Talking Back

From the Daily Bruin: The UC implemented a virtual language education initiative in January, sparking pushback from instructors amid language program cuts. The Global Language Network, which was designed by UC humanities deans, allows faculty from different UC campuses to provide digital foreign language instruction to all University students.* The program was first designed in May 2023 to address a major decline in language class enrollment since 2019, said Alexandra Minna Stern, the dean of UCLA’s division of humanities and the network’s leader.

The network will adapt a subset of UC language courses – focusing on less commonly taught languages – students can enroll in over UC Online, a virtual cross-campus platform, Stern said. However, the program is intended to eventually include all languages taught across the UC, totaling more than 100, according to the GLN website. UC language instructors and department leaders alleged that they were not consulted during GLN’s development, adding that they only found out about it years after its initiation, through word of mouth or by randomly accessing its website. Others said they only discovered its existence when they were asked to fill out a questionnaire on it in 2025, after the network proposal was submitted to UC Provost Katherine Newman...

Michael Cooperson, UCLA’s Near Eastern Languages and Cultures department chair, said a humanities dean told him that language classes with fewer than 15 students enrolled would eventually be cut and some would be moved online. However, these languages will only be taught by one campus each, as a result of GLN. He clarified in an email statement that Reem Hanna-Harwell, a senior associate dean in the division of humanities who is now UCLA’s interim CFO, said this to him at a meeting. Hanna-Harwell, who became UCLA’s interim chief financial officer in February, did not respond to a request for comment on the alleged statement...

Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2026/04/02/some-uc-language-programs-are-getting-moved-online-these-professors-arent-happy.

===

How effective learning languages online is - particularly for languages not commonly spoken in the US - needs to be studied. It is easy to get carried away by technological possibilities. Consider this statement from 1935:

Radio broadcasting is one of the greatest educational tools which has ever been placed at the disposal of civilized man. It is an instantaneous, universal means of communication. It is not a new art, but is a means of multiplying the efficiency of oral communication just as the printing press multiplied the effectiveness of the written word. In addition to that, it has certain decided advantages over the printed page which it in part supplants and in part supplements.**

So maybe try it out in a limited way before making wholesale changes?

===

*https://www.ucop.edu/uc-online/programs-and-initiatives/global-language-network/index.html.

**Tracy F. Tyler, "Radio and Education," The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Feb., 1935), pp. 115-117: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20258384.

The Elephant in the Zoom

The California State Auditor (CSA) apparently raised questions about use of "Online Program Management" companies (OPMs) to provide online instruction UC campuses. Since online instruction came into use, there have been commercial firms that provide instruction and have internet platforms for doing so. The Auditor apparently was concerned about who was doing the instruction as opposed to the method of delivery. The systemwide Academic Senate conducted a review in response.

Much of Senate review seems focused on "transparency" about who was doing the instruction, i.e., disclosing whether the instructor was from UC or from the outside OPM. But there seems to be a larger issue about outsourcing teaching. While much is said in the review about assuring quality, the review seems to sidestep the issue of outsourcing instruction. This avoidance seems surprising given the sometimes excessive concerns at UC and at the UC campuses about protecting "brands." Do we really want to have students, who have competed to be admitted to a UC campus and program, be taught by outside OPM instructors? Is that what our students thought they would be getting when they applied?

That's the unaddressed Elephant in the Zoom.

We reproduce below the cover letter of the review dated Nov. 20 to UC Provost Newman from Academic Council Chair Palazoglu. However, as noted, the issue raised in the Nov. 5 letter to Chair Palazoglu from Katheryn Niles Russ, Chair, Davis Division of the Academic Senate, Professor of Economics, University of California, Davis, seems to have been neglected in the final report: 

...UGC [Undergraduate Council] highlights their concern that the California State Auditor’s (CSA) report revealed that OPM-run courses were misrepresented as UC offerings, and wonders which departments are already using OPMs, how these arrangements benefit students, and what circumstances truly require OPM-hired instructors versus UC faculty and instructors. Similarly, CAES [College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences] questions what prompted the audit by the CSA and asks what the perceived benefits of hiring an outside company to manage these courses rather than vetting and hiring lecturers to manage the course internally are. CAES also wonders whether every OPM instructor should be reviewed and appointed as a lecturer to ensure that they meet UC standards, and whether the interim policy reflects a move to start offering third-party online courses for students for credit...

Source: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/council-chair-to-provost-presidential-opm-policy.pdf (p. 9)

=====================

November 20, 2025

Katherine S. Newman

Provost and Executive Vice President, Academic Affairs

Re: Systemwide Senate Review of Interim Presidential Policy for the University of California’s Use of Online Program Management Companies

Dear Provost Newman,

As requested, I distributed for systemwide Academic Senate review the Interim Presidential Policy for UC’s Use of Online Program Management Companies (OPMs). All 10 Academic Senate divisions and two systemwide Senate committees (UCEP [University Committee on Educational Policy], UCFW [University Committee on Faculty Welfare]) submitted comments. These were discussed at the Academic Council’s November 17, 2025 meeting, and the compiled feedback is attached for your reference.

The policy responds to recommendations from the California State Auditor (CSA) concerning UC’s use of OPMs. It establishes systemwide standards to uphold academic integrity, transparency, and compliance with federal and accreditation requirements in OPM partnerships. The policy requires that students be informed when courses are taught by non-UC instructors employed by OPMs and that instructor affiliations and credentials be clearly disclosed. It prohibits enrollment-based financial incentives, outlines expectations for student interaction and assessment, and provides guidance for working with accredited and non-accredited affiliates. The policy currently applies to graduate-level programs but may extend to undergraduate programs as UC expands online course offerings.

Senate reviewers expressed general support for the intent of the interim policy to ensure academic integrity, transparency, and compliance with federal and accreditation standards in UC’s partnerships with OPMs. They viewed the policy as an appropriate and necessary response to the CSA’s findings and an important step toward establishing consistent systemwide standards to address identified risks. However, reviewers found that the policy would benefit from greater clarity and detail regarding faculty oversight, intellectual property, and implementation mechanisms.

Policy Scope and Definitions: Reviewers requested clarification of the policy’s scope, noting inconsistent references to courses, programs, and divisions, as well as conflation of terms such as “schools,” “divisions,” and “Extension.” They recommended aligning terminology, clearly distinguishing between instructional and non-instructional OPM activities, and defining the policy’s coverage as UC expands into undergraduate online instruction.

Senate Oversight: Reviewers emphasized that Senate review and continuing faculty oversight must apply to all OPM-affiliated courses and programs. UCEP specifically noted the need to align OPM-related instructional hiring with Senate Regulations 750A and 800A, which govern faculty appointments and course approval. The committee also highlighted variation in Professional and Continuing Education hiring practices across campuses and recommended stronger coordination and oversight to ensure consistency and academic standards.

Instructor Qualifications and Transparency: Faculty supported disclosure of instructor affiliation and credentials but questioned the usefulness of fine distinctions among UC-employed and UC-contracted instructors. Several noted that professional programs may appropriately prioritize industry experience over traditional academic credentials.

Student Data Privacy and Security: There was strong concern about protecting student information handled by third-party vendors. Reviewers urged that all OPM contracts undergo IT security and privacy review consistent with UC data protection policies and that data retention and recovery protocols be clearly specified.

Intellectual Property and Course Ownership: Reviewers sought explicit assurance that instructional materials developed by UC instructors remain UC or faculty property and that UC retains control over the use and withdrawal of content hosted by OPM platforms.

Course Evaluation: Reviewers supported student evaluations but advised aligning them with UC’s established evaluation practices, supplementing them with peer or faculty review and periodic program-level assessments similar to academic program reviews. UCEP recommended that evaluations include items addressing the adequacy of online modality support for students.

Compliance, Accountability, and Transparency: While reviewers supported the prohibition on incentive-based compensation, they found enforcement provisions vague and recommended clearer accountability for campuses and vendors, defined consequences for violations, and greater transparency into UC’s OPM relationships. Many suggested a systemwide registry or regular reporting of contracts, financial terms, and oversight outcomes, and encouraged UC to build internal capacity for online program management to safeguard academic quality.

Overall, Senate reviewers support the policy’s goals and urge UCOP to strengthen provisions related to faculty oversight and appointment processes, clarify terminology and scope, specify data and intellectual property protections, and establish robust enforcement and transparency mechanisms before issuing a final policy.

Thank you for the opportunity to opine. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Ahmet Palazoglu

Chair, Academic Council

cc: Academic Council, Director of Academic Planning and Policy Corona, Senate Division Executive Directors, Senate Executive Director Lin

Source: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/council-chair-to-provost-presidential-opm-policy.pdf (pp. 1-3)

Online Courses and Outside Vendors

The California State Auditor looked at UC's policy of engaging outside vendors in connection with online course offerings. As a result, UC has various policies under review. The policies would apply to any educational offering, whether undergraduate, graduate, or extension.

Perhaps the most salient aspect of the policies is the requirement for transparency to students. If a course is offered, is the instructor an actual UC employee or someone hired by the vendor? The latter isn't prohibited but it must be disclosed so that the student knows in advance who is giving the course.

When an outside vendor is involved, there has to be a course evaluation process meeting specified criteria.

Finally, there can't be a compensation plan for the vendor keyed to the number of students enrolled.

Comments on the proposed standards are due by Nov. 12. Details at:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/systemwide-senate-review-presidential-policy-for-uc-use-of-opms.pdf.

Note: Yours truly was unable to find the Auditor's report that led to this policy on the Auditor's website. There is no citation of any specific Auditor's report at the link above. It is not clear why there is no citation.

2% to 6%

According to EdSource, in the academic year just before the pandemic, 2% of UC course sections were online. Although the vast majority of course sections went online in the pandemic period, in the last academic year (2023-24), 6% were online. So you could say the number tripled from the pre-pandemic period. Or your could say that after the dust settled, only 6% were online.

The article notes that the impact on community colleges was much greater (18% to 41%). In between was CSU, going from 11% to 22%.

Full story at https://edsource.org/2025/at-community-colleges-online-classes-remain-popular-years-after-pandemic/728458.

Gone Missing

A promised Annual Report on online education at UC seems to have gone missing:

October 1, 2024

YVETTE GULLATT, VICE PRESIDENT & VICE PROVOST

GRADUATE, UNDERGRADUATE AND EQUITY AFFAIRS

Re: Request for UC Online Annual Report

Dear Vice President Gullatt,

At its September 2024 meeting, the Academic Council endorsed the attached letter* from the University Committee on Educational Policy (UCEP) requesting an annual report from UC Online on its systemwide course offerings. This request reflects the Senate’s ongoing interest in the success of UC Online, as well as a desire for greater transparency regarding enrollment trends, student demographics, and academic outcomes. As UC Online continues to grow, it is important that the unit be equipped with the means to provide a clear and comprehensive overview of its impact on student access to courses, students’ performance, and overall program effectiveness.

UCEP has identified several key areas that should be addressed in the annual report, including:

1) The number of students who applied for, enrolled in, and completed UC Online courses over the past academic year.

2) Demographic breakdowns for these students, including transfer, firstgeneration, underrepresented, and other historically under-served groups.

3) A list of all UC Online courses offered, including course names, sponsoring campus, numbers, units, and enrollment/completion data, along with average final grades.

4) A report from the UC Online Advisory Council outlining its membership, meeting dates, and key decisions made.

The Academic Council believes such data as outlined above will provide valuable insights into UC Online that can help inform strategic planning and resource allocations. These data will also enable the Senate to better understand the program’s role in advancing the University’s educational mission and addressing student equity gaps.

We would appreciate a response confirming whether this request for an annual report will be accommodated, and if so, a timeline for when we can expect the report. If there are any concerns or reasons that the request cannot be met, we kindly ask that you communicate this to the Senate so we can determine next steps.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Steven W. Cheung, Chair, Academic Council

Cc: Academic Council, UCEP, Executive Director Moe, Senate Division Executive Directors, Senate Executive Director Lin

===

*The letter above and the attached letter to which reference is made are at https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/ac-yg-request-uconline-annual-report-10-1-24.pdf. Excerpt from the attached letter:

...UC Online’s new executive director, appointed in May 2023, met with UCEP for the first time in December 2023. The executive director reviewed the seven recommendations delineated in the July memo and stated that the program is committed to ensuring data is appropriately collected, secured, and analyzed. The committee was informed that UC Online would begin producing an annual report and the executive director anticipated that the first report would be available to share with UCEP later this academic year (expected by Spring 2024). When the executive director joined UCEP on May 20th, 2024 the committee was informed that the annual report would not be available until the fall...

Not us

The NY Times carries an article focusing on CalTech's advertising of online programs (for money) that aren't in fact produced by CalTech.* But the same issue was also spotlighted by the state auditor in a report on UC: 

--

From a June 6, 2024 analysis by the state auditor: Online courses and programs have become increasingly common in higher education. Many colleges work with third-party vendors known as online program managers (OPMs), which assist in the development and implementation of online programs. OPMs generally provide instruction and support services, such as marketing, recruiting, course development, and technology-related support. In this audit, we examined the University of California’s (UC) use of OPMs at five campuses—University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley); University of California, Davis (UC Davis); University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA); University of California, San Diego (UC San Diego); and University of California, Santa Barbara (UC Santa Barbara)—and drew the following conclusions:

--

UC Uses OPMs to Teach Students in Some Nondegree Programs but Is Not Always Transparent About Doing So

We identified 51 UC contracts with OPMs that were in effect as of January 1, 2023, none of which involved undergraduate education. Of those contracts, 30 were with the five campuses we selected for further review, and 10 of those 30 related to graduate education. However, these 10 contracts involved support services rather than instruction. Of the 30 contracts we reviewed, 15 related to continuing education, which UC provides through extension units that are associated with campuses but that operate independently. Under the terms of these 15 contracts, OPMs were responsible for providing instruction. However, at the five UC campuses we selected to review, we found that the campuses provided potential students with incomplete or misleading information about the OPMs’ involvement in certain extension unit programs. Further, the recruitment materials for one or more programs at each campus may have misled potential students about the industry value of some UC cobranded programs offered in conjunction with OPMs... 

Full report at https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2023-106/.

===

*https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/29/us/caltech-simplilearn-class-students.html.

What the future may bring...

Coming soon in a classroom to you! (???) ...In the [UCLA] subcommittee on modernizing the classroom, there are 10 of us looking at the current state of our classrooms. We’re also looking at the trends in higher education to inform how we can make our classrooms more effective for new ways of teaching and learning. After this phase, we’ll be putting together our comprehensive strategic plan that my group then will be then implementing.

We’re going to look at social spaces and how we can integrate those into the residence halls. We’ve seen a big move toward group studies. If we look at the research library, there’s ergonomics to allow that collaboration. You have to be able to turn chairs around and push tables together easily. So, we’re really looking at this holistically. I think taking what we naturally want to do as humans and bringing that into teaching and learning is going to be how we can make it more effective.

For example, as more TVs are installed in residence halls, why not also integrate a hotel system that will allow students to flip on the TV in their room and scroll down a menu to watch their class from the day before? We could send messaging through it; they could order their Starbucks* through it because the system would start to understand them. You probably get in your car and it knows where you want to go because it gets used to your habits. Why not bring that into our campus experience? ...

Joe Way, UCLA’s executive director of digital spaces interviewed in:

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/to-modernize-classrooms-at-ucla-joe-way-is-looking-anywhere-but.

===

*I guess the subcommittee is not boycotting Starbucks.

Something to Worry About

Inside Higher Ed today carries a story about a university that wanted to find out whether students taking online tests could cheat despite the services of companies that are supposed to prevent such cheating. Basically, these companies take control of the student's camera and look for any signs that the student is looking away from the screen or that there is someone in the room assisting.

But there are also companies that, for a fee, say they can take the test for a student and defeat the anti-cheating protections. They do so by taking control of the computer the student is using. The cheating student just has to stare at the screen and seem to be taking the test. And their methodology apparently works! 

But there is a catch - for the cheater. The cheating company in taking over the computer acquires access to anything that is on it, things like bank records, etc. And it is in a position to blackmail the cheater since it has proof of cheating which it could reveal to the university (or anyone else).

All of this was revealed when a university hired someone to see if cheating online was possible. Indeed, it was possible and all the other bad things were also found to be possible. You can read about it at:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/academics/2024/03/28/sting-operation-fools-proctoring-service-blackmail-attempted.

Regents vs. Senate

As blog readers will know, the Regents are in conflict with the Academic Senate regarding online degrees, after a vote on Feb. 14th.* This conflict is part of a longer trend involving other issues such as dropping use of the SAT. From Inside Higher Ed:

The University of California is ending a ban on allowing students to study for their degrees entirely through online courses. The UC Board of Regents voted 10 to 1 on Feb. 14 to repeal a year-old decision by the Academic Senate. That 2023 decision essentially banned online degrees from the university system, requiring anyone seeking an online degree to get an exception to that “campus experience” requirement.

The vote has raised issues about the balance of power between the regents and the Academic Senate. “It’s within the board’s authority to make a decision in the area of degree requirements, but the way it was carried out was damaging to shared governance,” said James Steintrager, chair of the Academic Senate.

Steintrager said there are no immediate plans to respond to the regents’ reversal, adding that the Senate does not have the power to override the decision. But, he said, there will be a response about the regents’ decision-making process. “I was taken aback in the way they did it, because they listened to the argument but had no meaningful Q&A,” he said, referring to the lack of questioning during his presentation at the meeting. “They seemed to have a willingness to act without being informed.” ...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/teaching-learning/2024/02/27/university-california-lifts-ban-online-degree.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/02/watch-regents-full-board-meeting-of-feb.html.

Watch the Regents' Health Services Committee Session of Feb. 14

As blog readers will know, the Regents originally had a Health Services Committee session scheduled for February 14th, an off-cycle meeting. Because there was leftover business related to online education from the January meetings, a full Board session to deal with that topic was later added to the agenda for that day. We have already covered the Board segment.*

We now (belatedly) turn to the Health Services segment. That segment began with public comment. Topics covered were several anti-Israel statements, antisemitism and departmental statements, online courses, FAFSA problems for undocumented students, Teamsters issues, recovery programs for addiction, divestment from Blackstone and hotels, funding for CARE (sexual assault) programs, anti-abortion, Blackrock, UC jobs for undocuments students, arrest of students at the prior meeting, and an alleged "extortion" at UC-Santa Barbara. A demonstration followed and a request to clear the room was made. It was unclear what happened at that point; the protesters may have left voluntarily.

There were then two items on the agenda: A strategic framework for UC Health and Student health services. It was noted that the latter was run separately from the former, even on campuses that have med centers. While there was no unhappiness with the strategic plan, there were comments from some Regents that it should be more detailed. The problem of overloaded ERs was noted. Acquisitions and affiliations were included in the strategy. Yours truly would have expected more questions about acquisitions and how management control and quality would be handled in a growing system.

With regard to student health, it was noted that the insurance system was in deficit. Students post-pandemic have substantially increased use of costly ERs and decreased routine non-ER visits. There was a suggestion that perhaps the deductible for ER visits needed to be raised. It was suggested that some kind of survey be undertaken to determine if students who have non-UC insurance are exhibiting similar behavior to those with UC students insurance.

As always we preserve recordings of the Regents since the Regents have no policy on how long they will retain their recordings. You can see the Health Services Committee meeting at:

https://ia801308.us.archive.org/9/items/health-services-committee_202402/Health%20Services%20Committee.mp4.

The general link for the webside containing both the Health Services and the full board meetings is:

https://archive.org/details/health-services-committee_202402.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/02/watch-regents-full-board-meeting-of-feb.html.

Watch the Regents Full Board Meeting of Feb. 14

Initially, a meeting of the Health Services Committee was scheduled for Feb. 14. But that meeting split into two: Health Services in the morning and a full board meeting in the afternoon, the latter to deal with an issue left over from January, a ban on fully-online undergraduate degree programs that had been proposed by the Academic Senate. Here we deal with the Board meeting. We will take up Health Services in a later post.

Essentially, with the push to create online courses, it became - or might become - possible for an undergraduate to enroll only in online courses and get a degree. The Senate viewed this development as a kind of accidental online program that hadn't been reviewed as such. It thus tried to implement a ban (with some wriggle room for deliberate creation of online programs.) The Regents - who had a more favorable view of potential online degree programs - intervened and put the item on its agenda.

The position of the Senate - expressed by faculty rep Steintrager - was that purely online education had drawbacks such as lower completion rates and accreditation issues. Students fully online would not benefit from such on-campus athletics, research opportunities, etc.

But sitting in the background is a task force of the UC president which is exploring the matter further. So, that opened the door to the argument for waiting for the task force report instead of an immediate ban.

Regent Pérez moved to approve the Senate's position but no Regent would second the motion so it died. Pérez's fear, expressed later, was that online ed would become the poor students' track, since not living on campus would likely reduce cost and debt. Lieutenant Governor Kounalakis tended to echo the concerns about a poor students' track. Provost Newman, in contrast, pushed the let's-wait-for-the-task-force approach. UC president Drake did not make detailed remarks but he clearly opposed the ban. Irvine chancellor Gillman said his business school faculty wanted to develop an online program but the proposed Senate ban halted the effort. Regent Park said a total ban was extreme and would limit innovation. In the end, the ban was rejected.

In addition, the Regents approved tuition increases for several professional programs.

As always, we preserve recording of Regents meetings since the Regents have no policy on duration of preservation. You can see the board session at:

https://ia601308.us.archive.org/9/items/health-services-committee_202402/Board.mp4.

The Regents' Health Services Committee Will Be Back at UCLA on Valentine's Day

The agenda for the February off-cycle meeting of the Regents' Health Services Committee is now available:

Health Services Committee

Wednesday, February 14, 2024

Centennial Ballroom, UCLA Luskin Conference Center

==

10:00 am Health Services Committee - (open session- includes public comment) 

Agenda – Open Session

Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of December 13, 2023

Public Comment Period (30 minutes)

H1 Discussion: Reviewing Draft the UC Health Strategic Framework, Office of the President

H2 Discussion: Improving Access to Care Across Student Health Services

==

Upon end of open session:

Health Services Committee - (closed session) 

Agenda – Closed Session

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of December 13, 2023

H3(X) Discussion: Medical Center Response to Adverse Events: Review, Regulatory Requirements, Corrective Actions, and Sharing Systemwide and Insurance/Claims Update

H4(X) Discussion: UC Health Litigation Update

==

2:00 pm Board - (open session) 

Agenda – Open Session

B1 Action: Consideration of Senate Regulation 630.E*

Committee Report Including Approvals of Recommendations from the Committee: Academic and Student Affairs Committee

==

Upon end of open session:

Board - (closed session)

Officers’ and President’s Reports: Personnel Matters

==

Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/agendas/feb142024.html.

=====

*This item seems to deal with undergraduate online education limitations. It is a holdover from the January Regents meetings which fell apart for reasons unrelated to this matter, as blog readers will know. Regulation 630.E reads:

Each undergraduate student must complete a campus experience requirement. A minimum of six units of course credits per quarter (or semester) for three quarters (or two semesters) completed by each candidate for the bachelor’s degree must be earned in courses designed to deliver to any enrolled student at least 50 percent of in-person instructional hours on any campus of the University of California or physical locations affiliated with programs listed in SR 630.D or in prison environments. To satisfy this requirement, at least two quarters or one semester must be completed during the regular academic year, with no more than one quarter or semester completed during the summer. “In-person” means instructors and students are in the same physical location. “Instructional hours” refer to time when instructors are presenting to or interacting with students during designated class times (e.g., lecture, laboratory, discussion, field work, problem sessions). For the purposes of this regulation, instructional hours do not include office hours, or recorded lectures provided as a supplement to designated hours interacting with students. Individual Divisions may maintain a higher threshold for required in-person course credits per term or for the number of terms in which a threshold applies. (En 8 Feb 23)

Source: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/bylaws-regulations/regulations/rpart3.html.

It is unclear how this undergraduate regulation applies to the usual purview of the Health Services Committee. So, apparently, this session is an off-cycle full board meeting that goes beyond Health Services.

Online Ed at the Regents Next Week

As we previously noted, among the topics to be discussed at the Regents next week is the scope of online education at UC. The issue comes up in two places. One is a general discussion of what is being offered at Academic and Student Affairs. In a later full board session, the more controversial issue of how much strictly online education will be allowed toward degrees.* 

The agenda item says UC has offered "online" courses since the 1970s - probably a stretch of the word "online" to include some form of remote education.** There have been TV courses in higher ed since the 1950s, radio courses before that, and correspondence courses (postal mail) still earlier.*** However, a list of all UC courses has been posted for the various campuses including UCLA. You can see the list at:

https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/jan24/a3attach1.pdf [Scroll down until you get to the UCLA offerings.] 

You'll find some standard stuff, e.g., basic economics, genetics, more obscure offerings, e.g., Amharic, and pop stuff, e.g., Reel Beatles: Understanding the Beatles through Film and Me. The table does not indicate what the enrollments are in the various courses. And it does not indicate how much instructor time was involved in creating and delivering the courses.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/01/lots-of-interesting-topics-in-upcoming.html.

**https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/jan24/a3.pdf.

***https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2020/03/return-of-straight-lecture.html; https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1950s-tv-show-set-stage-modern-distance-learning-180976734; https://archive.org/details/youtube--_LpAu8kbXI.

Regents vs. Senate - Part 2

In a prior post last month, we noted that the Regents and the Academic Senate seem to have different views on the efficacy of online education.* This tension appears to be part of a larger tendency of the Regents to consult - but then ignore - the Senate, as occurred in the case of the use of the SAT for admissions.**

Inside Higher Ed now picks up the issue:

Early last year, the University of California Academic Senate changed the system’s policies to essentially ban students from earning a fully online bachelor’s degree from any of its 10 campuses. The decision drew both internal and external criticism that the university was ignoring the potential benefits of virtual learning—and troubled some UC administrators and regents who believe the governing board must have a say in changing the institution’s degree offerings.

Late in 2023, faculty leaders and administrators at the university hatched a compromise: a 20-member presidential task force to look into the efficacy of online degree programs and evaluate instructional modalities. University leaders characterized the committee as a way to “provide for high-quality in-person, hybrid and online offerings for students, including innovations that promote engagement and learning no matter where students are located.”

While at its core the tension at UC is over the quality of online education, it is also noteworthy for what it says about the balance of power and authority in shared governance at an institution that takes that value more seriously than most. In questioning the action of the Academic Senate to bar online degrees, regents clearly believe that decisions on which academic programs the university offers, and how they are delivered, falls under the regents’ authority...

The Senate was directed in November to find a way to address the regents’ concerns. Dr. Drake warned the Senate that the board could decide to revoke the Senate’s authority over online degrees. In a statement for this article, Dr. Drake played down the potential disagreement between entities, stating shared governance is an “essential pillar of the successful operation and management of the university.”

The task force, which had its first meeting in December, includes 10 faculty members and 10 members from the administrative side, with a focus on representing as many campuses as possible. The panel may bring in consultants with “specialized expertise” should the need arise, said Steven W. Cheung, vice chair of the UC Faculty Senate...

Full article at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/teaching-learning/2024/01/09/university-california-system-considers-online.

In short, folks are beginning to notice the Regents vs. Senate tensions.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2023/12/regents-vs-senate.html. 

**The NY Times had a recent review of the general question of the use of the SAT which essentially mirrors the position taken by the Senate: "The Misguided War on the SAT: Colleges have fled standardized tests, on the theory that they hurt diversity. That’s not what the research shows," https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/07/briefing/the-misguided-war-on-the-sat.html.

Regents vs. Senate

Forbes has piece about various Regents upset with the Academic Senate's resistance to completely online degree programs:

In October, Michael V. Drake, President of the University of California (UC) system, told the Academic Council of the Academic Senate that members of the Board of Regents opposed a policy the Senate adopted earlier this year. According to the minutes of that meeting and those in attendance, Drake reminded Senators that, “while the Regents have delegated various decision-making authorities to the president, Senate, and other parties, the Regents still possess ultimate decision-making authority.” He then told the faculty leaders that, “unless the Senate finds a way to address Regents’ concerns in this regard, they may revoke the Senate’s authority.”

Whether that was a threat or a warning may depend on which side of the table you’re on. Even if it was only a warning, Drake’s message and the stance of some Regents was a serious, consequential, and confrontational escalation – casting a shadow on the accepted and settled arrangement that those who do the teaching are the academic experts. Even more seriously, it threatens the spirit of shared governance that guides one of the country’s largest and most respected public university systems.

The policy that angered some of the Regents and triggered the “revoke the Senate’s authority” statement is known as the “campus experience requirement.” Approved by the Senate in February, it mandates that undergraduate degree-seeking students in the California system complete at least some of their coursework on a campus – just 10% of coursework for 4-year students and 20% for students who transfer. Though majors and graduate programs could still be entirely online, and professors or programs could request a waiver from the systemwide Senate, the policy essentially closed off the potential for fully online degrees in the University of California system.

...The Senate has many good reasons to go slow on fully online degrees. One is that, despite what anyone tells you, the science and research on online college programs is not settled. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence to support the idea that delivering education material online is detrimental to some students, perhaps even most students. In debate over the proposal, faculty acknowledged that online degrees could expand access to the system. But they also raised concerns about creating a two-tier degree scheme in which one group of students could access valuable on-campus resources, networks, social activities, and support programs and another group couldn’t. According to the minutes of the debate, faculty were also worried that “online degrees could affect the quality of the educational experience and could marginalize students.”

And though it was not referenced directly, reputational quality was probably a consideration too...

Still, at least a few California Regents are heavily on the access and profit side of the ledger enough to threaten to override their own teachers and upend the principle of shared governance. The President’s Office declined to make any Regents available for comment on this issue. And although she did not respond to several direct requests to be interviewed, or accept opportunities to comment, system insiders say Regent Maria Aguilano is one of the leading advocates for online degrees and one of the Regents who was very likely “concerned” about the February policy.

Aguilano is the Executive Vice President of ASU Learning Enterprise. The ASU is Arizona State University, which has been a vocal advocate for digital and online programs for years. ASU has one of the largest online enrollments in the country and at one point had projected to make as much as $500 million a year from its online programs by 2025...

Lark Park, another Regent, is also supportive of opening California’s public universities to fully online learning. Like Aguilano, Park did not respond to interview requests or offers to provide a statement. Park is the Director of the state-funded Cal Ed Learning Lab, which she has described as being born from a conversation about online learning and has written in support of expanding digital and Internet-based programs. Also in October, Park contributed to an advocacy paper titled “Reimagining Online Education in California.” The paper called out the University’s ban on online degrees directly, saying, “despite the rising demand and use of online education … stakeholders continue to raise concerns about this mode of learning in California. Examples include the University of California’s (UC) ban of fully online degrees.” The paper then asked, “Why is there such reluctance to engage in and friction about a high-demand avenue” of online education?

...President Drake’s office confirmed that his message about revocation was not universal, that it applied only to the decision regarding online degrees. That may be reassuring, but it also may not matter. Once Regents start picking and choosing the academic policies they want to set themselves, governance isn’t exactly shared. It’s conditional. At best...

Full story at https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2023/12/14/university-of-california-president-regents-may-revoke-faculty-senates-authority-over-online-degree-policy/.

Note that the Regents, simply by letting it be known that they want something, can bend the Academic Senate in their direction. The dropping of the SAT as an element of UC admissions is an example. The original Senate review pointed to the actual use of the SAT at UC, noting that - as used - it enhanced the diversity the Regents said they wanted. When it became clear that the Regents didn't want to hear that message, a compromise was offered by the Academic Council chair that deviated from the Senate's official review. You can hear her compromise proposal at:

https://archive.org/details/regents-board-morning-5-21-20/Regents-Board+Afternoon-5-21-20.mp3 [Her compromise starts at about 1:30:38]

The compromise she offered was also rejected by the Regents.

With regard to the online issue, it might be noted that, as stated by then-Academic Council Chair Horwitz, UC faculty had a great deal of experience with online instruction thanks to the pandemic. See his remarks to the Regents below:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzBbeahfUbo.

The issue, of course, pre-dates the pandemic. Here is then-Academic Council Chair Powell in 2013:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1fkp7Wuvvk.

In 2020, despite a protest from then-Academic Council Chair Bhavnani, the Regents adopted a policy regarding chancellor selection without consulation with the Senate. So, the tension between the Senate and at least some Regents has been growing, apart from the online issue:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bbsF9WaPx8.

Who Owns What On Zoom?

During the pandemic, teaching, office hours, meetings, etc., went on Zoom in academia (and elsewhere). In the post-pandemic period, there continued to be use of Zoom substantially above the pre-pandemic level. With the advent of AI, concerns have arisen concerning how content on Zoom might be used by Zoom or others.

From Inside Higher Ed:

...On [last] Monday, chatter began on X—the social network formerly known as Twitter—about Zoom updating terms and conditions. Most notably, Zoom stated it would have access to all customer data and could use it to train its artificial intelligence and machine learning systems. Concern began brewing, with many faculty members joining other Zoom users by publicly sharing their outrage. Some vowed to stop using Zoom altogether.

Zoom quickly reversed course late Monday night, updating its terms and conditions to clarify it will not use audio, video or chats to train AI without user consent...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/artificial-intelligence/2023/08/11/faculty-concerned-over-zooms-shifting-terms.

From the Zoom Blog:

...Following feedback received regarding Zoom’s recently updated terms of service Zoom has updated our terms of service and the below blog post to make it clear that Zoom does not use any of your audio, video, chat, screen sharing, attachments, or other communications like customer content (such as poll results, whiteboard, and reactions) to train Zoom’s or third-party artificial intelligence models.

It’s important to us at Zoom to empower our customers with innovative and secure communication solutions. We’ve updated our terms of service... to further confirm that Zoom does not use any of your audio, video, chat, screen-sharing, attachments, or other communications like customer content (such as poll results, whiteboard, and reactions) to train Zoom’s or third-party artificial intelligence models. In addition, we have updated our in-product notices to reflect this...

Full blog post at https://blog.zoom.us/zooms-term-service-ai/.

And back to Inside Higher Ed:

But what “consent” means remains vague. Terms and conditions are typically supposed to be broad, according to Sean Hogle, an attorney specializing in commercial data and intellectual property law. With the rise of AI comes a scramble to incorporate new language.

“All these companies want to monetize this data for AI,” Hogle said, noting that tech firms realized in the last eight months that “they’re sitting on a potential gold mine.” ...

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/artificial-intelligence/2023/08/11/faculty-concerned-over-zooms-shifting-terms.

===

Note that with AI, it's not exactly clear what "use" of content means. The models such as chatGPT are often described as mechanically looking for typical word order which is not the same as quoting large passages from written or oral work. To the extent that images are involved, AI might be used to take the image of someone and have them appear to say or do things. That is in part what the current actors' strike is about. Presumably, however, any photos of someone somewhere on the internet might be so used. (Faculty often have pictures of themselves on their university webpages.) Put another way, Zoom has a lot of "content," but most academics already have content on the web in the form of articles, recorded participation in meetings, etc., independent of what's on Zoom specifically.

Student Discord

Inside Higher Ed runs a piece on student use of Discord, the online platform that was used to leak classified documents. Excerpts:

...Discord was originally designed as an online hangout where gamers talked with each other while playing multiplayer online games. Users access the app on a computer, smartphone or gaming console. In closed, themed online communities, users communicate by text, voice, video and screen sharing...

Discord users skew young. Approximately 38 percent of its web users and nearly half of its Android app users are between 18 and 24 years old, according to Similarweb. Most (79 percent) are male...

How Do Students Use Discord?

Many college students use Discord for the same reasons that they use other social media platforms—for expressing themselves, connecting with others and building social networks. That may confer benefits, including valuable support for those who are marginalized. But it may also confer risks, including some that are unique to academic settings. “Discord can be used for sharing exam questions and responses,” Megan McNamara, a lecturer in sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said of the potential for academic dishonesty. “There are also instances where students use Discord to bash instructors … It’s not a supervised place, so it becomes a little bit Wild West.”

But McNamara believes Discord offers students more benefits than harms. On the platform, students can collaborate, seek assistance and get to know each other in an instructor-free space. That can be especially valuable for building community in online courses. For those reasons, McNamara publicizes links to Discord servers that students set up for her classes. She has a personal policy, however, of not joining students’ servers. “Some instructors join,” Aaron Zachmeier, associate director for instructional design at UC Santa Cruz, said. “Some don’t. Some join at the invitation of their students.” ...

Meanwhile, students also have preferences about professors’ presence on the platform. “Professors should not create a Discord sever for their classes without first consulting students,” Tony Phan Vo, a student at California State University, Fullerton, wrote this academic year in the institution’s student newspaper, The Daily Titan. Student sources who were quoted in the article dubbed the presence of a professor in a course Discord server “strange” and “weird.” The gist of their sentiment was that Discord servers offer students space to talk away from faculty members. That said, the author acknowledged the potential for students to use the platform to facilitate cheating.

Brianna Dym, a lecturer in computer science at the University of Maine at Orono, does not join students’ Discord servers. However, because her research focuses on online communities, she is uniquely positioned to understand their use. In addition to forming curricular and extracurricular server groups, students often use Discord to send and spread messages about spontaneous gatherings or events on campus. But as with other social media, the app can have a dark side. “Those exact features that do these great things can also lead to catastrophe when used for evil,” Dym said. For example, during a recent Pride Month—June—some Discord servers that added rainbows to their icons noted a sharp increase in anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric.

But Dym, who identifies as part of the LGBTQ+ community, is encouraged by steps the company took to address concerns, which was the topic of a recent paper she co-wrote in the Journal of Online Trust and Safety. Most social media platforms either address concerns in a top-down fashion or leave users to fend for themselves, Dym said. Discord, however, has experimented with training volunteer moderators to address concerns within their communities. The nuanced approach is important to users who do not want the company to monitor them, Dym said. Communities that received the support reported better outcomes in addressing concerning behavior.

“The servers operate like little fiefdoms,” Dym said. “You have the person who founded the server, and they have supreme administrator controls unless they relinquish them. Then you can appoint other administrators who have other powers.”

But preserving the good and preventing the bad is an ongoing challenge, especially given Discord’s massive user base. Also, determining when speech on the platform crosses a line can be challenging. “A Roman Empire history Discord server might be about the history of the Roman Empire, or it might eventually slip into weird alternative history facts,” Dym said.

Though Discord servers may be unofficial components of a college course, students may report violations of college policies they witness on the site to college employees. For that reason, McNamara reminds new students that their behavior on Discord should align with the university’s expectations...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/digital-teaching-learning/2023/04/26/discord-leaking-military-files-and-exam.

Will You Be Lecturing After Death?

Particularly when it comes to online courses, immortality may be coming:

From the Sacramento Bee: Using generative AI technology, digital publishers like Apple and Google are able to leverage the famously deceased and use their voices to narrate their audiobooks.

Take the late actor Edward Herrmann, who was often typecast as an aristocratic, Ivy League-educated figure in movies like Overboard, Richie Rich, The Paper Chase, and Eleanor and Franklin.

Herrmann, who passed away on New Year’s Eve in 2014, also narrated dozens of audiobooks – and he’s doing so again.

“Mr. Herrmann’s latest (audiobook) work is generated by DeepZen Ltd., a London-based artificial-intelligence startup that was given access to the actor’s past recordings with his family’s permission,” The Wall Street Journal reported on April 6. “From that trove, DeepZen said it is able to generate any sound and intonation that Mr. Herrmann would have used if he were narrating these new books himself.” Raising audiobook voices from the dead is largely the domain of DeepZen, Ltd, a U.K. AI company.

DeepZen works with the families of deceased audiobook narrators like Herrmann to get permission to use their voice, and once given the green light, DeepZen and AI take over from there. The company uses past audiobook recordings and from that data is able to emulate the voice, tone, and cadence of an actor who’s been dead for almost 10 years...

Full story at https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article274030020.html.

===

Examples including Herrman at https://deepzen.io/.

Or maybe we won't need you at all: https://www.synthesia.io/features/avatars.

No More Online UC Degrees (although there weren't any)

From Inside Higher Ed: The University of California system has never had any fully online undergraduate degree programs at any of its 10 campuses. But a loophole existed in which a student or department could have crafted—either inadvertently or intentionally—a stealth, fully online undergraduate degree through individually approved online courses.

That loophole was closed this month when the University of California Academic Senate approved Senate Regulations 610 and 630, which instituted an undergraduate residency requirement. Students must now earn a minimum of six course credits per quarter (or semester) for three quarters (or two semesters) in courses where at least half of the instruction is in person on a UC campus, according to the Senate document. This corresponds with one out of the four undergraduate years, according to Melanie Cocco, associate professor of molecular biology and biochemistry at UC Irvine. Those studying in prison are exempt...

 Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/02/27/university-california-system-bans-fully-online-degrees.

The Numbers

You may have seen the headlines about the drop in applications to UC and UCLA. Above are the actual numbers for freshman applications. What appears to have happened is that when the SAT requirement was dropped, applications jumped. But as word got out that it was still hard to get in, they dropped, although not all the way back to 2021 levels.

The transfer applications story, which is dominated by applications from California community colleges, is different since the SAT isn't involved. Community colleges have experienced a big drop in enrollments due to the pandemic and the move during the pandemic to online education. They haven't returned to pre-pandemic levels, so the base from which transfer applications are drawn has gotten smaller.

You can find the data above in more detail by campus at:

https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/content-analysis/ug-admissions/ug-pages/applications.html.

Keep in mind that applications, admissions, and enrollments are three separate things. Applications simply start the process.