Carol Tomlinson-Keasey, Vice Provost for Academic Initiatives and Senior Associate to the President for UC Merced, joined the APC for a discussion of the planning process for UC Merced. She is proposing that the tenth campus planners not use a detailed, prescriptive academic plan, but rather that they work from a general framework that will include planning principles, a timeframe, and some indication of who needs to be involved. The initial planning principles that have developed from the consultation process to date include: UCM will be a research university with graduate and undergraduate enrollments; it will be a "networked campus" with sites up and down the Central Valley, linked via technology and other support systems; and it will work cooperatively with the existing UC campuses and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).
While the planners would like to leave the widest possible freedom for the future Chancellor, some academic concepts, particularly those that have relevance for building the campus, must be decided in the near future. The challenge will be to make decisions that can be assured widespread and lasting support. As part of the academic planning, organizers are working to identify some specific areas of research concentration. Two that appear to have broad support include Sierra Nevada research, and study of the cultural diversity of the Central Valley. In addition, the LLNL has expressed interest in working closely with the new campus; its geographic location about an hour and a half away makes such collaboration feasible.
There is now an organizational structure in place to address specific planning issues. In addition, a newly-formed Student Affairs Committee will consider basic issues, such as how to cope with a campus that is a network of sites, how to bring commuting students into the campus activities, where residential facilities should be located on the site, how to make the campus attractive to students, what kinds of recreational facilities will be appropriate, etc. .
Assistant Vice President Sandra Smith reviewed progress to date on the development of an enrollment plan and supporting documentation, including argumentation for proposed growth in graduate enrollments. While campuses and OP staff are still discussing specific campus proposals, a few points are clear. First, any plans will be contingent on the as-yet-unresolved State funding issues related to current over-enrollment. Second, a robust plan will need better supporting arguments for any proposed growth in the Humanities, Social Sciences and Arts, no matter how modest the increase. Finally, there are questions about whether campuses can provide financial support for the additional graduate enrollments they are proposing. There was general agreement by the APC that in addition to addressing these concerns, we should also continue to emphasize the inseparable connections between undergraduate and graduate education, particularly when we press our case in Sacramento.
It is hoped that by the June APC meeting there will be some resolution of these issues and greater knowledge about the State's funding decisions, at which time there will be more in depth discussion of the proposed enrollment plan.
The APC reviewed data showing the age and racial/ethnic profile of the faculty at each campus. Members expressed concern about the relatively high percentage of faculty over the age of 55 at some campuses, noting that there may be some big recruitment issues coming up soon. The APC also commented on a draft summary of suggestions related to the recruitment and retention of minority and women faculty in the context of Proposition 209. Some members hoped for stronger recommendations, while others noted that it could serve as a useful resource in its current form. Provost King invited both the APC and the Academic Council to submit specific changes and additions so that these recommendations can move forward. He also urged members to share the draft summary with deans and others who might make use of it.
Academic Council Vice Chair Aimee Dorr, who chairs the APC subcommittee reviewing the Compendium of Universitywide Review Processes for Academic Programs, Academic Units, and Research Units, directed the members' attention to a number of specific proposals that have been drafted by the subcommittee. She noted that this review goes well beyond the initial work of several years ago which streamlined processes and resulted in the Compendium. That firsteffort concentrated on eliminating administrative redundancy and unnecessary steps in the review process. Building on those successes, the subcommittee and other groups consulted during the revision process are proposing more significant changes.
The subcommittee is recommending that the five-year academic plans continue to be submitted, not only because CPEC requires them, but also because they have proven helpful to faculty committees. However, the subcommittee recommends delaying the submittal of detailed descriptive information until a year or two before campus or systemwide review is anticipated. It further recommends staff analysis of the submitted material to aid committees in their review ofit and care in feeding back review comments to the campuses. With respect to various systemwide review processes for proposals to create, change the name of, or transfer, consolidate, disestablish, or discontinue academic programs, academic units, and research units, the subcommittee recommends that campuses would assume final responsibility for the review and approval of virtually all actions involving undergraduate degree programs, departments and ORUs and of "simple" name changes for graduate degree programs and MRUs. These proposed changes, in the subcommittee's judgment, would decrease effort without compromising thorough academic planning and review.
APC members raised several points of clarification, but agreed that the recommendations were ready to be distributed more widely by Provost King and Academic Council Chair Weiss for review and comment. The Compendium revisions will thus be reviewed in two stages: the major changes discussed now at APC will be reviewed now and, in the fall, the detailed changes to promote greater efficiency and effectiveness will be sent out for review.
One of the early activities of the APC involved consideration of part-time professional programs. At that time consideration of certificate programs offered by University Extension and by academic departments was given a lower priority than other more pressing issues. Recently the UNEX Deans have prepared recommendations for definitions, policies and minimum standards related to these programs. The APC had an initial discussion of that draft which will continue after some additional information is gathered.
The APC commented on a Draft Charge to the Universitywide Council on Research, that would create an Ad Hoc Working Group on Laboratory-Campus Collaborations. The charge reflects the APC's request for a process that would provide advice on strategic planning for collaborative research and propose mechanisms for facilitating collaborations. After making minor revisions, Rulon Linford, Associate Vice Provost for Research, will present the document to members of COR for their consideration.