But if Wasserstrom was expecting widespread support for his position, he's batting about .500 based on comments left to the online version of the story. About half reacted with words such as, "This commentary is right on target" or "Terrific practical explanation of what is happening in California."
An equal number labeled the piece "self-serving."
"What national interest is harmed whether the professor is at a UC school or at Princeton or another school," wrote one reader. "All the UC poaching of other schools' people has done is increase costs for many schools to retain the faculty they helped develop and supported for many years as they built their name and CV. Time for the worm to turn and maybe some who were stolen away with the promises of more money and lighter teaching loads will return to the schools that helped make them. Seems like karma to me."
"In these days of financial distress perhaps we need to look at overlap and how many students are being served," writes another. "Does the UC really need that many China scholars? Perhaps regionalized schools with specialties would serve the nation better than having each university duplicate what every other university does."
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Some readers who otherwise agreed with Wasserstrom maintained that the financial pain must be spread out evenly among the UC, Cal State and community college systems.
There was also a share of others who found the "self-serving" label troubling, saying the author ultimately addressed what must be at the center of this funding debate: how to best serve students.