DRAFT

Provost Advisory Council Notes

October 9, 2001

 

Attending:  John Simpson, Tom Vani, David Kliger, Lan Dyson, Marty Chemers, Ron Suduiko, Ed Houghton, George Blumenthal, Francisco Hernandez, George Brown, Wlad Godzich, Meredith Michaels, Frank Talamantes, Lynda Goff, Barbara Brogan, Cathy Sandeen, Robert Miller, Steve Kang

 

Absent:   Larry Merkley, Susan Gillman, Leslie Sunell, Bob Meister

 

Staff:  Linda Kittle, Beau Willis, Galen Jarvinen, Fran Owens, Kathleen Dettman

 

 

Science and Engineering Library

 

Librarian Dyson brought forward to the Campus Provost/EVC the recommendation of the deans of natural science and engineering that the UC Santa Cruz Science Library be renamed the “Science and Engineering Library”.

 

Action: PAC members endorsed the recommendation. 

 

 

Space Management Principle

 

Given the campus’ current space shortage, the Advisory Committee for Facilities (ACF) has been engaged in an effort to develop principles to inform solutions to both academic and academic support facility needs.  The concept that academic functions should have primacy for space on campus (i.e., before the needs of administrative and academic support units) has been a focus in a number of their discussions; such discussions have not resulted in a consensus within ACF.   PAC members were asked to discuss the principle, “To the extent possible, academic units will remain, with optimal adjacencies, on campus” in order to provide guidance to ACF in their work on space planning.  (As background, PAC members were provided with a graphic describing how campus decisions about space are made.)

 

In order to inform the discussion, Vice Chancellor (and ACF chair) Vani reviewed (as a case study to expose the various issues that have been raised) a recent ACF discussion concerning alternatives for the School of Engineering (SOE) that considered the tradeoffs between temporary relocation in Kerr Hall vs. off-campus space in the commercial area near Long Marine Lab.  Prior to the completion of the Engineering 2 building (currently slated for fall 2005), SOE needs additional space to accommodate new faculty hires and expansion of research programs.  (Other academic divisions are facing this same situation.)  One of the solutions being considered is the lease (or purchase if the financials are favorable) of off-campus space; in particular, commercial space in the vicinity of the Long Marine Lab could provide needed expansion for a number of academic and academic support units.  In fact, several academic support units now lease space in two such buildings (DASCOM and the University Business Park—the former Wrigley facility).

 

In the discussion that followed, the following points were raised:

  • The SOE situation is one among many such examples; other immediate examples include space for staff HR (this unit needs to vacate the Communications Building by summer 2002 so that it can be renovated), space in McHenry library (e.g., administrative units scheduled to move Kerr Hall), etc.
    • Several PAC members indicated that without additional space, they would be unsuccessful in hiring new faculty or in developing new instructional spaces, which would, in turn, limit their ability to accommodate additional students.  (In fact, by temporarily re-assigning space such as seminar rooms or academic lounges, the space shortage has hurt existing instructional programs and has made it more difficult to achieve the campus goal to provide opportunities for undergraduates to become involved in faculty research.)
    • External review teams have also noted the campus’ shortage of academic space; a recent review cited the lack available research space (and a lack of affordable housing) as factors affecting the campus’ ability to attract and support top faculty candidates (and thus would prevent the building of first class programs).
    • Lack of space “flexibility” may also sub-optimize campus/unit manager operational decisions;
    • It was also noted that while the examples currently before ACF demonstrate the overall needs for specific units, there are a number of academic (and academic support) units not “in the equation” that are coping with only a fraction of their needed space.  Any a solution should developed in the context of total campus need rather than on the immediate needs of specific units.

Aside:  The issue of McHenry library space needs to be resolved very soon (a project planning guide is due in four months that details which functions will be housed in McHenry once the new addition is completed—approximately half of the additional space will be devoted to library capacity and the remaining space is slated to address near-term academic needs).  This raises the question as to whether the Chancellor/Campus Provost/EVC offices should remain in McHenry or relocate to Kerr Hall.

  • The current real estate climate may provide the campus with a potentially cost-effective solution (e.g., off-campus lease or purchase) to some of its interim space needs; however, the funding for that solution typically comes out of the campus’ operating budget (resulting in fewer resources for current programs).  This funding dilemma is a key concern that must be considered in any decision to acquire off-campus space.
    • Related to this funding dilemma is the issue of permanence.  If the campus purchases (rather than leases) a building, does that acquired ASF count against the future justification of on-campus space?  (Response: Yes, but if appropriate, such purchased off-campus sites could later be sold.  Thus the decision to lease vs. buy can be made on the basis of financial cost/benefit.)  Related to this, is it possible to use the proceeds from the State’s higher education bond measure to fund the acquisition of off-campus facilities?  (Response:  Yes, if the bond measure is worded to include both the construction and acquisition of new space for UC.)
    • If the campus decides to locate programs off-campus, it would be optimal if such space were acquired in large enough increments to provide not only for current needs but for anticipated growth—as well as for the consolidation of existing off-campus units, where appropriate.  Such a strategy would also enable a critical mass of activities at off-campus sites thereby addressing some of the transportation and communications issues in a more cost-effective manner.
  • The Center for Ocean Health (located at the Long Marine Lab) is an example of an off-campus facility that now houses an academic unit; in this case, the facility is proximate to other LML research and instructional facilities and is served by campus shuttle, mail, and communications services.  The example of the successful LML facilities illustrates that off-campus academic units often can provide research capabilities that can not be easily duplicated on campus (either for technical reasons such as proximity to resources such as ocean water or for financial reasons such as the potential for financial partnerships which are a factor in many of the facilities at LML). However, it makes it less convenient for students to access teaching faculty located at such off-campus sites.  (I.e., they must either travel to the off-campus site or contact faculty using electronic means such as telephone, email, video conferencing, etc.)
    • A decision to move an academic unit off campus must recognize both the research and the instructional implications.
  • In the specific ACF case that prompted this PAC discussion, moving some SOE functions to, for example, the now-vacated Texas Instruments building adjacent to LML would be straightforward since that building was designed for engineering functions (i.e., programs could move in with little renovation in contrast with the Kerr Hall alternative that would involve significant network upgrades).  Furthermore, there is sufficient expansion space for on-going growth—i.e., the SOE could locate several major research initiatives in such space; the site is already on the UCSC shuttle route; and the site provides an immediate solution (vs. the uncertainty associated with the upcoming State higher education bond needed to fund Engineering 2).
    • Such an analysis illustrates that while the principle that academic units remain on campus is good one, in specific situations other alternatives are optimal suggesting that the campus should accommodate occasional exceptions to any such principle.
    • More broadly, the overall critical shortage of on-campus (academic and academic support) space suggests that such a principal should not be applied universally; in fact, if appropriate and financially affordable space is available not far from campus, the campus should seriously consider it.  (Other UC campuses have successfully integrated on- and off-campus space; and have found solutions to the access issue for students.)
    • The larger issue can be re-formulated as two questions (in addition to the questions of financial feasibility):
      1. Do we need more space (e.g., have we exhausted all on-campus alternatives to build or optimize our existing space utilization) and does off-campus space provide a realistic solution?
      2. Once we’ve acquired off-campus, which units should be located there (and what is the permanence of such a move)?

In some instances, the move of an academic program off-campus is appropriate—but that can be accommodated within the articulated principle.

    • In the specific case of SOE, more space is needed and, although it is advisable to keep programs on-campus and contiguous, it does not appear possible.  If an optimal near-term off-campus solution can be developed along the lines articulated earlier, then at a future date when on-campus space becomes available, it would be possible to move the SOE units back onto campus (and use that off-campus space to address another unit’s space issues).
  • Adjacency (or lack thereof) is often very important in the development of academic programs—e.g., the historic events that resulted in the UCSC biological sciences being located in two separate on-campus buildings and the marine sciences being located both on-campus and at LML has influenced the development of those programs.  Therefore the campus should take this opportunity to consider where it wants to be programmatically in 5-10 years and consider the optimal placement of programs (whether entirely on-campus or split between on- and off-campus facilities) in order to achieve our programmatic objectives in the context of external drivers (e.g., the local real estate opportunities, the likelihood of a successful bond measure, etc.).  Otherwise the planning of academic programs may become disconnected from the planning for academic space/buildings.
    • The issue of adjacencies between academic programs must also be recognized—especially when a move off-campus is long-term or permanent.
    • To maximize adjacency issues, another member questioned whether non-growth units might be moved (if space meets their needs elsewhere) to allow adjacent space for growing programs.
  • One member suggested that the campus might consider modifying its “internal economy” to include space.  That way, units with “underutilized” space could exchange it for other resources in a process that would let “market” forces optimize the use of on-campus space.

 

PAC members who also participate in ACF indicated that the issues raised in the discussion were representative of those raised in the ACF forum.

 

Next steps.

 

  • Follow-up:  PAC members were asked to consider the issues raised in the discussion and send their comments and advice to Provost Simpson (e.g., either directly or via email to Assistant Provost Willis).

 

 

Enrollment Mix Assumptions

 

Both Chancellor Greenwood and Provost Simpson have called for significant increases in the number of graduate students at UC Santa Cruz.  The desired mix of undergraduate vs. graduate students and the optimal approaches for achieving that mix as the campus grows over the next decade was also one of the topics at the recent Joint Administrative/Senate Fall Orientation (October 5, 2001)—see recent “Enrollment Information” memorandum for additional background.

 

Provost Simpson asked the PAC membership to comment on his intention to ask Dean Talamantes to help frame the planning discussion about graduate growth.  Specifically, over the next month, Dean Talamantes will

  • Consult with academic deans, the Vice Chancellor for Research, and the Graduate Council to develop an overall growth envelope through 2010-11 for graduate enrollments.  That framework should specify the timing for graduate enrollment growth and should differentiate between masters, PhD, and professional enrollments. However, it should leave the articulation of goals for specific academic programs to the December long-term planning submittals by academic deans; and
  • Work with Planning and Budget to articulate the resource issues and strategies related to such a graduate enrollment plan.

That written report (to be distributed to PAC members on November 6 and discussed at the November 13 PAC meeting) will be used to add clarity to the planning process and will help ensure coordination among the planning efforts at the campuswide, divisional, and departmental levels.

 

In the discussion that followed, the following points were raised:

  • Out of this planning framework might also emerge some strategies for growing graduate programs.  For example, in a program targeted for significant graduate growth it might be most effective to make 3 or 4 faculty appointments at the same time (rather than make such appointments one at a time).  In this way, the campus is signaling to potential faculty candidates that it plans to build a distinctive graduate program with specific strengths.  Such strategies, if appropriate, should be articulated in the academic dean’s December planning submittals.
  • In support of such a planning framework, it was observed that campuses (e.g., UC San Diego) that build their academic departments in the context of their graduate enrollment plans have successfully achieved those plans.  Furthermore, it is important to understand the goals and context for masters, PhD, and professional degrees.

o      For example, in the engineering fields, the campus may wish to consider a combined BA/MA degree because the MA makes more sense as a degree objective than a BA … in the external (job market) environment, a PhD may not be as attractive as the MA.  If properly envisioned, such a program could attract excellent MA students (even though initially UC faculty often prefer to work with PhD students).  Stanford, for example, serves a significant number of MA students.

o      Thus, such an overall framework must devote specific attention to planning for graduate students at the masters and professional levels as well as at the PhD level.

  • At the Joint Administrative/Senate Fall Orientation, the issue of whether it makes sense to limit the growth of undergraduate students to “save room” for graduate growth was raised.  The framework developed by Dean Talamantes need not be constrained by such a proposition and might consider, for example, more rapid growth of undergraduate students while graduate programs are developed and then a gradual scaling back of undergraduate enrollments as the potential for accelerated graduate growth materializes.

o      If this strategy is pursued, however, it is important that faculty appointments anticipate the projected graduate growth by building the appropriate expertise for graduate instruction within departments.

o      The campus may also consider internally marketing its graduate programs to the undergraduate students who select UC Santa Cruz (i.e., create an internal “pipeline”).

  • It was noted that such an overall graduate enrollment-planning framework made sense, but the campus’ actual capacity to grow will depend upon resource availability.  Hence a graduate enrollment plan will need to be iterative.
  • The importance of actively engaging academic departments (in addition to deans) in such framework discussions was noted by the Senate; deans are already engaging their departmental faculty in the development of specific graduate program proposals for their December submittals.

 

Next steps.

 

  • Follow-up:  As appropriate PAC members will be engaged in the development of this graduate enrollment growth framework by Dean Talamantes.
  • Follow up: Deans will incorporate phased graduate growth in their December submittals.

 

 

Member Items/Announcements

 

·       No additional member items were discussed.