UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE

REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY [see pages 3 and 4 for Representative Assembly membership list]

NOTICE OF MEETING Tuesday May 26, 2015, 3:30 p.m.

Garren Auditorium, Biomedical Sciences Building, 1st Floor

ORDER OF BUSINESS Page

(1) Minutes of March 31, 2015 meeting 5 (2) Announcements

(a) Chair Gerry Boss Oral

(b) Brian Schottlaender, University Librarian Oral

2015-18 Library Strategic Planning (3) Special Orders

(a) Consent Calendar Oral • Senate Election – Results

(b) Temporary Committee on Committee Appointment Oral

(4) Reports of Special Committees [none] (5) Reports of Standing Committees

(a) Educational Policy Committee [Kaustuv Roy, EPC Chair] 13

• Proposal to amend Divisional Regulation 502, Grade Appeals

(b) Committee on Preparatory Education & Educational Policy Committee 17 [Carrie Wastal, COPE Chair, and Kaustuv Roy, EPC Chair] • Proposal to amend Divisional Regulation 600(K), Campuswide Graduation

Requirements

(c) Committee on Committees [Lisa Cartwright, ConC Vice Chair] 34 • Proposal to amend Divisional Bylaw 192, Academic Information Technology

(d) Senate Council [Kit Pogliano, SC Member & Immediate Past Divisional 36

Senate Chair] • Proposal to amend Divisional Bylaw 244, Senate Administrative Council

(e) Committee on International Education [Eduardo Macagno, CIE Chair] 38

• Proposal to amend Divisional Bylaw 195, International Education

1

Page

(f) Graduate Council [David Salmon, GC Chair] • PhD in Materials Science and Engineering with a Specialization in 41

Multiscale Biology [Andrew McCulloch, Professor, Bioengineering, and Joanna McKittrick Professor, MAE]

• BS/MS (five-year) Program in Marine Biology at the Scripps Institute of 43 Oceanography [Jane Teranes, Lecturer SOE, SIO]

(g) Committee on Senate Awards [Judy Kim, CSA Member] • 2014-15 Faculty Research Lecturer Awards

(6) Reports of Faculties

(a) John Muir College 45

• Proposal to amend Divisional Regulation 610, Academic Requirements of John Muir College [John Moore, Muir College Provost]

(7) Petitions of Students [none] (8) Unfinished Business [none] (9) New Business

2

Ex Officio Members:Chair of Division Gerry BossChancellor Pradeep KhoslaVice Chair of Division Robert Continetti2013-14 Chair of Division Kit PoglianoChair, Committee on Academic Personnel Steven BriggsChair, Committee on Admissions Madeline ButlerChair, Committee on Diversity and Equity Daniel Widener Chair, Committee on Campus Community Environment Raymond DeCallafonChair, Committee on Committees Doris TraunerChair, Educational Policy Committee Kaustuv RoyChair, Undergraduate Council Leslie CarverChair, Committee on Faculty Welfare John EggersChair, Graduate Council David SalmonChair, Committee on Planning and Budget Julian BettsChair, Committee on Privilege and Tenure Stefan TanakaChair, Committee on Research Frank PowellMember, Academic Council Joel DimsdaleMember, Academic Assembly Susan NaruckiMember, Academic Assembly Margaret SchoeningerMember, Academic Assembly Steven WassermanExecutive Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs Suresh SubramaniVice Chancellor, Health Sciences David A. BrennerVice Chancellor, Marine Sciences Margaret LeinenVice Chancellor, Research Sandra Brown

Elected Members AlternatesDivisional Representative Grant Goodall ('16) Piyush Patel ('15)

Joanna McKittrick ('16) Robert Rissman ('15)Revelle College Lorraine Pillus ('15) Brenda Bloodgood ('15)

Melvin Leok ('15) Morana Alac ('16)John Muir College Lakshmi Chilukuri ('15) Jelena Bradic ('15)

______________________ ______________________ Thurgood Marshall College Stephanie Mel ('16) Dan Hallin ('16)

Mark Guirguis ('16) Robert Cancel ('16)Earl Warren College Joshua Kohn ('16) Gary Fields ('16)

John McGreevy ('16) John Watson ('16)Roosevelt College Charles Tu ('16) ______________________

Patrick Patterson ('16) ______________________ Sixth College Michael David ('15) ______________________

Janis Jenkins ('15) ______________________ Emeritus Faculty Joseph Watson ('16) Richard Attiyeh ('16)Anesthesiology David Roth ('16) ______________________ Anthropology Thomas Levy ('16) Joseph Hankins ('16)Bioengineering Kun Zhang ('15) Peter Wang ('15)Biological Sciences Lin Chao ('15) David Holway ('15)

Gurol Suel ('15) Pamela Reinagel ('15)Cellular & Molecular Med. Huilin Zhou ('15) George Sen ('15)Chemistry & Biochemistry Tadeusz Molinski ('15) Robert Pomeroy ('15)

Ulrich Muller ('16) Mike Tauber ('16)Cognitive Science Zhuowen Tu ('16) Gedeon Deak ('16)Communication Natalia Roudakova ('16) Olga Vasquez ('16)Computer Science & Engineering Pavel Pevzner ('15) ______________________

Alex Orailoglu ('15) ______________________ Economics Christopher Chambers ('15) Ivana Komunjer ('15)

Yixiao Sun ('16) Mark Machina ('16)Education Studies Thandeka Chapman ('16) James Levin ('16)Electrical & Computer Engineering Ken Kreutz-Delgado ('16) Yuan Taur ('16)

Jie Xiang ('16) ______________________ Emergency Medicine Stephen Hayden ('15) Richard Clark ('15)

REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY 2014-2015 MEMBERSHIP

3

Ethnic Studies Roshanak Kheshti ('16) Ross Frank ('16)Family & Preventive Med. Anthony Gamst ('16) Elena Martinez ('16)History Dana Murillo ('16) Cathy Gere ('16)

David Gutierrez ('16) Natalia Monlina ('16)IR&PS Ulrike Schaede ('15) Yasu-Hiku Tohsaku ('15)Linguistics Eric Bakovic ('16) Farrell Ackerman ('16)Literature Camille Forbes ('15) Babak Rahimi ('15)

Cristina Rivera-Garza ('16) Daniel Vitkus ('16)Mathematics Jeffrey Rabin ('15) Jason Schweinsberg ('15)

Ian Abramson ('16) Jacques Verstraete ('16)Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering George Tynan ('15) Xanthippi Markenscoff ('15)

Kal Seshadri ('15) Prab Bandaru ('15)Medicine John Adamson ('16) Doug Conrad ('16)

Tim Bigby ('16) Sheila Crowe ('16)Music Amy Cimini ('16) Stephanie Richards ('16)NanoEngineering Liangfang Zhang ('16) Marc Meyers ('16)Neurosciences Thomas Hnasko ('15) Ronald Ellis ('15)

Maryann Martone ('16) Steven Wagner ('16)Ophthalmology Linda Zangwill ('15) Bobby Korn ('15)Orthopaedics Sameer Shah ('15) Simon Schenk ('15)Pathology David Bailey ('16) Henry Powell ('16)

Robert Fitzgerald ('16) Gen-Sheng Feng ('16)Pediatrics Elizabeth Winzeler ('16) ______________________

______________________ ______________________ Pharmacology William Joiner ('15) Hyam Leffert ('15)Philosophy Georgios Anagnostopolous ('16) Andy Lamey ('16)Physics Benjamin Grinstein ('15) Avi Yagil ('15)

Jorge Hirsch ('16) Congjun Wu ('16)Political Science ______________________ ______________________

______________________ ______________________ Psychiatry Lisa Eyler ('16) ______________________

Wesley Thompson ('16) Lilia Iakoucheva ('16)Psychology Tim Rickard ('15) Leslie Carver ('15)Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences Sunil Advani ('16) ______________________ Radiology Roland Lee ('16) Amil Gentili ('16)

Jiang Du ('16) ______________________ Rady School of Management Yuval Rottenstreich ('15) Uri Gneezy ('15)Reproductive Medicine Varykina Thackray ('16) David Natale ('16)SIO Kathy Barbeau ('15) Brad Werner ('15)

David Stegman ('15) Yuri Fialko ('15)Jennifer Smith ('15) James Leichter ('15)Falk Feddersen ('16) Terry Gaasterland ('16)Kerry Key ('16) Paterno Castillo ('16)Amro Hamdoun ('16) Andy Allen ('16)

Sociology Harvey Goldman ('16) David FitzGerald ('16)SSPPS Geoffrey Chang ('16) Marion Sewer ('16)Structural Engineering Hyonny Kim ('15) Petr Krysl ('15)Surgery Clark Chen ('15) Todd Costantini ('15)

Brian Eliceiri ('15) David Rapaport ('15)Theatre and Dance Alan Burrett ('15) Charles Means ('15)

Liam Clancy ('15) Patricia Rincon ('15)Visual Arts Brett Stalbaum ('16) Amy Adler ('16)

Amy Alexander ('16) Lisa Cartwright ('16)

Advisors:Research - General Campus Amy Tsai ('15) Alexei Kritsuk ('15)Research - Health Sciences David Boyle ('15) Michael Baker ('15)Research - Marine Sciences Adrian Borsa ('16) Shaun Johnston ('16)Undergraduate Student ______________________ Undergraduate Student ______________________ Graduate Student Holly Dembinski ('15)Graduate Student Jon Monk ('15)

4

ACADEMIC SENATE, SAN DIEGO DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY

MARCH 31, 2015 MINUTES

Chair Boss called the meeting to order. A quorum was present (attendance sheet attached), and Chair Boss welcomed Academic Senate members and guests to the meeting. He introduced himself, as well as Vice Chair Bob Continetti and Academic Senate staff members: Ray Rodriguez, Trevor Buchanan, Tara Mallis, and Alex Tea. Chair Boss reviewed the Academic Senate Bylaws governing the privilege of the floor and voting.

MINUTES OF MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2014 The minutes of the meeting of December 9, 2014 were approved as distributed. COMMITTEE ON SENATE AWARDS Chair Boss proposed a departure from the agenda to allow Professor Paul Pickowicz, Chair of the Committee on Senate Awards, to present the slate of nominees for Senate Teaching Awards before other business, because Professor Pickowicz needed to leave early to teach a class. Chair Boss asked for any objections to departing from the agenda. Hearing no objections, Professor Pickowicz was invited to present the nominees. Professor Pickowicz explained that Senate Awards are granted to Senate faculty, non-Senate faculty, and graduate students in the amount of $1,500, $1,000, and $500 each, respectively. Funds for the awards and the awards reception are provided by the Chancellor, Executive Vice Chancellor, and donors to the Barbara and Paul Saltman Endowment Fund. Professor Pickowicz noted there were many great nominees this year, which made narrowing the list very difficult. The nominees were as follows:

(1) Distinguished Teaching Award, Senate Members • Kate Antonovics, Department of Economics • Mark Hanna, Department of History • Matthew Herbst, Eleanor Roosevelt College – Writing Program • Sia Nemat-Nasser, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace

Engineering • Laura Stevens, Department of Mathematics

(2) Barbara and Paul Saltman Distinguished Teaching Award, Non-Senate Members

• Linda Awdishu, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences • Bernard Bresser, Department of Education Studies • Homer Chin, Department of Reproductive Medicine

(3) Barbara and Paul Saltman Excellent Teaching Award, Graduate Students

• Cherry Hoi-Ling Lui, Department of History • Kelly Nielsen, Department of Sociology

5

• Joe Salamon, Department of Physics

Professor Pickowicz moved to approve the awards for the nominees. Because the motion was made on behalf of a Senate committee, no second was required. Chair Boss opened the floor for questions or comments. There were no questions or comments. Chair Boss called for a voice vote and the candidates were affirmed unanimously. The date of the awards reception will be announced shortly. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR OF THE DIVISION 1. Representative Assembly Elections

Chair Boss announced that the notice of open elections for departmental Representative Assembly members will be sent in April. Chair Boss urged for the timely election of replacements to ensure that all new representatives are in place by the first meeting in the fall.

2. Final Systemwide Reviews Revised Criteria for Appointment, Promotion, and Appraisal and Policy on Copyright and Fair Use Both the revised APM-210-1-d on Criteria for Appointment, Promotion, and Appraisal and the UC policy on Copyright and Fair Use have been distributed from UCOP for final review, and are posted on the Academic Senate website. Because these documents are in final review, major changes are not being sought, though minor changes can be made if necessary; any major revision would need to be discussed at Representative Assembly. In the event a member suggests major changes, Chair Boss asked that he and the Academic Senate Office be notified as soon as possible to ensure the suggestions are placed on the agenda for the next Representative Assembly meeting.

3. Issues in Health Care – Joel Dimsdale Chair Boss invited Joel Dimsdale, Chair of the Systemwide Committee on Faculty Welfare, to talk about health care options in response to widespread confusion regarding potential changes in the upcoming year. Professor Dimsdale’s presentation is summarized below and the slides can be viewed on the Senate website at: http://senate.ucsd.edu/current-affairs/reports-recommendations/issues-in-healthcare/.

Currently, UC health care options include UC Care, a self-funded PPO. UC Care is intended to provide the most cost efficient care with the goal of providing an improved platform for care delivery. Although the roll out of the program last year was fraught with problems, this year’s roll out was much smoother. The plan is to continue the UC Care PPO into 2016 and beyond, with serious discussions about possibly adding a self-funded HMO. UC has a number of self-funded platforms, including disability and malpractice insurance. Self-funding requires that UC bears the risk if the premium is calculated incorrectly; however, it also provides the possibility to realize significant savings that the University might be able to direct to other goals. Blue Shield is the third party administrator for the PPO, but it isn’t clear if Blue Shield would take on the same role for a self-funded HMO if that plan proceeds. A

6

question was asked whether a self-funded HMO would affect the current Kaiser plan. Professor Dimsdale responded that there are no plans to alter Kaiser coverage at this time.

Professor Dimsdale discussed six key challenges moving forward with a self-funded health care model: 1) treatment of Hepatitis C, 2) the upcoming Cadillac Tax associated with the Affordable Care Act, 3) the cost of mental health care and whether this is properly coordinated with other health care, 4) progressive policy rates and whether a fifth pay band should be implemented, 5) retiree healthcare and whether it should be pre-funded, and 6) understanding health care premiums in the context of the plan, i.e., whether the premium is justified by the benefits of the plan. Underlying these challenges is the issue of balancing cost and quality, and ensuring plans balance those issues in a way that translates to reliable coverage that consumers understand. Professor Dimsdale concluded his presentation with a reminder to attendees to ensure they understand the deductible, copay, and network provisions within the open enrollment material that will be distributed in the fall.

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHANCELLOR The Chancellor gave an update on where the campus stands one year after implementation of the campus Strategic Plan. There is significant monetary investment planned over the next three years, including $40 million in the next year dedicated to faculty expansion. As described below, the Chancellor discussed current student-centered, research-focused, and service-oriented investments that have been implemented consistent with the goals of the Strategic Plan. Student-Centered Investments Chancellor Khosla said the campus is focusing on enhancing undergraduate education through increased support for classroom technology upgrades, new majors in areas of growing interest, and increases in the number of faculty. The Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs has $3 million to invest in tutoring, academic advising, TAs and other resources to further enhance undergraduate learning opportunities. A Teaching & Learning Commons is being established to develop and provide programs and services to enhance teaching and learning on campus. Research-Focused Investments The Chancellor pointed out that many research-focused investments are also student-centered, and highlighted several initiatives geared towards funding research that also provides funding and research opportunities to graduate and undergraduate students. The Chancellor noted that graduate student enrollment at UCSD falls below the ideal number, which is 20-30% of the undergraduate student population . To support both research and graduate students, the Chancellor is investing $15 million per year to relieve the funding burden for non-California students. Despite this investment, the Chancellor expressed concern with a lack of significant growth in Ph.D. students and posited that perhaps some departments are being too conservative out of fear that the program will be discontinued. The Chancellor provided reassurance that there is no current plan to discontinue this support and indicated that, in the

7

event the program is ever terminated, departments would receive at least two-to-three years’ notice prior to its cancellation in order to take care of students in the pipeline. In addition to the work being done to provide more direct financial support to Ph.D. programs, the Chancellor discussed a new funding model for masters programs, which returns 60% of funds to the home department. The Chancellor also highlighted initiatives to reduce the number of units required for graduation without sacrificing the quality of education received. The campus is implementing a number of strategic initiatives to help students become creative, critical, entrepreneurial, and computational thinkers. The Chancellor expressed the opinion that these are fundamental skills that can be imparted to students no matter what their course of study. Service-Oriented Investments The Chancellor highlighted investments that are both service and student-oriented. The campus is committed to reaching out to and supporting underserved high school and college students, and is expanding campus resource centers and diversity pilot programs. In addition, the campus is working on improving processes and increasing efficiency. To further this work, the Standing Committee on Service and People Oriented Administrative Culture (SC-SPOC) has been empaneled, chaired by Professor Kit Pogliano (http://blink.ucsd.edu/sponsor/scspoc/index.html). The committee will work to achieve Goal 5 of the strategic plan which focuses on creating an “agile, sustainable, and supportive infrastructure by ensuring a dedication to service, people, and financial stewardship.” Finally, the Chancellor discussed preparation for the upcoming fundraising campaign. It has been eight years since the last campaign finished. Going forward, the Chancellor is planning on investing in building an infrastructure to maintain momentum for future campaigns. At the end of his presentation, Chancellor Khosla opened the floor for questions. A representative asked if support for out-of-state students includes foreign students. The Chancellor responded that he would need to check, and expressed the opinion that all students should be taken care of equally. Another representative asked whether the loss of federal funding has been factored into the lack of graduate program growth. The Chancellor responded that the $15 million being invested in graduate education should help mitigate this problem. PRESENTATION BY DENISE SERRANO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Chair Boss invited Denise Serrano, Director of Public Affairs, to deliver an update on the current state of the UC budget and UC’s advocacy efforts. Ms. Serrano explained that the 2015/16 budget is oriented around strategic priorities that focus investments on student access, affordability, and quality. The proposed budget is the first step in a long-term plan to increase the stability of the UC system. Roughly one quarter of the overall funds will come from Core funds comprised of state general funds and tuition and fees, including out-of-state fees. Ms. Serrano explained that non-Core funds are generally restricted in use and while non-Core operations have grown, academic programs supported by

8

Core funds have been constrained. The economic reality of shrinking funds and increased needs has required UC to devise a means to generate funds to continue growth in academic programs. To achieve these ends, the Regents approved a Tuition Stability Plan that calls for a 5% tuition increase each year for the next five years. The State has the option to “buy-out” the increases: i.e., for every $20 million in additional support from the State during a given year, tuition will decrease by 1%. Thus, an increase of $100 million in State support during one year could “buy out” the entire proposed tuition increase for that year. The plan provides predictability and transparency for families planning for college and offers reliable funding for campuses to make long-term plans, while also supporting UC’s strong commitment to financial aid. The tuition increases will allow UC to increase California resident enrollment, increase student support services, and improve the student-faculty ratio. Two pieces of legislation have been proposed that would result in fundamental changes to the UC system. Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 (SCA 1), proposed by State Senator Ricardo Lara, would completely alter the UC governance structure, permitting the Legislature to determine new governance rules. The amendment is silent regarding what the new governance rules would be, though the intent to fully insert the Legislature into critical decisions is clear. The biggest concern regarding SCA 1 is that it would inject politics into a system that should remain outside those pressures. Senate Bill 15 (SB 15) is being proposed by Senators Marty Bloch and Kevin de León to provide financial assistance and incentives to shorten time-to-degree for students pursuing bachelor’s degrees. The bulk of the support is focused on California State University students, though it offers one year of funding to UC for the 2015-16 fiscal year contingent on no tuition increase. Funds for the program would be obtained by dissolution of the “Middle Class Scholarship” (MCS) program, which was started in 2013. Ms. Serrano closed her presentation and invited questions. A member asked about a proposal for a new STEM-focused, stand-alone UC campus, and expressed the view that, given the current struggle for funding with the State, it would not make sense to allocate funds for a new campus. The Chancellor responded that a forthcoming op-ed he has written calls for funds to be distributed to existing campuses, rather than establishing a new one. PRESENTATION FROM THE COMMITTEES ON RESEARCH GRANTS Chair Boss invited the Chairs of the Committees on Research Grants for General Campus, Health Sciences, and Marine Sciences to provide an overview of the work of the research grant committees. General Campus Professor Harvey Goldman, Chair of the Research Grant Committee - General Campus gave background information regarding the three research grant committees, mentioning that each committee meets quarterly. The three committees divide one pot of money based on the number of senate members in each area, resulting in the following split: 60% to General Campus, 30% to Health Sciences, and 10% to Marine Sciences. For the general campus, grant limits have been increased to $20,000, with a $60,000 cap in a 10 year period, and there have been increased funds available for travel. Professor Goldman said that, during the current year, ~ 90% of all applications are likely to be funded. In addition to regular grants, Bridge Grants are awarded to labs transitioning between funding sources. Professor Goldman

9

reported that the committees are trying to be flexible and respond to new initiatives and ideas when proposed. Professor Goldman encouraged all to apply and turned the floor over to Professor Peter Ernst to give an update on research grants in the Health Sciences. Health Sciences Professor Peter Ernst, Chair of the Research Grant Committee - Health Sciences, first recognized Michelle Null for her outstanding contributions to the Committee. This year, ~ 40% of all applications will be funded. Funding for regular grants is $10,000 per grant, and bridging grants are funded at ~ $25,000 per grant. . The committee did a study and found that the return on the grants is > 10:1, i.e., that the amount of extramural funding generated by the grants is more than 10:1. Marine Sciences Professor James Day, member of the Research Grant Committee – Marine Sciences, said that the committee has ~ $116,000 to fund grant requests, and $10,000 for travel. Applicants have a 95-100% success rate in securing a grant. However, due to an increase in requests, that success rate will be lower this year. Grants are $10-15,000, with a limit of $45,000 in a 10 year period. Chair Boss closed the presentation by encouraging people to apply for these grants. SPECIAL ORDERS Consent Calendar - CAP Annual Report No objections, adopted into minutes.

Senate Election – Nominations for Committee on Committees Chair Boss introduced Vice Chair Bob Continetti to discuss the upcoming elections. Vice Chair Continetti explained that the Vice Chair oversees the election process. Vice Chair Continetti introduced the nominations for Senate elections, including nominations for Vice Chair and members of the Committee on Committees. Department Representatives are elected by their home departments or units. The position of Vice Chair and Committee on Committee members are nominated by Senate Council and elected via campus-wide elections. The full slate of nominees can be found on pages 11 and 12 of the agenda packet on the Academic Senate webpage: http://senate.ucsd.edu/media/148686/ra-mar-2015-agenda-final-rev-3_16_15.pdf. Representative Assembly was asked to confirm the nominees for the Committee on Committees. The Committee’s membership and responsibilities are detailed in full in Bylaw 185. Vice Chair Continetti explained that this committee is responsible for appointing members to all other Senate committees, and for nominating representatives to administrative committees and local and systemwide task forces. The nominees for the Committee on Committees are as follows:

10

• Health Sciences Department Nominees cannot be from the Department of Medicine or the Department of Cellular & Molecular Medicine. (1) Marilyn Jones (Professor of Clinical, Pediatrics) (2) Tamara Wall (Professor In Residence, Psychiatry)

• Humanities Department (1) Robert Edelman (Professor, History) (2) Eric Watkins (Professor, Philosophy) also nominated via petition

• Arts Department (1) Amy Adler (Professor, Visual Arts) (2) Shahrokh Yadegari (Professor, Theatre)

• Science Department (1) Ian Abramson (Professor, Mathematics) (2) Kimberly Prather (Professor, Chemistry & Biochemistry)

Vice Chair Continetti asked for any additional nominees from the floor, to which there were none. A voice vote was called to approve the slate of nominees as presented. The slate of nominees was approved by a unanimous “aye” vote from the floor. REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES [none] REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES Graduate Council – Proposed Master of Chinese Economic and Political Affairs Chair Boss introduced Professor David Salmon, Chair of Graduate Council. Professor David Salmon, Chair of Graduate Council, invited Professor Barry Naughton of the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies (IR/PS) to present the proposed Master of Chinese Economic and Political Affairs. The program was approved by Graduate Council on January 12th. Professor Naughton presented an overview of the proposed degree program. There are many Master’s degrees in Chinese studies at countless universities but the IR/PS Master of Chinese Economic and Political Affairs is a uniquely innovative program that responds to an unmet area of interest for scholars. It would be a two-year program that will include significant quantitative analysis and a narrowed focus on contemporary China. It will require field work that is coordinated with a research seminar, leading to the final production of an article or case study of publishable quality. There are currently no other programs like this in the United States, and thus it is likely to attract good candidates. The proposed program will start with an inaugural class of five students. Ultimately, the program will enroll classes of no more than 10 students. It will use resources already in place, including the wealth of IR/PS faculty who specialize in China and have existing relationships with prestigious Chinese universities. Professor Naughton concluded his presentation and invited questions. A member asked whether IR/PS anticipates any academic freedom issues due to the program’s close relationship with Chinese

11

universities. Professor Naughton responded “yes,” but that the program and the IR/PS faculty would assure that academic freedom would be protected. A member asked if the new degree was a Master’s of Advanced Studies. Professor Naughton clarified that the degree is not an MAS but a Master of Chinese Economic and Political Affairs. Another member asked when the program is expected to be fully self-supporting. Professor Naughton responded that budget projections, approved by the Committee of Planning and Budget (CPB), indicate the program will be fully self-supporting within three years. There is a strong commitment from IR/PS leaders for the program. A member asked about language skills and whether the school anticipates admitting students already fluent in the Chinese language. Professor Naughton said that the assumption is that entering students will, at minimum, be able to read Chinese fluently, with a plan to build verbal fluency while in the program. Another member asked what might be the expected career path for students completing the program. Professor Naughton explained that students in the current China track within IR/PS have generally done well, with most graduates going into business or into Ph.D. programs. A smaller number of graduates enter the public sector and they have also been successful. The proposed degree is not intended to feed into a specific market; rather it is in response to programmatic demands to focus on specific aspects of China. At the close of questions, Professor Salmon moved to approve the program. No second was needed because the motion was made on behalf of a Senate committee. A verbal vote was taken and the proposed degree was approved by a unanimous “aye” vote. REPORTS OF FACULTIES [none] PETITIONS OF STUDENTS [none] UNFINISHED BUSINESS [none] NEW BUSINESS A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. All in favor were asked to approve with a verbal “aye”. The motion was approved with no “nays” or abstentions and the meeting was adjourned at 4:51. TAM

12

ACADEMIC SENATE: SAN DIEGO DIVISION 

 May 26, 2015 

REPORT OF THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE 

The Educational Policy Committee proposes to amend San Diego Senate Regulation 502. Grade Appeals. The attached Regulation shows the affected portions of the Regulation, with proposed additions underlined and proposed deletions shown with strike‐outs. The proposed amendment was submitted to the Educational Policy Committee by the Office for Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD).   The primary change to the Regulation is the addition of a new section F, in order to include OPHD in the grade appeal process if a student’s request alleges that a grade has been improperly affected by bias or discrimination based on a protected trait. The Educational Policy Committee finds that this addition will benefit the grade appeals process.  The Educational Policy Committee also proposes updating the description of non‐academic criteria in Section A(2) and updating a reference to the Committee’s Bylaw in Section G.  The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction has reviewed the revised Regulation and found it consonant with the Code of the Academic Senate.              

Kaustuv Roy, Chair             Educational Policy Committee 

************************************************ 

 

13

MANUAL OF THE SAN DIEGO DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE

REGULATION

502. Grade Appeals [En 5/23/78; Am 6/10/97]

(A) (1) If a student believes that non-academic criteria have been used in determining his/her grade in a course, he/she may follow the procedures described in this Regulation.

  (2) Non-academic criteria means criteria not directly reflective of academic performance in the course. It includes discrimination on political grounds, or based on a protected trait, including but not limited to a student’s gender, race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability. or for reasons of race, religion, sex or ethnic origin.

  (3) Appeals to this committee [see (B)(4)] shall be considered confidential. Neither any member of the subcommittee nor the Academic Senate Office shall release any information about the appeal except as specifically provided in this Regulation. [Am 6/10/97]

  (4) If a medical student wishes to appeal a grade in a School of Medicine course, he or she must follow procedures described in Regulation 503, instead of Regulation 502. [Am 1/28/14]

(B) (1) The student must attempt to resolve the grievance with the instructor within the first month of the following regular academic quarter. [Am 6/10/97]

  (2) If the grievance is not resolved to the student's satisfaction, he/she may then attempt to resolve the grievance through written appeal to the department chair or equivalent, who shall attempt to adjudicate the case with the instructor and the student within two weeks.

  (3)

(4)

If the grievance still is not resolved to the student's satisfaction, he/she may then attempt to resolve the grievance through written appeal to the provost of his/her college, or the Dean of Graduate Studies, who shall attempt to adjudicate the case with the instructor, the chair and the student within two weeks. [Am1/28/14] If the grievance is not resolved to the student's satisfaction by the provost or dean, the student may

    request consideration of his/her appeal by the Educational Policy Committees (hereinafter called the committee) according to the procedures outlined below. This request must be submitted before the last day of instruction of the quarter following the quarter in which the course was taken. [Am 3/1/11]

(C) (1) The student's request for committee consideration should include a written statement outlining the nature of the grievance, including copies of any and all documents in his/her possession supporting the grievance. The submission of the statement to the committee places the case before it and restricts any change of the challenged grade to a change initiated by the committee, unless the committee determines that all other avenues of adjudication have not been exhausted. [Am 6/10/97]

  (2) Upon receipt of the student's request, the committee shall immediately forward a copy of it to the instructor, the department chair or equivalent, and the provost or dean, with a request for written reports of their attempts to resolve the complaint. [Am 6/10/97]

  (3) The committee, after having determined that all other avenues of adjudication have been exhausted, shall review the complaint and the reports to determine if there is substantial evidence that non-academic criteria were used. [Am 6/10/97] (a) If the committee finds substantial evidence that non-academic criteria were used, it shall

follow the procedure in paragraph (D) below. (b) If the committee decides the allegations are without substance, it shall serve written

notification of its findings to the complainant and to the instructor within two weeks. Within ten days the complainant or the instructor may respond to the findings. If there are no responses, or if after consideration of such responses the committee sustains its decision, the grade shall not be changed. [Am 6/10/97]

(D) (1) If the committee determines that there is evidence that non-academic criteria were used, it shall interview any individual whose testimony might facilitate resolution of the case. The complainant shall make available to the committee all of his/her work in the course which has been graded and is in his/her possession. The instructor shall make available to the committee all records of student performance in the course and graded student work in the course which is still in his/her possession.

14

At the conclusion of the case each document shall be returned to the source from which it was obtained. [Am 6/10/97]

(2) The committee shall complete its deliberations and arrive at a decision within two weeks of its determination that evidence of the use of non-academic criteria had been submitted. A record of the committee's actions in the case shall be kept in the Senate Office for three years.

(3) If the allegations of the complainant are not upheld by a preponderance of the evidence, the committee shall so notify the complainant and the instructor in writing. Within one week of such notification, the complainant and the instructor shall have the opportunity to respond to the findings and the decision of the committee. If there are no responses, or if after considering such responses the committee sustains its decision, it shall so notify the complainant and the instructor in writing and the grade shall not be changed.

(4) If the committee determines that non-academic criteria were significant factors in establishing the grade, it shall give the student the option of either receiving a grade of P or S in the course or retro actively dropping the course without penalty. A grade of P or S awarded in this way shall be acceptable towards satisfaction of any degree requirement even if a minimum letter grade in the course had been required, and shall not be counted in the number of courses a student may take on a P/NP basis. If the student elects to receive a grade of P or S, the student may also elect to have a notation entered on his/her transcript indicating that the grade was awarded by the Divisional grade appeals committee.

(a) The committee shall serve written notification of its findings and its decision to the complainant and the instructor. The complainant and the instructor may respond in writing to the findings and the decision of the committee within one week of such notification.

(b) If there are no responses, or if after considering such responses the committee sustains its decision, the grade shall be changed; the committee shall then instruct the Registrar to change the grade to P or S or, if the student elected the drop option, to retroactively drop the course from the student's record. Copies of the committee's instruction shall be sent to the complainant and the instructor.

(E) These procedures are designed solely to determine whether non-academic criteria have been used in assigning a grade, and if so to effect a change of that grade. (1) No punitive actions may be taken against the instructor solely on the basis of these procedures.

Neither the filing of charges nor the final disposition of the case shall, under any circumstances, become a part of the personnel file of the instructor. The use of non-academic criteria in assigning a grade is a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct. Sanctions against an instructor for violation of the Faculty Code may be sought by filing a complaint in accordance with San Diego Division Bylaw 230(D). A complaint may be filed by the student or by others.

(2) No punitive actions may be taken against the complainant solely on the basis of these procedures. Neither the filing of charges nor the final disposition of the case shall, under any circumstances, become a part of the complainant's file. The instructor may, if he/she feels that his/her record has been impugned by false or unfounded charges, file charges against the complainant through the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, or the Dean of Graduate Studies. [Am1/28/14]

(F) All decisions of the Committee shall be final, except as may otherwise be provided in San Diego Divisional Bylaw 205. [En 6/10/97] Where a grade appeal is based on a claim that the grade was assigned based on a protected trait, including but not limited to a student’s gender, race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability, the department chair or equivalent shall contact the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD). OPHD shall assist at any and all stages of a grade appeal in investigating and evaluating such claims of discrimination based on a protected trait. If the appeal is sent to the committee, the OPHD report and any other assistance that OPHD may provide will be made available to the committee.

(G) All decisions of the Committee shall be final, except as may otherwise be provided in San Diego Divisional Bylaw 200 205. [En 6/10/97]

15

April 27, 2015 PROFESSOR GERRY BOSS, Chair Academic Senate, San Diego Division SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Senate Regulation 502 Dear Professor Boss, The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction has reviewed the amended request from the Educational Policy Committee (EPC) to amend Senate Regulation 502. The committee finds the revisions consonant with the code of the Academic Senate. Sincerely, Charles L. Perrin, Chair Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction cc: R. Continetti R. Rodriguez T. Mallis

16

May 26, 2015

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PREPARATORY EDUCATION AND THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

The Committee on Preparatory Education (COPE) and the Educational Policy Committee (EPC) propose to amend Section K (Subject A Requirement) of San Diego Senate Regulation 600 – Campuswide Graduation Requirements. The attached Regulation shows the affected portions of the Regulation, with proposed additions underlined and proposed deletions shown with strike outs. There are two major changes to Section K:

1. Replace references to the “Subject A Requirement” with the “University of California Entry Level Writing Requirement”.

2. Update SD 600(K)(4) and (5) to remove the requirement that students who have not satisfied the requirement prior to the first quarter of study at UCSD must pass a proficiency examination in addition to a course in order to satisfy the University of California Entry Level Writing Requirement.

COPE and EPC’s rationale for putting forward the proposed changes is also attached. Both committees find that removing the requirement that students must pass a proficiency examination is both in the best interest of students and necessary in order to move forward with introducing a new curriculum for the Basic Writing Program, which students must complete in order to satisfy the Entry Level Writing Requirement. The new curriculum is designed to better prepare students for the college writing programs and meet the rigors of academic writing, while also taking into consideration student differences in educational backgrounds and preparation. The implementation of a new curriculum is planned for Fall 2015. The proposed changes have undergone extensive review by standing committees of the San Diego Division of the Academic Senate. The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction has reviewed the proposed changes and find them consonant with the Code of the Academic Senate. The proposal was also reviewed and endorsed by the Undergraduate Council and Senate Council. The Committee on Preparatory Education and the Educational Policy Committee recommend that the Representative Assembly approve the amendments to Regulation 600(K) and that it take effect on the first day of instruction for Fall Quarter 2015.

Carrie Wastal, Chair Kaustuv Roy, Chair Committee on Preparatory Education Educational Policy Committee

17

MANUAL OF THE SAN DIEGO DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE

REGULATION

600. Campuswide Graduation Requirements [En 6/13/78]

(A) Every candidate for a Bachelor's degree must have completed a major. [En 11/27/90] (1) A major shall require the equivalent of 12 or more upper division courses (48 or more units). (2) Requirements for majors shall be determined by departments and programs, subject to the approval

of the Undergraduate Council. [Am 3/1/11] (3) Double Majors

With the approval of both departments or programs and of the college provost, a student in good standing may declare a double major. [Am 2/27/96]

(a) A student with a double major must fulfill the separate requirements of each major, and the equivalent of at least ten upper-division courses (40 units) must be unique to each major. Courses taken in fulfillment of lower-division requirements may overlap to any degree. [Am 2/27/96]

(b) The two majors may not be within the School of Engineering, nor, except with the approval of the Undergraduate Council, within a single department. When a departmental major is combined with a major in an interdepartmental or interdisciplinary program, the ten courses counted as unique to the interdepartmental or interdisciplinary program must all be drawn from outside the departmental major. [En 2/27/96; Am 3/1/11]

(c) A student who has declared a double major is not subject to the maximum-unit limitations of Regulation 600(C) and may accrue up to 240 units. [En 2/27/96]

(d) A student with a double major may graduate only upon completion of all requirements for both majors. Both majors will be noted on the student's transcript and diploma. If the two majors lead to different degrees (B.A. and B.S.), that fact will be noted on the transcript, and the two degree designations will appear on one diploma. [Am 2/26/91; Am 2/27/96]

(e) A student who has declared a double major may graduate in one major upon the completion of all requirements for that major, but may not continue in the University for completion of the second major. [Am 4/25/95; Am 2/27/96]

(4) An undergraduate student must have declared a major or pre-major upon completion of 90 units. (B) (1) Other requirements for graduation shall be determined by the colleges in conformity with Universitywide regulations and subject to approval by the San Diego Division of the Academic Senate.

(2) Each college must set a minimum requirement for a bachelor's degree equivalent to at least 180 units, including not less than 60 at the upper division level. The minimum number of units required by a college must be the same for the degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science. Except as may be otherwise provided in the Regulations of the Academic Senate or of the San Diego Division, no college may set a standard higher than passing for the satisfaction of any requirement for graduation. [Am 5/23/95]

(3) The value of a course in units ("quarter units" or "quarter credits") shall be reckoned at the rate of one unit for three hours' work per week per quarter on the part of the student, or the equivalent [SR 760]. [Am 5/22/90; Am 11/27/90] (C) Maximum Unit Limitation [En 11/27/90]

(1) An undergraduate student may register for no more than 200 course units. An exception is permitted for candidates for B.S. degrees in engineering, for whom the limit is 240 units in Revelle and Eleanor Roosevelt Colleges and 230 units in all other colleges. Other exceptions will be granted only for compelling academic reasons and only with the approval of the college provost and the concurrence of the Educational Policy Committee. [Am 3/1/11]

(2) Transfer units applicable toward general education requirements or major requirements are to be included in the maximum unit calculation; all other transfer units are to be excluded. Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate units are to be excluded.

18

(D) Special kinds of study -- e.g., laboratories, reading programs, studio work -- may be required in addition to the basic course work in given curricula.

(E) Minors [En 5/28/91; Am 5/28/96 (changes effective for students entering after January 1, 1998)] A minor is not required for graduation. A student in good standing may declare an optional minor. [Am 5/28/96] (1) A minor shall consist of at least 28 units, of which at least 20 units must be upper division. For

sound academic reasons and with the approval of the Undergraduate Council a minor may be established with fewer than 20 upper-division units. [Am 5/28/96; Am 3/1/11]

(2) Requirements for minors shall be determined by departments and programs, subject to the approval of the Undergraduate Council. [Am 3/1/11] (3) A student may not apply toward a minor any upper-division course that has been used to satisfy the requirements of a major. [Am 5/26/92] (4) Double Minors (a) With the approval of both departments or programs and of the college provost, a student in good standing may declare a double minor. (b) A student with a double minor must fulfill the separate requirements of each minor, with no overlap of upper-division courses. Courses taken in fulfillment of lower-division requirements may overlap to any degree. (F) [SR 638] American History & Institutions Requirement [Am 1/26/71; Am 1/21/86, Rt by Assembly 5/6/86] Knowledge of American history and of the principles of American institutions under the federal and state constitutions is required of all candidates for the degree of A.B., B.Arch., or B.S. This requirement may be met in any one of the following ways:

(1) One high school unit in American history, or one-half high school unit in American history and one-half high school unit in civics or American government, with a grade of C or better. [Am 10/23/90]

(2) By completing, with a grade of C- or better or a grade of P, any one-quarter UCSD course of instruction accepted as satisfactory by the Undergraduate Council. Courses suitable for fulfilling the requirement will be designated by the Undergraduate Council. The list of suitable courses will be indicated in the UCSD Catalog, or other official academic publications of the colleges. [EC 5/29/73; Am 10/23/90; Am 3/1/11]

(3) By presenting proof of having received a grade of 3 or higher on the Advanced Placement Test in American History administered by the Educational Testing Service of Princeton, New Jersey. (4) By presenting proof of having satisfied the present requirement as administered at another collegiate institution within the state. (5) By presenting proof of successful completion of a one-quarter or one-semester course, with a grade of C or better, in either American history or American government at a junior college within the state. (6) By presenting proof of successful completion of a one-quarter or one-semester course, with a grade of C or better, in either American history or American government at a recognized institution of higher education, junior college included, in another state. [Am 2/25/69] (7) An alien attending the University on an F-1 or J-1 student visa may, by showing proof of his or her temporary residence in the United States, petition for exemption from this requirement through the office of the student's college provost. (G) Requirement in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion [En 3/1/11]

A knowledge of diversity, equity, and inclusion is required of all candidates for a Bachelor’s degree who begin their studies at UC San Diego in lower-division standing in Fall 2011 or thereafter, or in upper-division standing in Fall 2013 or thereafter. (1) This requirement shall be satisfied by passing, with a grade not lower than C- or P, a one-quarter,

four-unit course expressly approved by the Committee on Educational Policy for that purpose. A list of approved courses will be provided in the UC San Diego General Catalog.

(2) This requirement may be satisfied by presenting proof of having passed a one-quarter, four-unit transfer course, or its equivalent, at a recognized institution of higher education, community colleges included, that has been articulated to one of the courses approved by the Committee on Educational Policy for the purpose of meeting the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion requirement.

(H) Residence

19

Except as provided in SR 614, the minimum residence at the University of California required for a degree is three terms. Each summer session in which a student completes a course of at least two units may be used in satisfaction of half a term's residence. [Am 12/2/08] Except as otherwise provided in this section and SR 614, 35 of the final 45 units completed by each

candidate for the Bachelor's degree must be earned in residence in the college or school of the University of California in which the degree is to be taken. A student who completes the graduation requirements while in the Education Abroad Program, the UC Washington, D.C. program, or the UC Center in Sacramento Program may satisfy the requirement with the final 45 units preceding the student’s entrance into any of these programs. [Am 5/23/01; Am 12/2/08]

Faculties may permit a student who is enrolled in the Education Abroad Program, the UC Washington, D.C.

program, or the UC Center in Sacramento Program to satisfy the residence requirement by earning at least 35 of the final 90 units, including the final 12 units, in residence in the college or school of the University in which the degree is to be taken. [En 4/1/75; Am 12/2/08]

(I) Part-Time Study [En 11/24/92] (1) Degree programs in the University may be open to part-time students whenever there are good

educational reasons for so doing. No majors or other degree programs will be offered only for part-time students, except as specifically authorized by the Academic Senate.

(2) A part-time undergraduate student is one who is approved to enroll for ten units or fewer, or an equivalent number of courses per quarter.

(3) The same admissions standards that apply to full-time students will apply to part-time students. Approval for individual students to enroll on a part-time basis will be given for reasons of occupation, family responsibilities, health, or for one quarter only graduating senior status. Approval to enroll as a part-time undergraduate student shall be given by the appropriate provost.

(4) Residence in any regular term is validated for a part-time student on the San Diego campus by a program of one or more courses. Part-time undergraduate students shall not be required to meet minimum progress requirements.

{(I) Subject A Requirement [Variance En 5/27/75, Rt by Academic Council 7/14/76; Rp 11/27/84 because variance rescinded by amendment of SR 636] [See SR 636]}

(J) Standards for Award of Honors at Graduation [En 5/23/78, Rt by Assembly 3/28/79] (1) There shall be a campuswide requirement for the award of college honors at graduation. No more

than fourteen percent of the graduating seniors on campus shall be eligible for college honors. Normally, no more than the top two percent shall be eligible for summa cum laude and no more than the next four percent for magna cum laude, although minor variations from year to year shall be permitted. The remaining eight percent are eligible for cum laude. The ranking of students for eligibility for college honors shall be based upon the grade point average. In addition, to be eligible for honors, a student must receive letter grades for at least 80 quarter units of course work at the University of California. Each college may award honors at graduation only to those who are eligible to receive college honors.

(2) Each department or program may award honors to a student at graduation in accordance with the following criteria: (a) The student must have completed a special course of study within the department or

program. The requirements for this special course of study shall be approved by the divisional Undergraduate Council and published in the Catalog. The requirements must include 8-12 units of supervised research or other creative activity leading to the preparation of a paper or other appropriate project. Public presentation of the project, through performance, participation in the undergraduate research conference, or other appropriate means, shall explicitly be encouraged. [Am 4/23/96; Am 3/1/11]

(b) The department or program shall establish formal procedures and criteria for application and admission to the program, which shall normally include a GPA of 3.5 in the major as a prerequisite. Students with a GPA lower than 3.5 may be admitted by exception if they show promise of success in research or creative activity. [En 4/23/96]

(c) Each student whose project earns the equivalent of a grade of B or better and who has maintained a GPA of at least 3.25 in the major shall be entitled to the designation “with

20

distinction” on the diploma after the departmental or program name. Subject to the approval of the Undergraduate Council, each department or program shall establish criteria for the award of the designations “with high distinction” and “with highest distinction”. [Am 4/23/96; Am 3/1/11]

(K) University of California Entry Level Writing Requirement (formerly called the Subject A Requirement) Subject A Requirement. [Variance En 5/27/75; Rp 11/27/84; SR 636 governed campus practice from 1984 to 1996; En 6/10/97 (also see 600H above)] (1) University of California Entry Level Writing Requirement Subject A is a reading and writing

proficiency requirement. Each student must be able to understand and to respond adequately to written material typical of reading assignments in freshman courses. This ability must be demonstrated in student writing that communicates effectively to University faculty. [SR 636(A) Am 5/23/96]

(2) Satisfaction of the University of California Entry Level Writing Requirement Subject A requirement is a prerequisite for every university level undergraduate course in English composition, including all courses approved as meeting the writing requirements of the undergraduate colleges at UCSD.

(3) Prior to his or her first quarter of study at UCSD, each student may satisfy the University of California Entry Level Writing Requirement Subject A requirement by any of the means approved by the Universitywide Committee on Preparatory Education and authorized under Universitywide Senate Regulation 636.

(4) A student who has not satisfied the University of California Entry Level Writing Requirement Subject A proficiency requirement prior to his or her first quarter of study at UCSD must satisfy the requirement by completing with a grade of "C" or better a course approved for this purpose by the divisional Committee on Preparatory Education AND by passing a proficiency examination administered in accordance with standards established by the Divisional Committee on Preparatory Education. No baccalaureate credit will be awarded for completion of the course specified in this paragraph. Workload credit towards satisfaction of the Minimum Progress Requirement (SDR 516) will, however, be awarded.

(5) A student who has not satisfied the University of California Entry Level Writing Requirement Subject A proficiency requirement must register for the course AND take the examination specified in Paragraph 4 during each quarter of residence at UCSD until the University of California Entry Level Writing Requirement is satisfied.

(6) In accordance with Universitywide Senate Regulation 636, a student who has not satisfied the University of California Entry Level Writing Requirement Subject A proficiency requirement after three quarters of enrollment at any campus of the University of California will not be eligible to enroll for a fourth quarter. Exceptions to this regulation may be considered in accordance with Divisional Bylaw 207 200, but only within policies established by the Divisional Educational Policy Committee and the Divisional Committee on Preparatory Education. [Am 3/1/11]

21

April 22, 2015 Barbara Sawrey Associate Vice Chancellor-Dean of Undergraduate Education Cristina Della Coletta Dean, Arts and Humanities Subject: Basic Writing Curriculum Committee Proposal Dear Deans Sawrey and Della Coletta, As charged, the Basic Writing Curriculum Committee has developed a new curriculum for the Basic Writing Program in support of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Revised Basic Writing Curriculum’s proposal (2014) to eliminate the exit exam. The new curriculum was developed by a workgroup representing various deans, faculty, college writing program directors, and Basic Writing instructors. The proposed new curriculum will:

• Replace the exit exam with a review of a substantial portfolio of the students’ coursework.

• Train instructors to review and grade student portfolios with criteria informed by the Basic Writing’s Program Objectives. If the student meets the criteria, he or she will advance to the College Writing Programs. If not, the student will repeat the course.

• Align the new curriculum with the College Writing Programs’ curricula.

• Improve student success in Basic Writing and by extension, retention and graduation

rates.

Respectfully submitted, Basic Writing Curriculum Committee: Amelia Glaser (Associate Professor, Literature) Karen Gocsik (Director, Warren Writing Program) Matthew Herbst (Director, Eleanor Roosevelt College MMW) Kathleen Johnson (Assistant Dean-Undergraduate Education) Sarah McCullough (Associate Director, Center for Humanities) John Moore (Provost, John Muir College) Deb Sanborn (Basic Writing Program Instructor) Rose To (Basic Writing Program Instructor) Carrie Wastal, Director, BWCC Chair (Director, Muir College Writing Program) Eric Watkins (Professor, Philosophy)

22

Basic Writing Curriculum Committee Proposal

April 21, 2015

On February 17, 2015, Barbara Sawrey, Associate Vice Chancellor-Dean of Undergraduate Education, and Cristina Della Coletta, Dean, Arts and Humanities, assembled the Basic Writing Curriculum Committee (BWCC) and charged it with designing a curriculum that would best suit student needs given the campus’s changing student demographic. The charge was a result of previous workgroups’ recommendations to rethink the Basic Writing Program especially its curriculum. In response to its charge, the BWCC considered the recommendations in the Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Revised Basic Writing Curriculum (2014) and developed a new curriculum for the Basic Writing Program that addresses student preparation for success in the college writing programs. The resulting proposal recommends a curriculum for the Basic Writing Program that is appropriate for a rigorous academic writing course at UCSD. Background To determine whether they should be placed in Basic Writing or enter the College Writing Programs directly, students take a system-wide exam known as the Analytic Writing Placement Exam (AWPE). Students who do not meet the requirements for entry into the College Writing Programs can satisfy the Entry-Level Writing Requirement (ELWR)1 through the successful completion of Basic Writing courses. The Basic Writing Program currently offers two courses—SDCC1 and SDCC4. SDCC1 is for students who took but failed to pass the AWPE. SDCC4 is for students whose first language is not English.2 At the completion of Basic Writing courses, students take a timed written exit exam that is another AWPE, albeit with a new text as the writing prompt. The Basic Writing instructors are the main scorers for the exam. If students pass the course, but fail the exam, they remain in Basic Writing. This process can be repeated multiple times with similar results. Ideally students complete their ELWR in their first year of enrollment, but English Language Learners placed in SDCC4 (the ESL course) can take SDCC4 three times and SDCC1 another three times for a total of six quarters. Moreover, the courses, except for the first quarter, need not be taken in sequential order.

1 This UC system-wide requirement states that all students entering UC as freshmen must demonstrate competency of the English language by fulfilling the Entry-Level Writing Requirement. The ELWR is fulfilled by earning set scores from one of the following exams: Advanced Placement (AP), Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), American College Testing (ACT), or International Baccalaureate (IB) Higher Level English A or A1 scores. The requirement can also be met through completion (with at least a C) in an acceptable English composition course at a college or university. Students who do not fulfill the ELWR before April 1 of their first year at UC must take the ELWR.

2 English as a Second Language (ESL) applies to students who learn English as a second language; English Language Learners (ELL) is for students whose first language is not English; English Multilingual Learners (EML) identifies students who acquired multiple languages, including English; and Basic Writers is for students who are native speakers of English with poor writing skills.

23

Another alternative to fulfilling the ELWR is to enroll in an ELWR course during the summer session. Summer session courses do not count toward the maximum number of courses students can enroll in to satisfy the ELWR. It is possible for a SDCC4 student to take six Basic Writing classes and two summer session ELWR classes and still not satisfy the requirement. Prior reports underline the struggle students have in passing both the course(s) and the exit exam. The inability to pass the exit exam represents a serious impediment to students’ progress toward graduation. While some students do write well enough to pass the exit exam, the pressure on students to pass this high-stakes exam can negatively affect their scores, especially if they have previously failed the exam. In any event, failure to complete the entry-level writing requirement in the allotted time leads to expulsion from UCSD even if a student’s GPA does not subject him or her to academic disqualification. We expect that implementation of the new curriculum, will both shorten basic writing students’ time to graduation and decrease the number of students who are expelled for not satisfying the basic writing requirement. For example, at the end of Spring 2014, 111 students were facing disqualification because of the ELWR requirement. Of these, 96 had passed the course at least once, but had not passed the exam. Of these, 88 were otherwise either in good academic standing (78) or on probation (10). In other words, as of Spring 2014, 88 students were subject to disqualification only because they had not passed the exit exam. Of the 111 students facing disqualification, 70 had F-1 visa status – 63%. These data clearly show an unacceptably large number of students, the majority of them international, facing an end to their university studies due solely to their inability to pass the exit exam. A 2014 workgroup analyzed writing samples from students who were failing at satisfying the basic writing requirement. Among their findings was a disconnect between the type of writing produced by the students and what is expected in the college writing programs. Partly because the current focus of the basic writing courses is on preparing students for a timed exit exam, the current curriculum does not always prepare students for the type of university level writing they will encounter later in their college careers. It is for these reasons, among others, that the Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Revised Basic Writing Curriculum (2014) recommended the transformation of the program from an exam-centered course to a student-centered program with a focus on argument and analysis. The new curriculum plans to effect this transformation by implementing strategies that support critical reading, writing and analysis, inquiry, and argument.3 Moreover, the new curriculum will ensure that the Basic Writing Program curriculum and the College Writing Programs’ curricula align with each other. In other words, the Basic Writing curriculum will provide the foundation for work in the college writing programs. As presented in this proposal, the new curriculum will better serve students who need additional writing coursework through a more inclusive curriculum that will better serve students from

3 These strategies and objectives are similar to those of the college writing programs.

24

diverse educational, social, cultural, backgrounds through a “focus on diversity, equity, inclusion” and, we would add, student success, as stated in the campus’s 2014 Strategic Plan.4 Who are Basic Writers? UC San Diego is enrolling an increasing number of international students. As this number rises, so does the number of students in the Basic Writing Program. The curriculum we propose takes into consideration student differences in educational backgrounds and preparation, experience in reading and writing academic texts, and transition from a home language to English. We acknowledge that any new curriculum that serves these different populations must be sensitive to these issues and, at the same time, be accessible for appropriately trained instructors. The Basic Writing Program Learning Objectives Workgroup Report (2014) states that many international and permanent resident students in Basic Writing come from China, Hong Kong, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, US, and Vietnam. At UC San Diego, students from China, Korea, and the US comprise the majority of basic writers. The report also finds that international students have had the lowest scores on the ELWR. Furthermore, the international students who have not cleared the ELWR requirement take more quarters of Basic Writing courses on average. The curriculum we propose addresses the challenging task of preparing students to pass Basic Writing and enroll in a college writing program in a timely manner. The Proposed Basic Writing Curriculum Given the profile of basic writers provided above, we offer the following objectives, principles, and best practices upon which our Basic Writing Curriculum will be founded. Objectives Upon successful completion of the UCSD Basic Writing course(s), students will demonstrate a basic ability to:

• Develop critical reading strategies for analyzing and responding to academic texts • Use writing as a means of critical inquiry • Formulate an argument that engages in larger academic conversations • Advance a clear claim • Utilize organizational structures and language conventions appropriate to an academic

audience • Practice revision and editing using feedback from instructors and peers • Reflect effectively on one’s own critical thinking and writing processes • Find and use evidence from multiple sources • Use citations according to the principles of the UC San Diego Academic Integrity Policy

4The full quotation from the Strategic Plan Executive Summary is: “Our focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion enables faculty, students and staff to excel and provides an opportunity for all to succeed” (4).

25

Principles & Best Practices for Instruction To meet these objectives, instructors will embrace the following principles and their associated practices:

1) Basic Writing instruction works best when that instruction is rigorous, not remedial. Rigorous instruction in any field engages and challenges students. In writing, that instruction privileges critical thinking and composition over lessons in correctness, even while it demands that students produce work that exhibits not only intellectual quality but also formal control. To practice rigor, instructors will: assign readings that are demanding but accessible and relevant; provide students with interesting academic questions to write about; scaffold assignments so that they increase in difficulty; instruct students in the various aspects of formal control; create opportunities for guided revision; and acknowledge the challenges of clearly rendering complex ideas, providing opportunities for students to try, more than once, to meet those challenges. 2) Basic Writing instruction works best when that instruction is student-centered. Student-centered writing classrooms are based on three important principles: meet the students where they are, in terms of their abilities and backgrounds; position students’ writing and writing processes (rather than course content) at the center of the class; and make students responsible for their own learning. To create a student-centered environment, instructors will do the following: implement diagnostic assignments; scaffold subsequent assignments to increase communicative and cultural competency; run writing workshops that use student writing as the object of critique; guide students in peer review; confer regularly with students; carefully assess and respond to students’ written work; and encourage reflection (both as a classroom and an individual activity).

Principles & Practices of Academic Writing5 To meet the aforementioned objectives, students and instructors will employ the following principles and practices.

1) Academic writing is first a means of critical inquiry. Basic writers enter our classrooms with varying ideas about the purpose of writing, including writing as a means of self-expression, writing as a way to perform knowledge on a written exam, and writing as a means by which they convince others of their positions. Instructors must teach these writers that, at the university, writing is a means of critical inquiry—a means of analyzing existing arguments, and of discovering new possibilities and new ideas. To teach students that writing is a means of inquiry, instructors will: instruct students to annotate texts with questions; train students in the practice of articulating good academic questions; and demonstrate to students how to draft and revise by asking questions of their own writing. 2) Academic writing, like all writing, requires an understanding of its audience. Basic writers are generally unprepared to meet the preferred conventions and demands of the

5 These principles are true for all students who are learning to write for an academic audience. But they are particularly vexing for basic writers, who are more likely to be underprepared for writing in the university.

26

academic audience. While sometimes these students can produce narratives or other conversational genres of writing, too often when composing academic work basic writers produce prose that is insufficiently organized, inadequately cited, and weakened by a lack of syntactical and grammatical fluency. Instructors must carefully introduce students to the conventions and expectations of the academic audience, including how to craft a compelling claim, how to organize sources into an effective argument, and how to write clearly, with an appropriate academic tone that honors the academic conventions of citation, grammar, and style. Instructors will teach students how to identify the necessary background information, even when they expect the audience to be familiar with that information. Instructors will also need to provide students with the appropriate critical methods for reading and responding to one another’s papers as evolving members of the academic community. 3) Academic writing permits entrance to scholarly conversations. Basic writers rarely see writing as an opportunity to make their claims within the ongoing conversations of research and scholarship. Rather, they see writing as requiring either a summary of other writers, or as an opportunity to present their opinions. To help students enter the scholarly conversation, instructors will: present students with conversations that they can appreciate and join; detail the differences between observation, opinion, and academic argument; instruct students how to consider, evaluate, and use evidence in order to gain credibility in an academic conversation; and teach students to produce introductions that will contextualize their arguments within the larger conversation. 4) Academic writing is accomplished not by following formulae for writing but by making informed, deliberate decisions re: reading, critical thinking, and writing. Basic writers often enter our classrooms with poor reading habits and ineffective formulae for writing. When it comes to reading, these students read passively, to absorb information, as if studying for a quiz, rather than actively, as writers read. When it comes to writing, these students rely on formulae like the five-paragraph theme, or whatever template is routinely taught in their nation of origin. Basic writers need to understand, via our instruction, that writing is not a formula but rather is a series of decisions made by considering 1) what they are trying to say, and 2) the expectations of the audience they are trying to reach. In order to teach writing as decision-making, instructors will: teach the elements and structures of argument (claim, premise, evidence); discuss reader expectations regarding argument (for instance, where in the paper the reader expects to see the claim); ask students to outline or sketch their arguments and to consider alternative strategies; and discuss the effectiveness of students’ decisions in all-class workshops, in conferences, and in responses to student work.

Course Design Given the objectives, principles, and practices outlined above, and considering the populations we will be serving in these courses, we offer the following suggestions for the course reader, the course syllabus, and the method for determining student readiness for college writing. Note that this syllabus is designed for SDCC1. SDCC 4 will follow a similar trajectory and will use the same text and methodology but will require fewer readings and shorter writing assignments,

27

thereby permitting additional instruction in academic conventions (rhetorical, structural, and grammatical). The Course Reader In line with the 2014 Basic Writing Workgroup, the Basic Writing Curriculum Committee recommends Graff, Birkenstein, and Durst’s They Say/I Say, With Readings. The pedagogy informing this book works well to prepare students for academic writing by providing them with various strategies for entering the academic conversation. The premise of the book is that the various rhetorical or compositional “moves” that are apparent to expert academic writers may not be apparent to basic writers. If we provide students with a sense of how to make these moves, they will be able to produce better, clearer papers. The text itself is divided into three sections: “They Say,” “I Say,” and various readings. In “They Say,” students learn 1) to critically read and discuss academic texts, 2) to articulate the texts’ main claims, premises, and evidence, and 3) to summarize these texts strategically, as a way of framing their own arguments. Once the “They Say” is mastered, students are invited to take on the “I Say.” This section of the text enables students 1) to create a viable question and an arguable claim; 2) to develop a strategy for supporting that claim; and 3) to draw upon textual evidence to convince the reader that the claim is sound. In terms of the readings, the text has five different topics, each of which could serve as the focus for an individual course, thereby ensuring that each term of SDCC1 and SDCC4 would present students with new essays to read, and new topics to write about. The topics include education, technology, food, the American dream, and gender. The readings are academic and challenging, but not overly so—if a student is able to read, comprehend, analyze, and respond to these readings, he or she would be ready to enter any of the College Writing Programs. The Basic Writing Syllabus The Basic Writing syllabus will be organized according to the structure of They Say/I Say, With Readings. Part One: “They Say” The first third of the course will focus on “They Say”—that is, teaching students to critically read, summarize, and quote from sources. After producing a short literacy narrative, which instructors will use to diagnose students’ writing strengths and weaknesses, students will be asked to produce several short assignments that will invite them to respond to the readings, asking them both to analyze the readings’ most interesting and evocative parts and to consider how writers speak to one another across readings. These short assignments will be carefully scaffolded so that students will accrue the skills necessary to produce a summary & synthesis paper—that is, a paper that invites students to sum up the conversation between three or four of the sources they’ve read without yet offering a view of their own (similar to a review of the literature). The summary & synthesis paper will challenge students to read critically and strategically; it will require them to work closely with texts by quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing a text’s larger argument; and it will demonstrate the importance of using and citing sources accurately and effectively in order to avoid charges of academic dishonestly. As they compose the summary & synthesis paper (along with the shorter papers leading up to it), students will receive feedback from their instructors and their peers, both in written form and in in-class

28

writing workshops. In this way, students will gain practice in re-thinking and revising their work. Students who need extra assistance will meet more frequently with the instructor and/or be asked to meet regularly with a writing center tutor. Part Two: “I Say” The second third of the class will focus on developing the “I Say”—that is, articulating an academic question that is of interest to the writer, developing a claim, and offering reasons and evidence for that claim. Again, students would write several short papers that would be carefully scaffolded to ensure that they have the necessary skills to produce this section’s culminating paper, which would be an academic argument. These scaffolded assignments would include responses to the readings but also more skills-directed assignments, like composing a discovery draft (which starts with an interesting academic question and works its way towards a viable claim), and writing and revising an introduction based on the They Say/I Say model (in other words, an introduction that frames the scholarly conversation that the writer intends to enter and then offers a claim of the writer’s own). Students will also draw from and expand on the work that they did in the summary & synthesis paper. When they are ready to compose their academic arguments, students will develop an appropriate question; craft and revise a controlling claim; find and incorporate textual evidence in support of the claim; and develop a strategy for organizing the argument (and counter-arguments) into paragraphs. Throughout this process, students will receive feedback from their instructors and peers, both in written form and in in-class writing workshops. In this way, students will gain practice in re-thinking and revising their work. Students who need extra assistance will meet more frequently with the instructor and/or be asked to meet regularly with a writing center tutor. Part Three: Revising for the Portfolio The final third of the class will focus on re-envisioning and revising essays for correctness and clarity, with the aim of producing the course’s culminating portfolio. The portfolio will consist of one significant paper that has gone through multiple drafts, with extensive comments offered by the instructor. All drafts of this paper will be submitted. Students will include several other shorter writing assignments (allowing the student to make choices as to which papers to submit). On the last day of class, students will write an in-class reflection essay to include in the portfolio, explaining why they chose the shorter writing assignments that they did, articulating the ways they have improved over the quarter, and acknowledging what they might need to improve on in the future. Students in SDCC 4 will also include an overview of the regular reflection exercises that they will have produced throughout the term. These reflection exercises will ask students to assess their own work, noting their rhetorical and grammatical issues, and tracking their progress as they move through the course. As they polish their papers, students will make use of the following web resources:

• Supplemental Online Grammar & Style Resources for They Say/I Say (W.W.Norton) • Diana Hacker’s “Research and Documentation Online” which provides an excellent (and

free) overview of citation protocol, using the MLA, APA, Chicago, and CSE styles [http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/resdoc5e/]

29

Once again, students who need extra assistance will meet more frequently with the instructor and/or be asked to meet regularly with a writing center tutor. Assessing Student Readiness for the College Writing Programs Throughout the course, students will receive abundant commentary on their work but will not be given a grade. The instructor will, however, include in his or her comments a sense of whether and in what ways the student is (or is not) ready for the challenges of the College Writing Programs, using the Basic Writing Program Objectives as the standard for measurement. At the end of the term, students will submit a substantial portfolio that contains one of the essays they have written for the course and includes drafts of their work on that essay. Including drafts will demonstrate the student’s growth as a writer, and ensure that the student is doing his or her own work. Also included in the portfolio will be an in-class reflective essay, which will offer evaluators an example of how well the student can write without assistance. As noted above, SDCC 4 students will include in their portfolio their overview of their reflective exercises, which will help instructors to assess how aware students are of their own progress, or lack thereof. Together these documents will be the primary measure of student readiness for the College Writing Courses. Two instructors will assess the portfolio on the criteria outlined in the program objectives, assessing the portfolio as a “pass/no pass.” If the instructors do not agree in their assessment, the portfolio will be forwarded to the Director of the Basic Writing Program, who will make the final assessment. To help the faculty in this assessment work, the Director will facilitate a group grading session, in which sample portfolios are read in common and responses to student work are normed. If a student meets a level of basic competency for the criteria outlined in the Basic Writing Program Objectives, he or she will advance to the College Writing Programs. If not, the student will re-take the Basic Writing course. Additional Considerations In offering this curriculum, this committee wishes to underscore that not all of the educational needs of the international student population can be met in the Basic Writing classrooms as the program is currently configured. ELL students enrolled in SDCC4 will need additional support, linguistic and otherwise, as they prepare themselves to enter the College Writing courses. To provide this additional support, the committee recommends that SDCC4 be reconfigured or restructured according to the following parameters:

1) Offer intensive tutorial support for each student. In this model, SDCC4 students would be required to meet each week with a graduate or undergraduate tutor, who would provide them with the individualized instruction that they require. The rationale behind this model is that students’ linguistic issues vary; individual instruction is preferable to in-class instruction as a way of effectively and efficiently addressing these issues.

2) Establish SDCC4 as a two-term “stretch” course. In this model, SDCC4 would be a two-term course, allowing instructors to slow instruction down and leaving them time to incorporate the kind of individual attention that promotes student success. This model

30

would work best if students had the same instructor for both terms—an instructor familiar with the students’ work will be better positioned to facilitate success.

3) Partner with the Writing Center and the Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services (OASIS). Currently, both these offices provide services that put them in frequent contact with basic writers. The Director of Basic Writing will want to work closely with these offices and others (including the newly founded Teaching and Learning Commons) to offer programs of support for basic writers, and to inform these students of how these services can help them succeed as writers.

Program Assessment We noted above that an increasing number of students are facing disqualification because of their inability to pass the exit exam. In our revised curriculum, we propose that the exit exam be replaced with a portfolio review. We believe that this better assesses a student’s readiness for university-level writing. These curricular features suggest assessment measures to evaluate the efficacy of the revised curriculum. If successful, there should be fewer students facing disqualification and Basic Writing students should perform better in their college writing courses. We recommend that these data be tracked and analyzed annually. While we are confident that the goals of the revised curriculum bring basic writing in line with the type of work expected at the university, it remains to be seen if the curriculum can meet the needs of students who do not satisfy the requirement upon admission. Continued scrutiny and assessment should be an integral aspect of the program. Concluding Remarks The committee envisions the new curriculum as the foundation for a new rigorous program that promotes student-centered classes. We recommend regular assessment and evaluation that will allow the Basic Writing Program Director to adjust the program and address potential structural changes that will better serve student needs and maintain the rigor necessary to prepare students for the college writing programs. Such monitoring and refinement will allow this program to become “an instructional model of excellence” for undergraduates and a “professional structure” for Teaching Assistants (Charge to Committee). While we anticipate structural/programmatic changes may be necessary to ensure the success of the program, such changes are beyond the charge of this committee. The new curriculum provides a strong base from which the Basic Writing Program director can implement program modifications as she or he sees fit. In our revised curriculum, we propose that a review of a substantial portfolio replace the exit exam. The new curriculum promotes coursework that aligns with similar coursework taught in the College Writing Programs to assist undergraduate students in their transition from Basic Writing to the College Writing Programs. The alignment between programs reflects the scaffolding begun in the new curriculum. We are certain that a focus on the reading and writing of academic texts similar to those in the College Writing Programs will best serve students in the Basic Writing courses. As it is conceived, the new curriculum will also support the campus’s Strategic Plan in that the Basic Writing Curriculum Committee has “re[thought] the curriculum”6

6 The full quotation in the Executive Summary of the Strategic Plan states: “Rethink curriculum and pedagogy to improve student retention and graduation rates and increase student and faculty engagement” (5).

31

in a way that will improve student success in Basic Writing and by extension, retention and graduation rates.

32

May 1, 2015 PROFESSOR GERRY BOSS, Chair Academic Senate, San Diego Division SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Senate Regulation 600K Dear Professor Boss, The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction has reviewed the request from the Committee on Preparatory Education (COPE) and the Educational Policy Committee (EPC). We find the proposed revisions consonant with the code of the Academic Senate. However, we are concerned that eliminating the exam would create an opportunity for students to satisfy the UC Entry-Level Writing Requirement using dishonest means, e.g., having another student help with assignments. We would like to know if COPE has any safeguards to prevent students from satisfying the writing requirement by fraud. Sincerely, Charles L. Perrin, Chair Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction cc: R. Continetti R. Rodriguez T. Mallis

33

May 2015

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

Senate Council and the Committee on Committees propose the attached revision to Divisional Bylaw 192, Academic Information Technology.

The proposed revision aims to reinvigorate CAIT by adding on-line education to its charge, reduce the number of members to a more manageable number of eight, restrict full membership to Senate members to ensure that the faculty voice is heard, and make other technical corrections/changes.

Robert Continetti Vice Chair Senate Council

***************

192 Academic Information Technology [En 3/30/82; Am 11/30/99] (A) This committee shall consist of nine seven members of the Division, plus the

University Librarian, ex officio. The Director of Academic Computing Services, the Manager of Network Operations, the Director of Engineering Computing, the Associate University Librarian for Technology, and the Assistant Vice Chancellor of Administrative Computing and Telecommunications shall serve as consultants to the committee, without vote. It shall also have one research staff representative, one representative of the San Diego Supercomputer Center, one undergraduate student representative, and one graduate student representative, who shall not have the right to vote. Information technology staff specialists may serve as nonvoting consultants to the Committee as needed. One member shall serve on the University Committee on Information Technology and Telecommunication Policy Academic Computing and Communications. [See Bylaw 185(C)(8) and SBL 155] [Am 5/24/83; Am 10/29/85; Am 5/22/90; Am 1/28/92; Am 5/23/95, Am 11/30/99, Am 11/04/03, Am 2/24/04]

(B) This committee shall review and make recommendations to the Chancellor and to the Division and to the Administration concerning policies governing online education and the development and management of information technology for instruction, research, and for the needs of the campus a whole.

(C) In so far as possible, the faculty members appointed to the committee shall serve three-year staggered terms. Three of the nine faculty members appointed to the committee shall, with the concurrence of the Chancellor, also serve as the faculty representatives to the Technology Directions Committee

34

April 24, 2015 PROFESSOR GERRY BOSS, Chair Academic Senate, San Diego Division SUBJECT: Response to Proposed Revision of Bylaw 192 Dear Professor Boss, The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction has reviewed the proposed revision to Bylaw 192. The Committee noted that the Educational Policy Committee has general responsibility over courses and expressed concerns that this revision appears to create an overlap in the area of online education by placing that subject area within the purview of the Committee on Academic Information Technology. Otherwise, we found the proposal consonant with the Code of the Academic Senate. Sincerely, Charles L. Perrin, Chair Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction cc: R. Continetti T. Mallis R. Rodriguez

35

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL Senate Council proposes the attached revision to Divisional Bylaw 244, Senate Administration Council. The proposed revision seeks to add the Vice Chancellor Equity Diversity and Inclusion and the Dean of Undergraduate Education to Senate Administration Council, and to update the titles of current members. Robert Continetti Vice Chair Senate Council *************** 244. Senate-Administration Council [En 5/22/90] (A) This committee shall consist of the Chair of the Division and the Chancellor, who shall

serve as co-chairs of the committee; the Vice Chair of the Division, who shall serve as vice chair of the committee; the chairs of the following committees: Academic Personnel, Admissions, Affirmative Action and Diversity and Equity, Campus & Community Environment, Committee on Committees, Educational Policy, Undergraduate Council, Faculty Welfare, Graduate Council, Planning & Budget, Privilege & Tenure, and Research; any members of the Academic Council from the UCSD campus; the immediate past Chair of the Division; and the Executive Vice Chancellors for Academic Affairs; the Vice Chancellor-Chief Financial Officer; the Vice Chancellors for Business Affairs, External Relations Advancement, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion, Health Sciences, Marine Sciences, Research, Resource Management & Planning, and Student Affairs; the Dean of Undergraduate Education; and the Dean of the Graduate Studies Division. When, in accordance with Bylaw 25(B)(9), a former Chair of the Division serves as a member of the Program Review Committee, that individual shall be a member of this committee. [Am 5/28/91; Am 10/26/93; Am 11/22/94; Am 1/23/07; 4/29/08; Am 3/1/11]

(B) This committee shall facilitate cooperation between the Academic Senate and the administration.

36

April 24, 2015 PROFESSOR GERRY BOSS, Chair Academic Senate, San Diego Division SUBJECT: Response to Proposed Revision of Bylaw 244 Dear Professor Boss, The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction has reviewed the proposed revision to Bylaw 244. In reviewing this proposal, we were struck by the proliferation of Vice-Chancellorships at UC San Diego. However, we found the proposal consonant with the Code of the Academic Senate. Sincerely, Charles L. Perrin, Chair Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction cc: R. Continetti T. Mallis R. Rodriguez

37

ACADEMIC SENATE: SAN DIEGO DIVISION 

  

May 26, 2105  

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION    

The Committee on International Education proposes to amend San Diego Senate Bylaw 195 to increase the number of ordinary members from seven to nine and to employ language that reflects the expansion of international education beyond the Education Abroad Program (EAP).   The rationale for the proposed revisions can be summarized as follows:   The Committee on International Education would like to increase its membership to include a broader representation around campus. With increased membership, the Committee hopes to create subcommittees to discuss various international education issues and establish resident experts to reduce the meeting time spent researching unfamiliar topics.   The Bylaw was written when EAP was the principal vehicle for UCSD students to study abroad. However, the world of study abroad and international education is rapidly changing at UCSD.  More specific language in this bylaw is needed to clarify that international education and exchange now includes additional campus‐based and other education abroad programs, such as the Opportunities Abroad Program and Global Seminars. Finally, international education also involves the international students who study at UCSD whether as matriculated or exchange students or under the auspices of a growing number of institutional partnerships. CIE would like the authorization to work with appropriate Senate committees, such as the Educational Policy Committee, the Undergraduate Council, and the Graduate Council on matters related to international students.    CIE also proposes to update the nomenclature for the offices referenced in 195.A. and 195.C.1.     

 Eduardo Macagno, Chair Committee on International Education 

38

ACADEMIC SENATE: SAN DIEGO DIVISION 

MANUAL OF THE SAN DIEGO DIVISION  

OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE 

 BYLAW 

 195.  International Education [Am 5/22/84; Am 1/28/92; Am 4/23/96] 

(A) This committee shall consist of seven nine ordinary members of the Division, plus the Campus Faculty Directors of Programs Abroad Office International Education and the International House (Eleanor Roosevelt College) Faculty (member) in‐Residence, ex officio.  The Chair may invite representatives from international program offices to serve as consultants to the committee without vote. It shall also have one undergraduate student representative and one graduate student representative, who shall not have the right to vote.  One member shall serve on the University Committee on International Education [see Bylaw 185(C)(8) and SBL 165]. [Am 5/24/77, Rt 6/8/77, Am 10/26/82; Am 5/22/84; Am 5/27/86; Am 11/17/87; Am 10/27/92; Am 4/23/96, Am 2/24/04] 

(B) The duties of the committee shall be the following: 

(1) It shall represent the Division in all matters concerned with the University of California Education Abroad Program (UCEAP). 

(2) It shall represent the Division in all aspects of international education and exchange, including campus‐based and other education abroad programs. 

(3) It shall consult with other appropriate Senate committees, including the Educational Policy Committee, the Undergraduate Council and the Graduate Council, on relevant matters related to international students matriculated or otherwise in residence at the University of California, San Diego.   

(C) The Executive Committee of the Committee on International Education shall consist of the Chair, Vice Chair, and ex officio members of the Committee on International Education.  The Executive Committee shall have the following duties:  [En 10/27/92] 

(1) It shall act, in consultation with the staff of the International Center Center for International Education, on those routine administrative matters which require faculty involvement. 

(2) It shall formulate, for consideration of the Committee on International Education, policies and programs that will serve to better integrate international education into the campus academic programs. 

 

39

March 31, 2015 PROFESSOR GERRY BOSS, Chair Academic Senate, San Diego Division SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Division Bylaw 195 – International Education Dear Professor Boss, The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction has reviewed the request from the Committee on International Education to amend Division Bylaw 195 – International Education. We found the proposed amendments consonant with the Code of the Academic Senate, and believe that these are ready for Representative Assembly approval. Sincerely, Charles L. Perrin, Chair Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction cc: R. Continetti R. Rodriguez T. Mallis

40

ACADEMIC SENATE: SAN DIEGO DIVISION

May 26, 2015

REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

At its April 13, 2015 meeting, the Graduate Council approved a proposal for the establishment of a program of study leading to a Ph.D. degree in the Materials Science and Engineering Program (MSE) with a specialization in Multi-scale Biology. Students in this specialization must satisfy all degree requirements for a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering and complete a series of courses related to multi-scale biology. The specialization was established in 2009 to provide interdisciplinary education at the interfaces between the biological, medical, physical and engineering sciences. There are currently seven participating programs. The council is supportive of this academic endeavor and recommends that the Representative Assembly approve the proposal.

David Salmon, Chair Graduate Council

The complete proposal is available for review: http://senate.ucsd.edu/media/150973/enclosure-06-mats-proposal-to-add-specialization-in-multiscale-biology.pdf - **********************************************************************

Executive Summary The approval of this change in the existing Ph.D. Specialization in “Multi-scale Biology” allows the Materials Science and Engineering Program to offer this degree specialization. This will enhance the goal of the interdisciplinary specialization to bring together graduate students and faculty from a wide range of different disciplines with a common interest in quantitative approaches to problems in biology that span physical scales of biological organization and require a variety of specialized technologies for measuring, manipulating and analyzing biological structures at a range of scales from the single molecule to the whole organism.

The Ph.D. Specialization in “Multi-scale Biology”, approved in 2009, provides a unique interdisciplinary education at the interfaces between the biological, medical, physical and engineering sciences. The seven currently participating programs are: Bioengineering, Biological Sciences, Biomedical Sciences, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Neurosciences, and Physics. The specific objectives of this program are:

1. To train a new generation of cross-disciplinary scientists who have been actively engaged in life

science research and training activities at the interfaces between more than two established scientific disciplines via a formal collaboration.

41

2. To provide state-of-the-art training in specialized research technologies through a new hands-on graduate laboratory course curriculum co-taught by faculty and to students from more than one participating department or graduate program.

3. To provide a unique educational focus aimed at integrative and quantitative analysis across multiple scales of biological organization from molecule to organism in health and disease.

The motivation for proposing this change, adding an eighth participating program, is to provide MSE students with these specialized interdisciplinary research opportunities and formal recognition on their degrees for the specialization course and other requirements met.

42

May 26, 2015

REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

At its April 13, 2015 meeting, the Graduate Council approved the proposal for the establishment of a five-year contiguous BS/MS Program in Marine Biology at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. To qualify, undergraduate students must have a minimum undergraduate GPA of 3.0 overall and 3.3 in upper-division major courses. Students must complete requirements for the BS degree before they are enrolled in the MS program, and are expected to meet the requirements for the MS degree within three consecutive academic quarters after obtaining the BS. To earn the MS degree, students must complete at least 24 units of coursework and 12 units of research leading to a Master’s thesis. The Council is supportive of this academic endeavor and recommends that the Representative Assembly approve the proposal. David Salmon, Chair Graduate Council The complete proposal is available for review at: http://senate.ucsd.edu/media/150976/sio-proposal-to-establish-bs-ms-program-in-marine-biology.pdf

************************************************ Executive Summary In Fall 2012, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography began offering a BS degree in Marine Biology to students at UC San Diego. The marine biology curriculum is a rigorous and specialized major that results in a BS degree. In just its first two years, the major has grown to 175 enrolled students; nine students have already graduated from the major, with the first sizable class of 25 students projected to graduate this spring. The creation of this major and proliferation in undergraduate SIO courses in marine biology has increased access to SIO faculty and facilities for all UC San Diego students who are interested in the biological aspects of ocean science. Definite strengths of the undergraduate education program at SIO are the resources and opportunities to engage students in collaborative research projects with our faculty and researchers. A natural outgrowth of these factors is increased student interest in graduate opportunities in marine biology at SIO. For current undergraduate students in the earth sciences major and related curricula, SIO offers a long-established contiguous BS/MS degree in Earth Sciences that facilitates the extension of research interests into a practical fifth year Master’s program. This has been a successful program for both the students and faculty at SIO; over the last ten years, about 25% of our Earth Sciences majors have continued in the BS/MS program. The most often stated reasons from students pursuing this degree include the following: (1) the ability to use a fifth year of graduate level course work and research to develop a focus within the broad field of earth sciences (2) the desire to “try out” graduate school and a research area in a Master’s program before deciding to pursue a PhD program either at UC San Diego or elsewhere and (3) the advantages that come from attaining a Master’s degree from SIO when applying to jobs in the field. We feel that these are all good reasons for pursuing Master of Science degree at SIO and we wish to extend these opportunities to marine biology majors. SIO now proposes to establish a contiguous BS/MS program leading to a Master of Science degree in Marine Biology. This proposed contiguous program would be open to qualified UC San Diego undergraduate students who are enrolled in marine biology or any other biology major or who are completing a specialization (i.e. environmental systems majors with a biology specialization) or minor in biology. The BS/MS program in Marine Biology will provide more UC San Diego students the opportunity to explore research interests in an MS program

43

at SIO, either in hopes of continuing graduate studies in a PhD program, to better their training in order to pursue a career in an ocean science related discipline, or simply to broaden their base of knowledge and experience. Introducing a new contiguous program will also contribute to the overall campus goals to increase graduate student enrollments.

44

May 26, 2015

REPORT OF THE JOHN MUIR COLLEGE FACULTY

The proposed changes to the Regulation 610 – Academic Requirements of John Muir College were approved by a vote of the Muir College Faculty in January 2015. The rationale for the proposed revisions can be summarized as follows: Revisions are proposed to Regulation 610 – Academic Requirements of John Muir College to amend section B.2. Under this proposal, the number of upper-division units required for graduation would be reduced from 72 to 60. These changes are appropriate as they would allow students – particularly transfer students – the ability to complete their degrees in a timely fashion. It would afford transfer students the ability to take required lower-division courses and still meet graduation requirements in two years. The 60-unit upper-division requirement is in line with the graduation requirements of other colleges.

John Moore, Provost John Muir College

************************************************

610.

Academic Requirements of John Muir College En 3/22/66, Am 3/69, Am 1/25/72

A) General Requirements

1) Four three-quarter sequences chosen from a list called the Muir General Education Plan.

a) Two of these sequences must be from two different categories in a group made up of the categories of Fine Arts, Humanities, or Language Learning.

b) One of these sequences must be from the Social Sciences. Am 1/26/93

c) One of these sequences must be from either Mathematics or Natural Sciences. Am 1/26/93

d) A sequence may be chosen from a seventh category, Experimental & Interdisciplinary Courses, to substitute for a sequence in any one of the other categories provided the subject matter is similar.

B) Graduation Requirements

1) The minimum requirement for graduation shall be one-hundred-eighty (180) units.

2) Sixty Seventy-two (6072) of the one-hundred-eighty (180) units must be in the upper division.

3) The general requirements shall be fulfilled.

4) A special project that focuses the student's studies must be completed; a major is an acceptable form of this project.

45

5) In addition to the Subject A requirement, the student must meet the Muir College requirement in writing proficiency by demonstrating an ability to write English according to standards appropriate for all college work. Ordinarily this will be met by the successful completion of a two-quarter sequence in writing. En 5/25/76, Am 1/26/93

46

April 8, 2015 PROFESSOR GERRY BOSS, Chair Academic Senate, San Diego Division SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Senate Regulation 610 Dear Professor Boss, The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction has reviewed the request from Undergraduate Council to amend Senate Regulation 610 by reducing the number of upper-division courses required in Muir College from 72 to 60. We found the proposed amendments consonant with the Code of the Academic Senate. Sincerely, Charles L. Perrin, Chair Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction cc: R. Continetti R. Rodriguez T. Mallis

47