Committee on Educational Policy Friday, November 6, 2015...
Transcript of Committee on Educational Policy Friday, November 6, 2015...
Committee on Educational Policy
Friday, November 6, 2015
10:10 am – 12:10 pm
220 University Office Building
AGENDA
Action Item Enclosures
Information
10:10 – 10:15 am
I. Chair Announcements
Action
10:15
II. Approval of the minutes from the October 2, 2015 meeting 1 (pp. 2-4)
Information/
Action
10:15 – 10:30
III. Undergraduate Program Reviews
Review Subcommittee Membership
Approval of Bioengineering Final Findings and
Recommendations Report
Review of Business Administration Follow Up
Compliance Report to Action Implementation Plan
2 (p. 5)
3 (pp. 6-9)
4 (pp. 10-23)
Discussion/
Action
10:30 – 11:00
IV. Review of Change Management Recommendations for Banner
Implementation with Registrar, Bracken Dailey
Chair Wudka tasked the Committee with reviewing the
recommendations from the Change Management
Committee and reporting back with either their vote of
support and/or feedback and concerns about the set of
recommendations.
5 (pp. 24-29)
Discussion/
Action
11:00 – 11:20
V. Review of Proposed Changes to Regulation 6.1 to Formalize
the Writing Across the Curriculum Program
CEP reviewed the pilot WAC program in 2013-2014 and
opined last year that the program should be formalized.
6 (pp. 30-31)
Information VI. New Business
CEP is scheduled to meet next on December 4 from 10:10AM to 12:10PM in Academic Senate Conference Room
220 in the University Office Building.
AGENDA ENCLOSURES:
1. Minutes from October 2, 2015 Meeting
2. Draft 15-16 CEP Review Subcommittee Memo
3a. Bioengineering Response to Preliminary Findings and Recommendations Report
3b. Bioengineering UPR Final Findings and Recommendations Report
4a. Business Administration UPR Action Implementation Plan
4b. Business Administration Compliance Report to Action Implementation Plan
4c. CEP Response to Business Administration Compliance Report to Action Implementation Plan
4d. Business Administration Follow Up Compliance Report to Action Implementation Plan
5a. Change Management Recommendations for Banner Implementation
5b. CEP Comments on Change Management Recommendations from October 2, 2015 Meeting
6. Proposed Change to Regulation 6.1 to Formalize WAC Program
1
Attachment 1
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY
MINUTES
OCTOBER 2, 2015
PRESENT: S. Wimpenny, Chair; K. DeFea, Vice Chair; T. Stahovich, UCEP Rep.; W. Clark;
P. Feng; D. Graninger; T. Paine; G. Palardy; J. Rodenbeck; N. Young
ABSENT: M. Haselhuhn; K. Shtengel (on leave F’15)
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 10:10 AM.
Following introductions, the Committee reviewed the CEP bylaws. The Chair announced that
this academic year the Committee would revisit the issues of priority enrollment and general
education that the Committee discussed last year.
The Committee unanimously voted to approve the minutes from the June 5, 2015 meeting.
The Committee unanimously voted to adopt a Conflict of Interest policy for the 2015-2016
academic year.
The Committee’s representative to the University Committee on Educational Policy (UCEP)
Tom Stahovich, informed the Committee that a big issue to be discussed by UCEP this year is
the initiative for all campuses to develop framework for students to complete the most popular
academic programs in 3 years instead of 4. Representative Stahovich reminded the Committee
that this initiative is a result of the Governor’s instruction for the funds granted to the UC
through the budget process.
The Committee reviewed the final Findings and Recommendations Report for the undergraduate
program review of Anthropology that was conducted last academic year. The Chair noted that
the program was not happy with the external reviewer’s report as they felt that it focused on
issues that the department believed were not as important as others. The CEP subcommittee
assigned to the review worked to draft a final report that was fair but still included the external
review team’s recommendations. The Committee unanimously voted to approve the final report.
The Committee reviewed the final Findings and Recommendations Report for the undergraduate
program review of Philosophy that was conducted last academic year. The Chair noted that this
review was not controversial and the Committee unanimously voted to approve the final report.
The subcommittee Chair for the Bioengineering internal review conducted with ABET last
academic year informed the Committee that the final Findings and Recommendations report for
that review had few recommendations. The Chair opined that once finalized the report will be
forwarded to the Committee for review and approval via email.
The Committee reviewed the recommendations by the Change Management Workgroup for
changes to CRAMS with the new Student Operating System Banner. The Committee was
2
supportive of the recommendations to clarify individual and group activities and to run academic
standing reports after the summer term. The Committee did have concerns with the
recommendation for the 16 unit repeated unit maximum and questioned why a work around was
needed. The Committee recommended that the vendor should be tasked with fixing the software
so that it can continue the existing process for repeat courses. The Committee commented that
the spirit of the original 16 unit maximum was to allow students to repeat up to 4 courses, but the
proposal would now allow for this with courses that are worth more than 5 units. The
Committee also expressed concern for the recommendation to standardize terminology for
concentrations, tracks and emphasis as the Committee commented that this is action could be
confusing for students and could potentially impact their academic career. The Committee was
also concerned with the amount of administrative work that will be required to make the
proposed changes to standardize the terminology such as program changes. The Committee also
had concerns with the all or none pre-requisite checking recommendation and questioned
whether the student affairs officers had been consulted before this recommendation was made.
Lastly, the Committee noted concern with the recommendation for the timing of the add/drop
period and the lapse for non-payment and start of “W” grading for withdrawals. The Committee
commented that extending the add/drop period makes it difficult for students on weight lists to
enroll in classes. CEP also had great concern for students who may get dropped from a course
due to a delay in payment and then will not be able to re-enroll in the course when fees are paid,
which potentially could delay their graduation or create new issues with their financial aid. The
Committee also requested clarification to define what the Tuesday or Wednesday of the 2nd week
is as there was concern that if the drop date is the Tuesday of the 2nd week and classes started the
Thursday, before then students would be dropped from the class by the second meeting. Due to
the large amount of concerns with these recommendations, the Committee requested that the
Registrar be invited to the Committee’s next meeting to discuss the issues and provide
clarification before a response is composed.
The Committee reviewed the proposed changes to Senate Regulations 417 and 621and noted that
the last sentence of SR 417 is ambiguous. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the
propose changes to SR 417 and 621, with a note that consideration be made to clarify the
ambiguous sentence in SR 417.
The Committee reviewed a request from the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education (VPUE)
to consider changing the student evaluation of teaching forms. The Committee noted that this
email request does not clearly document the problem that the VPUE wants to solve with the
revision of the student evaluations and provided little information for recommendations 2
through 4. Specifically the Committee questioned recommendation 2 that calls for fewer
questions on the evaluations and which questions the VPUE is proposing to eliminate. The
Committee unanimously opined that before a recommendation can be presented on this issue
more information is needed to document the problems that will be solved with the revised
teaching evaluations and evidence needs to be provided for the problems. The Committee
specifically would like to see more information for the rationale behind recommendations 2
through 4 to document evidence of the problem and VPUE’s specific recommendations for how
they will address the issues.
3
The Committee reviewed a revised Student Classroom and Course Related Behavior policy to
address comments from Executive Council after their November 2014 review of the document.
After working with the Office of Student Affairs, the Committee had submitted the proposed
policy for review last academic year. The Chair informed the Committee that the proposal was
revised to address Executive Council’s recommendations by former CEP Chair Ken Baerenklau
in consultation with the Office of Student Affairs. The Committee noted an editorial change on
page 3 of the document to clarify the role of Student Affairs Case Managers as clinical social
workers. The Committee noted an ambiguous sentence on page 5 and proposed that it be
modified to state that students found not responsible for disruptive behavior should not be
penalized rather than leaving the general word “students”, which could imply students who were
found responsible should not be penalized as well. Lastly, the Committee noted concern with
another ambiguous sentence on the bottom of page 5 that did not clearly define class and course.
The Committee recommended that this sentence be clarified. The Chair informed the Committee
that he would make the proposed changes discussed in the meeting and sent a revised copy to the
Committee for review and approval via email.
The Chair informed the Committee of a request for the Registrar to have an increased role on
CEP, particularly with the review of proposed changes to undergraduate curriculum. The
Committee unanimously opined that all decisions on proposed changes to undergraduate
curriculum should be first made by CEP and that after the program changes are approved they
can be sent to the Registrar for review. However, the Committee commented that the Registrar
should not be part of the decision process for approving changes to the undergraduate
curriculum. The Committee will continue to invite the Registrar to meetings as a guest when
consultation is needed.
With no other business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 11:50AM.
4
Attachment 2
November 6, 2015
To: Committee on Educational Policy Members
From: Stephen Wimpenny, Chair
Committee on Educational Policy
Re: Undergraduate Program Review Subcommittees – Academic Year 2015-2016
In an effort to standardize the process of Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) Undergraduate Program Reviews
(UPR) with Graduate Program Reviews and to get an early start on the UPR process, I have assigned all Committee
members to a subcommittee for each review to be conducted this academic year. The assignments were made to
ensure that each subcommittee has a diverse representation from across the colleges and schools. If any Committee
member has a strong objection or conflict of interest to serving on their assigned subcommittee please inform me and
Senate Analyst Beth Beatty as soon as possible.
CEP members will be split into the following 4 subcommittees to conduct the undergraduate program reviews that are
scheduled for 2015-2016:
Dance UPR Subcommittee (Review scheduled for: February 4 & 5, 2016)
Economics UPR Subcommittee (Review scheduled for: March 28 & 29, 2016)
Electrical Engineering UPR Subcommittee (Internal Review)
Materials Science & Engineering UPR Subcommittee (Internal Review)
Tom Stahovich, Chair Denver Graninger, Chair Katie DeFea, Chair TBD, Chair
Timothy Paine Pingyun Feng Walter Clark Greg Palardy
Judith Rodenbeck Michael Haselhuhn Stephen Wimpenny, Ex Officio Kirill Shtengel
Stephen Wimpenny, Ex Officio Stephen Wimpenny, Ex Officio Neal Young
Stephen Wimpenny, Ex Officio
The members of each subcommittee are responsible for actively participating in the review of the identified program.
This includes studying the review materials and engaging the external review team in discussions about the program
under review. Participation is required during the two day external review of the programs and drafting the Findings
and Recommendations Report that results from each review. CEP procedures for Undergraduate Program Reviews
can be found at the following webpage: http://senate.ucr.edu/committee/10/UPR%20Procedures%20-%204-17-
15.pdf.
5
Attachment 3a
June 8, 2015
To: Ken Baerenklau, Chair
Committee on Educational Policy
Via: Bir Bhanu, Interim Chair
Department of Bioengineering
From: Dimitrios Morikis, Undergraduate Advisor
Department of Bioengineering
Re: Response to the Recommendations of the “Committee on Educational Policy Preliminary
Findings and Recommendations from the Bioengineering Internal Undergraduate Program
Review”
We thank the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) for sharing with us their preliminary
findings and recommendations report, which resulted from the internal review of the
Bioengineering undergraduate program review with ABET. The Bioengineering faculty met and
discussed the recommendations, and proposes to take the following actions:
1. The ABET Report states that “The university writing unit might explore opportunities to enhance
its support of the engineering programs through better coordination with the technical writing courses that are offered within the Bourns College of Engineering.” CEP requests that the Program meet with the University Writing Program (UWP) to explore possible collaborations.
Currently, technical writing skills are taught during the bioengineering labs BIEN 130L
(Bioinstrumentation Lab) and BIEN 155 (Biotechnology Lab), and implemented through the lab
report assignments. In order to enhance the technical writing skills of our students we propose to
formalize a relation with the University Writing Program (UWP), to establish special technical
sessions during BIEN 130L and BIEN 155, taught by UWP staff. We plan to meet with UWP
leaders to discuss the implementation of this option.
2. The faculty survey suggests that additional faculty are needed to cover the teaching load. Faculty perceive that their teaching load is high, which may contribute to some issues with faculty morale. The need for additional faculty may be exacerbated by the need for additional TA support. CEP recognizes that these resource issues may be beyond the control of the program.
The Department of Bioengineering is in the process of hiring a senior faculty member at the rank
of Professor who will serve as the Department Chair. In addition, another senior faculty
appointment is in process at the rank of Professor, for the Director of the Campus f-MRI
(Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) Facility. If these appointments go through, we expect
to achieve a better teaching distribution among the faculty and this will contribute towards
increasing faculty morale. However, the problem of high teaching load may not be fully solved,
until more faculty appointments are made.
6
Hiring of a Lecturer in 2015 has helped with teaching. This is not a permanent position, but is
expected to be renewable on a yearly basis.
The need of additional TA support is an ongoing problem, but beyond the control of the
Department. We hope that the Deans of BCoE and Graduate Division will be able to generate
additional TA positions. 3. Now that the program is maturing, CEP requests that the program revisit the organization of the curriculum, considering issues such as breadth courses, technical electives, disciplinary tracks, and frequency of course offerings. The Department has implemented new curriculum changes starting the current (2014-2015)
academic year. Also, we now offer 10 technical electives and our students can take any
Engineering class as a technical elective, as long as they comply with the prerequisites or receive
approval from the Instructor. Regarding breadth courses, our students have numerous
possibilities across campus.
Disciplinary tracks is something that had been discussed by the faculty in the past, but we
decided that we cannot implement them given the current number of faculty members. Also, the
faculty feels that the constraint of following a disciplinary track will reduce the flexibility that
our students currently have to try courses across different Bioengineering areas.
Changing the frequency of course offerings is not an option at this time, given the number of
faculty members. 4. The ABET review recommended adding “a seminar course in the sophomore year to provide contact with the bioengineering community in an academic year that currently has no bioengineering-specific courses in the curriculum.” As BIEN 10 is now required in the sophomore year, CEP considers this issue to be resolved. No action needs to be taken.
5. The ABET review indicated that “Upgrades to the computers in the bioengineering computer lab would benefit the students and the program.” However, beginning with the 2014-2015 academic year, all incoming freshmen and transfer students in the Bourns College of Engineering are required to have a personal laptop computer to run software needed for course work. Thus, CEP considers this issue to be resolved. No action needs to be taken.
Note: There is a sentence in the first paragraph of page 2 of the CEP report on which we would
like to make a suggestion for revision. Although the statement “Areas of specialization in the
program include chemical engineering, biochemical engineering, and nanotechnology” is in
general correct, the following more focused statement is more suitable to represent the specifics
of the department’s five areas of specialization: “Areas of specialization in the program include
(1) biomaterials and regenerative medicine, (2) biomedical imaging, (3) computational
bioengineering, (4) medical devises, (5) molecular and cellular bioengineering”.
7
Attachment 3b
CEP Final Findings and Recommendations
Regarding the Internal Review of the
Bioengineering Engineering Program
The Committee on Educational Policy thanks the Interim Department Chair of Bioengineering,
Bir Bhanu, for his response to the Preliminary Findings and Recommendations report for the
Bioengineering Undergraduate Program.
The CEP was satisfied with the program’s response to recommendation 1: the program plans
to meet with the University Writing Program to explore collaborations. The CEP was also
satisfied with the program’s responses to recommendation 2 – 5.
The Final Findings and Recommendations are summarized below.
1. CEP will follow-up during the Action Implementation meeting with continuing efforts
by the program to explore collaborations with the University Writing Program.
The Bioengineering program was established in 2006. The inaugural freshman class was
admitted in fall 2006 and the first graduates completed the program in June 2008. The
undergraduate enrollment in the program for the 2013-2014 academic year included 336
students. The program awarded a total of 72 BS degrees in that year. The Department of
Bioengineering comprises 12 full-time equivalent tenure track faculty members. Current the
department has an interim, outside department chair. Areas of specialization in the program
include (1) biomaterials and regenerative medicine, (2) biomedical imaging, (3) computational
bioengineering, (4) medical devises, (5) molecular and cellular bioengineering.
Program Strengths:
The program has fostered an environment that has successfully attracted highly qualified faculty
across the breadth of bioengineering technical areas, even in a period of budgetary challenges.
The majority of faculty surveyed for the Program Review report the overall quality of the
program to be either good or excellent.
From the perspective of undergraduates, the program offers extraordinary access to research
opportunities, with success documented by such measures as inclusion in the university
Undergraduate Research Journal, presentations at regional and national research conferences,
and successful competition for National Science Foundation fellowships for undergraduates who
continue to graduate study. Students who took the Undergraduate Program Student Satisfaction
Survey identified three main strengths of the Bioengineering major: 1) the curriculum is both
challenging and disciplinarily diverse, 2) the field combines mechanical/material with
critical/philosophical thinking and 3) job prospects and career opportunities are good.
8
Findings and Recommendations:
1. The ABET Report states that “The university writing unit might explore opportunities to
enhance its support of the engineering programs through better coordination with the
technical writing courses that are offered within the Bourns College of Engineering.”
CEP requests that the Program meet with the University Writing Program (UWP) to
explore possible collaborations.
2. The faculty survey suggests that additional faculty are needed to cover the teaching load.
Faculty perceive that their teaching load is high, which may contribute to some issues
with faculty morale. The need for additional faculty may be exacerbated by the need for
additional TA support. CEP recognizes that these resource issues may be beyond the
control of the program.
3. Now that the program is maturing, CEP requests that the program revisit the organization
of the curriculum, considering issues such as breadth courses, technical electives,
disciplinary tracks, and frequency of course offerings.
4. The ABET review recommended adding “a seminar course in the sophomore year to
provide contact with the bioengineering community in an academic year that currently
has no bioengineering-specific courses in the curriculum.” As BIEN 10 is now required
in the sophomore year, CEP considers this issue to be resolved.
5. The ABET review indicated that “Upgrades to the computers in the bioengineering
computer lab would benefit the students and the program.” However, beginning with the
2014-2015 academic year, all incoming freshmen and transfer students in the Bourns
College of Engineering are required to have a personal laptop computer to run software
needed for course work. Thus, CEP considers this issue to be resolved.
9
Business Administration Undergraduate Program Review Action Implementation Meeting
November 19, 2014
Attended: K. Baerenklau, CEP Chair; S. Brint, VPUE; Y. Wang, Dean; Rami Zwick, Associate Dean; K. Mamun, Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Programs
The Action Implementation Meeting focused on issues related to the recommendations made in the Final Findings and Recommendations (F&R) Report and how the program proposes to implement these recommendations. The Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) requests that the program provide an update by April 3, 2015 on the recommendations listed below. Recommendation 1 & 5 In the Final F&R Report CEP recommended that the program revisit the SoBA strategic plan as it pertains to the undergraduate program and to critically evaluate the key elements of the undergraduate academic program. Associate Dean Zwick shared at the meeting that SoBA is currently in the process of creating a new 5 year strategic plan that would address both recommendations. CEP requests that the program report back with an update on the status of the new strategic plan with special attention to how the plan will address the specific issues raised in Recommendations 1 and 5 and the question of whether the undergraduate program should be converted to a 4 year program in SoBA. Recommendation 2 & 4 In the Final F&R Report CEP recommended that the program develop a plan for fostering a greater sense of community and for enhancing the professional services offered by the College to undergraduates, employers, and alumni. Dean Wang shared at the meeting that the College is working on establishing a dedicated career services staff member for undergraduate students. CEP requests that the program report back with a plan that includes specific steps to be taken beginning in academic year 2015-2016 to address the issues raised in both recommendations. Recommendation 3 In the Final F&R Report CEP recommended that the program critically assess several issues pertaining to the faculty, and their effect on the undergraduate program. These issues included tension between the Dean’s office and senior ladder faculty, fear of retribution by the administration, disappointment with hiring decisions, and concern among junior faculty about the tenure process due to lack of transparency and cross-disciplinary conflicts. Associate Dean Zwick shared at the meeting that the College anticipates these issues to diminish as the program grows and more faculty are hired. CEP requests that the program report back with an update on steps taken during academic year 2014-2015 to address the issues regarding faculty in this recommendation. At the meeting the college informed CEP of plans to hire an Associate Dean for the undergraduate program. CEP asks that the program provide an update on their progress in making this appointment. The meeting concluded anticipating that the program would prepare an update regarding the above recommendations by April 3, 2015. CEP requested that the response be submitted in the care of the CEP Chair to CEP Analyst Beth Beatty ([email protected]).
10
___________________________________ Ken Baerenklau, Chair Committee on Educational Policy
____________________________________ Rami Zwick, Associate Dean School of Business Administration cc: Yunzeng Wang, Dean, SoBA Steven Brint, Vice Provost, Undergraduate Education Jose Wudka, Chair, Riverside Division
11
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE
Business Administration Undergraduate Program Review Action Implementation Plan
Update April 4, 2015
Recommendation 1 & 5 In the Final F&R Report CEP recommended that the program revisit the SoBA strategic plan as it pertains to the undergraduate program and to critically evaluate the key elements of the undergraduate academic program.
1. Revisit the SoBA strategic plan as it pertains to the undergraduate program. Engage the
faculty in a reevaluation of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the program and how it can most effectively contribute to achieving the goals of the strategic plan. Assess whether and how the program’s marketing strategy also should be modified. Consider how existing and proposed facilities impact the undergraduate program and the strategic plan.
5. Critically evaluate key elements of the undergraduate academic program, including the
admissions model, academic standards, teaching standards, and course availability and size. Consider the opportunities presented by the local logistics industry, and whether this industry deserves greater emphasis in the program. Consider adding an honors program and/or a minor. Consider initiation of teaching awards and a teaching mentoring program.
Update SoBA is working on a new strategic plan for 2015-2020. For this purpose we have engaged a consultant firm that specialized in academic strategic planning. We are currently in the Discovery Phase of the brand assessment process. The results of the brand assessment will inform the strategic planning. The following are draft elements from our strategic plan (that is subject to change based on the results of the brand assessment exercise): Strategic Goals:
• Develop and maintain high-quality undergraduate and graduate educational programs that address the important regional and national needs of business;
12
• Develop and maintain high-quality research activities that contribute both to academic knowledge and to regional and national needs of business;
• Develop an organizational culture and structure that fosters and supports theoretical and applied research that is on par with the other business schools in the UC system;
• Serve the region and state’s top students by significantly increasing scholarships to make business education available to all who qualify;
• Foster an organizational culture of inclusion, mutual respect and collegiality; and • Build a world-class building that reflects the School’s high aspirational goals and affords
faculty, staff and students a place in which to pursue excellence. To accomplish its mission and achieve its vision SoBA has set the following strategic tasks for
the UG program:
• Provide a 4-year business major; • Increase admission standards; • Strengthen undergraduate recruiting efforts; • Lower the average number of years to graduation; • Provide dedicated career service to business undergraduate students; • Enhance the curricula with carefully selected programs that meet the needs of business at
the region and state levels; • Achieve a ranking in the top 50 among public schools; • Enhance the self-assessment procedures (assurance of learning) to ensure relevance and
quality of the educational programs; • Increase the resources needed to recruit top-caliber undergraduate students by providing
competitive scholarships and incentives; Recruitment Update
• In the Fall quarter, SoBA UG team made trips to Mount San Antonio Community College, Mount San Jacinto College, Pasadena Community College, Orange Coast College, Riverside Community College, to recruit transfer students directly by talking about the undergraduate program.
• In the Winter quarter, members of SoBA UG office made trips on weekends to Orange County (Newport Beach), the Bay Area (San Francisco) to get already admitted students to come to UCR. We partner with alums and their connections to host these events. In Newport Beach, we partnered with Square Milner (arranged by our lecturer Craig Weaver) and we will also partner with them this Spring in the Los Angeles area. In the Bay area, we partnered with Price Waterhouse Coopers arranged by alum, Clifford Cheung.
Recommendation 2 & 4 In the Final F&R Report CEP recommended that the program develop a plan for fostering a greater sense of community and for enhancing the professional services offered by the College to undergraduates, employers, and alumni.
13
Update As stated above SoBA is working on provide a dedicated career service to business undergraduate students. This will be done in conjunction with providing a 4-year business major. We have submitted a budget request for staffing a dedicated career service to business undergraduate students. Recommendation 3 In the Final F&R Report CEP recommended that the program critically assess several issues pertaining to the faculty, and their effect on the undergraduate program. Update The Dean and Associate Dean are working on establishing a culture of inclusiveness and cooperation at the school. For this purpose, the Dean and the Associate Dean are meeting personally with all faculty to seek advice on how to improve the culture at the School.
14
April 9, 2015
To: Rami Zwick, Associate Dean
School of Business Administration
From: Ken Baerenklau, Chair
Committee on Educational Policy
Re: CEP Response to Compliance Report
The Committee on Educational Policy reviewed your compliance report dated April 4, 2015 regarding the
Business Administration undergraduate program review. The Committee appreciates that the review
identified recommendations that require a relatively long timeframe to implement. The Committee also is
encouraged by the updates provided in the compliance report that SoBA is undertaking a process to
address those recommendations. Because currently this is a nascent process, the Committee requests that
SoBA provide an additional follow-up compliance report to the Committee. This should be submitted by
November 2, 2015. Upon review of that report, the Committee will assess whether further actions are to
be requested of your program.
The Committee appreciates your full cooperation during the review process and looks forward to
receiving additional updates on your progress in early November.
15
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE
Business Administration Undergraduate Program Review Action Implementation Plan
Update #2 November 1, 2015
Recommendation 1 & 5 In the Final F&R Report CEP recommended that the program revisit the SoBA strategic plan as it pertains to the undergraduate program and to critically evaluate the key elements of the undergraduate academic program.
1. Revisit the SoBA strategic plan as it pertains to the undergraduate program. Engage the
faculty in a reevaluation of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the program and how it can most effectively contribute to achieving the goals of the strategic plan. Assess whether and how the program’s marketing strategy also should be modified. Consider how existing and proposed facilities impact the undergraduate program and the strategic plan.
5. Critically evaluate key elements of the undergraduate academic program, including the
admissions model, academic standards, teaching standards, and course availability and size. Consider the opportunities presented by the local logistics industry, and whether this industry deserves greater emphasis in the program. Consider adding an honors program and/or a minor. Consider initiation of teaching awards and a teaching mentoring program.
Update #1 (April 4, 2015) SoBA is working on a new strategic plan for 2015-2020. For this purpose we have engaged a consultant firm that specialized in academic strategic planning. We are currently in the Discovery Phase of the brand assessment process. The results of the brand assessment will inform the strategic planning. The following are draft elements from our strategic plan (that is subject to change based on the results of the brand assessment exercise): Strategic Goals:
• Develop and maintain high-quality undergraduate and graduate educational programs that address the important regional and national needs of business;
16
• Develop and maintain high-quality research activities that contribute both to academic knowledge and to regional and national needs of business;
• Develop an organizational culture and structure that fosters and supports theoretical and applied research that is on par with the other business schools in the UC system;
• Serve the region and state’s top students by significantly increasing scholarships to make business education available to all who qualify;
• Foster an organizational culture of inclusion, mutual respect and collegiality; and • Build a world-class building that reflects the School’s high aspirational goals and affords
faculty, staff and students a place in which to pursue excellence. To accomplish its mission and achieve its vision SoBA has set the following strategic tasks for
the UG program:
• Provide a 4-year business major; • Increase admission standards; • Strengthen undergraduate recruiting efforts; • Lower the average number of years to graduation; • Provide dedicated career service to business undergraduate students; • Enhance the curricula with carefully selected programs that meet the needs of business at
the region and state levels; • Achieve a ranking in the top 50 among public schools; • Enhance the self-assessment procedures (assurance of learning) to ensure relevance and
quality of the educational programs; • Increase the resources needed to recruit top-caliber undergraduate students by providing
competitive scholarships and incentives; Recruitment Update
• In the Fall quarter, SoBA UG team made trips to Mount San Antonio Community College, Mount San Jacinto College, Pasadena Community College, Orange Coast College, Riverside Community College, to recruit transfer students directly by talking about the undergraduate program.
• In the Winter quarter, members of SoBA UG office made trips on weekends to Orange County (Newport Beach), the Bay Area (San Francisco) to get already admitted students to come to UCR. We partner with alums and their connections to host these events. In Newport Beach, we partnered with Square Milner (arranged by our lecturer Craig Weaver) and we will also partner with them this Spring in the Los Angeles area. In the Bay area, we partnered with Price Waterhouse Coopers arranged by alum, Clifford Cheung.
Update #2 (November 1, 2015) • PROVIDE A 4-YEAR BUSINESS MAJOR
17
Basically, strengthening the quality of our business major depends to a large extent to our ability to convert the B.S. in Business Administration (BSAD) major from a two-year upper-division major to a 4-year major. We have made significant headway in the (yet non-formal) above proposal. At this point, the implementation of such a proposal would be affected more by external university forces than by SoBA desire to do so (i.e., we are in a non-formal discussion with CHASS and the University leadership on the implication of such a transition). Basically, the argument for a 4-year major is based on the following: Currently, the B.S. in Business Administration (BSAD) major offered by SoBA is a two-year upper-division major. Students can enroll in a Pre-Business status and are advised in CHASS during their freshman and sophomore years. The Pre-Business curriculum includes the prerequisites to the major and the college breadth requirements. We propose to admit students directly to the BSAD major and convert the major from a two-year upper-division major to a four-year major. A recent report by our accreditation agency (AACSB) recognized SoBA undergraduate program as “an untapped opportunity to build the School’s and University’s reputation” (Team Visit Report, AACSB Maintenance of Accreditation Review – 2/5/13). Further, a recent internal review of our BSAD major by the Senate Committee on Educational Policy recommended that the program develop a plan for fostering a greater sense of community, enhancing the professional services offered by the College to undergraduates, employers, and alumni and suggested to consider restructuring the admissions model (Business Administration Undergraduate Program Review, Action Implementation Meeting, 11/19/14). We argue that establishing a 4-year BSAD Major would enhance the program quality and foster a greater sense of community. SoBA would be able to better recruit, engage, mentor, provide leadership opportunities for business major, and enhance the professional services we can offer to students, employers, and alumni. This, in turn, would increase internal retention rate and on time graduation. Other Business Schools that made the same transition (e.g., FisherDirect at Ohio State) report increase in internal retention rate by 10% in year 2 and by 19% in year 3 and an increase the quality of their incoming business major class (e.g., at Ohio State from an average ACT of 27.7 in 2011 to 29 this fall). The following is a more detailed rational. Competition
• A four year program is the key to attracting students who currently attend many of the regional schools such as California State University, Chapman University, UCI, USC and Loyola Marymount University. A large majority of these students would be eligible for UCR, but because they are aware that they cannot get into the business program right away, they choose these other schools.
18
• SoBA is the largest undergraduate business program among the UC system. It can distinguish itself from the others by offering a four-year program. While it is not anticipated that there will be any major changes to the curriculum since students will still be expected to take the first two years of courses offered mostly by CHASS, the inclusion of these students from the very beginning will enable the SoBA team to focus on programming that will make these students competitive from the very beginning.
• A four year program will enable SoBA to recruit high-end students from high schools and partner with the University Honors Program to recruit students who currently choose schools in the region since in these other schools they can be admitted to the business major directly.
Community
• A 4-year major has the advantage of developing a stronger cohort and sense of program among the business students. The approach would likely create greater identification with the school among business students and could result in stronger student organizations, more leadership opportunities for students, stronger career outcomes at graduation, and better alumni support.
Pedagogy
• By entering the major as freshman, students can begin focusing on business education from the very beginning.
• The accrediting body for SoBA— the Association for the Accreditation of Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB) requires the school to define specific learning goals and design the curriculum to achieve these goals. Currently, the courses that gear directly toward these learning goals are taken by students after transition to the business major. For some learning goals this is too late. The four year program will enable SoBA to ensure that these learning goals are incorporated into all courses from the very beginning of the student’s college career.
• Admitting students from the freshman year will enable SoBA advisors to build
relationships with the student right from the beginning. Advisors can guide students very early on career potential and which concentrations would be the most suitable given individual student’s career goals.
• Students can interact with business faculty from the very beginning.
• UCR is in a unique position of having a large number of first generation college students
who have no opportunity to develop soft-skills that are critical in acquiring the first job. SoBA is currently offering soft skills training but currently it is available to juniors and seniors. By most accounts according to prospective employers, an earlier start would help these students be more competitive in the marketplace by graduation time.
19
Enriching Students’ Experiences
• Students are almost always confused when they matriculate to UCR in the pre-business program because they are advised by CHASS student affairs office. While the advisors in CHASS do advise the students about the current sequence of course work that they are required to take in order to successfully transition to SoBA, there is no effort to introduce students to the soft-skills required to be successful in a business career.
• A 4-year major would allow students to interact with the same advisors and visit the same
location for the duration of study at UCR.
• In the context of a four-year program, the students would be encouraged to go on a study-abroad program early on. Within the current structure, they are focused on completing the pre-business requirements and once they get into SoBA they realize that they have no time to enrich their experience by taking a semester/quarter abroad.
• Currently, we partner with central admissions on recruiting trips. While we connect right away with transfer students because they start their business curriculum right away, freshmen are often confused since they do not get to see the person who recruited them from SoBA until two years later.
• SoBA advisors have no role in the freshman orientation since it is administered by CHASS. There are certain elements that we feel are important for business students to be exposed to from the very beginning in order to be successful. In a four-year program, business students will receive orientation from SoBA advisors.
• Students will have access to special opportunities which is currently only available in the
junior and senior years.
• Students can access valuable internship opportunities that are currently available to only upper division SoBA students.
OTHER UPDATES 1. Brand assessment and strategic planning On September 16, 2015 MindPower (the consulting firm we have engaged to help us with brand assessment and strategic planning) delivered the first preliminary findings that are based on interviews and focus groups across constituencies (students - graduate and undergraduate; leadership; faculty; advisory committees; community leaders; alumni and donors) and the competition (students at competitor schools). The following is a summary of the findings (these findings are relevant to both the UG and the PG programs): • Although technically one, the undergraduate program and the A. Gary Anderson Graduate
School of Management largely function separately. This will be a major drive in branding
20
the School of Business Administration in the future with the understanding that AGSM is just the graduate segment of the school. Future opportunities to name the school as a whole and the expected new building will provide some clarity but can, at the same time, create confusion if two different names will be used.
• SoBA benefit from being part of the prestigious University of California System. That’s a powerful connection that must be emphasized in any branding exercise.
• SoBA wants to rise in the rankings. But to do that, it must expertly play the rankings game. What influences rankings (at both the UG and PG level)?
o Peer Assessment, Recruiter Assessment, Starting Salary, Employment Rates, GMAT/GRE Scores, Undergraduate GPA, and Acceptance Rate. Some of these attributes (e.g., peer assessment) can be influenced by marketing campaign, others required curriculum changes by, for example, providing more professional education and opportunities to students.
• SoBA is an American business school with a significant international population (at the PG level). Asset or liability? SoBA will have to find a way to diversify the UG and PG students’ body. At the PG level, this is mainly done by providing generous financial aid to qualify domestic students.
• The SoBA internal audience is divided on the importance of research on the undergraduate and graduate levels. Some of the UG students do not see the value of being taught by professors who are on the cutting edge of academic research (i.e., professor who are considered star researchers and published in top academic journals) if these professors do not have the relevant professional experiences. On the other hand, at the graduate level, the perception of high academic status is much more valued by students.
• The undergraduate students described themselves and by others as Underdog. The most common attributes associate with our UG students are:
o Driven o Emerging o Resourceful o Energetic o Resilient
• At the undergrad level, there’s ample opportunity to take the lead in programs and services. Students enjoy growing with the university.
• Location: We are close to anything & far away from everything. o The surrounding area has made headlines for impressive job growth. But it’s still
unclear on percent of blue vs. white collar jobs. • SoBA boasts the largest alumni network in the UC system yet it lacks the infrastructure to
leverage it fully. o How will SoBA leverage its alumni to recruit future students, raise funds, and
develop a far-reaching network? • The opinion varies on how connected SoBA is in the community and region. • Are there great things that you’re doing but not getting credit for? The above findings are based on qualitative research. A quantitative phase has just began with online surveys of large internal and external constituencies:
• Prospective undergrads • Pre-business
21
• Prospective grads • Current undergrads • Current grads • Faculty • Staff • Alumni
The findings that will augment the qualitative results reported above are expected by the end of December. In the winter term (2016) SoBA faculty and staff will study the findings of the brand assessment as an input for elaborating on how to achieve our Strategic Goals listed in the first update. 2. Three-Year Pathways and the 45 upper-division units projects Like all other colleges and schools we are working on the three-Year Pathways and the 45 upper-division units projects. Since this is not unique to SoBA we will not elaborate on these projects any further. Recommendation 2 & 4 In the Final F&R Report CEP recommended that the program develop a plan for fostering a greater sense of community and for enhancing the professional services offered by the College to undergraduates, employers, and alumni. Update #1 (April 4, 2015 As stated above SoBA is working on provide a dedicated career service to business undergraduate students. This will be done in conjunction with providing a 4-year business major. We have submitted a budget request for staffing a dedicated career service to business undergraduate students. Update #2 (November 1, 2015)
• There are no further developments in our plan to provide a dedicated career service to business undergraduate students. As stated above this project is tied to our attempt to convert the B.S. in Business Administration (BSAD) major from a two-year upper-division major to a 4-year major. Without this conversion we would lack the resources to implement such a dedicated career service to business undergraduate students. Such a service would become financially feasible given a 4-year major and ion conjunction with the new university financial model.
Recommendation 3 In the Final F&R Report CEP recommended that the program critically assess several issues pertaining to the faculty, and their effect on the undergraduate program.
22
Update #1 (April 4, 2015 The Dean and Associate Dean are working on establishing a culture of inclusiveness and cooperation at the school. For this purpose, the Dean and the Associate Dean are meeting personally with all faculty to seek advice on how to improve the culture at the School. Update #2 (November 1, 2015) SoBA culture is in transition. In addition to on-going communication between the administration and faculty, SoBA faculty “face” has changed dramatically in the last few years. In particular, of the current 34 ladder-rank faculty, more than half joined SoBA in the last 3 years. As such, “historical” sources for tension had lessened in recent years and the culture is now “normalized” with strong emphasis on top quality academic research, teaching and service.
23
Attachment 5a
TO: ACADEMIC SENATE
FROM: JOE CHILDERS, CHAIR OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT WORKGROUP
SUBJECT: POLICY REVIEWS FOR BANNER IMPLEMENTATION
DATE: MAY 13, 2015
CC:
The university is in the process of implementing a new student information system, Banner.
Understanding the complexity and far reaching impact this implementation has on the campus,
various workgroups have been established. The Facilitation Workgroup - Change Management
is charged with overseeing the coordination of systems and policy changes that will need to be
effected as a result of implementing this new system. The general principles being applied
during the review and discussions are 1) minimizing the number of customizations/modifications
to the baseline Banner product and 2) providing the utmost flexibility for the change of
needs/demands of the campus into the future.
Below please find current items that have been reviewed by the workgroup to include the
recommendation being put forth. We would greatly appreciate a Senate response on these
recommendations within 30 days to ensure we are effectively and efficiently moving forward in
the implementation.
Topic: 16 Unit Repeated Unit Maximum
Current Practice: The Registrar's Office manually reviews all repeats at the end of the term to
adjust the record according to the number of repeated units the student has completed. If the
student reaches the 16 unit maximum within a course, the Registrar's Office creates 2 sections of
the course on the student's record and divides the units up accordingly. Based on how a student
completes repeats, the 16 units counted in this could move and require a staff member to
recompile the original course and split a new and different course. UCR’s implementation is
based on interpretation of UC Policy 780.c.4 -
http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/manual/rpart3.html#rpart3-IIIch4
Issue: The requirement to split a course into two different sections to accommodate exactly 16
units of repeats is not a delivered component of Banner, it complicates reporting and data
analysis of student records and requires manual intervention on the student record. Splitting is
no longer an option.
Recommendation: No longer split courses in order to go up to but not over the 16 unit
maximum. Since the initial spirit of the policy is to allow a repeat of up to four 4 unit courses
and was put in place before the existence of 5 unit courses, the new procedure would be to allow
up to 19 units as the maximum (thus up to 3 five unit courses could be accommodated). If a
student is below 16 units and the next course repeated would take them over 16 units of repeated
credit, the student will be allowed to repeat unless doing so exceeds the 19 unit repeatable
24
maximum. Thus, if a course will take the repeated total to 20 that original grade in that course
will not be excluded from the GPA.
Topic: Terminology – Concentration/Track/Emphasis
Current Practice: Currently there is no standardization regarding the terminology used for
paths
within a major.
Issue: Banner and Degree Works both utilize the word Concentration. It can be confusing at
times when curriculum is approved with other titles. The system, transcripts and other
documents that reference the student information system will list it as a concentration even if in
the catalog it is called a track or emphasis. This actually is how the current system is also
designed but we are not certain everyone realizes this.
Recommendation: Utilize Baseline Banner and Degree Works and request consistent use of the
term concentration.
Concentration
An approved series or grouping of courses that are a required integrated group satisfying requirements for graduation and must all be completed in order to show on the transcript. Student is tracked in the Student Information System and requirements are in the Degree Audit
Emphasis/Track
A series or grouping of courses that give focus to the course selections for a student’s course plan. These are seen as individual collections of courses not as a complete required integrated group in the curriculum and need not be completed for graduation. These may be more or less formal according to program’s culture. Student is not tracked in the Student Information System with this value, requirements are not in Degree Works and it does not show on the transcript.
Topic: Individual and Group Activities
Current Practice: Currently SIS has fields for group and individual activities. Only group
activities are assigned days/times and rooms. The individual activities are informational.
Issue: Baseline Banner does not have the ability to differentiate between individual and group
activities.
Recommendation: Utilize Baseline Banner and only input at the schedule level where we
schedule classrooms, etc. This would mean we would only include group activities scheduled or
individual activities that we must include because they "hold" the primary units. All other
activities are still visible to the student in the course description.
Topic: All or None Pre-Requisite Checking; Registrar Input
25
Current Practice: The departments are responsible for inputting the pre-requisites to be
enforced during registration each term. The Registrar’s Office audits this to ensure all
requirements are within approved guidelines from Committee on Courses. Departments have
the ability not to enforce a pre-requisite but they cannot enforce a requirement not approved.
Approved pre-requisites are in CRAMS
Issue: The campus is working towards eliminating CRAMS and creating a course approval
process that is directly integrated with Banner. In doing this we would like to use the centralized
area for pre-requisites as an area to contain approved pre-requisite requirements. Banner
provides more flexibility for pre-requisites but some might find it more complicated to set up.
Recommendation: The Registrar’s Office would like to input the pre-requisites in the central
area based on approval from Committee on Courses. Departments would use a radio button
functionality at the section level to either enforce pre-requisites or not (this is an all or none, but
allows the continued practice of pre-requisite enforcement being optional). If a department
needs to waive a specific pre-requisite for a student they would continue to use permits. If a
department wanted a pre-requisite to be discontinued then they would take the necessary steps to
have it approved through Committee on Courses. In rare occasion, the Registrar’s Office can
manually adjust pre-requisites if needed.
Topic: Timing of Add/Drop Period, the lapse for non-payment and start of “W” grading for
withdrawals.
Current Practice: Add/Drop includes the first two weeks of the quarter. After the end of the
second week students who withdraw from a course receive a “W” and can add a course using
the Enrollment Adjustment Form. Friday of Third week students who have not paid or who have
not enrolled have their student status lapsed. Issue:
1. There is a discrepancy in the application of W’s on student records during third week.
a. Students who have paid and are enrolled, but drop a single course or withdraw
fully from the institution have W’s on their record starting in 3rd week.
b. Students who have not paid the institution but are enrolled in classes are lapsed
at the end of 3rd week removing all courses from the student record and
therefore, they have no W’s on their record.
2. Census is Friday of 3rd week and we have movement in registration and student payment
up until the system is closed on that Friday evening. In addition, we have students who
are readmitted and enrolled after census during 4th week.
3. In the current structure there is movement within student registration throughout the first
three weeks of the quarter which is 30% of the term and can place a student at a
disadvantage related to access to iLearn and successful completion of the course.
Recommendation: The desire is to move the final fee payment lapse from Friday of 3rd week to
the day before instruction begins, move Add/Drop deadline to Tuesday of 2nd week and move the
assignment of “W”s to Wednesday of 2nd week.
Day before instruction begins
All students who have not paid (enrolled or not) would be lapsed for non-payment
26
o This frees seats up for paid students to enroll in through self-service during
add/drop; also allows waitlisted students who have paid access to seats.
Tuesday of 2nd week
Students who paid but did not enroll would be lapsed as drop/add closes.
Would need to move when W grades begin to assign to courses. It would now be
Wednesday of 2nd week.
Remaining 2nd week and 3rd week
Used to finalize any exceptions prior to the census
Topic: The running of Academic Standing after the summer term.
Current Practice: Academic standing job is run at the end of fall, winter and spring, but is not
run at the end of summer.
Issue: The Associate Deans have requested that Academic standing be calculated at the end of
the summer term. In addition, Banner requires the job to run at the end of the summer term
because it sees summer as the next subsequent term to spring quarter. If we don’t run it for
summer term, when the job is run at the end of fall it will consider that all students are beginning
in Good Standing which is not appropriate.
Recommendation: The recommendation is to run the Academic Standing job as expected in
Banner which is also in line with the original request by the Associate Deans.
27
Attachment 5b
Committee on Educational Policy
Comments on Change Management Workgroup Policy Reviews for Banner
Implementation
October 2, 2015 Meeting
16 Unit Repeated Unit Maximum
Committee questioned why a work around was needed and instead recommended tasking the vendor with fixing the software. Also, the spirit of the original 16 unit maximum was to allow students to repeat up to 4 courses. 5 unit courses are not the only issue here as we also have courses with larger numbers of units (eg Physics 41A, B, C which are 8 units each). The current proposal would not allow for cases such as this.
Terminology – Concentration/Track/Emphasis
Committee commented that this is action could be confusing for students and were concern about the potential impact on students it could have. Will it make a difference on their academic career?
CEP questioned how much administrative work will be required to make proposed changes to standardize terminology as this potentially affects many programs? Will program changes need to be processed if recommendation is approved by Senate?
What student records are the track/emphasis recorded on – diploma, SIS, transcripts?
Individual and Group Activities
CEP is supportive of this recommendation.
All or None Pre-Requisite Checking; Registrar Input
The Committee questioned if department student affairs officers have been consulted on this recommendation? If not, the Committee recommended that they review the recommendation for workability.
Timing of Add/Drop Period, the lapse for non-payment and start of “W” grading for withdrawals.
The Committee commented that extending add/drop period makes it difficult for students on weight lists to enroll in classes.
CEP had great concern for students who may get dropped from course due to a delay in payment then will not be able to re-enroll in course when fees are paid. Delay in processing financial aid due to complications can lead to a student falling into this trap, sometimes due to no fault of their own. For the cases of impacted classes they may be unable to re-enroll once the issue is resolved which potentially may delay their graduation and/or create new issues with their financial aid. CEP is not supportive of the recommendation for the timing of the add/drop period for the lapse for non-payment.
Clarification is needed to define the Tuesday/Wednesday of the 2nd week. Committee is concerned if drop date is Tuesday of the 2nd week and classes started the Thursday before, then students would be dropped by the second class.
28
The running of Academic Standing after the summer term.
CEP is supportive of this recommendation.
29
Attachment 6
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY REPORT TO THE RIVERSIDE DIVISION
DECEMBER 1, 2015
To Be Adopted
Proposed Changes to Regulation 6 Campus Graduation Requirements (R6.1)
PRESENT:
PROPOSED:
R6.1 English composition. Students must demonstrate adequate proficiency in English composition by completing a one-year sequence of college-level instruction in English composition, with no grade lower than C. Courses that the Academic Senate designates as alternatives to the sequence’s third-quarter course, English 1C, may be applied toward satisfaction of the third-quarter requirement if a student’s college permits its majors to substitute such a course for 1C, and if students have first passed English 1B with a “C” or higher. The grade in the alternative course must be no lower than a “C.” Individual colleges may set a higher GPA requirement in English 1A and/or 1B as a prerequisite to take Senate-approved alternatives to English 1C.(Am 16 Nov 2004)(AM 30 Nov. 2010)
R6.1 English composition. Students must demonstrate adequate proficiency in English composition by completing a one-year sequence of college-level instruction in English composition, with no grade lower than C. Courses in the Writing across the Curriculum (WAC) program and other alternatives approved by the Academic Senate as alternatives to the sequence’s third-quarter course, English 1C, may be applied toward satisfaction of the third-quarter requirement if a student’s college permits its majors to substitute such a course for 1C, and if students have first passed English 1B with a “C” or higher. The grade in the alternative course must be no lower than a “C.” Individual colleges may set a higher GPA requirement in English 1A and/or 1B as a prerequisite to take Senate-approved alternatives to English 1C.(Am 16 Nov 2004)(AM 30 Nov. 2010)
R6.1.1 Transfer students who have taken one
semester of English composition at another college or university are required to take English 1B and English 1C, with the option of taking an alternative to English 1C approved by the Academic Senate if a student’s college permits its majors to substitute such a course for 1C.(Am 24 May 84)(Am 30 Nov. 2010)
R6.1.1 Transfer students who have taken one
semester of English composition at another college or university are required to take English 1B and English 1C, with the option of taking an a course in the WAC program and other alternatives to English 1C approved by the Academic Senate if a student’s college permits its majors to substitute such a course for 1C.(Am 24 May 84)(Am 30 Nov. 2010)
R6.1.2 The requirement for the first two quarters of instruction (or equivalent proficiency) may be met as follows:
(No change)
30
R6.1.2.1 (1) By achieving a score of 4 or 5 on the College Board Advanced Placement Test in English;
(No change)
R6.1.2.2 (2) By achieving a score of 3 on the College Board Advanced Placement Test in English and taking English 1A-1B for credit or by taking only English 1B for credit;
(No change)
R6.1.2.3 (3) By achieving a passing score on both parts of the California State University and College English Equivalency Examination (taken prior to July 1, 1993) (Am 30 May 96)
(No change)
Justification: The Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) reviewed the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) pilot program and after a successful review determined that the program should continue as a permanent alternative to English 1C. CEP will review the program every 5 years to ensure that it remains an effective alternate to English 1C. Approvals: Approved by the Committee on Educational Policy: The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction finds the wording to be consistent with the code of the Academic Senate: Received by Executive Council:
31