The "Big 3" could become the "Big 4"

A bill introduced in the California Assembly this week would create the New University of California, which would award Associate's and Bachelor’s degrees totally based on exams. No faculty, no classes, no tuition, just an exam fee. Students would prepare for exams on their own, taking courses, MOOCs, or independent study. The Bill can be read here: AB 1306 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED It says nothing about fields of study, or how exams would be developed, or how much credit would be given for them. The Assembly takes it up on April 23.

 

Yesssssss!

 

Wow.

...........

 

Note that the proposed "New University of California" would not be part of the University of California system, despite the name.

Instead, it would be a separate fourth "segment" of public higher education in California (the other three are the California Community College system, the California State University system, and the University of California system).

The bill may have an uphill climb; it is sponsored by a Republican assemblyman, while California state government is heavily Democratic. Also, I suspect that the powerful UC alumni community will be strongly against it, because "New University of California" sounds too much like "University of California".

The New York Times has already weighed in on the bill, calling it "particularly ludicrous".

 

It would be like renaming Charter Oak State College as "New University of Connecticut", or Thomas Edison State College as "New Rutgers University".

The UConn and Rutgers grads might not go for it.

 

Wow - finally California is looking at something that makes sense. Probably too much sense.... sigh.

 

Wasn't Thomas Edison State College opposed the state of New Jersey Government merging TESC into one of Rutgers' campus? That show, they had a chance....but they chose not to.

 

They should name the new California school as "University of California State" or combines all three systems into the name as "State Community University of California." Or creating a new campus of University of California, "University of California at Cyberspace"

 

California is already involved with an inexpensive competency/assessment-based school: it's called Western Governor's University. The Governor of California is one of the Western Governors that the school is named after.

If Californians need more testing-based credit/degree options, then it might make sense to simply strengthen the partnership with WGU, so that WGU adds more options tailored to California residents specifically. This is exactly what several other states have already done (e.g. WGU-Washington, WGU-Texas, WGU-Indiana). Working with WGU would likely be more efficient and less expensive than establishing an entirely new branch of state-funded higher education. Is it really necessary to reinvent the wheel here ?

 

Yes, California is part of WGU (where I will be doing my Masters). However, WGU is competency based, not test based. Although similar, not quite the same thing.

 

This was similar to my first reaction: isn't this done elsewhere? Why create a new school? But there might be some good reasons. First, the existing schools might not have the capacity to absorb a concerted effort by the country's most populous state, even if an explicit agreement were sought. Second, California might want a set of programs designed specifically to address labor and economic issues in that state. Third, the state might want to control it in way it cannot if it partnered with one of the Big 3 or with WGU. Fourth, the 3 existing systems are swamped; this could be a welcome relief, especially on the community college system.

While I would prefer this new thingy had state-college status (like the CSUs), I doubt it would matter much if it becomes RA and its credits/degrees fully transfer to the other state systems.

I hope it doesn't get crushed because of politics. But I wouldn't mind if it got crushed because it is designed poorly.

 

The new school should use the exact same course numbers as the other California schools as well. It should also offer block transfer from its AA to the other state schools. CLEP students are usually looking for AA degree options so they can have a stepping stone to a BS. I say AA because the AA should be designed to offer most of the gen eds for a BS/BA so that low level AS tech courses aren't "wasted" on the way to a BS.

 

This is spot-on. This proposed program could be a "feeder" to other California system campuses, just as the community colleges are. But it would be a gateway for working adults, too. And by offering the bachelor's, it could be a gateway to master's programs, either at state schools or elsewhere.

 

According to proposed bill AB1306:

This might be the first "university" in world history that would not offer teaching to students.
In fact, it would be illegal for the university to offer "instruction" to students.

The only things that the "university" would be authorized to do would be (1) administer standardized tests, and (2) issue credits and degrees based on test results.

Questions:

1. Would an institution meet the standards for regional accreditation if it had zero faculty and zero classes ?

2. Would an institution with zero teachers and zero teaching even qualify as a "school" for accreditation purposes ?

 

It may not be limited to standardized exams, according to the language provided.

Yes and yes. Well, at least the "Big 3" did. All were regionally accredited without offering any instruction. (The Regents External Degree Program arranged for clinicals for its nursing students.)

As for "no faculty," I'm not so sure that would be the model. For example, if the program had exams with essay components, they'd have to be graded by someone. Of course, the faculties of all three California state school systems could act as the new college's faculty. So....

I think a "no classes" model supported by the state systems' faculties could work. It did in New York.

 

I've looked at WGU extensively for another bachelors or masters and I just don't like their competency-based model. They also haven't expanded their degree options much since building these partnerships. I'd much rather use the CBE model of the Big 3. WGU offers no instruction. They have mentors who offer guidance and the students often turn to each other for help in their forums.

 

Under the bill as written, there would be nothing to prevent "New University" credits from transferring to CCC, CSU, or UC schools. However, they wouldn't transfer the other way, because the bill has no provision for "New University" to grant credit except through exams.

So if you had to leave Berkeley or UCLA, and then wanted to get a degree from "New University", you wouldn't be able to transfer any credits in. But presumably you could use the knowledge gained at Berkeley or UCLA to pass "New University" exams, and get credit that way.

Seems like the proposed "New University" testing-only degrees might be a lot like GEDs, only at the associate's and bachelor's levels, instead of at the high school diploma level.

 

On the political side, bill AB1306 is sponsored by Assemblyman Scott Wilks, a Republican who represents the conservative-leaning Simi Valley area north of Los Angeles. The Assembly (and other branches of California state government) are firmly controlled by Democrats, so he represents the minority party. Wilks has a BA in Political Science from Cal State Bakersfield, has served as a trustee for the local community college district, and is currently a member of the Assembly Committee on Higher Education. He is a "rookie" legislator; he only took office in December 2012.

So AB1306 is sponsored by a single junior assemblyman, who is a member of the minority party. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad bill, but given the realities of politics, it may not have the same chances of success as a bill with broad bipartisan sponsorship from more senior and more powerful legislators.

 

Can't wait to see how this plays out.