ACADEMIC PLANNING
COUNCIL
Bulletin #67
October 25, 2004
I. Welcome
and Introductions
II. Long-Range
Strategic Planning
III. Issues in Undergraduate Education: Transfer Students
IV. Issues
in Graduate Education: Update on the Commission on the Growth and Support of
Graduate Education
I.
Welcome and Introductions
Provost and Senior Vice President
MRC Greenwood welcomed new members to the first meeting of the 2004-05 Academic
Planning Council: Clifford Brunk,
Vice-chair of the Academic Council; Michael Parrish, Chair, UCPB; Quentin
Williams, Chair, CCGA; Max Neiman, Chair, UCORP; Graduate student Anu Joshi and
undergraduate student Jeremy Cogan.
II.
Long-Range Strategic Planning
APC members identified topics that
might be of interest to The Regents as they consider various long range
academic planning issues in the coming year or so. Three main themes emerged:
a historical perspective of the evolution in the mission and public
expectations of higher education, including an understanding of the economic and
social costs and benefits of public higher education in California; a review of
the components of the Master Plan and of the implications of challenges to its
fundamental tenets; and a fuller understanding of the importance of the
undergraduate-graduate balance.
Members emphasized the usefulness of educating Regents (and others)
about the synergistic relationship of high quality faculty, graduate and
undergraduate students.
III.
Issues in Undergraduate
Education: Transfer Students
Academic Council Chair George
Blumenthal described a variety of activities underway to improve the transfer
articulation process. He noted that at
UC, transfer student performance compares favorably to students entering as
freshmen, in terms of graduation rates, grade point averages and time to
degree. Nevertheless, despite these
achievements, the University is often criticized in the Legislature for being a
reluctant partner in efforts to improve or assist the transfer process.
There are several intersegmental
agreements to streamline transfer articulation, as well as groups engaged in
reducing obstacles for potential transfers.
For example, the success of the uniform Intersegmental General Education
Transfer Curriculum (IGETC), which identifies requirements that are acceptable
at either UC or CSU, has led to a proposal (SCIGETC), now undergoing Senate
review, to allow science majors to satisfy some of their general education
requirements after transferring. Another intersegmental activity is the ASSIST
website, managed by UC, which helps students see how course credits earned at
one public California college or university can be applied when transferred to
another. IMPAC, an intersegmental
faculty project managed by the Community Colleges, has been making progress in
identifying appropriate lower-division major preparation courses in a given
field.
Chair Blumenthal described CSU’s
plan (subsequently enacted in state legislation) to establish a uniform set of
lower division requirements (45 semester units) that would be acceptable for
transfer to any CSU campus, plus 15 units that would be required for specific
majors. In contrast, UC requires
separate articulation agreements with individual community colleges for the
courses required for each major at each UC campus; typically each department
has different views on lower division requirements. One consequence of having so many separate agreements is that a
student not admitted to the UC campus for which he or she has specifically prepared
may find him or herself not having fulfilled the lower division major
requirements of the UC campus which admitted them. This is a costly and
inefficient practice that is difficult to defend to either the State or the
student.
Chair Blumenthal noted that the
Senate has made transfer issues a priority this year. They are reviewing the SIGETC proposal, and also considering a
plan that could substantially reduce the number of articulation
agreements. Under this plan, any
agreement accepted by four campuses would automatically be accepted by the
remaining campuses, unless they take action to opt out.
APC discussion acknowledged the
importance of changing the public perception of being reluctant and the need to
make major articulation more convenient and fair for transfer students, but also
noted the importance of preserving the uniqueness that characterizes specific
majors. There were suggestions for
convening UC faculty in specific disciplines, particularly those that might
attract women and underrepresented minority transfers, to identify both the
similarities and differences of separate majors. A possible outcome of this discussion might be to create a menu
of courses that would be acceptable for transfer, rather than prescribed lists
of individual courses. Another
possibility might be to invoke the Senate regulation allowing for placement
exams for students admitted with slight differences from the required pattern
of courses.
With the high visibility of
transfer articulation at the State level, and the widespread impact expected by
CSU’s adoption of uniform transfer requirements, the Senate was urged to move
forward with its efforts to find a more transparent way to set UC major
requirements, while continuing to protect the quality of the UC majors.
IV.
Issues in Graduate Education: Update
on the Commission on the Growth and Support of Graduate Education
Acting Assistant Vice President
Linda Guerra summarized changes that have taken place since the Commission on
the Growth and Support of Graduate Education produced its recommendations in
September 2001 (http://www.ucop.edu/services/gradeduc.html). The Commission produced both a report and an
advocacy document reflecting job market and enrollment conditions in 2000.
UC’s growth of graduate students in
the last three years has been substantial (nearly 20 percent) following decades
of very low growth. However, this
recent growth accounts for less than 10 percent of graduate growth in the
state, most of which has occurred in private institutions at the master’s
level. UC’s graduate degree production
continues to lag behind projections of growth in professional and managerial
jobs; there are also an estimated 30,000-40,000 positions for faculty in
California in the coming decade.
Acting AVP Guerra noted that in one
of the areas of key importance to the Commission, graduate student support, a
recent UC study shows that the average net stipend offered UC students
continues to be about $2,000 lower than what is offered on average at other
institutions. Nevertheless, there have
been some gains in areas targeted by the Commission: Some improvements in federal fellowships and traineeships, some
new industry internships, and gift funding that has reached about 40 percent of
the target. However, challenges remain
as the original estimate of need is probably now too low given fee and
nonresident tuition increases, and recommendations for increases in State funds
have not materialized.
APC members added concerns about
the changing international landscape, with more restrictive visa requirements
to study in the United States, higher tuition and fees, and the focus of
doctoral education shifting to Europe and Asia where many countries have
increased their investments in higher education. In addition, they noted the widening gap between private and
public institutions in their respective abilities to support high quality
graduate students, due particularly to the endowments held by private universities. They suggested that due to the difficulty of
increasing public investment in graduate education, Academic Affairs should
provide The Regents more in-depth information about the relationship of high
quality graduate programs to California’s economy, thereby assisting them
perform their advocacy role more effectively.