Task Force IV - Synthesis of Monterey Bay Conference
Discussion Group Commentary on Task Force IV Issues
This report has three components. Part 1 is a simple
compilation of all the voices reported from the conference organized
around emergent themes. There is no weighting factor. A comment
said once appears on this list and comments repeated multiple
times only appear once. Again the purpose of the list in part
one is to aggregate all comments in a brainstorming mode, preserving
all insights for reflection. Whenever possible the wording is
the group wording but brevity was imposed.
Part 11 is a brief summary of major points shared
across groups. The attempt here is to reflect the "sense
of the body". Comments that occurred multiple times across
groups provide the substance for this section.
Part 111 is a sample of one of the group's commentary in tact. While this particular reflection is one of the more articulate, it is representative of the overall tone reflected in the commentaries and it demonstrates the breadth of commentary within a group. We felt that a particular instance would provide perspective in better understanding how the first two parts were derived. This section could not be reproduced on the web. It is available upon request
.
Grad education and the mission
Lifelong learning is an important commitment for the CSU
Grad programs increase prestige, knowledge base, and quality of programs
We can't make grad programs work related to what market is willing to pay until we stop thinking that grad programs suck. We need to support them
Vitality comes to undergrad programs as a result of grad programs
Grad programs are important in faculty recruitment and retention
Diminishing grad programs has a negative impact on undergrad programs
Graduate programs are important and healthy for entire curriculum
Grad programs keep faculty current
Grad programs provide a great many of the community college faculty
Grad education and the mission (contintued)
Can we justify resources into grad educ with Tidal Wave 2
Grad programs subsidize undergrad through TA's and other support services
What evidence is there of cross subsidization and what does it take into account
Quality of faculty is enhanced by grad programs
We hang onto grad programs currently (as overloads) because we know just how good they are for us
Master's degrees are entry level in many fields today
Current obstacles to stronger programs
We continue to offer traditional programs and what we need are new ones
Mantra is if you want the new program, go find the funds. Faculty are not trained in fund raising
No reward or incentive to deliver graduate education
Need more funding for TA and student assistants
Grad courses are taught on backs of faculty.
No funding for theses
Grad programs are foster children of the system
Library facilities are not excellent
Need a better infrastructure
Encourage grant proposals and find incentives for faculty innovation
Short life of technology makes it difficult to keep up and grad educ is demanding
New programs have large overhead --i.e. materials to develop to publicize -- and there is no support
Still an oversupply of Ph.D's
Concerns about quality because grad teaching is essentially an overload since the end of the orange book
Tolerance level for mistakes in innovation is too low
Pricing issues
Funding is a fundamental problem
Implement more realistic pricing
With a grad differential --funds should remain on the campus -- funds need to be used to support grad programs
A fee differential should not apply to post-bac instruction involving teacher credentials
A grad fee differential should result in a grad teaching differential --currently grad educ is faculty subsidized
Where does nonresident tuition go?
Grad educ is of more value to student -- therefore it should cost more
Both the individual and society benefit from grad educ -- therefore it should be state subsidized
Different opinions on fee differential --concern was philosophical
Maintain access and quality and avoid exploitation of students
Higher fees will limit access to some students
Pricing issues (continued)
Master's degrees have different earning potential--price programs differently
A fee differential should treat all grad educ the same
Require grad students to teach or do other work to offset increased costs
One group vote on differential was slightly more than half in favor
Would a fee differential really help the CSU resource shortage --grad students are too few in number
A grad fee differential might kill liberal arts master's degrees
Charge should be per course -- not for 6 or 12 units
CE related comments
Concerns exist about quality control in CE
CE responds much more to quality than general fund instruction
Merging of trad grad degrees and CE is a stupid idea --service, innovation and standards are different
CE programs "show the way" for the rest of campus -- they look to the environment --faculty look more to their education
Life long learning should be self supporting
If Ce is so important why is it not part of the regular load --why do we hire mercenaries
CE currently sells products which help to support other aspects of the university
Provides an arena for faculty experimentation
Can be an in-service arm of corporations
Issues related to CE and Grad integration
Strategic planning should look at role of CE and grad programs and life long learning
Develop more rapid processes for curriculum adjustment to meet needs of professionals
Create more flexible modules in CE and at same time have these possibly serve as components of a grad program
CE programs should generate FTES or they undercut campus activity
All CE is not post bac -- task force distinction between master's and post-bac was weak
Like rec 1A to make offerings seamless
Take advantage of extended university to facilitate grad and CE programs in new areas
Use CE flexibility in regulations to be more responsive to public needs with CE and trad grad programs
Create hybrid degrees that are part state supported and part self supported
Does there need to be change to Title 5 to count CE in a degree
program
Issues related to being competitive
There is some concern about resources to enable faculty to stay current --implication is that CSU instruction is less sought after
Predictability of class offerings is not as great as in some privates
Have more hurdles -- for students, departments, course innovation, etc.
Time to degree is longer
Issues related to being competitive (continued)
Not meeting scheduling flexibility
Should give more credit for life experience
Faculty scheduling preferences are an impediment
Technology is opening the market to competitors
Employer does not differentiate --they give employer what they want --we are academically driven
Waiting lists for courses in CSU causes students to leave
Too many credits are required
Privates hire practitioners --relevant instructors
Students do not see "additional value" in CSU degree
Marketing --we don't do it-- they do
Niche delivering makes it easier for students to find them
Infrastructure deteriorating on many campuses --students will pay more for a more pleasant environment
We need to be "user friendly"
Berkeley is planning 100 virtual university courses this summer.
Western Governor's program is planning to usurp our programs
New program implementation timeline is too long and complicated
If we expect doctoral programs to emphasize pedagogy --we should have same commitment to community college teachers
We are more concerned about quality -- we may not want to compete
A Sac State investigation suggested National and Phoenix are not
really competitors
Share innovations/publicize success
Current initiatives seem to be bottom up from faculty who are not anxious to publicize their successes
We heard of many examples of successful programs --we need to find a way to share this info
Some campuses are creating self support grad programs which result
in a subsidy to undergrad studies
Post bac student services
We already have a commitment to post bac advisement and career counseling
Current efforts are more geared towards undergrads, esp. those provided by student services
Faculty do the grad advising, recruitment etc. -- workload implications
Tone of question suggested we are currently "irresponsible"
-- NOT SO!
Collaboration across campuses
Regionalizing master's programs may help low enrollment programs
Campuses should more routinely pool students and faculty expertise to enhance learning
Have some campuses specialize
Concern about duplication of small programs with nearby campuses
Improve connections with the public and our alumni
Build alliances with business and industry
Have a responsibility to do more
Create better public understanding of the scholarship of application, synthesis and teaching
Do a better job of knowing what our grads do and where they are successful, publicize and market this info
Use alumni as mentors -- exchange free tuition for service
Identify a "hall of fame" of successful graduates
Need to market programs better and tailor messages to different audiences
Job related post bac should be corporation subsidized
Specific feedback on the report
Data in the report is too sparse to argue for a trend
Numbers down in CA does not mean we are not doing well
What is the data on the individual disciplines
Report overemphasized job training -- CSU should also offer a range of liberal arts master's programs
What does post bac really mean
Why was so little in presentation on CE
Miscellaneous comments
CSU must remain a prominent force in K-12 education -- analyze why we have slipped in marker share and correct immediately
More/better/faster/cheaper --we can do any two of these
Diversity was not adequately addressed at the meeting -- object to phrase "tolerate diversity" and wish to advocate embracing diversity
Bring us together in a year to take stock and progress
Non-negotiable implies we will continue to provide access with same or diminished resources while maintaining quality -- it cant be done
Disc on retreat itself --felt that the discussion would be used to argue
that there was acceptance of the documents. Concern about the
non-negotiable components of workload increase without adequate
support.
There was widespread agreement about the importance of graduate
education to the CSU mission. While there were one or two voices
in dissent, virtually all comments reflected a strong interest
in, and a commitment towards, graduate education as articulated
by the task force . There was overwhelming support for graduate
education as an essential part of the CSU mission and a great
deal of discussion about the synergistic interdependencies between
graduate and undergraduate instruction within our universities..
Much comment was about how graduate education is currently underfunded
and therefore often done on the backs of faculty. Strong sentiment
towards a better way of doing things pervaded.
Similarly there was no disagreement about continuing education
being an essential component of the CSU mission, although there
was less discussion here. At the least, continuing education
was viewed as self-supporting (and therefore creating no concern)
and many noted its added contributions to overall university endeavors.
Fee differentials were widely discussed. It seems that a majority
would support it -- many enthusiastically. However, there were
concerns about its effect on traditional liberal arts graduate
programs and there were concerns about the effects of pricing
differentials in general. Some wanted a uniform graduate differential
-- others a differential pricing structure. There was a great
deal of comment regarding the importance of using the funds to
support graduate education and some recognition that greater resources
in support of graduate education would translate to greater resources
for the CSU. There was widespread agreement that current graduate
education efforts are underfunded and something must be done.
There was much discussion regarding CSU competition with reiteration
of the task force suggestions for needed change. There was also
some questioning regarding our need to be competitive and a caution
to not let competition drive us to lower standards. There was
support for greater flexibility, innovation, and more rapid adaptation.