Date: October 23,
2001
Time: 2:00 to 4:00
Location: 481 McHenry
1. Welcome
Members Present: Francisco Hernandez, John Tamkun, Karen Eckert, Christina Valentino, Lan Dyson, Lynda Goff, Wlad Godzich, Jennie McDade, Kathy Jefferds, Jennifer Shurley
Staff Present: Betty Rush, Ernie Hudson
Guests: Margo Hendricks, Bill Ladusaw, Michael Thompson, Kevin Brown
2. Agenda:
1. Chair Comments
2. Information item:
recharging divisions for Visa services for foreign scholars (10 minutes;
Hendricks)
3. A proposal to re-structure advising (55
minutes, Goff and Ladusaw)
4. Status report on enrollment management (55
minutes; Thompson)
3. Information
item: recharging divisions for Visa
services for foreign scholars (10 minutes; Margo Hendricks, Director of Office
of International Education)
Lynda Goff and Margo Hendricks discussed the status of the
International Scholars Visa Program at UCSC.
The International Education Program inherited Visa preparation with no
funding. The Visa program is growing,
but the funding for the Visa preparation is not. The Department has decided that unless central funding is
forthcoming, that it will have to either outsource the service (to UC Berkeley
and charge the divisions for the service) or recharge the divisions for
providing the service in-house (USB and UCSD currently recharge for this
service). Central funding is provided
at other UC campuses based on per Scholar/per need. There are currently 1-3/4 FTE who work on the Visas. One person is responsible for the H Visas
(annually 25-30 Senior Post-Docs/Hired Faculty and permanent Researchers) and
50% of J Visas (annually 70-100 generally Post-Docs/Researchers) and ¾ FTE
works on F Visas (250-300 students) and other 50% of J Visas. If an H or J Researcher is tied to a grant
or research funding, that grant or research funding is (will be) charged for
the service as an indirect cost of doing research.
Timeliness is an issue and the service is often criticized when there is a document delay (which can be caused by issues outside of the International Education Program’s Visa services).
Wlad Godzich, Dean of Humanities, brought up the issue that this item has been discussed by the Deans. He says that the J Visa Researcher can charge research funding. The H Visa Researcher funding should be included as part of the Start-up costs when he/she is hired. The start-up system would be a better method of paying for these services, because the person could be referred off-campus to an Attorney for the Visa preparation. The client would be the faculty member, who would be responsible for following the process through. It currently takes the International Education Program service 3, 4 months to a year to process the Visas, while an Attorney would take approximately 6 weeks. Wlad also brought up a question about H Visas and Senior Post Docs. Generally these positions are the responsibility of the Graduate Division,
but might be working in Natural Sciences. Which Division would be responsible for payment of recharge?
Margo said that if the H Visas were handled by an Attorney and funding was provided in the Faculty/Research start-up funding, that the International Education Program Visa Service operation could handle the F and J Visas with existing staffing and would not require recharge rates. The Department could still be a conduit to faculty and the attorney or Academic Human Resources could be the referral office.
Wlad will take the lead in taking up the issue that the cost for the H and J Visas be added to faculty start up cost packages. This will be added to the AAC meeting on November 15.
4. A Proposal to Re-structure Academic Advising
Lynda Goff, Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education and Bill Ladusaw, Provost of Cowell College, presented a proposal for restructuring academic advising on campus.
GOAL: To improve the academic advising by better coordination of efforts of the faculty and staff in colleges, departments, and student affairs units.
PROPOSALS:
1. Develop descriptions of general “pathways” into the curriculum that detail early preparation and qualification for families of majors. [Conceptual, Editorial]
2. Require entering frosh to identify pathways early and confirm those pathways and propose majors at the end of the first year. [Policy, Practice]
3. Develop small leadership core among college academic preceptors and give them responsibility for coordination between college advising and divisional program advisors. [Administrative]
OUTCOMES:
· Earlier connection between UG students and faculty expectations and advice on developing academic plans.
· More rapid and uniform response in college based orientation and early advising when majors and courses change.
· Earlier resolution of issues arising from misfit between students’ abilities and their major goals.
· Early targeting of truly “undeclared” students for workshops on choosing a major.
· More substantive measure of student progress.
· More information for departments and divisions about demand for programs.
· Better representation of campus curriculum to potential students.
· Basis for academic planning of potential transfer students.
· Better fit between points of student program planning and the information that is available and relevant to them.
· Piloting this system now would allow the new AIS programming to better support coordinated advising.
· Better student retention, persistence and satisfaction.
Lynda and Bill discussed further that CEP was OK with this proposal and now faculty and staff need to debate the plan. An advising task force has now been established.
Wlad Godzich mentioned that the pathways of curriculum in Divisions needs to be cleaned up before this can be instituted, and Michael Thompson wanted to know what the quality control measures would be for this proposal.
In response to what is needed to happen now, Bill Ladusaw suggested:
o Lynda put budget request for new staff into her budget request ($82,000).
o May need to explain that this does not limit student options.
o Activities of Divisions and Colleges/pathways and how they come together.
o Layout options to John (Lynda already has in proposal).
o Web Development very important.
o Advising Task Force plans to get three pathways up and going, Biology, etc.
o When a specific proposal for students is developed go back to PAC and CEP.
5. Enrollment Management
Michael Thompson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Outreach, Administrative and Student Academic Services, and the new Director of Admissions and Registrar, Kevin Brown, passed out different models for Strategic Enrollment Management proposals. Michael said that most of enrollment management has focused on outreach to students, and now the change will probably be to retention of students. Enrollment management is the responsibility of the entire campus. Also passed out to the committee was a Teleconference Resource Packet on Organizing for Enrollment Management: Keys to Student and Institutional Success. Michael asked that the committee be prepared to discuss the issues. John Simpson will give the ASPC Committee the charge of what he wants it to do about enrollment management. Enrollment Management and budget implications will be discussed at the November 13, 2001 of the ASPC.
The next ASPC meeting is on November 13, 2001
in 451 McHenry.
Tentative Agenda:
1.
Status report on planning for state-funded summer session.
2. Enrollment management – budgetary implications