DRAFT

Provost Advisory Council Notes

February 27, 2001

 

Attending: 

John Simpson, Meredith Michaels, Francisco Hernandez, Lynda Goff, George Brown, David Kliger, Ed Houghton, Steve Kang, Martin Chemers, Tom Vani, Roger Anderson, Cathy Sandeen, Bob Meister, Wlad Godzich, Frank Talamantes, Larry Merkley, John Hay, John Tamkun (guest), Carol Freeman (guest), Zack Schlesinger (guest)

 

Absent:  

Ron Suduiko, Julia Armstrong-Zwart, Susan Gillman, Lan Dyson

 

Staff: 

Beau Willis, Linda Kittle, Galen Jarvinen, Kathleen Dettman, Julian Fernald

 

 

Summer Session

 

Meredith Michaels and George Brown provided background information about and an overview of the issues surrounding the University’s decision to institute a State-supported summer quarter.

  • Given UC’s efforts to accommodate the rapid growth in student demand expected to materialize and the State’s desire to maximize the efficient utilization of existing UC facilities (i.e., classrooms and class laboratories), the University determined that conversion to a State-funded summer was the best solution to handle the enrollment demand.  The Feasibility of Year-Round Instruction within the University of California.
  • The campus needs to notify the Office of the President (by mid-March) whether it intends to implement a State-supported summer term in summer 2002 or summer 2003.  The three campuses beginning year-round operation in summer 2001 are UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC Santa Barbara.
  • The campus currently enrolls approximately 350 FTE UC-matriculated students during the summer and has already begun a State-supported program in education.  If the campus decides to begin State-supported summer operations in summer 2002, the campus would receive State funds for its existing base of FTE at the same marginal cost per FTE at which enrollments during the F/W/S are funded. 
  • A white paper has been prepared to help inform the 2002 vs. 2003 decision and is being discussed in the Academic Planning Committee (APC).  APC members will bring their recommendation to the March 13th meeting of PAC for discussion, at which time a recommendation will be made to Campus Provost/EVC Simpson.
  • The paper will also be a topic of discussion within the Academic Support Planning Committee (ASPC); other PAC committees are encouraged to discuss the implications of summer operations.

 

In the discussion that followed, a number of points were raised.

  • With respect to the administration of summer session … how will the campus transition from the current Summer Session Office model to one that is more like that used during the fall, winter, and spring quarters?  (Most campuses intend to maintain a centralized Summer Session Office at least during the transition period … e.g., to handle the overall administrative tasks, to do marketing, etc.  What is the best model for UC Santa Cruz?  What guidance can be provided to academic departments who are now planning summer courses?)
  • Will any adjustments to our admissions process be needed to accommodate the campus’ summer session plans?  (The State will fund only UC-matriculated students who take summer courses.)
  • With respect to office, laboratory, and support space for faculty and additional support staff … will the campus’ capital program keep pace?
  • How will student financial aid be handled (a paper outlining financial aid issues was distributed)?
  • How will the University compensate faculty for summer-term instruction (see letter from Academic Council)?

 

Next steps:

  • Action:  APC and ASPC will discuss the white paper and bring a recommendation PAC at the March 13th meeting concerning whether the campus should commence a State-supported summer term during 2002 or 2003.
  • Follow-up:  George Brown will formally invite the Senate to consider the 2002 vs. 2003 issue and send their recommendations and analysis.

  

 

Managing Enrollments

 

Francisco Hernandez provided a summary chart projecting the growth in new students (through 2010-11) and outlined the current process for selecting and admitting undergraduates:

  • Eligibility.  California students are eligible for UC if
    • Normal eligibility.  Students who graduate in the top 1/8 (12½ percent) of their high school class (as determined by their performance in designated academic courses— “a-f” subjects—and their performance on standardized tests, e.g., SAT Verbal/Math) are UC eligible.
    • Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC) program.  The top 4 percent of students in each California high school who are on track to graduate and have completed specified academic coursework by the end of their junior year are UC eligible.
    • By examination.  Eligibility by examination is typically used for home schoolers, etc.
    • By exception.  Each campus can use special admission criteria (developed by the campus) to admit up to 6% of their entering class by exception.
  • Application process.  Students must apply to UC; students may apply to multiple UC campuses.  Campuses have an effect on the number of applications through their outreach and marketing programs.
  • Admissions decision.  Each campus decides (independently of the other UC campuses) whether to admit each student; at this point in time, UC Santa Cruz admits all applicants who are UC eligible at the time they apply.  Once the initial admissions decisions have been made, campuses have the option to review the applications of UC-eligible students who have not been admitted by any campus (i.e., the “referral pool”).
  • Statement of Intent to Register (SIR).  Students confirm their interest in a campus’ offer by returning an SIR (with a non-refundable fee).  A number of variables influence a student’s decision to accept an offer of admissions, including the campus’ outreach efforts and popularity, the student’s housing options, the offer of financial aid, and what offers they receive from other UC and non-UC campuses.
  • Enrollment.  I.e., the student’s decision to show up and enroll.  At UC Santa Cruz, about 90% of those who return their SIR enroll in the fall quarter.

Our sister UC campuses use a number of enrollment management techniques, including admitting a reserve of new students into University Extension or into a local community college for their first quarter.  If fewer students than projected enroll in the fall term, these students can be inviting to convert their Extension or community college enrollment to regular UC status at the campus.  UCSC may wish to consider such enrollment management programs.

 

In the discussion that followed, a number of points were raised.

  • The issue of selecting/admitting eligible students based upon major in impacted disciplines was discussed.  (It was noted that campuses that have admitted by major often see students apply for admissions under a different major and then change their major once admitted.)  An alternative approach would be to target (via the campus’ marketing and outreach efforts) those disciplines in which the campus has capacity to grow.  This could permit the campus to accommodate some of the State’s enrollment demand at a lower incremental cost.
  • As UC Santa Cruz becomes more popular, the campus will no longer be able to admit all applicants who are UC eligible.  This will require changes in our outreach message/literature and our admissions/enrollment management strategies.
  • As part of its enrollment management strategy, UC Berkeley is considering reading all the admissions applications (rather than basing some decisions solely on GPA and scores).

 

The initial results of the campus’ participation in the 2000 National Survey of Student Engagement was distributed by not discussed. 

 

Member Items

 

  • No member items were introduced.