1. Year-Round State-Supported Instruction
The Academic Planning Council discussed a suggestion from the Riverside campus that there be universitywide academic
planning for developing campus specializations in summer programs, addressing specifically the question of whether
there are ways for campuses to collaborate. Members suggested that examples of collaborative programs or courses
might include developing majors that require one or more summer's attendance at a specific campus with specialized
equipment or other resources, showcasing "star faculty" teaching general education courses, and offering
minors at specific campuses that could be taken intensively during the summer. The members noted that there might
be opportunities for graduate student instruction, in the form of summer institutes. They would be offered for
credit, could be a few weeks in duration, and would center around the unique resources and specialized skill-building
that could be offered by a single campus.
Some members raised concerns about creating programs that would be difficult for students to attend if they weren't
already in the geographic area of the campus during the summer, as well as concerns about campuses competing with
each other for students in ways that become counter-productive to increasing campus summer enrollments. Nevertheless,
there was interest in engaging a wider audience to see if there is both academic and practical merit in the overall
idea and, if so, to build further on the specific ideas offered by the APC. A written version of the ideas discussed
will be presented to the Council of Vice Chancellors.
Vice President Larry Hershman joined the APC to consider how best to present the University's arguments for why
the state should fund the buyout of existing summer enrollments at Davis, Irvine, Riverside, San Diego, and Santa
Cruz as soon as possible. There is support from both the Legislature and Governor for funding UC's summer instruction,
but the University needs to make its case why the buyout for these campuses should be included in the next budget
(2002-03) instead of in later years.
Summer funding for Berkeley, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara campuses was included in the 2001-02 budget because
their Long Range Development Plans (LRDPs) place immediate constraints on growth during the regular academic year.
However, a similar argument will not carry as much weight for the remaining campuses because they have a few more
years to grow before reaching their previously planned enrollment levels and some are in communities that support
growth even beyond the LRDP levels.
The members presented several suggestions. The four that are probably most compelling to an external audience are
that (1) enrollments are already exceeding projections, (2) the Partnership agreement makes state-funding for additional
classroom and teaching laboratory space contingent on summer growth, (3) it could help solve some of our housing
problems by shifting some enrollments to summer, and (4) financial aid is available only to students at campuses
with state-funded summer programs. Vice President Hershman will continue to consult throughout the University in
the coming months to develop these arguments further with the hope that the Department of Finance will be able
to give their support for 2002-03 funding as early as October.
2. Transfer Students
Margaret Heisel, Executive Director from Admissions and Outreach at the Office of the President, advised the APC
of a budget initiative being developed for 2002-03, at the Governor's request, to improve UC's transfer outreach
efforts. One of the primary objectives is to expand and improve the data that are needed to identify potential
transfer students and their academic characteristics and needs. The initiative will also allow for a larger presence
of UC counselors available to community college students, especially to assist those in the proposed dual admissions
program. The third objective of the initiative is to invest in more articulation efforts so that students can enter
the University with the courses that ensure their success.
The APC discussed ways that potential transfer students could be recruited more successfully. They also talked
about ways to overcome long-standing myths that transfer students perform at a lower level academically than students
admitted as freshmen, when in fact the academic performance of the two groups is very similar. One suggestion was
to identify the many successful students and faculty members who have entered UC as community college transfers.
Through video interviews or individual counseling efforts, these individuals could serve as role models and mentors,
providing helpful information and encouragement to students for whom attending UC seems an unimaginable goal.
One aspect of improving articulation is being addressed through IMPAC (Intersegmental Major Preparation Articulated
Curriculum), one of a series of intersegmental activities to improve the transfer process. This project assembles
faculty by discipline to talk about what courses and competencies their majors require at the lower-division level.
The objective is not to create a lock-step community college curriculum, but rather to agree on content and skills
necessary so that students don't waste time taking courses that turn out not to be accepted by their departments
for the major. The project is producing excellent conversations and agreement; however, the faculty members involved
are not necessarily in a position to influence departmental practices.
The APC discussed ways that departments could be more aware of the links between courses taken at the community
colleges and the requirements of their own programs. For example, would it be possible to ask department chairs
to consider what changes in their new programs would look like for potential junior transfers? The program's five-year
review would be one place for raising the issue; the campus Committee on Courses could also include as a routine
question what the impact on transfer students of proposed curriculum changes is likely to be. In addition, both
UCEP and the Council of Vice Chancellors will discuss ways of bringing the IMPAC information to departments.
3. Ed.D./CIEL Update
Following up on earlier APC discussions about the Ed.D., (see, for example, http://www.ucop.edu/planning/apcfiles/apc50.html) Vice
Provost Julius Zelmanowitz reported that CSU has hired a lobbyist and public relations firm, escalating their efforts
to change the Master Plan to allow them to offer the Ed.D. independently. UC has agreed that more needs to be done
to improve educational leadership in California, but argues that it can and should be done within existing structures.
One effort underway is the creation of a California Institute for Education Leadership which would provide visibility
and an overall framework for UC's many programs aimed at training K-14 leaders. Vice Provost Zelmanowitz is seeking
suggestions for a UC faculty member who can serve as planning leader for this institute–someone with internal credibility,
as well as credibility with the Legislature and K-14 community. The institute will also look at larger policy issues
related to the relevance and effectiveness of the Ed.D., the state's needs for educational leadership beyond the
teacher level, and the potential for incorporating distance learning to reach the working population most likely
to be interested in the degree.
4. Humanities Commission Update
Academic Council Chair Michael Cowan briefed the APC on an upcoming report from the Humanities Commission. In November
1999 (http://www.ucop.edu/planning/apcfiles/apc44.html), the APC recommended the formation of the Commission to address the role of the
humanities in the 21st century, given the expanded varieties and uses of technology, needs of K-12 education, and
increasing UC enrollments. The report will address the significance of global perspectives for the humanities,
the relationship of the humanities to cultural and technological literacies, the public role of the humanities,
and graduate student support and outreach.