The 1998 Accreditation Reaffirmation Committee Report on the University of California, San Diego (the Visiting Team) in its “Summary of Recommendations” highlighted five areas in which it thought the university might focus some attention:
The Commission in reaffirming the accreditation of UCSD in its July 6, 1998 letter to then Chancellor Dynes embraced the recommendations of the Visiting Committee and asked the institution to pay particular attention to:
We believe that UCSD has taken the recommendations of both the Visiting Committee and the Commission seriously. We have made substantial progress through our process of continual educational improvement in all of these areas. Some of these efforts are illustrated in the four areas of self-study that we have proposed to make the center of our Educational Effectiveness Review, others will be discussed below. Progress on one of the recommendations - the Continued Development of the Data Portfolio- should, we hope, be self-evident from the central role of the Data Portfolio in this report and the many references and links to it. This Data Portfolio and its extensive links to the many data sources on a complex campus like UCSD (as well as to the information centrally available from the Office of the President of the University of California system) is available not only to those individuals currently dealing with the accreditation but to the campus as a whole and will be a continuing source of institutional data in years to come.
Campus Involvement in the Planning Process/Planning and Budgeting
At about the same time that UCSD was in the process of completing its submission for its latest reaffirmation of accreditation a new process for planning and budgeting on the Academic Affairs component of the campus was beginning – the Charting The Course process. As the Commission noted in its July 6, 1998 letter – “The Commission is aware that there is a new planning initiative underway at the University, and this seems appropriate. The Commission will be interested in learning how the University, in its own way, will respond to these needs.” In the following section we hope to be able to inform the Commission about how we have responded to these needs for an open and transparent planning and budgeting process.
This process, initiated by then Senior Vice-Chancellor Marsha Chandler, has now been through four complete cycles and has accounted for the allotment of 419 faculty lines to the departments and programs, including 49 established specifically for the development of new interdisciplinary fields such as Human Development, California Cultures, and International Studies. In addition, this process has provided new funding for the College Writing programs and other academic aspects of the colleges. A detailed description of the process (which was prepared for purposes other than this report) is provided at the end of this Appendix. In this material, details of the “Charting The Course” process are provided as well the result of the allocation of faculty positions that have resulted since the first application of the process in 1998.
In addition to the allocation of faculty lines the CTC process is used to allocate other forms of resources including support of the writing programs administered by the Colleges, basic staff support for the Colleges and Departments, and other non-faculty line resources needed in order to provide for the instructional needs of the campus.
We believe that this process which:
The Undergraduate Colleges
Since the time of the Visiting Committee’s visit and report, Sixth College has become a reality and has graduated it first freshman to senior class. The process for the establishment of Sixth College included extensive discussion at all levels with particular attention being focused upon the general education program of Sixth College and the fit of those curricular elements with those of the extant colleges.
For those interested in the process a set of planning documents and proposals to the Academic Senate can be found online. In addition, beginning with Sixth College, one can observe the full richness of our newest college at its current state of development.
In addition to the creation of Sixth College and the active debates concerning its goal, mission and curriculum in the context of the five existing Colleges, other changes have occurred within the Undergraduate Colleges that continue to move the UCSD College System closer the goals that we and the WASC visitors and Commissioners envision. ERC (Roosevelt College) has opened its new physical campus which greatly expands “the capacity for colleges to serve as spaces where student from different backgrounds” to “come together to share experiences” as recommended in the Visiting Committee Report.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the systematic assessment of the colleges recommended in the Visiting Committee’s recommendations has been instantiated as part of our new Undergraduate Program Review System which is one of the four areas of self study that will be a focus of our Educational Effectiveness report. It should be noted that during the Academic Year 2006-2007 the first of the College Reviews (Revelle College) was successfully completed and is now being acted upon by the Committee of Educational Policy.
Considerable attention in the Visiting Team’s report was directed to the issue of Transfer Students. Partially motivated by the WASC observations on Transfer Students (but more importantly by the campus concern with issues of transfer education), substantial attention has been given to this group that constitutes about 20% of each entering class. Campus activities began with the establishment of a Task Force on Transfer Students whose report can be viewed at http://academicaffairs.ucsd.edu/ug-ed/resources/index.html. This Task Force Report together with the fact that the next (and only) major student housing project (ground was broken this summer and you can see the press release at the following link: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/events/GroundbreakigngForNorthCampusPJ-L.asp) is designed almost exclusively for transfer students, led to the appointment of two additional workgroups on Transfer Students – one in Student Affairs and one in Academic Affairs. Over the last two years these groups have met frequently and have both issued recommendations. In addition data from major surveys such as the UCUES (a University of California system-wide survey) has been used to monitor transfer student attitudes and opinions.
All of these activities have been important in the short range, but the most significant event will be the opening of the new North Campus housing facility which will, at long last, allow Transfer Students on-campus housing. Being housed on campus from the beginning of their academic careers at UCSD will vastly improve their inclusion in campus activities – including a wide variety of co-curricular activities and participation in research and other academic activities.
As noted elsewhere:
"This project will supply about 1,006 new student beds in furnished apartment units for single undergraduate transfer and upper-division students. The proposed housing will be all campus housing, and not associated with an individual college.
Current demand for student housing at the San Diego campus cannot be met without an increase to the total number of beds. The two-year housing guarantee available to freshmen students monopolizes the current college-affiliated undergraduate housing inventory, leaving no bed availability for upper-division and transfer students. With the occupancy of the North Campus Housing, transfer students will have priority for living on campus in these spaces. Upper-division students will have the next opportunity. As with the lower-division students, the transfer and upper-division students also will have a two-year guarantee for the housing. At minimum, between 30-36 percent of the transfer and upper-division students are expected to take advantage of on-campus housing."
|Housing component:||237,036 ASF;||337,751 OGSF|
|Bookstore component:||3,100 ASF;||5,300 OGSF|
|Total:||240,136 ASF;||343,051 OGSF|
Detailed plans for the North Campus housing facility are provided at the end of this Appendix.
Undergraduate Program Review
Although Undergraduate Program Review is one of the four topics for special consideration during the Educational Effectiveness review, it may be useful to note here that considerable progress has been made in these efforts. First, a task force on undergraduate program review has issued its report ( a copy of the report is available at http://academicaffairs.ucsd.edu/ug-ed/asmnt/ugrev/index.html) and second, the review of the Curriculum in Human Development has gone through the complete cycle as envisioned in the recommendations of the task force. The documentation of the complete review cycle for this program is available online as well as at the end of this Appendix (in abbreviated form).
Other issues raised
In addition to these areas, the Visiting Team and the Commission has directed attention to Information Technology, Refining Data Gathering and Assessment Activities, and Expanded Evidence of Educational Effectiveness. These issues are all addressed, in whole or in part, in the four themes we have selected for our Educational Effectiveness Review and will be addressed in detail in that report.