By Suzanne Guerlac
Gould opened the meeting stating the CA government is listening, that there will be a substantial increase in funding, although still not enough. He emphasized the need in the CA for more skilled workers and how UC can support the innovation-based economy of the state. He stated that recommendations from the Commission would be sent to the Board of Regents within the next couple of months. He specifically cited the 3 year degree proposal, more on-line courses, self supporting post baccalaureate degrees, and best practices in administrative areas: we’ll change how the university “ does business.”
President Yudof: thanked the working groups for their contributions and stated that their work has now come to a close, promised that the Commission will stay in touch with the group members, cc-ing them on reports etc. and they are welcome to “communicate with us.” He stated that the first round of recommendations was “ exactly that,” a first round, and that the Commission wanted to look at a broad range of ideas “ in time to review how to move forward.” He stressed the value of “sustainability” in relation to UC finances, indicating that, for example, furloughs were “not sustainable.” The Commission is seeking long-range sustainable plans. When working through the proposals the governance process would have to be taken into account, curricular reform, in particular, “would have to be addressed by the Faculty Senate.” He then stated that the next steps would involve “ an orderly process for gaining assent” in accordance with CUFCA, the unions, etc.
Henry Powell: stressed that the Commission was at a “ turning point in the process,” shifting from a listening role to one of “active deliberations.” He stated that the Academic Senate had produced 300 pages of commentary on the working group recommendations, which had been synthesized into a 13-page summary. He stressed that the members of the AS had been divided in their response. The full report has been posted on the Senate website. The AS will consider the new recommendations at a later meeting. He stressed that in response to fiscal challenge, the work of the Commission would affect the University for years into the future, that for the last 20 years or so the university has been accommodating more students for less money and operating at a considerable level of efficiency but that class sizes have been growing, there have been losses in TAs, staff, phones in offices, etc. How can we continue to do more with less and keep the reputation and quality of the University? He stated that the AS asks that the Commission evaluate measures in relation to the core values of the University, stressing that quality is of paramount importance. He emphasized that time is required for deliberation, and that the academic calendar needs to be taken into account so that faculty can respond to new recommendations.
Public Comment period:
A number of students raised the question of protecting financial aid for undocumented students. Charles Schwartz called into question the basic assumptions of the Commission, judging their efforts to be in bad faith. I asked what would be the timing and procedures for faculty review of the new recs.
There was a brief discussion of the undocumented student issue. Someone asked why the two working group recs that concerned undocumented students were not on the agenda.
Yudof answered that 1) it is out of his hands, a matter of complex legal issues, 2) he picked recs that had most financial impact. AB540 was important but had no financial impact. “Financial problems are the heart of the Commission’s work.” Simmons interjected that the AC had supported the position of the students, i.e. of providing aid to undocumented students.
Financial report by Nathan Bostrum. To provide “context” for discussion of recs – the deficit in the coming decades. There will be a gap between revenue and expenses of 4.7 billion over the next ten years. Even if costs were brought down (by changes in pension and health, by not fixing the salary gap re both faculty and staff, by delaying various “quality initiatives”), there would still be a 700 million gap that could be reduced if the state would respect its obligations concerning pensions. The gap is larger if enrollments increase. Bostrum cited the Obama administration’s goal of adding a million new degree holders, adding 50,000 more students in the next decade (while the need exists to add over 100,000 new students). This would amount to two new campuses of the size of Irvine or San Diego. Indicated the goal to increase the number of graduate students (either the absolute number or the percentage). 1/3 of students receive Pell grants. Stressed commitment to financial aid and that for many (53%?) the fee increases were covered by financial aid.
Art Pulaski (Secretary Treasurer of the California Labor Federation): the fee increases been very tough for working class kids. Total cost is higher than the charts indicate. As things stand tuition for one child costs 20% of family income at 120,000 combined income.
Gould: lack of dependability of the state, CA deficit, there’s still the 700 million gap, we need to look at our own “ business enterprise” and ask “ are we doing business right, maintaining quality, being more efficient?”
The discussion would focus on recommendations that address fiscal issues and revenue stream: indirect cost recovery, post-baccalaureate degrees, advocacy, multi-year fee schedule and administrative best practices, including the Academic Council recs that call for operating at a size we can afford, and enrollment issues such as enhancing transfer path, upgrading ASSIST [the electronic site that gives students info re transfer credits at various UC institutions] and on-line credit bearing courses.
Item #1 (presented by Mary Croughan): Indirect cost recovery – the most significant rec in terms of revenue, presented by Funding Strategies and Research Working Groups.
There are about $3.5 billion/yr in grants and a shortfall of 720 million in overhead expenses.
Need for increased transparency re recovered funds. Presently a 4% “tax” to OP which gets commingled with other funds; recommends a 3% tax and 100% of recovered funds going back to campuses.
Believes $300 million is a “conservative estimate” of what can be recovered.
Powell: concerned about impact on junior faculty and competitiveness for grants if too much cost recovery is demanded.
Henry Yang (UCI Chancellor): Each campus should set a rate. Discussions in AAU about this [he is currently president of AAU]..
Croughan: There should be a “dedicated negotiating team” – centralize this a hire consultants – to help individual campuses in indirect cost recovery.
Bostrum: this is “most valuable money” for us because we can spend it on anything. We should advocate nationally w/ Sec. of Education.
Simmons: If we insist on too much recovery the amount will be taken out of the grant, so no big revenue. Academic Council against a ban on accepting grants that do not cover these costs. Need joint effort among UC campuses.
Croughan: faculty seeking grants must state how these costs would be covered; a central fund to assist in this could be set up.
Edley: Document needs to be explicit about the point Dan [Simmons] made; there is a bias toward the sciences. Encouragement needed to protect humanities. Janet Broughton supported this rec.
Gould: a national effort is needed; the state not providing this as it used to do.
Yudof: form a management team and find out, a negotiating team, need more oomph behind this. Move it forward: “ more aggressive pursuit of recoveryof indirect costs,”
Pulaski: need transparency concerning where these funds would go.
Gould: agreed.
Item #2, presented by Keith Williams: self-supporting post BA degrees. Two parts to this: 1) a self-supporting program initiative 2) on-line component.
Currently UCLA and UCI have entirely on line professional degrees. Ex: business degrees. Potential for revenue in relation to targeted audiences.
Problem concerning timely approval of courses. Should put in place a mechanism to speed up approval.
Edley: there is a danger of over regulating from the center, which would choke imagination and entrepreneurial energies on individual campuses. There is revenue potential here as well as educational value. Delays and overregulation are very problematic. This has been discussed for 18th months with no progress. Many of the concerns Keith mentions should be left to individual campuses.
Gould: re growth of private entrepreneurial institutions –UC is lagging on this, there’s a demand we are not meeting.
Edley: example of masters degree in “circuit design”; units should identify their own niches, every campus with its own business plan etc. The spirit of this rec is not a big apparatus in Oakland but to encourage campuses to push this creatively, in the spirit of reducing barriers, and further encouraging something we are already doing.
Powell: often when approval is slow it is because the proposal is badly done.
Simmons: Academic Council is against a central regulating mechanism. Concerning on-line on undergraduate level, Council is “ nervous and cautious”, endorses pilot program – yes, go get outside funding.
Gould: Regents ought to look at this – new initiative, enter into competitiveness.
Powell: there is already success in this area of professional schools, work with Extension; there is no research on what markets are out there, need market studies.
Gould: I concur.
Yudof: send information item to Regents re self-supporting graduate degrees (in July or September).
[short lunch break]
Item: Advocacy for the University.
Powell: it needs to be a “permanent war.” The importance of 4/27 when all constituencies appeared to come together.
Pulaski [union rep]: advocacy efforts should also be directed to the “public at large.”
Croughan: “public engagement”
Gould: “Let’s move this along”
Pulaski: to include unions within the “ all constituencies” effort it would be necessary to address some of the union and staff issues.
Item #2 Administrative Efficiencies (streamlining administrative operations, already discussed at May Regents meeting), presented by Peter Taylor.
Necessary to add investment for system-wide capabilities. Taylor stressed the importance of reducing administrative costs at the department level – the bulk of the costs exist at this level. Need to “rework the way our business processes work.” Specific emphasis on procurement issues.
Yudof: This has been discussed with Regents, needs to be routed through OP in order to get this done, need for a more “totalitarian regime” on this. Need to earn trust because the track record is not very good, services have been centralized and then not worked very well.
Edley: trust issue also pertains to how funds that are saved would be used: how will savings be accounted?
Gould: “good question, Chris.” Chancellors should “harvest” savings on campuses.
Pulaski: there is also the issue of high end compensation for a growing number of high-end administrators; executive compensation should be included in any evaluation of administrative costs.
Bostrum: this is always being evaluated.
Gould: importance of transparency on all compensation. Need for a centralized payroll system.
Yudof: a final report will be drafted.
Item #2: presented by Peter Taylor: multi=year fee schedule for the sake of predictability of students and families and to enable long term budget planning. This was an item suggested both by the Funding Strategies Group and the Access and Affordability group.
Initially this was discussed only as a tool to enable multi-year planning; it is now used for professional programs.
Yudof: fee increases are a response to state budgets produced and varying annually. If there is a guaranteed multi-year fee schedule the university assumes risk.
Jessie Bernal(Student Regent) – it would extend Blue and Gold type protection to middle class families.
[Speaker?] Objection to the proposal: it would institutionalize fee increases.
Simmons: Academic Council (see p. 105) favors providing accurate information
But does not support the rec because of legal risk to UC and because it would force more increases with each new cohort of students producing different cohorts. The state does not provide multi-year budget plan.
Gould: it is an issue of commitment. The Regents had concerns re Compact agreed to by the state and then not respected. The rec puts UC at risk in relation to irresponsible decision-making coming from Sacramento. There are two issues embedded in this rec: 1) the fee schedule 2) the shift from “fees” to “tuition” – support for the latter, “not comfortable with the risk ” associated with the former.
Powell: AC agrees with change of name from “fees” to ”tuition”, it is consistent with other institutions, minimizes confusion and protects students seeking financial aid from funders who on provide “tuition.”
Monica Lozano : we still need a multi-year budgeting framework.
Yudof: I don’t sense enough support for the multi-year trajectory; the risk is unwise. Put this aside. “Our future does have fee increases”, this is not going to be reversed. “Its not free …hasn’t been for a long time.” Shift to “tuition” term – “I’m in favor of candor.”
Gould: move forward on tuition, hold on multi-year.
Next item: Academic Council recs.
Dan Simmons: AC recs not widely supported, passed by an 8 to 7 vote. The recommendations were controversial among faculty.
Stresses the deficit re funding pension over next ten years. “This will not be the University as we know it for years to come.” Paramount value of quality of research and teaching faculty, UC “ not a degree mill.”
Issues: 1) maintenance of quality faculty: competitive remuneration necessary for the survival of the prestige of UC degree. 2) UC must operative at a size that is affordable.
Replacing ladder faculty with instructors diminishes quality. Need to maintain excellence in fewer areas and pay a smaller faculty competitively. 3) UC should forego new building projects; we “can’t continue to grow as usual.”
Lozano: praises AC for willingness to shrink (keep quality by shrinking).
Edley: What do you mean by “ downsizing”? At what level are you proposing this (i.e. at program level, campus level, etc). Capital projects come from non-fungible resources.
Trade-offs should be made at campus level.
Simmons: let faculty shrink by attrition.
Yudof: reservations about this. Faculty is already being downsized by hiring freeze.
Downsizing students ” would worry me.” Worried about access. So how to downsize if you want to maintain teaching load, size of grad programs, student-faculty ratios, etc.
Powell: quality cannot be replaced. The issues of buildings needs close attention – even if funds are not fungible there are maintenance and operating costs – “ what you have built
threatens what you are.” Need for transparency about building programs.
Simmons: re: reduction of enrollment - we have become so dependent on tuition that reducing students becomes a revenue loser. Re quality: the other things are fixable but if we lose the prestige of UC, we can’t fix this. Problem re diversity: downsizing faculty would mean less progress toward diversity among faculty.
Lozano: downsizing means cutting programs without high enrollments, eliminating duplications, etc. we “can’t afford all the specialized undergrad programs.”
Simmons: yes, like seven different kinds of chemistry majors on one campus. A smaller faculty would be more efficient.
It is pointed out that cutting small programs would only provide small revenue. This is very problematic, needs to be looked at for Regents to understand it.
Powell: these recs are a “tactical adjustment to current fiscal crisis” which he sees as a “short term crisis.”
Zaremburg: against moratorium on building projects because it is cheaper to build now and we put people back to work.
Gould: [responding to Powell’s comment]: we need to “start from the premise that this is not a bump in the road.” [to AC]: continue on with your work.
Next item: supporting transfer functions. Upgrade ASSIST: requires costs but these would be shared among three segments [CCs. Cal State and UC]. Need to sort our transferable courses (UC and Cal State), create a set of transferable courses for each major to make the process more efficient.
Gould: there is a bill in the legislature for a transfer degree – an AA – guaranteed admission, with AA to CSU. There is a need to prepare CC students for upper division courses or for direct entry into the work force.
Edley: we can create a”transfer culture” but our capacity for admissions [at UC [remains the same.
Blumenthal (UCSC Chancellor): problem is our campuses have different requirements for majors. Need to establish a level of uniformity in terms of major preparation. Need to bring faculty together in disciplines to set up uniform major requirements.
Yudof: legislature will pass the bill; how to consider a core curriculum that is uniform.
Who is this addressed to?
Blumenthal: to the Academic Senate. It needs to convene departments cross the system to establish uniformity. SB 1440 – 18 units dedicated to major would be accepted by CSU. No mention of UC. Need for course identification numbers for lower division prerequisites.
Yudof: we’ll draft up something for the report.
Gould: re ASSIST: we don’t have any money, it’s a band-aid. Look again at ASSIST when other program for collaboration across campuses is in place. Need to move on this for Legislature. Regents: we are too slow on this.
Simmons: we are already successfully transferring almost beyond our capacity.
Gould: that’s your case to prove. The people and legislature are on top of this issue.
Powell: they need to fund the CC’s. UC is “not a conveyer belt devised by the Legislature to produce degrees.”
Next item: production of post B.A. degrees.
Keith Williams (Co-chair of Ed and Curr working Group] introduces the subject of on-line education stating that there are reservations concerning quality, costs, infrastructure, impact on faculty workload, etc. but affirms faculty support for pilot program.
Lozano: what is the status of the pilot?
Edley: 1. Fundraising goal is 5-8 million.
2. 16 RFP have been drafted to go out once funding is received offering grants to devise courses.
3. There is an advisory committee, Gene Lucas and Larry [Pitts?] co –chairs plus representatives of the Academic Senate.
4. There is a technical advisory group that includes UC experts and “Silicon Valley types” to “ensure we’re at the frontier of software platforms.”
5. Have asked Extension to prepare an on-line presentation as a recruiting tool for faculty in RFP process; it will be ready in July,
6. Gene Lucas is head of a committee that is focused on evaluation framework re pilot: what would success look like? Working on a definition of quality for on-line.
Pulanski: re “success” - it is not just a question of a “knowledge set” for a course but of the liberal arts setting of an education.
Edley: “we absolutely agree.” We are seeking “comparison with on campus experience.” We already have a number of fully on-line courses and many more in which it is a component or enhancement. Several hundred [I assume system-wide] fully on-line given by Extension not for credit – they are making money – many are authored by/delivered by UC faculty. There are Extension courses offered for credit (9-14 at Berkeley) in summer – fully on-line courses.
The pilot is creating courses for currently enrolled students. If successful, would add populations not enrolled – goal is access and revenue.
MY: We’ll work a draft on this.
Powell: support hybrid form, blended experiences.
Williams: strong need for interaction in person. Not to replace a whole degree, perhaps 1/8 or ¼ degree, the rest would have to be resident.
Yudof: we’re out of time. We’ll send along an information item to the Regents who are quite interested in this.
Next meeting: Aug. 12 or Aug 31 will take up 3 yr pathways and additional recs
Monday, June 21, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Student Victory in Puerto Rico
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Breakthrough Accord Promises End to Student Strike in Puerto Rico
University of Puerto Rico students who have maintained a two-month strike declared a historic victory yesterday.
An accord brokered by a court-appointed mediator between the university's Board of Regents and the student's National Negotiating Committee (NNC), an unprecedented body representing all of the 11 campuses of the UPR system, was signed by both parties.
The accord grants the central demands of the students represented by the NNC: the continuation of tuition waivers for meritorious students, the cancelation of a planned special fee that would have raised the cost of study by 50 percent, the rejection of initiatives to privatize the university and a commitment not to enact summary sanctions against strike participants.
The UPR student strike, one of the largest and longest in recent US and Puerto Rican history, has been marked by continuous threats of the use of police force to dislodge striking students from the encampments set up at university gates across the island since April. The strike quickly spread to the entire university system, which is comprised of 11 campuses and 64,000 students.
Violent police operations have been carried out at the main campus of the UPR system in Río Piedras and in other campuses in the past two months.
The accord signed yesterday remains to be approved by a general assembly of the UPR students, tentatively planned for next Monday. Observers predict it will be easily ratified, giving way to the voluntary opening of the university on the part of the striking students and the recommencement of classes to finish the three weeks remaining to end the spring semester.
NNC student representative Alberto Rodriguez said that the accord "confirms the right to a quality public higher education accessible to all, which has been the historical patrimony of the University of Puerto Rico."
The severity and length of the conflict between students and the university administration takes place in the context of a widely unpopular austerity plan the current government has undertaken in the island nation of more than four million. Last October, the government implemented Law 7 to lay off more than 20,000 public workers.
This measure also diverted funds historically available to the University of Puerto Rico, the premier institution of higher learning on the island, causing an unprecedented fiscal crisis in the university.
The student strike has garnered the attention and support of the broad public in Puerto Rico for the past two months. Moreover, it has been at the top of the national media coverage agenda during this period.
Professors, parents and the general public have widely supported the students and blamed the University administration and the current right-wing government of intransigence in the process of negotiations. The participation of all the campuses of the university system and the creation of a national negotiating committee are unprecedented in a society which has experienced prolonged student strikes in 1948, 1970, 1981 and 1992 at the main Río Piedras campus, which have exercised an enduring impact on the culture of the nation.
CONTACTS:
Christopher Powers
christophe.powers@upr.edu
(787) 643-2750
Jocelyn Géliga Vargas
jocelyna.geliga@upr.edu
(787) 217-1578
Breakthrough Accord Promises End to Student Strike in Puerto Rico
University of Puerto Rico students who have maintained a two-month strike declared a historic victory yesterday.
An accord brokered by a court-appointed mediator between the university's Board of Regents and the student's National Negotiating Committee (NNC), an unprecedented body representing all of the 11 campuses of the UPR system, was signed by both parties.
The accord grants the central demands of the students represented by the NNC: the continuation of tuition waivers for meritorious students, the cancelation of a planned special fee that would have raised the cost of study by 50 percent, the rejection of initiatives to privatize the university and a commitment not to enact summary sanctions against strike participants.
The UPR student strike, one of the largest and longest in recent US and Puerto Rican history, has been marked by continuous threats of the use of police force to dislodge striking students from the encampments set up at university gates across the island since April. The strike quickly spread to the entire university system, which is comprised of 11 campuses and 64,000 students.
Violent police operations have been carried out at the main campus of the UPR system in Río Piedras and in other campuses in the past two months.
The accord signed yesterday remains to be approved by a general assembly of the UPR students, tentatively planned for next Monday. Observers predict it will be easily ratified, giving way to the voluntary opening of the university on the part of the striking students and the recommencement of classes to finish the three weeks remaining to end the spring semester.
NNC student representative Alberto Rodriguez said that the accord "confirms the right to a quality public higher education accessible to all, which has been the historical patrimony of the University of Puerto Rico."
The severity and length of the conflict between students and the university administration takes place in the context of a widely unpopular austerity plan the current government has undertaken in the island nation of more than four million. Last October, the government implemented Law 7 to lay off more than 20,000 public workers.
This measure also diverted funds historically available to the University of Puerto Rico, the premier institution of higher learning on the island, causing an unprecedented fiscal crisis in the university.
The student strike has garnered the attention and support of the broad public in Puerto Rico for the past two months. Moreover, it has been at the top of the national media coverage agenda during this period.
Professors, parents and the general public have widely supported the students and blamed the University administration and the current right-wing government of intransigence in the process of negotiations. The participation of all the campuses of the university system and the creation of a national negotiating committee are unprecedented in a society which has experienced prolonged student strikes in 1948, 1970, 1981 and 1992 at the main Río Piedras campus, which have exercised an enduring impact on the culture of the nation.
CONTACTS:
Christopher Powers
christophe.powers@upr.edu
(787) 643-2750
Jocelyn Géliga Vargas
jocelyna.geliga@upr.edu
(787) 217-1578
Sunday, June 13, 2010
The Ghost of UC Future
by Catherine M. Cole
On June 11, UCOP made public a set of "expanded recommendations" to the UC Commission on the Future which is to meet on Monday, June 14. The cornerstone of these eleventh-hour additions seems to be items number 6 and 7 of the expanded recommendations which propose an "expedited Pilot Project" for lower division online education:
"Eventually, there will be online credit-bearing courses and B.A. degrees in the so-called quality sector. (emphasis added) That much seems certain. The questions are: Who will develop and deploy the first successful model, when will they do it, and can it be at a scale sufficient to make a meaningful difference in access to higher education. The Commission's proposed answers are: UC should be first, as soon as possible,and our ambitions should err on the side of boldness.
"We must plan assuming an indefinite period of serious financial pressures. Moreover, with or without revisions to the Master Plan, there will be growing political, economic and social demands for undergraduate spaces. Access to excellence is already too limited, and the future will be worse absent a combination of transformation and innovation - in both how we deliver on our mission and how we fund it."
You, like me, might be wondering what exactly is the "quality sector"? Sector of what? And what sectors besides "quality" are there? I am going to venture a guess that what is being discussed here is the educational industry which includes the rapidly growing market for online, for-profit higher education, aka "degree mills." I don't know what the sectors other than "quality" are called. For the time being, let's imagine two sectors: "quality" and "dreck."
Here are some disparate facts. Do we dare connect the dots?
--Federal aid to for-profit colleges jumped to from $4.6 billion in 2000 to $26.5 billion last year according to the Education Department.
--For-profit colleges can receive up to 90 percent of their revenue from federal grants and loans.
--According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the proportion of students who borrowed at public two-year institutions and private, nonprofit four-year institutions stayed about the same between 2003-2008 (between 49.5%-53%), and at public four-year colleges grew slightly. However, "at for-profit institutions, 91.6 percent of students borrowed in 2007-8, up from 79.5 percent in 2003-4."
--Students attending for-profit schools are defaulting on their federal loans at a higher rate than those at traditional schools, according to the Dept. of Education. From the Chronicle of Higher Ed:
"Students at for-profit colleges receive 19 percent of federal student aid, which includes Stafford and Perkins Loans as well as Pell Grants for low-income students. During the 2007-8 academic year, students at more than 2,000 proprietary colleges received more than $16-billion in loans, grants, and campus-based federal aid.
"Four years into repayment, 23.3 percent of students at those colleges were defaulting on their federal loans-a higher rate than students at either public colleges, where 9.5 percent were defaulting, or private ones, where 6.5 percent were in default."
--The Department of Education is seeking to protect taxpayers from loan defaults and to stop students from taking on debt for degrees that don't pay off with higher incomes. New rules from the DOE were supposed to have gone into effect next week, but....
--As of June 11, 2010 (Friday), the Obama administration is delaying the release of a new loan rule. This rule would disqualify the major providers of for-profit education from being able to accept student loans. In response to news of this delay, stock values rallied.
--For-profit colleges say they are key to President Obama meeting his goal of having the world's highest number of college graduates by 2020.
----Blum Capital (of UC Regent Richard Blum) has significant fiscal holdings in the for-profit universities ITT Educational Services Inc. and Career Education Corp who benefit from Obama's delay.
--In 2009 the University of California Board of Regents, of which Blum is a member, voted to increase student registration fees (roughly the Univ. of California equivalent of tuition) by 32%. Shortly thereafter, Blum Capital Partners purchased additional stock in ITT Tech, a for-profit educational institution. Some contend that these events suggest a conflict of interest on Blum's part.
--The UC Commission on the Future meets on June 14 to discuss, among other ideas, several recommendations that were suddenly submitted on Friday outside of the committee review process. Online education is one of the biggest elements targeted for big, bold new initiatives. This would supposedly put those of us in the so called "quality sector" (UC) into a growing market that seems otherwise dominated by the "dreck sector" (University of Phoenix).
--Walmart's recent initiative for online, for-profit education is partnering with a company called "American Public Education." No, American Public Education isn't the federal model of funding for high quality public universities pitched to the Obama administration by the UC Berkeley administration last Fall. American Public Education is rather a fairly dowdy and unknown for-profit university that offers online training to the military. The company has now become the darling of Walmart. Yes, the "American Public University" moniker would seem to be treading on the "brand" identity of the not-for-profit and genuinely public higher education offered by institutions like UC. (Such confusion of identity is, by the way, typical of those 419 email scams from Nigeria that often come from the widow of some vaguely recognizable African leader who needs to deposit several million dollars in your bank account, if only you could send your personal financial details...)
--Of the Walmart/American Public University partnership, Jolene L. Knapp, executive director for the Society for College and University Planning, said this week: "Many in the traditional higher education world will decry this partnership".... "But many, many changes are coming to postsecondary education. This is just one."
--If I were an investor in for-profit, low quality, online universities, my interests would be served by:
a) Having the cost of attending a public university rise so that many who formerly could attend are priced out and need to seek alternate means of accreditation. (check--accomplished with 32% fee increase last year at the UC)
b) Having the lines dividing the "quality sector" from the "dreck sector" become very confused and blurred. (Check. If the new recommendations introduced by UCOP to the Commission of the Future on Monday are accepted, this second objective will be served--not just with online education, but also with expanded, fast-tracked new professional degrees; freezing the growth of the traditional, face-to-face high quality education we have been known for to date; shorter time-to-degree; greater utilization of extension classes, etc.)
c) Having online education be embraced and legitimized by traditional institutions in the "quality sector" of higher education so that the Obama administration keeps the federal loan dollars flowing. (Check. Get the Commission on the Future of the UC to embrace online education, and legitimation will be enhanced.)
For more on for-profit education and its use of online teaching, shady funding schemes, and substandard educational standards, see this Frontline special "College, Inc" which aired in early May 2010. As the website says, "Even in lean times, the $400 billion business of higher education is booming. Nowhere is this more true than in one of the fastest-growing -- and most controversial -- sectors of the industry: for-profit colleges and universities that cater to non-traditional students, often confer degrees over the Internet, and, along the way, successfully capture billions of federal financial aid dollars."
Remember the mantra coming from UCOP on this: "Our ambitions should err on the side of boldness." These are not words we have otherwise heard for a while now at the University of California.
So, friends, this is the Ghost of Christmas...I mean, er...UC Future. You may recall from Dickens, the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come was the most fearsome ghost of all.
But other ways of viewing this future are possible. Some are arguing that if the UC embraces online education, this will be the "Phoenix"-like resuscitation (if you'll forgive the pun) of the dreams and values expressed in Kerr's Master Plan for Higher Education.
The proselytizers of UC online education certainly do foreground social justice issues. UCB Dean Christopher Edley says that online education and a cybercampus will serve the poor and underprivileged who will have access to UC's excellence without having to leave their homes. Such students would be physically located far from faculty and fellow students. Yet such "social justice" framings of educational access for the poor and underprivileged should give us pause. History has taught us that a separate education is rarely an equal one.
It may be that online education is the way of the future, and we must either get on board of be left behind with no money. But here are two worthy questions: If all members of the Board of Regents and top UC administrators were forced to divest themselves of any financial holdings in for-profit universities, a) would the UC still be exploring online classes?, and b) if so, would we be pursuing this new "delivery model" in the same way?
On June 11, UCOP made public a set of "expanded recommendations" to the UC Commission on the Future which is to meet on Monday, June 14. The cornerstone of these eleventh-hour additions seems to be items number 6 and 7 of the expanded recommendations which propose an "expedited Pilot Project" for lower division online education:
"Eventually, there will be online credit-bearing courses and B.A. degrees in the so-called quality sector. (emphasis added) That much seems certain. The questions are: Who will develop and deploy the first successful model, when will they do it, and can it be at a scale sufficient to make a meaningful difference in access to higher education. The Commission's proposed answers are: UC should be first, as soon as possible,and our ambitions should err on the side of boldness.
"We must plan assuming an indefinite period of serious financial pressures. Moreover, with or without revisions to the Master Plan, there will be growing political, economic and social demands for undergraduate spaces. Access to excellence is already too limited, and the future will be worse absent a combination of transformation and innovation - in both how we deliver on our mission and how we fund it."
You, like me, might be wondering what exactly is the "quality sector"? Sector of what? And what sectors besides "quality" are there? I am going to venture a guess that what is being discussed here is the educational industry which includes the rapidly growing market for online, for-profit higher education, aka "degree mills." I don't know what the sectors other than "quality" are called. For the time being, let's imagine two sectors: "quality" and "dreck."
Here are some disparate facts. Do we dare connect the dots?
--Federal aid to for-profit colleges jumped to from $4.6 billion in 2000 to $26.5 billion last year according to the Education Department.
--For-profit colleges can receive up to 90 percent of their revenue from federal grants and loans.
--According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the proportion of students who borrowed at public two-year institutions and private, nonprofit four-year institutions stayed about the same between 2003-2008 (between 49.5%-53%), and at public four-year colleges grew slightly. However, "at for-profit institutions, 91.6 percent of students borrowed in 2007-8, up from 79.5 percent in 2003-4."
--Students attending for-profit schools are defaulting on their federal loans at a higher rate than those at traditional schools, according to the Dept. of Education. From the Chronicle of Higher Ed:
"Students at for-profit colleges receive 19 percent of federal student aid, which includes Stafford and Perkins Loans as well as Pell Grants for low-income students. During the 2007-8 academic year, students at more than 2,000 proprietary colleges received more than $16-billion in loans, grants, and campus-based federal aid.
"Four years into repayment, 23.3 percent of students at those colleges were defaulting on their federal loans-a higher rate than students at either public colleges, where 9.5 percent were defaulting, or private ones, where 6.5 percent were in default."
--The Department of Education is seeking to protect taxpayers from loan defaults and to stop students from taking on debt for degrees that don't pay off with higher incomes. New rules from the DOE were supposed to have gone into effect next week, but....
--As of June 11, 2010 (Friday), the Obama administration is delaying the release of a new loan rule. This rule would disqualify the major providers of for-profit education from being able to accept student loans. In response to news of this delay, stock values rallied.
--For-profit colleges say they are key to President Obama meeting his goal of having the world's highest number of college graduates by 2020.
----Blum Capital (of UC Regent Richard Blum) has significant fiscal holdings in the for-profit universities ITT Educational Services Inc. and Career Education Corp who benefit from Obama's delay.
--In 2009 the University of California Board of Regents, of which Blum is a member, voted to increase student registration fees (roughly the Univ. of California equivalent of tuition) by 32%. Shortly thereafter, Blum Capital Partners purchased additional stock in ITT Tech, a for-profit educational institution. Some contend that these events suggest a conflict of interest on Blum's part.
--The UC Commission on the Future meets on June 14 to discuss, among other ideas, several recommendations that were suddenly submitted on Friday outside of the committee review process. Online education is one of the biggest elements targeted for big, bold new initiatives. This would supposedly put those of us in the so called "quality sector" (UC) into a growing market that seems otherwise dominated by the "dreck sector" (University of Phoenix).
--Walmart's recent initiative for online, for-profit education is partnering with a company called "American Public Education." No, American Public Education isn't the federal model of funding for high quality public universities pitched to the Obama administration by the UC Berkeley administration last Fall. American Public Education is rather a fairly dowdy and unknown for-profit university that offers online training to the military. The company has now become the darling of Walmart. Yes, the "American Public University" moniker would seem to be treading on the "brand" identity of the not-for-profit and genuinely public higher education offered by institutions like UC. (Such confusion of identity is, by the way, typical of those 419 email scams from Nigeria that often come from the widow of some vaguely recognizable African leader who needs to deposit several million dollars in your bank account, if only you could send your personal financial details...)
--Of the Walmart/American Public University partnership, Jolene L. Knapp, executive director for the Society for College and University Planning, said this week: "Many in the traditional higher education world will decry this partnership".... "But many, many changes are coming to postsecondary education. This is just one."
--If I were an investor in for-profit, low quality, online universities, my interests would be served by:
a) Having the cost of attending a public university rise so that many who formerly could attend are priced out and need to seek alternate means of accreditation. (check--accomplished with 32% fee increase last year at the UC)
b) Having the lines dividing the "quality sector" from the "dreck sector" become very confused and blurred. (Check. If the new recommendations introduced by UCOP to the Commission of the Future on Monday are accepted, this second objective will be served--not just with online education, but also with expanded, fast-tracked new professional degrees; freezing the growth of the traditional, face-to-face high quality education we have been known for to date; shorter time-to-degree; greater utilization of extension classes, etc.)
c) Having online education be embraced and legitimized by traditional institutions in the "quality sector" of higher education so that the Obama administration keeps the federal loan dollars flowing. (Check. Get the Commission on the Future of the UC to embrace online education, and legitimation will be enhanced.)
For more on for-profit education and its use of online teaching, shady funding schemes, and substandard educational standards, see this Frontline special "College, Inc" which aired in early May 2010. As the website says, "Even in lean times, the $400 billion business of higher education is booming. Nowhere is this more true than in one of the fastest-growing -- and most controversial -- sectors of the industry: for-profit colleges and universities that cater to non-traditional students, often confer degrees over the Internet, and, along the way, successfully capture billions of federal financial aid dollars."
Remember the mantra coming from UCOP on this: "Our ambitions should err on the side of boldness." These are not words we have otherwise heard for a while now at the University of California.
So, friends, this is the Ghost of Christmas...I mean, er...UC Future. You may recall from Dickens, the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come was the most fearsome ghost of all.
But other ways of viewing this future are possible. Some are arguing that if the UC embraces online education, this will be the "Phoenix"-like resuscitation (if you'll forgive the pun) of the dreams and values expressed in Kerr's Master Plan for Higher Education.
The proselytizers of UC online education certainly do foreground social justice issues. UCB Dean Christopher Edley says that online education and a cybercampus will serve the poor and underprivileged who will have access to UC's excellence without having to leave their homes. Such students would be physically located far from faculty and fellow students. Yet such "social justice" framings of educational access for the poor and underprivileged should give us pause. History has taught us that a separate education is rarely an equal one.
It may be that online education is the way of the future, and we must either get on board of be left behind with no money. But here are two worthy questions: If all members of the Board of Regents and top UC administrators were forced to divest themselves of any financial holdings in for-profit universities, a) would the UC still be exploring online classes?, and b) if so, would we be pursuing this new "delivery model" in the same way?
Gradaute Student Statement to UC Regents Regarding On-Line Education
The following statement was presented to the UC Regents by graduate students at the May 19th UC Regents meeting at UCSF. Nine graduate students from UC Berkeley attended the meeting dressed as “GSI Joes” in army attire adorned with military patches that read “Dean Edley = Class(room) Enemy.” The action was a response to Dean Christopher Edley’s recent proposal for transforming UC Berkeley into a “Cyber Campus” where “squadrons of GSIs” will serve on the “frontline of online contact” with undergraduates. Dean Edley's Cyber Campus proposal is here, and coverage of the action is here.
We are here today as members of UAW 2865, the union for Academic Student Employees at the UC. The University of California perceives its graduate students as a cheap labor force that will follow orders without question. Recently, in a proposal for transforming UC Berkeley into a “Cyber Campus,” Christopher Edley, the Dean of Boalt Law School and Chair of the Gould Commission’s Education and Curriculum Working Group, called for “squadrons of GSI’s” to serve on the “frontlines” of a new UC Berkeley. This myopic vision of higher education conceives of the UC as more of a brand than the public institution called for in the 1960 Master Plan. We find Dean Edley’s “Cyber Campus” to be just the beginning of a frightening trajectory that will undoubtedly end in the complete implosion of public higher education in the embattled state of California. Dean Edley’s proposal and many of the recommendations currently under consideration by the University Commission on the Future are just select examples of how the UC is sacrificing undergraduate education in order to maximize profits.
As graduate students who are on the front lines of educating undergraduates, we see everyday what is happening to the quality of instruction at the UC. We are horrified by the UC Regents’ vision of the future, one that is based on business models that do not consider quality of education or student and worker experience. This is a future in which we refuse to live, work, and teach. If the future of the UC is one where graduate students are continued to be treated as a casual labor pool we guarantee it will be one that is missing the top notch graduate students on which administrators have come to rely.
One of the unfulfilled promises of the UC system is that it should be at the forefront of progressive change that California desperately needs. Instead, it is at the forefront of privatization, a high fee-high loan model that will drive low income students into debt or shut them out completely. Instead of negotiating fairly with the labor unions, the UC has repeatedly thwarted good faith bargaining. Instead of striving to be competitive in attracting graduate students to the UC, our universities expect us to work for less and receive lesser benefits because we chose to study at a public institution. Meanwhile just the opposite argument is used to attract people to high level management positions: we have to pay them exorbitant salaries and perks or they will go elsewhere. Instead of insuring childcare for the lowest income students at UC Berkeley, our registration fees subsidize football tickets for students. A crisis of priorities, indeed.
The Regents increased our fees without increasing the quality of our experience here at UC; in fact, Dean Edley's plan will destroy the quality of undergraduate education in the process of redefining what teaching means for graduate students. We did not come to graduate school to be in squadrons, nor did we come here to be virtual instructors on the frontline of dismantling quality public education in California.
But the military rhetoric Dean Edley uses is perhaps apt in this case. A moment of crisis is a time when profound change can happen, a new path taken; there are parallels here and lessons that we should have learned but have not. In the moment of crisis generated by 9-11, the president of the United States was able to sell the country on an illegal, unilateral and murderous war, a war that our country is still waging after nearly a decade. And to what end? To generate profits for a select few while hundreds of thousands suffer and die. The budget crisis has been used in the same way here at UC. You, the UC Regents, have accelerated your plans to dramatically restructure the UC in a way that represents the outright rejection of the logic of public education. Your vision of the UC could not be clearer: it is a corporation that sells education, one that lives and dies by its ability to reduce costs of production. You are well on your way to destroying the UC's public function as a collective investment in the future of all Californians, replacing it instead with the market function of providing a luxury good to those who can afford it. This will be your legacy. We did not come to the UC to fight, but we will fight you every step of the way, and that legacy will be ours.
We are here today as members of UAW 2865, the union for Academic Student Employees at the UC. The University of California perceives its graduate students as a cheap labor force that will follow orders without question. Recently, in a proposal for transforming UC Berkeley into a “Cyber Campus,” Christopher Edley, the Dean of Boalt Law School and Chair of the Gould Commission’s Education and Curriculum Working Group, called for “squadrons of GSI’s” to serve on the “frontlines” of a new UC Berkeley. This myopic vision of higher education conceives of the UC as more of a brand than the public institution called for in the 1960 Master Plan. We find Dean Edley’s “Cyber Campus” to be just the beginning of a frightening trajectory that will undoubtedly end in the complete implosion of public higher education in the embattled state of California. Dean Edley’s proposal and many of the recommendations currently under consideration by the University Commission on the Future are just select examples of how the UC is sacrificing undergraduate education in order to maximize profits.
As graduate students who are on the front lines of educating undergraduates, we see everyday what is happening to the quality of instruction at the UC. We are horrified by the UC Regents’ vision of the future, one that is based on business models that do not consider quality of education or student and worker experience. This is a future in which we refuse to live, work, and teach. If the future of the UC is one where graduate students are continued to be treated as a casual labor pool we guarantee it will be one that is missing the top notch graduate students on which administrators have come to rely.
One of the unfulfilled promises of the UC system is that it should be at the forefront of progressive change that California desperately needs. Instead, it is at the forefront of privatization, a high fee-high loan model that will drive low income students into debt or shut them out completely. Instead of negotiating fairly with the labor unions, the UC has repeatedly thwarted good faith bargaining. Instead of striving to be competitive in attracting graduate students to the UC, our universities expect us to work for less and receive lesser benefits because we chose to study at a public institution. Meanwhile just the opposite argument is used to attract people to high level management positions: we have to pay them exorbitant salaries and perks or they will go elsewhere. Instead of insuring childcare for the lowest income students at UC Berkeley, our registration fees subsidize football tickets for students. A crisis of priorities, indeed.
The Regents increased our fees without increasing the quality of our experience here at UC; in fact, Dean Edley's plan will destroy the quality of undergraduate education in the process of redefining what teaching means for graduate students. We did not come to graduate school to be in squadrons, nor did we come here to be virtual instructors on the frontline of dismantling quality public education in California.
But the military rhetoric Dean Edley uses is perhaps apt in this case. A moment of crisis is a time when profound change can happen, a new path taken; there are parallels here and lessons that we should have learned but have not. In the moment of crisis generated by 9-11, the president of the United States was able to sell the country on an illegal, unilateral and murderous war, a war that our country is still waging after nearly a decade. And to what end? To generate profits for a select few while hundreds of thousands suffer and die. The budget crisis has been used in the same way here at UC. You, the UC Regents, have accelerated your plans to dramatically restructure the UC in a way that represents the outright rejection of the logic of public education. Your vision of the UC could not be clearer: it is a corporation that sells education, one that lives and dies by its ability to reduce costs of production. You are well on your way to destroying the UC's public function as a collective investment in the future of all Californians, replacing it instead with the market function of providing a luxury good to those who can afford it. This will be your legacy. We did not come to the UC to fight, but we will fight you every step of the way, and that legacy will be ours.
"This Will Be Your Legacy"--Graduate Students Respond to Dean Edley and the UC Regents.
The following statement was presented to the UC Regents by graduate students at the May 19th UC Regents meeting at UCSF. Nine graduate students from UC Berkeley attended the meeting dressed as “GSI Joes” in army attire adorned with military patches that read “Dean Edley = Class(room) Enemy.” The action was a response to Dean Christopher Edley’s recent proposal for transforming UC Berkeley into a “Cyber Campus” where “squadrons of GSIs” will serve on the “frontline of online contact” with undergraduates. For more information on Dean Edley's Cyber Campus proposal, see the documents found at: http://ucbfa.org/projects/gould-commission. For coverage of the action, visit http://www.cityonahillpress.com/2010/05/20/uc-targets-'sustainable'-spending
We are here today as members of UAW 2865, the union for Academic Student Employees at the UC. The University of California perceives its graduate students as a cheap labor force that will follow orders without question. Recently, in a proposal for transforming UC Berkeley into a “Cyber Campus,” Christopher Edley, the Dean of Boalt Law School and Chair of the Gould Commission’s Education and Curriculum Working Group, called for “squadrons of GSI’s” to serve on the “frontlines” of a new UC Berkeley. This myopic vision of higher education conceives of the UC as more of a brand than the public institution called for in the 1960 Master Plan. We find Dean Edley’s “Cyber Campus” to be just the beginning of a frightening trajectory that will undoubtedly end in the complete implosion of public higher education in the embattled state of California. Dean Edley’s proposal and many of the recommendations currently under consideration by the University Commission on the Future are just select examples of how the UC is sacrificing undergraduate education in order to maximize profits.
As graduate students who are on the front lines of educating undergraduates, we see everyday what is happening to the quality of instruction at the UC. We are horrified by the UC Regents’ vision of the future, one that is based on business models that do not consider quality of education or student and worker experience. This is a future in which we refuse to live, work, and teach. If the future of the UC is one where graduate students are continued to be treated as a casual labor pool we guarantee it will be one that is missing the top notch graduate students on which administrators have come to rely.
One of the unfulfilled promises of the UC system is that it should be at the forefront of progressive change that California desperately needs. Instead, it is at the forefront of privatization, a high fee-high loan model that will drive low income students into debt or shut them out completely. Instead of negotiating fairly with the labor unions, the UC has repeatedly thwarted good faith bargaining. Instead of striving to be competitive in attracting graduate students to the UC, our universities expect us to work for less and receive lesser benefits because we chose to study at a public institution. Meanwhile just the opposite argument is used to attract people to high level management positions: we have to pay them exorbitant salaries and perks or they will go elsewhere. Instead of insuring childcare for the lowest income students at UC Berkeley, our registration fees subsidize football tickets for students. A crisis of priorities, indeed.
The Regents increased our fees without increasing the quality of our experience here at UC; in fact, Dean Edley's plan will destroy the quality of undergraduate education in the process of redefining what teaching means for graduate students. We did not come to graduate school to be in squadrons, nor did we come here to be virtual instructors on the frontline of dismantling quality public education in California.
But the military rhetoric Dean Edley uses is perhaps apt in this case. A moment of crisis is a time when profound change can happen, a new path taken; there are parallels here and lessons that we should have learned but have not. In the moment of crisis generated by 9-11, the president of the United States was able to sell the country on an illegal, unilateral and murderous war, a war that our country is still waging after nearly a decade. And to what end? To generate profits for a select few while hundreds of thousands suffer and die. The budget crisis has been used in the same way here at UC. You, the UC Regents, have accelerated your plans to dramatically restructure the UC in a way that represents the outright rejection of the logic of public education. Your vision of the UC could not be clearer: it is a corporation that sells education, one that lives and dies by its ability to reduce costs of production. You are well on your way to destroying the UC's public function as a collective investment in the future of all Californians, replacing it instead with the market function of providing a luxury good to those who can afford it. This will be your legacy. We did not come to the UC to fight, but we will fight you every step of the way, and that legacy will be ours.
We are here today as members of UAW 2865, the union for Academic Student Employees at the UC. The University of California perceives its graduate students as a cheap labor force that will follow orders without question. Recently, in a proposal for transforming UC Berkeley into a “Cyber Campus,” Christopher Edley, the Dean of Boalt Law School and Chair of the Gould Commission’s Education and Curriculum Working Group, called for “squadrons of GSI’s” to serve on the “frontlines” of a new UC Berkeley. This myopic vision of higher education conceives of the UC as more of a brand than the public institution called for in the 1960 Master Plan. We find Dean Edley’s “Cyber Campus” to be just the beginning of a frightening trajectory that will undoubtedly end in the complete implosion of public higher education in the embattled state of California. Dean Edley’s proposal and many of the recommendations currently under consideration by the University Commission on the Future are just select examples of how the UC is sacrificing undergraduate education in order to maximize profits.
As graduate students who are on the front lines of educating undergraduates, we see everyday what is happening to the quality of instruction at the UC. We are horrified by the UC Regents’ vision of the future, one that is based on business models that do not consider quality of education or student and worker experience. This is a future in which we refuse to live, work, and teach. If the future of the UC is one where graduate students are continued to be treated as a casual labor pool we guarantee it will be one that is missing the top notch graduate students on which administrators have come to rely.
One of the unfulfilled promises of the UC system is that it should be at the forefront of progressive change that California desperately needs. Instead, it is at the forefront of privatization, a high fee-high loan model that will drive low income students into debt or shut them out completely. Instead of negotiating fairly with the labor unions, the UC has repeatedly thwarted good faith bargaining. Instead of striving to be competitive in attracting graduate students to the UC, our universities expect us to work for less and receive lesser benefits because we chose to study at a public institution. Meanwhile just the opposite argument is used to attract people to high level management positions: we have to pay them exorbitant salaries and perks or they will go elsewhere. Instead of insuring childcare for the lowest income students at UC Berkeley, our registration fees subsidize football tickets for students. A crisis of priorities, indeed.
The Regents increased our fees without increasing the quality of our experience here at UC; in fact, Dean Edley's plan will destroy the quality of undergraduate education in the process of redefining what teaching means for graduate students. We did not come to graduate school to be in squadrons, nor did we come here to be virtual instructors on the frontline of dismantling quality public education in California.
But the military rhetoric Dean Edley uses is perhaps apt in this case. A moment of crisis is a time when profound change can happen, a new path taken; there are parallels here and lessons that we should have learned but have not. In the moment of crisis generated by 9-11, the president of the United States was able to sell the country on an illegal, unilateral and murderous war, a war that our country is still waging after nearly a decade. And to what end? To generate profits for a select few while hundreds of thousands suffer and die. The budget crisis has been used in the same way here at UC. You, the UC Regents, have accelerated your plans to dramatically restructure the UC in a way that represents the outright rejection of the logic of public education. Your vision of the UC could not be clearer: it is a corporation that sells education, one that lives and dies by its ability to reduce costs of production. You are well on your way to destroying the UC's public function as a collective investment in the future of all Californians, replacing it instead with the market function of providing a luxury good to those who can afford it. This will be your legacy. We did not come to the UC to fight, but we will fight you every step of the way, and that legacy will be ours.
Friday, June 4, 2010
UC Workshop on Recruitment and Enrollment of Non-Resident Undergraduates (6/14-15/2010)
DRAFT – 5/27/10
Monday, June 14 Saratoga Ballroom
9:00 to 10:00 Registration – coffee/tea
10:00 to 10:20 Introductory Session: Goals for the workshop
Tom Lifka, Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Academic Services, UCLA
10:25 to 11:00 (Chancellor Birgeneau)
11:05 to 12:15 Where is UC now regarding enrollment of non-residents?
Tom Lifka, Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Academic Services, UCLA
12:15 to 1:30 Asian Buffet Lunch - Saratoga Ballroom
How can UC best go about effectively communicating the educational imperative for non-resident enrollment and impacts on diversity?
Tom Lifka, Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Academic Services, UCLA
1:30 to 2:30 Round Hole: Square Peg – Fitting the Non-Resident Applicant into UC Admissions Processes and Practices
Presentation and Facilitated Discussion
Co-Facilitators will present some of the UC admissions practices that are called into question as we embark as a system on increasing enrollment of non-resident students. This session will stimulate a discussion of current policies/practices that serve currently as an impediment to the non-resident applicant.
The presentation will provide a review of current UC admission processes and practices impacting non-resident recruitment and enrollment. This will be followed by a facilitated brainstorming session with participation by all. Next steps will be identified with a goal to develop recommendations for UC leadership that would reduce/eliminate policy/procedure challenges.
Presenters: Brent Yunek, Associate Vice Chancellor, Enrollment Services, UCI;
Susan Wilbur, Director of Undergraduate Admissions, UCOP
2:30 to 2:40 Stretch Break – beverages and cookies
2:40 to 3:50 Building a robust prospect pool of students your campus seeks to enroll and graduate is a key component to having an effective recruitment plan. UC Berkeley and UC Riverside will describe how they work with two key partners- CollegeWeekLive and Zinch, to attract prospective students and maintain relationships through the yield cycle.
Presenters: Bob Patterson, Deputy Director of Undergraduate Admissions, UCB
Emily Engelschall, Director of Undergraduate Recruitment, UCR
Mike Garvin – CollegeWeekLive
Robert Rosenbloom – CollegeWeekLive
Brad Hagen - Zinch)
3:50 to 4:00 Stretch Break – beverages and cookies
4:00 to 5:00 Panel Session: Armchair vs travel: Communication strategies and considerations. Panelists will discuss their experiences and perspectives and offer suggestions for connecting with domestic and international non-resident students. Q&A to follow brief presentations.
Moderator: Christine Van Gieson, Director of Admissions and Associate Dean for Enrollment Services, UCSB
Panelists: Martin Bennett, EducationUSA Marketing Coordinator, Institute of International Education
Lee Melvin, Vice President for Enrollment Management and Planning, University of Connecticut
5:00 to 5:40 Diversity considerations and the tools necessary to ensure diversity. Financial Aid and “discounting.” What investment in student financial support will be needed for success and for achieving diversity? Review of current non-resident diversity data.
Tom Lifka, Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Academic Services, UCLA
For dinner, you are on your own!
Tuesday, June 15 Hops Bar and Grill /Napa Valley Room
7:30 to 8:30 Registration/Networking – beverages and muffins
8:30 to 9:00 Review of international trends meeting international priorities for US colleges and universities- OpenDoors
Martin Bennett, EducationUSA Marketing Coordinator, Institute of International Education
9:00 to 10:30 International and domestic recruitment collaborations between UC campuses and other universities; collaborations among UC campuses. Use of commercial consortia for international recruitment.
Presenters: Walter Robinson, Assistant Vice Chancellor and Director Office of Undergraduate Admissions
Martha Pitts, The College Board
Mike Garvin – CollegeWeekLive
Robert Rosenbloom – CollegeWeekLive
Brad Hagen - Zinch
10:30 to 10:45 Stretch Break – beverages and muffins
10:45 to Noon Panel Session: Collaborative relationships with individual secondary schools and college counselors in recruiting and enrolling domestic non-residents.
Moderator: Walter Robinson, Assistant Vice Chancellor and Director Office of Undergraduate Admissions
Panel: Vicki Englehart, Dean of College Counseling and Guidance, Lake Highland Prep, Orlando, Florida
Diane Freytag, Director of Counseling and Advising, The Overlake School, Redmond, Washington
Myron Arakawa, Director of College Counseling, Punahou School, Honolulu, Hawaii
Noon to 12:45 Taste of Italy Buffet Lunch – Hops Bar and Grill
12:45 to 1:30 College Board Enrollment Planning Services- College Board can provide a number of tools (Recruitment Plus, Enrollment Planning Service, Descriptor Plus and Student Search Service) that will allow us to strengthen our recruitment efforts, gain a deeper understanding of our prospective students and improve communication.
Martha Pitts, The College Board
1:30 to 2:30 Panel Session: Building relationships with California Community Colleges in UC recruitment/enrollment of international students. (Santa Monica Contact)
Brent Yunek, Associate Vice Chancellor, Enrollment Services, UCI
2:30 to 2:45 Stretch Break – beverages and brownies
2:45 to 3:45 Panel Discussion - A conversation on some of the ways that a campus might coordinate domestic and international non-resident recruitment across a broad spectrum of offices/units.
The panelists will share their experiences using a variety of campus organization resources to seek enrollment from non-residents in both campus degree and non-degree programs.
Some topics that will be raised are: the use of agents, leveraging current efforts of summer and extension outreach, and building a recruitment culture throughout the campus community.
Moderator: Kevin Browne, Assistant Vice Chancellor – Enrollment Management and Extension, UC Merced
Panel: James Maraviglia, Assistant Vice President, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Gary Matkin, Dean, UC Irvine
Darin Menlove, Assistant Director of Programs, Summer Sessions, UC Berkeley
George Beers, Dean, Foothill College
3:45 to 4:15 Closing session: next steps and desired deliverables. What should be included in a UC Non-Resident Recruitment/Enrollment Resource Guide?
Tom Lifka, Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Academic Services, UCLA
Monday, June 14 Saratoga Ballroom
9:00 to 10:00 Registration – coffee/tea
10:00 to 10:20 Introductory Session: Goals for the workshop
Tom Lifka, Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Academic Services, UCLA
10:25 to 11:00 (Chancellor Birgeneau)
11:05 to 12:15 Where is UC now regarding enrollment of non-residents?
Tom Lifka, Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Academic Services, UCLA
12:15 to 1:30 Asian Buffet Lunch - Saratoga Ballroom
How can UC best go about effectively communicating the educational imperative for non-resident enrollment and impacts on diversity?
Tom Lifka, Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Academic Services, UCLA
1:30 to 2:30 Round Hole: Square Peg – Fitting the Non-Resident Applicant into UC Admissions Processes and Practices
Presentation and Facilitated Discussion
Co-Facilitators will present some of the UC admissions practices that are called into question as we embark as a system on increasing enrollment of non-resident students. This session will stimulate a discussion of current policies/practices that serve currently as an impediment to the non-resident applicant.
The presentation will provide a review of current UC admission processes and practices impacting non-resident recruitment and enrollment. This will be followed by a facilitated brainstorming session with participation by all. Next steps will be identified with a goal to develop recommendations for UC leadership that would reduce/eliminate policy/procedure challenges.
Presenters: Brent Yunek, Associate Vice Chancellor, Enrollment Services, UCI;
Susan Wilbur, Director of Undergraduate Admissions, UCOP
2:30 to 2:40 Stretch Break – beverages and cookies
2:40 to 3:50 Building a robust prospect pool of students your campus seeks to enroll and graduate is a key component to having an effective recruitment plan. UC Berkeley and UC Riverside will describe how they work with two key partners- CollegeWeekLive and Zinch, to attract prospective students and maintain relationships through the yield cycle.
Presenters: Bob Patterson, Deputy Director of Undergraduate Admissions, UCB
Emily Engelschall, Director of Undergraduate Recruitment, UCR
Mike Garvin – CollegeWeekLive
Robert Rosenbloom – CollegeWeekLive
Brad Hagen - Zinch)
3:50 to 4:00 Stretch Break – beverages and cookies
4:00 to 5:00 Panel Session: Armchair vs travel: Communication strategies and considerations. Panelists will discuss their experiences and perspectives and offer suggestions for connecting with domestic and international non-resident students. Q&A to follow brief presentations.
Moderator: Christine Van Gieson, Director of Admissions and Associate Dean for Enrollment Services, UCSB
Panelists: Martin Bennett, EducationUSA Marketing Coordinator, Institute of International Education
Lee Melvin, Vice President for Enrollment Management and Planning, University of Connecticut
5:00 to 5:40 Diversity considerations and the tools necessary to ensure diversity. Financial Aid and “discounting.” What investment in student financial support will be needed for success and for achieving diversity? Review of current non-resident diversity data.
Tom Lifka, Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Academic Services, UCLA
For dinner, you are on your own!
Tuesday, June 15 Hops Bar and Grill /Napa Valley Room
7:30 to 8:30 Registration/Networking – beverages and muffins
8:30 to 9:00 Review of international trends meeting international priorities for US colleges and universities- OpenDoors
Martin Bennett, EducationUSA Marketing Coordinator, Institute of International Education
9:00 to 10:30 International and domestic recruitment collaborations between UC campuses and other universities; collaborations among UC campuses. Use of commercial consortia for international recruitment.
Presenters: Walter Robinson, Assistant Vice Chancellor and Director Office of Undergraduate Admissions
Martha Pitts, The College Board
Mike Garvin – CollegeWeekLive
Robert Rosenbloom – CollegeWeekLive
Brad Hagen - Zinch
10:30 to 10:45 Stretch Break – beverages and muffins
10:45 to Noon Panel Session: Collaborative relationships with individual secondary schools and college counselors in recruiting and enrolling domestic non-residents.
Moderator: Walter Robinson, Assistant Vice Chancellor and Director Office of Undergraduate Admissions
Panel: Vicki Englehart, Dean of College Counseling and Guidance, Lake Highland Prep, Orlando, Florida
Diane Freytag, Director of Counseling and Advising, The Overlake School, Redmond, Washington
Myron Arakawa, Director of College Counseling, Punahou School, Honolulu, Hawaii
Noon to 12:45 Taste of Italy Buffet Lunch – Hops Bar and Grill
12:45 to 1:30 College Board Enrollment Planning Services- College Board can provide a number of tools (Recruitment Plus, Enrollment Planning Service, Descriptor Plus and Student Search Service) that will allow us to strengthen our recruitment efforts, gain a deeper understanding of our prospective students and improve communication.
Martha Pitts, The College Board
1:30 to 2:30 Panel Session: Building relationships with California Community Colleges in UC recruitment/enrollment of international students. (Santa Monica Contact)
Brent Yunek, Associate Vice Chancellor, Enrollment Services, UCI
2:30 to 2:45 Stretch Break – beverages and brownies
2:45 to 3:45 Panel Discussion - A conversation on some of the ways that a campus might coordinate domestic and international non-resident recruitment across a broad spectrum of offices/units.
The panelists will share their experiences using a variety of campus organization resources to seek enrollment from non-residents in both campus degree and non-degree programs.
Some topics that will be raised are: the use of agents, leveraging current efforts of summer and extension outreach, and building a recruitment culture throughout the campus community.
Moderator: Kevin Browne, Assistant Vice Chancellor – Enrollment Management and Extension, UC Merced
Panel: James Maraviglia, Assistant Vice President, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Gary Matkin, Dean, UC Irvine
Darin Menlove, Assistant Director of Programs, Summer Sessions, UC Berkeley
George Beers, Dean, Foothill College
3:45 to 4:15 Closing session: next steps and desired deliverables. What should be included in a UC Non-Resident Recruitment/Enrollment Resource Guide?
Tom Lifka, Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Academic Services, UCLA
Friends, Romans, and Countrymen: The New UC Online Initiative
Friends and colleagues -
We would like to announce our new website for UC's Online Education Initiative:
http://onlineeducation.universityofcalifornia.edu
The Initiative is an ongoing effort to integrate information technology into undergraduate instruction in an innovative response to the growing demand for selective, high quality, undergraduate education.
Our new website is meant to serve three important functions:
1) To gather and share information about online instruction efforts and lessons learned across the UC campuses and at other select universities and colleges.
2) To document the initiative's efforts to explore the efficacy of online instruction in UC's undergraduate curriculum, and to allow you to comment and provide feedback on much of that documentation.
3) To build a repository of current research, project briefings, news articles and other information that may inform the community about current practice, developing trends, opportunities and challenges in the use of online instruction in undergraduate education.
We invite you to visit the new website and peruse the project documents and other information to get a better understanding of the Initiative's goals and objectives. You can also browse the various resources and featured contributions to get a snapshot of current literature, news and research regarding online education. The website will be updated as the Initiative progresses, so visit us online periodically for the latest information about the project.
While you're at the website, we invite you to contribute to the Initiative by commenting on various project documents or submitting resources. We also welcome feedback on the Initiative or on the website itself - simply use the Contact Us form to do so.
http://onlineeducation.universityofcalifornia.edu
Thank you!
We would like to announce our new website for UC's Online Education Initiative:
http://onlineeducation.universityofcalifornia.edu
The Initiative is an ongoing effort to integrate information technology into undergraduate instruction in an innovative response to the growing demand for selective, high quality, undergraduate education.
Our new website is meant to serve three important functions:
1) To gather and share information about online instruction efforts and lessons learned across the UC campuses and at other select universities and colleges.
2) To document the initiative's efforts to explore the efficacy of online instruction in UC's undergraduate curriculum, and to allow you to comment and provide feedback on much of that documentation.
3) To build a repository of current research, project briefings, news articles and other information that may inform the community about current practice, developing trends, opportunities and challenges in the use of online instruction in undergraduate education.
We invite you to visit the new website and peruse the project documents and other information to get a better understanding of the Initiative's goals and objectives. You can also browse the various resources and featured contributions to get a snapshot of current literature, news and research regarding online education. The website will be updated as the Initiative progresses, so visit us online periodically for the latest information about the project.
While you're at the website, we invite you to contribute to the Initiative by commenting on various project documents or submitting resources. We also welcome feedback on the Initiative or on the website itself - simply use the Contact Us form to do so.
http://onlineeducation.universityofcalifornia.edu
Thank you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)