UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ACADEMIC SENATE • IRVINE DIVISION · 2014. 3. 5. · AGENDA OF THE...

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ACADEMIC SENATE • IRVINE DIVISION

NOTICE OF MEETING MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE, IRVINE DIVISION Dear Colleagues: Please join me and other members of the Senate Cabinet and your school representatives for the Divisional Senate Assembly meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 18, 2010, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Academic Senate Conference Room, 3750 Berkeley Place South. This is a unique opportunity to hear interesting updates on Senate business and from Chancellor Michael V. Drake. I hope to see you on March 18, 2010.

Judith Stepan-Norris, Chair

Academic Senate, Irvine Division

The complete agenda for the meeting can be found at the Academic Senate Website, Divisional Senate Assembly, Meeting Agendas: http://www.senate.uci.edu/DivisionalSenateAssembly/MeetingAgendas/2009-10/A-Mar18.pdf

of 42

http://www.senate.uci.edu/DivisionalSenateAssembly/MeetingAgendas/2009-10/A-Mar18.pdf

AGENDA OF THE MEETING DIVISIONAL SENATE ASSEMBLY

Thursday, March 18, 2010, 3:30 – 5:00 p.m. Academic Senate Conference Room

3750 Berkeley Place South

ORDER OF BUSINESS

STATUS ITEM ATTACHMENT APPROVAL 1. Minutes of January 28, 2010 1 (pp. 7-9) INFORMATION 2. Announcements by Chair Judith Stepan-Norris INFORMATION 3. Announcements by Chancellor Michael V. Drake

INFORMATION 4. Announcements by Other Administrative Officers

INFORMATION 5. Special Orders – Consent Calendar

INFORMATION 6. Reports of Special Committees

APPROVAL 7. Disestablishment of the Department of Environmental Health, 2 (pp. 10-16)

Science and Policy Presented by: Judith Stepan-Norris, Senate Chair

Issue: The School of Social Ecology faculty have voted to disestablish the department as a result of the Dean’s reorganization plan of June 2005 and the transfer of nearly all the faculty from the department to other units on the UCI campus. The Senate Cabinet endorsed the proposal and is presenting to the Assembly for final approval. Reviewed by: Cabinet Action Requested: The Assembly will approve or reject the proposal.

APPROVAL 8. Proposed B.S. in Computer Game Science 3 (pp. 17-18) Presented by: David Pan, CEP Chair

Issue: The Council on Educational Policy unanimously supported the proposed major in Computer Game Science. The proposal was submitted to CPB for a budgetary analysis, and the complete proposal is posted on the Senate website, Items under Review: http://www.senate.uci.edu/ItemsUnderReview/ItemsUnderReview.asp Reviewed by: CEP, CPB, Cabinet+ Action Requested: The Assembly will endorse or reject the proposal.

APPROVAL 9. Proposal to Revise IR 830 Master’s Committee, IR 918 4 (pp. 19-29) Ph.D. Candidacy Committee and IR 920 Doctoral Committee

Presented by: Frederic Wan, GC Chair Issue: The intent of the proposed changes is to clarify that individuals who are not UC Senate voting members serving on dissertation committees should have equivalent scholarly standing and on an exception only basis. Reviewed by: GC, CRJ, Cabinet Action Requested: The Assembly will approve or reject the request.

of 42

http://www.senate.uci.edu/ItemsUnderReview/ItemsUnderReview.asp

APPROVAL 10. Proposed Revision to IR A345, Grading 5 (pp. 30-34) Presented by: David Pan, CEP Chair Issue: CEP unanimously endorsed the proposal. Under the current regulation the “I” grade may remain permanently on the transcript. Under the proposed policy, the “I” would ultimately change an “F,” if not replaced by a grade. Reviewed by: CEP, CRJ, Cabinet Action Requested: The Assembly will approve or reject the request.

APPROVAL 11. Proposed Revision to IR 440, Adding and Dropping Courses 6 (pp. 35-39) (effective F2010)

Presented by: David Pan, CEP Chair Issue: CEP unanimously endorsed the proposal. The proposal was discussed with the associate deans and the Senate Subcommittee on Courses to develop proposed regulations and general deadlines and processes. Additional modifications were requested by the Cabinet and endorsed by CEP. Reviewed by: CEP, CRJ, Cabinet Action Requested: The Assembly will approve or reject the request.

APPROVAL 12. Proposed Modification to Category VIII, International/Global Studies 7 (pp. 40-42)

Presented by: David Pan, CEP Chair Issue: CEP unanimously endorsed the proposal from the Center for International Studies for modifications to General Education Category VIII, International/Global Studies. Reviewed by: CEP, Cabinet Action Requested: The Assembly will endorse or reject the proposal.

DISCUSSION 13. UC Commission on the Future Issue: Senate Chair Stepan-Norris will report on the systemwide and divisional

senate’s activities related to the UC Commission on the Future and the UCI representatives to the various workgroups of the UC Commission. The membership and charge for the UC Commission is posted on the UCOP website at http://ucfuture.universityofcalifornia.edu/ Action Requested: The Assembly will discuss the work of the Commission and the recommendations of the Working Groups.

DISCUSSION 14. Post-Employment Benefits Task Force Issue: Senate Chair Stepan-Norris will report on the systemwide and divisional

senate’s activities related to the Post-Employment Benefits Task Force. The membership and charge for the Task Force is posted on the UCOP website at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/ucrpfuture/emp_task.html Action Requested: The Assembly will discuss the Post-Employment Benefits Task Force.

15. Petitions of Students: None 16. Unfinished Business: None 17. University and Faculty Welfare: None 18. New Business: 19. Roll Call: Attendance Sheet

Alan Barbour, Chair Elect – Secretary Academic Senate Irvine Division

of 42

http://ucfuture.universityofcalifornia.edu/

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/ucrpfuture/emp_task.html

* Agenda items deemed noncontroversial by the Chair of the Divisional Senate Assembly, in consultation with the Senate Cabinet, may be placed on a Consent Calendar under Special Orders. Approval of all business on the Consent Calendar requires a single unanimous vote. At the request of any Divisional Assembly member, any Consent Calendar item may be extracted for consideration under “New Business” later in the agenda. [from Bylaw 158(D)]

N.B. All members of the Academic Senate and of the University community shall have the privilege of attendance and the privilege of the floor at meetings of the Divisional Senate Assembly, but only members of the Divisional Senate Assembly may make or second motions or vote. However, the Chair (or designated representative) of a standing or special committee of the Division may move or second action on reports of that committee.

Note: Documents pertinent to the agenda items for the meeting are posted on-line electronically on the Academic Senate’s Home Page on the World Wide Web. The Academic Senate’s Home Page is listed on UC Irvine’s Home Page Directory for “Campus Administration” (URL address: http://www.senate.uci.edu). Individual members of the Senate may receive hard copies of these documents upon request to the Academic Senate Office.

of 42

http://www.senate.uci.edu/

Divisional Senate Assembly 2009-2010 Schedule of Meetings

FALL QUARTER 2009

Thursday, December 3, 2009

3:30 p.m.- 5:00 p.m. Academic Senate Conference Room, 3750 Berkeley Place South

WINTER QUARTER 2009

Thursday, January 28, 2010

3:45 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Academic Senate Conference Room, 3750 Berkeley Place South

SPRING QUARTER 2010

Thursday, March 18, 2010

3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Academic Senate Conference Room, 3750 Berkeley Place South

Thursday, May 6, 2010 3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Academic Senate Conference Room, 338 Aldrich Hall

Thursday, June 3, 2010 3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Academic Senate Conference Room, 338 Aldrich Hall

of 42

DIVISIONAL SENATE ASSEMBLY MEMBERSHIP FOR 2009-2010

EX OFFICIO University President, Mark Yudof, ‘10 Academic Senate Chair, Judith Stepan-Norris, ‘10 Academic Senate Chair Elect-Secretary, Alan Barbour, ‘10 Parliamentarian (Non-voting Member), Dan Hirschberg, ‘10 Representatives to the Universitywide Assembly (4 Reps) Hoda Anton-Culver, ‘10 Ken Chew, ‘10 Luis Aviles, ‘11 David Kay, ‘11 Council Chairs (8 Reps) Academic Personnel, Mary Gilly, ‘10 Educational Policy, David Pan, ‘10 Faculty Welfare, Bill Parker, ‘10 Graduate Council, Frederic Wan, ‘10 Planning & Budget, Lyman Porter, ‘10 Research, Computing & Libraries, John Crawford ‘10 Student Experience, Richard McCleary, ‘10 Undergraduate Admissions & Relations with Schools, Bruce Berg, ‘10 Representatives from the Claire Trevor School of Arts (3 Reps) Robert Cohen – Faculty Chair, ‘11 Miles Coolidge, ‘10 TBD – Rep, ‘11 Representatives from the School of Biological Sciences (4 Reps) David Fruman, Faculty Chair, ‘11 Peter Donovan, ‘10 Jennifer Martiny, ‘11 Jorge Busciglio, '11 Representatives from the Paul Merage School of Business (2 Reps) Kerry Vandell - Faculty Chair, ‘10 Jone Pearce, ‘10 Representative from the Department of Education (1 Rep) Mark Warschauer – Faculty Chair, ‘10 Representatives from the Henry Samueli School of Engineering (4 Reps) Abe Lee - Faculty Chair, ‘10 Said Elghobashi, ‘10 Regina Ragan, ‘11 Lizhi Sun, ‘11

Representatives from the College of Health Sciences (12 Reps) Gregory Evans - Faculty Chair, ’10 Leonard Kitzes, ‘10 John Krolewski, ‘10 Karen Lane, ‘10 Charles Ribak, ‘10 Leslie Thompson, ‘10 Kyoko Yokomori, ‘10 Bogi Andersen, '11 Sergei Grando, '11 John G. Lee, '11 Binh Nguyen, '11 Ignatius Ou, '11 Representatives from the School of Humanities (7 Reps) Gail Hart - Faculty Chair, ‘10 Ed Dimendberg, ‘10 Kai Evers, ‘10 Rajagopalan Radhakrishnan, ‘11 Catherine Liu ‘10 Michael Szalay, ‘10 Dorian Bell, ‘11 Representatives from the Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Science (2 Reps) Alfred Kobsa - Faculty Chair, ‘10 Natasa Przulj, ’10 (Alt: Babak Shahbaba for 09/10) Representatives from the School of Physical Sciences (5 Reps) Qing Nie – Faculty Chair, ’11 Michael Goulden, ‘10 Vladimir Mandelshtam, ‘11 Thorsten Ritz, ‘10 Ruqian Wu, ‘11 Representatives from the School of Social Ecology (2 Reps) Marlon Boarnet - Faculty Chair, ‘10 Susan Charles ‘10 Representatives from the School of Social Sciences (5 Reps) Wayne Sandholtz - Faculty Chair, ‘10 Kamal Sadiq, ‘10 Barbara Sarnecka, ‘10 David Brownstone, ‘11 Belinda Robnett-Olsen, ‘11

Term of membership ends on August 31 of the year listed after each name. If you have questions about your membership, please contact Rachel Mangold at (949) 824-8213 or [email protected]

of 42

DIVISIONAL SENATE ASSEMBLY Minutes of the Meeting

Thursday, January 28, 2010, 3:45 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Academic Senate Conference Room, 3750 Berkeley Place South

1. MEETING:

A regular meeting of the Irvine Divisional Senate Assembly was called to order by Chair Judith Stepan-Norris, at 3:45 p.m., on Thursday, January 28, 2010, at the Academic Senate Conference Room. Members of the Administrative staff and members of the University community were present.

2. MINUTES:

Chair Stepan-Norris noted that any corrections to the minutes may be sent to the Senate office for amendment.

Action: The minutes of December 3 were approved.

3. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY CHAIR JUDITH STEPAN-NORRIS: None 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY CHANCELLOR MICHAEL DRAKE: Chancellor Drake is unable to attend. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR AND PROVOST MICHAEL

GOTTFREDSON - In conjunction with the Task Force on Efficiencies in Academic Personnel Reviews and Vice

Provost Killackey, the Council on Academic Personnel has streamlined its procedures to improve the review process.

- The Council on Research, Computing and Libraries Special Research Grants Program was established for this year only by the Senate and Administration to mitigate the furlough program and to provide support to lower income faculty not participating in the furlough exchange program.

- The Council on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools has developed a more equitable selection criteria for international and out of state applicants compared to California resident applicants.

- A Workgroup on Overhead, chaired by Vice Chancellor Bryant, reviewed the campus’ overhead distribution model and provided recommendation to the EVC/P. A streamlined formula will be implemented to provide at least one-third of the overhead recovery generated directly to academic units and the support of academic and research space.

- On the budget situation, the campus has a $70M shortfall in the general fund budget (about 25% reduction) to deal with in 2009-10. In order to balance the budget this year, the university implemented the hiring freeze (started 2 years ago resulting in significant salary savings and allowing us to minimize layoffs), the furlough program which generated $25M in savings, a $30M permanent reduction, a $15M one-time reduction distributed across campus, except for the graduate student block, law school, and nursing school. For 2008-09 and 2009-10, the budget reduction has been especially consequential for Student Affairs which was reduced by 19%, and other administrative functions which were reduced up to 16%.

- In regards to the Regents’ budget request of $1 billion, the Governor’s budget does not recommend further cuts to UC, restores the temporary reduction of $305M, provides in excess of $50M for enrollment growth, and provides funding for annuitant health benefits. However, it does not recommend funding of a further $1 billion which would include restoration of the state’s

of 42

Attachment 1 Assembly 3/18/10

Assembly 1/28/10 Page 2

contribution to the University of California Retirement Program (UCRP), provide funding for unfunded enrollment and provide program support funding.

- The Regents approved the recent increase in student fees, which provides new permanent revenues that will allow the University to address some of the temporary measures that were implemented in 2009-10 such as the furlough program.

- The restoration of $305M would allow funding for faculty merit increases, mandatory cost increases, and the employer’s share of UCRP ($12M) to restart in April.

- The Budget Work Group’s objectives are to minimize additional cuts to units and maintain focus on campus priorities.

- If the Governor’s budget is funded as proposed, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Gottfredson is optimistic about the campus outlook. The Task Forces on Budget and Planning are working on revenue-generating and cost-saving initiatives that are independent of the restoration of state funds. These initiatives are in various phases of development and are listed on the EVC/P’s budget web page. Recommendations include moving Academic Personnel reviews to an electronic format and changing to the library of the future. Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Gottfredson concluded that the campus needs to balance its own budget and take steps in financial planning.

Q&As: - The new overhead formula for distribution is effective immediately. - The new merit form for academic personnel is effective immediately. - Negotiations for annuitant health care benefits are done systemwide and are separate from the

retirement system. The costs are paid from the university’s operating budget funded by the state. - Fundraising has been difficult in the current economy.

6. SPECIAL ORDERS – CONSENT CALENDAR

7. REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES: None 8. REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES:

CORCL Special Research Grant (SRG) Program Update The SRG program has been announced to all Senate members with the application deadline of February 12. The aim of the program is to provide research support to lower income faculty making $85,000 or less and not participating in the furlough exchange program, particularly those for whom extramural funding options are limited. 334 faculty members are eligible to participate. So far, CORCL has received 55 applications from 32 departments. CORCL Chair Crawford asked the Assembly to encourage the faculty in their units and campus-wide to apply. Proposal for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology Issue: The Senate Cabinet reviewed the proposal for a new graduate academic program, the Ph.D. in Epidemiology. Graduate Council approved the Ph.D. but the Council on Planning and Budget did not endorse the proposal. As there was disagreement regarding establishment of the degree program, the proposal was presented to the Assembly. Discussion: After numerous reviews, Graduate Council (GC) endorsed the proposal with the condition that the graduate program in Epidemiology should move to Public Health, once the unit is able to accommodate the program. GC noted that Epidemiology has been a long-standing program starting with ORU status in 2004. It was also noted that 3 UC campuses have an Epidemiology program and that UC San Francisco has a proposal under review. The Cabinet concurred with GC that the proposed program can stand on its own, independent of the planning for the School of Public Health.

of 42

Assembly 1/28/10 Page 3

While agreeing with the intellectual merit, CPB did not endorse the proposal. In addition to budgetary concerns for new programs requiring resources, it believes that sensible academic planning requires a much higher degree of coordination and integration in the Health Sciences between Epidemiology and Public Health. Representatives from Epidemiology responded that the department is indeed part of Health Sciences and that there is ongoing coordination between the two departments in terms of students, joint faculty appointments, etc. Furthermore, Epidemiology would become a department in a School of Public Health. In regards to budgetary concerns, no money will be needed from the campus funds, as the department has received a commitment of support from the Dean of the School of Medicine for the first year. After the first year, students will be supported by grants. The program expects 2-3 students per year at the cost of $20,000 in the first year and supported by research programs thereafter. Action: The Divisional Senate Assembly approved the proposal for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology [26 in favor, 5 opposed, and 1 abstained]. UC Commission on the Future Issue: Senate Chair Stepan-Norris to report on the systemwide and divisional Senate’s activities related to the UC Commissions on the Future and the UCI representatives to the various workgroups of the UCI Commission. Action: The item was deferred to the next Assembly meeting.

9. PETITIONS OF STUDENTS: None 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 11. REPORTS OR COMMENTS ON UNIVERSITY AND FACULTY WELFARE: None 12. NEW BUSINESS: None 13. ROLL CALL: Attendance Sheet ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Thao Nguyen Academic Senate, Irvine Division Attest: Alan Barbour, Chair-Elect/Secretary

of 42


March 9, 2010 DIVISIONAL SENATE ASSEMBLY RE: Disestablishment of the Department of Environmental Health Science and Policy At its meeting of March 2, 2010, the Senate Cabinet endorsed the proposed disestablishment of the Department of Environmental Health Science and Policy (EHSP). Affected faculty were transferred to other school units. All students in the program have either received their degree or dropped out of the program. The remaining three graduate students and two undergraduate students are scheduled to graduate in Spring 2010. Eligible members of the Social Ecology faculty voted overwhelmingly in favor of the disestablishment. The proposed disestablishment is presented to the Divisional Senate Assembly for final approval.

of 42


June 22, 2009

C. Ronald Huff Dean, School of Social Ecology University of California, Irvine 300 Social Ecology I Irvine, CA 92697-7050 Dear Dean Huff: On June 9, 2009, eligible faculty members in the School of Social Ecology received a link to a vote regarding the disestablishment of the Department of Environmental Health, Science and Policy (administered via UCI's "EEE Survey" function). This ballot was anonymous and confidential, and I was the only person who had access to the results. This was a re-vote of an earlier ballot held last spring on this issue (which failed to reach a quorum at that time). The text of the ballot read: "As a result of the Dean's reorganization plan of June, 2005 and the transfer of nearly all the faculty from the Department of Environmental Health, Science and Policy to other academic units on the UCI campus, Academic Personnel is requesting that our School conduct a faculty vote on the formal disestablishment of the EHSP Department, in accordance with the UC policy regarding the transfer, consolidation, or disestablishment of a department (a multi-step process)." Three voting options were offered: YES -- I support the formal disestablishment of the Department of Environmental Health, Science and Policy in the School of Social Ecology. NO -- I do not support the formal disestablishment of the Department of Environmental Health, Science and Policy in the School of Social Ecology. ABSTAIN Ballots were available from 4 pm on June 9, 2009 through 11:45 pm on June 19, 2009.

of 42

Seventy-three (73) faculty received the EEE Survey link (representing all Social Ecology Senate faculty and Social Ecology Emeritae/i faculty who opted to vote on School-wide matters this year). Forty-six (46) faculty chose to submit votes, which represented 63% of the eligible voting faculty (and 60% represents a quorum in our School). The final vote tally was as follows: 42 voted "Yes" (91% of the voting faculty); 1 voted “No,” and 3 “Abstained”. Please let me know if you need any additional information about this outcome. Sincerely,

Roxane Cohen Silver 2008-09 Social Ecology Faculty Chair cc: Social Ecology Associate Deans Karen Rook and Jim Meeker Incoming Interim Dean Val Jenness Incoming Faculty Chair Marlon Boarnet EVC/Provost Michael Gottfredson Jutta Heckhausen, UCI Senate Chair Cammy Wang, Director of Student Services .

of 42

IRVINE: SCHOOL OF SOCIAL ECOLOGY

April 12, 2007 GRADUATE COUNCIL Re: Status Reports on the Graduate Students in the M.S. and Ph.D. programs in

Environmental Health, Science and Policy (EHSP) This memo is in response to Graduate Council’s 2/27/07 memo requesting a report on Social Ecology’s monitoring of graduate students enrolled in the MS and Ph.D. degree programs in EHS&P as well as the status of those students in the SE EAD Ph.D. degree program who are being mentored by faculty members who were in the EHS&P department. Each graduate student was asked to have a meeting with their advisor during which the attached form was completed and signed by their advisor. As a follow-up several of the advisors were contacted to verify and clarify information that was submitted on the forms. The table listing each student and current information is attached. Since the review conducted in February 2006 five students have received Ph.Ds, one switched degree programs from a Ph.D. to an MS and completed the degree, and one other MS student completed their degree. Two Ph.D. students withdrew from their degree programs, one student’s status lapsed and two moved to other degree programs. This represents a 33% reduction in the number of students in the EHS&P degree programs since last year leaving three MS students and twenty-three Ph.D. students. With regard to the MS students, one is expected to finish Spring of 07, one is expected to advance to candidacy Spring 07 and one will be sent a letter indicating the need to set a date for advancement by the end of Spring 07 to maintain satisfactory academic progress. Six of the Ph.D. students have advanced and are on track to finish either in the Spring 07 or the summer. Eight of the Ph.D. students have or will advance by Spring 07 and expect to complete their degrees in the 07/08 year or summer, which leaves eight who need to advance. Of the eight, one expects to advance Spring 07, four expect to advance Fall 07 and two expect to advance in Spring 08. One of the advisors felt the student’s assessment of time to complete their degree was totally unrealistic (student # 5). The advisor has concerns about progress given multiple leaves of absence and the student’s current out of state location. Given these concerns and lack of visible progress during the past year, this student will receive a warning letter requiring a meeting with their advisor this quarter to produce a realistic time line for completion in order to maintain satisfactory academic progress. Another student failed to fill out an updated progress form and there appears to be a different assessment of degree progress among the student’s committee members ranging from almost done to needing major revisions (student # 37). Given that this student appears to have made no visible

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — (Letterhead of Interdepartmental use) C:\doc\Associate Dean\graduate\EHSPstudent07status2.doc

of 42

progress since the last review, they will also receive a letter requiring a meeting this quarter with their committee and the development of a realistic time line in order to maintain satisfactory academic progress. Another student (student # 13) was admitted in 2000 and has not yet advanced. This student will receive a letter stating that they must advance by Fall 07 to maintain satisfactory academic progress. Only two students have outstanding commitments of support, which were offered in their recruitment letters (student #’s 2, 21). For both these students, the funding commitment runs through Spring 09. Even though the other students do not have guarantees of funding a number of them were supported in 06/07 by either TA or GSR positions. In fact, all students who requested a TA position during 06/07 received one. An open town hall style meeting was held for all interested students on 4/9/07 with approximately fifteen students participated. During this forum space and funding issues were discussed. A general room with four desks and two computers has been set-aside for the students who no longer have space in Social Ecology because of relocation of their advisor in another unit. The students asked for another such forum at the end of Fall 07. In summary current faculty advisors and graduate students are knowledgeable about the present state of affairs in EHS&P and are proceeding appropriately for completion of their degree requirements. Three students have been identified as not maintaining satisfactory progress and they are receiving letters specifying what they need to do in order to maintain satisfactory academic progress. Those who have been requesting support are receiving it even though all but two do not have commitments for support. If Graduate Council has any further questions about EHS&P degree students they should not hesitate to contact either the Associate Dean or the Assistant Director for Graduate Student Services

James W. Meeker Associate Dean Cc: Ron Huff, Dean, School of Social Ecology Carolyn Boyd, Dean, Graduate Division Carol Sokolov, Assistant Dean, Graduate Division

C:\doc\Associate Dean\graduate\EHSPstudent07status2.doc of 42


March 9, 2010 DIVISIONAL SENATE ASSEMBLY RE: Proposed B.S. in Computer Game Science At its meeting of March 2, 2010, the Senate Cabinet reviewed the proposal for a new B.S. in Computer Game Science. The CPB expressed several concerns regarding budgetary planning and resources such as the narrowness of the topic, the impact of teaching 12 new courses without new faculty being added, library acquisitions or instructional equipment, enrollment projections, and low enrollment in computer science programs. CPB requested additional information from Associate Dean van der Hoek and is in process of reviewing the response. The Cabinet will meet on March 16, 2010 and review the new information but is tentatively presenting the proposal for Divisional Senate Assembly approval.

of 42


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ACADEMIC SENATE, IRVINE DIVISION COUNCIL ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY

February 5, 2010 JUDITH STEPAN-NORRIS, CHAIR ACADEMIC SENATE, IRVINE DIVISION Re: Proposed Major in Computer Game Science The Council on Educational Policy reviewed the proposed major in Computer Game Science at its February5, 2010, meeting and unanimously supported the proposal.

David Pan, Chair Council on Educational Policy

of 42

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ACADEMIC SENATE • IRVINE DIVISION February 5, 2010

JUDITH STEPAN-NORRIS, CHAIR ACADEMIC SENATE, IRVINE DIVISION Re: Proposal to Revise Regulation 830, Master’s Committee and Regulation 918, Candidacy

Committee At its February 4, 2010 meeting, the Council noted that the revision to the Master's Thesis Committee and Candidacy Committee had not been reviewed at the same time as the revision to IR 920, Doctoral Dissertation Committee. The Council members consented to the proposed revision to Irvine Regulation 830, Master’s Committee and Regulation 918, Candidacy Committee. The intent of the proposed changes is to clarify that individuals who are not voting UC Senate members serving on dissertation committees should have equivalent scholarly standing and on an exception only basis. The proposed revisions to regulations 830, 918, as well as the memo and revisions to Regulation 920 that was sent previously on December 7, 2009, are attached. Since there are several units who currently wish to follow the proposed revisions to the regulations, we hope that they can be reviewed by the Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction, the Academic Senate Cabinet, and the Divisional Senate Assembly as soon as possible. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. On behalf of the Graduate Council,

Frederic Wan, Chair C: Frances Leslie, Dean, Graduate Division Leslie O’Neal, University Registrar, University Registrar’s Office Luisa Crespo, Executive Director, Academic Senate Rachel Kaufman, Director of Graduate Academic Planning, Graduate Division

Ruth Quinnan, Director of Admissions and Enrolled Student Services, Graduate Division Carol Gardner, Analyst, Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction

Jill Kato, Graduate Council Analyst, Academic Senate

of 42


THE MANUAL OF THE IRVINE DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE PART II - REGULATIONS OF THE IRVINE DIVISION Chapter III: Master's Degree Requirements Regulation 830. Master's Degree Requirements. Master's Committee: Plan I (Am 6 June 96 RA) (Am 11 May 2000) Thesis Under Plan I a thesis is required. The thesis committee shall approve the subject of the thesis, pass on the content and administer the general examination. Usually, the Chair of the committee directs the work. Two copies of the approved thesis must be filed with the Thesis and Dissertation Manuscript Advisor. Membership The Master's Thesis Committee is comprised of three voting members of the University of California Academic Senate -- not necessarily the Irvine Division -- or the by equivalent scholarly standing, by exception. A majority of the committee, but not necessarily all, shall be affiliated with the program. Chair The Chair of the committee shall always hold a primary or joint academic appointment in the academic unit/program supervising the master's program and must be a voting member of the UC Academic Senate; no exceptions will be granted for this position. [Please see Footnote 1 for "Definitions of Academic Unit".] General Members Non-voting members of the Academic Senate will be considered for general membership on the committee on an exception-only basis. The Dean of Graduate Studies Division, on behalf of the Graduate Council, retains sole authority to grant exceptions to the membership of the Master’s Thesis Committee. All such requests must be submitted in writing by the Chair of the academic unit to the Dean of Graduate Studies Division and should allow a reasonable time for review. Oversight Member If the Chair, Thesis Advisor or other member of the committee has a financial interest in an outside entity that carries the possibility of a conflict of interest that is potentially harmful to the graduate student, an Oversight Member must be appointed in addition to the two general members. It is understood that the Oversight Member shall not bear a possible conflict of interest potentially harmful to the graduate student in the discharge of his or her role as Oversight Member. Role of Oversight Member The Oversight Member shall participate on all student research advisory and/or thesis committees. An additional role of the Oversight Member is to be fully cognizant of the

of 42

issues related to the possible conflict of interest and its potential impact on the student, and to be fully cognizant of the UCI resources available should a conflict of interest problem arise. If there do not appear to be any harmful results from the conflict of interest, the Oversight Member shall sign a statement to that effect after each committee meeting and the statement shall be placed in the student's file as well as forwarded to the Dean of Graduate Studies Division. If the Oversight Member perceives that there is a problem arising from conflict of interest issues, then he/she shall not sign off on the committee deliberation, but shall instead inform the Dean of Graduate Studies Division in writing. Appointment Procedures The qualifications of all committee members must be evaluated and approved by the academic unit Chair or designee. When the membership of the proposed committee conforms to Senate policy as defined in this regulation, the Dean of Graduate Studies Division, on behalf of the Graduate Council, may delegate to the academic unit the authority to appoint, evaluate and approve the committee. When the proposed membership deviates from this policy, as in the case of non-voting Senate members; faculty members from other universities; or non-Senate faculty with equivalent scholarly standing, or in the case of appointment of an Oversight Member, a request for an exception must be submitted in writing to the Dean of Graduate Studies Division.

Exceptions:

Oversight Member: The Dean of Graduate Studies Division shall select the Oversight Member from a list of three nominees agreed upon by the student, the faculty research advisor and the departmental representative. If no agreement can be reached on three nominees, the departmental representative -- either the graduate advisor or the chair if the advisor is conflicted -- will select the nominations. The request for appointment of an Oversight Member must be submitted in writing to the Dean of Graduate Studies Division no less than two weeks prior to the date of the exam to allow a reasonable time for review. This request will also include background information describing the circumstances of the possible conflict. The Dean of Graduate Studies Division will retain sole authority to appoint the Oversight Member. No exceptions to this requirement will be considered.*

General Member: Non-voting members of the Academic Senate and faculty members from other universities will be considered for general membership on the committee on an exception-only basis. Non-voting Senate members; faculty members from other universities; or non-Senate faculty with equivalent scholarly standing will be considered for general membership on the committee on an exception basis only.

of 42

It is the responsibility of the Chair of the academic unit, the Departmental Faculty Advisor, Mentor or Associate Dean for Graduate Affairs as appropriate, and the Chair of the Candidacy Committee: 1) to inform the student regarding the policy on Thesis Committees -- including full disclosure of issues pertaining to possible conflict of interest that is potentially harmful to graduate students; 2) to provide graduate students with a policy statement on such possible conflict of interest prior to the student designating a research topic, forming a graduate committee, or being employed as a research or teaching assistant, whichever comes first; and 3) to ensure that these Academic Senate policies are followed.* * Note: Areas of assigned responsibility are further defined in the UCI Academic Senate policy statement dated March 2, 2000 and entitled "Proposed Policy and Procedures for Implementation of Academic Senate Policy on Conflict of Interest and Graduate Education. (See Appendix XII.) 1Definitions of Academic Unit (CC and EC 18 Jan 05) a.Department. b.If "a" fails, Interdisciplinary Program. c.If "a" and "b" fail, the graduate program which oversees the student's progress. d.If "a", "b" and "c" fail, the School (or DOE). e.In cases where multicampus programs are involved, the same definitions will apply across all campuses relevant to the program. Last revision - January 18, 2005

of 42

http://www.senate.uci.edu/senateweb/default2.asp?active_page_id=760

THE MANUAL OF THE IRVINE DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE PART II - REGULATIONS OF THE IRVINE DIVISION Chapter IV: Doctor of Philosophy Degree Requirements Regulation 918. Candidacy Committee. (Am 1 October 1998 RA) (Am 11 May 2000 DSA)

Membership The Candidacy Committee is comprised of five faculty who are voting members of the University of California Academic Senate or by equivalent scholarly standing, by exception. Non-voting Senate members; faculty members from other universities; or non-Senate faculty with equivalent scholarly standing will be considered for general membership on the committee on an exception basis only. Non-voting Senate members or faculty holding professorial titles at other Universities will be considered on an exception-only basis. Candidacy committee members need not necessarily be from the Irvine Division -- but a majority and not all must hold primary or joint appointments in the student's department. If the student is not affiliated with an individual department, a majority of the committee must hold either primary or joint appointments with the academic unit granting the doctoral degree. The following additional criteria apply to the membership of the committee. The Chair The Chair of the Candidacy Committee must hold either a primary or joint appointment in the student's department (or academic unit1) and must be a voting member of the UC Academic Senate. No exceptions to these requirements will be considered. [Please see Footnote 1 for "Definitions of Academic Unit".] General Membership At least two members in addition to the Chair must hold either a primary or joint appointment in the student's department or academic unit. No exceptions to the requirement that a majority of voting members hold appointments in the student's department or academic unit will be considered. Non-voting Senate members; faculty members from other universities; or non-Senate faculty with equivalent scholarly standing will be considered for general membership on the committee on an exception only basis. Non-voting Senate members or faculty holding professorial titles at other Universities with equivalent scholarly standing will be considered on an exception-only basis. The Outside Member One member of the Candidacy Committee, designated the "outside member", must be from the Irvine Division and may not hold either a primary or joint appointment in the student's department or academic unit. The outside member represents the faculty at large. The role of the "outside member" is to serve as an unbiased and independent judge of both the quality and fairness of the exam. It is therefore desirable that this individual be familiar with the student's research field. No exceptions to these requirements will be considered. The Oversight Member If the Chair, Research/Thesis advisor or other member of the committee has a financial

of 42

interest in an outside entity that carries a possibility of a conflict of interest potentially harmful to the graduate student, an oversight member must be appointed in addition to the three general members. It is understood that the Oversight Member shall not bear a possible conflict of interest potentially harmful to the graduate student in the discharge of his or her role as Oversight Member.*

Role of the Oversight Member: The Oversight Member shall participate on all student research advisory and/or thesis committees. An additional role of the Oversight Member is to be fully cognizant of the issues related to the possible conflict of interest and its potential impact on the student, and to be fully cognizant of the UCI resources available should a conflict of interest problem arise. If there do not appear to be any harmful results from COI, the Oversight Member shall sign a statement to that effect after each committee meeting and the statement shall be placed in the student's file as well as forwarded to the Dean of Graduate Studies. If the Oversight Member perceives that there is a problem arising from COI issues, then he/she shall not sign off on the committee deliberation, but shall instead inform the Dean of Graduate Studies Division in writing.*

Appointment Procedures The qualifications of all committee members must be evaluated and approved by the academic unit Chair or designee. When the membership of the proposed committee conforms to Senate policy as defined in this regulation, the Dean of Graduate Studies Division, on behalf of the Graduate Council, may delegate to the academic unit the authority to appoint, evaluate and approve the committee. When the proposed membership deviates from this policy, as in the case of non-voting Senate members; faculty members from other universities, non-Senate faculty with equivalent scholarly standing, or when appointment of an Oversight Member is perceived to be necessary, a request for an exception or nomination must be submitted in writing to the Dean of Graduate Studies Division (see below).

• Non-voting Senate members, faculty holding professorial titles at other Universities or non-Senate faculty with equivalent scholarly standing will be considered on an exception-only basis. The Dean of Graduate Studies Division retains sole authority to grant these exceptions, which must be submitted in writing by the Chair of the academic unit at least two weeks prior to the scheduled exam, and must be accompanied by a curriculum vitae of the individual for whom the exception is being requested. A list of the faculty holding primary or joint appointments with the student's department or academic unit1 may be required by the Dean of Graduate Studies.

• Oversight Member: The Dean of Graduate Studies shall select the Oversight Member from a list of three nominees agreed upon by the student, the faculty research advisor and the departmental representative. If no agreement can be reached on three nominees, the departmental representative -- either the graduate advisor or the chair if the advisor is conflicted -- will select the nominations. The request for appointment of an Oversight Member must be submitted in writing to

of 42

the Dean of Graduate Studies no less than two weeks prior to the date of the exam to allow a reasonable time for review. This request will also include background information describing the circumstances of the possible conflict. The Dean of Graduate Studies will retain sole authority to appoint the Oversight Member. No exceptions to this requirement will be considered.*

It is the responsibility of the Chair of the academic unit, the Departmental Faculty Advisor/ Mentor or Associate Dean for Graduate Affairs as appropriate, and the Chair of the Candidacy Committee: 1) to inform the student regarding the policy on Candidacy Committees -- including full disclosure of issues pertaining to the possibility of a conflict of interest that is potentially harmful to graduate students; 2) to provide graduate students with a policy statement on such possible conflict of interest prior to the student designating a research topic, forming a graduate committee, or being employed as a research or teaching assistant, whichever comes first; and 3) to ensure that these Academic Senate policies are followed.* Should these Senate policies not be followed the student will be required to retake the Qualifying Exam. * Note: Areas of assigned responsibility are further defined in the UCI Academic Senate policy statement dated March 2, 2000 and entitled "Proposed Policy and Procedures for Implementation of Academic Senate Policy on Conflict of Interest and Graduate Education. (See Appendix XII.) 1Definitions of Academic Unit (CC and EC 18 Jan 05) Department. If "a" fails, Interdisciplinary Program. If "a" and "b" fail, the graduate program which oversees the student's progress. If "a", "b" and "c" fail, the School (or DOE). In cases where multicampus programs are involved, the same definitions will apply across all campuses relevant to the program. Last revision - January 18, 2005

of 42

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ACADEMIC SENATE • IRVINE DIVISION December 7, 2009

JUDITH STEPAN NORRIS, CHAIR ACADEMIC SENATE, IRVINE DIVISION Re: Proposal to Revise the Manual of the Irvine Division of the Academic Senate -

Chapter IV: Doctor of Philosophy Degree Requirements Regulation 920. Doctoral Committee

At the November 5 and 19, 2009 meetings of the Graduate Council (GC), member reviewed Regulation 920, Doctoral Committee of the Manual of the Irvine Division of the Academic Senate. The Graduate Dean sought clarification of the definition of “or equivalent” and “non-voting Senate member” in selecting members for a dissertation committee. Members agreed that individuals who are not voting UC Senate members serving on dissertation committees should have equivalent scholarly standing and on an exception only basis. They thus voted to amend the regulation for the purpose of clarification.

Membership The doctoral committee is comprised of three voting members of the University of California Academic Senate -- not necessarily the Irvine Division -- or the by equivalent scholarly standing, by exception. A majority of the committee, but not necessarily all, shall be affiliated with the program. At least one member of the student's committee must hold a primary appointment in the student's department.

The Council also voted to remove the following sentence because the objective of the sentence is already covered by the modified sentence above.

General Members Non-voting members of the Academic Senate will be considered for general membership on the committee on an exception-only basis.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. On behalf of the Graduate Council,

Frederic Wan, Chair C: Frances Leslie, Dean, Graduate Division Rachel Kaufman, Director of Graduate Academic Planning, Graduate Division

Luisa Crespo, Executive Director, Academic Senate Thao Nguyen, Analyst, Academic Senate Jill Kato, Graduate Council Analyst, Academic Senate

of 42

THE MANUAL OF THE IRVINE DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE PART II - REGULATIONS OF THE IRVINE DIVISION Chapter IV: Doctor of Philosophy Degree Requirements Regulation 920. Doctoral Committee (Am 6 June 96 RA) (Am 11 May 2000 DSA) (Am 4 Jun 2009 DSA) Dissertation The doctoral committee shall supervise the preparation and completion of the dissertation and the final examination. Membership The doctoral committee is comprised of three voting members of the University of California Academic Senate -- not necessarily the Irvine Division -- or the by equivalent scholarly standing, by exception. A majority of the committee, but not necessarily all, shall be affiliated with the program. At least one member of the student's committee must hold a primary appointment in the student's department. ChairThe Chair of the Committee shall always hold a primary or joint academic appointment in the academic unit/program1 supervising the doctoral program; no exceptions will be granted for this position. [Please see Footnote 1 for "Definitions of Academic Unit".] Oversight Member If the Chair, Research/Thesis advisor or other member of the committee has a financial interest in an outside entity that carries a possibility of a conflict of interest potentially harmful to the graduate student, an oversight member must be appointed in addition to the two general members. It is understood that the Oversight Member will not bear a possible conflict of interest potentially harmful to the graduate student in the discharge of his or her role as Oversight Member.* Role of the Oversight Member: The Oversight Member shall participate on all student research advisory and/or dissertation committees. An additional role of the Oversight Member is to be fully cognizant of the issues related to the possible conflict of interest and its potential impact on the student, and to be fully cognizant of the UCI resources available should a conflict of interest problem arise. If there do not appear to be any harmful results from the conflict of interest, the Oversight Member shall sign a statement to that effect after each committee meeting and the statement shall be placed in the student's file as well as forwarded to the Dean of Graduate Studies. If the Oversight Member perceives that there is a problem arising from COI issues, then he/she should not sign off on the committee deliberation, but should instead inform the Dean of Graduate Studies in writing. * Appointment Procedures The qualifications of all committee members must be evaluated and approved by the academic unit Chair or designee. When the membership of the proposed committee

of 42

conforms to Senate policy as defined in this regulation, the Dean of Graduate Studies, on behalf of the Graduate Council, may delegate to the academic unit the authority to appoint, evaluate and approve the remaining members of the Doctoral Committee. Oversight Member In those cases where a possible conflict of interest as described above exists, the Dean of Graduate Studies shall select the Oversight Member from a list of three nominees agreed upon by the student, the faculty research advisor and the departmental representative. If no agreement can be reached on three nominees, the departmental representative -- either the graduate advisor or the chair if the advisor is conflicted -- shall select the nominees. The request for appointment of an Oversight Member must be submitted in writing to the Dean of Graduate Studies no less than two weeks prior to the date of the exam to allow a reasonable time for review. This request will also include background information describing the circumstances of the possible conflict. The Dean of Graduate Studies will retain sole authority to appoint the Oversight Member. No exceptions to this requirement will be considered. General Members Non-voting members of the Academic Senate will be considered for general membership on the committee on an exception-only basis. The Dean of Graduate Studies, on behalf of the Graduate Council, retains sole authority to grant exceptions. All such requests must be submitted in writing by the Chair of the academic unit to the Dean of Graduate Studies at least two weeks prior to the date of the exam to allow a reasonable time for review. It is the responsibility of the Chair of the academic unit, the departmental Faculty Advisor/Mentor or Associate Dean for Graduate Affairs as applicable, and the Chair of the Doctoral Committee; 1) to inform the student regarding the policy on Doctoral Committees -- including full disclosure of issues pertaining to the possibility of conflict of interest potentially harmful to the student; 2) to provide graduate students with a policy statement on conflict of interest prior to the student designating a research topic, forming a graduate committee, or being employed as a research or teaching assistant, whichever comes first; and 3) to ensure that the Academic Senate policies are adhered to.* * Note: Areas of assigned responsibility are further defined in the UCI Academic Senate policy statement dated March 2, 2000 and entitled "Proposed Policy and Procedures for Implementation of Academic Senate Policy on Conflict of Interest and Graduate Education. (See Appendix XII.) 1 Definitions of Academic Unit CC and EC 18 Jan 05)

a. Department. b. If "a" fails, Interdisciplinary Program. c. If "a" and "b" fail, the graduate program which oversees the student's

progress.

of 42

d. If "a", "b" and "c" fail, the School (or DOE). e. In cases where multicampus programs are involved, the same definitions will

apply across all campuses relevant to the program.

Last revision - August 1, 2009

of 42


January 25, 2010 JUDITH STEPAN-NORRIS, CHAIR ACADEMIC SENATE, IRVINE DIVISION Re: Proposed Revision to Irvine Regulation (IR) A345, Grading The Council on Educational Policy reviewed the proposed revisions to IR A345, Grading at its January 14, 2010, meeting. Council members unanimously endorsed the proposal. Under the current regulation, the “I” grade (Incomplete Grade) may remain permanently on the transcript. Under the proposed revised policy, the “I” would ultimately change to an “F,” if not replaced by a grade. The new policy reminds faculty and students that an incomplete grade is an implicit contract between the student and faculty member under circumstances where the student’s work is of passing quality but cannot be completed on time for “good cause.” It is consistent with the practice at all other UC campuses.

David Pan, Chair Council on Educational Policy Attachment

of 42



THE MANUAL OF THE IRVINE DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATEPART II - REGULATIONS OF THE IRVINE DIVISIONChapter I: General RequirementsSection 2: Grades and CreditRegulation A345. Grading (A) Available Grades The work of all students in the Irvine Division shall be reported in the following grades: (1) Passing: A+ (extraordinary), A, A-(excellent); B+, B, B(good); C+, C, C- (fair); P (passed); D+, D, D- (barely passing); S (satisfactory [graduate only]); (2) Not Passing: F (failure); NP (not passed); U (unsatisfactory [graduate only]); (3) Undetermined: I (incomplete). (B) Grade Points Grade points per unit shall be assigned by the Registrar as follows: A:4, B:3, C:2, D:1, F and I:O. Minus grades carry three-tenths of a grade point less per unit, and plus grades (with the exception of the A+) carry three-tenths of a grade point more per unit than unsuffixed grades. Faculty are instructed to use the A+ grade only for truly extraordinary performance. (Am 13 April 89) (C) Correction of Grades All grades except Incomplete are final when filed by an instructor in end-of-quarter course reports. However, the correction of a clerical or procedural error may be authorized as the Division directs. (See IR A365.) No change of grade may be made on the basis of reassessment of the quality of a student's work. No term grade except Incomplete may be revised by reexamination except as provided in IR A365. (D) Course Repetition (Undergraduate) Repetition of courses not authorized by the Committee on Courses to be taken more than once for credit is subject to the following: (1) Conditions (Undergraduate)--Students may repeat only those courses in which they received a grade of C-, D+, D, D-, F, NP, or a permanent Incomplete [see F(2)]. All courses which were originally taken for a letter grade must be repeated for a letter grade. Courses originally taken on the P/NP basis may be repeated for a P/NP or for a letter grade if the course is so offered. (Am 28 Nov 84) (2) Approval--Repetition of a course more than once requires approval in all instances of

of 42


the School (or equivalent) in which the student is enrolled. (3) Degree Credit--Degree credit for a course will be given only once; but the grade assigned at each enrollment shall be permanently recorded. (4) Grade Point Average (Undergraduate)--In computing the grade point average of undergraduates who repeat courses in which they received a grade of C-, D+, D, D-, F, or NP (if repeated for a letter grade), only the most recently earned grades and grade points shall be used for the first 16 units repeated. In the case of further repetitions, the grade point average shall be based on all grades assigned and total units attempted. (Am 28 Nov 84) (E) Course Repetition (Graduate) A graduate student may repeat only once a course in which a grade below B or a grade of U was received, subject to IR A345 (D)(2-3). Only the most recently earned grades shall be used in computing the student's grade point average for the first eight units of repeated Graduate Studies work; thereafter both the earlier and later grades will be used. (F) Incomplete Grade (I) (1) Conditions and Definition--The grade Incomplete may be is assigned when a student's work is of passing quality but is incomplete for good cause. The I grade may be replaced by a passing permanent grade provided the student completes the course work in a way authorized by the instructor and within the time limits expressed. Incomplete grades shall not be used for a student who is doing failing work, who has not made prior arrangements for the Incomplete with the instructor, or who fails to establish good cause. and to receive unit credit provided the student completes the work of the course in a way authorized by the instructor. (Am 28 Nov 84) (2) Time Limits— (a) Registered Students--The grade Incomplete may only be replaced by another grade or notation of extension subject to the following: The student must complete the coursework within the period set by the instructor, or within 12 months following the quarter in which the grade Incomplete was originally awarded, or prior to the end of the quarter immediately preceding award of the degree, whichever comes first (Instructors are not obligated to allow the maximum time period). 1) The action must be taken prior to the end of the third quarter following the quarter in which the grade Incomplete was originally awarded, or prior to the end of the quarter immediately preceding award of the degree, whichever comes first (instructors, however, are not obligated to allow the maximum time period). 2) Only quarters in which a student is enrolled will be counted in determining the time after which the grade Incomplete can no longer be replaced. (b) Formerly Registered Students--Students not currently enrolled may replace the grade Incomplete by another grade or notation subject to the following: For

of 42


students not currently enrolled, the Incomplete grade may be replaced by another grade or notation of extension subject to the following: 1) they have a maximum of one calendar year in which to replace the grade Incomplete 12 months following the quarter in which the grade Incomplete was originally awarded; however, 2) in exceptional individual cases involving the student's prolonged inability to pursue a course of studies, extensions of up to two additional years may be granted by the instructor with the approval of the Dean of the unit offering the course; further, 3) students must petition for such an extension within one calendar year 12 months following award of the grade Incomplete. (3) Grade Point Average— During the time allowed for replacing an I grade (as stated in (2) above), I grades will not be used in computation of a student’s grade point average. However, if the incomplete course work is not completed in the manner authorized by the instructor and within the time limits stated above, the I grade shall automatically be replaced with a grade of F, NP, or U, as appropriate, and will be used in computation of the student’s grade point average. Until graduation the grade of Incomplete shall not itself be calculated in the student's grade point average. However, at graduation, courses graded I must be treated as courses attempted in computation of the student's grade point average in assessing a student's satisfaction of Irvine Regulation A525. This computation affects neither the grade point average on the student's permanent record nor the appearance of the I grade on the student's permanent record. (G) Transcript Notations (1) The Notation In Progress (IP)--In the Irvine Division, for a course extending over more than one quarter where the evaluation of a student's performance is deferred until the end of the final quarter, provisional grades of In Progress (IP) shall be assigned in the intervening quarters. The provisional grades shall be replaced by the final grade if the student completes the full sequence. If a student who was assigned the provisional notation IP for one or several quarters of a course sequence fails to complete the sequence, the instructor may assign a final grade and request the Registrar to replace the IP with that final grade on the permanent record. In the event that no action is taken to replace the IP with a final grade, the IP will be changed to an I at the end of the third quarter following the quarter in which it was originally assigned or at the end of the quarter immediately preceding award of the degree, whichever comes first. Incomplete grades which arise in this manner may not be replaced by another grade or notation. Only quarters in which a student is enrolled will be counted in determining the time at which an IP is changed to an I. Courses annotated IP carry no grade points and shall not be included in any calculation of the student's grade point average. (2) The Notation No Report (NR)--The notation NR shall be made on a student's permanent record when the student's name was on the official class roster but the

of 42


instructor turned in no grade for the student. The notation NR may be removed from the student's record by the action of the instructor of the course, providing that a clerical or procedural error has occurred. Depending on the circumstances, the instructor may request the Registrar to change the NR to a grade, including Incomplete, or the instructor may request that the NR be changed to a W. If no action is taken to remove the NR from the permanent record, the NR will be changed to an F or NP at the end of the first quarter following the quarter in which it was originally assigned or at the end of the quarter immediately preceding award of the degree, whichever comes first. Only quarters in which a student is enrolled will be counted in determining the time at which an NR becomes an F or NP. Courses annotated NR carry no grade points and shall not be included in any calculation of the student's grade point average. (Am 28 Nov 84) August 1998 Edition

of 42


March 9, 2010 DIVISIONAL SENATE ASSEMBLY RE: Proposed Revision to IR 440, Adding and Dropping Courses (effective F2010) At its meeting of March 2, 2010, the Senate Cabinet reviewed the proposed revision to IR 440. CEP and CRJ found the proposed revisions to be reasonable and endorsed the proposal. The proposed modification of IR 440 would eliminate the use of add/drop cards, however there was considerable concern about removing the faculty’s ability to control their class roster with the proposed electronic add/drop mechanism. The Cabinet concurred with the recommendation to keep faculty control, and CEP agreed to modify the legislation to allow faculty control by use of an authorization code for admission of students. In addition, it observed that the current policy requires students to obtain permission of the dean or equivalent of the school or academic unit offering the course as well as the dean or equivalent of the student’s major when dropping and withdrawing courses after a certain period. Following the modifications, the Cabinet voted via e-mail to support the proposed revisions to IR 440, Adding and Dropping Courses (effective F2010), and is presenting to the Divisional Senate Assembly for final approval.

of 42



January 25, 2010 JUDITH STEPAN-NORRIS, CHAIR ACADEMIC SENATE, IRVINE DIVISION Re: Proposed changes to Irvine Regulation (IR) 440, Adding and Dropping Courses

(effective F2010) The Council on Educational Policy reviewed the proposed revisions to IR 440, Adding and Dropping Courses, at its January 14, 2010, meeting. Council members unanimously endorsed the proposal. The proposal was received by CEP from the Dean of Undergraduate Education. The Council was advised that the Associate Deans and the Directors of Academic Counseling worked for some time to come to agreement on this proposal.

David Pan, Chair Council on Educational Policy Attachments

of 42

Proposed revision to IR 440, Adding and Dropping Courses DELETIONS ADDITIONS (A) Adding During the First Two Weeks During the first two weeks of a quarter, students may add classes to their study lists subject to the limitations of IR 445. Students wishing to add a class must submit a Change of Course Enrollment card to the Office of the Registrar with the approving instructor's signature. Additionally, instructors may authorize the use of WebReg for adds during the first two weeks. (Am 9 June 95) (EC 4 February 05)

(A) Adding During the First Three Weeks During the first three weeks of instruction, students may add courses subject to the limitations of IR 445. Instructors may utilize authorization codes to control adds during this period. (Am 9 June 95) (EC 4 February 05)

(B) Dropping During First Two Weeks During the first two weeks of a quarter, students may drop classes or change the grading option provided the limitations of IR 445 and IR A350 are satisfied. To drop a class or change the grading option, students must submit a Change of Course Enrollment card to the Office of the Registrar with the approving instructor's signature. Additionally, instructors may authorize the use of WebReg for dropping classes or change of grade options during the first two weeks. (Am 9 June 95) (EC 4 February 05)

(B) Dropping and Changing Grading Options During the First Two Weeks During the first two weeks of instruction, students may drop courses or change the grading option provided the limitations of IR 445 and IR A350 are satisfied. Instructors may utilize authorization codes to control drops and changes during this period. (Am 9 June 95) (EC 4 February 05)

of 42

(C) Adding or Dropping From Third Through Sixth Week During the period from the third week through the sixth week of classes, inclusive, students may add or drop classes provided they obtain the permission of the instructor in charge of those classes. Students wishing to add or drop a class during this period must obtain a signature of approval from their instructors on a Change of Course Enrollment Card and submit the card to Office of the Registrar no later than the end of the sixth week of instruction. (CC 11 October 06)

(C) Dropping From the Third Through the Sixth Week During the period from the third week through the sixth week of instruction students may drop courses with the permission of the dean or equivalent of the school or academic unit offering the course as well as the dean or equivalent of the student’s major. (CC 11 October 06)

(D) Dropping After Sixth Week After the sixth week in a quarter, students may drop a course only with the permission of the instructor and the dean (or equivalent) of the appropriate school (or academic unit) and only if the students are not failing the course and are not subject to disqualification. Permission to drop may be given only if such action would be to the educational benefit of the student or of the class as a whole, or both. (See (E) below.)

(D) Withdrawing After the Sixth Week After the sixth week of instruction, students may withdraw from a course only with the permission of the dean or equivalent of the school or academic unit offering the course as well as the dean or equivalent of the student’s major. (See (E) below.)

(E) The W Notation The Registrar will record on a student's permanent record a W notation for each course the student drops after the end of the sixth week of instruction in a quarter. Courses in which a W has been entered on the student's transcript will be disregarded in determining a student's grade point average and will not be considered as courses attempted in assessing the student's satisfaction of SR 634 for graduation. (Am 4 Jun 81)

(E) The W Transcript Notation The Registrar will record on a student's transcript a W notation for each course from which the student withdraws. Courses in which a W has been entered on the student's transcript will be disregarded in determining a student's grade point average and will not be considered as courses attempted in assessing the student's satisfaction of SR 634 for graduation. (Am 4 Jun 81)

of 42

(F) Policy Announcement Instructors are obliged to announce their add and drop policy during the first week of class.

(F) Changing Grading Basis from the Third Through the Sixth Week Students may change the grading basis of a course through the sixth week of instruction with the permission of the dean or equivalent of the student’s major.

(G) Changing Unit Value from the Third through the Sixth Week Students may change the unit value of a course through the sixth week of instruction with the permission of the dean or equivalent of the student’s major.

(H) Unique Add/Drop Deadlines Courses may occasionally have unique Add/Drop deadlines due to course impaction or instructional needs. Such courses require the review of the appropriate department dean or designate. Unique Add/Drop deadlines must be clearly specified in the published Schedule of Classes as well as the course syllabus.

Last Revision - October 11, 2006

of 42


January 25, 2010 JUDITH STEPAN-NORRIS, CHAIR ACADEMIC SENATE, IRVINE DIVISION Re: Proposed modification to Category VIII, International/Global Studies The Council on Educational Policy received a proposal from the Center for International Education for modifications to General Education Category VIII, International/Global Studies. At its January 14 meeting, Council members unanimously endorsed the proposal. Attached is a copy of the proposal.

David Pan, Chair Council on Educational Policy Attachment

of 42



Proposal to amend GE VIII, International/Global Issues, to include IOP and summer study abroad Proposed wording:

Category VIII. International/Global Issues. Courses in this category focus on significant cultural, economic, geographical, historical, political, and/or sociological aspects of one or more countries other than the United States. After completing this GE requirement, successful students should be able to do the following: demonstrate specific knowledge of the cultural, historical, social, economic, scientific, and political aspects of one or more foreign countries, and the connections among these aspects; develop a broader understanding of the formation of different cultures and countries through the world; and be prepared to engage in positive interaction with peoples of different cultures and nationalities. Students must complete one course from the following list. In fulfilling category VIII, students are encouraged to use courses that are also being used in fulfillment of other GE categories. In addition, category VIII may be satisfied by one quarter's participation in the Education Abroad Program (EAP). In addition, category VIII may be satisfied by one quarter's participation in the UC Education Abroad Program (EAP) or one quarter’s participation an International Opportunities Program (IOP) with an approved IOP Credit Contract. Summer study abroad on an EAP, IOP (with approved IOP Credit Contract) or UCI Summer Session Travel Study program satisfies this requirement when the program is at least 5 weeks long and a student completes at least one course worth at least 4 quarter units.

1. Request to include International Opportunities Program (IOP) Request: Modify the last sentence to say: “In addition, category VIII may be satisfied by one quarter's participation in the UC Education Abroad Program (EAP) or one quarter’s participation an International Opportunities Program (IOP) with an approved IOP Credit Contract.” Rationale:

a) Academic standard: The IOP Credit Contract is a pre-departure process that allows Admissions to confirm that UCI will accept credit for classes taken on a specific IOP program. The IOP Credit Contract is an on-line process initiated by the student and residing on the web site of the Office of Admissions and Relations with Schools. In order for a student to ultimately receive transfer credit, the student must submit his or her transcript to UCI Admissions after completion of the IOP program. Instructions to the students are on the CIE web site at:

of 42


http://www.cie.uci.edu/participants/index-iop.shtml Click on the tab “IOP Credit.”

b) International Learning standard: The international learning accomplished by a

given student participating in an IOP program vs. an EAP program varies to the same extent as a student participating in one EAP program as compared to another EAP program, thereby achieving the learning outcome specified for this requirement.

2. Request to include Summer Study Abroad Request: Modify the last sentence to say: “In addition, category VIII may be satisfied by one quarter's participation in the UC Education Abroad Program (EAP) or one quarter’s participation an International Opportunities Program (IOP) with an approved IOP Credit Contract.” Summer study abroad on an EAP, IOP (with approved IOP Credit Contract) or UCI Summer Session Travel Study program satisfies this requirement when the program is at least 5 weeks long and a student completes at least one course worth at least 4 quarter units. Rationale:

a) Academic standard: UC EAP and UCI Summer Session Travel Study both award UCI credit. IOP: Same rationale as described above for IOP.

b) International Learning standard: Five weeks of daily living in another country should provide at least as much international learning as an individual ten-week course at UCI, thereby resulting in the learning outcome specified for this requirement.

of 42

http://www.cie.uci.edu/participants/index-iop.shtml

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ACADEMIC SENATE • IRVINE DIVISION · 2014. 3. 5. · AGENDA OF THE...

Documents

Transcript of UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ACADEMIC SENATE • IRVINE DIVISION · 2014. 3. 5. · AGENDA OF THE...