The story of fiscal 2025-26, the year that ended last June 30th, was one of underestimating state revenues, as the latest report from the state controller illustrates.*
On the other hand, disbursements were more or less accurately forecast when the state budget for 2025-26 was enacted and overestimated at the time of the May revise.
The state still has a significant reserve of cash in various accounts, so the prospect of the state handing out IOUs anytime soon, as in the Great Recession, is nil. All of this can be seen on the table below:
We don't yet have the budgetary summary numbers from the Dept. of Finance for the current year 2026-27. Xavier Becerra, the de facto incoming governor (since California no longer elects statewide Republicans) will spend his first 6 months under the Newsom-enacted budget. The budget he will present in January 2027 for 2027-28 will largely have been put together by the Newsom team, given the pressures of timing. So, if he has very different priorities from Newsom with regard to UC - and there is no indication that he has - that would be a surprise. Surprises, if they occur for UC, are more likely to occur from changes in economic activity and the stock market than from political turnover in Sacramento.
From the Philadelphia Inquirer: Temple University approved a $1.3 billion operating budget... that includes an average 3.4% tuition hike for both in-state and out-of-state students and plans for about 40 employee layoffs. Both the average tuition increase — which is for undergraduate and graduate students — and number of layoffs are smaller than those last year. The university raised tuition an average of 3.6% in 2025 and laid off 50 employees.
The layoffs constitute less than 1% of the university’s workforce. Temple officials did not elaborate on who was affected or which positions but said positions across the university from senior levels to the operational ranks were considered. An effort was made to limit the impact on “student-facing” roles, said chief strategy officer and former interim provost David Boardman.
...More than 80% of the positions cut this year came through voluntary retirements, including a faculty program that netted more than 70 takers, as well as resignations and the elimination of vacant positions. The rest were the layoffs... The university’s 27% decline in domestic enrollment since 2017 and increased financial aid costs have been the most significant factors causing the school’s budget pressures... The loss of students has amounted to an average of more than $200 million in lost revenue annually, according to an internal Temple report obtained by The Inquirer in April...
An ASUCLA-operated digital textbook system will be more costly in the fall, although it likely will remain a money-saving option, given the cost of regular textbooks. From the Daily Bruin:
UCLA is raising the quarterly fee for its digital textbook program, which students said could deter them from using the service.
The quarterly fee for Bruin One Access will increase from $129 to $149 starting next fall, an ASUCLA spokesperson said in an emailed statement. The program provides students with a lower-cost alternative to purchasing individual textbooks and offers access to quizzes and course platforms through a flat-rate fee charged on students’ BruinBill accounts.
...Students are automatically enrolled in the program each quarter but can opt to drop the service...
Here are the current rules on Incomplete (I) grades:
Incomplete (I) Grade Removal
An instructor may assign the I grade when work is of passing quality but is incomplete for a good cause (such as illness or other serious problem). Once an Incomplete (I) grade is assigned, it remains on the transcript until it is resolved or lapsed, after which the resulting grade is displayed on the transcript.
For Undergraduate students, if the work is not completed by the end of the next full term in residence, the I grade lapses to an F, NP, or U as appropriate. The College or school may extend the completion deadline in unusual cases. Graduate students should complete the work in accordance with the timeline established with their instructor, which may be no later than the first day of the corresponding term of the next academic year.
Active Duty Military Incomplete
Enrolled UCLA students may request an incomplete grade if they meet these three conditions
Are members of the U.S. Armed Forces or National Guard
Are called to active duty, state training, or state service
Are using an education benefit administered by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), also known as a chapter benefit
These students may also request an extension of the completion deadline until they resume attendance at UCLA.
Presumably, any change in grading policy would have to be approved by the Academic Senate. It is unclear if any official request to the Senate has been made and, if so, whether the Senate is actively considering the request.
From the Brown Daily Herald: The Generative AI in Teaching and Learning Committee report found asymmetric patterns of generative AI use across campus... According to the report — shared with the community Provost Francis Doyle — 56% of undergraduate respondents and 67% of graduate and medical student respondents reported intentionally using generative AI tools daily or weekly. The committee noted they found a disconnect between the ways students and faculty use generative AI. They found that while a majority of students who responded to their survey use generative AI to learn new concepts, only a quarter of faculty respondents said they asked their students to use generative AI as a tool for their coursework. When they did so, it was often to have students think critically about AI or use it as a learning assistant...
An audit of roughly 3,000 syllabi from academic years 2023-24 and 2024-25 found that more than half did not include a policy on generative AI usage in teaching and learning... The report noted that over 70% of student survey respondents in the life sciences and physical sciences identified as frequent generative AI users, while only 41% of humanities and the arts students identified as frequent users. Despite differences in AI adoption, students and faculty alike share concerns that over-reliance on generative AI could “reduce long-term critical thinking, have negative cognitive consequences and undermine academic integrity,” Doyle added.
...For the near-term phase of the roadmap, the committee recommended that the University set baseline rules for generative AI while each department develops “standards for their areas when their expectations diverge from the baseline rules.” The recommendations also call for providing “centralized, enterprise-level GenAI tools” through the Office of Information Technology. In the next phase, the committee recommends updating the College and Graduate School academic codes to “explicitly address boundaries of AI assistance” as well as providing training to develop AI literacy among University staff.
...The final phase recommends exploring the development of a coalition of peer institutions to set national standards for AI usage in higher education...
It appears that UCLA has taken an official stance against the proposed new federal grant guidelines. From the Daily Bruin: (excerpt)
“UCLA strongly opposes the Proposed Rule,” [a UCLA] spokesperson said in [a] statement.
“The proposed rule would make federal research funding less predictable, increase agency and recipient burden, weaken the research enterprise, and ultimately diminish the public benefits that federally supported research delivers.”
There seems to be confusion in news accounts - as blog readers will know from past postings - over whether the decision regarding the SAT is moving faster or slower than before. The chair of the systemwide Senate issued two statements regarding the SAT issue.
What seems to be the bottom line is that a more detailed timeline will be released after the Academic Council meets on July 22nd. How long after the 22nd there will be a release is unclear.
Statement #1:
Statement from UC Academic Senate on admissions review
UC Office of the President, July 13, 2026
After published reports emerged today (July 13) that the University of California’s Academic Senate voted on July 10 to rescind its review of standardized testing admissions, Ahmet Palazoglu, the University of California’s Academic Senate Chair, issued the following statement:
“The Academic Senate is not rescinding its commitment to a comprehensive review of standardized testing in admissions. Recognizing the significance of this issue, the Academic Senate is revising its timeline while ensuring the forthcoming review is thorough, evidence-based and informed by faculty expertise.”
Statement from UC Academic Senate Chair Ahmet Palazoglu on review of UC admissions
UC Office of the President, July 14, 2026
“The Academic Senate’s comprehensive review of the University’s undergraduate admissions policies will align with the Board of Regents’ timeline to deliver a policy recommendation on the use of standardized tests in admissions by the end of the 2026–27 academic year (June 2027 for our campuses based on the quarter system). The separate review of UC’s A-G framework is not tied to the same timeline. A new plan from the Academic Senate will be available after the Academic Council meeting on July 22, 2026. The goal of this A-G policy review is to consider how UC defines and evaluates college readiness in a rapidly changing educational environment.”
Perhaps more significant than the statements above is the statement of the new Regents Chair, Maria Anguiano. She essentially declared the old Master Plan dead. And then she proposed, without explicitly saying so, that the Regents spend the next year coming up with a substitute, although she did not mention the other two components of higher ed in California: CSU and the community colleges. Nor did she mention the state legislature which has been doing ad hoc tinkering with the old Master Plan, as blog readers will know. The SAT decision is to be but one element in the year-long review she announced.
Although her statement was a personal one, it's hard to imagine she didn't discuss what she was going to say with President Milliken and other Regents. An excerpt from her statement is below:
