The California State Senate introduced a bill last Wednesday that would force its state institutions to give credit for online courses from outside the universities. This legislation is attempting to fix a chronic flaw of the University of California system, where courses are over-enrolled and students are sometimes unable to graduate in four years due to overcrowding. The legislature is correct to focus on this issue, since ensuring that its students can graduate in a four-year period should be one of the highest and most basic of institutional priorities. But online education is a rapidly changing field, and the proposed solution is misguided and represents an attack on the academic freedom of the institutions. Instead of forcing the universities to lower their standards by offering credit for outside online courses, the legislature should work with them to ensure they have the funding necessary to carry out their basic institutional responsibilities.
Only 16 percent of students in the 420,000-student California State University system graduate in four years, according to California Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, author of the bill. And as the New York Times reported last week, hundreds of thousands of those students face the inability to register for general education and major requirement classes. In addition, each of the California’s 112 community colleges had an average of 7,000 students on waitlists for necessary courses. Many students across the state are forced to spend several additional semesters, sometimes years, earning credits to graduate.
No student should be forced to delay graduation, which often incurs additional debt, due to a university’s inability to provide access to necessary classes.
But the proposed solution — forcing institutions to accept approved online courses for credit — is premature and problematic. Online courses should be given years to evolve and be tested before any change in California should occur. There is still significant debate over whether an online course can fully replace the classroom experience. While this debate continues, several years of testing should precede any institutional change. The proposed legislation would utilize a panel of nine professors to initially choose 50 introductory online courses to receive credit. This proposal is wholly inadequate — any decision on specific courses should be made with significantly more input and representation. It is far too early in the evolution of online courses for any university to be forced to accept them for credit.
The proposal was brought about because “budget cuts have sucked public higher education dry of resources” and the changes were just the state legislature “saying we should give away the job of educating our students,” Lillian Taiz, president of the California Faculty Association, an organization that represents faculty of the California State University system, told the New York Times. We believe that if done hastily and without proper consideration, the Senate proposal could fundamentally devalue a California degree. This proposal should be a wake-up call for the entire California system and higher education in general. The financial burden of taking extra time to finish a degree cannot be fully shouldered by the chronically underfunded state system. The legislature is right to be concerned with California’s four-year graduation rate, but it should commit additional funding to provide for necessary required and introductory courses and work with university administrators to address the problem. Only with cooperation and mutual sacrifice on both the institutional and legislative levels can the California system redirect its focus to where it belongs: its students.
Editorials are written by The Herald’s editorial page board: its editor, Dan Jeon, and its members, Mintaka Angell, Samuel Choi, Nicholas Morley and Rachel Occhiogrosso. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
