MINUTES
ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting of January 23, 2001
The Academic Planning Committee met on January 23, 2001 at 9:30am in room 481 McHenry Library.
Present: George Brown (Chair), Carol Freeman (CEP), Allison Galloway (CPB), Lynda Goff, Burney Le Boeuf, Martin Chemers, Phokion Kolaitis (GC), Wlad Godzich, Ed Houghton, Frank Talamantes, Steve Kang, Kathleen Dettman, Betsy Moses (staff).
Absent: David Cope (COR)
Guests: John Hay (CPB Chair), Bill Ladusaw, and Galen Jarvinen
1. Chair’s Announcements.
· WASC Accreditation Preparation
The WASC accreditation process has changed significantly. The campus will now experience two visits from the WASC review committee: 1) Preparatory Review in spring 2004 with a preparatory report due three months prior to the visit; and 2) Educational Effectiveness Review in spring 2005 with a related report due three months prior to the visit. The campus is asked to prepare a proposal outlining the context and review goals by October 2001. APC will be asked to review preparatory materials and the Planning & Budget Office will staff the process. Carl Walsh, Kay Wilder, Julian Fernald and Betsy Moses attended WASC convened workshops to learn the new process.
· State Funded Summer Session Update
Provost Simpson has appointed a task force to identify key issues related to implementing state-funded summer instruction. Members are: University Extension and Summer Session Dean Cathy Sandeen, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Francisco Hernandez, Associate Vice Chancellor of Planning and Budget Meredith Michaels, and Vice Provost for Academic Affairs George Brown. The task force will produce a report by March 1 to help the campus meet critical planning milestones. UCLA, UCB, and UCSB are proposed to begin summer 2001 with little change to existing programs. Other campuses are expected to follow in summer 2002 and 2003. Divisions are likely to use varying strategies best suited to their disciplines when planning appropriate summer programs. Vice Provost Brown will solicit CEP, CPB, and Graduate Council asking them what questions they may have on state funded summer session that the administration should pursue. Systemwide policies, regulations and expectations are under development.
2. Approval of January 9 Minutes. The Draft minutes of January 9 were approved without amendment.
3. Colleges
An advisory group
chaired by VPDUE Goff met in July 2000 and produced a Report of the Advisory
Group on the Colleges Fall 2000. http://planning.ucsc.edu/pac/MtgNotes/apc-reading.htm
Chair Brown prefaced APC’s preliminary discussion of the report by reminding
the committee that: 1) The last UCSC college chartered was College Eight in
1973 under Chancellor Dean McHenry. 2)
Facility planning for future student housing must move rapidly, it is urgent to
communicate the campus vision for colleges to space planners.
Discussion followed
with a summary report from Lynda Goff emphasizing the campus’s uncommon
commitment to undergraduate education is partly realized by the college
communities. Questioning if the
existing college programs are suitable to current and future student needs
resulted in their report’s nineteen recommendations. The first seven relate to enrollment growth and possible college
operational reconfigurations to meet the growth. Recommendations eight through thirteen relate to the college
academic linkages with faculty and curriculum.
The remaining six are conclusions that address future colleges.
Provost Bill Ladusaw
presented the report’s schematic illustrating the college structure, linkage
between student affairs and academic programs, and their respective funding
sources. The UCSC model is holistic and
delivers student services on a human scale with emphasis on team building and
community development. A different
model used at many large universities is distributive, separating housing
function from academic program. Since
most faculty are now disengaged from college activities, the Provosts are
frequently the last functioning academic senate link and act as deans of
student affairs.
Younger faculty do
not affiliate with colleges, in fact there is no longer a process requesting
affiliation. Incentive for involvement
is missing since service is interpreted broadly in personnel actions. At the time of the campus founding, faculty
appointments were split between college and department, however many senior
faculty recall that only a minority participated in the colleges. College core course was developed to address
student writing skills and subject A requirement, leading to a common
curriculum.
Discussion addressed
a broad number of issues, including the new model of college nine and ten
established within the Division of Social Sciences. This solution is seeking synergy between the work of the colleges
and the work of the division. Campus
budget methodologies generate flexible funds for dean s that can be used as
incentives bringing academic programs and student enhancements to the
college. College nine proposed academic
programs provide multiple options, allowing students to choose the best fit for
their major and personal preference.
Existing colleges concern that their identity will be subsumed if they
are part of division administration is unlikely to be realized. Academic divisions focus on the success of
all their units. The
division/department structure facilitates connecting ladder faculty with
college programs.
There was general
consensus that the UCSC value to enrich the intellectual life of undergraduates
can be met with the ready made vehicle of the college structure.
The APC role is to
consider and recommend on future college development given the context of rapid
enrollment growth and faculty focus in their disciplines. Members are asked to review the specific
report recommendations for future discussion.
VPDUE Goff will reframe the discussion to prioritize planning decisions
that must be made soon. APC will then
make a recommend to the Provost Advisory Council (PAC) on the college system.
4. Members Items. No items were presented.
Attest:
George Brown, Chair