UC-XI
HT to anonymous in the previous thread for linking to DE's op-ed in today's LA Times.
The short version is that California ranks 49th among states whose high school graduates go on to college, and that a fully-fledged cyber-UC campus (read: low overhead --> low tuition) might be a way to track kids toward higher education, "not just in Barstow but in Bangor and Beijing."
As a threshold observation, this certainly is an expression of our Dean's consistent, positive, progressive attitude, and an example of the kind of thinking and energy I admire. DE cares.
I do have some questions, though. First, what do Bangor and Beijing have to do with California's high school to college matriculation rate? Second, what's wrong with the community colleges we already have? Are they full? If not, then why? The kids who chose to avoid community college seem likely to avoid an online education, too. But I could be wrong about that.
Third, and more important, a big part of the problem is that California's educated population is shrinking, and nothing is being done to stop the bleeding. Meanwhile, other segments of the population are on the rise. This is a touchy subject, but put it this way: although the number of people in California continues to increase, the resident number of native-born California residents is declining. Why? They're going to Nevada, to Oregon, to Arizona, because they don't want to be here anymore. Would UC-XI help? My sense is that they could just as easily leave with an online degree as without.
That's the cynical take. There are others. Yesterday I logged on to the Department of Education's website and checked my total outstanding student loan balance. Some of those loans are a product of choices I have made. But most of it comes from the painful, expensive reality of a UC education. It's true that I'm willing to borrow against my future worth (which I suppose is a form of betting on myself -- how narcissistic), but maybe that shouldn't be what a high caliber education costs. Maybe the state should bear that risk, instead? If it wants to encourage more people to learn, maybe it could reduce the incredible financial burden an education incurs? I suppose UC-XI is way of doing just that.
Oh but wait, there is prop 13. And voter referendums. And the ridiculous priorities of the good folks up in Sacramento.
Okay, I'm rambling and I'll stop, but no wonder people see greener pastures on the other side of the Sierras. I can tell you first hand that it's actually pretty nice out there.
The short version is that California ranks 49th among states whose high school graduates go on to college, and that a fully-fledged cyber-UC campus (read: low overhead --> low tuition) might be a way to track kids toward higher education, "not just in Barstow but in Bangor and Beijing."
As a threshold observation, this certainly is an expression of our Dean's consistent, positive, progressive attitude, and an example of the kind of thinking and energy I admire. DE cares.
I do have some questions, though. First, what do Bangor and Beijing have to do with California's high school to college matriculation rate? Second, what's wrong with the community colleges we already have? Are they full? If not, then why? The kids who chose to avoid community college seem likely to avoid an online education, too. But I could be wrong about that.
Third, and more important, a big part of the problem is that California's educated population is shrinking, and nothing is being done to stop the bleeding. Meanwhile, other segments of the population are on the rise. This is a touchy subject, but put it this way: although the number of people in California continues to increase, the resident number of native-born California residents is declining. Why? They're going to Nevada, to Oregon, to Arizona, because they don't want to be here anymore. Would UC-XI help? My sense is that they could just as easily leave with an online degree as without.
That's the cynical take. There are others. Yesterday I logged on to the Department of Education's website and checked my total outstanding student loan balance. Some of those loans are a product of choices I have made. But most of it comes from the painful, expensive reality of a UC education. It's true that I'm willing to borrow against my future worth (which I suppose is a form of betting on myself -- how narcissistic), but maybe that shouldn't be what a high caliber education costs. Maybe the state should bear that risk, instead? If it wants to encourage more people to learn, maybe it could reduce the incredible financial burden an education incurs? I suppose UC-XI is way of doing just that.
Oh but wait, there is prop 13. And voter referendums. And the ridiculous priorities of the good folks up in Sacramento.
Okay, I'm rambling and I'll stop, but no wonder people see greener pastures on the other side of the Sierras. I can tell you first hand that it's actually pretty nice out there.
Labels: DE
posted by Patrick Bageant at 9:45 AM
15 Comments:
What about a thread on berring's email about construction, specifically turning the East Reading Room into two 32-person classrooms?! Isn't that where the only meeting rooms for group studying were - granted they were windowless closets but what replaces them - ? Doesn't this mean less space for studying during finals?
Thank you for mentioning Prop 13. If Prop 13 isn't repealed or significantly changed in the next five or so years, the exodus among young, educated professionals who are tired of paying 4x (or more!) the property taxes of their next door neighbors is going to include my husband and me.
UC XI strikes me as a terrible idea. UC competing with University of Phoenix? Would cheapen the UC degree for everyone. I don't care how good facebook and video conferencing are, online learning is no substitute for a real classroom. The regents would use it as a cash cow - pimping out the UC name for ridiculously high tuition (though lower than U of Phoenix), for a crappy education. And then they'd be able to point to all the students they've served as they shortchange the actual UC students.
Speaking of the UC system and "the good folks up in Sacramento," has this been on anyone's radar?
There still aren't any committee reports up on Leginfo about this new bill, but it will pretty clearly take control of the UC system away from the Regents and into the hands of the legislature. That could pretty much ruin the good UC name, I fear.
"The kids who chose to avoid community college seem likely to avoid an online education, too. But I could be wrong about that."
I think you may be wrong. Or right about being wrong. Or something.
Community college, despite requiring less of a time commitment than most traditional universities, still requires that the student be able to attend classes at 10am and 2pm. It's hard to keep a decently paying job and work those hours. And if you're trying to help mom pay the mortgage, or help dad feed your younger siblings, you're not going to be willing to give up your 9-6 job just to get an associates or bachelors. Even if that degree would eventually increase their earning power, it's hard for a lot of people to swallow the significant loss of income over 2 or 4 years.
That's just one example. Waiters and bartenders usually can't commit to a steady class schedule; many young mothers who aren't able to afford childcare can't leave the house for multiple classes a week... the list can go on and on.
Anyways, I think online education programs may very well attract many more students that community colleges. So long as (as 12:16 has hinted at) the UC-XI far exceeds the quality of current precedents in online education.
4:04: that sounds more like an endorsement of why the community college system should take on the challenge - not the UC's. Make it a collaboration between UCs and CSUs even. What differentiates UCs (besides cost) is prestige and ability to grant doctoral degrees. This type of program appears much more appropriate for the other two branches of the CA Higher Ed Master Plan.
TJ: Yeah, I don't know that I was making an argument for UC taking it on, so much as an argument that it would be better attended than community colleges.
However, I think one could make an argument that quite a few of these folks, otherwise too busy supporting their family to go to college, may still be bright enough to get into a school like Berkeley or UCLA. If the UC system can offer a comparative education online to their in-class programs, and attract qualify students, why shouldn't they?
In other words: why does online education have to only be less "prestigious"?
I say instead of reworking the system we just set our bar a little higher. Better than Louisiana this year, Alabama the next, eventually Arkansas. It won't help us get better but at least we won't slip quite as far.
The Shark's talking about law schools and firms discussing moving OCI to the Spring.
TJ, you consistently annoy the heck out of me on here. UC is about prestige (and graduate degrees) and thus the community colleges and CSUs should take on the task of making higher education more accessible to Californians? What an asinine thing to say. We're a public school system, and as such UC should be all about reaching out to as many people as possible without sacrificing quality. An online UC school would certainly involve lots of difficult questions about how to provide a quality education in an online format, but community colleges and the CSUs would face those exact same issues. And, perhaps because of UC's stature relative to the the CCs and CSU system, UC is better able to face those issues.
Berkeley and the UCs are public schools. There are lots of reasons to question an online UC campus, but questioning Edley's suggestion based on any notion of maintaining UC's exclusivity is horribly misguided.
Wow, that's like saying milk is black and any argument to the contrary is "asinine."
UC system IS exclusive. Throwing around "public school" a few times in a comment doesn't negate that fact. We have fewer campuses and fewer students than the CSUs. We have higher admission standards. We have higher fees. We have law schools and med schools. We have doctoral graduate programs that are, in every sense, elite and exclusive. That's not by accident, that's by design. CSU gets its money by having programs desired by a large number of people (e.g., teacher accreditation, terminal masters, etc.), UC gets PhDs and flagship status.
DE's piece read more like a cheap attempt to peddle for more cash, like the new program to bring in LLMs during the summers or GULC's night program. Maybe Boalties can sell chocolate/mint cookies instead.
About 2/3 of everything I've ever heard Edley say or write qualifies as a cheap attempt to peddle for cash.
(This is a bit of a cheap shot - I know we have huge money problems. But it's still true.)
Wow.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/business/02lawyer.html?_r=1&hp
7:52 - your ignorance is showing. I'll chalk it up to the fact you're not a CA native. No matter, please educate yourself on the definition of "public higher education" here. No person should graduate a UC and remain so ignorant.
The Master Plan is the single greatest achievement of any legislative body in the educational field in the world - despite the best efforts of the current legislature to destroy it (see Caley's link above as an example).
After reading, please come back and describe to me why my prior comment really was less inspired by arrogance and pretentiousness and more about sticking with proper design.
wow indeed, $400k in debt, and denied admission to the bar because of it! I don't know to feel about him though, there was certainly more to the story than reported. You have to feel sorry for the guy - two major accidents left him in bad shape - and admire his tenacity. On the other hand, 26 years of student loans and never making a single payment?! The medical emergencies provide some valid excuses, but he more than likely was making some reckless choices, if not intentionally avoiding payment. Again, there had to be more to the story, specifically, what was the court's reasoning? Crappy NYT, once again.
Post a Comment
<< Home