The Times’ April 30 editorial, "The danger of UC autonomy," which challenges our proposal for modernizing University of California governance, deserves a response.

First, the editorial predicts that allowing each campus more autonomy would risk turning highly sought-after schools such as UC Berkeley and UCLA into institutions that serve most wealthy students, while qualified middle-class applicants would be drawn to other, less competitive UC schools. The editorial doesn’t mention the recently announced Middle Class Access Plan for Berkeley, whereby no UC Berkeley student from a family in the $80,000 to $140,000 household income range would pay more than 15% of family income for tuition, books and living expenses. We do seek and value affordable access for the middle class, as evidenced by this pioneering program.

You indicate that the report does not “provide evidence that the current system has worked poorly or explain in what way local freedom would fix any problems....

Editorial writers are entitled to their opinions. But Karin Klein's May 6 piece on automated essay scoring simply misses the point.

She questions the value of automated essay scoring software (AES) as a teaching supplement in the area of writing, based in part on her own daughter’s experience. It is unfortunate that her singular personal experience was frustrating for mother and daughter, but it should not be used to censure an evolving technology that can, indeed, produce better writers.

The study for which I was principal investigator did not address the use of AES in formative applications like the teaching of writing, but examined its performance in scoring high-stakes writing assessments such as those on standardized tests. In that study (which included entries from eight commercial vendors and one university laboratory), the scoring engines performed impressively well. Our recommendation was that the two major Race to the Top consortia should further study the validity of...

In its April 23 editorial, "A college bargain for Californians," The Times ponders what the state might do with "an extra billion dollars a year." After considering various possibilities, the editorial acquiesces to a proposal from Sacramento that even it admits is flawed.
 
But before you spend this money, you have to collect it. To reap the extra billion dollars, The Times believes it "makes sense" to ignore the will of California voters and punish companies whose only apparent crime is being headquartered outside California.
 
The proposal, by Assembly Speaker John Perez (D-Los Angeles), is AB 1500, which he calls the California Middle Class Scholarship Act. It would impose a $1 billion tax hike on "out-of-state" businesses to provide college financial aid for families earning between $80,000 and $150,000 a year.
 
The plan targets a 2009 tax formula change, which only became effective last year -- after California voters rejected a November 2010 ballot measure aimed at repealing...

The Times’ April 18 editorial, “Tsunami alert: Don’t cut that program,” raises awareness of some unwelcome proposed cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s tsunami program. The cuts, which amount to $4.6 million, would affect two important components of the national program. The Times’ primary concern is with the smaller of the two reductions, a $1-million hit to the array of buoys in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans that detects tsunamis. The much-larger $3.6-million cut to the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, or NTHMP, concerns The Times less. It shouldn’t.

The NTHMP provides funding to 29 states and territories to model and map tsunami inundation zones. It trains coastal community emergency managers to respond to a warning, watch or advisory and, most important, to disseminate tsunami safety information to coastal residents, visitors and businesses.

Most of the media attention, and regrettably that of elected...

In her April 18 Times Op-Ed article, "How Romney could win over Latinos," Tamar Jacoby urges Mitt Romney to support Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-Fla.) immigration bill, which she dubs "Dream 2.0," saying it would be "good for Romney, good for Republicans, good for many hopeful young immigrants and good for America." Yet she presents a misleading picture of this proposal, which would present a dead end for undocumented youth and betray the American values of assimilation and equality.   

The original federal Dream Act was designed to allow undocumented youth who were brought here as children a path to citizenship, provided they either served in the military or attended college. The new version gives these youth only a non-immigrant visa, and it seems designed to help Republicans soften their image with Latinos. Dream 2.0, floated by Rubio, seems conveniently timed to Romney's search for a running mate. It is no accident, by the way, that Romney has suddenly taken an interest in Latinos, after...

Mark Schneider and Lu Michelle Yin, proponents of for-profit higher education, go on the offensive in their April 11 Times Op-Ed article and criticize public community colleges for our graduation rates, which do need to improve. I have no quarrel with that fundamental truth.

However, I do take issue with those who advocate for for-profit colleges, which have been publicly exposed for their own inadequate graduation rates. I hate to use the old cliche about glass houses, but Schneider and Yin are clearly throwing stones, particularly at those of us in the California community college system.

As Schneider and Yin point out, for-profit colleges have come under much negative scrutiny in the last few years. But the authors' attempt to redirect it is not persuasive. Quite simply, it's important to consider the facts.

The authors note that graduation rates at two-year for-profit institutions are almost three times higher than those at public community colleges. They are not measuring...