PAC Meeting

Provost Advisory Council Notes

May 22, 2001

Attending: John Simpson, Tom Vani, Cathy Sandeen, David Kliger, Lan Dyson, Marty Chemers, Larry Merkley, Roger Anderson, Ed Houghton, Bob Meister, Francisco Hernandez, George Brown, Meredith Michaels, Allison Galloway, Lynda Goff, Frank Talamantes, Barbara Brogan, Carl Walsh, and Wlad Godzich.

Absent: Steve Kang, Susan Gillman, Ron Suduiko, and John Hay

Guests: Liz Irwin

Staff: Linda Kittle, Galen Jarvinen, Beau Willis, Kathleen Dettman, Lisa Akeson, Betsy Moses, Betty Rush, and Karen Eckert

Introduction, Objectives, and Cross-cutting Issues

Campus Provost Simpson noted that as part of the iterative planning process outlined over the course of this academic year, the purpose of this PAC meeting was to provide principal officers with advice on the substance of their long-range plans. The executive summaries were designed as communications tools so that each principal officer and the Senate would understand and have the opportunity to comment on the main programs and strategic direction, accountability measures, and approaches envisioned by each academic and academic support division.

During the planning horizon through 2010-11, the campus anticipates new enrollment-driven resources of just over $33 million and 153 faculty FTE by 2005-06 and by 2010-11 our increase in enrollment-driven funding (provided by State marginal cost allocations and Educational fees) will total close to $70 million and will provide 276 faculty FTE. In addition, the campus anticipates replacing up to 250 existing faculty through turnover.

As has been discussed within PAC in previous meetings,

  • Each principal officer has been asked to indicate how existing divisional resources and the new resources proposed for their units will be distributed in support of their plans.
  • Each principal officer was asked to identify and address the principles, goals, and accountability objectives most appropriate for guiding their division/units; the campus community needs to understand now only how the divisional proposals contribute to our vision of the campus in 2010-11, but also what are the accountability measures the campus can use to assess divisional progress toward reaching the goals articulated in their plans.
  • It is important to understand the interrelationships between the plans. For example, one such issue that surfaced in the discussions thus far was that of the campus’ “internal economy”—that divisional funding is a function of resources from the State, contracts and grants, recharges, etc. and decisions made within one division affects the others.

Five crosscutting issues were evident in the discussions thus far:

  • Professional Schools. While a potential campus goal articulated during the discussions of the executive summaries was that UC Santa Cruz might develop one or more professional schools within the next decade, it is recognized that current planning process favors the development of programs within existing divisions rather than those that are entirely new (such as professional schools). To ensure full consideration of the possibilities, the administration will compile information about professional school options of relevance to UC Santa Cruz over the summer for discussion this fall.
  • State-supported Summer Instruction. State-supported summer instruction at UC Santa Cruz is anticipated for either summer 2002 or summer 2003; each academic dean has been asked to provide a more detailed description of the curriculum that the division could offer in 2002 and an administrative summer planning and implementation steering committee (co-chaired by VPAA Brown and Dean Sanden) has been appointed to identify (and resolve) policy issues and to oversee and coordinate planning and implementation tasks.
  • Regional Opportunities. To incorporate into our planning the educational and research opportunities offered by partnerships with regional institutions, the campus is exploring possible joint doctoral programs with San Jose State University (e.g., engineering, education, marine sciences); in addition there are on-going efforts to identify/document opportunities for research, instruction, and K-12 collaborations within the region.
  • Enrollment Management. Part of the current long-range planning process involves defining a balance of academic programs that will enable UC Santa Cruz to achieve its vision. An Enrollment Planning Coordinating Group has been established to identify enrollment management issues and alternatives, to route such issues to appropriate constituencies for discussion and resolution/recommendation, to coordinate planning in this area, and to monitor and communicate results.
  • Short-, Intermediate- and Long-Term Space Needs/Space Planning. A key factor in the campus’ ability to achieve its institutional vision is the ability to build or refurbish needed instructional, research, and academic support space—as well as effectively manage its existing space. To optimize the use of existing and anticipated facilities, the campus needs to accomplish a number of planning tasks associated with space. The Advisory Committee for Facilities has been asked to develop clear set of principles and guidelines with which an interim space utilization strategy for the campus can be developed; and a Growth & Stewardship Task Force (reporting to ACF) charged with the development of an updated campus physical master plan.

Discussion of Divisional Long-Range Plans

Faculty Assistant to the Campus Provost Carl Walsh facilitated discussion of divisional plan summaries and noted that the executive summaries outline a mosaic of programs designed to build excellence at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The task for PAC was to provide specific comments and raise questions that would assist principal officers as they refined their long-range plans. Accordingly, four questions were considered for each unit:

  1. How will the proposed programs and services contribute to your vision of the campus in 2010-2011?
  2. How do these proposed plans affect the goals and directions articulated within your own area?
  3. What programs or services were most compelling?
  4. What questions and issues would you like this principle officer to address in their December 2001 submittal?

The discussion was organized by division; key questions and comments directed to that division’s principal officer are noted below.

Arts Division

  • The division was asked to provide more information about the potential of the Film and Digital Media program. E.g., should the program be developed into a professional school that takes advantage of the potential Silicon Valley Center site? How would such a plan affect the division’s enrollment strategies? (E.g., if programs that generate significant interest/large enrollments were developed into a professional school, what student-faculty ratio would the division need to sustain the remainder of its curriculum?) If Film and Digital Media were to be located primarily at the Silicon Valley Center, how would the program serve the interests of undergraduates resident at the Santa Cruz campus? If a significant component of the division were “spun off” as a professional school, would it make sense to align the remaining arts more closely with the humanities?
  • The division was asked to provide more information regarding its plans for graduate programs. E.g., how will graduate programs be phased in? In what ways will they enhance the undergraduate interests and the faculty research agenda? How will the development of graduate programs affect the division’s space needs?
  • At first glance, it appears that programs in the applied area (e.g., digital arts) appear to be moving more quickly than those in the performance area, is it the division’s plan that these two tracks develop in parallel or at different rates? How is this related to the constituencies they serve?
  • It was noted that there are a number of commonalities between the humanities and the arts and that organizationally these two divisions are traditionally divided along the lines of programs that are primarily analytic in nature vs. those that educate practitioners or emphasize performance. Both the arts and the humanities divisions were asked to think about the links between their two divisions, what they could do to ensure that duplication is complementary in nature, and to cooperate on interdisciplinary programs.
  • At the present, the campus attracts a significant number of students who are interested in artistic expression. In addition, the University has added a high school “g” admissions requirement in the arts. To what extent will the arts division be able to accommodate this interest (e.g., specific courses, a minor, etc.)? To what extent could some of the interest be accommodated through summer instruction (either on the campus or at the Silicon Valley Center)? To what extent could distance learning and/or web-based instruction play a part in meeting this need? In what ways can the division play a curriculum leadership role with respect to the new “g” requirement (e.g., helping the high schools and community colleges as they develop courses that satisfy this requirement)? In what ways, will the arts influence teacher credentialing? In what ways, will these issues affect the division’s plans for the hiring of new faculty?

Humanities Division

  • CPB asked that the division include more discussion about the motivation for the programs included in their long-range plans. E.g., which were put forward because they enhance the division’s ability to meet curricular demand (and UC’s overall enrollment demands) and/or were put forward in response to anticipated intellectual developments the disciplines or to build upon the existing strengths of the division? A fuller discussion of the interrelationship between the division’s overarching plans with those of individual departments would also be helpful.
  • Many of the divisional program proposals are interdisciplinary in nature and offer a number of opportunities for collaboration. The subsequent submittal would benefit from a fuller discussion of the relationship between the humanities programs and those in other academic divisions (e.g., how do the areas of overlap contribute to each division, how will on-going support for inter-divisional collaboration be handled, which dean will take the lead in cross-divisional programs, etc.).
  • A number of the programs are applied in nature (e.g., public humanities; human health; science, medicine and technology). Are some of these programs (along with policy programs proposed by other divisions) appropriate for a professional school?
  • What is the projected demand for a BA and MA in liberal arts?

Natural Sciences Division

  • CPB noted that since Engineering was “spun off” as a separate school, natural sciences enrollment growth has been relatively static and raised the question as to whether the divisional growth projections were realistic? Suggested was an analysis of enrollment trends and targets of growth for specific programs—e.g., there may be growing student interest in areas of the environment, health, etc.
  • CPB also suggested that the division might discuss in more detail the alternative extramural fundraising strategies of (a) developing/investing in core departments vs. (b) interdepartmental “thematically-based” research initiatives. The issue of faculty startup costs, effective overhead rates, and graduate program competitiveness also need to be discussed in terms of the division’s faculty hiring and research goals.
  • The division should also address the issue of space and how its availability (or lack there of) might influence their priorities.

Social Sciences Division

  • CPB suggested that the interplay between enrollment management and the division’s plans to maintain and strengthen the quality of its programs be discussed in more depth.
  • The feasibility of possible professional schools (e.g., education, management, policy) needs more discussion in the next iteration of the divisional plan. In that the campus’ location is a factor in the feasibility of professional schools, a discussion of linkages with the Silicon Valley Center should be included.
  • Additional discussion about social sciences programs that could be offered during the summer (both on campus and in Silicon Valley) was requested.

Business and Administrative Services

  • BAS plans to emphasize development of a new business architecture for the campus (see http://uc2010.ucsd.edu for more information). In the next version of their plan, however, BAS was asked to articulate what services and activities they plan to phase out as they internally re-allocated their resources in support of their vision, what new requirements would the impose, and what requirements now placed on campus units (e.g., unnecessary processes, reporting, etc.) would they eliminate as part of their streamlining efforts. CPB asked that the division indicate how it would become more nimble and cost-effective. Are there changes in the nature of BAS and other campus service centers that need to be considered?
  • CPB asked that BAS specifically indicate how the needs articulated as part of the planning process over the last two years fit into the overall divisional plan (including how these needs will be funded and their relative priority in the context of proposed new initiatives).
  • The divisional plan articulates the need for a number of planning studies (e.g., north campus) but does not fully address the need for studies in the campus core (e.g., area studies in support of the arts). How do such planning efforts fit into the BAS plans, priorities, and timeline?

Library

  • The library’s interim (between now and the construction of the TEAM center/McHenry Library addition) strategies could use more discussion (e.g., what is that strategy, are there ways to use existing library space more efficiently, etc.).
  • CPB would like to see a discussion of how emerging academic publishing trends will affect the long-range library strategies.

Graduate Division

  • What proactive steps can the graduate division (and the campus) take to achieve the goal of doubling the number of graduate students on campus? What is the demand/feasibility for graduate housing?
  • The next plan needs a fuller discussion of a number of policy/strategy directions: E.g., what is the division’s role in the development of “graduate groups”? How will the training of graduate students be handled? What are the best practices in the allocation of teaching assistant FTEs?

Undergraduate Education

  • Based upon the research undertaken by the Boyer Commission and the campus’ Millennium Committee, a number of issues were raised for which additional coordination and oversight were suggested. The next iteration of the plan could use more discussion of what “oversight” and “coordination” means in practical and in organizational terms. Where suggested, how does the campus benefit from centralization of these undergraduate educational support and teaching support activities?
  • How does the proposals avoid needless duplication of efforts?

Questions and comments applying to all divisional plans

  • Concern was expressed by CPB that the issues of decentralized information technology and instructional technology were not addressed by the executive summaries. The Senate recommended that in the next iteration of the plans, each division discuss more thoroughly their needs and strategies; and that academic divisions discuss their role in the development and provision of technology-assisted instruction (e.g., distance learning, web-based curriculum, etc.). E.g., it was noted that in the Arts, if the faculty chose to move in that direction, distance learning technologies could become a critical element of the pedagogy and it was important that the campus fully understanding the infrastructure implications of such a direction.
  • In their next iteration of the plans, each division was asked to devote more discussion to the issue of prioritizing programs and articulating the inter-dependence of the various proposals within their plans (e.g., is development of one program a prerequisite for another). The issue of phasing dependency and resource dependency should be part of this discussion.
  • It would be useful if academic divisions (in their next iteration of their plans) would articulate why the programs they propose will be relevant to the new (and diverse) generation of California high school graduates. This would not only be useful in helping the campus articulate to prospective students why, for example, a programmatic initiative in classics or human health is relevant to their goals, but it will also help the campus manage enrollments by better marketing (whether in the field or on the campus’ web site) the programs in which we intend to invest resources.
  • In that many of the programs articulated by the academic divisions have enrollment management dimensions, it would be appropriate for the Senate admissions committee, in addition to CEP and GC, to offer advice on the long-range plans.
  • To assist those doing the environmental health and safety, capital and infrastructure, and business services planning, BAS asked that academic divisions provide more information about the nature (e.g., what will be the programmatic needs with respect to facilities, staffing, etc.) and timing of their research programs. Similarly, more information about space and staffing needs is required from academic support units.
  • The VPDUE plans for undergraduate education asked fundamental questions about how the campus does business and how we organize ourselves to be most effective. All principal officers are encouraged to address such issues in their next iteration of the long-range plans.

Next steps.

  • Follow-up: There was insufficient time to engage in a discussion of the plans submitted by the School of Engineering, Office of Research, Student Affairs Division, University Relations, and Campus Provost Units. None-the-less, participants were encouraged to send their comments and questions about these units to the Provost’s Office.
  • Follow-up: In his call, Campus Provost Simpson asked that each principal officer to indicate how existing divisional resources and new resources proposed for their units will be distributed in support of their plans. In the next iteration of the plans, previously articulated priorities should be either re-confirmed or ranked in the context of new programs.

Wrap Up

Campus Provost Simpson will consider the substance of the PAC discussion as he prepares his June instructions and comments to principal officers about their long-range plans.