ACADEMIC PLANNING
COUNCIL
Bulletin #69
February 18, 2005
I.
Introductions
II.
Health Sciences Planning
III.
Stem Cell Research Initiative
IV.
Presidential Long-Range
Guidance Team
V.
Planning for New Doctorates
VI.
International Doctoral Student
Enrollment
I.
Introductions
Provost MRC Greenwood introduced
two members of the APC attending for the first time: Ellen Wartella, Executive Vice Chancellor (Riverside) and Mary
Ann Mason, Graduate Dean (Berkeley).
II.
Health Sciences Planning
Vice
President Michael Drake continued his presentation from the previous APC
meeting describing California’s workforce needs in each of the health
professions taught by UC and UC’s role in meeting those needs. He will make a similar report to The
Regents’ Committee on Educational Policy in March 2005.
Vice
President Drake cited the Health Sciences Committee summary report, which
documents how changes in the population, such as aging, increased cultural
diversity and population growth in inland regions of California are creating
serious mismatches and shortages in health care providers. Some of the key findings include the need
for up to 17,000 more physicians by 2015, as detailed at the previous APC meeting,
and serious deficiencies in nursing (especially nursing faculty), public
health, pharmacy, and veterinary medicine.
The Health Sciences Committee recommends increases in enrollment in
these four areas and initiation of planning for one or more new comprehensive
programs in medicine and nursing.
As it
becomes more difficult to import professionals from other states, which has
been the practice in California for decades, there is a greater need to produce
them in California. An added benefit to
educating professionals in California is that programs can provide experiences
necessary for working effectively with culturally diverse populations, meeting
one of California’s greatest needs in health care.
APC
members made several suggestions on ways to tie the needs for more health
sciences practitioners to other areas of effort underway at UC in the context
of helping keep California competitive.
For example, they noted the potential links to the science and math
initiative, encouraging undergraduate students to pursue fields such as health
economics and bioinformatics, in addition to the more traditional health
sciences professions. They also
pointed out the opportunity the recommendations provide to work more
proactively with CSU, and suggested that the President invite CSU to join in
planning for ways to address the nursing faculty shortage.
APC
members also agreed that the types of studies underlying the health sciences
recommendations were useful guides to planning for other professions, and even
for analyzing the needs of industry for Ph.D. graduates. It was pointed out that with the growth in
high school graduates ending in a few years, with consequences for
undergraduate growth, it is an appropriate time to consider the breadth of
graduate programs offered by UC and how they might change or grow in the coming
decade and beyond to meet California’s needs.
See also:
December 3, 2004 APC discussion: (http://www.ucop.edu/planning/apcfiles/apcwelcome.html)
Copies of
the report will be available on the Division of Health Affairs website: http://www.ucop.edu/healthaffairs/
Item for
The Regents’ March 16-17, 2005 meeting: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/mar05/303.pdf
III.
Stem Cell Research Initiative
Office of Research Executive
Director of Legislation and Research Policy Ellen Auriti and Provost Greenwood
described the current status of the implementation of Proposition 71, the Stem
Cell Research and Cures Initiative. As of January 2005 there had been
three meetings of the governing group, the 29-member Independent Citizen’s
Oversight Committee (ICOC), which includes several UC members. Many
issues, such as how best to handle intellectual property that may result from
Proposition 71-funded research, have not yet been discussed by the ICOC in depth.
UC has been consulting with other academic and research institutions regarding
providing the Institute with input on the academic perspective and on how
intellectual property is handled under the federal Bayh-Dole Act, which allows
universities to retain ownership of intellectual property developed under
federal awards. It was pointed out that the Academic Council is working
on a proposal to suggest a mechanism (such as the Digital Library) for
facilitating open access to research findings.
It was noted that it is important
for campuses to ensure that they follow federal rules in OMB Circular A-21
regarding cost allocation, so that no federal funds are used to support human
embryonic stem cell research conducted on non-federally approved cell lines.
Practically, campuses may choose to do this by keeping Proposition 71-funded
research physically separate from other research that uses federally funded
equipment and facilities. Proposition 71 provides for facilities awards, which
could be used to support segregated facilities, which may prove necessary from
a practical standpoint. There was a suggestion for workshops on how
A-21 requirements relate to work done under Proposition 71, particularly since
there is an expectation that there could be an increase in federal audits given
this more complex environment. Although this is a new area of law without
much interpretation, the penalties for violating federal guidelines are severe,
including loss of federal funding.
The best source of current information
regarding Proposition 71 implementation is the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine’s website: www.cirm.ca.gov.
IV.
Presidential Long-Range
Guidance Team
Provost Greenwood described the
President’s newly appointed group formed to address long-range strategic issues
facing the University, which she will co-chair with Bruce Darling. The Long-Range Guidance Team comprises seven
Regents (including student and alumni Regents), three Chancellors, Academic
Chair and Vice-Chair and two vice presidents.
Over the next six to eight months the Guidance Team will commission
studies and engage in discussions of the priorities that have emerged from SWOT
exercises (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) conducted with a
variety of academic and administrative constituencies, as well as The
Regents. They will produce a strategic
framework to guide specific decisions that will be made in the coming years. Some of the key areas of focus include the
future of graduate education, development of international strategies,
University business practices, and the financing of the University.
The APC advised on the formation of work
groups that will provide substantial input to the Guidance Team. They urged more comprehensive and diverse
membership and widespread communication so the efforts of the work groups and
the Guidance Team are not misunderstood.
Potential work groups they discussed might include graduate education (including
doctoral education, professional schools, and intersegmental degrees), the
research environment, the undergraduate experience, business practices, human
resources, financing the University, and international engagement. The themes of technology and diversity might
be addressed as components of each group’s charge. The APC will continue to be consulted about the charge and
composition of the work groups.
V.
Planning for New Doctorates
Senior Vice Provost Julius
Zelmanowitz led a discussion of how UC should respond to CSU’s recent initiative
to alter the Master Plan in a way that would allow them to provide independent
doctorates, other than those designed for research or teaching careers. He described the five-year history of the
joint Ed.D. degree, now offered at seven UC campuses and multiple CSU
campuses. These collaborations were
developed in response to CSU’s attempt to offer the Ed.D. independently and are
viewed by the University as being very successful, with strong support from the
Education Deans. UC would like to have
five years of experience with these programs before assessing whether they
should be expanded or offered under a different organizational framework.
Senior Vice Provost Zelmanowitz
described more recent attempts by CSU to make their case for offering doctorate
degrees (variously labeled “applied,” “professional,” or “practitioner
doctorates”). For example, CSU has
cited changes in accreditation requirements of audiologist training programs
from the master’s degree (as currently offered by six CSU campuses) to the
doctorate, as reason for CSU to be able to offer a doctorate independent of
UC. Currently UC San Diego, through the
School of Medicine, and San Diego State University offer a joint doctorate in
audiology. A UC task force formed to
address the real needs concurred that the accreditation requirements are such
that it is academically appropriate to invite additional collaborations between
other UC Schools of Medicine and the six CSU campuses currently offering master’s
degrees in audiology.
The example of audiology raises the
issue of other future requirements for “practitioner doctorates” and the role
UC should play given the Master Plan’s charge giving UC responsibility for
doctoral education. Provost Greenwood
will convene a task force to identify potential licensure and accreditation
changes, as well as market demand, that will require new doctorates, starting
with allied health fields. The task
force will also consider various mechanisms for delivering these programs. In addition to the traditional joint
degree, new mechanisms that might be explored are joint ventures (a variation
on the joint degree, with less UC involvement), virtual programs, UNEX-based
programs, and a school of allied health.
APC members agreed that a proactive
approach, conducting robust and objective studies to determine real needs in
California, was the appropriate role for UC.
VI.
International Doctoral Student
Enrollment
Graduate Dean Mary Ann Mason shared
data with APC members showing the decline in new international doctoral student
enrollment at all campuses for the past several years. The decline for the system has been 27
percent since 2000, although it has been as high as 60 percent at one
campus. Data indicate that enrollments
increased during 1994-2001 when fee increases averaged 3.6 percent, but have
declined as fees have increased substantially.
At future meetings the APC will
discuss international strategies for UC, including fee structures and other
issues affecting enrollment of international students.