The colleges at UCSC have been instrumental in providing the learning communities, social affiliations, and supportive environment that characterize the Santa Cruz undergraduate experience. The colleges were originally founded as an ambitious experiment to blend undergraduate student life with academics on a small scale within a large research university. The organization and functioning of the colleges have evolved as the campus has grown and the priorities of the faculty have changed. Today they remain effective units for organizing services to undergraduate students, including residential life, co-curricular activities, and student academic affairs. However their profile as academic units has declined as the college curricula have been reduced and faculty affiliation with colleges has become of less significance.
In July 2000, Campus Provost Simpson convened an advisory group to examine the present state of the UCSC colleges and to make recommendations to guide their future development as the campus grows to 15,000 students.[1] This period of growth presents a challenge to preserve the most effective features of the undergraduate collegiate system while offering new opportunities to use the colleges to support and enhance undergraduate education at UCSC.
The group discussed a wide range of relevant issues, from the future of their leadership and academic missions to long-term planning for building campus housing. The discussions raised fundamental questions about the organization and status of the colleges as campus units, assessed the motivation for and effectiveness of the current colleges, and considered a variety of models for future development.
The context for the discussion was influenced by several factors. Some of these issues grew out of extensive campus consultation by the Millennium Committee. The opening of the Ninth College was also an important influence on the discussion. As the first new college in more than 25 years, consultation on its academic and administrative plan was developed in a campus context very different from the one in which the first eight colleges were created.[2]
Finally many issues arose from the operational challenges which have emerged as the current colleges have been forced to grow well beyond their originally envisioned scale. Since the 1986 LRDP envisioned the campus as growing in college units of approximately 1000 students per college, the growth in campus enrollment has pushed all of the existing eight colleges well beyond 1000 affiliated students, with two colleges already surpassing 1500 students. This growth has occurred without systematic attention to its consequences for college staff and facilities. As we move toward a campus serving 15,000 students, two questions must be answered almost immediately:
Though the details of collegiate organization and function have changed dramatically over the life of the campus, the mission of the colleges has remained fairly stable:
The advisory group reached two general conclusions:
We present below several recommendations growing out of our discussions. In many cases, our discussions resulted in consensus on particular commitments and planning tasks. In those cases we have recommended that the campus should take those issues as resolved for the foreseeable future so that the necessary planning can proceed efficiently. In other cases, our discussions have opened questions for which we could envision more than one possible answer. In those cases we have stated the issues, described possible outcomes, and recommend that action be taken to engage relevant campus groups in further discussion which would resolve them.
In putting forth these proposals we hope to accomplish several things. First, we seek to educate the campus community about the vital functions currently performed by the colleges so that these recommendations can receive an informed response. We then want to focus immediate action on the issues that we believe are most important in the current planning context. Finally we hope to acquaint the faculty with the potential that the colleges offer for enriching and improving the undergraduate student experience at UCSC. We also encourage the college provosts to initiate consultation on projects in cooperation with faculty and divisional leadership that will benefit both college and departmental programs.
In many respects, the UCSC colleges are microcosms of the campus. Their operations range from maintaining facilities to offering courses and supervising academic programs; from organizing social events to enforcing codes of conduct and academic integrity; from orienting first year students to supporting the research and creative projects of seniors; from organizing learning groups for basic science courses to facilitating community service projects. The UCSC Senate Bylaws and Regulations give Colleges the opportunity to require courses and recommend the conferral of degrees. In some areas, the colleges are the responsible campus unit; in others, they serve as the conduit from centralized campus units to undergraduate students. In addition, the colleges are part of the architectural reality of the campus. They create a sense of place and scale which is vital to the community building mission of the college for undergraduate students, but which influences the life of graduate students, faculty and staff as well. Most undergraduate students identify themselves first as a member of a college, and then, as majoring in some discipline. This college-centered identity persists throughout their lives as alumni/ae.
As a result, questions about "the colleges" are only somewhat less complex than questions about the campus as a whole. We therefore preface our recommendations with an outline of the structure and function of the colleges as they currently exist.
Functionally, the UCSC colleges can be viewed from two different perspectives. From one perspective, they are the units through which the campus organizes and delivers many basic services to its undergraduate students. But they are also academic units of the campus with which undergraduate students must be affiliated. In the former mode, they are essentially student affairs units, with staff supervised and largely supported by student affairs budgets. In the latter mode, they are units of the campus faculty, led by a faculty administrator (the college provost) and receive state funds. Gifts and endowment income are also important sources of income for all college functions.
Both aspects of the colleges are important to their goal of building human-scale living-learning communities that bring academic and co-curricular activities together. Colleges are communities that are concerned with the totality of a student's undergraduate experience. The following diagram illustrates the organization of the colleges from each perspective.
The combination of architectural scale, student affairs organization, and academic engagement is the hallmark of the UCSC colleges. The advantages of this general approach to creating vibrant student communities are clear. Many institutions of higher education attempt to create similar collegiate structures for at least some of their students and envy the UCSC collegiate heritage.
Universities must provide certain services for their students. They provide housing for some students and oversee the residential communities. They provide support to student groups and sponsor student activities of many kinds. They must also manage general academic processes for students: orientation, enrollment, advising on general education and major declaration, approval of leaves and readmission, and enforcement of academic standards. At UCSC, the colleges are responsible for these basic functions, with staff who specialize in each area.
Each college manages a number of residential buildings. The College Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Assistant CAO for Residential Life are responsible for recruiting, training and supervising the residential life staff. The residential staff work with the residential students on community development and education. They assist the proctors in monitoring safety and security in the college. Each college has a maintenance supervisor and staff responsible for maintaining the college facilities. The staff and programming budgets for this area of the college are self-supporting from student housing fees. In this area, the college serves its affiliated students who are in residence. The CAO is responsible for supervision in this area.
The college judicial officer handles all disciplinary and judicial actions stemming from violations of the student code of conduct (other than those directly related to academic integrity) for individual students affiliated with the college.[3] The CAO is the responsible supervisor in this area; the college judicial officer is generally either the CAO or the Assistant CAO for Residential Life.
Student activities associated with the college are organized by College Program Coordinators. These coordinators work with students to plan activities for students affiliated with the college (both residential and non-residential students). They work with any other (intercollegiate) student groups to facilitate activities which are held within the college venues which they manage (e.g. dining hall performance spaces, student lounges, plaza areas). They play a major role with campus coordinators in planning and implementing summer and fall orientations, outreach and alumni events, and graduations. They work closely with collegiate student governments. While the activities officers focus on students affiliated with the college, they serve all campus student groups. The staff and programming budgets for this area of the college are funded through allocation of registration and special fees paid by the undergraduate students and allocated with the advice or control of the Student Fee Advisory Committee and the college student senates. The CAO is the responsible supervisor in this area.
The colleges and academic departments have complementary roles in supervising the academic affairs of undergraduate students. The faculty and staff of academic departments govern all matters involving the approval and certification of major requirements and provide advisors and mentors who guide prospective and declared majors.
The college academic affairs offices coordinate student registration and enrollment. The college Academic Preceptors and staff advisors provide initial orientations on degree requirements and academic policies for all entering students. They do general advising and assist undeclared students in choosing a departmental affiliation.
In addition, the college academic preceptors work with the college provosts and academic standing review committees to monitor academic standing and to determine bars of enrollment and disqualification of students who are on academic probation or are otherwise not making acceptable progress toward their degrees. The colleges also give final approval to leaves of absence and readmission applications.
The college academic preceptors and advisors work with the registrar and departmental advising groups to coordinate implementation of academic policies and work with the campus orientation office to plan summer and fall orientations.
The academic affairs staff and operating budgets are supported by state funds. The College Provost is the responsible supervisor in this area.
Two of the goals of the colleges are to affiliate undergraduate students with the campus through small-scale communities and to enrich their social and intellectual life with co-curricular activities. We view the essence of the UCSC collegiate model to be the decision to provide these services to relatively small groups of students through a college team which has staff who represent each of these areas. This "team approach" has two chief advantages.
First because they can concentrate on just a subpart of undergraduate population, the college staff can develop a richer relation with their students. As a result, they can develop a more holistic view of the student, that views academic and non-academic issues as related when doing general advising. In addition, the on-going affiliation of non-residential students with their college allows staff to develop a longitudinal view of the student's progress, which is valuable in making wise decisions in academic standing and judicial affairs.
While the residential life, activities, and academic affairs staff each have their own functions and connections with their counterparts across the campus, the collegiate organization allows college programming and planning to draw on differing expertise and perspectives. The addition of the College Administrative Officer (CAO) and the faculty Provost to the team insures that in the planning and implementation of programs the academic and non-academic aspects of a living-learning community are brought together.
The majority of the current UCSC faculty joined the campus after the 1979 reorganization that eliminated the strong connection between the colleges and the appointment of faculty. Before that reorganization, all UCSC faculty appointments were split between a college and a disciplinary program. A college affiliation of faculty hired since that time has been less formalized. To many recently hired faculty, especially those in the Natural Sciences and Engineering, college affiliation has been unclear or even undesired.
Under the original conception, still defined in the UCSC academic senate regulations, the college faculties[4] constitute committees of the academic senate that have the responsibility for overseeing the college curriculum and requirements. Led jointly by a faculty chair and the college provost, the college faculties are officially responsible for providing advisors for the students, making decisions on academic standing, disqualification and readmission, and approval of other petitions. While most of the latter functions have been devolved to the provost and the academic preceptors in the colleges, the college faculty remains the group which determines the academic profile of the college. That academic profile consists of the articulation of general themes which are realized in the college core course and the nature of the college requirements. These themes also inform the planning of some co-curricular activities in the college.
While the student affairs functions of the college have remained effective and well-defined as the campus has developed, attention to the colleges as academic units has steadily declined. Some colleges offer enrichment courses, generally 2-3 unit courses, and provide opportunities for faculty to teach experimental courses outside their departmental curricula. However in the current situation the college curriculum has been largely reduced to a single college course, the college core course, administered by the college provost. These core courses are required of all entering students as a college requirement (waived for transfer students). The college requirements have likewise been reduced to a minimum; generally they consist only of the core course, which also satisfies a general education requirement.
While we do not believe that the current profile of the colleges as academic units is unsound, we think that their potential as a channel for experimentation and improvement of undergraduate education, particularly general education, is not well exploited by the faculty. We do not think that it is feasible or advisable for participation in college faculties to add onerously to faculty workload. We do encourage closer participation of the ladder faculty in developing the academic programs of the colleges.
As noted above, the college core courses are the most salient aspect of the colleges as academic units to both students and faculty. The current college core courses were designed in the early 1980s to provide a uniform approach that meshed well with the then newly revised general education requirements.
The general goals of the college core courses are:
These goals are common to first-year experience programs at many universities. They can be pursued in various ways, but collectively they convey expectations of university-level discourse and contribute to the task of building a community with a clear academic flavor.
The current college courses achieve the first two goals effectively. They have given students a small course in their first quarter one in which the instructor came to know them well and where they could interact with classmates extensively and get individualized feedback on their writing. The syllabuses of the core courses open questions and topics from an interdisciplinary perspective that are engaged further in many parts of the campus curriculum. The faculty who teach in the courses have experience with the challenges of teaching first term students and assist the college in monitoring the progress of the students through their adjustment to college life.
However participation in these courses by ladder faculty has steadily declined to the point where the sections of these courses are taught largely by unit 18 lecturers, some of whom teach in other campus programs, but many of whom are hired only for the core courses. The decline in participation by permanent faculty in the core courses follows naturally from several causes. As the campus has become increasingly sensitive to the student workload earned by departmental faculty, it has created a disincentive to teach a small course outside of one's department-and often outside of one's expertise. The reduction several years ago of the teaching load for many faculty from five courses to four courses per year likewise had a serious impact on the ability of faculty to teach in college courses. The elimination of the 1-3 unit requirement has further reduced the willingness of faculty to offer courses through the colleges.
The college core courses, regardless of their particular themes, are currently envisioned as a species of writing course. Many ladder faculty have been reluctant to enter into the challenges inherent in teaching first quarter students and assisting the improvement of their writing.
Students who have not satisfied the UC Subject A requirement in writing have been assigned to certain sections of the current courses which, while following the same syllabus as other sections, are generally taught by Writing Program faculty and are provided with additional tutorial assistance. The core course framework has enabled the campus to deal efficiently with the rising population of students who have not satisfied the subject A requirement on entrance.
The college core courses satisfy a Topical (T) requirement in the current general education requirement system. For the majority of students, who have satisfied subject A, sections of the core course have also satisfied their general education "W" requirement. Some of the courses also satisfy the E requirement. This requirement, which was introduced with the 1986 general education program that is still in effect, was originally intended to provide students with the opportunity to improve their writing after they had satisfied the composition ("C") requirement by taking Writing 1 - Composition and Rhetoric. Effective Fall 2001, CEP has ruled that the satisfaction of the C requirement should be a prerequisite to all courses which carry W credit. As a result, the W designation has been removed from the college core courses.
Some faculty have expressed concerns about the character and timing of the required college core courses. CEP intends to conduct another of its periodic reviews of these courses as soon as their agenda permits. The occasion of this review will provide an opportunity for reshaping these courses. In addition, the effects of the growth in the first year cohorts has put a strain on the colleges' ability to mount all of the sections of these courses in the fall quarter because of limitations on classroom space, lecture hall size and scheduling, and the availability of faculty.
The core courses are currently funded by a formula based upon the number of sections offered to accommodate the first year class. Their character as courses that develop students' writing skills insures that this campus, like other UC campuses, requires two writing courses of students in their first year.
These comments describe the current situation of the colleges as student affairs and academic units. The structure and function of their student service components have evolved with the development of the Student Affairs division. As noted above, the effectiveness and efficiency of the colleges in delivering services to undergraduate students is clear and we recommend that steps be taken to sustain them.
The colleges' original mission as academic units has been greatly reduced. However we believe that even in their current forms they fill necessary and desirable functions for the campus. Nonetheless there is clearly potential for improvement and new initiatives if faculty are willing to engage substantive questions about their potential for enriching the academic experience of undergraduate students. As academic units of the campus, they are successful in certain areas but they have potential that we think could be better realized through more collaboration with departmental and divisional programs.
In this we echo the Millennium Committee recommendations (see Appendix A) on the colleges: "We further envision an alliance among the colleges, departments and divisions. They must cooperate, not compete." We think that it is important for the divisions, which control the distribution of academic resources and manage the effort of the faculty, to see the colleges as useful agents as they pursue their own mission in undergraduate education. It is equally important that the colleges view part of their mission to be assisting divisional programs in achieving their goals.
This thinking informed the academic planning for the opening of Colleges 9 and 10. As a result, a new model for those colleges was developed which affiliated those colleges directly with the Social Sciences Division. The provost of the Ninth College was given a reporting relationship to the divisional dean and the dean has assumed a leading role in engaging faculty with the planning and implementation of the college academic program. The academic program for the Ninth College provides one model of collaboration between collegiate and divisional efforts. We do not assume that the existing colleges should move toward the same model. As the Ninth College develops, the other colleges should look for other ways of increasing faculty participation and collaborating with departmental and divisional programs.
The planning for the Ninth and Tenth Colleges raises another question for the operation of the current colleges. The intention has been stated to develop the two colleges in close collaboration, potentially with one CAO and one Provost administering both colleges. While the testing of the consequences of this model in reality is some years away, we note that the UCSD colleges have been developed to be roughly twice the size of the UCSC colleges. Therefore the question of whether there might be an advantage in considering tightening the connection between the existing colleges, some of which are paired architecturally, at the level of administration and academic programming can be investigated in light of the experience of fully functioning colleges.
Our discussions have revealed that the colleges have strengths that should be preserved during the anticipated growth of the campus as well as areas in which improvement or new initiative is needed. We do not see our recommendations as an attempt to return to an earlier vision of the colleges. Rather we have attempted to suggest a new space of possibilities and to give advice about ways of exploring and realizing some of them.
We turn now to detailing the recommendations that emerged from our consultations.
The existing colleges serve the campus remarkably well in delivering services to undergraduate students using the team approach. The advisory group recommends that the campus maintain its commitment to collegiate organization by planning for enough additional colleges on this general model to accommodate anticipated growth. Current college staffs should be reinforced to allow them to serve affiliated populations of approximately 1500 students. The following specific action items realize this general recommendation:
1. Explain the college system to the campus and reaffirm the commitment to organize undergraduate student life in collegiate units. [Chancellor, Campus Provost, VC Student Affairs, VP/DUE, Provosts and CAOs]
The advisory group believes that relatively few current faculty and staff have a clear understanding of the mission and organization of the colleges. This report creates an opportunity to educate the campus on these points so that future discussions can be based upon sound understanding.
2. Based upon analysis of anticipated enrollments, set enrollment targets for the Ninth and Tenth Colleges that will allow the current colleges to limit enrollment to 1500 students. [Housing and Admissions in consultation with College Provosts and CAOs)]
Previous campus planning documents have said that the unit of campus growth should be colleges of about 1000 affiliated students. Over the last ten years the colleges have had to grow well beyond 1000, with serious impacts on staff workload and college facilities. Two of the current colleges are already at 1500. Despite the attractiveness of the smaller size, it is not realistic given the anticipated growth to plan to return to smaller colleges.
Our current experience shows that college teams and facilities are already over-extended with 1500 students. We therefore propose that 1500 students be taken as a limit on the affiliation population. Total college size will be determined by the size of entering cohorts of first year and transfer students and will be affected by the capacity of the housing stock in existing colleges.
3. Based upon analysis of anticipated enrollments, determine how many additional undergraduate colleges must be built on the northwest campus site currently designated for Colleges Eleven and Twelve. [Joint Student Affairs/Academic planning committee, Planning and Budget]
An advantage of taking a larger target for the affiliate population of a college is that fewer colleges, in terms of architectural units and college staff teams, will be needed. Under the old plan of 1000 student colleges, 15,000 undergraduates would require 15 colleges. We believe that having that many distinct colleges would likely create problems for coordination and intercollegiate planning. Taking 1500 as a limit suggests that at most one or two additional colleges may need to be planned beyond the currently anticipated Tenth College.
This recommendation and the next one raise the issue of how best to affiliate transfer students to colleges. Transfer students are both new students (and hence holders of a housing guarantee) and upper-division students. College residential communities are enriched when they have a mix of lower- and upper-division students. There is an important question to be considered in this area: should transfer students be affiliated with all of the colleges or should certain colleges be designated to concentrate on serving only transfer students? Since transfer students have different needs from first year students, they may be better served by college programs that focus on them, such as the current transfer initiative at Kresge College. However to the extent that transfer students are concentrated residentially at one or two colleges, the residential population of other colleges will continue to be predominantly first year students. There are clear trade-offs in how transfer students are affiliated and served by their colleges. This report does not make a clear recommendation in either direction. This issue should be resolved before planning proceeds for new colleges.
4. Develop guidelines for assigning entering students to colleges so that current colleges can limited to 1500 students and the size of their entering cohorts capped at a manageable size for college facilities. [Housing and admissions in consultation with Provosts and CAOs]
During the current shortage of campus housing most entering students have received only a one-year housing guarantee and housing has been assigned with priority to entering students. As a result, continuing students are denied campus housing and the colleges that have the largest current housing stock are being assigned larger first year cohorts. We believe that this situation will prove detrimental to first to second year retention. In addition, the rising percentage of first year students in college residential communities is problematic. The college assignments for 2001-2002 should allow Porter and Crown Colleges to limit their entering cohort size so that they will not continue to grow beyond 1500 students.
We need to consider carefully what the consequences might be if the buildings at Colleges 11 & 12 housed upper-division students (and perhaps graduate students) only. We strongly recommend against this scenario, but that the new colleges house both lower and upper-division students. We further recommend that expansion of in-fill apartment housing in the other colleges proceed to provide more housing for upper-division students. Our goal is to establish 12 colleges each providing housing for entering students as well as for continuing students desiring to remain on campus. This arrangement provides a community where students of all levels can live and learn together.
5. Review college staff positions and budgets to insure that they reflect the required FTE and support funds to serve affiliate populations of 1500 students. [Provosts and CAOs make proposals to Student Affairs and VP/DUE.]
The growth of the current colleges beyond 1000 students occurred without a corresponding provision for additional staff or review of staff responsibilities. The college administrations should provide central administration with a review of their current staffing levels and an estimate of what changes will be required for the college to accommodate increased populations. The administration should provide sufficient additional resources or other accommodation of responsibilities so that the workload of the college staff is sustainable.
6. College academic affairs staff should continue to provide advising for undeclared students and monitor the academic standing of all affiliated students. Their role as offices of record for students should be reviewed as part of the implementation of a new Academic Information System. [VP/DUE, Coordinator of Academic Advising, College Provosts and Academic Preceptors.]
Following a survey of models for general academic process at other UC campuses, the advisory group concluded that the colleges should continue their current role in advising and monitoring progress toward degree. All UC campuses perform these functions in units that are larger than academic departments. Irvine's experience shows that assigning these functions entirely to academic divisions does not serve undeclared or unaffiliated students well enough to avoid providing separately for those students. Campuses like UCLA, which have central "Arts and Sciences" advising offices, are experimenting with opening satellite advising offices near student residences. The current UCSC model provides for intercollegiate coordination of academic process and local attention from advisors.
7. While taking the model of one CAO and one college provost per 1500-student college as the desirable default, thoroughly investigate the consequences of suggestions that CAOs or College Provosts might supervise more than one college team in some cases. [VC Student Affairs, VP/DUE, College Provosts and CAOs]
Several considerations have led to the suggestion that the campus should consider administrative models in which either the CAO or the college provost has responsibility for more than one college. This has been suggested for the development stages of the Ninth and Tenth colleges. Discussion in the advisory group led to a comparison of UCSC colleges with those at UCSD, which are of comparable age but are essentially twice the size. Two additional concerns raise this question. As the number of colleges and the size of college teams increases with the rise in student enrollment, the effort devoted to coordination among the colleges and consensus building among the leaders increases. Consideration of this possibility should thoroughly address its consequences and we should not presume that a single model should be applied to all of the colleges.
It has been suggested that consolidation of CAO or college provost positions might lead to economies of scale. On the other hand, the creation of new or upgraded positions could absorb any putative savings. Further examination of the UCSD colleges could be instructive in this regard. Informal comparison between those colleges and pairs of UCSC colleges suggests that there is no staff economy inherent in the larger scale.
Perhaps a structure could be developed whereby pairs (or more) of colleges may function synergistically, perhaps in closer association with an academic division, that would allow individual colleges to retain an identity. This might make it easier to attract a critical mass of faculty to develop academic programs that would reach a correspondingly larger population of undergraduate students. For example, alliances of colleges might work to develop a recommended curriculum of general education that they would determine would be most appropriate for their students.[5] College faculty would not be responsible for teaching these courses, but rather, in determining (in consultation and with agreement of CEP) the requirements for their affiliated students.
The CAO and the college provost both play very salient roles in the college team. Any consolidation of colleges may seriously alter their effectiveness. Given that this issue has been raised, serious thought should be given to what those effects could be.
Any review and revision of the academic programs of the colleges will require leadership from the college provosts and the attention of the college faculties. In the past, affiliation relations have altered or lapsed when faculty office assignments have changed. New faculty have not always been affiliated systematically with colleges. We think that it is important that faculty have an opportunity to contribute to a college. We also believe that it is in the best interest of the colleges and the divisions that college faculties cut across divisional lines. Consequently the membership in the college faculties may need clarification and expansion.
We are mindful that given recent and on-going senate debates about academic policy, the faculty might not be eager to take up these questions immediately. However there are some steps to be taken now to allow these discussions to occur in the future in a context which allows for new initiatives.
8. Clarify the college affiliations of faculty. Convene college faculties to gauge interest in reviewing current college requirements and course offerings. [Campus Provost, VP/DUE, Divisional Deans, and College Provosts]
The administration and college provosts should update the roster of college affiliations and strive to include a mix of faculty from different departments and divisions in each college. The activities of faculty within the college should be acknowledged in the formal personnel process. Service to the college should be considered as important as service to the department, division or to the Academic Senate. Faculty should be encouraged to teach in college programs if they so desire and departments encouraging this behavior should continue to receive the associated student workload credit.[6] It is not possible for this goal to be achieved solely through good will and the effort of college provosts. . The divisional deans have a central role and the Campus Provost and the Senate's Committee on Academic Personnel must work together to formulate policies to recognize faculty participation both as service and in teaching in the colleges.
9. The Committee on Educational Policy should review current core courses. [CEP, College Provosts]
CEP has reviewed the college courses in the past and has expressed the intention to do so again. We encourage CEP to take up this review as soon as possible consistent with the other calls on their attention.
VPDUE Goff and VPAA Brown are currently working on a set of program review guidelines for the Colleges. These guidelines will specify the mechanism by which all college academic programs will be reviewed in the future. In addition, part of these guidelines will set up a procedure by which the campus general education requirements are regularly assessed. These assessment procedures will involve both the UCSC Senate CEP and the administration.
10. Develop alternative models for serving students who have not passed the Subject A requirement at admission. [Campus Provost, VP/DUE, Humanities Dean, Writing Program Chair]
The advisory group discussed several attractive models for core courses in addition to the current model. However we note that the current model has provided a very cost-effective way to address satisfaction of the university's Subject A requirement. Before any of the current core courses can be modified, an alternative means of addressing Subject A must be developed and funded.
The campus will expand the role of summer session as early as the summer of 2002. This will provide an opportunity to offer other courses that will address Subject A for students who have not satisfied the requirement on admission. The UC Council of Undergraduate Deans will soon make recommendations that should enable more students to remedy subject A deficiency before or at enrollment in UC.
11. Allow the current formula funding for college core courses to be used by Provosts for alternative models developed with college faculties. [Campus Provost, VP/DUE, Divisional Deans, College Provosts.]
Currently the college core courses are funded by a formula driven by the size of the first year cohort. The funding is presently tied directly to the current model of the core courses. We believe that detaching this funding from the current model of the core courses would enable college provosts to be more effective in engaging divisional programs and college faculty in participating in college courses.
Over the last 20 years, the core courses have evolved into a single model. We would like to see faculty of each college examine their core course and determine if it should continue in its current form. In addition, we would encourage the college faculty to consider developing alternative models if they determine they might be more appropriate for their undergraduates. Several models of first-year interest courses have been developed at such institutions as Brown, Stanford and UC Berkeley. What all of these courses have in common is that they provide small classes for first year students which connect students with permanent faculty members who are actively engaged in scholarship. Some of the programs have organized around living units (residential halls, etc) and many provide continued faculty mentoring (advising) for these students. The colleges can provide a way for faculty to deliver such courses to students as a means of building their living-learning communities.
Whatever courses are determined by the faculty to be most appropriate for a specific college could be funded by the allocations currently devoted to the college core courses. Such courses should also be subject to formal review along with other courses offered through colleges. The approval process should involve both the VP/DUE and any relevant divisional deans as well as CEP.
12. Clarify expectations of the role of faculty in mentoring undeclared and pre-major students. [Campus Provost, Divisional Deans, VP/DUE, CAP]
UCSC is not unique in having seen a steady decline of faculty participation in mentoring and guiding undergraduates in developing a general academic plan and selecting a major course of study.[7] Lower division students are assisted toward departmental affiliation by staff advisors at all of the UC campuses. The college advisors have provided effective guidance for lower division students, though the growth in enrollment needs to be met by growth in staff in this area. However we believe that there is an important role that faculty can play in helping students clarify their goals and become aware of their options even before they affiliate as department majors. The campus has recently created a position to support coordination of undergraduate advising. This review of the functioning of the colleges offers an opportunity to reopen the question of how faculty may participate in early mentoring of students effectively, i.e. in ways which are of clear benefit to the students and campus programs but which do not waste faculty time and attention.
The importance of providing a means of connecting students with regular faculty engaged in scholarship, research and creative activities cannot be over-emphasized. National retention data has shown that one of the most important factors that affect a student's choice in remaining at a campus after their first year is whether the student "connected" during the first year with the regular faculty. These connections may be made in the classroom, via mentoring programs, or most effectively, in programs that combine the two.
13. Re-examine the job description and procedure for evaluation of college provosts in light of current administrative arrangements and anticipated changes in college programs. [Campus Provost, VP/DUE, College Provosts]
The current description of college provost responsibilities should be reviewed in light of changes that have been made in administrative structure and the campus context. Responsibilities and duties of college provosts have expanded in some areas and contracted in others. It is in the best interest of the campus that these positions be seen as attractive to senior faculty who have an interest in their potential for leadership in undergraduate academic affairs.
We also recommend that college provosts should work with the campus development program to help fund-raise for the colleges. Colleges need to increase their endowment funds and other gift funds to provide opportunity to develop enriched curricula and co-curricular activities for their students. We strongly recommend that college provosts be trained by staff in the development office and receive appropriate staff support[8] (similar to that of our Divisional Deans) to facilitate their role in obtaining extramural support for their college programs.
Lastly we recommend that the issue of the percentage appointment and stipend for college provosts be examined in light of the current and anticipated responsibilities and expectations.
In our wide-ranging discussions, the advisory group reached some other conclusions that go beyond the areas discussed above.
14. We endorse the creation of some sort of graduate college to support community among graduate students. [Graduate Dean, Graduate Council, Housing and staff of the Graduate Commons]
While most of the above recommendations have been consonant with those of the Millennium Committee, we think that the graduate students will be better served by creating a functional college to support their community rather than working to affiliate them with the undergraduate colleges. We concluded from our discussion with the representatives of the Graduate Council that the issues raised in their recent surveys of graduate student needs would be best served by creating a collaboration among the academic staff of the Graduate Division, the staff of the new Graduate Commons and the staff of the current graduate housing which provided some of the functionality of the college teams of the undergraduate colleges. The Graduate College need not be architecturally realized in the mold of the undergraduate colleges. The pressing need for more affordable housing for graduate students and the different needs of these students might best be addressed separately.
15. Space for academic administration and classrooms should be provided in new colleges but future faculty offices and research space should not be incorporated into them.
The dispersal of faculty offices and research space in the colleges has proven problematic for both divisional planning and the operation of current colleges. As the architectural program for the site designated for Colleges 11 and 12 is planned, development of new capacity space for faculty offices and research space should be uncoupled from planning the residential facilities for new colleges. However some academic administrative space and classrooms should be incorporated into them. This will enable Housing to proceed more rapidly with developing critically needed bed space and allow the divisions to develop new capacity space independently. However, we need to consider soon what academic programs will eventually be associated with these colleges to plan for the footprint of academic facilities near the site.
16. Existing Colleges should collaborate with Divisions but not be subsumed by them. Residential communities should not become divisionally homogeneous.
Though our recommendations encourage college provosts and divisional deans to be proactive in developing collaborative programs, the advisory group is opposed to subsuming the existing colleges under academic divisions. Although we strongly endorse the need for colleges and divisions to be more collaborative and synergistic, we believe that the college residential communities should contain a mix of students from all divisions. We believe that in the long run stronger and more creative college academic programs will result from a collaborative model rather than complete alignment with divisions.
17. The issue of the long-term financing of the maintenance of college houses should be resolved.
While the college houses were originally built with gift funds, no provision was made for their continuing support. Currently campus housing bears the entire burden of maintaining them. There is a proposal on the table to share the burden that acknowledges the needs of the colleges, the concerns of Housing, and the role of the residence in the duties and perquisites for college provosts. We recommend that the plan be approved and implemented.
18. Consider expanding length of first-year orientation and enhancing its academic character.
Because the current college core courses are all offered in the fall term, they are able to play a role in orienting students to the campus. If the colleges change the character or timing of their course offerings, the campus should consider expanding its fall orientation for first year or all entering students to provide an opportunity for more cohort building among the incoming students. We need to examine best practices from other campuses to determine how best to enhance academic and social communities in the absence of a traditional core course.
19. Searches for future college provosts should be conducted in light of these recommendations.
Because we will need to conduct searches for new provosts at several colleges this year, there is both an opportunity and a need for new college leadership to be selected who have expectations based upon resolution of the issues raised in these recommendations. Therefore discussion of the issues bearing on the role of the colleges as academic units should proceed immediately.
[1] The advisory group was chaired by VP/DUE Lynda Goff and included as members Prof. George Brown, Provost William A. Ladusaw, Vice-Chancellor Francisco Hernandez, Assoc. Vice-Chancellor Jean Marie Scott, College Administrative Officer Alma Sifuentes, Alumnus Dr. Loren Steck, Coordinator Ernie Hudson, Assistant Provost Beau Willis, and Special Assistant Galen Jarvinen. The committee consulted intensively over 10 days in July 2000. In advance of their deliberations, they studied an extensive documentation of the history and current operation of the colleges. During this period, they consulted at various points with Provost Thomas Bond of UCSD's Revelle College, members of the Graduate Council and the recently completed taskforce on graduate student affairs and a graduate college, college provosts and divisional deans.
[2] Cf. the Millennium Committee report, the report on the planning of Colleges 9 and 10, etc.
[3] The Director of Campus Judicial Affairs manages cases involving groups of students from more than one college.
[4] Cf. Chapter 12 of the By-Laws of the Santa Cruz Division of the Academic Senate.
[5] Each of the soon-to-be six colleges at UCSD (each of about 3400 students) determine what general education requirements will be met by students of that college. Accordingly, students choose their college by what is the best fit for them with respect to general education. UC Merced has decided to organize its undergraduate programs into residential living/learning environments and will give each college the opportunity to set its own general education requirements.
[6] Currently departments of faculty members who teach in college core courses do receive the workload credit for their students.
[7] 40% of our entering class of students listed their major interest as "undecided". In addition, over 20% of the students who enter expressing interest in a particular major, change their plans during their first two years. Thus, our institution, like most other institutions throughout the country must help nearly 60% of our incoming students determine their area of study. Faculty should be involved in this process as mentors. They need not be asked to provide specific course recommendations to students but we should provide the resources needed to expand our staff advising services in this area.
[8] The provosts recently pooled funds to support a development officer to help in fund-raising for the colleges. However, funds available only provide for 1/3 of the staff FTE.
UCSC will be committed to maintaining and strengthening the integrated learning communities provided by the colleges.
The Colleges are an integral part of the physical plant and educational experience at UCSC. Across the U.S., many universities are instituting college systems similar to the one that we already have in place. Indeed, Princeton University -- more than 250 years old -- only implemented residential colleges similar to those at UCSC in the 1980s (Rhodes 1998). The colleges have been very successful at providing a small community within a larger one, leading students from high school to the university, developing their basic skills, and maintaining diversity. Some colleges, such as Cowell and Porter (which have special endowments for the purpose), have managed to retain their tradition of faculty involvement, but others have not.
We envision a UCSC in which the colleges are strengthened and in which the provosts function as Associate Deans. We further envision an alliance among the colleges, departments and divisions. They must cooperate, not compete. A sensible association of faculty with colleges, in which powerful incentives are provided for faculty to bring departmental teaching into the colleges, will give the faculty a reason to be active in the intellectual life of the colleges. We need to create an intellectual community powerful enough to transcend the physical fragmentation of faculty office space.
The Next Steps: To Do Very Soon
For the Provosts, Divisional Deans, Departments and the Committee on Academic Personnel:
Determine a means to associate faculty with colleges in a manner that emphasizes interdisciplinary connections.
Ensure that faculty instruction in the colleges is not an overload by coordinating teaching between departments and colleges and providing appropriate teaching credit to departments when faculty teach courses in the colleges.
Once the preceding are completed, develop means so that clusters of faculty, in cooperation with their departments and under the leadership of the provost, will offer an intellectually rigorous entry course that stresses critical thinking and regular and meaningful interaction with the faculty. In some cases, for example those primarily taught by faculty in the humanities and social sciences, such courses might be analogous to the current core courses. In other cases, for example those involving faculty in the natural sciences, new kinds of courses -- stressing quantitative thinking and the scientific method -- may be needed. In all cases, entry-level students (first-year and transfer) must be exposed to the excitement and fascination of investigation at the cutting edge of a discipline or a cluster of disciplines. This, after all, is one of the attractions of undergraduate education at a research university.
Provide incentive through the academic personnel process to encourage and reward faculty interactions in the colleges.
For the Provosts:
Involve graduate students in college life by creating Junior Fellowships in the colleges.
Ensure that each college has a common room in which faculty and graduate students can meet.
The Next Steps: To Do after Additional Analysis
For the Executive Vice Chancellor:
Ensure that the college Provosts have the resources to allow them to fulfill their primary responsibility, which is the intellectual, cultural, and academic leadership of the colleges.
For the Provosts:
Consider establishing long-term ties to specific business and industrial organizations that would be partners or sponsors of the college. This should be a two-way activity, with college students and faculty involved in the outside organizations and the reverse. Similarly, consider establishing long-term ties with one or more K-12 schools in the region, so that college students become involved in the educational life of the schools.
For University Advancement:
Increase the endowments of all colleges by appeals to alumni, parents of alumni and other sources to enable the Provost to provide effective leadership.
Report of the Advisory Group on the UCSC Colleges, 11/20/00
http://www.ucsc.edu/planbudg/vpdue/colleges/CollegeRpt.htm
This report also available in a printer-ready 
PDF
version.