WASC meeting
December 5, 2001, 3:00 p.m.,
McHenry 481
Attending:
Lynda Goff, Chair
George Blumenthal
Bruce Cooperstein
Carol Freeman
Sandy Freitag
Ernie Hudson
Leslie Sunell
Carl Walsh
Ken Christopher, staff
Lynda Goff opened the meeting. She indicated that the purpose of this meeting was to review a
set of draft themes for UCSC’s self-study proposal to WASC. A draft of these themes and of the
proposal was distributed for review/comment.
Outcome of meeting: It was generally agreed at the end of the meeting that the draft needed
revision in many areas. Lynda Goff, Sandy Freitag, and Julian Fernald will work on this, and
have a new draft prepared for the next WASC meeting. That meeting has not yet been
scheduled.
L. Goff said that a goal of the self-study proposal was to link the WASC process with the ten
year planning that is underway at UCSC, and with the fact that enrollments on campus will soon
stop increasing (i.e., growth will stop). This is a new experience for UCSC, and is therefore
something that needs to considered in thinking about the campus’s future.
L. Goff asked generally whether this approach seemed reasonable to the committee. It was
agreed that campus growth, or lack of it, was a potentially good subject for the self-study.
C. Freeman asked if it was appropriate to think of UCSC as being in a “steady state” after
reaching its enrollment limits. This is because programs on campus will continue to change and
resources will or should continue to increase to meet new needs. L. Goff said that language
could be included in the self-study to say that “steady state” means we must be selective about
our programs, and raise additional resources outside of state funding to pay for program growth.
L. Sunell also recommended that the term “steady state” be revised somewhat to indicate that the
limits of growth being faced are those within the current Long Range Development Plan, and
may therefore be altered in the future. Further discussion ensued about the term “steady state.”
This concluded discussion of Section I of the draft.
In Section II of the draft, G. Blumenthal questioned the phrase “shift to a culture of assessment.”
He felt this indicated that UCSC does not currently assess its programs. C. Freeman also said
that assessment should be a tool used to reach our goals, not a goal in itself. G. Blumenthal felt
that improving “institutional research” would be a better focus for this section. Alternate terms,
including “stronger analytical tools,” were mentioned. It was generally agreed that the campus
ought to, in some way, improve the way it measures what it is doing. It was agreed that
“institutional research” was an appropriate term for this.
G. Blumenthal then questioned the term “discovery-based learning.” He felt that this was not
only unclear language, but also that it was not the only way students learn things. It was also
recommended that these goals be made more encompassing – that research doesn’t apply to a lot
of what happens in the classroom (the shared learning through discussion of ideas, for example).
L. Goff suggested using the term, “culture of student academic achievement” instead of
“discovery-based learning.” It was agreed that Section II would be more acceptable if it was
rewritten with more emphasis on “institutional research,” some other phrase than
“discovery-based learning,” and perhaps more mention of how UCSC can learn about itself as an
institution.
Another goal was suggested – that of increasing the interaction between undergraduates,
graduates, and postdocs on campus. Another goal suggested by G. Blumenthal was to review
how the “torch of culture” can be passed on at UCSC, given that one-half of existing faculty are
new within the last five year. General discussion ensured about the colleges and their role in
passing on campus culture.
The committee then skipped to Section VI of the draft. Re: Topic I on graduate programs, it was
felt that the language needed to be more enthusiastic about those programs. This was generally
agreed. E. Hudson also raised the idea of including the need for balance within programs,
considering that UCSC has undergraduate-only programs, graduate-only programs, as well as
programs for both graduate and undergraduate majors. He thought a good topic of study might
be to find a way to bring graduate-only programs into more contact with undergraduate-only
programs. Re: Topic II, on undergraduate academic engagement, discussion began with the
senior exit requirement. C. Freeman was pleased to see it mentioned and hopes that it remains a
requirement for graduation. L. Goff felt that perhaps the self-study should look at ways of
measuring student involvement, such as a mandatory exit survey. C. Freeman felt that more
should be said about the colleges in any discussion of student engagement. G. Blumenthal raised
the question about what exactly was meant by “academic engagement.” E. Hudson felt that it
was important throughout the self-study to define the terms being used; he thought that
“engagement” in this context meant the opposite of passive learning. Agreement was reached
that it would be good to have some definition of the phrases used in the document. Re: Topic III,
there was a general discussion of the issue of having ladder-rank faculty teach more classes, and
how this can be accomplished, particularly as part of any external review of programs. There
was a lengthy discussion of course review, departmental reviews, the colleges, general education,
&c. L. Goff asked if “general education” should be a new fourth topic for the self-study.
C. Freeman felt that this might be a topic that could be included under a discussion of academic
engagement.
The meeting ended with L. Goff stating the current draft would be extensively rewritten and a
new draft prepared for the next meeting. That meeting has yet to be scheduled. The scheduled
meeting on December 19 was cancelled.