1. Year-Round Operation Study and Other Options for Providing Access
APC members discussed a variety of options that could increase the capacity of existing campuses to enroll students
beyond the numbers planned for under current Long Range Development Plans (LRDPs). Current projections of undergraduates
plus growth in graduate enrollments indicate a need to accommodate up to 24,000 more students by 2010 than the
LRDPs envisioned. Some of the options for increasing campus capacity include new and expanded off-campus centers
and programs, increased LRDP enrollment targets and expanded use of the summer. APC members requested that campuses
be asked to look at the issues comprehensively in order to find the best combination of solutions, rather than
to focus on solutions, such as year-round operation, in isolation. They advised that the Office of the President
should provide campuses with a targeted enrollment level, a set of assumptions–for example, that the State will
fund summer enrollment--and a request for how they would employ the various options to reach their enrollment targets.
The members discussed ways that year-round operation could be implemented. They noted that while each campus would
find its own best answer to the need to enroll and instruct more students, any year-round operation proposal would
have to continue to support all activities that are central to a research university. However, assuming that research,
in particular, would not be diminished, the APC suggested several opportunities that year-round operation presents.
For example, there may be a incentive for both new faculty and those nearing retirement in having the option of
adding a fourth quarter of teaching. A summer quarter could allow for creative approaches of developing an integrated
General Education program, for offering courses that have no prerequisites, or for scheduling "immersion"
courses such as those often used to teach foreign languages. Funding strategies, such as lower fees for summer
attendance, might be an inducement for students to attend.
The members cautioned, however, that it will be important to identify the activities that would be displaced by
the academic activities that campuses might incorporate into their summer months. They agreed that a fourth quarter
that is identical to all other quarters (even though students would be expected to attend only three of the four
quarters each year) would be the approach least likely to be successful.
2. Course Articulation
Academic Council Vice Chair Larry Coleman described intersegmental efforts to improve course articulation among
the three public higher education segments for course patterns in the major. Engineering faculty have worked together
for decades, updating and fine-tuning long-standing agreements about core lower-division curriculum requirements
that would apply across the segments. Building on this model, the Intersegmental Council of Academic Senates (ICAS)
has begun work with faculty in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to identify the commonalities and differences
in lower division major requirements. The group is also examining the courses in physics, chemistry, and mathematics
that are required for curricula in the biological sciences and engineering and non-major requirements in the physical
sciences. They intend to direct their attention next to a similar review of the social sciences.
The objectives of these reviews and agreements are to improve course articulation for students moving from one
segment to another, to help ensure that students transferring to UC are as well-prepared as possible, and to come
to agreement that certain courses (i.e., the core that is common across many campuses) will cover certain content.
ICAS's intent is to identify for students and faculty the commonalities from one campus to another, but not to
impose uniformity where differences occur. Key to this effort is bringing together faculty teaching in the disciplines
to work jointly across the three segments.
3. Academic Planning Retreat Followup
Provost King and Academic Council Chair Dorr shared with the APC some of the issues raised at a February 28-March1
meeting of the Council of Chancellors and Academic Council that might merit further APC attention. Topics included
the creation of a new teaching position, (similar to a postdoctoral scholar appointment but focused on teaching),
options for accommodating more students, and issues arising about university relations with business and industry.
APC members expressed interest in taking a broad look at university-industry relations to consider what the University
wants to accomplish, and how best to position itself in order both to promote and protect the academic program.
4. Master Plan Review
APC members were informed of the possibility of a Legislative review of the Master Plan. Such reviews are supposed
to occur every five years, although over ten years have passed since the last one. Todd Greenspan, Coordinator--Educational
Relations, described previous reviews and changes that have been made to the Master Plan since 1960. If funding
is available for such a review, some of the issues that could be raised include transfer policies, joint doctoral
degrees and other joint degrees (e.g., a joint CSU-Community College baccalaureate). A website, http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/welcome.html
currently posts the original Master Plan and will soon post copies of related documents.
5. Disestablishment Procedures
If the Provost requests its advice, the APC reviews campus proposals for the disestablishment of graduate programs,
although CCGA has responsibility for making sure the process of proposing disestablishment is a fair one. The intent
of this review is to raise any systemwide issues at a stage early enough for the campus processes to address them,
so that processes can proceed expeditiously. The APC reviewed two such proposals currently in progress (M.A./Ph.D.
degree programs in Folklore and Mythology at UCLA, and a Ph.D. degree in Romance Philology at Berkeley) but agreed
they presented no systemwide issues.