Sunday, January 22, 2017

No idea..

Napolitano’s cancer treatment took UC regents by surprise

"“It was even more surprising to hear that she had been undergoing treatment for months,” said one regent, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The call came from Monica Lozano, chairwoman of the board, who had been kept informed about Napolitano’s cancer treatment since she was diagnosed in August. Regents got the call Tuesday, shortly before UC went public with the news.

Lozano went out of her way to say Napolitano was doing well and would be quickly back to work, our source said.

Napolitano was treated for breast cancer in 2000 and underwent a mastectomy, but UC has not disclosed the nature of her current cancer. In its public statement, the university said Napolitano was expected to be released from the hospital in the next day or two.

Sure enough, on Friday, the 59-year-old former Arizona governor and Homeland Security chief was back in the office.

Still, if everything was going so well — and there was no cause for alarm — why the call?

“That’s what some of us were wondering as well,” the regent said."

One might recall this old AP article where Napolitano's health was covered:

-That was press coverage of elected officials archive- seems perhaps to be in stark contrast to how the msm have covered pols during 2016 election etc

There are new personnel being hired, but it remains unclear if they are replacing folks or what the status of the review launched over 2016 summer is, but SJ Merc has:

"It’s official: Cal athletics bleeding cash at astounding rate"

"Cal released official financial documents Friday that confirm a massive budget deficit and dire outlook for the Bears’ 30-sport athletic model.
The athletic department lost $21.7 million in the 2016 fiscal year, according to a statement of revenues and expenses submitted to the NCAA.

The deficit matches projections outlined months ago by this newspaper and was covered by central campus, which itself is running a $110 million budget shortfall.

The athletic department’s fiscal woes are rooted in the debt service payment on the Memorial Stadium and Simpson Training Center projects, which cost approximately $460 million (combined).

The Bears generated $86.3 million in revenue from continuing operations against $88.1 million in expenses. But the interest payment on the debt service was $18.5 million. (There were minor additional costs for capital projects.)

That interest payment will remain steady until 2032, when the principal kicks in and annual payments soar — first to $30 million and eventually to almost $40 million.

Cal chancellor Nicholas Dirks has formed a task force to recommend a sustainable athletic model. The group is likely months away from issuing its conclusions, but the elimination of sports teams is a potential, if not likely, outcome.

The projections for the 2017 fiscal year are nearly as dire: An $18.8 million loss."

-But the story does not include a link to the report mentioned in the first sentence...
Daily Cal has this editorial board piece:
"UC tuition hike only option amid state divestment
UNIVERSITY ISSUES: Freeze in tuition for the past six years was never viable solution for University"

While the faculty at CSU write:
"Not only did the editorial fail to justify raising tuition in the California State University system, it failed to detail differences between the two systems in relation to state funding and students."

It gets into Napolitano's moves at UC and differences between the two systems...

"UC and CSU tuition increases make sense” (Jan. 13), echoed UC President Janet Napolitano’s excuses to raise tuition. Red pen time.

Not only did the editorial fail to justify raising tuition in the California State University system, it failed to detail differences between the two systems in relation to state funding and students.

The CSU educates some 478,638 students on its 23 campuses. That’s over 208,000 more students than the UC. Yet if you break down state funding per student, the CSU receives nearly $5,000 less per student than the UC."

Read more here:

There is: a UC Regents meeting this week

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Space, that final frontier- and other forces

In California, Tensions Over Growth Divide a Campus
"Faculty and administrators at the University of California at Riverside are wrestling with how to heal a rift caused in part by fallout from an ambitious expansion plan

An Op Ed "UC needs to prioritize online education"

"In 2013 the Little Hoover Commission issued a report, “A New Plan for a New Economy: Reimagining Higher Education.” It notes that in the wake of the Great Recession in which state government spending was slashed for higher education, “California is recovering, but it must change its model for higher education if it hopes to meet the needs of a growing population and provide workers with the skills to compete in the world of the 21st century.

“The commission found that online education has enormous potential to expand the reach of public higher education, if used in a manner that benefits students. California’s colleges and universities already are using online courses, though they have yet to aggressively engage online education in ways that could help more students complete their programs on time and transfer course credits between systems.”

One of the reasons for not being more aggressive in rolling out online education is opposition by faculty, which must approve each course. “This policy, while understandable, causes substantial delay and, if continued, will ensure that California will become a follower rather than a leader in development of online higher education,” the report said.

Fortunately, the online effort is being pushed by Gov. Jerry Brown with the aid of increased funding, and gains are being made, particularly in the community college and CSU systems. The UC system, however, has lagged behind.

Only 49 online classes are now available for UC students. Just 20 classes are offered for non-UC students, 13 of which are closed to new enrollees. If you are lucky enough to

And closes with:

"Good leadership demands looking beyond the next 18 months. The future for the University of California appears likely to include empty buildings worth hundreds of millions of dollars on our University of California campuses. They can do much better."

The LAO looks at projections of student growth and opines that UC and CSU don't need additional campuses to accommodate what is coming. See:

UC Med no doubt is watching these:

Something  at Daily Cal:


The force is with woman who gets life-saving lung transplant

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

DeVos, Davos- snowflake treatment?

Climate change, Disability Rights, Title IX, public schools, purported 'govt sucks' quotes - all that and more come up in speed rounds here in video and transcript:
At a cold, snowy Davos there was:
Coverage of UCSD and more expert opinion on US leadership position on climate change

Monday, January 16, 2017

Sonny day, everything ain't ok

See this Matier and Ross update: Cal football fans: Put your TV contract where the sun don't shine - San Francisco Chronicle

And  Daily Cal now has,

Those are big 'if's, little interims, and questionable values

See: "UC needs a tuition hike, but also a clearer vision of its identity"

Includes some harsh statements about the Gov relationship with UC, and does not explain the funny math SF Chronicle pointed out and frames the opinion piece in a way that takes Napolitano's word that it will only be used for the undergraduates-- where is the proof of :

..." if Napolitano is true to her word and this money is used solely to improve the education of those who pay it, the price hike is justified. There are valid concerns about the long-term funding of the university, but for the short-term, preserving UC’s quality in exchange for a small increase in tuition and fees is the right move. The Board of Regents should approve the price hike when it meets next week.

Besides, the increase won’t affect most of the students who attend, at least not for a few years. The university’s financial aid system assures that families of four earning less than $80,000 a year pay no tuition at all. And the state’s new middle-class scholarship program, launched three years ago but still being phased in, will more than cover the increased cost for many more families. Only those making more than $150,000 a year will pay the higher tuition, and spending a little more than $300 extra is something that most of them will be able to afford.

That’s all well and good for the next few years, but there is a nagging and far more important issue that state leaders have yet to address satisfactorily. It’s nothing less than defining the very identity of the University of California going forward.

Gov. Jerry Brown and Napolitano clashed over this a few years ago. The governor, who has never been a major supporter of UC, basically resisted anything that would help the university bring in more money — higher tuition, better funding from the state or admitting more out-of-state students, who bring geographic diversity to campus in addition to paying a higher tuition that helps fund financial aid for low-income Californians. Instead, Brown expressed his preference for a more austere UC, one that saves money by pushing more online courses and prodding professors into teaching more classes while engaging less in research and other academic pursuits."

And no discussion by LAT of the yet to be completed JLAC audits, they just mention:

"Brown didn’t create the funding problem that has bedeviled UC and its students in recent years,"..."no sooner had Brown announced that the state might face a budget deficit this year than he targeted UC again by proposing to phase out the middle-class scholarships. Phase in, phase out, just like that. So much for greater access to higher education for middle-class families. "

But they close out with:
 "Realistically, UC will never return to the glory days when higher education was nearly free. But California can do better than make a public university education a strain on"...

They also have:
"UC Davis protest spurs concerns about free speech — and more political clashes ahead"
As you read that article perhaps also consider:
Should it really fall to an interim Chancellor at UC Davis, a 'Dirks-on- his-way-out-under-a-cloud/s'-appointed 'associate chancellor' (is he gonna stick around after Dirk's is out at Cal Hall?, And when are those clouds around Dirk's gonna get cleared up with actual reported findings from OP?)), a VC from UCLA, and some Prof in some Dept -all male btw-to be the  voices on how UC should deal with these issues?

(Shouldn't the UCSB painful recent years history also inform the subject as well? But no one wants to mention that thing that happened, --you know that thing that happened with a whole lot of  speech and videos beforehand, remember? But UC response spun those events as solely the result of only one very specific type of failed policy, not as a failure of other policies or of championing 'good speech' etc.)

And where are the comments from the non interim UC Chancellors?

OP and the Regents did take the 'more speech' stance but they, themselves, are crickets right now/again...

But in critically important ways the UC values, identity, mission are in question -so why should they wanna speak?
"The University of California does itself a disservice by outsourcing jobs"
By The Editorial Board

"The goal of the UC system, per its own mission statement, is to educate Californians in order to benefit the California economy by creating an educated workforce. It comes as a shock, then, that the UC system has become the first American public university to outsource some of its information technology (IT) jobs to another country. Since last year, the UC system has been firing its IT staff and replacing them with workers from other countries (primarily India), who are brought to the U.S. on work visas.

This action, while motivated by a need to cut costs — with the UC system’s budget being as strained as it is — sends a devastating message to many of the UC’s students. When there are students studying right now to become software engineers, it is tantamount to betrayal for the UC system"...See the full article.

Daily Cal has:
"new electrical engineering and computer sciences department policy revision for the upcoming semester aims to discourage intended computer science majors from intentionally failing lower division prerequisite classes."



As grades, financial aid and other campus information pour in after the end of the fall 2016 semester, issues have come up with the new CalCentral system."...Renee Chow, a professor of architecture and design and associate dean of undergraduate studies at the College of Environmental Design, said in an email that she had not had any issues with SIS nor heard about any problems from academic advisors.

Campus students have taken initiatives to responding to issues with CalCentral by posting complaints and providing feedback in the student Facebook group CalCentral Bugfinders, which now has over 500 members.

The group was created in response to initial issues with the system at the beginning of fall 2016 enrollment.

UC Berkeley senior Leo Steinmetz issued a letter of criticism of CalCentral in April 2016, mainly focused on issues surrounding enrollment processes in the new system. Eighty students also signed a petition in agreement with the letter. Steinmetz said the SIS office responded quickly to the letter and seemed willing to work on the issues, since they scheduled meetings with him and the other authors. But Steinmetz said most issues are still present.

“It is my impression that most of the issues continue to exist and to cause problems for students,” Steinmetz said in an email. “I more or less gave up on trying to get them to make it better about a month after I wrote that letter, because it seemed pretty clear that they had created the system with basically no flexibility, so even when they were willing to make the changes we proposed, they literally weren’t able to.”"

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Regents of the University of California meet January 25 & 26, 2017,

Wednesday, January 25
9:00 am
Location: Robertson Auditorium
Concurrent Meetings
10:00 am
Location: Fisher Banquet Room 

Location: Fisher Banquet Room 
10:00 am
Location: Robertson Auditorium
12:30 pm
Concurrent Meetings
1:00 pmCompliance and Audit Committee (open session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium
Compliance and Audit Committee (closed session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium
1:00 pmPublic Engagement & Development Committee (open session) (pdf) Location: Fisher Banquet Room
Public Engagement & Development Committee (closed session) (pdf) Location: Fisher Banquet Room
3:30 pmGovernance and Compensation Committee (open session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium
Governance and Compensation Committee (closed session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium
Thursday, January 26
9:00 am
Location: Robertson Auditorium
9:30 am - 3:00 pm
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Genius and luck? ..More.

It's an Op Ed at Sac Bee but details , facts on UC and OP approach included in it:
"Why ‘Dreamers’ at UC should feel very lucky"


This is included among other fresh news links posted at Remaking the U.:

Press Enterprise:" Tuition increases possible for CSU students "

Also this Audio and article on a report by CSU faculty:
"CSU faculty: Underfunding the schools betrays current students"


Apparently UC Constitutional autonomy does not exclude UC on this new policy, see:

And also don't miss:

CNN previously assigned their business reporter to this subject ...

Now they are covering UC Davis  on it like this: "Students Shut Down Free Speech- UC Davis Protestors Prevent Talk..."

-They are giving it front page breaking news treatment there...

Fox  highlight a particular view on Title IX in their coverage:

And feminism comes up in the ABC local video footage: