Thursday, January 22, 2015

"it is a parodox you might chew on"

NBC Bay Area AP coverage University of California Regents Shelve Policy That Would Tie Coaches' Bonuses to Students' Grades

Sac Bee Divided UC Regents Table Coach Bonus Policy

LA Times on it: UC regents delay move to link coaches' bonuses to athletes' grades

SF Chronicle takes on the 'blame it on Berkeley' aspect:

But some regents said they were largely persuaded by the arguments of Dan Guerrero, athletic director for UCLA, who said there were at least half a dozen unintended consequences to raising the bar. In addition to contract changes and steering students toward easier majors, Guerrero said coaches would feel pressure to keep students on their teams rather than lose a point for letting them go. They might also feel pressure to recruit students who are better scholars than athletes, he said.

'Campuses got the message'

He also said the policy was intended to address a big problem on just one campus, but that all campuses have gotten the message that academics matters for top athletes.

The policy was written in response to a devastating national report on intercollegiate athletics in 2013 in which UC Berkeley’s football and men’s basketball teams posted the worst graduation rates of all 72 schools with top-tier intercollegiate athletics teams.

“The shot over the bow has been heard,” Guerrero said. “We will hold our coaches accountable.”

But Newsom wasn’t buying it. He said it was “comical” that contracts provide up to $270,000 in athletic bonuses while the new policy would offer a $10,000 bonus for achieving certain academic thresholds.

“That’s holding your folks accountable?” he asked Guerrero. “I’m not trying to be argumentative, but Jesus.”

maybe a UCLA response to the Los Angelism earlier...
KGO abclocal:

WaPo blog on reminders of what's gone down so far: California governor, university president butt heads over tuition hike

AP SJ Merc on that, too

Really, the afternoon session gave a good 'fly on the (UCOP? or a neutral space?) wall' preview of the Committee of Two - so watch it and note:

50:00 mark
- Lozano helpfully mentions some of the key concerns the CA Senate Rules Committee raised to Blum, Lozano and Pattiz in August when they went through a non rubber stamp confirmation hearing (here's: more on that).

55:55 mark - Perez comments on the retelling, 'Lost in Translation' terminology provided by UCOP presentation

gets into the Blame Game on 20 yr pension holiday

Gould Responds to that

Perez discusses CA parents sticker shock on UC tuition.

Atkins on the real dilemma around communication, formulas, terms

Reiss wished Torlakson was present at the meeting b/c K-12 outreach on UC needs to be discussed more

Gov. Brown on Prop 98 and how UC had a chance to be part of that but UC decided it did not want to be. 'UC wanted to be treated differently and so UC is treated differently.'

at the 02:10:00 mark Regent M discusses the net worth dropping $2 Billion each year problem, and the UC Bldg safety issues- he opines on what he thinks the Gov. might have done as AG and there's metaphors and, in the end, 'something has to give'...

There also was a section where Regent Pattiz describes a dire state of the state and Governor Brown responds indirectly (to that comment and other similar comments) that the state is getting better in large part due to his conservative/ stingy/miserly approach so-- "it is a parodox you might chew on"

and much, much more - so watch those sections.
Also, there was -in the morning section of first day - Regent Keiffer's E-4 looking into curriculum project...

No comments:

Post a Comment