MINUTES

ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting of May 15, 2001

The Academic Planning Committee met on May 15, 2001 at 9:30 am in room 283 Kerr Hall.

Present: George Brown (Chair), Martin Chemers, Dave Kliger, Ed Houghton, Wlad Godzich, Steve Kang, Carol Freeman (CEP), Phokion Kolaitis (GC), Burney Le Boeuf, Alison Galloway (CPB), Darrell Long (COR), Kathleen Dettman, Betsy Moses (staff).

Absent: Lynda Goff and Frank Talamantes.

Guests: Galen Jarvinen.

1. Chair’s Announcements.

· Provost Advisory Council Meeting May 22

The Provost’s Advisory Council (PAC) will meet May 22 for four hours to review the divisional long range planning summaries. The PAC meeting precludes APC’s scheduled May 22 meeting. The next APC meeting will be June 12.

· WASC – Campus Accreditation Planning

The campus must produce a proposal by October 15, 2001 outlining goals for the 2004 accreditation review. The original intention to ask the senate to review a proposal this spring was usurped by long range planning activities. A rough draft prepared by Julian Fernald will be revised by George Brown and reviewed in APC this summer. The revised proposal will be distributed to the academic senate for their comment early Fall quarter.

· State Funded Summer Quarter

Provost Simpson’s May 2 letter to deans requests by May 30 detailed summer curriculum plans for 2002. The intention is for deans to consult with faculty before they disperse for the summer. Division plans will provide faculty input and help build the campus report to Office of the President (UCOP) required by late summer. The Enrollment Planning and Coordinating Group, chaired by Vice Provost George Brown, is working to resolve policy issues and coordinate overall planning. Each campus is developing policies and practices best suited for them. UCSC’s preliminary policy on faculty workload is that no service, instruction, or other work can be expected during the instructor’s designated “off” quarter. California state government budget constraints now appear unlikely to impact near-term summer enrollment funding. State demographics drive the need to expand instruction on all campuses.

· Professional School Planning

Chancellor Greenwood proposed engaging an external consultant to examine the prospects for establishing professional schools at UCSC. Some members doubted the merit of engaging a consultant versus appointing campus faculty to review the topic. On the other hand, a person bringing an external perspective and experienced with professional schools could be useful. Earlier consultant reports will be distributed to the APC. Some members believed that a better approach is to identify the key areas that are emerging with potential for professional school development, and review just those targeted areas. UCSC ‘s regional site doesn’t fit well with many professional schools. However, professional school breadth may well make UCSC more attractive to prospective faculty in some disciplines.

2. Approval of March 27 Minutes.

The draft minutes of March 27 were approved without amendment.

3. Affirm Goals for Evaluating Academic Plans

Eight goals for evaluating academic plans were presented in Provost Simpson’s long-range planning call. APC has been asked to re-consider the goals based on April division presentations. A major omission noticed by deans and CEP is the absence of commitment to undergraduate education, historically a UCSC core focus. Sustaining and improving the core major curriculum should be a top priority for new resources. Undergraduate student growth is occurring now and will continue before the campus reaches maturity. Ensuring ladder faculty resources are sufficient to teach the majors is a top priority that cannot be assumed when resources are distributed for new programs.

The first goal, strengthening research and scholarly accomplishment and distinction, is very important. Research sets us apart from other higher education institutions and must be protected.

The second goal, markedly increasing graduate programs and enrollments, has mixed value. Building new graduate programs when systemwide budgeting methodologies no longer support them well places UCSC in an awkward position. What is the best strategy to maximize campus resources? Targeting strong research as a first priority with graduate programs developing from established research is one method. Balanced programs across the campus benefits faculty and students. For example, Arts graduate development at the masters level should be supported. What percent of campus enrollments should be graduate at maturity? Fifteen to twenty percent fits a mixed professional school plus doctoral model, twelve percent for doctoral programs alone. Targeting program quality and potential for accomplishment is higher priority than developing many programs across campus. As they stand, Division preliminary plans exceed campus targets for graduate growth. Graduate programs should not be the primary goal, but rather should emerge with or following quality research programs. Regional collaborations with high technology industry work to the advantage of the campus, and programs must leverage this resource. Graduate employment prospects must be considered. Graduate students provide a source of quality Teaching Assistants and enhance campus culture through mentorship with undergraduates.

All seven planning goals appear overly general with uncertain objectives. Number three, developing interdisciplinary programs at all academic levels, is particularly unclear. New program funding must not require passing all seven criteria. Some members stated that the principles are not valuable for programmatic evaluation and ranking. Prioritization of the seven goals is unknown at this time.

Context is critical for accurate program evaluation and funding. Graduate growth, student job market, undergraduate enrollments, research potential and research quality are unique to each unit. Departments have been engaged in academic planning for five years with very few unacceptable new proposals. Feedback is needed to help prioritize the wealth of proposals and communicate resource realities and campus goals to faculty.

Issues for the Chancellor and Provost to address are the balancing available funding with projected costs. Does the campus broadly fund the least expensive programs so all units benefit in limited ways, or does the campus fund a few very good ideas with high costs? The more radical method might catapult the institution forward, but at the expense of existing units. There are good plans from all the academic divisions; it is difficult for deans to compete with each other for funding when they must collaborate on effective outcomes. The administration must balance decisions based upon imprecise information in the current preliminary summaries.

Divisions have asked for criticism of plans. Clear “marching orders” are needed for deans and department chairs to complete the summaries and avoid work on proposals that will not be pursued by the campus. One method is for each dean describe the “ideal” composition of a division not their own. Another method is to expand the academic senate role to include comprehensive dialogue and feedback to faculty. The Committees on Educational Policy, Planning and Budget, Research, and Graduate Council are the most expert faculty bodies to offer sophisticated, detailed programmatic advice.

The Committee on Planning and Budget reviews campus budget issues and has concerns that past state funding cuts have not been restored at the department level. Restoring strength in existing departments will build the campus base and construct a sound foundation for new programs. Strong departments foster increased interdisciplinary connections by broadening faculty expertise.

The California state economy is currently vulnerable, and the campus must protect core programs during economic uncertainty. New programs should be added only if resources permit without undermining existing units. Starting new programs that cannot be adequately funded must be avoided.

Faculty support for the on-going planning process is ambivalent. The Deans’ capacity to motivate faculty participation is dependent on the distance from achievable goals. The very limited resources available at the moment to sustain enrollment growth produces a psychology of uncertainty that must not be dismissed.

Chair Brown suggested that substantial discussion between the deans and CEP, CPB, GC and COR could be helpful in advancing plans to the next level. Discussions must avoid perception of final decisions, but include comprehensive feedback. Productive dialogue will be valuable and provide department faculty issues to which they can respond. It is suggested that these senate committees might meet with deans and administration over the summer. Committees should prepare for meetings similar to external review closure meetings with discussion focused on the highest priority issues.

Graduate growth may be partly handled through interdisciplinary Graduate Groups. A task force chaired by VPAA Brown is gathering information on UC Davis and UC Berkeley practices and charter language that will be distributed to all. Graduate Groups are a natural outcome on campuses with large departments; it is a common practice at larger universities. Historically, UCSC departments have been sized for teaching undergraduates; sizing departments to support research require a new model. Regular review is recommended. Interdisciplinary research programs will emerge from faculty interests but require a campus mechanism to establish doctoral programs.

6. Members Items. No items were presented.

Attest: George Brown, Chair