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


Part 1: Aggregated comments reflecting all voices

Grad education and the mission

Grad education is an essential component of the CSU

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.

Part II -- Sense of comments based on frequency of remarks

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.