MINUTES

ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting of February 13, 2001

The Academic Planning Committee met on February 13, 2001 at 9:30 am in room 481 McHenry Library.

Present: George Brown (Chair), Carol Freeman (CEP), Allison Galloway (CPB), Lynda Goff, Burney Le Boeuf, Martin Chemers, Dave Kliger, Ed Houghton, Joel Ferguson, Kathleen Dettman, Betsy Moses (staff).

Absent: David Cope (COR), Phokion Kolaitis (GC), Wlad Godzich, Frank Talamantes, and Steve Kang.

Guests: Michael Tanner, Joel Ferguson and Galen Jarvinen

1. Chair’s Announcements.

· State Funded Summer Quarter Update

The Office of the President is asking the campus for a decision by mid-March regarding UCSC’s implementation of a state-funded summer quarter either 2002 or 2003. Berkeley, UCLA, and Santa Barbara are commencing state-funded summer instruction in summer, 2001. The summer quarter steering committee will produce a document addressing academic program issues and resource implications. The report will be distributed to APC members Thursday, February 22 to prepare for discussion at the February 27 APC meeting. A following document will focus on operational and student services impacts. Senate members will be asked to consult with their committees and report back at APC’s March 13 meeting. At the March 13 meeting, APC will recommend to PAC whether the campus should start summer instruction 2002 or 2003.

2. Approval of January 23 Minutes. The Draft minutes of January 23 were approved without amendment.

3. Silicon Valley Center

Director Michael Tanner updated the committee on the Silicon Valley Center’s (SVC) vision statement. The SVC should be regarded as substantially distinct from UCSC’s year round operations planning. Full capacity for classrooms, research facilities, housing and support offices are embedded in the planning. The SVC has the ability to draw from professional expertise for instruction and contractual agreements with NASA. NASA delay in preparing the environmental impact report will likely delay the expected opening to Fall 2004.

SVC-centered student internships are feasible at SVC; especially if the commitment filled two quarters to better align with agency needs. Extension and Summer Session Dean Cathy Sandeen expects a strong student summer market for UC courses available in silicon valley.

CEP considers the vision statement too broad, and lacking information that might guide faculty thinking in developing appropriate curriculum. Articulation between the vision statement and the Glatzmaier-Ladusaw SVC task force report isn’t apparent. The undergraduate experience isn’t defined. CPB concurred; they would like to see evidence of program quality, articulated principles, effects upon campus offerings, and a careful financial feasibility assessment. A description of the first academic program planned for a few hundred students would provide the committees with tangible ideas for their comprehensive response.

Discussion followed on possible models that future programs could build on and where the models should be developed. Divisions are engaged with departments in long-range planning and will present summary statements by mid March, including identification of potential programs for SVC. Some faculty enthusiasts foresee great opportunity and advantages for academic enterprise. If SVC programs develop as separate specialized departments (or department subsets) there will be a need for majors to complete a parallel track of general education courses. Research units are expected to be part of the initial program phase with significant external linkages. There are significant concerns about fragmenting faculty interactions. A better concept is to hire a faculty cadre for a base program fitting within UCSC plans that is housed at SVC. Research infrastructure not available on campus will draw engineering and perhaps biotechnology disciplines.

State resources must provide the funding for a base program including undergraduate enrollments. One possibility is graduate programs plus significant undergraduate internships with phased-in Extension and summer quarter instruction. Interdisciplinary professional graduate programs are another strong possibility, but must avoid unrealistic competition with existing programs at Berkeley, Stanford, and San Jose State. Funding models from UCOP are in process and may initially include a higher rate for off-campus programs, recognizing their intrinsic higher start-up cost. Savings are expected to come from utilizing existing support organizations from an established institution.

Divisional planning concepts may be too modest to adequately meet SVC program needs. There is a place for both traditional department-centered planning and a central administrative role. The eventual outcome will be negotiated, a conflation of divisional plans with input from the VPDUE, VPAA, VPDGS, VPR, and Academic Senate. Director Tanner will re-work the January vision statement based on feedback received. The administration will produce a document describing multiple academic models expressed for SVC including an economic analysis, feasibility, enrollments required to support faculty FTE, capital cost impacts, and guidelines for academic program planning. The document will be available by the March 27 APC meeting for senate representatives to take to their committees for comment.

4. Members Items. No items were presented.

Attest: George Brown, Chair