Search News


Browse Archives

News

California Dreamer

August 3, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Much of the news surrounding the University of California system has involved whether the network of universities will be able to survive its current budgetary crisis without shrinking in size or quality. In that context, it is no surprise that Christopher Edley Jr.’s plan to use online education to expand the university’s footprint “from Kentucky to Kuala Lumpur” has turned some heads -- and churned some stomachs.

Edley, dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, has been using his position as co-chair of the education and curriculum working group for the UC Commission on the Future to advocate for an ambitious expansion of the system’s online arm that could eventually include fully-online bachelor's degree programs designed to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars.

California is not the only state eyeing online education as a way to increase access and cut costs. But while many states are looking to use the popular medium to reach adult learners or save money at non-elite institutions, the University of California is a top-shelf research university that boasts one of the country's most competitive undergraduate programs. If the system does end up offering an online bachelor's degree, it would be a big step for online education.

Edley's idea is still in its early stages and has not been adopted into any strategic plan. The University of California Board of Regents has offered only informal, preliminary support, and the systemwide Faculty Senate has approved only a pilot program for 25 to 40 low-level, high-volume courses -- not a full-blown online degree program. Still, the rhetoric and sprawling, transformative vision Edley has been pushing have been received favorably by some while eliciting alarmed responses from others.

Members of a union representing graduate student-instructors at UC, finding Edley’s plan for “squadrons” of teaching assistants serving on “the frontline of online contact” more than a little dystopic, showed up to a regents’ meeting in May wearing patches that read “Dean Edley = Class(room) Enemy.” Edley’s goals for online education at UC were primarily profit-driven, they argued in a statement, and would “undoubtedly end in the complete implosion of public higher education in the embattled state of California.” Some professors and media outlets have expressed similar concerns.

Edley says that the implosion of the system is precisely what the online program would help prevent. The law dean-turned-futurist argues that even if a combination of spending cuts and state aid keeps the system afloat through its current crisis, the system is not equipped to enroll the 45,000 additional students it would need to close its $5 billion budget deficit.

“We face an enrollment gap, rejecting more and more eligible Californians," Edley wrote recently in an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle. "And a UC education likely will be decreasingly affordable, especially for the middle class… Our purpose is to advance knowledge while democratizing excellence. To do that, we must innovate.”

Edley says it is important that a pilot program affirm the quality of online courses before further stages of his vision are put into action, but he also seems to believe a future in which UC offers online bachelor's degrees is inevitable, and that the university should take steps toward doing so with all practical speed. "Eventually, there will be online credit-bearing courses and B.A. degrees in the so-called quality sector," his working group wrote in its proposal for the pilot. "...UC should be first, as soon as possible, and our ambitions should err on the side of boldness."

The Pivotal Pilot

The pilot, which could begin as soon as this fall, would have a team of professors and course designers move 25 to 40 entry-level courses from the classroom to the Web in an effort to assess the "effectiveness, cost, and sustainability of online education." Most of the UC courses that qualify as likely candidates are oriented to mathematics and the natural sciences — calculus, chemistry, physics, economics, etc. — but the system's highest-volume courses also include freshman composition, sociology, and world history.

Functionally, the pilot courses would be similar to the 78 credit-bearing courses currently offered across the UC system; only students currently enrolled in the university would take the courses, and there would be no fully-online degree track. The difference is that the pilot would focus on using the latest online teaching tools — particularly synchronous features such as live chats and videoconferencing — to replicate the quality of the in-person survey courses they would replace. As the pilot goes forward, a research team will be tasked with exploring a number of questions, including learning outcomes, cost, faculty workload, the ability to prevent cheating, and the relative effectiveness of different methods within the realm of online teaching.

While Edley's working group recommended in June that the university wrap up the pilot and interpret the data it produces "no later than fall 2011," an official response issued by the Berkeley division of the Academic Senate on July 20 described this timetable as "impossibly optimistic," noting the need for multiple trials and deliberate analysis. Edley admits now that the pilot could take considerably longer ("I personally am prone to err on the side of impatience," he says), and that he is leery of outpacing support from the faculty.

"Timing will be inevitably determined by a mixture of substance and politics," he says. "That's the way the world works."

Still, Edley says he hopes the pilot progresses as quickly as possible, and he recommended as much in a presentation last month with the Board of Regents, which has taken a particular interest in the law dean's plan for global expansion and nine-figure profits. The university could not immediately provide the details of its financial modeling, but other documents suggest that the money would come from tuition, fees, and perhaps licenses for "premium access" to course content. Daniel Greenstein, the vice provost for academic planning at UC, tells Inside Higher Ed that the revenue projections are “untested assumptions” based on “what we see out there in the world.” Testing profitability, Greenstein says, would be one goal of the pilot program.

Pockets of Dissent

On the whole, professors have supported preliminary steps toward expanding UC's online offerings. In May, the Faculty Senate unanimously endorsed the pilot program. Several campus-level faculty senates have even offered up their own courses as guinea pigs. “Advancing technology,” wrote a task force dispatched by the Academic Senate last year to study the issue, “may offer a significant opportunity that UC has yet to exploit, although it is well-positioned to do so.”

But some UC professors, like the graduate students' union, remain skeptical. The Berkeley Faculty Association — a group of about 300 professors — put out a report in May that did not condemn the pilot but voiced concerns about where Edley wants it to lead.

The association was particularly unnerved by the idea of graduate student-instructors being the “frontline of contact” with online students, as Edley put it. For some, that sort of talk evokes a model many for-profit institutions have used to keep payroll expenses low and administrative control high: have full-time faculty put together the syllabus, then hire less-expensive adjuncts to deliver it. Faculty resistance to this sort of University of Phoenix-inspired arrangement was a major factor in last year’s implosion of the University of Illinois Global Campus, a similarly ambitious online effort. (Other large online programs based at large state universities have been more successful: UMassOnline enrolls nearly 50,000 students and earned the University of Massachusetts $56.2 million last year, and Penn State University’s World Campus has garnered similar returns.)

Wendy Brown, a political science professor at Berkeley who co-authored the Faculty Association report, told Inside Higher Ed that she has no qualms with a pilot going forward. What she worries about is the way Edley has been framing it as a first step toward something larger and perhaps more controversial. Inferring from Edley's idea of graduate student-instructors forming the "frontlines of contact" with online students, Brown says she worries the law dean's proposed cyber-campus would contribute to the displacement of full-time faculty members with adjuncts — a perennial concern among traditional faculty everywhere, given the decline of tenure and the popularity of the Phoenix model. “This is absolutely part of a larger set of proposals referred to by the Commission on the Future that describe the necessity of shrinking the letter-rank faculty and increasing part-time faculty,” says Brown.

Edley says this is not his agenda at all. He says he imagines online courses as being structured just like the existing face-to-face versions they would replace: A professor develops the syllabus and delivers the lessons, and graduate assistants lead discussion groups and grade assignments, under the professor's supervision. Edley says that rather than enabling layoffs, the cyber-campus would prevent them, and might even allow the university to grow its full-time faculty in a way that it could never hope to under current conditions. “Our financial estimates make very clear that this might allow us to expand the number of 'ladder' faculty, rather than substituting adjuncts,” he says.

Other critics fear for the university's brand. "UC faculty members are skeptical now, but in the future, employers and graduate schools will be," wrote the San Francisco Chronicle in a July 18 editorial. The Berkeley Faculty Association report alluded to similar concerns about the capability of graduates who earned their degrees apart from "the academic-intellectual benefits of university culture." Both seemed to imply that a University of California degree encompasses something beyond just a sequence of classroom sessions; it also means that the degree-holder has, in a less tangible way, benefited intellectually and socially from spending years immersed in campus life.

"Tons of research" supports the thesis that the online platform itself does not diminish in-class learning in many disciplines, says John Bourne, executive director of the Sloan Consortium and editor of the Journal of Asynchronous Learning. But what about the intellectual and social growth that purportedly occurs outside the classroom at traditional colleges? How important is it, from the standpoint of a graduate's capability, and a university's reputation, that students take part in the extracurricular parts of campus culture that online education has so far been at a loss to replicate?

Edley says that question interests him, and that he wants to explore it in the pilot "if we can." But he points out that any progress toward an answer would be limited, since most students in the pilot will be currently enrolled students from the campus. Really, one would need a sample of students taking all their courses remotely. A draft prospectus for the pilot program mentions that some "fully distant" students could be studied through summer sessions and "cross-campus and dual enrollments"; but in order to get the strongest sample one would need an online bachelor's program already in place. And even then, it might be years before researchers could have any idea of the post-graduate success of fully online students relative to their on-campus peers.

Really, the law dean says, people need to let go of the idea that the two types of experience can be compared in a tidy, definitive way. "Quality," says Edley, might mean something completely different in the online world. “What will be key," he says, "is making sure we don’t define quality as replicating or simulating everything that goes on on campus, but instead ask what is fundamental to quality, and then examine the trade-offs.” This, of course, is also an ambitious research question — one that could also be hard to resolve within a pilot.

Selling The Big Picture

Edley has hardly been deterred by his critics. His working group brought an expanded set of recommendations to a June meeting of the Commission on the Future, advising that the commission tell President Mark G. Yudof to, among other things, prepare a systemwide business plan leveraging online courses to “generate a large new revenue stream” that would prop up the system’s brick-and-mortar operation. Long-term net revenue from these courses “would be comfortably into 9 figures,” the group predicted.

The manifesto-like document also notes that while an aggressive approach to building the proposed cyber-campus might come with “internal political and bureaucratic risks,” it would be the best way to “mobilize support from potential donors, the legislature, and the general public.” Edley told Inside Higher Ed that he imagines the university might like to get its feet wet by first running a fully-online associate degree program before taking the plunge on the bachelor's, but he reiterated the sense of urgency he has been trying to promote about beating peer institutions to the punch.

The Commission on the Future discussed the online manifesto at a meeting last month. “The consensus was that yeah, this is something to be moved forward — to be kept on the table when other things were taken off the table,” says Steve Montiel, a spokesman for the president’s office.

Edley’s plan won him a coveted audience with the Board of Regents this month. The law school dean took a more restrained tack in his presentation, emphasizing that fully online undergraduate degrees were “not on the table right now,” according to a copy of his PowerPoint presentation; in a slide listing things the Commission on the Future is “likely” to propose, he left off fully-online degree programs, predicting only that the commission would call for an “expeditious execution of the Online Pilot Project.” He also reiterated that faculty support would be essential to the fate of the cyber-campus, and that “large-scale deployment” would work only “if quality is achievable.”

The meeting was purely informational, and it would likely be a while before the Regents voted on any formal action related to Edley’s broader vision. But apart from one or two skeptics, the governing body took favorably to the idea of UC offering an online undergraduate degree program down the line if the pilot pans out, says Montiel. The Commission on the Future, meanwhile, would likely revisit Edley’s plans either next month or in the fall, he says. The commission will likely make its formal recommendations by the end of the year.

So all eyes are on the pilot program, on whose success any subsequent transformation of the system’s undergraduate curriculums would appear to turn. Beyond that, the question is to what extent the UC faculty -- which so far has been guaranteed final say over any online course -- would continue to support the administration if it moves forward on some of the more controversial aspects of Edley’s vision.

At a meeting of the systemwide Faculty Senate last week, representatives expressed general wariness of “the proposal to accelerate and broaden an online instruction program and to initiate planning for a coordinated approach” to a larger push for online education.

The general mood was clear, says Fiona Doyle, chair of the Berkeley division of the senate: Go ahead with the pilot — but as far as fully online bachelor’s degrees stamped with the seal of the University of California, those kids in Kentucky and Kuala Lumpur should not hold their breath just yet.

For the latest technology news from Inside Higher Ed, follow IHEtech on Twitter.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on California Dreamer

  • Broadly, he's right
  • Posted by Dean Dad on August 3, 2010 at 8:00am EDT
  • It's increasingly clear that public higher ed won't be able to rely on the state to the extent it has in the past; that's especially true in California. As awkward as it can be to grow revenues, it beats cutting costs. The details matter, and I assume they'll evolve, but Edley is broadly right to look at ways to make the core educational mission self-sustaining.

  • Proposed deck chair rearrangement for the Titanic
  • Posted by Ken D. on August 3, 2010 at 10:30am EDT
  • Why do the proponents of this plan assume that future revenue streams will be unaffected by the substitution of online for on campus courses? Assuming that ways can be found to offer the same quality of learning online as in the classroom, (and this is by no means a given), but assuming it could be done would there not also be powerful market forces putting downward pressure on prices as well?

    Certainly some day online education will dominate in HE, but odds are it won't be to the timetable of the UC Regents. And what it will look like when it happens probably today few people really know.

    Investing in one's predictions of how the Internet will be used ten years hence is basically a good way to lose money.

    And speaking of good ways to lose money, isn't the 800 pound gorilla here really the bloated UC infrastructure? Why not deal with that directly?

    The old adage in HE is that all you really need for a college is a great professor, a student, and a log for both of them to sit on. But UC has constructed this unbelievably complicated organizational structure which seems to take in every positive enterprise under the sun; thrown it all into a big box, and then wonders at the fact that no one can really understand how its all supposed to break even or why anyone should fund it. Why not break up the UC organizational behemoth into separate autonomous profit centers? That way at least one might know where the system is hemorrhaging cash, and funders might know where their money is going.

    One suspects that UC's recent interest in online education is merely a diversion to avoid the need to deal with the system's more pressing current organizational problems. In doing so, they are wasting precious time which will only make future necessary actions more difficult.

  • Posted by Bob Samuels on August 3, 2010 at 11:30am EDT
  • I have posted a response to this article on my blog that details how the push for online education is hiding the the causes of the UC's fiscal woes: http://changinguniversities.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-push-for-online-degrees-hides-cause.html

  • Where's the beef?
  • Posted by California adjunct on August 3, 2010 at 11:30am EDT
  • The concerns of Edley's naysayers are not just valid, but critical. If UC wants to embrace online education in a way that is genuinely elite, it can't do so with what Edley envisions. The question is not whether to have online. The question is what makes an elite university elite--and from what I see as a longtime adjunct fly-on-the-wall, Cal at the undergraduate level does not represent an elite experience, and has not for a long, long time, in large measure because stagnant budgets in the face of a sclerotic and obese administrative structure saps finances that should go to faculty hires, and other misplaced priorities, do not an elite environment make. Viewed through that lens, Edley's program as described is a disaster because it embraces the worst of this reality. An elite undergrad program is not just a matter of faculty with elite degrees and students from the uppermost tiers of their high schools. What defines elite? Core courses of 500-1000 and upwards? Grossly underpaid and ill-used adjuncts and inexperienced graduate students the bulk of that academic experience? Often without offices? Priorities that heavily favor full time faculty research to the active detriment of teaching? What about the loopholes admitting a large contingent of less-than-stellar undergraduates--and who then do not perform? (I have had many.) If one looks beyond UC Berkeley to other UC Campuses, one finds libraries in desperate straights--in one, national ranking has fallen from 23 to 56 due to impossible budget constraints over more than a decade. The list of "not elite" goes on and on and on. The full time faculty who labor to provide top drawer education under the conditions I routinely see deserve medals, unfortunately for what seems to be a losing war. Edley's idea is as planned is a Trojan Horse. Online is valid only insofar as it solves these problems and returns UC to a genuinely elite standard.

  • Distance Education is costly
  • Posted by Alan Contreras , Administrator at Oregon Office of Degree Authorization on August 3, 2010 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Keep in mind that providing adequate oversight and quality control for a vast array of sites, especially outside the U.S., is complex and expensive. Just look at the recent issues that Washington State and Northcentral U. encountered trying to operate in Vietnam.

    There is nothing theoretically wrong with UC trying to provide its courses all over the world, but it certainly won't save any money unless the university simply abandons qualitative oversight.

    It is sad to see such a great institution compelled to become a bride of convenient virtue for anyone who promises deliverance from reality.

  • online courses
  • Posted by Professor at Large on August 3, 2010 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Do any of these advocates for online courses actually read the research? I mean, really read and study the research? The mistaken belief that these courses are a way to 'save money' will disappear should any of them actually study, in depth, all of the research, particularly on the quality of online courses, which I, alas, have been 'encouraged' of late to do, since I was 'encouraged' by 'budget cuts' to seek employment elsewhere in higher ed--in order to maintain the same quality of the traditional 'face to face' classroom, one must invest at least three times the time--both student and instructor--there are no 'shortcuts' for these online interactions to be successful; time is money, and three times the money means that, in the long run, these courses will cost . . . three times as much--even I, a humanities professor can do that math. I suspect that once the professorate actually gets inside these courses and begins teaching them, the rest of us will discover this one simple fact, and this supposed panacea for desperate budget-cutters will vanish like a mirage in the desert, which is what it truly is.

  • it's all about money, not learning
  • Posted by MathProf on August 3, 2010 at 12:30pm EDT
  • This part of the article makes it all clear: "payroll expenses low and administrative control high: have full-time faculty put together the syllabus, then hire less-expensive adjuncts to deliver it."

    Universities are centers for independent thought. Once this is lost sight of, the whole enterprise crumbles into "what does this cost?" charts. "Independent" doesn't mean a student sitting in his room alone; it means smart people working and arguing together over important questions with first-class data and experiments and research to back up their positions.

    But if the goal is to save money, on-line "education" will deliver. (Especially if it's subsidized by federal loans for the students.)

    Experiment, Dean Edley, by all means. Just remember what your experiment is testing.

  • lightning rod for every issue
  • Posted by JohnS on August 3, 2010 at 1:30pm EDT
  • It seems to me that the topic of creating more online courses serves as a lightning rod for every imaginable and contoversial issue in higher ed today -- the higher ed finance model, use of adjuncts and grad students, defining and controlling for quality, expanding access, shifting power, etc.

    As with education in general, online education takes many forms -- some high quality, some not; some expensive, some cheaper; some involve different admissions standards, some don't. You can't generalize except to the extent that some variables are directly related to the characteristics of being online. It would be accurate to say that it's more convenient. Also, generally speaking, initial time (and cost) to set up an online course are probably higher but then variable costs for subsequent offerings of the same course probably lower.

    Offering online learning clearly won't solve the UC's financial problems. But if it generates some net revenue as online programs have done for other systems, then it could perhaps alleviate some of the financial problems.

    As for diluting the elite quality of a UC education, I wholeheartedly concur with "California adjunct" and his post. I attended UCLA as an undergrad in large part due to its reputation as one of the best university's in the nation. At $431/quarter in fees it was also a bargain in 1984. Most of the instruction and "faculty" contact that I received was with foreign graduate students and adjuncts. My entire first year of chemistry and calculus was delivered in lectures of 300. I had very little contact with so-called "elite" faculty or their research except through substantial initiative.

    One anecdote that I must share: in several courses we read and discussed the writings of "Harvard political scientist James Q. Wilson." One day, at the end of my very last quarter at UCLA, I was thumbing through the student catalogue for some reason and came across James Q. Wilson. I thought: "Could it be the same one I've come across in my studies?" So I called him up, made an appointment and met with him. It was indeed the "Harvard political scientist" and he had been at UCLA for the past six years. He shared with me that I was the first and only undergrad he had met with since coming to UCLA. And judging by some of my professors' continued references to him as a "Harvard political scientist" there were probably a great deal of faculty who didn't know he was there either. He was in the management school so perhaps the political science department didn't know he was at UCLA. If that defines "elite" then I don't see how increasing online education in the UC system will have any discernable, negative impact on the quality of undergraduate education.

  • Is this journalism?
  • Posted by Wendy Brown , Political Science at UC Berkeley on August 3, 2010 at 9:00pm EDT
  • This is astonishing. I spent 45 minutes on the phone with the author of this article, explaining that the Berkeley Faculty Association's primary concern about Edley's vision pertained to its likely diminution of the value and quality of a liberal arts education in favor of one that could be packaged and sold on-line. As I explained in detail what the dangers of the Edley vision are for an education premised on broad knowledge and deep thinking, and what the implications are for eliminating this in a democracy, I repeatedly brushed aside what Kolowich called "the labor issue." Kolowich kept trying to get me to say that we "opposed" the plan out of concerns with job security, a gambit I continually refused. In fact, the BFA does not oppose on-line education as such nor does it oppose courses taught by lecturers. What the BFA is trying to preserve is Berkeley as a first class research and teaching university, one animated by public purposes and committed to developing well-educated citizens. This is what our initial report on the Edley vision made clear (See it at http://ucbfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BFA-report-on-UCOF-and-the-Cyber-Campus-Proposal.pdf) and this is what I made clear in the phone interview. Kolowich, however, already knew the story he wanted to write, and managed to write it without being the least bit disturbed by the lengthy interviews he conducted with me and with my colleague in Chemistry, Kristie Boering. Is such imperviousness to thought and thoughtfulness a sign of the future "educated class"? Is the possibility that faculty could care about something other than their own feathered nests simply illegible to this generation of education journalists?

  • Paper Degrees
  • Posted by Carl P. on August 3, 2010 at 9:00pm EDT
  • Until they deal with the cheating problem, fully-online degrees won't be worth the paper they are printed on.

  • On quality
  • Posted by Kieran M. on August 4, 2010 at 8:30am EDT
  • At my university, teaching quality is not important. It's not a big part of T&P, not systematically assessed, not even talked about seriously by university executives. Not for the 20 years I've been there. Not surprisingly, we have some atrocious instructors.

    There is learning science research on what quality means and how it can be enhanced. There are books on how to use the research to improve learning. E.g., read Fink for operational advice, Weimer for a broader view. Read Understanding by Design for a course design process.

    A well-designed online course could help students learn more than much of the trash teaching at my university.

    I don't have any pat answers. But:

    • The current financing system drains family coffers, excludes many from HE, and leaves the neediest students with the largest debt. It entrenches class differences. And things will only get worse.
    • Tech is becoming more and more capable. In another's words, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
    • The number one reason Americans go to college is future financial security. The job.

    Here's a scenario. Image a private company figures it all out. The company might not even call itself a university; it won't need to. It uses online tech and learning science to deliver courses that help meet students' main need - jobs. It will use local testing centers to control cheating. For fields like nursing, the company will have arrangements with other organizations (e.g., hospitals) to give the physical experience students need.

    Students will "graduate" (if they even use that term) with at least the same job-related skills as those provided by a traditional undergrad degree. The company will have empirical evidence to that effect. It will be able to show that its graduates are at least as good at business, engineering, computer science, nursing, teaching, writing, law, foreign languages, ...

    You object, "What about the certification that a degree provides?" Suppose that companies like Microsoft, Apple, and IBM look at the evidence, and say, "These computer science graduates have the skills we are looking for." The big accounting firms did the same for accounting graduates. And so on.

    You ask, "Where is the positive socialization? Where are the civic values? Where are the gen ed courses, where students become educated citizens?" Many students won't care. They can get certification for the thing that matters nost - getting a job - at half the cost.

    The company won't offer all the programs a traditional university does. They will only offer the profitable ones. The programs that, at a traditional university, subsidize the rest. The company will be happy to leave the unprofitable programs to traditional schools.

    I don't know whether all this would happen. But there's a big motivation to figure it out: there's money to be made. Lots and lots.

    Do I want this to happen? I'm torn, but ultimately my answer is: yes. The country would be better off.

    Unless there's a better solution to our problems. I'd like to hear it.

  • The questions have been answered.....
  • Posted by Community College Professor , Dean, Instructional Technology at Mt. San Jacinto College on August 5, 2010 at 7:30pm EDT
  • I have been involved with developing online programs in the California Community College System for over ten years. In that time the questions that are posed in this article, have been asked and answered (yes, through research and student success data). UC is coming very late to this arena and should spend some time in conversation with its not so “elite” colleagues. We have a great deal of experience to offer, and the wheel need not be reinvented. The technology needed to provide a quality educational experience for students is available and proven to be effective. Students are served well, cost is similar to face-to-face, access is better, and often the resulting course is much better than its face-to-face counterpart. The key is in knowing how to teach online. Perhaps, like all education, the successes are a result of good teaching.