ACADEMIC
PLANNING COUNCIL
Bulletin #74
April 11, 2006
I. Update on Planning Activities
II. Academic Issues Related to
State-funded Summer Instruction
III. Teaching Experiences for Graduate
Students (as Instructors of Record)
IV. Proposed Task Force on Undergraduate
Education
V. Background for Enrollment Planning:
Factors Affecting Undergraduate Growth
I.
Update on Planning Activities
Acting Provost
Rory Hume described for the Academic Planning Council the status of current
planning activities, how these various activities are related substantively and
over time, and the role the APC plays in advising the Provost on how to tie the
activities together.
The Long Range
Guidance Team, appointed to consider what the best university in the world will
look like in 2025 and how to make sure UC is that university,
will complete its work by the end of summer 2006.
The recently
announced systemwide academic planning process, http://www.ucop.edu/planning/apcfiles/apc73.html,
will address the strategic questions of how UC collectively can be as good as
it can be, through discussion of campus plans and aspirations. This process will take place over several
years.
Another set of
planning activities already underway addresses graduate education under the
rubric of the Task Force for Planning for Doctoral and Professional
Education. Their work on a variety of
topics (new doctorates in the health sciences, law school proposals,
educational leadership programs, growth in cross-disciplinary opportunities)
will continue at least through the summer of 2006. Acting Provost Hume requested that the APC
also consider issues related to cross-disciplinary programs at a later meeting.
Other concurrent
(or proposed) planning activities include the Advisory Council on Future Growth
in the Health Professions, which will result in recommendations to the
President at the end of summer 2006 regarding growth in existing health
sciences programs, the Information Technology Guidance Committee, and the
proposed Task Force on Undergraduate Education (see below).
II.
Academic Issues Related to
State-funded Summer Instruction
Special Assistant
Carol Copperud led a discussion about the academic implications of all campuses
finally being fully State-funded for summer instruction in the 2006-07 budget. The State
has gradually phased in marginal cost funding of summer enrollments (currently
about 13,000 FTE) since 2001-02, with the intent that more students be
accommodated because of better use of classroom facilities over a full year,
and because of improved student throughput.
The University
has made commitments to the State to enroll 24,000 FTE students by 2010-11
(approximately 40 percent of a term’s FTE), and to increase the summer teaching
contribution of regular-rank faculty, since the marginal cost funding that has
been received provides for several hundred new faculty positions and full
instructional support (as during the regular academic year). The overarching commitment is that summer
instruction is to be equivalent in all respects to the regular academic year. The discussion topic for the APC was to
consider what “equivalent” means, given the unique characteristics of campuses’
summer programs.
Special Assistant
Copperud described some of the features that make summer different from the
regular academic year, including optional enrollment, part-time enrollment,
variable-length calendars, optional teaching, and more opportunities for UC
students to take courses at campuses other than their own. To date, campuses have not created a true
summer quarter (or semester), students have chosen to enroll year-round rather
than substitute summer for another term, and virtually all faculty
who teach in the summer teach on an overload basis. The challenge for campuses is to retain
those features of summer that make it attractive for students to enroll and
productive for faculty to teach, while being able to demonstrate that the
State’s investment is accomplishing its goals and intentions.
APC members
discussed academic concerns, such as how to evaluate whether a summer course is
as rigorous as its counterpart in the regular academic year and what the role
of graduate students teaching in the summer should be (see following
topic). They suggested it was
appropriate for the broader University community to agree on academic
guidelines in order to ensure confidence that State funds are being used as
intended, and to meet specific academic goals of the University. Both UCEP and COVC will be invited to
contribute to the development of such guidelines and report back to APC.
III.
Teaching Experiences for
Graduate Students (as Instructors of Record)
UCEP and CCGA
have recently considered whether to make changes to existing Academic Personnel
policies, Senate regulations, and campus practice with respect to the use of
graduate students as instructors of record.
Currently, campus Committees on Courses are charged with approving
whether graduate students can independently teach upper-division courses;
policy is silent, however, on approvals for teaching either lower-division or
graduate courses. While the number of
graduate instructors of record in the regular academic year is small, they are
used extensively to teach summer courses.
Changes might include eliminating the position completely and hiring these
advanced graduate students as lecturers, or increasing the requirements for
faculty oversight at all levels of instruction and in all terms.
It was noted,
given the earlier discussion, that the State’s support of summer instruction
carries different expectations for instructional faculty than was the case when
summer instruction was self-supporting; that is, summer instruction should be
held to the same standards and principles as the regular academic year,
particularly in the area of deciding who has
responsibility for teaching. APC members
also noted that for Ph.D. students who go into academic careers teaching
experiences with increasing responsibilities can be an invaluable part of their
education. There were strong cautions,
however, against giving graduate students full responsibility for teaching
large lower-division courses. Some
argued for considering graduate student teaching in a more nuanced way, with
carefully delineated opportunities for a range of increasingly independent
responsibilities depending on experience, from delivering lectures to designing
content to assessing student learning.
Other
considerations raised include the problem of very large majors (e.g.,
3,000-4,000 students) not having enough faculty to
teach all the necessary courses, with graduate students used to augment
teaching forces. The problem is
compounded in the summer, when it has been harder to recruit regular-rank
faculty to teach.
The Academic
Council will consider a combined recommendation from UCEP and CCGA, which will
then require Division and campus review.
The APC recommended that both COVC and COGD be included in the
discussion of any proposed changes due to the resource issues that are
involved.
IV.
Proposed Task Force on
Undergraduate Education
APC member Denise
Segura presented to the APC a recommendation from UCEP with the concurrence of
the Academic Council, for the formation of a high-level universitywide
administrative-Senate task force on undergraduate education. The recommendation responds to the APC’s request for advice on planning for undergraduate
education over the next decade. The
charge and areas of specific focus were developed in consultation with
Undergraduate Deans, campus Committees on Educational Policy, and Undergraduate
Councils. APC member William Ladusaw spoke on behalf of the Undergraduate Deans who
support the intent of the recommendations.
He noted, however, that some of the several relevant topics are already
being addressed by other groups, so the task force might do well to integrate,
rather than replicate, their work. The
Undergraduate Deans also emphasized that the topic is about more than just what
faculty do, because not all learning takes place in the classroom.
APC members offered
a number of suggestions for such a task force, including expanding the focus
beyond UC to incorporate discussions taking place at the national level and at
other universities. Some of those topics
include what constitutes student success and how it might be measured, and
improving the transition into and out of college (including, for UC, the
relationship with the community colleges).
There were suggestions for collecting examples of key successes from
campuses, and for writing an essay that could be published and read more
widely, showing UC leadership in undergraduate education.
Acting Provost
Hume, agreeing that such a task force should be formed and integrated into the
broader University planning activities, asked for suggestions for membership. Members recommended participation of
individuals from appropriate Senate committees and from the Undergraduate
Deans; in addition, they urged inclusion of students, and individuals with
expertise (either as members or invited guests) in areas such as civic
engagement, international education, and instructional technology.
Related
links: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/ac.ucep.ug.edu.tf.0406.pdf
for the text of UCEP’s recommendations.
V.
Background for Enrollment
Planning: Factors Affecting
Undergraduate Growth
The speakers also
noted that as more CA high school students are making themselves eligible for
UC, the perplexing problem presents itself of how to set ever-higher standards
to meet the Master Plan requirements of an eligibility pool of 12.5
percent. The problem is particularly
difficult not only because it reduces the potential for a more diverse student
body, but also because the students who would become ineligible are known to be
able to do UC level work.
Another factor
that affects undergraduate enrollments is the nature of the admissions process
at UC, with campuses competing with each other for the same students. In addition, there is a mismatch between
campuses with capacity for growth and student demand. The consequences are decreased yields (i.e.,
the proportion of admitted students who enroll) and therefore lower enrollments
than expected. Many students, not being
accepted at the campus of their choice, are often choosing CSU over UC
campuses.
The speakers
suggested that a way to increase yield for both the freshman and transfer
admissions would be to develop more tailored messages that differentiate
campuses from each other and target specific prospective student
populations. Changing some aspects of
the application and admission timelines, such as earlier admission dates for
some campuses, might also yield more students.
In response to the presentation, APC members were particularly interested
in considering ways to increase the number of transfer students.