I’m running out to teach, but you really do need to read this NY Times piece on a bill that’s going to be introduced in the California state legislature today … and is expected to pass. The bill would require the state’s public colleges and universities to grant academic credit to online courses not provided by those institutions, including those offered by for-profite private companies.
For-profit higher education in the United States has long depended on public money — providers make most of their revenue from government grants and guaranteed loans. But the industry has been on the ropes recently as policymakers and students have woken up to the shoddy education and poor outcomes they provide.
They’re back.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this story is the endlessly repeated claim that the bill will give students the ability to register for crucial classes. “No college student in California will be denied the right to move through their education because they couldn’t get a seat in the course they needed,” says one politician. “It’s almost unthinkable that so many students seeking to attend the public colleges and universities are shut out,” says the president of the American Council on Education.
But allowing students to substitute MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) offered by for-profit companies doesn’t give them access to the courses they’re locked out of. It provides a substitute for those classes — a simulation of them. And given that the reason that those classes aren’t available is that the state of California has chosen to defund public higher education, diverting more money from the state’s once-great public colleges into the pockets of discredited corporate rent-seekers is a mind-bogglingly audacious act.
• • •
Two more things before I go to class.
First, on this, from the founder of a for-profit online course provider:
“This would be a big change, acknowledging that colleges aren’t the only ones who can offer college courses,” said Burck Smith, the founder of Straighterline. “It means rethinking what a college is.”
This quote can almost pass without comment, but in fact Smith is underselling here. Because this bill isn’t about whether “colleges” are “the only ones who can offer college courses,” it’s about whether public colleges will be the only ones providing public college courses.
Second, on this, from the president of the American Council on Education:
“These would be the basic courses that perhaps faculty gets the least psychic reward from teaching.”
For many of us, introductory courses are where we get the greatest psychic rewards from teaching. (For many of us who love teaching, in fact, introductory courses are pretty much all we teach.) And when those introductory courses provide few psychic rewards, it’s not because those subjects or those students aren’t rewarding, it’s because the demands of the bean-counters have rendered those courses unteachable in any appropriate way. For the president of the ACE to abandon those courses, those professors, and those students to YouTube and multiple-choice exams with such disdain is a travesty.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 13, 2013 at 10:44 am
Wednesday Links: MOOCpocalypse, Debtpocalypse, Truthserumpocalypse, and More | Gerry Canavan
[…] * Privatization. Naked. […]
March 13, 2013 at 8:33 pm
Susan Gautsch
You might want to check out the transcript of Obama’s State of the Union address where he declared he was asking congress to change the Higher Education Act, so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges receive certain types of federal aid. In a subsequent policy brief, he called for the establishment a “new, alternative system of accreditation that would provide pathways for higher-education models and colleges to receive federal student aid based on performance and results.” The key phrasing here is “higher-education models” (oh yeah, and colleges.) So you see, it’s not just California. Hell, according to this, I could earn a degree (or set of competency badges that make a degree useless
But if you’re looking disruptive change down the barrel, it helps to consider how things change. For what it’s worth, online education has progressed significantly in the last decade and MOOCs are just the most publicized of many incarnation. I’m not saying they’ve met or exceeded the quality of education found in all classes, but they’re better than many (seriously, distance learning has always existing past the 5th row), and no doubt they’re getting improving way faster than traditional courses. Will it all be honey and roses? of course not. Will it enable learning in ways never before imagined? probably. Bottomline: California and our nation is beyond broke. Until someone gets us all out of our economic mess, I couldn’t count on more public education. So someone’s gotta do something, yes?
March 17, 2013 at 8:57 am
Weekend Reading | Backslash Scott Thoughts
[…] Naked Privatization of Universities in California. […]
March 17, 2013 at 9:08 am
John
“For many of us, introductory courses are where we get the greatest psychic rewards from teaching.” As an instructor at an R1 research university, I could not agree with you more here. Even at places where there is graduate instruction, and a high emphasis on research productivity as a basic feature of the job, introductory courses are some of the most important and intellectually stimulating events. Why? Because, to be honest, further up the chain the BS level tends to rise, as people get further down the road of givens and assumptions. Whereas in introductory courses, our most basic ideas constantly need the clearest explication and most fundamental examination. It would be a real tragedy for research as well as teaching if intro courses were outsourced into passive, click-it-and-you’ve-got-your-paper formats. That’s not access, that’s denial, and intellectually very counter productive for all involved.
May 13, 2013 at 7:59 pm
NoBigGovDuh (@NoBigGovDuh)
Anyone want a doctor who studied online?