ACADEMIC PLANNING
COUNCIL
Bulletin #72
November 3, 2005
I. Introduction
and Welcome
II. Update
on Graduate Education Task Forces
III. Health Sciences Update
IV. Campus
Visits
V.
VI. Undergraduate
Education
I.
Introduction and
Welcome
New members were welcomed to the
Academic Planning Council: Stan Glantz, (Chair, UCPB), Raymond Meza (Undergraduate student
representative), (Duncan
Lindsey, chair of CCGA, was inadvertently omitted from the list of new members
welcomed at the September 14, 2005 meeting)
II.
Update on Graduate Education
Task Forces
Vice Provost Julius Zelmanowitz reviewed the activities to date of the several
recently established task forces related to graduate education. The Task Force on Planning for Doctoral and
Professional Education (PDPE) has organized a work plan for itself, to present
recommendations to the President and Provost by the end of 2006 to guide UC’s graduate enrollment and program planning and decision
making over the next decade. Milestones
to be accomplished during 2005 and 2006 include campus visits (already
underway) to discuss graduate education, reports on allied health programs and
legal education, and a philosophy of graduate education at UC.
GSAC, the UC Systemwide
Competitive graduate Student Financial Support Advisory Committee, is
simultaneously addressing issues related to support of graduate students. They are calculating the unmet need and
considering over 20 proposals to improve support. Their calculations will depend in part on
program and enrollment growth decisions growing out of PDPE’s
recommendations.
Cathryn Nation, Executive Director of Academic Health Sciences,
described the work of the Allied Health Subcommittee of the PDPE which has the
charge of identifying those professions that may soon require the Ph.D. for
entry to practice, and of recommending what UC’s role
should be in providing this education. Audiology will be effectively requiring the doctorate by
January 1, 2007, given that the national organization responsible for
accreditation of academic programs has announced that it will no longer
accredit master’s level training programs and that only doctoral degree
programs will be eligible. UCSD currently has one joint doctoral audiology program with CSU which may serve as a model for
others. In the wake of SB 724 (which
awarded CSU the right to confer the doctorate in Education) UC and CSU agreed
to work together to create additional joint doctoral programs in audiology.
Discussions are underway as to sites, both in northern and southern
Another allied health field, physical
therapy, will require the doctorate by 2010, and several other fields will
require closer review. Dr. Nation noted
that these clinical training programs are expensive, so comprehensive needs
assessments are essential.
III.
Health Sciences Update
Executive Director Nation reminded
the APC members of previous presentations about Health Sciences work force
needs analyses conducted recently, noting the shortages looming in five of the
seven health professions served by UC (i.e., in medicine, nursing, pharmacy,
public health and veterinary medicine, with no shortages projected in dentistry
or optometry). UC has had no growth in
the health sciences for over 25 years, and is lowest in many states in the per
capita measures used to describe healthcare education and workforce.
The findings for nursing are
already being addressed in the 2006-07 Regents’ Budget, for programs at UCSF
and UCLA, and eventually at UCI where B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. programs are being
approved. The President wants to move
forward with the other recommendations as well, and is appointing new Advisory
Council on Future Growth in the Health Professions that will provide guidance
in the development of a multi-year enrollment plan for meeting increasing
health sciences enrollments. The Team
will be co-chaired by Vice President for Health Affairs Rory Hume and Regent
Sherry Lansing.
APC members raised issues about
potential students and about cost.
Noting the difficulty of attracting a diverse student body, it was
suggested the UC look to the middle schools, high schools and community
colleges as important parts of the pipeline for recruiting students to pursue
an education in the health sciences. Dr.
Nation noted that the newly established PRIME program, while focusing on health
care needs of specific populations (e.g., Latino, homeless, and rural populations)
is also intended to attract a diverse student body. With respect to the costs of expanding
health care education, members pointed out that there are both facilities and
operational costs to consider. However,
it was also argued that the first question to answer is what it is that
Related links:
http://www.ucop.edu/healthaffairs/
for workforce reports
http://www.ucop.edu/planning/apcfiles/apc68.html and http://www.ucop.edu/planning/apcfiles/apc69.html for previous
APC discussions
IV.
Campus Visits
Prior to the November 3 APC
meeting, Provost Greenwood and Executive Vice Provost Hume had completed visits
to six campuses, with remaining visits to be completed by early December, to
discuss, among other topics, the future of graduate education. Hume noted that interdisciplinarity
was a strong theme at all the campuses he had visited, in all the
disciplines. He reasoned that promoting
this trend, particularly across campuses and as a system, would distinguish UC
in ways that other universities could not match, and could make a powerful
argument for support from the State, business and philanthropy.
APC members also noted the trend
toward interdisciplinary themes in graduate education. For example, since more students are taking
more jobs in small entrepreneurial companies than before they are best served
by taking courses outside their discipline, such as courses in business. APC members also suggested that the public,
particularly State government, will be more supportive of graduate education
when they understand its value to the State, and urged more concerted efforts
to that end.
V.
Margaret Heisel
(Associate to the Vice President for
Student Affairs and Executive Director) informed the APC of recent
activities that reconsider the effectiveness and efficiency of the transfer
process from the Community Colleges to UC and CSU. UC had agreed with Governor Davis to
increase transfers to 15,300 by 2005, and was on track for several years to
accomplish this goal until 2004 when budget cuts made it impossible to accept
winter and spring transfers. Progress toward the enrollment goal has
slowed.
According to Director Heisel, at one time a set of minimum requirements for eligibility
was considered sufficient for admission
for students preparing for transfer. However, in recent years, lower-division
preparation for the student’s intended major has become an increasingly
important factor for students'
admission. It also has promoted
shorter time to degree and lessened change of major after transfer. Senator Scott sponsored a bill for CSU which
creates a single pattern of course requirements for each of 30 targeted majors
for transfer students regardless of which CSU campuses they apply to. UC campuses, on the other hand, have
requirements for majors that are unique to each campus. As a consequence, students applying to UC
have encountered the situation of not being admitted to the campus
for which they had prepared, and the units then not being accepted for the same
major at the campus to which they are admitted.
Director Heisel
has observed that CCC students are often very
uninformed about their transfer options, and frequently not clear about their
educational path. As a result, they may
take many classes that cannot be transferred or applied to their major. Students are, however, aware of IGETC (the
pattern of general education courses acceptable at both UC and CSU). The recent adoption of SCIGETC, a
modification of transfer requirements for science majors to require more lower-division
math and science, is intended to help students make timely progress and ensure academic success after
they transfer.
Director Heisel
reported that Senator Scott wants UC adopt
the "unitary major preparation" model he sponsored for CSU, and he has introduced a bill to
that effect. As a result of discussions with the University, however, the
bill has been turned into a two-year bill while a joint UC-CCC transcript study
is undertaken to study the course patterns of CCC students who transfer. The presumption is that it is not UC’s requirements that cause CCC students to take excess
units, but that students take additional courses for other reasons, such as exploration of different majors,
remedial course work, etc. The study will differentiate between
those who were initially eligible for UC from high school and those who weren’t, and is expected to yield valuable
information about how CCC students spend their time.
In response to the legislative pressure
for more uniformity across major requirements for transfer students, the
University is studying what differences do exist between majors that might
appear to be the same at several campuses.
The Academic Senate streamlining policy states that if four campuses
have the same requirements for a given major, the required courses will also be
acceptable at the other campuses (unless the campus specifically opts
out). UCEP and BOARS will be evaluating
majors, beginning with Math, to determine the extent of commonality.
APC members suggested that a way to
increase diversity at UC campuses is to work with the Career Centers, not just
the Transfer Centers, at specific colleges, in order to attract more students
to the transfer program.
VI.
Undergraduate Education
The APC discussed recent national
and other themes in undergraduate education, such as interest in general
education and civic engagement. UCEP
will work with Undergraduate Deans on a list of topics that might be brought to
the APC, possibly including the development of an undergraduate education
philosophy.