Blog readers may have noted we are slow in summarizing the final day (Sept. 16) of last month's Regents meetings. Indeed we are, although we have covered the first two days. But it takes time to go through the recordings (which we always preserve). So we are going to break Sept. 16's meeting into two parts and deal with part 1 here. We will get to part 2 when we can.
The meeting began with public comments. Many comments opposed the closing of a childcare program at UCLA. There were also several anti-SAT comments. There was also a pro-SAT comment. Other comments included opposition to Prop 38, housing for student-parents, renewable electricity, financial rewards at UCLA Health, support for the Berkeley litigation settlement on antisemitism, anti-Israel, and limits on the entity that will occupy part of the former Westside Pavilion.
After public comments, there was a grad student presentation expressing concerns about federal funding, basic needs, and childcare among other issues. An undergrad presentation expressed concerns about a privatized model of UC, ICE, disabled students, childcare, diversity, TPM, AI, and the SAT. A brief demonstration occurred but not enough to lead to a clearing of the room or a significant interruption.
There followed a presentation on AI and UC. Topics included cybersecurity, cost, data centers, access, a faculty and student usage. There was a theme about a need for a systemwide approach, partnerships with outside firms and DOE, the need for a legal framework including liability, the impact on student assessment and teaching and the inconsistent policies currently in effect. Centralization seemed to be favored, in part due to the costs of infrastructure. It was noted that unlike the various early dot-coms, AI is being monetized upfront. It was suggested this difference could lead to inequity. The idea of a "kill switch" was discussed and it was said there isn't such a thing now.
There was discussion of the history of testing at UC. It was stressed that this was a discussion item only; no decisions would be taken. Testing, it was said, arose out of the Master Plan of 1960 and concern that UC was admitting more than the top one eighth of California students. However, when the SAT was required in 1968, there was never an official cutoff score. Reviews of the SAT were undertaken in 2002 and 2009. A 2019 task force recommended continued use. But a combination of the pandemic and litigation led to the current test-free policy.
Two admissions officers - one from UC-Riverside, one from UCLA - made presentations. And a member of the committee that proposed continuing the SAT also testified, although he seemed to be a dissenter. Editorial comment: Would you really expect admissions officers to say that they are doing a deficient job now due to the absence of testing? They didn't, of course. All is well, they said. And if you wanted to hear a diversity of views, they clearly could have been on offer, given the campaign by many faculty for resuming use of the SAT. Regent Sures wanted to know what other universities are doing. Regent Park wanted to hear about the impact on STEM (as opposed to general data on graduation rates). Regent Arias was concerned about high schools that don't offer advanced courses and other problems in K-12.
We will get to the rest of the meeting (Part 2 of Sept. 16) when we can.
Meanwhile, the full meeting of Sept. 16 is at https://archive.org/details/regents-9-16-2026. The specific recording of what is summarized above is at:
https://ia801003.us.archive.org/31/items/regents-9-16-2026/Board%2C%20Academic%20and%20Student%20Affairs%209-16-2026.mp4. (Beginning through 2:55:15)
No comments:
Post a Comment