Friday, December 2, 2011

Meet the Snakes

Linda Katehi
Calls for the resignation of UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi have come from the Occupy Davis GA, the online petition which currently has over 110,000 signatures, and numerous academic departments on campus. The English Department has called for not only Katehi's resignation but also, in the interest of student health and safety, the disbanding of UCPD. But some faculty, it seems, are privileged enough to feel differently. They signed a nauseatingly disingenuous letter of support for Chancellor Katehi:
We, the undersigned UC Davis faculty, support the free exchange of ideas on campus and students’ right to peaceful protests. We are appalled by the events of Friday, Nov. 18, on the Quad, but heartened by the chancellor’s apology and her commitment to listen to and work on the students’ concerns.

We strongly believe that Linda Katehi is well-qualified to lead our university through this difficult healing process and oppose the premature calls for her resignation; this is not in the best interest of our university.
Who are these people? How could they be so ignorant about the history of police violence at UC Davis and across the UC system? A quick glance is all it takes to see that they overwhelmingly represent professional schools and the hard sciences, departments which tend to benefit most from the UC administration's privatization agenda. But a compañero went even further and compiled the following list: "Meet the Snakes: Salaries of Faculty who Support Katehi."

It's a long list so we're putting it below the fold, but we recommend taking a look. The bottom line, however, is this: the average salary of the signatories is $151,111.50.

2010 Salary info was retrieved from Names without salaries showed no search results.

Walter S. Leal, Professor, Entomology - $201,014.56
Nina Amenta, Professor, Computer Science - $112,297.12
Francisco J. Samaniego, Distinguished Professor, Statistics - $188,962.48
Ricardo H. R. Castro, Assistant Professor, Chemical Engineering - $102,666.66
Kevin Johnson, Professor and Dean, Law School - $287,070.00
Eduardo Blumwald, Professor, Plant Sciences -$150,989.88
Miguel A. Mendez, Professor, Law School - $260,400.00
Maureen Stanton, Professor, Evolution and Ecology - $170,282.07
Miguel A. Marino, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Hydrologic Sciences, Civil & Environmental Engineering, and Biological & Agricultural Engineering
Adela De La Torre, Professor, Chicano/a Studies - $196,470.64
James B. Ames, Professor, Chemistry - $122,165.90
John E. Bolander, Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering - $107,033.40
Charles L. Judson, Emeritus Professor, Entomology
Joaquim Silvestre, Professor, Economics - $134,498.44
Satya Dandekar, Professor and Chair, Medical Microbiology and Immunology - $251,584.98
James R. Carey, Professor of Entomology and Director - $185,071.79
Emanual Maverakis, Assistant Professor, Dermatology - $46,683.86
Abhaya M. Dandekar, Professor, Plant Sciences - $139,257.04
Renee Tsolis, Associate Professor, Medical Microbiology and Immunology - $95,314.82
R Holland Cheng, Professor, Molecular & Cellular Biology - $92,016.00
Robert H. Rice, Professor, Environmental Toxicology - $123,816.44
Susan Rivera, Professor, Psychology - $98,925.15
Andre Knoesen, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering - $132,645.33
Lorena Garcia, Assistant Professor, Public Health Science - $86,432.92
Angela Gelli, Associate Professor, Pharmacology - $91,185.05
Susan E. Ebeler, Professor, Viticulture & Enology - $103,620.14
George Bruening, Professor Emeritus, Plant Pathology - $156,071.16
Anh-Vu Pham, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering - $112,237.19
Xiaoguang Liu, Assistant Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering
M. Saif Islam, Professor, Electrical & Computer Engineering - $123,728.24
S. Geoffrey Schladow, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering - $152,383.99
Venkatesh Akella, Professor, Electrical & Computer Engineering - $111,218.68
Judith S Stern, Distinguished Professor, Nutrition and Internal Medicine - $169,353.20
Fu-Tong Liu, Distinguished Professor and Chair, Dermatology - $324,741.70
Neville Luhmann Jr., Distinguished Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering - $221,942.35
William J. Murphy, Professor and Vice Chair of Research, Dermatology and Internal Medicine - $295,710.74
Susan Kauzlarich, Professor, Chemistry - $157,379.46
Alan Hastings, Distinguished Professor, Environmental Science and Policy - $206,448.79
Richard Michelmore, Professor and Director, The Genome Center - $229,263.70
Sebastian Schreiber, Professor, Evolution and Ecology - $128,807.02
John S. Werner, Distinguished Professor, Ophthalmology & Vision Science - $341,554.61
Terence M. Murphy, Professor Emeritus, Plant Biology - $133,588.04
Judy Callis, Professor, Molecular and Cellular Biology - $116,760.72
Frank McNally, Professor, Molecular and Cellular Biology - $100,748.67
Susan L. Keen, Senior Lecturer SOE, Evolution and Ecology - $87,471.94
Kimberley McAllister, Professor, Center for Neuroscience, Neurology, and NPB
Joseph F. Antognini, Clinical Professor, Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine - $296,213.15
Charles A. Fuller, Professor, Neurobiology, Physiology & Behavior - $155,985.56
W. Martin Usrey, Professor, Center for Neuroscience - $160,353.78
Kyriacos A. Athanasiou, Distinguished Professor & Chair, Biomedical Engineering - $370,795.82
Sue C. Bodine, Professor, Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior - $163,608.94
David M. Rocke, Distinguished Professor, Public Health Sciences - $355,985.43
Scott I. Simon Professor and Vice Chair, Biomedical Engineering - $158,881.38
Leah Krubitzer Professor and MacArthur Fellow, Psychology - $166,273.30
Yong Duan, Professor. UC Davis Genome Center - $132,086.17
Emanuel Epstein, Research Professor, Land, Air and Water Resources; Member, National Academy of Sciences
Subhash H. Risbud, Distinguished Professor, Materials Science - $250,343.44
David P. Fyhrie, Professor, David Linn Endowed Chair, Biomedical Engineering - $161,095.80
Thomas R. Gordon, Professor and Chair, Plant Pathology - $140,222.76
Pam Ronald, Professor, Plant Pathology and Genome Center - $225,170.01
Douglas Cook, Professor, Plant Pathology - $168,028.13
Charles W. Bamforth, Professor, Food Science and Technology - $159,479.14
Michael R. Hill, Professor and Vice Chair, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering - $95,834.01
Diane M. Beckles, Associate Professor, Plant Sciences - $71,351.32
Sashi K. Kunnath, Professor and Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering - $164,822.24
Mary L. Cadenasso, Associate Professor, Plant Sciences - $96,896.96
Mary Louise Flint, Extension Entomologist, Entomology
John I. Yoder, Professor, Plant Sciences - $127,664.78
Bryce W. Falk, Professor, Plant Pathology - $150,559.56
Douglas A. Kelt, Professor, Wildlife, Fish, & Conservation Biology - $117,301.17
Benjamin J. McCoy, Professor Emeritus, Chemical Engineering
Bo Lonnerdal, Distinguished Professor, Nutrition & Internal Medicine - $181,329.90
J. Bruce German, Professor, Food Science & Technology - $123,816.44
Janet F. Roser, Professor, Animal Science - $50,982.86
Robert K. Washino, Emeritus Professor, Entomology
Iannis E. Adamopoulos, Assistant Professor, Internal Medicine
Kathryn Dewey, Distinguished Professor, Nutrition - $176,046.38
Tina Jeoh, Assistant Professor, Biological and Agricultural Engineering - $88,099.21
Harry H. Cheng, Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering - $101,422.04
Michael Denison, Professor, Environmental Toxicology - $168,476.24
Ye Chen-Izu, Assistant Professor, Pharmacology - $97,639.73
Trish Berger, Professor, Animal Science - $133,812.93
Linda J. Harris, Cooperative Extension Specialist, Food Science and Technology - $141,987.27
Stefan Wuertz, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering - $136,511.16
Rob Y. H. Chai, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering - $95,877.36
Stephen Kowalczykowski, Distinguished Professor, Microbiology, and of Molecular and Cellular Biology; Member, National Academy of Sciences - $292,531.90
James F. Shackelford, Professor, Chemical Engineering and Materials Science - $180,914.74
Deb Niemeier, Professor, Civil Engineering - $158,177.72
Maria Marco, Assistant Professor, Food Science & Technology - $73,086.16
Brian Mulloney, Distinguished Professor, Neurobiology, Physiology - $188,381.49
Katherine Ferrara, Professor, Biomedical Engineering - $215,109.13
William D. Ristenpart, Assistant Professor, Chemical Engineering - $111,199.67
Jean-Jacques Chattot, Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering - $150,738.74
Anita M. Oberbauer, Professor, Animal Science - $125,600.60
David Gilchrist, Professor Emeritus, Plant Pathology - $123,816.36
Jay R. Lund, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering - $157,973.97
Carlos E. Puente, Professor, Land Air and Water Resources - $98,737.32
David Biale, Distinguished Professor, History - $174,510.82
Lynn Kimsey, Professor, Entomology - $118,906.66
David Horsley, Associate Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering - $118,800.00
Valerie Williamson, Professor, Entomology and Nematology - $118,906.69
Kyaw Tha Paw U, Professor, Atmospheric Science - $126,656.44
Matthew J. Wood, Associate Professor, Environmental Toxicology - $80,010.64
Eduardo A. Silva, Assistant Professor, Biomedical Engineering
Ning Pan, Professor, Textiles, Biological & Agricultural Engineering - $118,774.60
Debra Long, Professor and Chair, Psychology - $135,690.10
Robert Emmons, Professor, Psychology - $151,402.62
Brian Trainor, Associate Professor, Psychology - $97,144.52
Shelley A. Blozis, Associate Professor, Psychology - $87,516.68
John P. Capitanio, Research Psychologist, Psychology - $126,867.16
Joy Geng, Assistant Professor, Psychology - $73,605.88
Valley Stewart, Professor, Microbiology - $123,816.36
Ann Huff Stevens, Professor, Economics - $144,389.64
Lisa Oakes, Professor, Psychology - $120,328.67
Kristin H. Lagattuta, Associate Professor, Psychology - $84,237.16
Robert Feenstra, Distinguished Professor, Economics - $215,076.10
Gregory Clark, Professor, Economics - $158,101.81
George A. Barnett, Professor & Chair, Communication - $164,724.52
Fadi A. Fathallah, Professor, Biological and Agricultural Engineering - $110,985.40
Jeff Sherman, Professor, Psychology - $131,650.50
James E. K. Hildreth, Professor and Dean, College of Biological Sciences (signing in his individual capacity); Member, Institute of Medicine
Sally P. Mendoza, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Staff Scientist, California National Primate Research Center – 2004 as “Professor”: $118,246.59, 2010 as “Research”: $49,235.04
Peter H. Lindert, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics - $180,337.33
Scott E. Carrell, Associate Professor, Economics - $104,777.74
Steven J. Luck, Professor, Psychology, Director, Center for Mind & Brain - $168,144.45
Robert A. Bell, Professor, Communication - $137,266.60
Dean Keith Simonton, Distinguished Professor, Psychology - $158,124.00
Ahmet Palazoglu, Professor & Chair, Chemical Engineering - $164,521.73
Stephen Lewis, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering - $160,333.44
Delmar Larsen, Assistant Professor, Chemistry - $70,872.76
Gary N. Cherr, Professor and Interim Director, Bodega Marine Laboratory - $135,821.59
Mario Biagioli, Distinguished Professor of Science and Technology Studies & Law Director, Center for Science & Innovation Studies - $147,777.85
Michael D. Toney, Professor, Chemistry - $102,246.40
Shota Atsumi, Assistant Professor, Chemistry - $93,327.86
Kirill Kovnir, Assistant Professor, Chemistry
Thomas W. Schoener, Distinguished Professor, Evolution and Ecology - $231,509.79
Simon R. Cherry, Professor, Biomedical Engineering - $296,150.29
Alyson Mitchell, Professor, Food Science & Technology - $85,990.87
Kent J. Bradford, Professor, Plant Sciences - $173,673.53
T. M. DeJong, Professor, Plant Sciences - $156,379.00
Carlos H. Crisosto, Specialist, Plant Sciences - $113,883.16
Neil E. Schore, Professor and Vice-chair, Chemistry - $160,550.04
Louis W. Botsford, Professor, Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology - $144,402.64
Marylynn Barkley, Emeritus, Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior
Joseph M. DiTomaso, Cooperative Extension Specialist, Plant Sciences - $140,661.90
Bruce C. Kirkpatrick, Professor, Plant Pathology - $105,837.39
Jay A. Rosenheim, Professor, Entomology - $142,562.76
Hildegarde Heymann, Professor, Viticulture and Enology - $166,661.68
Douglas Nelson, Professor, Microbiology -
Richard Grotjahn, Atmospheric Science and Climate Dynamics - $113,410.68
David Simpson, Professor, English - $181,957.19
Frederic Chedin, Associate Professor, Molecular and Cellular Biology - $96,298.59
Alan L. Balch. Distinguished Professor, Chemistry - $180,400.62
J. Edward Taylor, Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics - $162,363.27
Bruce Hartsough, Professor, Biological and Agricultural Engineering - $144,408.00
Jacquelyn Gervay-Hague, Professor and Chair, Chemistry - $142,386.32
Nael H. El-Farra, Associate Professor, Chemical Engineering & Materials Science - $88,209.00
Giovanni Peri, Professor, Economics - $73,001.28
Carlton Larson, Professor, School of Law - $138,481.40
Athena Soulika, Assistant Professor, Dermatology - $7,500.00
Gabriel J. Chin, Professor, Law School
Matt Traxler, Professor, Psychology - $74,471.44
Alan Brownstein, Distinguished Professor, Law School - $229,257.28
Evelyn Lewis, Professor, Law School - $138,481.40
Dennis Ventry, Professor, Law School - $139,882.60
Barbara A. Burrall, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Dermatology - $279,166.64
Robert Hillman, Professor, Law School - $250,593.28
Lovell (Tu) Jarvis, Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics - $157,593.95
Donna Shestowsky, Professor, Law School - $167,336.96
Margaret Johns, Senior Lecturer, Law School - $91,261.30
Albert Lin, Professor, Law School - $147,243.40
Rex Perschbacher, Professor, Law School - $210,061.40
Edward Imwinkelried, Professor, Law School - $233,480.40
Marilynn Etzler, Professor, Biochemistry - $156,263.20
Andrea Bjorklund, Professor, Law School - $150,393.40
Elizabeth Joh, Professor, Law School - $146,793.40
Tilahun Yilma, Distinguished Professor of Virology - $210,590.85
Ashutosh Bhagwat, Professor, Law School
Frank Osterloh, Professor, Chemistry - $88,934.66
Richard M. Frank, Professor, Law School
Leslie Kurtz, Professor, Law School - $152,129.40
Yoko Ono, Assistant Researcher, Dermatology
Jinyi Qi, Professor, Biomedical Engineering - $162,266.68
Courtney G. Joslin, Professor, Law School - $137,171.32
Isao Fujimoto, Emeritus Senior Lecturer, Community & Regional Development & Asian American Studies - $14,230.00
R. Paul Singh, Distinguished Professor, Food Engineering - $203,526.04
Wendy Silk, Professor, Land, Air, and Water Resources - $134,313.24
Jared T. Shaw, Assistant Professor, Chemistry - $96,306.99
Joel C. Dobris, Professor of Law, Emeritus - $12,000.00 (made atleast 170K annually ‘04 to ‘07)
Madhavi Sunder, Professor, Law School - $184,025.68
Donald P. Land, Professor, Chemistry - $99,754.63
Anupam Chander, Professor, Law School - $187,843.60
Kit S. Lam, Professor and Chair, Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine - $281,388.12
Peter B. Moyle, Professor, Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology - $144,802.64
John M. Labavitch, Professor, Plant Sciences - $152,659.51
Anthony Wexler, Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering - $179,980.32
Robyn M. Rodriguez, Associate Professor, Asian American Studies
Robert H Smiley, Dean and Professor Emeritus, Graduate School of Management - $137,069.15
Daniel L. Simmons, Professor, Law School - $287,260.84
Annaliese K. Franz, Assistant Professor, Chemistry - $92,266.09
Eric E. Conn, Professor Emeritus, Plant Biochemistry; Member, National Academy of Sciences
Carlito Lebrilla, Distinguished Professor, Chemistry - $206,183.08
Clayton Tanaka, Professor, Law School - $70,013.04
Lisa Pruitt, Professor, Law School - $164,811.36
Sherman Stein, Professor Emeritus, Mathematics
Charles F. Shoemaker, Professor, Food Science and Technology - $109,730.76

Average Salary = $151,111.50



  1. Could you also give the max, min, and some measure of central tendency - sd or quartiles or something?

  2. Better still - a histogram comparing them to some other histogram for the 99%. That would be a very nice visual comparison. If you post a text file with the names and salaries, we could incorporate it in our stats review while GSI'ing classes at one of the UCs.

  3. Who are these full profs earning $50K, though?

  4. Almost more telling than salary is the list of where these faculty teach: the sciences which are already privatized and the law school.

  5. Joseph F. Antognini, Clinical Professor, Anesthesiology AND PAIN MEDICINE - $296,213.15

    Katehi's own Mengele? Shame!

  6. LET ME FIRST START BY SAYING THAT UC EDUCATION SHOULD BE FREE. NO STUDENT SHOULD HAVE TO PAY TUITION. The state and the faculty should be able to bring in enough money to cover your tuition. I am a UC graduate and this is my opinion.

    However, at the moment you still need some educating. Hopefully you haven’t graduated yet. You need to do more research before just posting something. Looking up salaries in an online database and then referring to faculty as “snakes” makes little sense. Why harass the above faculty. We are allowed to voice our opinions.

    The University of California Davis has a multi-BILLION dollar budget. Only a fraction comes from student tuition. What you might not realize is that a large percentage of student tuition GOES TO OTHER UC STUDENTS in the form of financial aid. Are you collecting financial aid? If so->this aid is made possible by the high tuition fees the other students are paying.

    Yes, some of your tuition does go to the operating budget of the campus. However, the majority of the faculty above DO NOT RECEIVE A PENNY. The above are some of the HIGHEST ranking faculty at UC Davis-> members of the National Academy of Sciences, Chairs, Deans etc.. It is not surprising that they are making a high salary. I agree that nobody should make a ton of money in the UC system but here are the facts of the matter.

    In addition to state funding UC Davis is dependent upon federal support, which SOME UC Davis faculty apply for. Many, possibly most, of the above faculty apply for this funding. In an economy when federal paylines are often below 10% the top Universities need to attract the brightest minds to keep the federal money flowing in. Only top ranked scientists are able to successfully compete for federal funding. Some of the faculty above are the “best of the best,” and they support the Chancellor.

    Many of them bring in MILLIONS of dollars in research grants. Other universities would love to recruit away these professors because they would be able to collect the in direct costs from these grants. At UC Davis for every $100,000 an investigator brings in the University collects $54,000 in “in direct” costs. See link below.,pdf

    In addition to bringing in indirects a UC Davis investigator is expected to pay for his/her salary. When applying for a federal grant you budget in your salary. In other words, if I don’t have a grant I don’t get paid. The “in directs” that my grants bring in do NOT go to my salary. They go to UC Davis. Salary support is different.

    For Example-> my salary above is listed at $46,683.86. I bring in MILLIONS into the system.

    One day my salary will be higher but my salary will always be just a small fraction of the amount I have brought into the system (patient fees, grant support, donations, one day income from patents, etc…). People donate to UC Davis because they want to support the hospital, cancer research, etc… They donate because there are faculty here like the ones you are attacking.

    A researcher at UC Davis signs over ALL of his ideas to the university. The University owns all discoveries. They patent the research. When a patent is filed the UC Davis faculty member who made the discovery is listed as the INVENTOR but UC Davis is listed as the OWNER. This can have a major financial impact (Google is based off of an algorithm invented at Stanford).

    (continued on post below due to a word limit per post).

  7. The prestige of your university is based upon what is going on in terms of scientific discoveries, patents, awards, grants, etc... Look up UC Davis in Wikipedia. You will find the following

    "UC Davis is ranked as one of the top 10 public universities in the nation, and consistently ranks amongst the best universities in the world.[8][9][10] Additionally, Davis is considered to be one of America's Public Ivy universities, which recognizes top public research universities in the United States.[11][12] The university has several distinguished graduate programs ranked in the top 10 in their fields by the United States National Research Council; most notable are its programs in agricultural economics, entomology, evolutionary biology, plant biology, and ecology. Additionally, the NRC placed more than a third of UC Davis graduate programs in the top 25% of their respective fields.[13] UC Davis faculty includes 21 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 20 members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 14 members of the American Law Institute, and 9 members of the National Academy of Engineering. Among other honors, university faculty, alumni, and researchers have won the Nobel Peace Prize, Presidential Medal of Freedom, Pulitzer Prize, National Medal of Science, and Presidential Early Career Award in Science and Engineering.[14][15]"

    The above faculty are the ones that made this paragraph possible. The "snakes" as you refer to us. Look how many National Academy members are listed above. The salaries of the above faculty are directly related to their accomplishments and the amount of money they bring into the system-> NOT to how high your tuition is. I would love it if some of the money I bring in went to reducing your tuition.

    At the moment federal funding is at its lowest EVER, below 8% in many cases. The university needs federal funding to survive (as state funding is quickly becoming non existent). The salaries of the above faculty are only a fraction of the salaries that are paid by other universities including other UCs. On that note Chancelor Katehi is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and she gets paid much less than the other chancellors. I think she makes plenty but this is a fact.

    In addition to the researchers listed above some of the faculty are lawyers and physicians. Their salaries might seem very high but I assure you that they are making less in an “academic” setting than they would on the outside. Every year I help train physicians who leave the university for much higher paying salaries.

    Go ahead and campaign against the "snakes"-> maybe you will make enough fuss to get ride of everyone.

    Without these faulty lets see what the Wiki article would look like->

    "UC Davis is a public universities supported by state funds, which are quickly drying up. The University has no members of the National Academy of Sciences, no members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, no members of the American Law Institute, and no members of the National Academy of Engineering.”

    The above faculty have brought in the funding for at least 1/2 of the buildings on campus. They are the ones who help the undergraduates get into professional schools. They are the ones who have given the university its prestige and National Rank. They are the members of the National Academies.

    Why did you decide to come to UC Davis? If it was because of the prestige of the university then don’t attack the faculty that are giving your university its national rank. We are burning the midnight oil and have earned the right to voice our opinions.

    SETTING TUITION LEVELS is a decision that rests with the UC BOARD OF REGENTS. The Chancellor is not responsible for setting your tuition. The above UC Davis faculty have nothing to do with tuition. Most of us do not receive a PENNY of your tuition and I would be VERY HAPPY if you did not have to pay tuition.

    (continued on post below due to a word limit)

  8. Chancellor Katehi is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She has 19 patents. She is one of the faculty that make the Wikipedia paragraph possible. It would cost millions to replace her. What famous academician would want to fill her post. We have NEVER had someone with her accomplishments as a Chancellor. That is why so many top faculty are supporting her. Why top faculty want to work under someone who has never made a major academic or professional accomplishment. People like Chancellor Katehi are hard to find.

    I applaud your fire but you should redirect this energy into fighting the system that is working against your education-> not the faculty who are laying the foundation for your university.

    I am sorry your tuition is being raised. If you wrote a intelligent letter of protest to the UC Regents or the Governor I would be happy to sign that letter as well.

  9. Sorry for the many typos. The following sentence was incorrect
    "The above faculty have brought in the funding for at least 1/2 of the buildings on campus."

    It should have read

    "Faculty like the ones above have brought in the funding for at least 1/2 of the buildings on campus." That is because the in directs on grants can be used for buildings etc...

    Also I should have said
    "Why would top faculty want to work under someone who has never made a major academic or professional accomplishment. "

    If we get ride of Katehi I am confident that we would not be able to attract someone descent to fill her post. Why would someone good want to walk into this mess. Nobody good has ever wanted her post to begin with.

  10. Also, a large number of graduate students in the sciences receive a full tuition "scholarship" and a $24,000 living allowance _paid for by faculty grants_. This is only possible because of, "We few, we happy few, we band of snakes."

  11. SNAKE?

    Actually graduate students in the immunology graduate group get paid $26,000/year including the first two years when they are taking classes.

    Tuition + stipend + health = $42,000.

    Out of state applicants-> ouch!

    We pay for everything!!

    We PAY 100% of the graduate students' tuition.

  12. Kick us all out and their would be no graduate programs. UC Davis would be equivalent of a state university with the possible exception of the humanities.

  13. Disband UCPD-> How about just fire the fat pepper spraying cop and the police chief and educate everyone else. If you disband the police force what would we do if the campus has a real emergency.

    I wonder if the Va Tech students would agree with you.

  14. this is directed at the first, long set of misinformed statements above, about how scientists bring in buckets of money. everything else you say is based on that premise. and that premise? it's false:

    Research universities like UC typically win grants from several sources: foundations, corporations, and state and federal agencies. Assistant professors and Nobel laureates alike use the money on projects the nation depends on, such as making cars and factories more efficient; developing cancer treatments; and learning why some counterinsurgency strategies haven't worked.

    When campuses apply for those grants, they also negotiate for extra money to pay for infrastructure to support the research - from utility bills and lab equipment to library staff and building maintenance. In university-speak, these are "indirect costs."

    UC wins about $3.5 billion per year in research grants, of which $780 million is for indirect costs.

    It's not nearly enough, Croughan reported. Research support actually costs $1.5 billion per year, or $720 million more than UC recovers.

    "We're losing about 20 cents on the dollar," Croughan told the commission. "Harvard complains about losing 5 cents on the dollar. I would argue we've not been aggressive enough."

    (more here)


  15. It is not FALSE. If you go to the swap meet and you ask a vendor "how much for that wallet?"-> the guy will say 50 dollars-> then you say I will give you 5 dollars. Then he says OK I will sell it to you for 15 dollars but I'm going to lose money on this deal. Do you think he really lost any money? There is no way he would sell you that wallet if he was not making a profit.

    It is the SAME way in all negotiations with the federal governmnet. The university says it needs 70% in indirect costs the federal government says you can only have 54.5% then we say OK but we are going to lose money on this deal.

    I know of institutes that survive off of 17% indirects.

    Dude our department has profits of over a million a year but since we are a "not-for-profit" institute there is no such thing as "profits". "Profits" are not called "profits" in the UC system but in actuality the university is willing to give a very successful scientist over a million dollars in start-up costs to attract them here because they will eventually be able to "make" so much more off of his research in the long run.

    The truth of the matter is that we are not as good as Harvard or MIT at playing this game. That is why they are able to have higher in directs than we do.

    This same number game goes on with the training of our physicians as well. Residents work their butt off but the hospital says they lose money havng a resident. (I know for a fact that we make a ton off of each of our residents). They charge medicare $$$$ to train their residents. Then they bill medicare for everything the resident does because they have an attending physician sign off on all of the work.

    In terms of general reimbursements. Medicare pays us only around 30% of what we say we need to do a procedure. Are we loosing 70% when grandpa walks through our clinic doors. I don't think so.

    Dude it is how the system works. You can believe what you want but the fact of the matter is this-> If we asked the federal government to give us 54.5% in overhead they would say-> we will give you 30%. It is like negotiating with a swap meet vendor.

    If we did not "make" money off of a successful scientist then we would not pay in some cases millions to bring them here.

    Hopefully you are not a business or economics major.

  16. My original post is the long one- a few above.

    I agree with the poster directly above me-> my post is not false but the university is not making money hands over fist off of its researchers. I think they make a good deal off of me but sometimes the costs are very close to expenditures. Yes, the UCDMC health system makes a little money every year but many university hospitals lose money each year and have to rely upon donations. I am sure shriners loses money each year and stays afloat with donations. So the margin for error to "stay in the black" is pretty small. The university does have to the pay the faculty who can generate a lot of "revenue" well but the margins are not huge. I know they have to pay them well because each year Stanford recruits away the successful UC faculty. Larger UCs will even snatch up faculty from smaller UCs.

    Each year the UCDMC comes out on "top" but many university health systems do not.

    But the ultimate question is "what does a student's tuition get used for?"
    There is not a CLEAR outline anywhere as to where exactly a student's tuition goes. At UC Davis there is mention of "tuition backed positions." It would be nice to get a list of these positions and how much tuition money goes to each.

  17. @anonymous 3:07 pm: "dude" you can make up whatever hypothetical scenario you want or change the topic to medicare for some reason but the fact of the matter is the UC loses money on external funding. show me some actual evidence and i might listen to you.

    @anonymous 4:59 pm: not only does the university not make money hands over fist off of its researchers, it actually loses money. i'm still the only one here who's presented any evidence here.

    as for where student tuition goes, well that's an interesting question. it goes a lot of places. but one of the big things it goes toward is collateral for large-scale construction projects and pumping up the university's bond ratings. that's classic meister.

  18. "OPPS STILL WRONG" I'm the long post above.

    Everything is opaque so it is impossible to show you the numbers for the entire science community but here is what I can say.

    1) The scientists fund their graduate schools-> they pay tuition, fees, living expenses, etc.. for their graduate students. There is the occasional graduate student who gets stuck TAing for their salary but the vast majority are taken care of with FULL stipends and tuition.

    2) I will happily show you my numbers. I can't show you the numbers for the other faculty because I don't have that information but I can show you MY contract and my numbers: documents with the amounts that I bring into the system and what my expenses are. You can look at my contract and my numbers and then if you still feel that we don't bring in money that is up to you. I am 100% positive that I am holding my own, 100% positive.

    You also have to understand that university RANK is dependent on how many grants are in the system, how many famous professors are here, etc.. So if the research departments get donations that goes back to the sciences. I also have a partial record of how much money in donations I have personally brought in. I would consider donations as part of the researchers worth to the system. Especially if they are made from people they have inspired. Of course donations to the Mondavi center or some general fund should not be thought of as targeted for research. The nursing school received a $100 million dollar donation.

    A pulitzer prize winner or best selling author would of course also raise the prestige of the university. I don't know anything about our English department but perhaps there are a few gems there. However, I don't English professors need to sign over everything they do to the UC Regents. Perhaps I am wrong but I thought only scientists have to sign over their brains to the system. If an English professor writes a novel, does it belong to the UC Regents?

    Even if I wake up in the middle of the night and work for a few hours on something it will belong to UC Davis. Our contract is such that we have to report all income to the University. If I want to "moon light" somewhere I can negotiate maybe 20 days or so a year to work outside of the system. Otherwise I can work extra but the money has to go to UC Davis not directly to me.

  19. (continued from above)

    I know UC Berkeley will subsidize some departments because of the prestige of the faculty in that department (I think their Economics Department is a sink for funds because they don't want to lose their "famous" faculty).

    I also recognize that tuition is used to back construction bonds but this is entirely opaque as well. THE MAIN QUESTION IS- Does tuition go to paying off the bonds. It is uncertain how much if any goes to paying off the bonds. As far as I can tell these numbers are not available or are too hard to unravel.

    When things are going badly and the economy is down it is easy to think that you are getting the short end of the stick and others have it much easier. However, the reality is that nobody (except for maybe a FEW administrators) are getting a fair deal. It is easy to look at someones salary and think that it is unfair, that they are making too much but in this opaque system you really do not know the worth of that person, how much they are personally responsible for bringing into the system.

    You know the big administrators were asking that their retirement be set at their total income and not their base salary. Katehi fought them off but then one found a new job paying double (why someone would want to pay someone that much money I have no freaking idea) and this employee threatened to leave. Katehi ended up approving a huge raise but as far as I know she did not change the retirement. It is a hard decision because the downtime needed to look for a new employee and the cost associated with search and start-up funds can be astronomical. We lost our MBA department manager and had to hire two managers to replace him. So now we are paying more than before.

    I also hate the high salaries that some administrators are making but if you figure that the head of the American Red Cross makes around 1 million a year, Katehi is a deal at $384,000. She is only ranked 58th among UC Davis salaries and she is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. Compared to other Chancellors from "top" universities her salary is very low. Why get rid of someone when we will have to pay her replacement more. It will be impossible to find a National Academy Member to take over this post.

    She has endured people making fun of her accent, comparing her to hitler, the humiliating walk of shame, ect... NOBODY will want to fill these shoes. We will recruit some idiot to replace her.

    She does not set student tuition. She is not a member of the UC Regents. She did not tell the police to pepper spray anyone. She asked for the tents to be removed but only if it could be done peacefully. It is not her fault that the police don't have to answer to her. It is not her fault that policies changed after the Virginia Tech Massacre.

    We can complain all we want but in the end this utopian university that some are striving for cannot exist in the UC System as it is today. We have to first work together for more transparency so we can identify where the injustices are.

    There are lots of people complaining that they want to make more money but they should also try to bring more money into the system.

  20. @anonymous 1:18 pm: as i said above, even if you could show me "your numbers," and even if you personally were coming in net positive, it doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand -- namely, is it net positive for the university at large. the answer is no. on average, the research of individual professors (yes, such as yourself) ends up costing the university more than they (you) bring in. to the tune of about $720 million per year. again, i'm still the only one providing any evidence.

    i've already posted a couple links, but i suggest you also read chris newfield on the issue:

    Extramurally funded research has sometimes been described as "revenue generating". In fact, the leaders of our research unit have argued to higher administrators that we should not suffer further budget cuts because we provide a large amount of indirect cost recovery (ICR) to UC (so far this argument has not been successful). Does extramurally funded research actually pay for itself? My guess is that the answer depends on how costs are counted and what is considered to be a payoff. It turns out that our research unit currently generates more ICR for UC per year than we receive from UC in core funding per year, so by that limited measure extramurally funded research does come out positive. But does it pay for itself when ALL costs are considered, such as building construction and maintenance, libraries, staff to do the contracts and grants paperwork, etc.? That seems less likely.

    Even if extramurally funded research were a net financial positive for UC, I doubt that it could be a long-term benefit to the general budget. Faculty who bring in considerable outside funding do not do so to subsidize the rest of the system -- if they are squeezed too much, they will leave for another institution that provides more resources. Moreover, it seems that those faculty members who are effective at getting more funding from sources outside UC also happen to be quite effective at getting more discretionary funding from within UC. For this reason, I think the question of whether extramurally funded research is a net positive or negative is immaterial -- any positive can never be of general benefit, except in the short term. What really matters is whether the research is worth the cost to UC in the long term.

    everything you say about katehi is basically wrong, but i don't think we're going to be able to have a productive conversation about it. i recommend your start learning more about who these people (i.e. UC administrators including katehi, birgeneau, and others, as well as the regents) actually are, and more generally about what privatization looks like and how it comes about. if you're interested in that i will be happy to recommend some links.

  21. Your links above are opinion pieces without any real data. These are not published peer reviewed studies. This is not research.

    In fact, they even state "Yet it has also been unclear how UC has spent that money, said the advisory group, which called on UC to increase transparency by directing those dollars straight to campuses instead of through the UC president's office." In other words they author does not even know where the money is going.

    In the other opinion piece he clearly states, " My guess is that the answer depends on how costs are counted and what is considered to be a payoff. "

    None of what you are writing is EVIDENCE based. These are not published reports. There is no transparency on how these calculations were done.

    This is NOT research that you are doing. The fact is THAT THERE ARE NO NUMBERS OUT THERE for us to look at. The only numbers I have are for myself and my department, which look very good. You are welcome to see these.

    Everything else is entirely speculation. You are quoting a post from Chris Newfield who is an ENGLISH professor. What numbers does he have access to? He even uses the word "my guess."

    Again this gets to my point. When times are tough everyone thinks that the system is working against them. That other people have it easier. These are all biased opinions.

    If you site back and listen to yourself what you are saying is that brining money into the university, which is used to HIRE postdoctoral fellows, pay graduate students, pay for faculty salaries, and generates money through inspired donations and patents is somehow making the system lose money. Again, we DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHERE THE INDIRECTS GO. Every researcher also teaches and serves on committees. The research that is done inspires people to give millions of dollars to the university every year.

    UC davis is now at 700 million dollars a year in research grant support. Think about how many jobs are created with this money. The truth of the matter is that many nonprofits research institutes WITHOUT state funds survive off of purely research dollars and donations. California has dozens of these institutes. Florida even offered 50million to each nonprofit research institute that agreed to move operations to their state. This is because the money supports jobs. UCSD even gave out free land for research non-profits to move on campus because of the indirect benefits that the university would receive by having them around. LIAI is on campus at UCSD. This is an example of a thriving research institute existing within a UC without receiving any state funds.

  22. oops still wrong not getting less wrongDecember 11, 2011 at 11:11 PM

    you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. at this point, i don't believe you're a scientist. your only arguments are 1) that chris newfield is an english professor and 2) he uses the word "guess," and those aren't actually arguments.

    in fact newfield has published several books on the topic of the privatization of public ed, but more importantly isn't just making shit up -- he's reading official UC reports to get his data, one of which i linked to above. contrary to your assertions, this report does in fact have some ICR data on UC davis.

    it's funny how you claim my evidence is bad when it's you who's making shit up with nothing to support it, eh "doc"?

  23. The argument tying salaries to signing this letter is illogical. A lot of untenured people - who make less money - simply stay out of such political debates. When you look up the people who signed this letter, they are almost all tenured people and therefore make more money. The untenured are unlikely to sign such things for fear of reprise by colleagues in their own dept who, like you, seem to assume bad things about people based on extraneous factors (like salary).


    Written By: Lana K. Lilla Christian

    I recently had a guest reveal to me how she looked in through my curtains into my apartment, and noticed that I was asleep. Making it known how I thought that it was rude, and that an open window doesn’t give rights to pri into the privacy of my home - I asked her to leave. As easy as it is to forgive and forget, the stand needed to be made regardless of her stand on how it isn’t wrong to do as she had done. The point is this: The mental intrusion and abuse that has swept through our country, and the world requires the same stance of defense in order to declare our rights as human beings. The sad reality is that it isn’t easy to do if possible at all should those at the helm of this terrorism be set against anyone.
    Should a person have something of value, worth, or leverage that is usable to these forces then simply walking away will not be an option. Also, even if you managed to redeem some silence in peace of mind the knowledge that they can come and go at will is difficult to endure. What do we do with these neighborly intruders of our personal selves? I’ve tried pollution, had the rides all break down, and even had a hippie sit in to no avail. Witt and charm are not the answers, and neither is playing dumb overly well. It all works in their game because the game is each our own. This is why it is so hard, and nearly impossible to get any outside help or resolve. Laws will keep jurisdiction a factor and a hindrance. Please keep in mind that there are resources available to everyone, and that it possible to find reasons that even the law can’t argue. The problem is finding that attorney willing to argue just as well as yourself for your right to your life. Several years back, this is how terrorists decided to 

    take over (down) America. Over time we came to know them as, yet, another Middle Eastern group of ‘sexist sand niggers’ with an agenda only to hate enough for us to stick our nose in their window. I don’t recall the peace talks between us and them, but I can say with confidence they are just a distraction… a swordfish. As micro and macro goes in the measure of it all to none else I experience the truth of this every day. How the mental jibber jabber clouds the happenings of the work at hands of others. These others may not be aware of the hold on them, and then again… It is the weaknesses of all humans that is prey, and magnified to such an intense degree that it becomes an obsession. The fact that some people in the heartland of America sold out, and the results are seen every day is enough, but imagine knowing the heart of it in that we all stand alone unless America wakes up to the abuse, and begins to listen. This requires two chairs and eye to eye engaged in actual conversation with willingness to fathom. Remember, you are not alone… someone is listening.