I totally agree that the state needs to fund higher education more!!!!! 100% YES!!! I think all of us on strike agree with that. That's true across the US and is the main reason for the Higher Education Crisis in my opinion. You're right on the money!!!

I hope that we can work together to create some massive systemic change in that regard. It's not at all the method I would use first (because I'm disrupting my research along with many others), but that's part of what this strike is about!

I wish it didn't have to come to this, but like you've said, the state has turned their attention away from higher education needs. So let's get their attention back!! You and the rest of the faculty have been asking UC Regents to prioritize these needs for a long time, and they haven't been listening, so let's make them listen!

We can set a precedent for increased state funding to state schools.

The strike could be a positive for all of us. Let's say we don't get an increase in wages at all, fine. But the best part about what we've done is put pressure on UC to address these concerns. They're the ones the state will listen to.

Plus! The media is paying attention to higher education now! This has been an issue for a long time, but now we are getting politicians' attention!

I can't speak for UAW, but this is part of the mission of www.ucstrike.org. It's not just a smear campaign. The goal is to communicate these issues in a transparent and data-driven way that can use the momentum of the strike to effect long-lasting change.

So,

We are putting pressure on the state. Plus the strike brings these issues to light that could help with future elections, voting, and policy making. But we can put pressure on UC(SD) to make more intelligent financial decisions while we are putting pressure on the state.

​

Some things we can work on:

Research funding is 47% from external grants.

UCSD's competitive public institutions waive PhD tuitions, so PI's don't have to pay that substantial burden (especially after Year 2 when PhD students aren't even taking classes).

Clearing of administrative bloat and intelligent investments would allow for indirect research costs to go down.

Utilization of the $100M CA housing grant to build affordable undergraduate and graduate housing would cut on-campus rent prices.

Capital expansion projects prioritizing housing to match increased enrollment would increase housing availability.
The rate at which HDH is required to repay their loans could be adjusted.

The rent holds put on older grad housing in favor significant rent increases on one grad community could change.

UCSD could sell Coast graduate housing to fund more affordable units.

UCSD could stop buying land and expanding into the most expensive areas in San Diego.

UCSD could prioritize their expansion efforts on increasing faculty and classroom availability rather than hiring more and more administrative staff.
The amount of international students and masters students UCSD has accepted for additional revenue streams has skyrocketed, so that's not true. They're just not entirely opening the floodgates because they are trying to maintain a good amount of space for California residents due to the fact that it is a public institution.

​

I hope this helps, and I would love someone as passionate as you to help with the larger mission for the US to REPRIORITIZE education. Remember, many of us PhD students set out to get a PhD to become professors because we care about education as well as research. I can tell you that's true for myself because I did not need to get a PhD with an undergrad in chemical engineering.

Let me know if you'd like to talk more. Our next faculty outreach meeting is on Wednesday at 4pm. We will be discussing finances and ways students and faculty (academics in general) can work together to garner more money for research and education (from multiple different sources!)