Caught between the dwindling world of postal services and the growing 4G smartphone generation, I am still among those conflicted about the rapid movement of our world online.
But as I figuratively cling to my seat in lecture for fear that a traditional, on-campus college education may soon be a relic of the past, I have also come to accept that the specter of online learning may not be as ominous as those late night “College-in-your-PJs” commercials would have us believe.
The University of California is well aware that online education will play an important part in the future of higher education. UC Online was created as a result.
In an attempt to streamline courses and increase flexibility for students at the University of California, Christopher Edley Jr., dean at the Berkeley School of Law, proposed UC Online in 2010 both to bolster the university’s tech-savvy reputation and to increase revenues by charging non-matriculated students to take for-credit online courses.
But two years into the project, it has fallen far short of the financial goals it originally set for itself. While the program was originally supposed to be a source of revenue for the University, UC Online has yet to make a profit.
But with so much already invested in the project, the UC can hardly turn back now.
Of more immediate importance to students, however, is UC Online’s semi-integration with the traditional classroom ““ the incentive for on-campus students to enroll online has not yet been generated.
To improve relevance and revenue, UC Online should set a course toward reinvention and act as an another arm for the UC’s world-class education.
For example, Susanne Lohmann, a UCLA political science professor, has developed a course through UC Online titled Diversity, Disagreement, and Democracy that makes use of many interactive games that allow students to compete and coordinate with peers. The computer compiles data from these games and students analyze and report on their findings.
This kind of interaction would be impossible in a traditional classroom format, Lohmann said, but translated well online.
Given the UC’s international reputation for academic excellence, UC Online should function in a manner complementary to its classroom counterpart.
The program might best serve this function by providing high-quality online options for impacted lower division courses, said Keith Williams, interim director of UC Online.
The program is also looking toward enhancing students’ educations by means of better connecting the University’s 10 campuses.
UC Online is also planning to streamline the enrollment process for current UC students, allowing them to enroll in online courses based in a different UC campus.
This is currently a complicated process due to obstacles surrounding concurrent enrollment, but if simplified it could provide enough variety in course offerings to garner student attention.
As it stands now, it is difficult to justify UC Online’s $1400 per four-unit class, even if it is a rate consistent with UC tuition.
Community college or high school students, unsure of their chances of acceptance to the UC system, may be hesitant to spend that much money even on a class that is incredibly well-constructed and interactive.
Online education, for better or worse, is still seen as a gamble, with no assurance of quality. To turn profit, UC Online must be seen as a viable alternative to conventional courses able to prepare students for their future studies.
The University of California does not have the luxury of taking too much time to find profitable strategies as state cuts to education are adding up every year.
Instead, UC Online needs to make good on the promises they made in the beginning: that the venture will bring in money to not only benefit academic departments, but to expand and improve the program’s offerings to current UC students.
Email Grano at kgrano@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu or tweet us @DBOpinion.