Academic Planning Council Vice-Chair Duncan Mellichamp welcomed Tomas Sandoval,
a graduate student from the Berkeley campus to membership on the APC.
1. Accountability: Phase I
The Academic Planning Council reviewed campus responses to President Atkinson's January 28 letter regarding proposed
Phase I accountability goals, that is, those performance expectations related to the Governor's compact, related
legislative language and Regental policy. While there seems to be general acceptance of the items included in Phase
I, members raised some issues related to terminology and the need to resolve a few seeming inconsistencies between
some of the goals and measures.
The members also addressed "Phase 1.5," additional data that have not been specifically requested by
the State or The Regents, but that should be collected in order to demonstrate publicly the excellence of our programs,
monitor certain important developments across the UC system and advocate for funds that enable solutions to key
problems. Some of the ideas the members specifically suggested include (a) developing ways to demonstrate the stability
of the faculty enterprise, (b) resolving how we can and should measure diversity, (c) reporting national comparisons,
and (d) creating better methods of measuring our "products" by surveying the achievements of our alumni.
Finally, members turned to Phase II, which was characterized by some as a conversation between the President and
each Chancellor about the vision and direction for each campus and its progress toward achieving it. Members emphasized
that this phase must go beyond the mere collection and monitoring of data, and avoid giving the impression that
campuses are "wayward children" who need to be watched carefully. Rather, Phase II should be an opportunity
for campuses to demonstrate through a variety of methods their progress towards achieving meaningful goals they
have chosen for themselves.
2. Instructional Technology Initiative
The members discussed with Associate Vice President Stuart Lynn their comments on the letter and draft planning
framework on Teaching and Learning Technology that were recently mailed to the campuses, asking for comment by
May 15. Several members expressed concerns about the letter, which they believe does not allow sufficient time
for consultation or well-informed comment. The issue of technology is of such importance, the interest on the part
of many faculty is so high, and the issues of infrastructure and funding are so complex, that the members were
concerned hasty answers would miss important principles.
AVP Lynn assured the members that the intent was to invite serious comment, and putting a draft proposal on paper
was intended to enable more focused discussion, particularly about the distinctive roles of the Office of the President
and of the campuses. He explained that the intent is to develop a planning framework and that the draft proposes
examples of the kind of elements that might be included in such a framework. Every item in the draft is up for
discussion, revision, deletion, or substitution. Several members expressed appreciation for the attempt to delineate
these roles, and for the attempt to create a framework of minimum standards.
It was proposed that another letter be sent to the campuses, extending the deadline, and adding an introduction
that would place the very specific proposals in a larger context describing the opportunities technology provides
to ensure continued instructional excellence.
3. Issues in Graduate Education
Deans Cliff Attkisson (UCSF) and Joe Cerny (UCB) were unable to attend the APC meeting as planned, but will attend
the next meeting. The APC had an initial discussion of their paper on graduate education issues, "Excellence
at Risk," in their absence. There was agreement with its basic premise that with the recent public focus on
Tidal Wave II--i.e., the projected increases in undergraduate enrollments--graduate education has tended to be
overlooked and certain crucial issues delineated in the paper deserve greater attention. The APC urged that the
report receive a good reading by UCPB, CCGA, COR, COVC and the research Vice Chancellors. When the report is complete
it will be widely distributed for discussion.
4. Enrollment Planning
Assistant Vice President Smith presented for information the paper, "Enrollment Monitoring, 1997, Part II:
Financial Framework for Long-Term Enrollment Planning," noting that this is not a year in which a lot of financial
issues that might affect long-range enrollment planning were being raised. The one notable exception is AB1415,
the Higher Education Partnership Act, recently introduced by Assembly Speaker Bustamante, which would establish
the basis for providing UC and CSU with general fund increases for cost increases and for enrollment. The intent
of the author is to provide a long-term stable funding plan that includes student fees. The members reviewed copies
of the bill and expressed interest in being informed of its progress.
AVP Smith also summarized campus responses received to date regarding enrollment targets through 2005. It appears
that campuses are proposing generally reasonable levels of graduate enrollments. Once remaining proposals are received
from the campuses and discussed with the President, and some individual campuses issues are resolved, campuses
should have workable planning targets, although we are still waiting for CPEC's eligibility study to be finished
before a final plan is produced.
The next meeting of the Academic Planning Council is May 27, 1997.