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 (beth.beatty@ucr.edu).

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