It will be interesting to see what comes of this CSU initiative. As a retired professor from the CSU, I can say the campuses right now have a lot of talent throughout the state that likely have done some foundation building. The depth of the information on the Chancellorβs website re the AI initiative is glitzy for sure, but there is substance as well. My bet is this isnβt solely a publicity stunt or a bid to raise the stature of the place. The CSU system is capable of doing great things once it breaks the inertia. Thanks for bringing this forward. I hadnβt heard about. Iβll call some folks and get the scoop.
I will be curious what you hear from faculty. I don't know much at all about governance in the CSU system. I hope things are better than most everywhere else as the faculty are less and less involved in decision-making.
The faculty are siloed, but very powerful campus by campus. I was the university assessment coordinator in the early 2010s and have intimate experience with faculty governance. The only override is the legislature and/or the governors office. The Chancellor has connected with the Governorβs office, which is unusual, but nothing has changed legislatively. My gut tells me this is faculty driven. There is strong resistance to AI in both the CSU and the UC system. The intrigue to me is the top down nature. It canβt happen quickly, but nothing ever does in the CSU.
That sounds familiar and increases my sense that, for all sorts of reasons, CSU campuses will be worth paying extra attention to when it comes to faculty governance and AI.
I think so. 23 separate universities standing on the edge of the demographic cliff are struggling to maintain academic freedom. Some campuses will shrink in population by > 25%. The perfect storm. Local faculty control of curriculum and instruction throughout the system is a revered norm. I watched for almost twenty years as headquarters pushed changes, but the Senates on campus after campus found ways to sustain their will so long as the legislature wasnβt involved. Watch what happens with the undergraduate writing requirements. Also, the Colleges of Natural Sciences where the AI issues will boil over. Iβve been expecting some move from the Chancellorβs Office re AI since the beginning of this academic year. The uproar will start in earnest once system curriculum agreements are on the table and should produce at a minimum some fireworks. Truly the Wild West:)
Iβll let you know what I learn as the semester goes on. I can email or DM you. You can cite me as an anonymous source on the inside, a deep throat. Interesting times in the CSU. I donβt want to burn any bridges but I do think this meeting of two titans, each with its own less than transparent agenda, deserves coverage.
It was all easier when an institution could decide to adopt MS Office for the basic needs of its students and staff, but with the pace of change in the AI arena is it really wise to hitch your wagon to ANY one horse? But here I am, trying to develop a plan to introduce AI into a core engineering course for graduating seniors, realizing after my own efforts that the βfreeβ version of ChatGPT wonβt do the job and not every student can spring $20/mo for a paid plan. I tell myself, βWait 3 months for the next gen.β Itβs an interesting world to be immersed in.
You put your finger on the big challenge for individual teachers and institutions. Do you provide the same tool for all students? Or do you assign or provide AI like we do other kinds of software? As you say, "Wait 3 months" has been a viable answer, but the pressure around accessibility and standardization makes it feel harder to wait. No easy answers given the stakes, but there are better options for both individual instructors and institutions than OpenAI.
It will be interesting to see what comes of this CSU initiative. As a retired professor from the CSU, I can say the campuses right now have a lot of talent throughout the state that likely have done some foundation building. The depth of the information on the Chancellorβs website re the AI initiative is glitzy for sure, but there is substance as well. My bet is this isnβt solely a publicity stunt or a bid to raise the stature of the place. The CSU system is capable of doing great things once it breaks the inertia. Thanks for bringing this forward. I hadnβt heard about. Iβll call some folks and get the scoop.
I will be curious what you hear from faculty. I don't know much at all about governance in the CSU system. I hope things are better than most everywhere else as the faculty are less and less involved in decision-making.
The faculty are siloed, but very powerful campus by campus. I was the university assessment coordinator in the early 2010s and have intimate experience with faculty governance. The only override is the legislature and/or the governors office. The Chancellor has connected with the Governorβs office, which is unusual, but nothing has changed legislatively. My gut tells me this is faculty driven. There is strong resistance to AI in both the CSU and the UC system. The intrigue to me is the top down nature. It canβt happen quickly, but nothing ever does in the CSU.
That sounds familiar and increases my sense that, for all sorts of reasons, CSU campuses will be worth paying extra attention to when it comes to faculty governance and AI.
I think so. 23 separate universities standing on the edge of the demographic cliff are struggling to maintain academic freedom. Some campuses will shrink in population by > 25%. The perfect storm. Local faculty control of curriculum and instruction throughout the system is a revered norm. I watched for almost twenty years as headquarters pushed changes, but the Senates on campus after campus found ways to sustain their will so long as the legislature wasnβt involved. Watch what happens with the undergraduate writing requirements. Also, the Colleges of Natural Sciences where the AI issues will boil over. Iβve been expecting some move from the Chancellorβs Office re AI since the beginning of this academic year. The uproar will start in earnest once system curriculum agreements are on the table and should produce at a minimum some fireworks. Truly the Wild West:)
This is good stuff, Terry. As has been the case since the days of Clark Kerr, California higher ed is on the edge in so many senses of the word.
Iβll let you know what I learn as the semester goes on. I can email or DM you. You can cite me as an anonymous source on the inside, a deep throat. Interesting times in the CSU. I donβt want to burn any bridges but I do think this meeting of two titans, each with its own less than transparent agenda, deserves coverage.
It was all easier when an institution could decide to adopt MS Office for the basic needs of its students and staff, but with the pace of change in the AI arena is it really wise to hitch your wagon to ANY one horse? But here I am, trying to develop a plan to introduce AI into a core engineering course for graduating seniors, realizing after my own efforts that the βfreeβ version of ChatGPT wonβt do the job and not every student can spring $20/mo for a paid plan. I tell myself, βWait 3 months for the next gen.β Itβs an interesting world to be immersed in.
You put your finger on the big challenge for individual teachers and institutions. Do you provide the same tool for all students? Or do you assign or provide AI like we do other kinds of software? As you say, "Wait 3 months" has been a viable answer, but the pressure around accessibility and standardization makes it feel harder to wait. No easy answers given the stakes, but there are better options for both individual instructors and institutions than OpenAI.