Introduction: In November, 1997, the Office of the President distributed the final recommendations and report of the Tenth Campus Academic Planning Committee, chaired by UC Davis Professor Daniel L. Simmons. The report was also placed on the OP Academic Initiatives web site as a means to expand its readership.

Comments were received from the following:

1. Academic Senate: the Academic Council and University Committee on Planning and Budget
2. Campuses: Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Barbara
3. Individuals in UC: two emeritus chief executives, a former Regent, and four current and former faculty
4. Individuals outside UC: a CSU President and president of a national society

This report groups and summarizes comments by topic.

Vision and goals proposed for UC Merced: Various respondents reacted favorably to the vision of a campus predicated on collaborative processes. They found the emphasis on interdisciplinary programs and technology progressive and provocative; and endorsed a unique mission stressing applied research based on San Joaquin Valley problems of state and worldwide significance. Another respondent was favorably disposed to the regional emphasis in research, but urged that the campus not be restricted to regionally-based research. However, there was also concern expressed that the regional emphasis might be too narrow.

One respondent stressed that while the campus must be unique, the Committee report was contradictory in this regard. While the Committee advised that the campus should create distinctiveness through region-oriented research, it avoided traditional agriculture, arguing that this would be duplicative. Yet the Committee also advocated law, medicine, business and engineering without indicating how these would avoid duplicating programs offered extensively throughout UC.

There was positive response to the Committee's stress on information technology, but also caveats about the cost and staffing expertise necessary to realize this vision. Dependence on technology may require new ways to measure instructional effort and allocate instructional resources. Respondents advised that there be insurance that faculty and students interact in person, not just electronically; and that students understand that not all information can be accessed through Internet or the California Digital Library. One respondent felt that it was sufficient for the plan to say that UC Merced would provide appropriate technology to support instructional needs in any educational situation.

Finally, respondents stressed that UC Merced should be a co-equal with other UC campuses from the beginning. However, UC Merced would not be able to achieve all its goals cheaply or quickly.
 

Governance structure and faculty recruitment: Respondents agreed that the proposed structure that located faculty in both an interdisciplinary division and a separate faculty group in charge on an undergraduate major posed grave difficulties. While there was encouragement of interdisciplinary goals and a belief that traditional departments might not necessarily be the best organization, several respondents stressed the importance of faculty having a clear-cut affiliation structure rather than two separate groups that would affect personnel decisions. Without clear-cut affiliation structures, it would probably not be possible to hire top-notch faculty or attract the best graduate students. Faculty and students need a home department or program or other home base. Also, one respondent noted that the plan for bringing each of the proposed three divisions on line was not clear from the Committee report.

Undergraduate education should be located in departments that allow disciplinary education. Campuses that have experimented with other structural forms have converted them to departments.

Respondents generally lauded the premise that hiring outstanding faculty would be the best academic plan; and that undergraduate programs should build on strong research and graduate programs. This endorsement was accompanied by the caution that the best strategy to encourage interdisciplinary work would be to hire faculty who were strong in the disciplines but had interdisciplinary and applied research interests: the best interdisciplinary work is grounded in disciplinary strength. The hiring of interdisciplinary faculty cannot be sustained in the long run since the interdisciplinary foci change over time. But it is possible to hire excellent faculty with the vision and ability to work across boundaries of knowledge. Interdisciplinary structures for research should arise from faculty finding each other, not by trying to force them through the governance structure. During the opening years, the campus plan should not overemphasize innovation and interdisciplinarity in undergraduate and research programming.

One respondent suggested a faculty recruitment strategy that balances full professors whose careers are largely completed and assistant professors who are still shaping their careers with a good cadre of mid-career associate professors, who will have a strong career stake in UC Merced. Another respondent suggested opening with only tenured faculty as a career safeguard. A good strategy would be to hire in depth in a few selected areas of intellectual activity rather than widely and shallowly. Creating strong programmatic distinctions between UC Merced and the existing campuses was urged as a means to attract the best faculty and students.

The Committee report was criticized for overweighting teaching as a criterion for faculty personnel decisions. The report also lacks a plan for non-ladder faculty in undergraduate education.
 

Graduate and professional education: It was not clear to respondents how the divisions would affect graduate education. Given the lack of growth in graduate programs systemwide, would there be enough demand for new graduate programs at UC Merced to justify establishing them? And without them, could outstanding faculty be recruited? A 10% enrollment proportion of graduate students is a necessary minimum but may not be sufficient to attract the best faculty or provide undergraduate teaching assistance.

Several respondents found too much emphasis on professional education and not enough on graduate education. Lack of graduate programs could require faculty to rely on postdocs and professional researchers to support their research. Program emphases seemed narrow and the Committee report's avoidance of all but a subset of engineering was questioned. Specific concerns were expressed regarding having law, medicine, business and engineering approved at opening. Opposition was expressed to initiating any professional programs beforeUC Merced has established a stable undergraduate population and undergone its first accreditation visit.
 

Undergraduate education: The idea of drawing core general education courses from each of the three proposed divisions received a positive reaction. A program of community-based experiential learning was also endorsed, but with the caveat that evaluation of academic content must be carefully done. The Committee report did not sufficiently stress curricular goals of human development or citizenship. Nor was there enough regarding meeting undergraduate financial needs.

It was suggested that UC Merced might open with upper division students only, postponing the need to develop lower division introductory education and remedial education. The issue of the academic calendar should be left to campus founders.
 

Humanities/Arts: Several respondents worried that the Committee report submerged the humanities too much in favor of the sciences and social sciences. There was not enough emphasis on the role of the humanities in transmitting heritages and too much on current parochial issues. One respondent emphasized that locating UC Merced in a traditional region of the state argued for a more traditional education, including an emphasis on transmitting the human heritage.
 

Implementation: Planning for UC Merced should look to good models of institutional development. The idea of cooperative community-university planning received a cautious endorsement that stressed that co-development needs to be genuinely cooperative and clearly fulfill campus needs. UC Merced planning could create a new paradigm for integrating the campus with the community. If new student housing is provided through the community plan, UC should exert design control over it. The campus should model from the beginning principles and practices of environmentally sustainable design in architecture and physical planning. There should be more faculty involvement in physical and financial planning than there has been to date.

Planning for UC Merced should learn from what worked and what didn't at UC's three newest campuses and take advantage of the expertise of UC's faculty and administrators to assure strong research, teaching, and learning at UC Merced. It is a good strategy to use MRU's as nuclei for research programs. However, there are problems requiring resolution with University-National Lab collaboration before depending on that avenue in developing UC Merced.

There was concern about the lack of Senate involvement in the Committee report. The Senate has recommended a structure for assuring appropriate future Senate involvement in development of UC Merced.
 

General concerns: Several respondents urged that the academic plan be kept as flexible as possible: in hiring campus founders, the best faculty will not want to be constrained by a prescriptive document. The plan should allow enough flexibility for the founding chancellor and faculty to pave the academic direction for UC Merced. The Committee report can be used for guidance, but should not be treated as a set of final decisions. Instead, there should be a set of planning principles that help create an environment in which UC Merced can grow and flourish.

Respondents universally expressed grave concerns about the fiscal impact on the existing campuses of building UC Merced. UC Merced needs to be funded over and above what existing campuses need and at a level sufficient to assure quality. It should not be built at a time when it might create excess capacity that could jeopardize orderly growth on existing campuses; but UC does need to assure access for eligible Californians. There was a call for a funding plan and data to show how UC Merced would affect capital and operating budgets for the other campuses.
 

Miscellaneous comments: One respondent believed that UC Merced could be a leader in research programs that are of worldwide significance and important to the State, in fields such as environmental protection and remediation, land management, biodiversity, some areas of engineering, multicultural education, and social/political/cultural areas that help can central California and the Sierra Nevada with development that also protects natural resources.

One respondent urged creation of a full agriculture department, together with the climatic and environmental disciplines.

One respondent was puzzled by how the library would help develop a resource management program and whether faculty would be involved.

There was concern about possible program duplication with CSU-Fresno; also it was noted that the Committee report did not address the shape that future coordination and cooperation with CSU-Fresno might take.