MINUTES
ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting of August 14, 2001
The Academic Planning Committee met on August 14, 2001 at 9:30 am in room 481 McHenry.
Present: George Brown (Chair), Martin Chemers, Ed Houghton, Wlad Godzich, Carol Freeman (CEP), Frank Talamantes, Alison Galloway (CPB), Dave Belanger (GC), Kathleen Dettman, Betsy Moses (staff).
Absent: Lynda Goff, Burney Le Boeuf, David Cope (COR), Steve Kang, and Dave Kliger
Guests: Galen Jarvinen, Meredith Michaels, and Donna Hunter.
1. Chair’s Announcements.
·
Enrollment Planning Coordinating Committee
The Summer Planning & Implementation Steering Committee membership will be expanded to address overall campus enrollment issues. Full discussion of enrollment management strategies is necessary to guide the campus to full capacity. The committee’s primary charge will be to gather data and conduct analysis necessary to inform the campus community regarding enrollment issues. This is not a policy making group, but rather an information clearinghouse. The name will be revised to Enrollment Analysis Group (EAG) to better reflect the committee’s role.
·
Summer Space Planning
Increased demands on classroom and residential facilities require effective space management. Seismic retrofitting and other maintenance work impact space utilization as the campus moves toward full summer quarter instruction. The Classroom Utilization Subcommittee has been asked to analyze this matter and report back to the EAG.
·
Silicon Valley Center Update
Interim Director Tanner was unavailable to meet with APC today, but is scheduled to attend the first 2001-02 meeting October 9. State augmentation of $1.5 million was not funded. Interim Director Tanner is considering an upper-division and graduate academic program model with student FTE in the 3,000 range, to make better use of economies of scale. Explorations for a UC Berkeley partnership are proceeding; UCB participation may be feasible due to their larger scale and resource base. There are multiple possibilities and many questions to address, including student workload credit, partnerships with community colleges, and transfer accessibility.
Brief discussion suggested it might be in the best interest of UCSC to temporize until the resource base is clear. The overall value to UCSC must outweigh risks. Following the UCSD model, we could begin with research centers and small graduate programs. The SVC must be perceived as offering different and better programs than those already available at SJSU. Clarification to the faculty is necessary on the present status of SVC and the feasibility of plans. Discussion at an early PAC meeting is recommended.
2. Approval of July 10 Minutes.
The draft minutes of July 10 were approved without amendment.
3. Summer Quarter Planning – Next Steps
Campus budgeting is in a difficult position regarding Summer 2002. Revenue is about $400 per student per 5-unit course in the self-supporting model. By contrast, revenue is $1,200 per student per 5-unit course in the state-funding model. UCOP has asked the campus to continue planning, but without confirmation of state funding until at least July 2002, well after students have enrolled! Academic divisions need a model to move forward, with a guarantee that the central administration will share the fiscal risk. Student participation is unknown, but strong enrollment increases this summer indicate demand exists.
With these budget parameters, our goal is to implement a conservative curriculum summer 2002, minimizing fiscal risk while increasing student FTE. Unknowns include FTE annualization and possible UCOP penalties for not meeting summer quarter targets.
Discussion followed on the priority issues and policies affecting summer quarter, including:
· Targeting the courses most likely to succeed. Pat Vani is available to meet with department chairs and deans.
· Instructor availability – ladder faculty likely to be on overload Summer 2002.
· Summer Session will continue to process fee transactions and faculty hires.
· CEP and Graduate Council need to consider impacts of increased graduate student teaching.
· Graduate student union – impact on contract.
· Core courses should be taught by ladder faculty whenever possible, consistent with FWS CEP policy.
· Postdoctoral fellows may be available to teach.
· Divisions need written guidelines including an academic calendar before Fall Quarter.
· Kathleen Dettman’s office will produce a fiscal plan.
4. Procedures for Academic Program Review
VPAA Brown is proposing to revise campus procedures for academic program review, following on APC’s earlier discussion and consultation with the Graduate Council. The current one and a half day visit by an external review team severely constrains the team’s capacity for comprehensive academic program review.
To improve the process, VPAA Brown proposes that the Committee on Educational Policy and the Graduate Council conduct reviews of the undergraduate and graduate programs concurrently with the department’s preparation of the self-study. The self-study and senate reviews will be distributed to the external review team for their comprehensive assessment. The external review team’s report can reflect on the senate reports as well as the department’s self-study. Senate committees can conduct their reviews utilizing standard data compiled and distributed by the academic divisions. Data available potentially include: catalog program copy, course syllabi, major counts, student diversity, ladder faculty courseload, and TA allocation. Data for graduate programs might include criteria and procedures for admissions, enrollment and graduation history, student support history, student placement records, and admit package examples. The goal is to provide sufficient information for the senate to conduct a review without requesting the department to prepare additional documents. Producing senate reports and department self-study simultaneously will maintain a tight timeline and maximize opportunity for a quality external team report. All units involved will continue to have the opportunity to respond to the reviews before the closure meeting. Questions from CEP and Graduate Council on follow-up issues can be included in the campus closure report, to be addressed by the department one to two years later.
A universal charge is strongly recommended to streamline the time-consuming process that results in laundry lists from all units asked to comment.
In the subsequent discussion, members were generally enthusiastic. One noteworthy consequence will be increased dialogue between departments and relevant senate committees. A formal proposal incorporating these proposed revisions will be distributed to the deans and senate this fall.
5. Members Items. No items were presented.
Attest: George Brown, Chair