LAO (As Usual) Says Legislature Should Control UC

This is the season in which - after the governor presented his budget proposal for 2020-21 - the legislature begins to hold hearings on various aspects of the proposal. Part of that process is the production of detailed analyses by the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO).

Over the years, the LAO has pushed a general theme that the legislature should control what UC does in terms of tuition, enrollment, resident vs. nonresident students, etc. It does not put much weight on the constitutional autonomy of the Regents. (It tends to view CSU and UC as much the same, although CSU does not have constitutional authority.) It tends to criticize the governor for proposing budgetary allocations to UC without sufficient setting of goals. And it argues that UC admissions of resident students exceed the target of the top 12.5% of California students as embedded in the old Master Plan. (The notion of what 12.5% means in practice is inherently fuzzy unless you adopt some kind of SAT+GPA formula.)

In any event, the latest LAO critique of the governor's January budget proposal for UC follows the past pattern. You can read it at:
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2020/4168/higher-ed-analysis-022020.pdf

Note: The LAO also analyzes the governor's proposal for medical education at UC-Riverside and the proposed Fresno campus of UC-San Francisco. It follows the general theme above, i.e., that the legislature should exercise detailed control of enrollment, etc. See:
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2020/4166/medical-education-022020.pdf