Posts
The review of graduate programs on this campus has been underway for many years. It is perhaps one of the best methods prsently used by the University to evaluate the quality of graduate education by both the office of the Dean of the Graduate Division, and by the Graduate Council.
Each year, several departments are selected to be reviewed. After the selection, the review committees are appointed. Members of the reveiw committee are drawn from the university at large, and as far as the graduate student is concerned--two appointments are reserved for graduate students. As a member of a review committee, a graduate student is placed in a unique position. The student is charged with several tasks that perhaps no other member of the committee can perform. The most important task of the graduate student member is that of assessing students opinion within the department in question. The basic question becomes; what can you, as a graduate student, sense of the departments graduat student's satisfaction with their graduate program? How a review committee member gets at the answer depends on the department in question, but the answer itself is a key to understanding the effectiveness of graduate education, within the department.
Beyond the question of satisfaction, the graduate students within the department are involved in aspects of departmental planning. Are the students engaged in any of the decision-making procedures within the department, and to what degree? In addition, it is improtant to determine if the students want or need more involvement in the planning and decision making aspects of the department.
There are the unending problems of student financial aids, not only in the area of fellowships, but teaching assistantships, and research assistantships. Those who are RAs and TAs--how many hours do they work? Are the TAs and RAs overworked? Does the work interfere with their ability to function as graduate students within their program? Then there is the problem of asking how well the students compete for the graduate fellowships.
As a member of a review committee, the graduate shudents should also evaluate, if possible, the nature of graduate student counselin within the department. How available, timely, and adequate is it? Are the students easily informed of their own progress within their degree requirements, and do the students know what is expected of them by the faculty?
Once the questions are asked, the answers in, the recommendations and alternatives need to be explored. How things could, or should, be changed within the department becomes a core issue for the student member of the review. As a student, changes are often seen in a different light and the consequences of change understood in a more personal fashion.
But who else, other than another graduate student, could get to the answers, or understand some of the issues expressed by the graduate student?
This past year several departments were reviewed, among them Journalism, Psychology, Law and Society. This next year several others are slated to be reviewed. The departments to be reviewed are: Architecture, Chemistry, History, History of Art, Italian, Political Science, and Zoology. It is also possible that the department of Education and ORUs will be added to the list.
It goes without saying that graduate students are needed to serve on review committees; two graduate students for each committee. There is a definite time commitment that beign on a review committee means. Being on a review committee also means being an important part of serious discussions that effect graduate education. Beion on the review, as a student means that graduate students opion is given a thorough and careful evalutation during the course of the review.
Despite the importance of graduate students serving on review committees, there is a real need for more graduate students to offer to be on the committees. If you are interested, call teh graduate assembly office (642-2175) and tell us!! Reviews offer the chance to point out the areas of needed change within departments--they are a chance for graduate students to voice their opinions.
Tuesday, June 17, 1975
Behind the Campanile
From time to time, as funds allow and material accumulates, the Graduate Assemblage (nee The Berkeley Graduate,) will appear. Although graduate communications is imperative for graduate students, it is very difficult to convince the ASUC and the Administration of this, i.e., obtain funds for publishin.
Initial distribution of our newsletter is through the departments, eventually it will be through campus mail. If you do not receiver a copy, send a 3x5 card with name, department, campus address, and any other information to the GA.
We are formulating activities and operations for the next year and are interested in input from you graduate student. A number of committees need input, e.g., the committees standing and ad hoc, of the Graduate Council, our connection with the academic senate.
Initial distribution of our newsletter is through the departments, eventually it will be through campus mail. If you do not receiver a copy, send a 3x5 card with name, department, campus address, and any other information to the GA.
We are formulating activities and operations for the next year and are interested in input from you graduate student. A number of committees need input, e.g., the committees standing and ad hoc, of the Graduate Council, our connection with the academic senate.
Fellowships and Graduate Scholarships:
Foerster Lectures:
Foreign Languag Requirement, option 2:
Interdisciplinary Programs:
Hitchcock Professorship:
Howeson Lectures in Philosophy:
Jefferson Memorial Lectures:
Barbara Weinstock Lectureship:
Protection of Human Subjects:
Animal Subjects:
Extended University Programs & Extension Matters.
A strategic task force for evaluation of Student Health Services at Cowell is being formed an needs interested student help.
A number of departments are up for review--are you satisfied with your department?--as are a number of ORU's.
Don't miss the July 10th and 11th Regents meeting in San Francisco. Come see our student regent in action and, perhaps a visit by our regent Brown. Collective bargaining will be a hot issue. Budgets for this year and next year will surface several times.
Student affirmative action, legislative update, EOP, ethnic studies, TAs, academic plans, administrative policy, health policy, and candidacy fees are agenda items for the SBPC annual retreat following the regents meeting. Berkeley will be represented by the chariperson of the GA and the ASUC co-presidents, other campuses will send their UG and grad reps this is the Student Body Presidents' Council (SBPC).
The three Co-Directors from the Student Lobby, the SPBCs right arm will also be in attendance. Selection of officers, briefings, strategy for next year and general policies will permeate this meeting.
The San Diego TA problem still requires solution. (San Diego grads recently shut down their campus). Basic complaints are the high ratio, 50:1 of students to TAs (Berkeley and UCLA have ratios of 40:1), high work loads, and low salaries. This year's University budget lost the $1.4 million needed to start the balancing ratios by increasing the number of TAs. VP McCorkle suggested equal division of TAs between campuses--an unpopula idea for Berkeley.
The GA has information you need, fellowships, awards, grants, etc. for financial aid. Professional positions--post-doctoral posisions, teaching positions, etc. We need your help as well as the departments' to keep this current--if you hear of something, pass it on, tell us about it, send us a copy. Stop by sometime.
Foerster Lectures:
Foreign Languag Requirement, option 2:
Interdisciplinary Programs:
Hitchcock Professorship:
Howeson Lectures in Philosophy:
Jefferson Memorial Lectures:
Barbara Weinstock Lectureship:
Protection of Human Subjects:
Animal Subjects:
Extended University Programs & Extension Matters.
A strategic task force for evaluation of Student Health Services at Cowell is being formed an needs interested student help.
A number of departments are up for review--are you satisfied with your department?--as are a number of ORU's.
Don't miss the July 10th and 11th Regents meeting in San Francisco. Come see our student regent in action and, perhaps a visit by our regent Brown. Collective bargaining will be a hot issue. Budgets for this year and next year will surface several times.
Student affirmative action, legislative update, EOP, ethnic studies, TAs, academic plans, administrative policy, health policy, and candidacy fees are agenda items for the SBPC annual retreat following the regents meeting. Berkeley will be represented by the chariperson of the GA and the ASUC co-presidents, other campuses will send their UG and grad reps this is the Student Body Presidents' Council (SBPC).
The three Co-Directors from the Student Lobby, the SPBCs right arm will also be in attendance. Selection of officers, briefings, strategy for next year and general policies will permeate this meeting.
The San Diego TA problem still requires solution. (San Diego grads recently shut down their campus). Basic complaints are the high ratio, 50:1 of students to TAs (Berkeley and UCLA have ratios of 40:1), high work loads, and low salaries. This year's University budget lost the $1.4 million needed to start the balancing ratios by increasing the number of TAs. VP McCorkle suggested equal division of TAs between campuses--an unpopula idea for Berkeley.
The GA has information you need, fellowships, awards, grants, etc. for financial aid. Professional positions--post-doctoral posisions, teaching positions, etc. We need your help as well as the departments' to keep this current--if you hear of something, pass it on, tell us about it, send us a copy. Stop by sometime.
Departmental Coordination
The graduate assembly's RA Don Giles will be visiting all graduate departments this summer. This is a multi-pronged effort to acquaint the departments with the work of the G.A. to organize grad groups within the departments, to solicit problems and concerns of the graduate student, and to compile financial aid and job files for the G.A.
GA-ASUC Relations Improved
By Rogelio Cuerisma Birosel, Vice Chair 1974-1975
The relations between the GA and the ASUC were improved in 1974-75 relative to the previous years; prime areas o fimprovement were GA membership in the state wide SBPC, increased funding, and switching from activity budgeting to a part of the operations budget of the ASUC.
In 1973-1974, the ASUC adminsitration (Unity-Coalition) refused to allow GA membership into the SBPC by opposing such a move in the SBPC itself as interference in a Berkeley campus matter. In addition the GA budget was included in the activities budget of teh ASUC. As such the GA was subjected, as an innocent bystander, to being the victim of the political fights between the conservative Unity Party, the liberal Coalition party, and the Third World and progressive caucus.
The opression of the GA by the ASUC, institutional or attitudenal, was through no SBPC representation and hence no GA input into statewide operations, University hall, Regents, and legislative decision, or graduate matters, and through little ASUC funding. Lack of funds caused ineffective GA staffing for effective GA represenation of graduate students. This had to be changed to equal represenation in the SPBC and a secured increas in ASUC funding.
In Spring 1974, the author was instrumental in the victory of the left allience party including the election of the GA chair, Don Gilles, as VP-Academic Affairs. The author was also instrumental in the Left Alliance sweep of the ASUC executive offices in Spring of 75.
These victories paved the way for the sponsorship of SBPC membership of the GA and helping to increase and secure for the GA for next year inclusion as part of the "apolitical" operations budget.
The GA's affirmative actuion goals require the committeed cooperation of the GA officers, delegates, and graduate students every day and in every department in the common struggle with the Lef Alliance against Unversity oppressions, including racism, sexism, elitism, class discrimination, national oppression, and exploitation.
Graduate students, unite in the common fight for third world peoples' and women's rights.
The relations between the GA and the ASUC were improved in 1974-75 relative to the previous years; prime areas o fimprovement were GA membership in the state wide SBPC, increased funding, and switching from activity budgeting to a part of the operations budget of the ASUC.
In 1973-1974, the ASUC adminsitration (Unity-Coalition) refused to allow GA membership into the SBPC by opposing such a move in the SBPC itself as interference in a Berkeley campus matter. In addition the GA budget was included in the activities budget of teh ASUC. As such the GA was subjected, as an innocent bystander, to being the victim of the political fights between the conservative Unity Party, the liberal Coalition party, and the Third World and progressive caucus.
The opression of the GA by the ASUC, institutional or attitudenal, was through no SBPC representation and hence no GA input into statewide operations, University hall, Regents, and legislative decision, or graduate matters, and through little ASUC funding. Lack of funds caused ineffective GA staffing for effective GA represenation of graduate students. This had to be changed to equal represenation in the SPBC and a secured increas in ASUC funding.
In Spring 1974, the author was instrumental in the victory of the left allience party including the election of the GA chair, Don Gilles, as VP-Academic Affairs. The author was also instrumental in the Left Alliance sweep of the ASUC executive offices in Spring of 75.
These victories paved the way for the sponsorship of SBPC membership of the GA and helping to increase and secure for the GA for next year inclusion as part of the "apolitical" operations budget.
The GA's affirmative actuion goals require the committeed cooperation of the GA officers, delegates, and graduate students every day and in every department in the common struggle with the Lef Alliance against Unversity oppressions, including racism, sexism, elitism, class discrimination, national oppression, and exploitation.
Graduate students, unite in the common fight for third world peoples' and women's rights.
In Candidacy Fee
The subcommittee of the Graduage Council to explore the problem of Graduate registration reported to teh Graduate Council at its May meeting. It recommended "that, immediately after their advancement to candidacy, graduate students be allowed to register for full-time study and research on a new, adjusted fee-scheduel to be developed at the earliest possible opportunity through the President's office in consulatation with the Office of Admissions and Records and any other Campus or University-wide offices and committees directly involved in the fee structure of the University.
Establishment of the post-candidacy fee level cannot be done simply or arbitrarily. The whol question of tuition and student fees in the California system is too complex and too intricately involved in many aspects of University financing and governance for this committe to make any specific recommendations. It is our belief, however, that the total charge to post-candidacy students should approach 25% and certainly be no more than 50% of the charge to pre-candidacy students. Until an adjustement of this general natureis made, enforcement of the obligatory, continuous registration will continue to be virtually impossible."
The report was approved to be sent before the Academic Senate. The Chair of the GA presented copies of the report to the heads of the GSA's of the other eight campuses. Feelings were generally positive but most of the presidents felt that no fees should be incurred.
President elect Saxon was questioned about this topic at his meeting with the SBPC. Saxon stood firmly behind his previous position written earlier while he was at Santa Barbara. Essentially he feels that when a student is advanced to candidacy, they have earned the right to continue without payment of further fees. If the University still requires fees, then the student should be subsidized to that extent. However, Saxon did not expound on the how and the when of implementation of his views.
Establishment of the post-candidacy fee level cannot be done simply or arbitrarily. The whol question of tuition and student fees in the California system is too complex and too intricately involved in many aspects of University financing and governance for this committe to make any specific recommendations. It is our belief, however, that the total charge to post-candidacy students should approach 25% and certainly be no more than 50% of the charge to pre-candidacy students. Until an adjustement of this general natureis made, enforcement of the obligatory, continuous registration will continue to be virtually impossible."
The report was approved to be sent before the Academic Senate. The Chair of the GA presented copies of the report to the heads of the GSA's of the other eight campuses. Feelings were generally positive but most of the presidents felt that no fees should be incurred.
President elect Saxon was questioned about this topic at his meeting with the SBPC. Saxon stood firmly behind his previous position written earlier while he was at Santa Barbara. Essentially he feels that when a student is advanced to candidacy, they have earned the right to continue without payment of further fees. If the University still requires fees, then the student should be subsidized to that extent. However, Saxon did not expound on the how and the when of implementation of his views.
Collective Bargaining: Summary and Update
As you may have noted in the news, Governor Brown met behind closed doors with representatives of labor and management to try to iron out an acceptable collective bargaining bill for state employees. Although the UC Student Lobby felt it had assurances that student participatioin would not be written out of the bill, Governor Brown's meeting did not include a student representative and produced a bill which excluded students entirely from the collective bargaining process (partly at the insistence of John F. Henning, head of the California AFL-CIO). The Governor then presented this "compromise" to the Legislature, hoping that they would rapidly enact it.
The Student Lobby and the Student Body President's Council (SBPC) has never even taken the position that shtudents should be given a vote in collective bargaining. They have only requested full acess to discussions and all proposals exchanged between faculty and management, the inclusion of appropriate staff with whom to consult and the right to issue educational impact statements.
Although Jeff Hammerling, co-director of the UC Student Lobby offered to compromise on the previous stand of the SBPC, the Governor would have no part of it. However, when the Lobby and delegations of student officers from nearby UC campuses went back to the Legislature, they again secured the inclusion of students in the bill (as drafted by the Legislateve committees chaged with dealing with the issue).
Subsequently, Brown and Henning have suggested a compormise proposal that the Student Body Presidents Council in a meeting on June 27, 1975 did not feel was acceptable. (The versions of the BIll approed in the Legislative Committees are somewhat better than Brown's compromise).
The collective bargaining bills to date have permitted negotiations concerning all working conditions. Faculty working conditions are student learning conditions. However, students are not products or even merely consumers of education, they are co-producers. Consequently, students belong at the collective bargaining table if student interests are to be protected.
Governor Brown's "compromise" would exclude students from all negotiations concernin wages, fringe benefits, and other pecuniary terms, condtions, and benefits of employment of academic personnel. A student representative would be present for discussions concerned with "educational policy." However, as previous experience in issues cannot easily be discussed separatly. With no one else present in the negotiations, what is to prevent management from implicitly agreeing to changes in "educational policy" in exchange for lower wage-benefits package for faculty--at which time students would be called in to a tacit fait accompli? In collective bargaining negotiations without students in and Eastern state, one of the first things to happen was the abolition of student evaluation of teaching.
Some of the parties in the current discussion have urged students to trust them, i.e., that the student representative will be called in when non-pecuniary issues are being discussed. However, there seems to be little popensity on the part of others to trust students. Furthermore, in the case of California State College and University students, faculty wages and salaries may well ultimately be tied to the level of tuition.
One need not have a very long memory to recall how authorities in the late 60's complained mightily about student activism, all the while encouraging that students participate in the system. Ironically enough, now that students have begun to establish sturcutres to undertake such participation, there seems to be no concern whatever in faculty, administative, or gubernatorial quarters that at collective bargaining bill without full rights for student participation could make the past several years advances meaningless. Certainly the history of the University administartion and the Regents has shown that they do not, and would not, adequately represent student interests (these groups would represent management). Likely as not, the presence of students in active discussion at the collective bargaining table will allow students, faculty, and administration to find creative solutions ot longstanding problesm within the University. Students are urged to write Senator Nicholas Petris, who has been supportive but is also under pressure form labor, to thank him for his support, and Assemblyman John Miller, who has wavered considerably on the matter of student inclusion in collective bargaining.
In all of this, Labor is very concerned that student will be an initial opening for public or "consumer" representatives to be involved in collective bargaining for public employees.
The Student Lobby and the Student Body President's Council (SBPC) has never even taken the position that shtudents should be given a vote in collective bargaining. They have only requested full acess to discussions and all proposals exchanged between faculty and management, the inclusion of appropriate staff with whom to consult and the right to issue educational impact statements.
Although Jeff Hammerling, co-director of the UC Student Lobby offered to compromise on the previous stand of the SBPC, the Governor would have no part of it. However, when the Lobby and delegations of student officers from nearby UC campuses went back to the Legislature, they again secured the inclusion of students in the bill (as drafted by the Legislateve committees chaged with dealing with the issue).
Subsequently, Brown and Henning have suggested a compormise proposal that the Student Body Presidents Council in a meeting on June 27, 1975 did not feel was acceptable. (The versions of the BIll approed in the Legislative Committees are somewhat better than Brown's compromise).
The collective bargaining bills to date have permitted negotiations concerning all working conditions. Faculty working conditions are student learning conditions. However, students are not products or even merely consumers of education, they are co-producers. Consequently, students belong at the collective bargaining table if student interests are to be protected.
Governor Brown's "compromise" would exclude students from all negotiations concernin wages, fringe benefits, and other pecuniary terms, condtions, and benefits of employment of academic personnel. A student representative would be present for discussions concerned with "educational policy." However, as previous experience in issues cannot easily be discussed separatly. With no one else present in the negotiations, what is to prevent management from implicitly agreeing to changes in "educational policy" in exchange for lower wage-benefits package for faculty--at which time students would be called in to a tacit fait accompli? In collective bargaining negotiations without students in and Eastern state, one of the first things to happen was the abolition of student evaluation of teaching.
Some of the parties in the current discussion have urged students to trust them, i.e., that the student representative will be called in when non-pecuniary issues are being discussed. However, there seems to be little popensity on the part of others to trust students. Furthermore, in the case of California State College and University students, faculty wages and salaries may well ultimately be tied to the level of tuition.
One need not have a very long memory to recall how authorities in the late 60's complained mightily about student activism, all the while encouraging that students participate in the system. Ironically enough, now that students have begun to establish sturcutres to undertake such participation, there seems to be no concern whatever in faculty, administative, or gubernatorial quarters that at collective bargaining bill without full rights for student participation could make the past several years advances meaningless. Certainly the history of the University administartion and the Regents has shown that they do not, and would not, adequately represent student interests (these groups would represent management). Likely as not, the presence of students in active discussion at the collective bargaining table will allow students, faculty, and administration to find creative solutions ot longstanding problesm within the University. Students are urged to write Senator Nicholas Petris, who has been supportive but is also under pressure form labor, to thank him for his support, and Assemblyman John Miller, who has wavered considerably on the matter of student inclusion in collective bargaining.
In all of this, Labor is very concerned that student will be an initial opening for public or "consumer" representatives to be involved in collective bargaining for public employees.
Monday, June 16, 1975
Graduate Student Handbook
In response to an obvious need, the Graduate Assembly has begun work on a Graduate Student Handbook, which is presently scheduled for distribution by the beginning of the spring quarter. The objective of the handbook is to make life easier for graduate students at Berkeley by making available useful information which is either inadequately covered or neglected in the General Catalogue or Handbook for Students. Some of the proposed topics include auditing, Interlibrary Borrowing Services, and free or minimal cost services.
Help, however, is needed in three areas before this handbook can become a reality:
1. TOPICS: if you know of a topic which may be of interest to others, send it in on a postcard.
2. INFORMATION: if you have information which you believe may be useful to others, write a paragraph or two (350 words maximum) and send it in.
3. Pictures and/or photography. If you have any pictures representative of graduate life or are into photography.
If you can help in any of these three areas, please contact us c/o the Graduate Assembly.
Help, however, is needed in three areas before this handbook can become a reality:
1. TOPICS: if you know of a topic which may be of interest to others, send it in on a postcard.
2. INFORMATION: if you have information which you believe may be useful to others, write a paragraph or two (350 words maximum) and send it in.
3. Pictures and/or photography. If you have any pictures representative of graduate life or are into photography.
If you can help in any of these three areas, please contact us c/o the Graduate Assembly.
Biophysics Group Candidate in Philosophy Degree
The group has received approval from teh Berkeley Graduate Division to offer a Candidate in Philosophy degree. Berkeley-registered Ph.D. candidates in good standing who definitely intend to complete the Ph.D. are eligible for the C.Phil. degree. This degree may be one of particular interest to students who have reached the candidacy stage and wish for some reason to temporarily withdraw from the program; however, since the Graduate Division does not allow its use as a terminal degree, it is not available to students leaving the program permanently
The Future of Natural Science Departments
In the natural sciences the primary organization is the department. It is in a department that a professor holds tenure, through departments that classes are funded from the administration, and from departments that teaching assistantships are granted. To a certain extent departments must compete with eachother for the limited resources of the university. These factors have fostered a division of research into separate domains with boundaries somewhat determined by the departments.
This sort of system worked fine when the boundaries between the various disciplines were very real in terms of the kinds of research that could be done, but now perhaps the boundaries are somewhat artificial. For example, forty years ago genetics and physical chemistry had a very real separation between them in terms of the types of research being done. Today one speaks of mutations in terms of the physical chemist, and the boundary between the two is much more blurred. SImilarly the solid state physicist and botanist must speak a common language when discussing photosynthesis.
The answers to wome of the most basic questions in the life sciences will require an interdisciplinary approach, but the underlying administative organization is a produce of an era when the disciplines existed independently of one another.
Hence there exists the curious circumstance of having great amounts of effort going into the description of a phenomena without too much effort going into the basis of cells, i.e., light to chemical energy, chemical energy to forces, and so on. The physiologists have done a marvelous job of describing these transductions, but only together with the physical chemist and physicist can the basis of these transductions be elucidated.
The present organization tends to discourage interdisciplinary researcy, by the channeling of funding through departments.
The interdisciplinary groups are a good start to tackle these multidiscipline problems, but these groups have no real autonomy in the sense that all the group professors are required to to have an appointment to a department, and the groups recieve no funding from the university.
At the present time the various disciplines are becoming fused in some areas with new understanding, and this trend will accelerate in the future. It is imperative that the university respond to this change. Courses should be offered on a graduate level which integrate the most important concepts from the various departments. This would prepare the graduate student to deal with interdisciplinary problems, the kind of problems that will play an increasing role in future research.
This sort of system worked fine when the boundaries between the various disciplines were very real in terms of the kinds of research that could be done, but now perhaps the boundaries are somewhat artificial. For example, forty years ago genetics and physical chemistry had a very real separation between them in terms of the types of research being done. Today one speaks of mutations in terms of the physical chemist, and the boundary between the two is much more blurred. SImilarly the solid state physicist and botanist must speak a common language when discussing photosynthesis.
The answers to wome of the most basic questions in the life sciences will require an interdisciplinary approach, but the underlying administative organization is a produce of an era when the disciplines existed independently of one another.
Hence there exists the curious circumstance of having great amounts of effort going into the description of a phenomena without too much effort going into the basis of cells, i.e., light to chemical energy, chemical energy to forces, and so on. The physiologists have done a marvelous job of describing these transductions, but only together with the physical chemist and physicist can the basis of these transductions be elucidated.
The present organization tends to discourage interdisciplinary researcy, by the channeling of funding through departments.
The interdisciplinary groups are a good start to tackle these multidiscipline problems, but these groups have no real autonomy in the sense that all the group professors are required to to have an appointment to a department, and the groups recieve no funding from the university.
At the present time the various disciplines are becoming fused in some areas with new understanding, and this trend will accelerate in the future. It is imperative that the university respond to this change. Courses should be offered on a graduate level which integrate the most important concepts from the various departments. This would prepare the graduate student to deal with interdisciplinary problems, the kind of problems that will play an increasing role in future research.
Student Affirmative Action
In the Fall, 1975, the University fo California initialted a new effort to identifiy and eliminate potentially discriminatory barriers and to increase educational opportunities for women, members of minority groups, and economically or otherwise disadvantaged students. Five, broadly based, student-faculty-staff Task Groups were established to review specific aspects of the educational process and recommend changes or new, affirmative programs.
The following is an overview of the Task Group's activities and other related developments as of 1975.
RECRUITEMENT TASK GROUP
The Recruitment Task Group is charged with the responsibility of surveying present practices of informing students about entrance into the University system, and recommending ways in which current procedures could be modified to more effectively meet the needs of women, ethnic minorities, and disadvantaged students. The manner in which outreach is presently carried out involves a number of University personnel. Generally, the Office of Relations with Schools (ORS) has primary responsibility to carry out this task; although, practically speaking, EOP personnel, faculty members, and students are also actively involved in this process.
The Recrruitment Task Force believes that non-traditional methods are needed to encourage the enrollment of non-traditional students. Based on the experience of EOP recruiters who find that even highly qualified students from disadvantaged backgrounds often need to be convinced that there is a place for them within the University, the members of the Task Group believe that active outreach efforts must be initiated by the University on a comprehensive basis if the enrollement of students from disadvantaged backgrouns is to be increased.
In order to be effective, recruiting activities must be personalized, well-coordinated, and persuasiver. The Task Group believes that there are several steps to this process, including
(1) the identification of major sources of underrepresented students,
(2) the encouragement of these students, early in their high school careers, to work to become eligible for UC;
(3) persuasion of these students to apply for admission and complete admissions procedures; and,
(4) persuasion of admitted students to accept offers of admission and enroll.
ADMISSIONS TASK GROUP
The Admissions Task Group has been asked to review the admission of undergraduate and graduate students, and to identify any barrieers within that process to non-traditional students.
The Admissions Task Group divided its area into graduate and undergraduate issues; then subdivided these into questions of procedure and questions of admissions criteria. Procedural matters, as well as some policy issues at the undergraduate level were considered first, and a consensus reached on certain recommendations including extending the open filing period, working to provide earlier feedback to applicants regarding their eligibility or deficiencies; posing clear alternatives with regard to campus or major preferences; and asking for ethnic identity on the application form. Under continued investigation are the general use of admissions criteria such as GPA and standardized test scores. These and other recommendations are in the drafting stage.
The Admissions study group view graduate admissions as its next major task. However, because of the number and variety of professional schools and graduate departments which have their own, often unwritten, priorities in admissions selection, a review of current practices will be time consuming and the subsequent recommendation procedure complex.
ACADEMIC SUPPORT GROUP
The main concentration of effort by the Academic Support Services Task Group to date has been the drafting of program proposals for the 1975=76 funding. The drafts were in the form of two proposals for academic support programs, one at the undergraduate level, and the other for entering graduate students.
The undergraduate draft proposal now being circulated is a guideline for campuses to perfect a comprehensive network of academic support services to provide assistance to educationally disadvantaged students.
The graduate draft proposal is an attempt to reduce the underrepresentation of minority, disadvantaged, and women students in the graduate programs. Some of these students may have special needs in the academic support area; therefore, a summer session is recommended at the pre-graduate level. The emphasis is twofold, that is, to instruce students in their area of deficiencies and to acquaint them on an individual level with faculty members in their field so as to ease the transition from undergraduate status to graduate status.
NON-ACADEMIC SUPPORT SERVICES TASK GROUP
The charge of this Group is to identify barriers that may impede the success of minority, disadvantaged, and women students within the UC system; and, after identification of barriers, to make recommendations on means to alleviate them. This has been one of the more difficult areas to work on because of the diverse nature of the subject matter--student services.
The immediate goal for the members of this group was to attempt to prioritize subject areas. They defined general areas of interest and are now in the process of gathering information on those areas below:
(1) personal counseling services;
(2) career counseling and placement services;
(3) health services;
(4) housing;
(5) child care;
(6) due process (avenue whereby students can air grievances);
(7) athletics.
Generally, one of the major problems facing all of these areas is a need for more funding. Setting this need aside, however, the Task Group members were aware of their need to assess to what degree the existing services are now being used by women, minorities, and disadvantaged students, and to determine if specific barriers exist which either prevent or hinder a greater usage of these services.
The Non-Academic Support Services Task Group is working to devise effective mechanisms which will allow the users of student services to have a major input in the recommendation process.
FINANCIAL AID TASK GROUP
The Financial Aid Group has divided its charge in two segments. The first segment is the identification of financial barriers to the success of disadvantaged, minority, andwomen students. The second is the recommendation of possible solutions to eliminate, or at least improve these barriers.
In the first area, the Task Group believes that, as a side effect of existing economic situations, parental contributions from historically "middle income" families may be markedly reduced, if not eliminated completely in some cases. This will put a greater burden on the pool of existing financial aid dollars.
The group would also like to explore the increased use of work study. A greater amount of work study could allow students to supplement their income, as well as permit them to shift some of their indebtedness to a work study reimbursement program Although it is now possible for a student to repay part of their loan through services performed in work study jobs, administrative policy restricts the number of hours a student can work, thereby forcing many students to increase the proportion of loans they must assume.
Along with the work study repayment plan, the Task Group is also exploring a plan of Income Contingency Loan Repayment. The level of loan repayment would be determined by a schedule calibrated on the graduate's income.
At the graduate level, the problem is in many ways much worse than at the undergraduate level. Competition at the graduate level for grants and research fellowships is quite intense, and the social benefits involved in encourageing minority and women graduate students in medicine and other sciences is great. The Task Group has realized that financial aid may be one of the few areas that greatly affects both the access and success of many students in the UC system, and in particular the Student Affirmative Action student.
The following is an overview of the Task Group's activities and other related developments as of 1975.
RECRUITEMENT TASK GROUP
The Recruitment Task Group is charged with the responsibility of surveying present practices of informing students about entrance into the University system, and recommending ways in which current procedures could be modified to more effectively meet the needs of women, ethnic minorities, and disadvantaged students. The manner in which outreach is presently carried out involves a number of University personnel. Generally, the Office of Relations with Schools (ORS) has primary responsibility to carry out this task; although, practically speaking, EOP personnel, faculty members, and students are also actively involved in this process.
The Recrruitment Task Force believes that non-traditional methods are needed to encourage the enrollment of non-traditional students. Based on the experience of EOP recruiters who find that even highly qualified students from disadvantaged backgrounds often need to be convinced that there is a place for them within the University, the members of the Task Group believe that active outreach efforts must be initiated by the University on a comprehensive basis if the enrollement of students from disadvantaged backgrouns is to be increased.
In order to be effective, recruiting activities must be personalized, well-coordinated, and persuasiver. The Task Group believes that there are several steps to this process, including
(1) the identification of major sources of underrepresented students,
(2) the encouragement of these students, early in their high school careers, to work to become eligible for UC;
(3) persuasion of these students to apply for admission and complete admissions procedures; and,
(4) persuasion of admitted students to accept offers of admission and enroll.
ADMISSIONS TASK GROUP
The Admissions Task Group has been asked to review the admission of undergraduate and graduate students, and to identify any barrieers within that process to non-traditional students.
The Admissions Task Group divided its area into graduate and undergraduate issues; then subdivided these into questions of procedure and questions of admissions criteria. Procedural matters, as well as some policy issues at the undergraduate level were considered first, and a consensus reached on certain recommendations including extending the open filing period, working to provide earlier feedback to applicants regarding their eligibility or deficiencies; posing clear alternatives with regard to campus or major preferences; and asking for ethnic identity on the application form. Under continued investigation are the general use of admissions criteria such as GPA and standardized test scores. These and other recommendations are in the drafting stage.
The Admissions study group view graduate admissions as its next major task. However, because of the number and variety of professional schools and graduate departments which have their own, often unwritten, priorities in admissions selection, a review of current practices will be time consuming and the subsequent recommendation procedure complex.
ACADEMIC SUPPORT GROUP
The main concentration of effort by the Academic Support Services Task Group to date has been the drafting of program proposals for the 1975=76 funding. The drafts were in the form of two proposals for academic support programs, one at the undergraduate level, and the other for entering graduate students.
The undergraduate draft proposal now being circulated is a guideline for campuses to perfect a comprehensive network of academic support services to provide assistance to educationally disadvantaged students.
The graduate draft proposal is an attempt to reduce the underrepresentation of minority, disadvantaged, and women students in the graduate programs. Some of these students may have special needs in the academic support area; therefore, a summer session is recommended at the pre-graduate level. The emphasis is twofold, that is, to instruce students in their area of deficiencies and to acquaint them on an individual level with faculty members in their field so as to ease the transition from undergraduate status to graduate status.
NON-ACADEMIC SUPPORT SERVICES TASK GROUP
The charge of this Group is to identify barriers that may impede the success of minority, disadvantaged, and women students within the UC system; and, after identification of barriers, to make recommendations on means to alleviate them. This has been one of the more difficult areas to work on because of the diverse nature of the subject matter--student services.
The immediate goal for the members of this group was to attempt to prioritize subject areas. They defined general areas of interest and are now in the process of gathering information on those areas below:
(1) personal counseling services;
(2) career counseling and placement services;
(3) health services;
(4) housing;
(5) child care;
(6) due process (avenue whereby students can air grievances);
(7) athletics.
Generally, one of the major problems facing all of these areas is a need for more funding. Setting this need aside, however, the Task Group members were aware of their need to assess to what degree the existing services are now being used by women, minorities, and disadvantaged students, and to determine if specific barriers exist which either prevent or hinder a greater usage of these services.
The Non-Academic Support Services Task Group is working to devise effective mechanisms which will allow the users of student services to have a major input in the recommendation process.
FINANCIAL AID TASK GROUP
The Financial Aid Group has divided its charge in two segments. The first segment is the identification of financial barriers to the success of disadvantaged, minority, andwomen students. The second is the recommendation of possible solutions to eliminate, or at least improve these barriers.
In the first area, the Task Group believes that, as a side effect of existing economic situations, parental contributions from historically "middle income" families may be markedly reduced, if not eliminated completely in some cases. This will put a greater burden on the pool of existing financial aid dollars.
The group would also like to explore the increased use of work study. A greater amount of work study could allow students to supplement their income, as well as permit them to shift some of their indebtedness to a work study reimbursement program Although it is now possible for a student to repay part of their loan through services performed in work study jobs, administrative policy restricts the number of hours a student can work, thereby forcing many students to increase the proportion of loans they must assume.
Along with the work study repayment plan, the Task Group is also exploring a plan of Income Contingency Loan Repayment. The level of loan repayment would be determined by a schedule calibrated on the graduate's income.
At the graduate level, the problem is in many ways much worse than at the undergraduate level. Competition at the graduate level for grants and research fellowships is quite intense, and the social benefits involved in encourageing minority and women graduate students in medicine and other sciences is great. The Task Group has realized that financial aid may be one of the few areas that greatly affects both the access and success of many students in the UC system, and in particular the Student Affirmative Action student.
Sunday, June 15, 1975
Budget (1975)
This year the Graduate Assembly has a budget of $15000, half of what was requested, with which we still hope to fund several projects during the year. A research assistant will study issues involving graduate students, and we will be creating a graduate handbook with information on the departments not normally compiled for graduate students. We will also have some money available for graduate groups or departments to be used for the benefit of students. Applications for the funds can be made though the Graduate Assembly office.
This newspaper will become a regular publication if we can secure additional funding through the Registration Fee Committee in the Fall. With the additional funds we could hire a full time editor and publish a newspaper dealing with graduate student issues and problems. We believe there is a very real need for more communication of concerns common to graduate students on this campus. We are working to bring this about through regular publication of a graduate newspaper.
This newspaper will become a regular publication if we can secure additional funding through the Registration Fee Committee in the Fall. With the additional funds we could hire a full time editor and publish a newspaper dealing with graduate student issues and problems. We believe there is a very real need for more communication of concerns common to graduate students on this campus. We are working to bring this about through regular publication of a graduate newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)