We received a response from UC President Yudof to the letter CUCFA sent August 10th. The full text of the CUCFA letter was sent to the DFA members earlier and is available at http://ucdfa.org/2009/08/10/cucfa-input-on-the-gould-commission-on-the-future-of-uc/
Below, please find the text of President Yudof’s response, followed by the text of the summary of the working group charges that Yudof refers to within his letter. The form Yudof refers to is attached to this post as a PDF.
———————
August 21, 2009
Dear Colleagues:
Thank you for your letter of August 10 offering suggestions on the process for forming and appointing the UC Commission on the Future and its working groups. Let me assure you that I share your goal of ensuring that the faculty of the University are an integral part of the work of the Commission and its working groups. Due to the large number of constituencies that need to be represented in this process, I cannot agree with every suggestion in your letter about appointments.
However, since the original announcement of the Commission, we have been working with the leadership of the Academic Council to add two more faculty members to the Commission and hope to address many of the issues you raise. Those faculty appointments will be announced before the first meeting of the Commission on September 8.
In addition, we have sent out a letter soliciting names for consideration for the five working groups to a number of key constituencies, including the Academic Council. A summary of the working group charges is attached for your information. I would welcome your organization providing suggestions for members of the working groups, and a copy of the nomination form is attached. We will need your response as soon as possible, and it can be e-mailed to Associate Vice President Marsha Kelman at Marsha.Kelman@ucop.edu.
Finally, I agree with you about the need to address the full range of difficult choices the University faces in the future, and I expect the Commission will address the kinds of trade-offs you outline in your letter.
I look forward to receiving constructive input from the faculty and your organization as the Commission process moves forward.
With best wishes, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Mark G. Yudof
President
cc: Regent Gould
Interim Provost Pitts
Academic Council Chair Croughan
Associate Vice President Kelman
Secretary and Chief of Staff Griffiths
——————–
UC Commission on the Future
Working Groups
The Commission is charged with developing a new vision for the University within the context of the University’s mission and budget, while reaffirming our commitment to quality, access and affordability. UC will continue to play a vital role in sustaining California’s economy and cultural life, operating strategically and as efficiently as possible within available resources.
UC’s long-held governing principles of maintaining access, affordability, and the highest levels of quality in instruction, research, public service, and health care have guided the policy decisions of this great University. In today’s budgetary climate, these principles are becoming, in essence, what economists call “competing goods”: one cannot be altered without affecting the value of others. Even a world-class research institution such as our own does not have the resources to maximize all competing goods simultaneously.
In the past, many policy decisions at UC were made one at a time, often without considering the impact of changing one variable upon the others. Going forward, we must take a competing goods approach: Each solution will affect others to follow. Any increase in support in one area inevitably has opportunity costs for other priorities.
The Commission and working groups will identify multiple positive attributes worthy of promoting, but priorities must be established to balance the budget. Some of these “competing” attributes include:
• Graduation in 3 or 4 years – maximum flexibility in degree programs, dual degrees, majors and minors
• Low fees – high financial aid – enhanced student support services
• Access to all qualified California residents(freshman, transfer) – high proportions of graduate and professional enrollment
• Small classes and student mentoring – highest levels of research and scholarship
• Instructional delivery costs – low student faculty ratios – state of the art classrooms and class laboratories
• Competitive positioning for research funding – public service outreach
• Competitive faculty and staff salaries
The overarching task is to define an overall balance among these priorities that is consistent with UC’s mission, commitment to quality, and best serves California.
The working groups will be comprised of a wide spectrum of members drawn from the Regents, faculty, students, alumni, administration, staff and other experts not affiliated with UC. Much of the expertise lies with our extraordinary faculty. Because competing goals may span multiple workgroups, the Commission, as a coordinating and deciding body, with will expect strong communication and coordination among the working group chairs. Close consultation with the Academic Senate is essential for recommendations pertaining to curriculum and other core faculty responsibilities.
With this background, the working groups are:
1. Size and Shape of UC
What is the appropriate size and shape of the University going forward? Should the size of graduate programs be rationalized? Should the size of undergraduate programs be reduced, especially for programs that are not cost effective? Should there be a new model focusing UC on graduate and professional education and undergraduate education that cannot be delivered by other public segments?
• Evaluate the size and breadth of academic program offerings and the distribution of these offerings by campus, with a focus on areas of specialization. The group will consider to what degree the campuses should be similar or different in their educational programs, or in their growth in numbers of undergraduate, graduate and professional students among other potential differences. Faculty research expertise and capacity, proximity to and availability of funding, unique resources (industry partners, targeted sponsorship, physical location, etc.), and other relevant factors will be considered in this process.
• The workgroup will consider and develop recommendations regarding the optimum enrollment mix (freshman, transfer, undergraduate, graduate and professional, resident, non-resident, etc.) by campus and for the system as a whole.
2. Education and Curriculum
What alternative educational delivery models will both maintain quality and lower educational delivery costs?
• The workgroup will consider and develop recommendations for different models of educational delivery including: modifications to curriculum and degree programs; modifications on how information is presented and how we interact with students; online and remote instruction; testing out of required courses; reconfiguration of major requirements; limits on the number of units permissible (including Advanced Placement units); year-round instruction; three year baccalaureate degrees; student: faculty ratios; etc. The pros and cons of each model of educational delivery will be examined, as well as direct and indirect cost considerations.
• Consider how the University works in collaboration with K-12, community colleges, California State University, and other partners to achieve the highest quality education possible.
• Consider and examine other models of higher education within the United States and elsewhere, paying particular attention to models that work in research universities, public universities, and land grant institutions.
3. Access and Affordability
How can UC best meet the needs of California and at what levels of access and affordability assuming diminishing resources? Should there be greater reliance on California State University and California Community Colleges for access? Should fees be increased?
• The workgroup will undertake a comprehensive evaluation of current and alternative student body size, and fee and financial aid policies and structures, as well as the impact of these alternatives on student access and diversity.
• Consider and examine other fee, aid and access models within the United States and elsewhere, paying particular attention to models that work in research universities, public universities, and land grant institutions.
4. Funding Strategies
How can traditional and alternative revenue streams be maximized in support of UC’s mission?
• The workgroup will explore and develop recommendations to maximize funding from traditional sources including the state, federal, and private sectors, as well as identify alternative revenue streams. New strategies will focus on ways to enhance and manage funding for core operations, instructional innovations, infrastructure, and capital projects.
• The workgroup will also develop recommendations for an effective advocacy campaign to enlist the University’s supporters in these efforts.
5. Research Strategies
• The workgroup will consider and develop recommendations for new models for various aspects of the research enterprise, including graduate student support, support services, research funding, indirect cost recovery, collaborations, policies and administration. New models for collaborative research within campuses and across campuses, with industry partners, and the development of hybrid models will be explored.
• Best practices in developing and delivering research experiences to undergraduate, graduate, post-doctoral fellows, and professional students will also be identified.
These matters have been studied for many years. The Commission and workgroups will rely on previous and ongoing studies by the Office of the President, Academic Senate, campuses, and faculty researchers in their deliberations. Implementation of recommendations will be subject to traditional review by the Academic Senate in the areas for which it has delegated authority. For recommendations in all other areas, the Academic Senate will have full opportunity for consultation and review.