MINUTES

ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting of June 25, 2002

The Academic Planning Committee met on June 25, 2002 at 9:30 am in room 481 McHenry.

Present: George Brown (Chair), Steve Thorsett (COR), Martin Chemers, Allison Galloway (CPB), Bob Meister (CPB), Carol Freeman (CEP), Wlad Godzich, Frank Talamantes, Kathleen Dettman, and Betsy Moses (staff).

Absent: Bob Miller, Ed Houghton, Dave Kliger, Steve Kang, Lynda Goff, Bruce Schumm, and Jamus Lin (student rep).

Guests: Galen Jarvinen, Kevin Browne, Julian Fernald, Charlotte Moreno, John Tamkun and Tony Fink (CAFA).

1. Chair Announcements

The APC will schedule two more meetings this summer, July 23 and August 27, before adjourning for a September recess. The chair proposed and members concurred to a once a month meeting schedule on every second Tuesday commencing 2002-03. A reminder notice will be distributed soon.

2. Approval of April 23 Minutes.

The draft minutes of April 23 were approved without comment.

3. Enrollment Management Conference Follow-up

Chair Brown referred members to the notes from the June 5 Enrollment Management Conference that were distributed prior to today’s discussion. The chair proposed that the APC endorse a letter to Provost Simpson recommending strategies designed to improve the campus academic reputation, influence future admissions yield rates and begin to prepare the campus for transition to admissions selectivity.

Strategies proposed include:

• Organize campus promotional publications along the lines of academic majors and fields, rather than along the lines of the formal campus organizational structure.
• Eliminate the 5-credit, 3-course system in favor of the traditional 4-credit, 4-course system. This the purview of the academic senate.
• UC Santa Barbara recently improved its perceived academic reputation by scheduling formal receptions for admitted students, involving the Chancellor or other high administrators; increasing scholarship funding targeted to merit; and instituting a serious public relations and marketing campaign stressing academic expectations.
• At the recent UC Deans conference, UCOP reported that UCSC’s low upper division course size is the best in the UC system. This should be promoted as evidence to commitment to undergraduate education.
• Develop new honors programs and promote existing honors programs. Incentives to reinforce and attract honors students might include increased scholarship funds, housing guarantees, early course registration, and campus-wide recognition events.
• Faculty members must be more adequately prepared for admissions and promotion events in order to maximize their effectiveness and in order to increase faculty participation.
• The admissions office and other campus public relations offices should evaluate prospective student experiences between UCSC and other UC campuses, our chief competitors for the most qualified students.
• The eligibility index is under perennial review by the systemwide senate and by UCOP. Some faculty perceive that this review is motivated by an effort to increase student diversity in the wake of the ban on affirmative action, but noted that revision of the index could actually be counterproductive in this regard. This is a matter for the systemwide senate to address.
• Various influential external constituencies regularly convene on campus for summer conferences. This year high school advanced placement (AP) teachers are here for one week, creating opportunities to present campus programs and to showcase campus excellence.
• Strategies must focus on increasing the student yield among the admitted pool. Qualified applicants are plentiful, but students who value academic reputation over student life disproportionally enroll on other campuses.
• Publicize faculty honors.
• Identify career options and student services linking graduates with employment opportunities.

Historically, the admissions office has (properly) concentrated upon persuading UC-eligible students to enroll at UCSC at the targeted levels set by UCOP. The admissions office has been so successful that the campus will reach its Long Range Development Plan goal of 15,000 students (fall-winter-spring average) possibly by the academic year 2004-2005. Now the efforts must be re-shaped to persuade students in the under-enrolled disciplines (natural sciences; humanities) to enroll. Committee members agreed that the APC, supplemented by CAFA representatives, is the appropriate forum to address these efforts, and could provide an efficient and responsive contact point for Admissions and PIO management. The VPAA was suggested as the appropriate lead person, whose office has the ability to inform units outside the academic units and communicate with the Academic Senate. Campus collaboration and coordination between CAFA, the admissions office, academic divisions and the Public Information Office is urgently needed.

Admissions Director and Registrar Kevin Brown presented the forthcoming schedule of admissions outreach for the Fall 2003 class. The prospect publication can be revised within the next few weeks. The overall quality of previous publications is very high, but more emphasis at this stage of the recruitment cycle needs to be devoted to academic programs, and less on housing and colleges. Committee members recommended less attention to the campus administrative structure, and more attention to campus academic programs. Kevin Browne will send an electronic version to Chair Brown for review. Chair Brown will contact individual APC members and assistant deans for consultation as necessary. This is the first of several changes planned for admissions materials that will take place over the next academic year.

Web sites are considered an important primary site for prospective students, their parents, and the general public to learn about university offerings. Campus attention should be focused on web-content and organization to clarify academic programs available, allow easy access, and enhance academic reputation. Technical infrastructure must be organized to support the academic mission as a first priority.

The campus organizational and decision-making structures work against academic priorities being recognized. Will to implement needed changes must be a top-down campus priority.

4. Member Items: none.

Attest: George Brown, Chair