Date: January 30, 2001
Time:
1:00 – 3:00
Location: McHenry Library – Room 481
1. Welcome
Members Present:
Francisco Hernandez, Lynda Goff; John Wilkes; Barry Bowman
Staff Present:
Betty Rush, Ernie Hudson
Guests: Patricia Vani – Director of Summer Session
Michael Thompson –
AVC Admissions and Records
Meredith
Michaels – AVC Planning and Budget
Terri
Korek – Coordinator of Academic Affairs
2. Agenda
Preparing for Year Round Operations (60 Minutes)
Continue discussion of state-supported summer
session. How does UCSC currently
operate its summer session? How does
the UCSC operation compare to other summer sessions? What operating models are being discussed for the first full scale
experiments with state funded summer operations this summer at Berkeley, UCLA,
and Santa Barbara? What preparations
are under way for state funded operations at UCSC? Which operating model do those preparations assume?
Invited guests for discussions:
Patricia
Vani – Director of Summer Session
Michael Thompson –
AVC Admissions and Records
Meredith
Michaels – AVC Planning and Budget
Narrative Evaluations (30 Minutes)
Now that the senate has confirmed the continuation
of narrative evaluations as one component of the UCSC grading policy, what
reforms might be undertaken to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the
methods instructors use to submit their narratives (continuing discussion –
Lynda Goff presenting).
The State of Advising on Campus (30
Minutes)
Invited guest:
Terri Korek – Coordinator of
Academic Affairs
3. Preparing for Year Round Operations
Patricia Vani, Director of UC Santa Cruz Summer
Session, presented information on the current Summer Session operations,
including the planned two sessions for the summer of 2001. She also presented statistics of past summer
enrollments (1,821 UCSC Students, 493 Non-UCSC in 2000); fees ($175
Registration, $180/course for 5 units, $98 campus fee); courses (130 courses –
60% lower division, 40% upper division, and 164 undergrad independent studies,
and 140 graduate independent studies); student profiles (UCSC students – 49%
senior, 31% junior, 10% soph, 1% frosh, 10% grad); calendar of summer session
operations; and instructors that teach during the summer (9% ladder-rank
faculty, 5% visiting faculty, 41% graduate students, 45% lecturers). Also presented was a model comparing the
Traditional Summer Session and Summer as a Regular Quarter.
Meredith Michaels, Associate Vice Chancellor for
Planning and Budget, stated that the Summer as a Regular Quarter will be UC
State Supported, and is something that the campus will have to do. The campus will have to decide if it wants
to offer the Summer Quarter starting 2002 or 2003.
As stated in the 2001-02 Regents’ Budget for Current
Operations, October 2000 -
The University is seeking full marginal cost for UC-matriculated students (i.e., students who are already enrolled during the regular year at UC) who enroll in the summer. The new funds will bring the existing summer enrollment of UC students into the permanent base of State-funded enrollments, thereby providing funding for faculty salaries, for instructional institutional support (required to offer programs in the summer that are equivalent in quality and breadth to other regular terms), and for student financial aid that is equivalent to the rest of the year.
Michael Thompson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Admissions and Records, stated that if the campus wants to phase in the Summer Quarter in 2002, the campus will have to decide within the next month. There are also issues to be addressed regarding Financial Aid, in particular related to Return to Aid (UCSC student takes summer session classes at UCLA – UCSC must pay the Financial Aid, but UCLA will receive the Return to Aid).
Recommendations to PAC to be made by Academic
Support Planning Advisory Committee:
Create a decision making
structure to determine:
1. Will the campus offer
the Summer Quarter in 2002 or 2003?
2. What will the campus
offer the students in Academic Support?
3. Should the Silicon
Valley Center be used as a site for Summer Session?
This topic will be continued at the next Academic
Support Planning Advisory Committee.
4. Narrative
Evaluations
Lynda Goff discussed the need to upgrade the campus’
current Narrative Evaluation (new name Professor Evaluation) process by using
technology to help faculty write the narratives. There are currently 110,000 Narrative Evaluations prepared at
UCSC annually, and there could be up to 180,000 per year with the increased
enrollments. The Gradebook software
that the campus had been researching to upgrade the current Narrative
Evaluation process does not appear to be adequate and is not AIS
compatible. The possibility of using
software developed by UCLA (UCSC can have the product for free) will be
evaluated.
The Narrative Evaluation guidelines and standards
will be developed by the faculty and by the Committee on Educational Policy.
The Academic Support Planning Advisory Committee
will work on issues related to academic support such as technology and
Registrar’s Office workload, and will review recommendations made regarding
Narrative Evaluation changes and pass on committee recommendations to PAC.
5.
State of Advising on Campus
Terri Korek, Coordinator of Academic Affairs,
presented an overview of campus academic advising. There are many areas where advising is offered on campus
(colleges, departments, academic preceptors, EOP, etc.) however better
coordination is needed across campus.
The committee discussed what it should do regarding
Campus Academic Advising so that PAC can be advised.
Some issues to address include:
1. What do we want done?
2. How it
should be done.
3. Why it should be done.
4. Development
of a Mission Statement regarding Academic Advising.
5. A
commitment from Student Affairs, Colleges, Faculty and all advisors to work as
a team to determine campus academic advising structure.
6.
Professional and trained Advisors.
Next Meeting of the Academic Support Planning
Advisory Committee February 20, 2001.