. Many will never realize that dream explicitly because of economic status.

The argument that affordable education is not feasible due to current economic problems doesn’t wash because Reed and the board of trustees were instituting tuition increases even when California was considered the plum of global economies.

From the student perspective, it looks “G‘REED’Y” to hand out pay raises amid a bleak economy. Although it probably won’t happen, we ask our campus executives to refrain from grunting at Reed’s feeding trough like hungry piglets. It’s difficult to have pity for those who enjoy steak and lobster salaries paid for by cutting our ramen noodle rations.

‘Bad tenant’ Reed destroying university property

Originally posted November 24, 2008

The Cal State University system was developed as a way to give opportunity to all those who seek a higher education. In the midst of a financial crisis and across-the-board slashes to higher education, Chancellor Charles Reed decided it best to take money from the CSUs to reward administrators.

The same day he told people in front of his office that he feels their pain, he authorized giving nine vice presidents up to 19 percent pay raises. In addition, he endorsed a 10 percent raise to an interim vice chancellor and rubberstamped hiring 11 new campus vice presidents. The increases for existing vice presidents range from $1,548 to $22,500 a year, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

We can think of many ways that money could better serve the soul of the CSU system — the students.

This money should go toward better serving students by providing more professors and class selections. It is hard to swallow fee increases and enrollment caps while the chancellor is doling out administrative salary hikes.

We’ve been down this path before. Amid the protracted California Faculty Association contract negotiations two years ago, Chuckie’s largesse was shared with university presidents in the form of 9-14 percent pay raises; all while students were being jabbed with fee increases.

Reed even had the gall to give himself a raise of nearly $50,000 per year, from $377,000 to $421,500. After all, a guy’s gotta eat, right?

When asked if the board of trustees would consider administrative salary or hiring freezes, chair Jeffrey Bleich said that was the last resort, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Apparently, hurting students and employees is the first resort.

The 450,000-enrollment cap will heavily affect minority and low-income students. In addition to the cap, admissions standards will tighten and deadlines will shorten, further strangling the hopes of students wanting a university education.

Rather than standing up for the system, Chuckie Greed has opted to mimic thieving corporate executives; the CEOs of American International Group and General Motors, for instance.

AIG begged Congress to save their asses in the bailout, then held a congratulatory $450,000 soiree at a luxury resort. GM’s execs flew private jets to Washington and stayed in lavish hotel suites, while groveling for the feds to save their bacon.

Similarly, Reed’s executive pay raises compare to corporate malfeasance. Pat Gantt, the president of the CSU Employees Union nailed Reed’s actions precisely in the S.F. Chronicle. “It’s like the executives at Enron taking bonuses while the company goes down….”

It’s time to insist on accountability, people. It’s time to end Reed’s pagan campaign of offering students and employees as sacrificial lambs to his master, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

There is no justification for his decision to reward administrators and simultaneously rob the system.

Education is critical for a functioning society; denying any student who qualifies will only create more chaos in this money-strapped state. Without students, the CSU system would not exist and we need a chancellor that understands this. Reed ain’t the one.

An enrollment cap will only create a larger social divide, forcing groups that are already underserved to stay at the bottom. Administrators like vice presidents and interim vice chancellors should be paid fairly and have opportunity for raises.

However, this can’t come at the expense of the student.

As responsible communities invested in protecting current and future education, we must demand Reed’s resignation — starting today. Chuckie Greed’s beautiful house is ours and it’s time to evict him as a bad tenant for “not keeping up the property.”

Health care options might leave nasty infections after graduation

Originally posted November 4, 2008

As students of Cal State Long Beach, we have access to the Student Health Center. If we are sick we make an appointment and see a nurse or a doctor.

But what about when we graduate? Is adequate health care affordable or even available?

Last month a series of reports done by the Los Angeles Times focused on the horrors of the uninsured and the nasty phrase “pre-existing condition.”

Everyday someone is denied health insurance because insurance companies can’t afford to insure the sick, or in many cases, the not-so-sick.

If you are not a part of a group plan, usually offered through employment, your only alternative is individual insurance. Individual insurance offers customers less coverage at a higher price.

These plans are easily manipulated because companies are not required to insure anyone. And if they choose to insure you — and after establishing insurance you find out you have some ailment — they can deem it pre-existing and drop your coverage.

The best health insurance option, besides being super rich, is a group plan. Under these plans, everyone is covered regardless of pre-existing conditions. The idea behind everyone being covered is that the medical bills will even out because the young and healthy are insured in the same pool as older folks. This way the group will be covered and the insurance companies still make money.

The profit lies within the well customer, not someone with a chronic disease such as asthma. If they would insure someone with asthma, for example, they would have to insure everyone with asthma. If the other insurance companies are still refusing to insure asthma patients, the one that does will lose major money.

Blue Shield of California went as far as to deny a healthy newborn baby, with a minor hip misalignment, insurance. The doctor explained that the problem would most likely fix itself and the only extra treatment was a couple of X-rays. Blue Shield refused to insure the baby until after the problem corrected itself. The parents had to pay more than $2,000 in regular healthy-baby doctor bills.

It feels like a Twilight Zone episode. It seems insurance is not even worth it sometimes. They have power to decide if you are a risk or not. If someday your doctor bills are more than they want to pay out, all they have to do is say, “Goodbye.” This forces us to live in fear of our own health insurance. Someday they might turn on you, deny coverage and stick you with the bill.

There is no law that makes insurance companies insure everyone. Unless you can manage to get into a group plan, you better hope you stay healthy.

Insurance companies are not going to get together someday and make a deal with each other to insure everyone. But we cannot continue to create a society where only healthy people can see a doctor. It just doesn’t make sense.

Insurance companies are a business trying to make money with no obligation to better society. That is where our government needs to step in.

Something has to be done about those of us who can’t afford health insurance, as well as for the ones who can but are deemed uninsurable.

Thousands of people dive into bankruptcy because they can’t afford insurance, become ill and can’t pay the bills. We cannot fix our financial crisis if everyday people are walking into the “Suffocation Ward.”

There are major holes in our health care system that must be fixed. There is no reason a healthy baby should be denied insurance only to be reinstated months later after its problem heals itself.

We deserve health insurance because we pay taxes, which we can’t pay if we’re too sick to work. We deserve health insurance because we’re American.

Avoiding bookstore texts resourceful way to save $

Originally published September 17, 2008

Every semester starts with a depressing wallet-lightening trip to the bookstore. Textbooks can soak up, on average, $700 to $1,000 per student, per semester, according to the Los Angeles Times.

These outrageous costs have recently caused Congress to pass the Higher Education Act as an attempt to ease our bi-yearly checkbook woes.

Even with the aid of Congress, textbook prices are high, especially when they are new and professors seemingly always require the newest edition.

There is something nostalgic about joining the crowds in the bookstore, searching for your books and then waiting in line for, well, let’s just say, awhile -- but it’s not for everyone.

However, in the past few years, students’ textbook options have broadened. Since I have been in the business of college for, well, let’s just say, awhile, I will once again attempt to pass on my textbook-buyin’ advice.

Obviously, there’s the University Bookstore, where used copies and new copies live at high prices. And a few used bookstores around Long Beach that can offer a price relief, that is, if they have the book you are looking for. It can be tricky trying to find a book you need at an off-campus bookstore, but worth the try.

An advantage of buying from the campus bookstore is the option of selling back the books for gum money at the end of the semester. But when it comes to selling books back, my advice is to compare on and off campus bookstores, because sometimes off-campus bookstores will pay more.

Through my poorest college years, I spent many hours in the library, photocopying. Many professors have required books on reserve in the library, so all you have to do is pop in with a pocket full of change and make friends with the copy machine. Photocopying can add up, but most classes don’t use a textbook from cover to cover, so you can consider photocopying as paying for the book page by page.

I have also purchased my textbooks online from discount websites like textbooks.com, cheapesttextbooks.com and many, many more. These websites boast 90-95 percent discounts and for the most part, you can find what you’re looking for. However, if you go this route I suggest logging on early to buy your books, otherwise you may find yourself a couple of weeks into a class without the book.

The latest in textbook technology is electronic textbooks. Websites like ecampus.com offer digital textbooks or eTextbooks. This option allows you a downloadable or online version. Both have electronic note-taking and search abilities, but your access to the book is limited to 180-360 days, depending on how many semesters you are going to use the book for.

Access is limited and there is not a sell-back option, but eTextbooks are cheaper than a new, physical copy of a book.

If the text you’re looking for is listed on Napster-esc, scribd.com or bitme.org you may be able to download it or view it for free, according to U.S. News & World Report.

Library photocopying and eTextbooks are good for classes you’re taking to just take, but I suggest buying and keeping most of the required books for classes that pertain to your major. I have found it helpful to be able to look something up from books of classes past.

Whatever you decide, get the textbook if your class requires it. There is no point in being here if you’re not going to arm yourself with the material needed for success.

Cyber students perilously closer to tech dependency

Originally published September 16, 2008



These days not having an e-mail address is almost unheard of, and who doesn’t have a cell phone?

Technology has become a big part of most of our day-to-day lives and it has helped us to become an efficient and better-connected society.

The Internet makes all information handy and recently it made tutors from Beijing available to students in California.

Through the Internet phone Skype, eight students in California State University’s Asian and Asian American Studies departments signed up to receive tutoring in the fundamentals of Chinese, straight from Beijing, according to campustechnology.com.

A class at Cal State Long Beach has signed up for this eChinese program no doubt due to the positive feedback from other students and instructors. Gaining information via the World Wide Web is fast and easy and, with the creation of online colleges and classes, learning can be too.

Online classes can provide an option for busy students and can save time, money and frustrations that accompany traveling to campus. But how do we know the effectiveness of online classes? It relies partly on the trustworthiness and ethics of the student and partly on the checkpoints put in place to prevent cheating. However, we cannot be sure the student doesn’t have a friend handy with the book, ready with the answers.

Besides that, students lose the social aspect of going to class and learning side-by-side with others. It is now possible to keep up with friends, gain an education, work and shop all without leaving the house. What a sad convenience. If everyone enrolled in online courses, we would become a society that has forgotten how to communicate because it won’t stop there.

Laptops are becoming more and more present in our classrooms and, though some students are taking notes, many are cruising through MySpace and Facebook during lectures.

Do we want our future professionals to be half educated because they were only half listening in class?

Technology can certainly be an advantage to learning, but it also has a huge potential for hindering it.

Think about it; everyone is armed with a cell phone and you’re lying to yourself if you think you can go a day comfortably without one. The feeling of not being connected is not one we are used to.

Are we going too far and relying too much on technology?

The creation of the iPhone and similar technologies has made it possible to take the Internet everywhere. Technically speaking, a student could be taking a test while riding the bus.

Stepping back and thinking about how much we rely on the Internet and an entity that has no rules is a bit scary. Wikipedia is the bible to some, and the millions who religiously check their social-networking sites are dangerously close to a computer-based life.

That’s not to say technology is creating a fast track to social destruction. Many great things have come from connecting with people around the globe and freely sharing information.

Sites like meetup.com create a place for like-minded people to rally together to promote change and exchange ideas. For example, last spring the Daily Forty-Niner reported unfair legislation trestricting Los Angeles’ taco trucks. A huge community movement, spread through e-mails, helped to reverse that legislation and L.A. now has its beloved taco trucks back.

However, we must be careful in our indulgence and dependence of technology. Let's not become caught up in a world of monitors.

Let’s hope we maintain a happy medium and use technology to further our knowledge and not let it turn us into a cyberspace society.