* SENATOR STEINBERG’S PROPOSED ONLINE CLASSES BILL

Yesterday’s New York Times (and a number of other news sources) had an article about proposed legislation from Senator Steinberg that would require California’s public higher education systems to accept transfer credits from select online course providers for 50 of the state’s most impacted courses (some of these courses would be Community College or CSU courses but some could be UC courses, they have not been selected yet). “If it passes, as seems likely, it would be the first time that state legislators have instructed public universities to grant credit for courses that were not their own — including those taught by a private vendor, not by a college or university.” The New York Times article is available online at: […]

* How much will it cost to restore public higher education in 2012-13 (updated with January 2013 state budget data)

Raising revenue has become such a taboo subject in California politics, but restoring quality public higher education in California can be done. For the median California tax return (individual or joint), restoring the entire system while rolling back student fees to what they were a decade ago would cost $48. next April 15. Read “Financial Options for Restoring Quality and Access to Public Higher Education in California: 2012-13” at the Keep California’s Promise website.

* Professors, not UC, own their lectures (2000 legislation co-sponsored by CUCFA/CFA)

In 2000 CUCFA and the CFA (the labor union representing the CSU faculty) successfully co-sponsored legislation that specifies that individual professors, not UC, own their lectures, which is very important now as UC tries to move lectures to the web. (CHAPTER 6.5. UNAUTHORIZED RECORDING, DISSEMINATION,  AND PUBLICATION OF ACADEMIC PRESENTATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES see: http://www.ucdfa.org/NashIP.pdf)

* Brown and Yudof Bail on the Master Plan

By:  Bob Meister, President of CUCFA (Professor of Political and Social Thought, UCSC) On June 27, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed language inserted by both houses of the legislature that would have tied UC funding to admitting a minimum number of students (the same enrollment target as in previous budgets). His veto message says as follows: “Deletes provision 15 of item 6440-001-0001 from AB 1497, because the requirement contained in this provision that the University achieve an enrollment target of 209,977 resident full-time equivalent students creates unnecessary cost pressures on this item and is unnecessarily restrictive.” Is such language no longer necessary? In the Schwarzenegger years the state budget set an enrollment target for UC and required that funds be “reverted” […]

* What Governor Brown’s May Budget Proposal Means for UC

UC President Mark Yudof and Governor Jerry Brown are working out a deal behind closed doors that will loosen the most important ties between the university and the state. Although they will both praise the deal by saying that it “stabilizes” funding while granting greater “flexibility,” its essence is that each will let the other off the hook: UC will mute complaints that it does not get enough money from the state and the state will stop holding UC accountable for the money it still gets. The likely result is that UC will dump a larger number of eligible Californians onto the CSU and Community Colleges, which will in turn pass on their overflow to for-profit schools, where students take […]