MINUTES

ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting of March 12, 2002

The Academic Planning Committee met on March 12, 2002 at 9:30 am in room 481 McHenry.

Present: George Brown (Chair), Ed Houghton, Bob Miller, Bruce Schumm (GC), Steve Thorsett (COR), Martin Chemers, Bob Meister (CPB), Allison Galloway (CPB), Carol Freeman (CEP), Dave Kliger, Steve Kang, Frank Talamantes, Kathleen Dettman, Betsy Moses (staff).

Absent: Lynda Goff, Wlad Godzich, and Jamus Lin

Guests: Galen Jarvinen

1. Chair Announcements

· State-funded Summer Instruction in 2003

UC Davis plans to implement state-funded summer instruction this year, summer 2002. Funds are included in Governor Davis’ budget, but final state budget approval and resources will not be known until July or August, after summer instruction begins. UC Davis has reached the LRDP capacity of 26,000 students; they have opened the process to renew the LRDP to raise the enrollment ceiling to 30,000. UCSC is likely to initiate state-funded summer instruction summer 2003. Deans are asked to review the curriculum plans submitted last year and prepare to implement them summer 2003.

· UCOP Freshman Seminar Proposal

UCOP will soon announce a Freshman Seminar proposal requesting all campuses to initiate an optional 1-2 unit lower division course taught by ladder faculty and available to all frosh. This program is based on the UC Berkeley model, which has been considered successful at engaging first year students with ladder faculty in small group situations. Some new resources may be available; Provost Simpson has not yet decided how they will be allocated.

CEP is waiting to receive guidelines and may recommend a model to fit UCSC. Courses could be offered through departments, divisions, or colleges. The anticipated funds are too small to be considered realistic faculty incentives. Interest in teaching entering students, attracting students to low enrollment majors, and campus service are more likely faculty motivations.

· 10-Year Academic Plan Update

Provost Simpson has issued a March 1 letter presenting the status of the 10-year budget process. In the Provost Advisory Council meeting, he requested committee reactions, identification of potentially wrong directions, and missing segments in the pending long-range academic plan.

2. Approval of January 22 Minutes.

The draft minutes of January 22 were approved without amendment.

3. Academic Program Review

Chair Brown summarized the APC August 2001 preliminary discussion of the academic review process and presented his current concepts on process changes. When APC agrees on the overarching principles, the senate will be formally consulted. Revising the process will ensure that reviews meet campus objectives and streamline administrative workload wherever possible.

There was a brief discussion of the notion of a standard charge. Providing a standard charge to the external review committee may present problems. A general charge helps prevent prejudicial reviews; however, specific and directed charges might produce better assessments. A standard charge with only one or two non-standard questions might work. All agreed that current charges are unwieldy and unrealistic.

Increasing the Committee on Educational Policy and Graduate Council’s participation in program reviews requires changes in the proposed review schedule. Providing the committees with general department statistical data may not be sufficient. Members agreed that the narrative department self-study should precede the senate review.

Meshing review procedures with the new campus WASC goals should be considered. Campus WASC goals include “Restructure the Departmental Review process in such a way as to place greater emphasis on assessing undergraduate curricula. As part of the review process envisioned, departments would articulate their goals with respect to both their graduate students and undergraduate majors, as well as to students from outside the major, to propose appropriate student learning outcomes, and to begin to devise means for assessing those outcomes.” Enhancing CEP’s role of undergraduate program assessment will address one WASC item. Departmental student learning goals and subsequent student assessments are more problematic. Department self-studies should merge with WASC concepts by including long-range academic plans, identifying departmental goals and strategies for meeting goals, and describing progress made since the previous review. Care must be exercised in allowing the departments to set their own goals without higher administrative approval.

Other points discussed:

• External reviewers add quality and objectivity to the process; however the minimum time spent on the visit precludes desired assessment depth and breadth.
• How to increase external committee engagement on the issues and reduce time spent on the routine matters.
• Course syllabi are normally not reviewed after their original approval. The revised review process would call for a comprehensive review of the curriculum by the senate, and, if recommended, by the external review team.
• The report by CEP and GC should be formulated in such a way as to identify questions for the external review team to address.

Chair Brown will bring a revised proposal to the APC for further discussion.

4. Members Items. No items were presented.

Attest: George Brown, Chair