Category: U of Texas

MOOCs in the Muck

Good question!

Inside Higher Ed today runs an article on MOOC offerings at the U of Texas and Cornell.  At the former, there are the usual extremely low completion rates.  At the latter, resident students are asking the question in the photo at the right:

…”A year after UT began rolling out nine Massive Online Open Courses, the results are in,” The Daily Texan wrote in a Jan. 29 editorial… Among the “results” are completion rates ranging from 1 to 13 percent, the lack of credit granting courses and the $150,000 to $300,000 production costs…  (S)tudents at Cornell voiced similar concerns, arguing that “the administration has not yet outlined how MOOCs will benefit Cornell students.”


Have we heard this before?
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J_x9aAMqCE?feature=player_detailpage]

UC Submits Legal Brief on Affirmative Action to US Supreme Court

There is currently a challenge to the University of Texas’ affirmative action plan before the U.S. Supreme Court. Various interested parties have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the U of Texas program. Inside Higher Ed today carries a lengthy article on the case.

California voters enacted Prop 209 in 1996 which barred affirmative action in student admissions, so it might seem that UC has no interest in the Texas case.  (In 1995, before voters enacted Prop 209, the Regents had enacted a similar ban.  That ban was removed after Prop 209 made it redundant.)  However, UC has submitted a brief in support of the U of Texas’ position.  It essentially argues that the Prop 209 experience in California shows that affirmative action is needed.

The Inside Higher Ed article is at:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/14/college-groups-flood-supreme-court-briefs-defending-affirmative-action

The UC brief is at:
http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/ACR%20The%20President%20and%20Chancellors%20of%20the%20University%20of%20California-c.pdf

You can see the UC Regents’ 1995 action on affirmative action below:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBB1vM6RNZA?feature=player_detailpage]

Oops! U of Texas Faculty Productivity Not So Bad After All

Inside Higher Ed reports that the U of Texas-Austin – in response to a critical report sponsored by Gov. Perry on faculty productivity – produced its own report. Excerpt from the Inside Higher Ed article:

Measuring all instructors by the tuition revenue they bring in (on a per-credit analysis) and the outside research support they win, the faculty generated about about $658 million in revenue in 2009-10 (with about $400 million of that coming from external research). These faculty members were paid about $318 million in salary and benefits from state funds — meaning that the state is gaining twice as much in revenue from its faculty as it puts in.

CPEC Says Goodbye


CPEC – the California Postsecondary Education Commission – is in the process of going out of business, since it was zeroed out in the most recent state budget. As the webshot immediately above indicates, the CPEC website will go dark sometime this month. In the meantime, however, you can still find data on higher ed, such as the chart at the top comparing UC and U of Texas tuition. (You could probably have guessed – without the chart – which has become more expensive in recent years.)

Since the website is soon to be toast, some info on CPEC’s closure and original purpose is reproduced below. Also reproduced below (scroll to the bottom) are links to various UC data sites.

The California Postsecondary Education Commission’s entire General Fund allocation for 2011-12 was eliminated by Governor Brown in a line item veto upon signing the State Budget on June 30, 2011. This means that the Commission will cease to operate after the expiration of the required period for employees to find other positions or be laid off. The veto did not affect the federally-funded Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Program, which is expected to be transferred to another department, most likely the California Department of Education.

The Commission is working to relocate staff to other agencies and to preserve and protect the policy, research, and information assets of CPEC that are the product of nearly four decades of operation. It is unknown at this time what data, website, and documentary resources will remain available to the public, or where they may be housed.

Tentative plans exist for the Commission to hold its next regular quarterly meeting in early September; there will be no further meetings of the Commission after that date. The CPEC office is expected to remain open until the fall of 2011; a definite closing date will be posted on the website when it is available.

Commissioners and staff would like to thank the many higher education stakeholders, public policy agencies, elected officials and staffs, and members of the general public who have supported our work and utilized our resources over the life of the Commission and its predecessor agency, the Coordinating Council for Higher Education.

—-

The 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education recognized that critical to the success of the State’s tripartite system of public higher education was a central body responsible for coordination and planning for higher education. The California Postsecondary Education Commission was established in 1974 as the State planning and coordinating body for higher education by Assembly Bill 770 (Chapter 1187 of the Statutes of 1973), Education Code Section Education Code 66900-66906. The Commission serves a unique role in integrating policy, fiscal, and programmatic analyses about California’s entire system of postsecondary education; “to assure the effective utilization of public postsecondary education resources, thereby eliminating waste and unnecessary duplication, and to promote diversity, innovation, and responsiveness to student and societal needs through planning and coordination.”

The Commission provides the legislative and the executive branches of government with advice and information about major policy and planning issues concerning education beyond high school. This comprehensive, statewide planning for postsecondary education in the State is perhaps the most significant of the Commission’s multiple responsibilities.

Composition

The Commission consists of 16 members who are paid a stipend of $100 per meeting day. Nine of the commissioners represent the general public, with three each appointed for six-year terms by the Office of the Governor, the Senate Rules Committee, and the Speaker of the Assembly. Five others represent the major systems of postsecondary education in California: the California Community Colleges, the California State University, the University of California, the independent colleges and universities, and the California State Board of Education. Two student members are appointed by the Office of the Governor.

The Commission appoints its executive director who coordinates the agency’s staff to carry out the day to day work of the Commission. Its external affairs staff interacts on a daily basis with legislators and their staff, administrative offices, governmental officials, and media representatives. Its research staff prepares analyses, briefs, and numerous publications approved and published by the Commission. They also engage in various continuing activities such as reviewing proposed academic programs, new campuses or centers, conducting data analysis of student flow, and responding to requests of the Legislature and Governor.

Purpose

While there are many tasks and responsibilities which the Commission and its staff fulfill, the primary statutory purposes of the California Postsecondary Education Commission are:

* Develop an ongoing statewide plan for the operation of an educationally and economically sound, vigorous, innovative and coordinated system of postsecondary education;

* Identify and recommend policies to meet the educational, research and public service needs of the State of California; and

* Advise the Governor and Legislature on policy and budget priorities that best preserve broad access to high quality postsecondary education opportunities.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission reflects a deep commitment to serving the State as a whole, consistent with the underlying philosophy of the state’s Master Plan for Higher Education. The Commission is committed to an educational environment that exemplifies equality and educational opportunity, as well as a focus on student and institutional achievement and accountability.

Responsibilities

Among the duties and responsibilities of the Commission are the following:

* Provide independent, comprehensive, and timely information about student enrollment, educational outcomes and other educational policy issues;

* Conduct long-range planning of the needs for new college or university campuses in light of projected enrollment demand;

* Review proposals from public colleges and universities for new degree programs;

* Serve as the State’s primary information clearinghouse for postsecondary education;

* Evaluate budget requests of State-supported colleges and universities;

* Develop policy recommendations regarding financial aid programs for California students;

* Seek strategies for greater efficiency and cost containment in postsecondary education;

* Administer federal programs that improve teacher training by facilitating collaboration between K-12 and higher education faculties;

* Recommend to the Legislature and the Governor legislation the Commission deems necessary or appropriate to improve postsecondary education in California;

* Encourage greater cooperation and collaboration between and among California educational systems.

—-
The CPEC website provided links to various data centers related to UC. These are reproduced below:

• Higher Education Research Institute
• University of California Berkeley Office of Planning and Analysis
• University of California Berkeley Office of Student Research
• University of California Data: Data Archive & Technical Assistance
• University of California Davis Administative and Resource Management
• University of California Davis Student Affairs Research and Information
• University of California Information Digest
• University of California Irvine Office of Analytical Studies and Information Management
• University of California Los Angeles Office of Analysis and Information Management
• University of California San Diego Institutional Research
• University of California San Diego Student Research and Information
• University of California Santa Barbara Institutional Research and Planning
• University of California Santa Cruz Office of Institutional Research and Policy Studies
• University of California Statfinder
• University of California Statistical Summary of Students and Staff
• University of California, Berkeley, Planning and Research

U of Texas: Things to Come at UC?

Inside Higher Ed continues its coverage of ongoing political issues facing the U of Texas. Could similar developments be coming in UC’s future?

Wrong Kind of Accountability?
(excerpts)

May 10, 2011, Inside Higher Ed, Dan Berrett

Faculty and administrators at public universities in Texas said Monday they don’t want to shrink from efforts to make public higher education more accountable — they just don’t want to do it this way.

In this case, “this way” refers to efforts by the University of Texas System Board of Regents to measure the productivity of faculty members in strictly numerical terms. The efforts are reflected in 821 pages of raw data that have been collected by the UT system. The data have not been vetted. Each page contains the disclaimer that the information is “incomplete and has not yet been fully verified or cross referenced [and] [i]n its present raw form … cannot yield accurate analysis, interpretations or conclusions.” Originally planned for release after more thorough review later this year, the data reached the public last week through open records requests filed by several Texas newspapers. The information lists the salary, teaching load and number of students of each faculty member, as well as his or her external research funding…

But on Monday, the resistance to the productivity measures took a more public turn. In a speech, William Powers Jr., the president of UT-Austin, critiqued some of the assumptions underlying the analysis — though he never cited it or the regents directly. And, strikingly, he based his critique on the grounds that the analysis failed to adequately capture the output, productivity and relevance of research (typically, teaching is the aspect of a professor’s job that is thought to be the more difficult to accurately measure). Powers’s comments Monday were his first since last week’s release of the faculty productivity data at UT, and professors at Austin hailed their president’s words…

On Monday, the Faculty Council at UT-Austin agreed. It unanimously passed a vote of confidence in Powers and his administration… The Texas Public Policy Foundation — a think tank whose trustee, Brenda Pejovich, is also a regent and the chair of the UT board’s task force on faculty productivity — added that it, too, was pleased with one aspect of the president’s comments: his acknowledgment of the need for reform in an environment in which universities must do more with less…

Full article at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/05/10/texas_faculty_and_president_criticize_regents_measurement_of_professors
= = =
It can’t happen here, can it?

PS: If you think the U of Texas has problems, consider FSU:

A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University’s economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting “political economy and free enterprise.”

Full story at http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/billionaires-role-in-hiring-decisions-at-florida-state-university-raises/1168680

Texas A&M Alumni Complain About Political Interference

Inside Higher Ed pointed to the development reported below in the Houston Chronicle on the attempt by Texas Gov. Perry (right) and a management consultant to impose a faculty evaluation system at the U of Texas and Texas A&M. Prior posts on this blog have pointed to the issue:

Signaling the spread of a roiling controversy, 22 “distinguished alumni” at Texas A&M University on Tuesday criticized higher education reforms advocated by Gov. Rick Perry and an influential campaign contributor as “naïve … proposals from inexperienced individuals.”

The “Open Letter to the Texas A&M University Community” criticized the proposals of Jeff Sandefer, an Austin businessman and architect of the “Seven Breakthrough Solutions,” which have been championed by Perry as a means of making higher education more cost-effective. Sandefer, who has contributed nearly $450,000 to Perry’s campaigns, sent his own mass email this week defending his ideas as a pathway to “a superior education at a far lower cost.” …

“It is our opinion that several of these proposals will do significant damage,” the alumni wrote. “We encourage you to ask the Board of Regents to end their well-known support for the seven proposals. We call on you to ask the board of Regents to resist inappropriate political intervention …”

In response to one of the “seven solutions” promoted by Perry and Sandefer, Texas A&M published an online ranking of professors on their “productivity” based on the number of students they taught. The ranking earned the university a rebuke from the prestigious Association of American Universities, an organization of the nation’s top research institutions…

Full article at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7549024.html

Messing with the (U of) Texas

Inside Higher Ed today points to a story on efforts by Texas Governor Rick Perry to micro-manage the U of Texas. Summary at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/04/18/qt#257247

Perry emails tell a different story: Regents were pressed to adopt list of higher ed ‘reforms’ (excerpt)

Patricia Kilday Hart, April 17, 2011, Houston Chronicle

Contrary to his public statements distancing himself from a brewing controversy in higher education, Gov. Rick Perry continually pressed his appointees to university boards of regents to promptly adopt “reforms” that critics say are simplistic and harmful to research institutions, according to emails obtained by the Houston Chronicle. In May 2008, Perry summoned all Texas university regents and chancellors to a higher education summit and to hear Austin businessman Jeff Sandefer, a major Perry campaign contributor, explain “Seven Break-through Solutions” to shake up higher education.

Many of the ideas — measuring a professor’s “productivity” based on numbers of students and linking compensation to positive student evaluations — received a chilly reception, but the emails, obtained from the University of Texas and Texas A&M University, show Perry’s office continued to demand strict implementation of Sandefer’s ideas. The emails covered July 2008 through April 2009. In a Dec. 5, 2008, email, Perry aide Marisha Negovetich invited regents and chancellors to a “Seven Break-through Solutions Follow-up Meeting.”

“The Governor is anxious to put together a cohesive plan of action … and also learn from you what progress you have made to move these reforms forward,” she wrote…

Full story at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7524955.html

The guv’s just making sure everything at the university is under control:

UPDATE: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7529216.html

What $200,000 a year buys at the U of Texas

Inside Higher Ed points today to a story in an Austin, Texas paper. The story speaks for itself.

UT regents’ special adviser losing his job: Rick O’Donnell’s criticism of academic research didn’t sit well with lawmakers, others.

Austin American-Statesman, 3/24/11, Ralph K.M. Haurwitz

A special adviser with controversial views on research, teaching and other matters was reassigned by the University of Texas System on Thursday to a new job that will end by Aug. 31. The move is unlikely to quell concerns about the direction of the state’s largest and most prestigious university system under Gene Powell, chairman of the Board of Regents, whose priorities echo a number of those expressed by Gov. Rick Perry.

Indeed, the Ex-Students’ Association of UT-Austin, also known as the Texas Exes, said Thursday evening that it was calling on alumni to urge regents to renounce the special adviser’s assertions that much academic research lacks value and that some tenured faculty members should be replaced with lower-cost instructors. The Exes called such views “the most serious threat our university has faced in years.” …

…O’Donnell was reassigned Thursday as special assistant for research, reporting to Scott Kelley, executive vice chancellor for business affairs, said Anthony de Bruyn, a spokesman for the system. O’Donnell will assist two panels advising the regents, one on productivity and excellence, the other on online and blended learning. O’Donnell will continue to be paid $200,000 a year…

Full story at http://www.statesman.com/news/local/ut-regents-special-adviser-losing-his-job-1347933.html

It’s no picnic in Texas:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-akgDjpcD2M&w=480&h=390]

The Affirmative Action Controversy: Evidence of Strategic Behavior in Texas University Admissions

Under Prop 209, affirmative action in public university admissions is banned in California. As many will know, Prop 209 evolved out of a UC Regents action in the 1990s. (Subsequently, after Prop 209 passed, the Regents dropped their regulation. But the change had no effect since Prop 209 remained in effect.)

Over the years, various approaches have been proposed to increase minority representation in UC enrollment. One approach, found in Texas, is to take the top X percent of high school grads by high school rather than in all high schools combined. In Texas, X = 10%. A working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that such a system creates an incentive to enroll in less competitive high schools. The papers’ authors find such an effect although the absolute magnitude is small, in part because the ability to make such a choice is limited. For students who have such a choice, however, the magnitude can be relatively large. Given the constraints, the authors find a slight displacement of minority students from the eligible top-10 pool.

Below is an abstract of the paper and a link to the full text. (You should be able to obtain the full text at no cost because of a UCLA library subscription.)

Jockeying for Position: Strategic High School Choice Under Texas’ Top Ten Percent Plan
by Julie Berry Cullen, Mark C. Long, Randall Reback – NBER paper #16663
Abstract: Beginning in 1998, all students in the state of Texas who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school classes were guaranteed admission to any in-state public higher education institution, including the flagships. While the goal of this policy is to improve college access for disadvantaged and minority students, the use of a school-specific standard to determine eligibility could have unintended consequences. Students may increase their chances of being in the top ten percent by choosing a high school with lower-achieving peers. Our analysis of students’ school transitions between 8th and 10th grade three years before and after the policy change reveals that this incentive influences enrollment choices in the anticipated direction. Among the subset of students with both motive and opportunity for strategic high school choice, as many as 25 percent enroll in a different high school to improve the chances of being in the top ten percent. Strategic students tend to choose the neighborhood high school in lieu of more competitive magnet schools and, regardless of own race, typically displace minority students from the top ten percent pool. The net effect of strategic behavior is to slightly decrease minority students’ representation in the pool.

Full paper at http://papers.nber.org/papers/W16663

U of Texas Has a UCOF-Like Committee: Endorses Online Ed

Report: Shift colleges’ focus

Committee suggests better use of online classes and ‘no-frills’ education

By MELISSA LUDWIG
SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS

An advisory committee tasked with making Texas higher education more efficient recommended Thursday that the state make better use of online courses and “no-frills” education and tie state funds to course completion rather than enrollment.

Other suggestions included pushing students to finish college in four years and requiring them to complete 10 percent of their degrees outside the classroom.

Mandated last year by Gov. Rick Perry, the 20-member committee of business and education leaders presented a draft report to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board meeting in Austin. A final report will go to the governor’s desk by Nov. 1.

Jesse Rogers, president of Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls and a member of the committee, said the state’s college enrollment and graduation rates range from “poor to awful” and that Texas must get better results for the money it is spending.

“We have built a system of higher education in Texas that we can no longer afford to fund as it has been in the past,” Roger said.

Many of report’s suggestions are likely to spark controversy, but committee members said the state’s economic forecast calls for dramatic changes.

Full story at:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7131352.html