These are the words that come to mind, capturing the essence of UCLA Extension as conveyed through the expressive works of art that appear on the cover of each UCLA Extension quarterly catalog.  Here is a small sample of the complete body of work.

For over twenty years UCLA Extension has engaged true masters of graphic design to create unique designs for its catalog. I must give credit to InJu Sturgeon, retired Creative Director of UCLA Extension for her vision and tenacity in creating this program.

Here’s a video documenting the design of our current UCLA Extension catalog cover for Winter 2012.

Designed by typographic conceptualist, Andrew Byrom, this cover showcases Byrom’s St. Julian typeface, conceived from furniture forms.

Since moving to the US about a dozen years ago, Byrom, an academic book jacket designer for publishing houses such as Penguin, dreamed of joining lifetime heroes, graphic designers Louis Danziger and Deborah Sussman in creating breakout UCLA Extension covers.

“This was such a big deal for me, I wanted to push things a bit,” said Byrom, who has a deep interest in typeface design. After manipulating 15 pieces of furniture, Byrom was hoisted several feet into the air to find the perfect angle. The tables used in the cover to spell out UCLA were also on display (and used by attendees) at TEDxUCLA last year, where Byrom spoke on the typography he sees in everyday objects.

 The Liverpool, England-born faculty member at Cal State Long Beach and UCLA Extension instructor, spent more than 6 months putting together the photograph, working with furniture designer Leslie Denham to construct functional pieces of art out of simple materials.

This cover, by Augustin Garza for Winter 2007, was the cover when I first arrived at UCLA in December 2006. (I fondly call it the “Exploding Palm Tree” and a giant framed copy of the design sits on the wall just outside my office door to this day.)

Circling back to the title of this post, we all know the old saying, “you can’t judge a book by its cover.” We disagree, at least in the case of UCLA Extension. Given the quality, excitement, and dynamism of our catalog designs—and the reputations of the designers—it’s quite all right with us if you judge us by our covers.

From Shenzhen, I traveled to the city of Changsha, a city of around 7 million people in Hunan Province, south central China. It’s a beautiful setting, along two rivers with a large island intersecting one of the rivers. Hunan Province is the birthplace of Chairman Mao and Changsha is where Mao attended university and where he developed his ideas about communism and revolution leading to the formation of the People’s Republic of China. Changsha is also a center for entertainment, creativity, and technology which makes it a particularly good match for UCLA and Los Angeles.

Accompanied by hosts from Changsha TV (a television network in the city and one of our custom program clients), I visited the Hunan Provincial Museum where I saw relics from the Mawangdui Han Tombs.  Discovered and unearthed in the 1970s, the tombs, a perfectly preserved corpse of a 50-something-year-old woman, and 3,000 historic objects are on display providing an glimpse into life in China over 2,000 years ago. Amazing.

In front of the Hunan Provincial Museum

Chinese character font designed by a company owned by Mr. Curt Huang, a Changsha native who helped tour me around sites of the city. (And by the way, Curt’s company designed the character fonts used by Microsoft and Apple iPhone.)

Next, we had lunch in Mao Ze Dong’s favorite restaurant, overlooking a square where auditions for the Chinese version of “X-Factor” were taking place. So fitting in China today—this contrast between history and modern times.

Chinese X-Factor Auditions, November 2011, Changsha, Hunan Province

Next, we visited Yuelu Academy, part of Hunan University. Established in around 1,000 AD, this is one of the oldest universities in the world and it is still functioning today.

Inner courtyard, Yuelu Academy

Final stop in Changsha, Orange Island Park a narrow island in the middle of the Xiangjiang River. The main feature here is a giant sculpture of Mao’s head as a young man. People travel from all over China to see this sculpture.

Orange Island Park, sculpture of Mao Ze Dong, approximate age of 32 years

Day two, Changsha

 I visited the LuValley National Economic and Technical Development Zone. Reflecting on my own time in Silicon Valley, California, I now refer to the LuValley zone as “Silicon Valley on steroids.”  Hosted by Mrs. Zhihong Chen, Deputy Director of the Development Zone, I met with a number of executives and managers of large companies in the zone.

At headquarters for the Development Zone, Mrs. Chen on my left and Mr. Huang on my right.

Afternoon and dinner brought me to Hunan Broadcasting System (Golden Eagle Broadcasting), another client known for its trendy, modern programming.

Hunan Broadcasting System, inside a control room during a live taping

Finally, off to Beijing for my final destination in China. There I met with top officials from State Administration of Foreign Expert Affairs (SAFEA) and from Beijing TV network. Beijing is always an experience—a gigantic, vibrant place.

View of part of Beijing from the top of the landmark Beijing TV building

Bottom line: Quick trip . . . four cities in eight days . . . two new cities for me (Shenzhen and Changsha) . . .very informative . . . very productive . . . many friends, old and new.  Not my last trip to China, that’s certain.

I traveled to China myself recently to forge even stronger ties with universities, governmental agencies, and companies in China. As part of UCLA’s international strategy, UCLA Extension has developed major partnerships in China for over eight years. These have become stronger and more prolific as our own understanding of China and its educational and economic development needs has grown. Our partnerships benefit UCLA Extension in many ways, not the least of which increasing our own global awareness.

Here’s a quick overview of my trip to China in November 2011.

First, I visited Guangzhou in South China, in particular two of China’s top universities, South China University of Technology, and Sun Yat-Sen University where we have hosted study abroad students and MBA students for customized programs here in Los Angeles. I had not been to Guangzhou in four years. The newly developed area along the Pearl River and around the Canton Tower is remarkable.

Canton Tower, Guangzhou, at night  (photo from TravelPod blog)

Next, I was off to Shenzhen, also in South China near Hong Kong. Shenzhen is one of China’s first “Special Economic Zones,” developed in the 1970s, to foster and encourage entrepreneurship and free enterprise. Shenzhen is a thriving, modern city. I participated in a large conference, sponsored by the State Administration of Foreign Expert Affairs (SAFEA) and China Association for International Exchange of Personnel (CAIEP). The annual conference supports the international exchange of specialized technical and managerial personnel between China and other countries.  

View from hotel in Shenzhen

At the CAIEP Convention in Shenzhen

The view inside the convention center

My first trip to China was in 2001. I am increasingly amazed by the development of China and by the high level of enthusiasm for establishing partnership with US universities.  Stay tuned for my next post describing more of my recent trip to China.

First, at the UCLA Extension Dean’s Advisory Board meeting, we heard a presentation by Board member Ed Leamer,  a faculty member at the UCLA Anderson School of Management and director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast.

Professor Leamer  explained that in previous economic downturns, unemployment increased as industries reduced their workforce. But once conditions improved, displaced workers eventually were rehired into their previous industries.

The current economic downturn is quite a bit different.  Large numbers of jobs in construction and manufacturing have disappeared and they will not be coming back. Other industries have completely changed as well. Think about print journalism, printing in general, advertising, and the music industry.

My second meeting last week was part of “UCLA Day with Local Government,” an advocacy day spent meeting with various elected officials and staff at Los Angeles City Hall. I met with a group of executive directors and board members from the local unemployment services/workforce system.

One senior human resources director from a large local firm mentioned he has encountered a number of people in his professional and personal life who have lost jobs and who have not faced the reality that those exact jobs will not reemerge. Almost every industry now requires higher level skills and a greater use of technology. Many unemployed individuals are sitting back and waiting for the world to adapt to them. They are not doing anything to adapt themselves for reemployment in today’s environment.

It is extremely difficult and unsettling for many people to think about going back to school when one has been out of school for 30 years or more.  This dynamic is even more apparent for those who entered the workforce directly from high school.

This brings me back to the title of this post. Facing reality and next steps.

There are many options for someone to build upon past experience and to upgrade knowledge and skills quickly. For many, I would recommend a serious look at rigorous professional certificate programs. We have seen individuals transition

• from banking to logistics
• from mortgage broker to starting a waste recycling company
• from information technology professionals to the healthcare field
• from sales and marketing people to nonprofit organizations

The key is to get help and advice

• What transferrable skills do you have?
• What industries project employment growth?
• What do you care about?

Then, find a program that can help you connect all the dots and get you from A to B. You can find employment that equals or exceeds your previous position.

Naturally, UCLA Extension offers many options. The most important thing is to face reality and take that important next step.

My 3rd of 3 posts on The Innovative University: most continuing and professional education divisions within universities already practice many elements of the “disruptive model” of higher education described by authors Christensen and Eyring: Some of these include:

• Full year-round operation
• Modular programs that build upon each other
• Online courses and degrees
• Higher compensation and term contracts for faculty
• Broader definition of faculty scholarship and teaching emphasis
• Metrics related to desired outcomes (e.g. graduation rates, cost per student)
• Increased enrollments and access
• Reduced campus amenities
• Lower cost

Some additional components of innovative DNA among continuing and professional education divisions include:

• Variety of programs, including non-degree certificates
• High access/open enrollment
• Financial accountability and transparency due to high degree of financial self-support
• Relevance and connection to regional workforce needs
• Innovation in terms of program, format and business processes
• Partnering and outsourcing expertise
• Faculty development
• Agility

There’s a lot that continuing and professional higher education leaders can contribute to a conversation about such “disruptive” ideas as accountability, quality, access, relevance, and affordability in higher education. I hope they are brought to the table.

Or seen another way, given that the continuing and professional education  units have integrated these practices all along, the practices may not be quite as disruptive as initially thought. Some part of higher education have been incorporating these practices all along.

Continuing my thoughts from my last post on The Innovative University, Christensen and Eyring thoroughly describe the history and development of two very different private institutions: Harvard University and Brigham Young University (BYU)-Idaho (formerly Ricks College).

According to the authors, Harvard University has hands down become the traditional model for most of higher education. BYU-Idaho has become a recognized innovator, offering a disruptive model of higher education.

First, what is “disruption”?

Based on Christensen’s research in a number of fields, disruption occurs under two major conditions: “growth in the number of would-be consumers who cannot afford the continuously enhanced offerings [in a given product segment] and thus become non-consumers. [And] the emergence of technologies that will, in the right hands, allow new competitors to serve this disenfranchised group of non-consumers” (p. 16)   Classic examples include transistors that entered the market through cheap radios and personal computers that got their start through a low-end, amateur market segment. Both technologies eventually came to dominate their respective markets.

Circling back to higher education, Christensen and Eyring proposed the following elements they believe define the traditional model of higher education(e.g. “Harvard model”) adhered to or emulated by most postsecondary institutions (p. 136):

• Face-to-face instruction
• Specialization/departmentalization
• Long summer recess
• Graduate program dominance
• Private fundraising
• Competitive athletics
• General education and majors
• Academic honors
• Tenure and rank for faculty
• Admission selectivity

Specialization, selectivity, and many extracurricular amenities contribute to high cost. As institutions seek to move up the higher education classification system (e.g., community colleges that begin to offer four-year degrees or regional comprehensive institutions that strive to become research universities), costs continue to increase.

In conrast, some elements of Christensen’s and Eyring’s “disruptive model” of higher education include (p. 308, 322): 

• Full year-round operation
• Modular majors
• Online courses and degrees
• Higher compensation and term contracts for faculty
• Broader definition of faculty scholarship with teaching emphasis
• Metrics related to desired outcomes (e.g. graduation rates, cost per student)
• Increased enrollments and access
• Reduced campus amenities
• Lower cost

 These elements have been integrated at BYU-Idaho with positive results. (We should acknowledge that BYU-Idaho is owned by a large religious institution that can dictate changes to a large degree. It may be more challenging to fully implement these ideas elsewhere.)

Some of us may recognize many of these elements exist in programs offered by for-profit educational institutions. These providers serve formerly non-consumers of higher education, adults who were not able to access traditional higher education for one reason or another. Disruptive innovation in action. (With recent scrutiny and negative reports of many for-profit institutions, unfortunately many of these elements may become suspect in and of themselves.)

 I do not believe it’s an either/or formula: traditional or disruptive.

 And “one size” does not necessarily fit each and every institution. Institutional diversity is a major strength of U.S. higher education and should continue.

 The main take home message from the book: In what ways might these two lists of elements foster a robust dialogue and offer tangible actions (taken as a whole or more likely in components) that could lead to high quality, high accessibility and holding the line or decreasing cost in higher education?

More to come in a future post.

In a previous post I mentioned the book, The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out, by Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen and co author, Henry Eyring, an administrator at Brigham Young University-Idaho. Given the current challenges to U.S. higher education today, this thought provoking book is definitely worth reading and discussing.

This is especially true in my home state of California renowned for its Master Plan for Higher Education that for many years guaranteed a high quality, low cost college/university degree for every citizen of the state. (As a first generation college graduate who earned her BA and MA degrees at California State University campuses, I am a grateful beneficiary of the “Plan.”) Now, in 2011-12, with base tuition exceeding $12,000 per year at University of California campuses and close to $5,000 per year at California State Universities, the notion of “low cost for all” hardly applies.  Student tuition fees now exceed per student state allocations (as in true in many states in the U.S.) Affordability is an issue.

Accountability is also an issue. The number of reports, commissions, initiatives, laws, and regulations related to assessing various outcomes of higher education has proliferated in recent years. Some include the Spellings Report,The Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities’ Voluntary System of Accountability, National Survey of Student Engagement, The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), University of California’s annual accountability reports, not to mention regional accrediting bodies and other state and federal regulation.

The good news is the U.S. higher education system remains the envy of the world. In virtually any ranking of universities globally, U.S.-based institutions dominate the list.

The Times Higher Education (UK), 2010

This very brief context is the foundation of The Innovative University. The main question to me is: How can U.S. higher education maintain its unquestioned quality while also improving affordability while better measuring our outcomes and results?

To be continued . . .

Just as soon as I wrote a blog post about Clay Christensen’s book, Disrupting Class, Christensen and co-author Henry Eyring’s new book was released. It’s called The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out and the authors apply the same approach and some of the same ideas in Disrupting Class specifically to higher education. I saw a presentation on ideas in the book at the American Council on Education annual meeting back in March.

 Yes, I have ordered the book and look forward to reading it. Another blog post in my future?

Over the past year or so, I had the honor of serving as an American Council on Education (ACE) Fellow. ACE is the nation’s premier umbrella organization representing all sectors of higher education, and the fellowship is a sort of mid-career internship for higher education leaders.  During the year I made time to catch up on my reading. (My blog posts took somewhat of a backseat, you may have noticed.)

 One book I found particularly compelling was Disrupting Class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the work learns by Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn, and Curtis W. Johnson.  Christensen has written about innovation and disruptive technology in other industries. This book applies his theories to K-12 education. It’s a refreshing “outsiders” view.

 Christensen argues the current educational system is based on an industrial, mass production, assembly line model where we assume every student can master the same material in the same way. Christensen provides a compelling argument for a new disruptive model:

• Customized learning that adapts to an individual student’s pace and style of learning
• Student-centered classrooms that employ technology
• Teachers as facilitative “guides on the side”
• Students engaged in learning and feeling successful about their learning

 Christensen predicts that disruptive educational innovation may emerge in the form of grassroots online tutoring tools:  “ . . . these tools will spread in popularity very quickly, and exchanges will emerge through with this user-generated content can be offered to others for free or for a fee.” (p. 130)

Christensen draws an analogy to the pharmaceutical industry’s direct-to-patient advertising. Patients are doing their own web research about conditions and treatments and are “’pulling’ the solution from their doctors after they’ve made a preliminary diagnosis themselves” (p. 139).

 “The analogous case in education is that historically, because they haven’t known of the existence of remedies for learning problems, students and their families typically put up with poor grades and the low self-esteem spawned by feeling stupid. [New] facilitated networks will be designed to help students and their families diagnose why they’re finding it so difficult to master a subject and then find their own solution. Just as in health care, students and their families will not wait for their teaching professionals to prescribe a ‘therapy.’ They will pull the solution out of the facilitated network themselves” (p. 139).

 Eventually, the public will expect, even demand, similar solutions in the classroom.

 This very brief description just scratches the surface of the many insights in Disrupting Class. I recommend this book for anyone interested in educational reform.  (And who isn’t?)

I recently came across a very interesting report by the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (or SNAAP).

This report focuses on the value of an arts degree, both visual arts and performing arts. If we’re talking about economic prospects, the common perception is “you’ll never be able to make a living in the arts” or “I hope you like waiting tables or driving a taxi.” We’ve probably all heard, or uttered, these cautions again and again.

The SNAAP report is an important counterpoint to such statements. Highlights from 2010 report:

• Over 120,000 visual and performing arts degrees are granted each year
• 92% of alumni who wish to work are working
• 81% found employment soon after graduating
• 66% said their first job was a close match for the kind of work they wanted
• 57% are currently working as professional artists
• Of those who currently work outside the arts, 54% said their arts training is relevant to their current job
• Arts school graduates are 18 times more likely to volunteer at an arts organization (than the population at large (Independent Sector, 2001)
• 90% of graduates reporting their overall experience at their college or university was either good or excellent
• Job satisfaction levels are very high for those in many arts occupation

So to you arts graduates, all I can say is: “good for you.” For others who gravitate toward the arts, but who chose another “more practical” path (like myself), perhaps it’s time to consider following that inner muse?