While debate about the UC tuition hike is welcome, a recent op-ed on the subject, “Looking into the UC tuition hike,” is riddled with distortions and bad arithmetic.

First, neither I nor former chancellor Robert Birgeneau ever claimed that low-income students “need” a tuition increase. We did, however, state an incontestable fact: Students from families earning less than $80,000 will continue to have their tuition fully covered by financial aid.

Second, the claim that growing executive compensation is responsible for the tuition increase is simply false. Here is the reality at UC Berkeley: The costs associated with senior campus managers has steadily declined, from 1.25 percent of the total budget to 0.74 percent — a 40 percent gain in efficiency. Even if we fired everyone above the level of associate vice chancellor, the resulting $263 per student in annual savings would hardly make up for the $7,955 per student decline in state financing.

Third, like every institution, we operate in a defined labor market; to remain excellent we need to compete for the top talent, and that includes offering competitive pay packages. In fact, we pay our executives far less than market rates; if you look at the top-12 U.S. research universities — nine privates and three UCs— the UC chancellors make on average less than 40 percent of what their peers at private institutions do.

So, let’s leave the red herrings in the fish market, rely on evidence rather than anecdotes to substantiate our arguments and work together to preserve our excellence and access.

Sincerely,

Nils Gilman

Associate chancellor

UC Berkeley

Contact the opinion desk at [email protected] or follow us on Twitter: @dailycalopinion.