UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
ACADEMIC PLANNING COUNCIL

Bulletin #50

February 9, 2001


1. Update on Joint Doctorates and the Ed.D.

Vice Provost Julius Zelmanowitz reported on recent State and University developments related to joint UC-CSU doctorates, and the Ed.D. in particular. The Master Plan assigns the doctorate to UC, except that it permits CSU to have joint doctoral programs with another higher education institution. Recently CSU has mounted a campaign to provide the Ed.D. on its own, asserting that they can provide better access, better affordability and more diversity than UC can. They are working through the channel of the Master Plan review process (chaired by Senator Dede Alpert) and may seek early legislation to achieve their ends.

Vice Provost Zelmanowitz shared with the APC two recent letters from President Atkinson outlining UC's position. The first was to CSU Chancellor Reed, committing UC to the expeditious development and approval of more joint doctoral programs. The second letter, to Senator Alpert, expanded on this pledge, committing UC to increasing public higher education's capacity for producing education doctorates by 50 percent over the next five years and 100 percent over the next 10 years. The letter also announced the formation of a UC Institute for Educational Leadership to focus on developing educational leadership and policy research to meet the state's needs in K-14 education. The Institute would provide a more coordinated approach to bringing together the vast array of activities the University is already pursuing to improve education in California.

APC members were supportive of the President's effort to maintain the Master Plan's differentiation of mission among the segments, and acknowledged the potentially high long-term public policy cost of abandoning responsibility for the Ed.D. They were concerned that campus departments generally have not been aware of the urgency of the need to work assertively towards expanding and accelerating the development of new joint doctoral degrees. There was also agreement that resources have not been available in proportion to the costs of supporting such programs, and that long-term systemwide solutions were necessary for joint doctoral programs to thrive.


2. Legislative Audit and Hearing on Faculty Hiring and Gender Equity at UC

Sheila O'Rourke, Executive Director in Academic Advancement at UCOP, joined the APC to describe recent State attention to University practices in the recruitment and hiring of women faculty. The Bureau of State Audits currently is examining campus affirmative action policies, search committee activities, and faculty hiring practices in response to the overall drop in the rate of hiring of women faculty since Proposition 209. In addition, Senator Jackie Speier held a hearing at which Chancellor Greenwood presented both the accomplishments and shortfalls of UC hiring, and described actions the University will take to improve the recruitment and hiring of women faculty. In a subsequent letter to the Chancellors, President Atkinson added race and ethnicity to these commitments. The actions address pipeline issues, starting with graduate school admission, and better analysis of both demand and available pools of candidates. The Office of the President will assist by establishing a systemwide database of dissertation-stage UC graduate students. The Bureau of State Audits is expected to produce their report in late March or early April, 2001.

The APC discussion focused in part on pointing out ways that aggregated data obscure important differences within campuses, and within the same discipline across campuses. The members also addressed the circumstances under which search committees can legally make additional efforts to expand the pool of candidates. In general, the earlier in the process that committees' actions are reviewed for diligence the better. Chancellor Greenwood's testimony included a description of the Santa Cruz search process, which incorporates early pool review by high level administration, a practice some APC members held up as an example of an effective and legally sound approach that could yield a broad pool of candidates.

3. UNEX's Mission and a Changing Environment

Vice Provost Zelmanowitz asked the APC for advice on how best to proceed with a recent recommendation to pull together a broadly focused group to address the question of how UNEX can best serve continuing education needs in California. The recommendation was included in a summary by Robert Rosenzweig, President Emeritus of the Association of American Universities (AAU), who had been invited to review the opportunities and obstacles UNEX faces in trying to achieve its goals in a rapidly changing educational world. Given the development of new learning modes, and the barrage of invitations from "dot.com" companies to UC faculty, APC members noted that the time is right for considering UNEX's future role and its relationship to core campus activities.

The APC suggested that one area for a review group to consider is the role UNEX should play in the administration and delivery of part-time degrees, such as the new MAS programs being developed by campuses to reach working professionals. For example, UNEX's marketing expertise, along with its considerable experience with online course delivery could benefit academic departments that are offering these programs. Another suggestion was to examine the role of UNEX as a possible alternative to the external commercial organizations that want to make regular academic UC courses available online.

4. Process for Reviewing Entrepreneurial Instruction Projects

Provost King described another way that technology and online delivery of instruction are challenging established academic conventions, as became evident in a review of the Global Film School recently proposed by UCLA. This for-profit venture, in collaboration with British and Australian counterparts, would provide online courses (but not degrees) internationally. UCLA faculty would create courses to sell to the Global Film School. The Academic Council agreed to support the proposal as an experiment, placing a number of conditions on the University's involvement in governance and on potential faculty financial gain.

The issue for the APC is whether there should be a mechanism designed to anticipate future requests, with methods for reviewing and resolving the significant academic, business and legal issues they raise. It was noted that it is possible to have win-win agreements that do not compromise the University's control of academic content or the UC name; however, fundamental guiding principles and touchstones for both academic and business review are essential to create the right conditions in future proposals. There were members who cautioned against the hazards of for-profit entities taking on a life of their own, with faculty members becoming involved in protecting their economic interests, potentially in conflict with their University obligations and commitments. Acting on the APC's consensus, Provost King will assemble a group to create guidelines for reviewing future proposals.

5. Enrollment Update

Assistant Vice President Sandra Smith reviewed several recent developments related to long-range enrollment planning. The recently formed Commission on the Growth and Support of Graduate Education, consisting of several Regents, Chancellors, other administrators, faculty, and students will address four topics in the coming months: how best to make the case for graduate growth and support, the potential for increased public support, the potential for increased private support, and campus improvements that might improve both recruitment and retention of graduate students. A report is expected this summer.

AVP Smith also noted that enrollment pressures continue to increase, with such a significant increase in applications for Fall 2001 that the University is increasing its 2001-02 State budget request by 1,400 FTE students. Revisions to freshman admissions policies, the University's outreach efforts and increases in transfer students may be contributing to higher-than-expected demand. The potential for enrollment increases beyond those for which the University is currently planning will continue to be tracked, with the possibility that the University may revise its enrollment plans in another year or so.