Reevalution of online pilot program needed instead of current bail-out

A year after the Academic Senate approved the University of California Online Instruction Pilot Program under the assurance that it would be externally funded, the program has failed to raise close to even a quarter of its proposed cost from the private sector.

Instead of interpreting this as a reason to reevaluate the worth of the program, the UC has decided to reward this failure. The university will give a $6.9 million interest-free loan from its Short Term Investment Pool to the program.

This obvious disparity between the funds the project was expected to receive and its ability to actually garner support leads me to believe such a large expenditure on the UC’s part needs to be seriously reconsidered, especially given the current financial crisis for higher education.

Simply extracting funds from the UC system as a bailout glosses over the fact that the program has issues.

While I agree research and exploration are an important part of the UC’s mission, I have doubts about the program’s ability to achieve success.

The program’s potential to increase accessibility to UC-quality education through its digital endeavor is admirable. But in no way should it compensate for or detract from the quality of existing campus-based resources for tuition-paying students by being funded by UC money that could be used toward other things.

It is illogical that the UC should spend such a considerable amount of money in developing a program that ultimately keeps students off campus when budget cuts from the state are making it difficult to maintain academic stability on campus.

The loan has also raised concern from faculty members.

Wendy Brown, co-chair of the Berkeley Faculty Association, said that while she does not disapprove of the pilot project’s intention to make discoveries and test a product, she objects to the way it is being packaged and financed by the UC even though it was promised to be funded extramurally.

“This is a violation of an agreement,” Brown said.

Whether concerns about the project are regarding the value of online courses or how the program is being funded, administrators need to investigate the reasons for these concerns and why the project was unable to garner the necessary support.

Although the financial decision is under President Yudof’s authority, the Academic Senate still has to approve the courses that will be included in the project, according to Daniel Simmons, chairman of the Academic Senate.

Because the project’s success is dependent upon this faculty engagement, administrators also need to facilitate discussion with the Academic Senate and other faculty members to ensure the necessary support.

There must be significant reasons why a project that has been actively pursuing funding for more than a year has failed to gain money that is readily available in the form of large donations from private individuals. In the past few months alone, UCLA has received millions of dollars from donors.

If the project couldn’t raise funds from private donors who are obviously willing to give to university resources, why should the UC be willing to contribute money from its limited resources?

The fact that the online project was unable to attract similar donations points to a need to improve the way the program is being marketed or analyze the worth of investing in it.

Online ventures have failed at other universities such as Columbia, where millions of dollars invested in 2001 were lost to the downfall of Fathom, an online-learning website.

As the UC experiences a cutback in research funding, projects ultimately need to have extremely strong reasoning regarding why they should be funded because the demand is greater than the supply.

A failure to raise private funds should not be the guaranteeing factor for a project to secure an internal loan.