university of california san diego division of the...

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE

REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY [see pages 2 and 3 for Representative Assembly membership list]

NOTICE OF MEETING Tuesday, October 29, 2013, 3:30 p.m. Leichtag Building Conference Room

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Page (1) Minutes of Meeting of May 21, 2013 4 (2-7) Announcements

(a) Chair Kit Pogliano Oral (b) Chancellor Pradeep Khosla Oral (c) AVC Bill Hodgkiss: Innovative Learning Technology Initiative (ILTI) Oral (d) Dean Jeff Elman: On-line Learning Oral (e) Chair Pogliano: Health Insurance Changes Oral

(8) Special Orders

(a) Consent Calendar Committee Annual Reports • CAF 2012-2013 7 • CAP 2010-2011 8 • CAP 2011-2012 16 • CFW 2012-2013 25 • COA 2012-2013 27 • COR 2012-2013 29

(b) Nominations for Special Election to fill two Committee on Committees

vacancies in Health Sciences Oral (c) Election of Two Representative Assembly Members to Senate Council Oral

(10) Reports of Special Committees [none] (10) Reports of Standing Committees [none]

Graduate Council • Proposed Master of Finance degree, Rady School of Management 36 • Proposed M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Medical Devices and Systems (MDS),

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering 38 (11) Reports of Faculties [none] (12) Petitions of Students [none] (13) Unfinished Business [none] (14) New Business

1

Ex Officio Members:Chair of Division Kit PoglianoChancellor Pradeep KhoslaVice Chair of Division Gerry Boss2012-13 Chair of Division T. Guy MastersChair, Committee on Academic Personnel Stefan Llewellyn SmithChair, Committee on Admissions Thaddeus KousserChair, Committee on Diversity and Equity Tara Javidi Chair, Committee on Campus Community Environment Shahrokh YadegariChair, Committee on Committees Farrell AckermanChair, Educational Policy Committee Partho GhoshChair, Undergraduate Council James NiehChair, Committee on Faculty Welfare John EggersChair, Graduate Council Joel NorrisChair, Committee on Planning and Budget Samuel BussChair, Committee on Privilege and Tenure Stefan TanakaChair, Committee on Research Isaac MartinChair, University Committee on Affirmative Action & Diversity Emily RoxworthyExecutive Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs Suresh SubramaniVice Chancellor, Health Sciences David A. BrennerVice Chancellor, Marine Sciences Margaret LeinenVice Chancellor, Research Sandra Brown

Elected Members AlternatesDivisional Representatives Eduardo Macagno ('14) Todd Kontje ('14)

Jan Talbot ('14) Gershon Shafir ('14)______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________

Revelle College Lorraine Pillus ('15) Brenda Bloodgood ('15)Melvin Leok ('15) ______________________

John Muir College Adam Burgasser ('14) Alan Daly ('14)Lakshmi Chilukuri ('15) Jelena Bradic ('15)

Thurgood Marshall College Scott Desposato ('14) Eva Barnes ('14)Arnold Rheingold ('14) Jacques Verstraete ('14)

Earl Warren College ______________________ Suzanne Brenner ('15)______________________ ______________________

Roosevelt College Matthew Herbst ('14) ______________________ ______________________ ______________________

Sixth College Michael David ('15) ______________________ Janis Jenkins ('15) ______________________

Emeritus Faculty David Miller ('14) Richard Attiyeh ('14)Anesthesiology ______________________ ______________________ Anthropology Kathryn (Kit) Woolard ('14) Esra Ozyurek ('14)Bioengineering Kun Zhang ('15) Peter Wang ('15)Biological Sciences Lin Chao ('15) Stephan Hedrick ('14)

Gurol Suel ('15) Kaustuv Roy ('14)Cellular & Molecular Med. Huilin Zhou ('15) George Sen ('15)Chemistry & Biochemistry Charles Perrin ('14) Patricia Jennings ('14)

Tadeusz Molinski ('15) Robert Pomeroy ('15)Cognitive Science Angela Yu ('14) Gedeon Deak ('14)Communication Robert Horwitz ('14) Stefan Tanaka ('14)Computer Science & Engineering ______________________ ______________________

______________________ ______________________ Economics Mark Machina ('14) Jim Andreoni ('14)

Christopher Chambers ('15) Ivana Komunjer ('15)Education Studies Carolyn Hofstetter ('14) Thandeka Chapman ('14)Electrical & Computer Engineering James Buckwalter ('14) Zhaowei Liu ('14)

Young-Han Kim ('14) Deli Wang ('14)Emergency Medicine Steven Hayden ('15) Richard Clark ('15)

REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY 2013-2014 MEMBERSHIP

2

Ethnic Studies Sara Kaplan ('14) Curtis Marez ('14)Family & Preventive Med. Matthew Allison ('14) Anthony Gamst ('14)History Tal Golan ('14) Mark Hendrickson ('14)

Rachel Klein ('14) Tom Gallant ('14)IR&PS ______________________ ______________________ Linguistics Gabriela Caballero ('14) ______________________ Literature William O'Brien ('14) Yingjin Zhang ('14)

Camille Forbes ('15) Babak Rahimi ('15)Mathematics David Meyer ('14) Jason Schwinsberg ('14)

Jeffrey Rabin ('15) ______________________ Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering ______________________ ______________________

______________________ ______________________ Medicine Joachim Ix ('14) David Smith ('14)

Connie Benson ('14) Dianne McKay ('14)Music Katharina Rosenberger ('14) Tamara Smyth ('14)NanoEngineering Darren Lipmoni ('14) Andrea Tao ('14)Neurosciences Robert Rissman ('14) ______________________

______________________ ______________________ Ophthalmology Linda Zangwill ('15) Bobby Korn ('15)Orthopaedics Sameer Shah ('15) Simon Schenk ('15)Pathology Henry Powell ('14) ______________________

David Pride ('14) ______________________ Pediatrics John Bradley ('14) Bema Bonsu ('14)

Lynne Bird ('14) Sheila Gahagan ('14)Pharmacology William Joiner ('15) Hyam Leffert ('15)Philosophy William Bechtel ('14) Gerald Doppelt ('14)Physics Olga Dudko ('14) Oleg Shpyrko ('14)

Benjamin Grinstein ('15) Avi Yagil ('15)Political Science Samuel Kernell ('14) Fonna Forman-Barzilai ('14)

______________________ ______________________ Psychiatry Robert Clark ('14) Wesley Thompson ('14)

Xianjin Zhou ('14) David Welsh ('14)Psychology Tim Rickard ('15) Leslie Carver ('15)Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences Loren Mell ('14) Todd Pawlicki ('14)Radiology ______________________ ______________________

______________________ ______________________ Rady School of Management Yuval Rottenstreich ('15) Uri Gneezy ('15)Reproductive Medicine Alexander Kauffman ('14) Dwayne Stupack ('14)SIO Eric Allen ('14) Kathy Barbeau ('14)

Steven Constable ('14) Amro Hamdoun ('14)Philip Hastings ('14) James Leichter ('14)Maria (Gabi) Laske ('14) Andrew Dickson ('14)Darcy Ogden ('14) Dean Roemmich ('14)Lynne Talley ('14) Brad Werner ('14)

Sociology Akos Rona-Tas ('14) Amy Binder ('14)SSPPS Philip Bourne ('15) Geoffrey Chang ('15)Structural Engineering Petr Krysl ('15) Hyonny Kim ('15)Surgery ______________________ ______________________

______________________ ______________________ Theatre and Dance ______________________ ______________________

______________________ ______________________ Visual Arts Louis Hock ('14) Ruben Ortiz ('14)

Kyong Park ('14) Brett Stalbaum ('14)

Advisors:Research - General Campus Amy Tsai ('15) Alexei Kritsuk ('15)Research - Health Sciences David Boyle ('15) Michael Baker ('15)Research - Marine Sciences Julie McClean ('14) David Chadwell ('14)Undergraduate Students Robby Boparai ('14)

Andrew Busselt ('14)Graduate Students Jordan Gosselin ('14)

Rahul Kapadia ('14)3

ACADEMIC SENATE, SAN DIEGO DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY

MAY 21, 2013 MINUTES

Chair Masters called the meeting to order at 3:34 p.m. A quorum was present (see attached attendance sheet), as were other Academic Senate members and guests. Chair Masters welcomed members and guests to the last regular meeting of the 2012-2013 academic year and noted that the Academic Senate Bylaws governing the privilege of the floor and voting were projected. He reminded all Assembly members in attendance to sign in. MINUTES OF MEETING OF MEETING OF APRIL 30, 2013 The minutes of the meeting of April 30, 2013 were approved as distributed. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR OF THE DIVISION Chair Masters made the following announcements:

• The Distinguished Teaching Ceremony will be held on Thursday, May 30, at 4 p.m. at the Faculty Club. • The Negotiated Plan pilot program will be implemented effective July 1, 2013 after extensive discussion

between the Senate and the Administration, both on campus and at the systemwide level. Local implementation guidelines and metrics for success were developed in consultation with Senate Council.

• Innovative Learning Technology Initiative (ILTI) – Requests for Proposals are expected in June. The requests will need to include resources needed for the course. $10M of the UC budget has been earmarked for this project, with funding to go toward teaching support, software to allow student systems at the ten UC campuses to communicate with each other, and evaluation of the courses.

• The Board of Admissions with Schools (BOARS) is considering changing the opening date for undergraduate admissions applications from October 1 to August 1. This is expected to enhance UC’s ability to compete with other highly selective institutions that use the Common Application, which is available on August 1. The earlier opening date would also give prospective UC students more time to complete their applications.

• Governor Brown’s May revised budged did not change the UC budget. The state has $4.6B in extra revenue this year. The UC is asking for $15M for a Medical School at the University of California, Riverside, $15M for the retirement fund, and some capital funds for buildings at UC Merced. The Governor has announced performance measures that the UC will have to meet in order to receive funding; these measures include, among other things, an increase in graduation rates. President Yudof will be discussing this issue with Governor Brown.

• Chair Masters thanked Vice Chair Kit Pogliano, Senate Council members, and Senate committee members for their service and participation in shared governance. He thanked senior members of the Administration, with whom the San Diego Division shares a collegial and constructive relationship. Professor Gerry Mackie was thanked for his role as Assembly Parliamentarian. Chair Masters also thanked the Senate staff members, who provide support and continuity for the committees.

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHANCELLOR Chair Masters welcomed Chancellor Khosla to the meeting. Chancellor Khosla announced that he has received strategic plans from the divisions, but he will be returning the plans to the divisions so that departments can re-examine their curricula and courses. A review of all curricula will begin in the Fall; the announcement for that process will be sent during the summer. A final list of candidates for the Vice Chancellor of Marine Sciences position has been created. The candidate will be visiting UCSD for one-on-one meetings. Chancellor Khosla hopes to have a top candidate in the next few weeks. The searches for the Deans of Engineering and Biological Sciences are also in the final round.

4

The Chancellor will be launching a search for a new Vice Chancellor – Advancement who will lead the campus’ development initiatives, as well as alumni and constituent engagement, and the UCSD Foundation and Advancement services. The search committee will include members of the community who are also significant donors; it is hoped that the inclusion of these individuals will help to attract quality candidates. Chancellor Khosla announced that he will be implementing a reorganization of the administrative structure in order to make University operations more streamlined, cohesive, and cogent. One possibility would be the creation of a Chief Financial Officer for the University who would integrate all the financial functions of the University. Chair Masters thanked Chancellor Khosla for his comments. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE ASSISTANT VICE CHANCELLOR – STRATEGIC CAMPUS RESOURCES INITIATIVE AVC Brian Gregory provided the Assembly with an update on capital and physical planning at UCSD. AVC Gregory provided a brief overview of the history of state funding for capital projects and maintenance and noted a decline in funding over time. State funding was prioritized for buildings intended for instruction or research. The Capital Outlay and Space Advisory Committee (COSAC) was responsible for advising the Chancellor on the campus’s space and capital needs for inclusion in the State Capital Improvement Program. This committee was disbanded in 2011 due to the lack of state funds. Over time, the decrease in state funding also resulted in an “all funds” approach for planning and building and equipment and maintenance in which funds are no longer segregated according to their intended use. AVC Gregory hopes that another committee can be constituted to advise the Chancellor on capital planning. AVC Gregory explained that state capital funding is likely to be resurrected in some form. Recent emphasis on building has been on seismic safety and capital renewal. The campus needs to build a cogent ten-year plan informed by strategic planning and submit it by May 2014 so that the campus would be in a position to secure any state funding that may be available. A bond referendum may be proposed in the Fall of2014 to fund building projects. The Campus/Community Planning Committee (C/CPC) provides counsel and advice to the Chancellor with respect to the physical development of the UCSD campus. The committee is co-chaired by the chair of the Senate Committee on Campus and Community Environment. Other committees that are involved in the capital projects include the Open Space Committee, which is a subcommittee of C/CPC; the Planning Advisory Committee; Building Advisory Committees, which work with consultants in detail on particular buildings; and the Design Review Board comprised of outside professional, Vice Chancellor Matthews, and faculty representatives. There are multiple building projects ongoing in the SIO area. UCSD is required to mitigate additional costs to the community if a project will impact the surrounding community negatively. Future projects include the Light Rail Transit Project, the North Coast Project, and a bridge at Gilman Drive. An Assembly member asked the status of the proposed fire station near campus. The Chancellor responded that it is unclear whether a decision on the location has been made. AVC Gregory explained that UCSD had promised to fund a new fire station with the increase in calls from the UCSD community for services. Another member requested an update on the University House renovation. AVC Gregory responded that it is currently in construction, and which is expected to be complete between October and December. Chair Masters thanked AVC Gregory for his comments. He noted that there is an effort to revitalize the Senate Committee on Campus and Community Environment so that the Senate will have a stronger voice in capital planning issues. SPECIAL ORDERS Consent Calendar – The annual report of the Committee on Library was received for filing without comment. The proposals for a degree name change to M.A.S. in Health Policy and Law in the Department of Anesthesiology and the proposal to establish an M.A.S. in Climate Science and Policy in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography were adopted.

5

REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES Senate-Administration Task Force on Online and Technology Enhanced Education Chair Masters invited Professor Partho Ghosh, Co-Chair of the Senate-Administration Task Force on Online and Technology Enhanced Education to provide a brief update on the Task Force’s progress. Professor Ghosh explained that the Task Force was charged to determine short-term and long-term goals for online and technology enhanced learning at UCSD, where resources for online learning should be directed, and to develop a strategy plan and implementation plan for the campus. The Task Force was, in part, driven by the UCOP’s UC Online Education Initiative, which was directed toward non-UC students. Professor Ghosh explained that there are a number of groups looking at online education. The ILTL was initiated during the course of the Task Force’s deliberations, and the Task Force sought to enhance that mechanism. The Task Force would like another committee to review the proposals submitted by UCSD faculty that may not have been funded by the Office of the President (UCOP) as a part of the ILTL, but could still be meritorious, and ask the local Administration to fund those courses. The Task Force also aimed to ensure some coordination between the various groups that are looking at online education. A report from the Task Force will be forthcoming. Executive Vice Chancellor Subramani commended that Academic Affairs will try to supplement the ILTL program by looking at whether UCSD can fund the courses that are not funded by the UCOP. An Assembly member asked what the UCOP criteria are for accepting or not accepting courses for the ILTL. Professor Ghosh responded that courses that are in high demand and courses that can be taught on more than one campus would be accepted. The member also asked whether online learning at UCSD will follow the pattern of MOOCs or whether the UC will develop methods of online learning that are similar to other institutions that are offering online learning. Professor Ghosh reported that there is a cohort of faculty who would like to develop novel methods for online instruction. Chair Masters thanked Professor Ghosh for his presentation. REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES Committee on Senate Awards - Nominations for the Faculty Research Lecturer Awards Chair Masters asked Committee on Senate Awards member Professor Paul Pickowicz to present the nominations. The nominations are Professor Michael Parrish (History) for the Research Lecturer Award in the Humanities and Social Sciences and Professor William Young (SIO) for the Research Lecturer Award in the Sciences.

On behalf of the Committee on Senate Awards, Professor Pickowicz moved that the nominees for the Research Lecturer Awards be approved as presented. [Because the motion was made on behalf of a committee, it required no second.] The motion was unanimously approved by a voice vote.

REPORTS OF FACULTIES [none] PETITIONS OF STUDENTS [none] UNFINISHED BUSINESS [none] NEW BUSINESS [none] There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Julia Kwan Partridge

6

ACADEMIC SENATE: SAN DIEGO DIVISON

October 29, 2013

ANNUAL REPORT

COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM 2012‐2013

The Committee on Academic Freedom (CAF) did not meet formally during 2012‐2013. Typically we respond to specific issues raised by the Senate’s officers, committees, and members, and we were able to accomplish the requested consultation electronically. We are pleased to report that there were no substantive academic freedom issues raised this year.

The committee was asked by Senate Chair Masters to comment on a revised draft of the Graduate Student Responsibilities and Rights document submitted by the Graduate Student Association. CAF raised questions regarding the legal implications of the document and suggested editorial revisions but found that the revised draft did not present concerns regarding core academic freedom issues.

Respectfully submitted,

Hal Pashler (Psychology), Chair Petr Krysl (Structural Engineering) James Posakony (Biological Sciences)

7

ANNUAL REPORT COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PERSONNEL (CAP)

2010 – 2011 INTRODUCTION The Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) is charged with representing the faculty in making recommendations to the Executive Vice Chancellor (EVC) concerning appointments, promotions, and related matters. It also advises the EVC and the Academic Senate on general policy related to academic personnel. The purpose of this report is to state the extent to which the recommendations on these matters have been accepted by the administration, and also inform the division of other issues that were considered or remain pending. COMMENTARY Process, Interaction, and Consultation In 2010 – 2011 CAP considered 576 files, with actions ranging from contested merits to promotions, accelerations, and retentions. A more detailed account of what types of files were considered, and CAP’s recommendations in these cases, can be found in the appendices of this document. General Administrative Consultation. In the interest of openness and effective communication, CAP regularly extends an invitation to the EVC, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Education, and the Vice Chancellors for Research, Health Sciences, and Marine Sciences, as well as to Deans, Directors, and Department Chairs to visit the committee to discuss its practices and procedures or general issues of campus academic policy. The CAP Chair also attends meetings with department chairs at the beginning of the year to discuss the academic review process. 2010-11 Rate of Override and Disagreement. In seeking to ensure consistency and fairness across departments, divisions, and schools, CAP follows and interprets the guidelines in the PPM on all matters in its recommendations to the EVC. In cases where the EVC or other final authority anticipates issuing a final decision contrary to the Committee’s recommendation, that individual attends a CAP meeting to present the arguments for not following CAP’s recommendation. In some cases this discussion leads to agreement. In others, there is an agreement to disagree, with such cases often involving programmatic priorities of the campus that fall outside the criteria upon which CAP makes recommendations. Overrides are those cases where the EVC’s final action (or, in the case of Research Scientist files, the final action of the relevant VC) differs from CAP’s final recommendation in step or action (appointment, merit increase, merit advancement, promotion, etc.). Appraisals of Assistant Professors that differ from CAP’s recommendation have not been considered Overrides. Disagreements are cases where the EVC’s final action differs from CAP’s recommendation in terms of salary (related to market off-scale or bonus off-scale salary increments). In cases where the CAP membership is evenly split between two actions, the EVC can choose either action without it being considered an Override or Disagreement. In 2010 – 2011 there were seven cases in which the Administration’s final action differed from CAP’s recommendation, three involving either step or action and four involving salary. The Advisory Committee on the Arts. CAP's Advisory Committee on the Arts (ACA) was instituted (as the Performing Arts Subcommittee) in 1982 to assist with CAP's deliberations on the creative activity of performing arts faculty in the Departments of Music, Theatre and Dance, and Visual Arts. The ACA is appointed by the Committee on Committees, and its membership includes one tenured faculty member from each of these departments in addition to two faculty members drawn from other

8

departments. Because evaluation of artistic performance does not lend itself to conventional academic procedures and career patterns, an evaluation of this aspect of a faculty member's work by the ACA can be helpful in CAP’s consideration of the file. The Advisory Committee on the Arts considered the creative contributions in 13 cases that were forwarded to CAP in 2010-2011. CAP’s final recommendation, which also takes teaching and service into account, coincided with the ACA’s recommendations in 10 of those cases. Regular Merits and Departmental Criteria for Advancement. As part of its ongoing efforts to calibrate requests for accelerations, CAP conducts retrospective reviews of regular merits from various departments. In 2010-2011, CAP examined all normal merits and non-contested “no-change” merit reviews in the prior year from the Departments of Bioengineering, Literature, Mathematics, Radiology, Sociology, and SIO. In general, CAP found the files well prepared and the proposed actions justified. CAP did note that, for appointees in the Adjunct Professor series, the candidate’s engagement in the educational mission of the department was not always fully and clearly documented in a manner that justified the appointment or reappointment. Since CAP cannot post-audit regular merit files from all departments every year, CAP encourages departments to include departmental criteria for normal merit advancement in the file when proposing an accelerated advancement. The absence of such criteria occasionally resulted in delays in making a recommendation due to the need for CAP to ask for additional information from the department. Campus ad Hoc Committees. CAP has increasingly acted as its own ad hoc committee. By the time cases arrive at CAP, there is already considerable expertise represented in the file, from the Departmental ad hoc committees, members, and Chair, from external referees, and from the cognizant Dean. Unless there is some substantial disagreement about the quality of the work, and CAP lacks suitable knowledge itself, an ad hoc committee is not regarded as worthwhile. In 2010 – 2011, CAP sent one case to a campus ad hoc committee; the case was carried over into the 2011- 2012 academic year, and resolved during that year. Policies, Issues, and Action Items Addressed In addition to acting on individual academic personnel files, CAP, at the request of the EVC or the Academic Senate Chair, reviews general academic personnel policies and reports and other issues of interest related to academic personnel. CAP also reviews Departmental voting procedures and discipline-based market off-scales salary agreements for Assistant level appointments, the conferral of emeritus status to non ladder-rank faculty, reviews of administrators, and appointments and reappointments as Endowed Chairs. One major policy issue CAP discussed this year was the addition of ”Distinguished Practitioner” series (later known as “Professor of Practice” series) to the PPM. The Senate and Administration are working together to revise criteria for the series to allow flexibility to departments in the use of the series while reserving the series for individuals who have shown outstanding creativity and distinguished contributions to their field of expertise. Related to the addition of the Professor of Practice series is the revision of criteria for the Adjunct Professor series. CAP considered the Joint Senate-Administration Task Force Report on the Adjunct Professor Series, which made a series of recommendations to increase the flexibility of the series through the elimination of the precise equivalence between the Professor (Ladder-Rank) series and the Adjunct Professor series in the current PPM. While keenly aware that departments and units use this series in very different ways, CAP emphasized that any changes to the criteria for the series should include continued attention to distinction in one or more areas of professional responsibility (research, teaching, or service) and a measurable standard of meaningful engagement in educational and other activities that are of value to the unit and the University. CAP stated its opposition to “brass

9

plate” appointments in this series and reappointing Adjunct faculty who only make sporadic appearances on campus. CONCLUSION The Committee is grateful for the wisdom of its Advisory Committee on the Arts; the School of Medicine Committee on Academic Personnel; the Department of Medicine Council on Appointments and Promotions; the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Committee on Academic Personnel; the Deans, Provosts, Department Chairs, and ORU Directors; and those faculty members who served on departmental ad hoc committees. CAP also wishes to thank staff members involved in the academic review process at various levels for their many hours of efficient, knowledgeable, and professional work in file assembly and annotation, which is so crucial to fair and consistent reviews. Respectfully submitted,

Steven A. Wasserman (CDB), Chair Doris Trauner (Neurosciences), Vice Chair Guillermo Algaze (Anthropology) Richard Arneson (Philosophy) Theodore Chan (Medicine) (Fall) Kyle Donnelly (Theatre and Dance) (Winter and Spring) Ahmed Elgamal (Structural Engineering) Victor Ferreira (Psychology) Philip Gill (Mathematics) Miles Kahler (IRPS/Political Science) Piyush Patel (Anesthesiology) Stephen Spector (Pediatrics) (Winter and Spring) Clinton Winant (SIO)

10

APPENDIX A: Overview of Completed Departmental Proposals

Academic Category Number of Files Percent of Total Professorial Senate Series - General Campus, SIO, IR/PS and Rady 290 50.3% Professorial Senate Series - Health Sciences 122 21.2% Lecturer (SOE/PSOE) Series 10 1.7% Professional Research Series 40 6.9% Adjunct Professorial Series 104 18.1% Unit 18 Lecturers/Other Temporary Titles 10 1.7% TOTAL: All Proposals 576 100.0%

APPENDIX B: Action on General Campus, SIO, IR/PS, Rady Files Department Proposal CAP Recommendation

As Proposed

Upward Modification

Downward Modification

Did Not Support

Appointment Full Professor 2 0 0 0

Withdrawn or Declined 5 0 0 0 Associate Professor 8 0 0 0

Withdrawn or Declined 0 0 0 0 Assistant Professor 20 0 5 1

Withdrawn or Declined 13 0 2 0 Lecturer (SOE/PSOE) 3 0 0 0

Withdrawn or Declined 0 0 0 0 Promotion

Full Professor 21 0 1 2 Associate Professor 12 4 5 2 Lecturer/Sr. Lecturer (SOE) 2 0 0 1

Merit Increase Merit 94 9 45 0 No-change' Review 3 1 4 0 Lecturer/Sr. Lecturer (SOE/PSOE) 2 1 1 0

Appraisal Only 0 0 0 0 Reappointment Only (Terminal Reappointment) 5 0 0 0 Regularization Only 1 0 0 0 Salary Increase Only 23 0 2 0 TOTAL 214 15 65 6

11

Modifications (28.7% of actions in this group)

Modifications - Advantageous to Candidate (17.4% of modifications): Accelerated merit in addition to proposed promotion: 2; Bonus off-scale in addition to proposed promotion

and acceleration: 1; Bonus off-scale in addition to proposed promotion: 1; Greater acceleration than proposed: 1; Acceleration instead of proposed normal merit: 5; Bonus off-scale in addition to normal merit: 4; Normal merit instead of proposed 'no-change' review with bonus off-scale: 1

Modifications - Disadvantageous to Candidate (82.6% of modifications) Appointment to lower step than proposed: 2; Appointment to a higher step than proposed but with no market

off-scale: 2; Appointment with no market off-scale: 3; Did not support appointment: 1; Promotion with no proposed acceleration: 2; Promotion with bonus off-scale instead of proposed acceleration: 3; Promotion with no proposed bonus off-scale: 1; 'Crossover' merit with bonus off-scale instead of proposed promotion: 1; 'Crossover' merit instead of proposed promotion: 1; Normal merit instead of proposed promotion: 2; 'No-change' review instead of proposed promotion: 1; Lesser acceleration than proposed: 4; Lesser merit at Above Scale than proposed: 2; Normal merit and bonus off-scale instead of proposed acceleration: 9; Normal merit instead of proposed acceleration: 3; Normal merit without proposed bonus off-scale: 6; 'No-change' review and bonus off-scale instead of proposed normal merit: 6; 'No-change' review instead of proposed normal merit: 4; No proposed bonus off-scale in addition to 'no-change' review: 2; Lesser market off-scale: 5; Downward appraisal rating: 9; Terminal 1-yr reappointment instead of proposed 'no-change' review with 2-yr reappointment: 2

[Note: Following a practice established by the 1995-96 CAP, when the department has proposed promotion and CAP has supported, instead, a merit increase or bonus off-scale, the action is represented in the Did Not Support column, rather than in the Downward Modification column.]

12

APPENDIX C: Action on Health Sciences Files Department Proposal CAP Recommendation

As

Proposed Upward

Modification Downward

Modification Did Not Support

Appointment Full Professor 11 1 1 0 Full Professor In Residence 0 0 0 0 Full Professor of Clinical 'X' 7 0 0 1 Associate Professor 0 0 0 0 Associate Professor In Residence 3 0 0 0 Associate Professor of Clinical 'X' 4 0 0 0 Assistant Professor 3 0 0 0 Assistant Professor In Residence 1 0 2 0 Assistant Professor of Clinical 'X' 2 0 0 0

Promotion Full Professor 5 0 0 0 Full Professor In Residence 2 0 0 0 Full Professor of Clinical 'X' 2 2 0 0 Associate Professor 3 0 0 0 Associate Professor In Residence 5 0 0 3 Associate Professor of Clinical 'X' 1 0 2 0

Merit Increase (including 'no-change' reviews) Full Professor 27 7 5 0 Full Professor In Residence 3 2 3 0 Full Professor of Clinical 'X' 3 0 1 0 Associate Professor 1 0 1 0 Associate Professor In Residence 1 1 0 0 Associate Professor of Clinical 'X' 0 1 0 0 Assistant Professor 0 0 1 0 Assistant Professor In Residence 0 0 3 0 Assistant Professor of Clinical 'X' 1 0 0 0

Appraisal Only/Readiness Assessment Only 0 0 0 0 Reappointment Only 0 0 0 0 Regularization Only 0 0 0 0 Salary Only 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 85 14 19 4


Modifications - Advantageous to Candidate (37.8% of modifications):

Appointment at higher step than proposed: 1; Greater acceleration than proposed: 1; Accelerated promotion instead of proposed normal merit: 1; Acceleration in addition to proposed promotion: 2; Acceleration instead of proposed normal merit: 7; Bonus off-scale in addition to proposed normal merit: 1; Normal merit instead of proposed 'no-change' review: 1

13

Modifications - Disadvantageous to Candidate (62.2% of modifications) Appointment at lower rank than proposed: 1; Appointment at lower step than proposed: 2; No appointment:

1; Promotion with bonus off-scale instead of proposed acceleration: 1; 'Crossover' merit instead of proposed promotion: 2; Normal merit instead of proposed promotion: 1; 'No-change' review instead of proposed promotion: 1; Normal merit instead of proposed acceleration: 5; No proposed bonus off-scale in addition to normal merit: 1; 'No-change' review instead of proposed normal merit: 1; 'No-change' review with bonus off-scale instead of proposed merit: 1; No proposed bonus off-scale with 'no-change' review: 1; No increase in market off-scale as proposed: 1; Downward appraisal rating: 4

APPENDIX D: Action on Professional Research Series Files Department Proposal CAP Recommendation

As Proposed Upward



Appointment Full Research Scientist 0 0 0 0 Associate Research Scientist 2 0 5 0 Assistant Research Scientist 7 0 0 1

Promotion Full Research Scientist 1 0 0 2 Associate Research Scientist 1 0 0 2

Merit Increase Merit 10 0 7 0 No-Change' Review 1 0 0 0

Salary Only 1 0 0 0 TOTAL 23 0 12 5


Modifications - Advantageous to Candidate (0% of modifications):

Modifications - Disadvantageous to Candidate (42.5% of modifications)

Appointment at lower rank than proposed: 5; No appointment: 1; 'Crossover' merit instead of proposed promotion: 1; 'No-change' review instead of proposed promotion: 3; Normal merit and bonus off-scale instead of proposed acceleration: 3; 'No-change' review instead of proposed merit: 1; No proposed bonus off-scale in addition to merit: 1; Downward appraisal rating: 2

14

APPENDIX E: Action on Other Series

Title CAP Recommendation

As

Proposed Upward



Adjunct Professor General Campus, SIO, IR/PS, Rady 15 0 0 0 Health Sciences 58 1 21 9

TOTAL 73 1 21 9 Unit 18 Lecturers

General Campus, SIO, IR/PS, Rady 9 0 1 0 Health Sciences 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 9 0 1 0


Modifications - Advantageous to Candidate (3.1% of modifications): Appointment at higher step: 1

Modifications - Disadvantageous to Candidate (96.9% of modifications) Appointment at lower step: 3; Appointment at lower rank: 3; No appointment: 1; No reappointment: 3;

'Crossover' merit instead of proposed promotion: 1; Normal merit instead of promotion: 3; 'No-change' review instead of promotion: 1; 'No-change' review instead of 'crossover' merit: 2; 'No-change' review instead of merit: 2; Downward appraisal rating: 12

APPENDIX F: Accelerations Department Proposal CAP Recommendation

As

Proposed Upward



Professorial Senate Series General Campus, SIO, IR/PS, Rady 36 2 22 0 Health Sciences 24 1 6 0

Professional Research Series 5 0 3 0 Other 2 0 0 0 TOTAL 67 3 31 0


Modifications - Advantageous to Candidate (8.8% of modifications):

Bonus off-scale in addition to proposed promotion and acceleration: 1; Greater acceleration than proposed: 2

Modifications - Disadvantageous to Candidate (91.2% of modifications) Normal merit and bonus off-scale instead of proposed acceleration: 15; Normal merit instead of proposed

acceleration: 9; Promotion with bonus off-scale instead of proposed acceleration: 1; Promotion with no proposed acceleration: 2; Lesser acceleration than proposed: 4

15

ANNUAL REPORT COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PERSONNEL (CAP)

2011 - 2012 INTRODUCTION The Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) is charged with representing Senate faculty by making recommendations to the Executive Vice Chancellor (EVC) concerning academic personnel and related matters. It also advises the EVC and the Academic Senate on general policy related to academic personnel. This report describes the extent to which the recommendations on these matters have been accepted by the administration, and also informs the division of other issues that were considered or remain pending. COMMENTARY Process, Interaction, and Consultation In 2011 - 2012 CAP considered 657 unique files, with actions ranging from contested merits to promotions, accelerations, and retentions. A more detailed account of what types of files were considered, and CAP’s recommendations in these cases, can be found in the appendices of this document. General Administrative Consultation. In the interest of openness and effective communication, CAP regularly extends an invitation to the EVC, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Dean of Undergraduate Education, and the Vice Chancellors for Research, Health Sciences, and Marine Sciences, as well as to Deans, ORU Directors, and Department Chairs to visit the committee to discuss its practices and procedures or general issues of campus academic personnel policy. The CAP Chair also attends meetings with department chairs at the beginning of the year to discuss the academic review process. 2011-12 Rate of Override and Disagreement. In seeking to ensure consistency and fairness across departments, divisions, and schools, CAP follows and interprets the guidelines in the PPM on all matters in its recommendations to the EVC. In cases where the EVC or other final authority anticipates issuing a final decision contrary to the Committee’s recommendation, that individual attends a CAP meeting to present the arguments for not following CAP’s recommendation. In some cases this discussion leads to agreement. In others, there is an agreement to disagree, with such cases often involving programmatic priorities of the campus that fall outside the criteria upon which CAP makes recommendations. Overrides are those cases where the EVC’s final action (or, in the case of Research Scientist and Unit 18 Lecturer files, the final action of the relevant VC or Dean) differs from CAP’s final recommendation in step or action (appointment, merit increase, merit advancement, promotion, etc.). Appraisals of Assistant Professors that differ from CAP’s recommendation are not considered Overrides. Disagreements are cases where the EVC’s final action differs from CAP’s recommendation in terms of salary (related to market off-scale or bonus off-scale salary increments). In cases where the CAP membership is evenly split between two actions, a choice of either action is not an Override or Disagreement. In 2011 – 2012 there were nine cases (of 657 total) in which the Administration’s final action differed from CAP’s recommendation, five were Overrides involving either step or action, two were disagreements involving salary, and two were cases involving a candidate’s appraisal rating. The Advisory Committee on the Arts. CAP's Advisory Committee on the Arts (ACA) was instituted (as the Performing Arts Subcommittee) in 1982 to assist with CAP's deliberations on the creative activity of performing arts faculty in the Departments of Music, Theatre and Dance, and Visual Arts. The ACA is appointed by the Committee on Committees, and its membership includes one tenured faculty member

16

from each of these departments in addition to two faculty members drawn from other departments. Because evaluation of artistic performance does not lend itself to conventional academic procedures and career patterns, an evaluation of this aspect of a faculty member's work by the ACA can be helpful in CAP’s consideration of the file. The Advisory Committee on the Arts considered the creative contributions in 15 cases that were forwarded to CAP in 2011-2012. CAP’s final recommendation, which also takes teaching and service into account, agreed with the ACA’s recommendations in 13 of those cases. Preparation of Files As part of its ongoing efforts to calibrate requests for accelerations, CAP conducts retrospective reviews of regular merits from various departments. In general, CAP found the files well prepared and the proposed actions justified. Because CAP cannot post-audit regular merit files from all departments every year, CAP encourages departments to include departmental criteria for normal merit advancement in the file when proposing an accelerated advancement. In disciplines where candidates routinely engage in collaborative work, CAP strongly emphasizes the need for departmental recommendation letters to clearly identify the candidate’s contribution to his or her publications. The absence of information supporting the departmental proposal occasionally resulted in delays in making a recommendation due to the need for CAP to ask for additional information from the department. Campus Ad Hoc Committees. CAP has increasingly acted as its own ad hoc committee. By the time cases arrive at CAP, there is already considerable expertise represented in the file, from the Departmental ad hoc committees, members, and Chair, from external referees, and from the cognizant Dean. Unless there is some substantial disagreement about the quality of the work, and CAP lacks suitable knowledge itself, a campus ad hoc committee is not regarded as worthwhile. In 2011 – 2012, CAP sent one case to a campus ad hoc committee and considered a file that was sent to a campus ad hoc committee at the end of the previous academic year. Policies, Issues, and Action Items Addressed In addition to acting on individual academic personnel files, CAP, at the request of the EVC or the Academic Senate Chair, reviews general academic personnel policies and reports and other issues of interest related to academic personnel. CAP also reviews Departmental voting procedures and discipline-based market off-scales salary agreements for Assistant-level appointments, the conferral of emeritus status to non ladder-rank faculty, reviews of administrators, and appointments and reappointments as Endowed Chairs. One major policy issue CAP discussed this year was the addition of a “Professor of Practice” series to the PPM. The series, in development for many years, is intended for individuals who have shown outstanding creativity and distinguished contributions to their field of expertise, and who will be contributing actively to the University’s educational mission. CAP was also engaged in the establishment of two new academic departments within the School of Medicine: Emergency Medicine and Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences. In subsequent discussions regarding the voting procedures for these departments, the committee, in consultation with the Health Sciences, identified an issue of concern regarding the voting rights of non-Senate faculty in some Health Sciences departments. Since this issue directly related to shared governance and the composition of the Academic Senate, CAP referred the matter to Senate Council. Senate Council, and later the Representative Assembly, agreed to forward a proposal from the Health Sciences to change Systemwide Academic Senate Bylaw 55 to allow for the extension of voting rights to certain groups of

17

non-Senate faculty in departments that wish to do so. The matter is currently under discussion at the systemwide level. An action item of vital importance to the academic review system was the Task Force on Faculty Rewards System II report. The report made many recommendations, some of which require changes in policy. CAP thanks the Task Force members for their work on this important document. The report and its recommendations are under consideration by various levels of the Administration, as well as the Academic Senate. A Negotiated Salary Plan (later known as the General Campus Compensation Plan), was discussed, first as a part of a systemwide policy, and later as a locally implemented pilot program. The intent of the program is to allow general campus faculty members who have external funding resources to contribute toward their total UC salary. It is hoped that this policy will allow UCSD to maintain competitive salaries for the faculty while conserving scarce state funding. Specific metrics and procedures have been developed for UCSD’s participation in a pilot program. The Administration will provide reports to the Academic Senate each year; Senate Council and the relevant committees will examine the report for positive as well as negative trends and assess the effectiveness of the program. CONCLUSION The Committee is grateful for the wisdom of its Advisory Committee on the Arts; the School of Medicine Committee on Academic Personnel; the Department of Medicine Council on Appointments and Promotions; the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Committee on Academic Personnel; the Deans, Provosts, Department Chairs, and ORU Directors; and those faculty members who served on departmental ad hoc committees. CAP also wishes to thank staff members involved in the academic review process at various levels for their many hours of efficient, knowledgeable, and professional work in file assembly and annotation, which is so crucial to fair and consistent reviews. Lastly, CAP members, on behalf of the campus, wish also to recognize the contributions of Professor Virgil Woods to CAP and to our University. An illness shortened his time on CAP during the 2011-2012 academic year, but during his tenure on CAP he provided the committee with wise counsel and scholarly expertise. His passing in 2012 saddened our community and left us with a loss. Respectfully submitted,

Victor Ferreira, Chair (Psychology) Miles Kahler, Vice Chair (IR/PS)

Richard Arneson (Philosophy) Ahmed Elgamal (Structural Engineering) John Fonville (Music) Theodore Ganiats (Family and Preventive Medicine) (Sp) Philip Gill (Mathematics) Wilbur Lew (Medicine) John Moore (Linguistics) Julian Schroeder (Cell and Developmental Biology) Tamara Wall (Psychiatry) Clinton Winant (SIO)

18

APPENDIX A: Overview of Completed Departmental Proposals

Academic Category Number of Files Percent of Total Professorial Senate Series - General Campus, SIO, IR/PS and Rady 320 48.7% Professorial Senate Series - Health Sciences 146 22.2% Lecturer (SOE/PSOE) Series 19 2.9% Professional Research Series 59 9.0% Adjunct Professorial Series 105 16.0% Unit 18 Lecturers/Other Temporary Titles 8 1.2% TOTAL: All Proposals 657 100.0%

APPENDIX B: Action on General Campus, SIO, IR/PS, Rady Files for Senate Faculty Department Proposal CAP Recommendation

As

Proposed Upward



Appointment Full Professor 10 1 0 0

Withdrawn or Declined 4 0 0 0 Associate Professor 11 0 1 0

Withdrawn or Declined 2 0 0 0 Assistant Professor 27 0 2 0

Withdrawn or Declined 5 0 0 0 Lecturer (SOE/PSOE) 8 0 0 0

Withdrawn or Declined 0 0 0 0 Promotion

Full Professor 25 1 3 1 Associate Professor 22 3 3 3 Lecturer/Sr. Lecturer (SOE) 5 0 0 2

Merit Increase Merit 101 11 56 0 No-change' Review 2 1 6 0 Lecturer/Sr. Lecturer (SOE/PSOE) 3 1 0 0

Reappointment Only (Terminal Reappointment) 0 0 1 0 Salary Increase Only 16 0 0 2 TOTAL 241 18 72 8

19


Modifications - Advantageous to Candidate (18.4% of modifications): 1 - Appointment with a higher market off-scale salary component; 2 - Acceleration in addition to promotion; 2 -

Bonus off-scale salary component in addition to promotion; 5 - Bonus off-scale salary component in addition to normal merit; 3 - Acceleration instead of normal advancement at Above Scale; 3 - Acceleration instead of normal merit; 1 - Crossover merit instead of no-change review; 1 - Upward appraisal rating

Modifications - Disadvantageous to Candidate (81.6% of modifications) 1 - Appointment at a lower step; 2 - Appointment with a lower market off-scale salary component; 1 -

Crossover merit instead of promotion; 2 - No bonus off-scale salary component in addition to promotion; 1 - No acceleration in addition to promotion; 3 - Terminal reappointment instead of promotion; 1 - Bonus off-scale salary component instead of acceleration; 1 - Lesser acceleration; 2 - Merit instead of promotion; 13 - Downward appraisal rating; 8 - Lesser acceleration; 4 - Normal merit instead of acceleration; 7 - Normal merit and bonus off-scale salary component instead of acceleration; 8 - Lesser merit as Above Scale; 2 - No bonus off-scale salary component in addition to normal merit; 1 - No reappointment as concurrent Adjunct Professor; 2 - No-change review instead of normal merit; 2 - No-change review instead of crossover merit; 3 - No-change review and bonus off-scale salary component instead of normal merit; 1 - No-change review and bonus off-scale salary component instead of crossover merit; 4 - No-change review instead of advancement to Above Scale; 1 - No-change review instead of off-cycle acceleration; 1 - No-change review instead of normal merit and no resetting of market off-scale salary component; 5 - No increase to market off-scale salary component; 1 - Crossover merit instead of acceleration; 2 - No bonus off-scale salary component with no-change review; 3 - No resetting of market off-scale salary component; 1 - Resetting of market off-scale salary component for less than six years [Note: Following a practice established by the 1995-96 CAP, when the department has proposed promotion and CAP has supported, instead, a merit increase or bonus off-scale, the action is represented in the Did Not Support column, rather than in the Downward Modification column.]

20

APPENDIX C: Action on Health Sciences Files for Senate Faculty Department Proposal CAP Recommendation

As

Proposed Upward



Appointment Full Professor 8 0 2 0 Full Professor in Residence 4 0 0 0 Full Professor of Clinical 'X' 4 0 1 0 Associate Professor 3 0 1 0 Associate Professor in Residence 5 0 0 0 Associate Professor of Clinical 'X' 5 0 2 1 Assistant Professor 3 0 0 0 Assistant Professor in Residence 4 0 2 0 Assistant Professor of Clinical 'X' 0 0 0 1

Promotion Full Professor 3 0 0 1 Full Professor in Residence 6 0 0 0 Full Professor of Clinical 'X' 2 1 0 0 Associate Professor 4 0 0 1 Associate Professor in Residence 3 0 0 0 Associate Professor of Clinical 'X' 0 0 0 0

Merit Increase (including 'no-change' reviews) Full Professor 32 2 9 0 Full Professor In Residence 8 1 3 1 Full Professor of Clinical 'X' 8 1 0 0 Associate Professor 2 0 1 0 Associate Professor In Residence 1 0 0 0 Associate Professor of Clinical 'X' 0 0 0 0 Assistant Professor 3 0 1 0 Assistant Professor In Residence 1 0 1 1 Assistant Professor of Clinical 'X' 0 0 2 0

Appraisal Only/Readiness Assessment Only 0 0 1 0 TOTAL 109 5 26 6


Modifications - Advantageous to Candidate (13.5% of modifications): 1 - Acceleration in addition to promotion; 3 - Acceleration instead of normal merit; 1 - Acceleration instead of

normal advancement as Above Scale

21

Modifications - Disadvantageous to Candidate (86.5% of modifications)

4 - Appointment at lower step; 4 - Appointment at lower rank; 2 - No appointment; 1 - Appointment in a different series; 1 - Crossover merit instead of promotion; 1 - No-change review instead of promotion; 2 - Lesser merit at Above Scale; 1 - No acceleration with advancement to Above Scale; 1 - Lesser acceleration with advancement to Above Scale; 2 - No-change review instead of advancement to Above Scale; 4 - Normal merit instead of acceleration; 2 - No-change review instead of normal merit; 1 - No-change review instead of crossover merit; 5 - Downward appraisal rating; 1 - Terminal reappointment instead of crossover merit

APPENDIX D: Action on Professional Research Series Files Department Proposal CAP Recommendation

As

Proposed Upward



Appointment Full Research Scientist 2 0 0 0 Associate Research Scientist 2 0 1 0 Assistant Research Scientist 15 2 4 0

Promotion Full Research Scientist 4 0 0 0 Associate Research Scientist 4 0 0 0


Salary Only 1 0 0 0 TOTAL 39 7 13 0



2 - Appointment with market off-scale salary component; 3 - Bonus off-scale salary component in addition to normal merit; 1 - Acceleration instead of merit and bonus off-scale salary component; 1 - Acceleration instead of normal merit

Modifications - Disadvantageous to Candidate (65% of modifications) 1 - Appointment at lower rank; 2 - Appointment at lower step; 1 - Appointment with lesser market off-scale

salary component; 1 - Appointment with no market off-scale salary component; 2 - Downward appraisal rating; 2 - No bonus off-scale salary component in addition to merit advancement; 3 - No-change review instead of crossover merit; 1 - No concurrent reappointment in Adjunct Professor series

22

APPENDIX E: Action on Adjunct Professor Series Files

Department Proposal CAP Recommendation

As

Proposed Upward



Appointment Full Adjunct Professor 8 0 0 0 Associate Adjunct Professor 3 0 0 0 Assistant Adjunct Professor 21 1 1 0

Promotion Full Adjunct Professor 7 0 0 0 Associate Adjunct Professor 9 0 0 2


Reappointment Only (non-salaried appointments) 25 0 0 1 Salary Only 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 83 1 15 6

Modifications (21% of actions in this group)


1 - Appointment at higher step

Modifications - Disadvantageous to Candidate (95% of modifications) 1 - Appointment at lower step; 1 - Reappointment and normal merit instead of promotion; 1 - No promotion or

reappointment; 8 - Downward appraisal rating; 2 - No-change review instead of normal merit; 3 - No-change review instead of crossover merit; 1 - Normal merit and bonus off-scale salary component instead of acceleration; 3 - No reappointment; 1 - Terminal reappointment

APPENDIX F: Action on Unit 18 Lecturer Files

Title CAP Recommendation

As Proposed

Upward Modification

Downward Modification

Did Not Support

Unit 18 Lecturers General Campus, SIO, IR/PS, Rady 6 0 0 2 Health Sciences 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 6 0 0 2

Modifications (33% of actions in this group)

Modifications - Disadvantageous to Candidate (100% of modifications) 2 - No appointment

23

APPENDIX G: Accelerations

Department Proposal CAP Recommendation

As

Proposed Upward



Professorial Senate Series General Campus, SIO, IR/PS, Rady 52 0 23 0 Health Sciences 24 0 6 0

Lecturers with Security of Employment 1 0 0 0 Professional Research Series 2 0 0 0 Adjunct Professor Series 1 0 1 0 Other 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 80 0 30 0


Modifications - Disadvantageous to Candidate (100% of modifications)

8 - Normal merit; 8 - Normal merit and bonus off-scale salary component; 10 - Lesser acceleration; 1 - No-change review; 2 - No acceleration in addition to career review advancement; 1 - No increase of market off-scale salary component in addition to acceleration

24

ANNUAL REPORT

COMMITTEE ON FACULTY WELFARE 2012/13

The Committee on Faculty Welfare met monthly during the 2012/13 academic year. Throughout the year the committee discussed issues related to faculty welfare being discussed systemwide and at the divisional level The committee members devoted a substantial amount of time this year on the issue of enhancing communication with faculty on retirement, benefits, and other faculty welfare issues and worked on creating a Faculty Welfare website to disseminate this information. The development and completion of the website will continue in the 2013/14 academic year. Issues and Proposals Reviewed by the Committee on Faculty Welfare in 2012/13

• Proposed Revision to PPM 230-20, Appointment of Academic Personnel, and PPM 230-28, Academic Advancements and Reappointments

• Report of the Task Force on the Faculty Reward System II

• Proposed Negotiated Salary Plan

• Proposed New APM 430 – Visiting Scholars

• Proposed Revision to APM 700 – Leaves of Absence

• UCOLASC Proposal for an Open Access Policy • Understanding Health Care Costs for UC Retirees

• Executive Vice Chancellor’s Compensation Strategies; Preemptive Increases

• Salary Equity Plan Update • Proposed Revisions to Academic Personnel Manual (APM) 600, Section IV,

Salary Administration

• Graduate Student Responsibilities and Rights

• Proposed Revisions to APM 510

• Elderly Care Update

• Integration of Campus and Centralized Pre-Retirement Resources

• Faculty Compensation Strategies

• Child Care Update – Kathryn Owen, Director, Early Childhood Education Center

• Faculty Composite Benefits

• Split Funded Pension Benefits

• University Committee on Affirmative Action and Diversity’s Analysis of UC Pay Equity

25

• Faculty Welfare website - Enhancing communication with faculty on retirement, benefits and other

faculty welfare issues • Faculty Diversity Working Group Report • Office of Transportation & Parking Budget – Proposed changes

The committee’s responses were submitted to the Senate Chair and discussed by Senate Council. Respectfully submitted,

Timothy Rickard (Psychology), Chair Bruce Lehman (IR/PS), Vice Chair Joel Dimsdale (Psychiatry) Miriam Kastner (SIO) David Miller (Emeriti Association) Michael Monteon (History) Garey Ramey (Economics) Nicole Tonkovich (Literature)

26

ACADEMIC SENATE: SAN DIEGO DIVISION

Annual Report Committee on Admissions

2012/13 The Committee on Admissions met monthly during the 2012/13 academic year. At each meeting, the committee received reports on admissions issues raised at BOARS, including the impact of the university’s recent move to holistic review. Throughout the year the committee heard reports, both from the Assistant Vice Chancellor of Admissions and Relations with Schools and the BOARS representative, related to the admissions issues being discussed systemwide and at the campus level. Issues Discussed in 2012/13 The Committee on Admissions spent time at the beginning of the year discussing the recommendations from the summer task force that looked at whether we could use tiebreakers to increase the numbers of underrepresented students admitted. The committee selected one to use after carefully assessing all of the options, and it appears to have achieved the desired goal (although admittedly the changes were modest). The committee discussed whether international students were having special problems here that weren’t being addressed. Although several faculty members raised concerns about this, the committee did not find systemic evidence of a problem. However, the committee agreed that this should be monitored in the future, particularly as greater numbers of international students are admitted. The Committee on Admissions devoted a substantial portion of the year examining the transfer admissions procedures. The Committee’s discussions focused on how the transfer admissions review processes, holistic versus comprehensive review, work and what the impact on transfer admissions would be if a holistic review is adopted. The committee also looked closely at the Transfer Admission Guarantee (TAG) Program. In 2010/11 the committee members voted to increase the TAG GPA requirement to 3.5 from 3.0. In 2011/12 committee members voted to end the TAG Program in 2014. In 2012/13 the committee members proposed a revised UniversityLink program. The committee agreed to a very limited proposal for low income student to achieve transfer admission guarantees as part of a partnership between UCSD and local community colleges. However, BOARS raised significant concerns about the local preference aspect of the proposal, and consequently a decision was made to revisit the proposal next year. Issues and Proposals Reviewed and Commented on by the Committee on Admissions

• Overview of the Admissions process using holistic review • COA Task Force - Impact of Implementing the Holistic Review Policy • Update on Fall 2012 enrollment for freshmen and transfers • Update on TAG proposal • Raising the TOEFL score for international students for fall 2014 • Confirmation of UniversityLink as a regional transfer program with a guarantee pending BOARS

approval

• Status of International Students on Campus

27

• Update on the UniversityLink draft

• Preliminary update on fall 2013 admissions

• Update on the approval of impacted status for CSE

• Begin the discussion of the transfer student admission process

• Update on Fall 2013 Admissions Data for freshmen and transfers

• Long Range Enrollment Plans

• American Honors Proposal

• Begin the Discussion of the Transfer Student Admission Process

• Athletics Agreement

• BOARS Transfer Admission Proposal • Update on non-resident recruitment and admission issues

• Discussion of modification of the TAG agreement for Fall 2014

• English Language Proficiency of Admits: required TOEFL score and/or English Composition grade

• Fall 2012 & 2013 Admissions outcomes for freshman, transfers and impacted majors

• Holistic Review Update and Planning for our Campus • TAG Proposal: Change in criteria • Update on the Admissions Outcomes for Transfers • Update on the TAG discussion and how we move forward • Non-Resident Students Admission Policy

The committee’s responses were submitted to the Senate Chair and were discussed by Senate Council.

Respectfully submitted, Gail Heyman, Chair Thaddeus Kousser, Vice Chair Madeline Butler Melissa Famulari Farrokh Najmabadi Charles Thorpe Daniel Widener Daniel Donoghue, Provost Mae Brown, ex officio

28


October 1, 2013

ANNUAL REPORT COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

FISCAL YEAR 2012/13

DIVISION COMMITTEE The Committee on Research (COR) and the General Campus Subcommittee on Research, Health Sciences Subcommittee on Research, and Marine Sciences Subcommittee on Research operate completely independently. This has been a source of confusion stemming back to 1996 when the Bylaws establishing this subcommittee structure were first implemented. The idea then was that COR would review and make policy recommendations about ORUs and other research related policy issues, and review proposals for new ORUs and also review exiting ORUs. COR was not to be burdened with individual grant applications. These would be reviewed and decided upon by the various Subcommittees, which in turn would not be burdened with policy decisions except for ones that directly affect individual grants. There was to be a cross-membership structure that would insure the flow of information. However, the reality of essentially independent operation of the four groups, and the difficulties created by the cross-membership requirements, prompted a decision to codify the four groups as independent committees rather than one committee and three subcommittees. Proposed amendments to Bylaws 235, 236, 237, and 238 were ratified at the March 12, 2013 Representative Assembly meeting. The Committee on Research (COR) met monthly during the year to consider a number of issues. During the course of these meetings, the following principal issues were addressed and reports were prepared accordingly.

1. Annual Report, Committee on Research, FY 2011/12 - No action needed/taken. 2. By Laws and Charge of COR – No action needed/taken. 3. Role of the Lead Discussant in an Organized Research Unit (ORU) Review – No action taken/needed. 4. Criteria for Review of New Organized Research Unit (ORU) Proposals - No action taken/needed. 5. UCOLASC Proposal for an Open Access Policy – Supported the goals of an Open Access Policy. 6. Composite Benefit Rates – No action needed/taken. 7. Campus Strategic Planning – No action needed/taken. 8. Draft Affiliation Agreement: Biomedical Sciences Graduate Program and Salk Institute – Favored

proceeding with this affiliation agreement. 9. Graduate Student Responsibilities and Rights – No serious objections to the proposed statement which

seemed already codified in university policy. 10. Proposed Revisions to APM 241, Appointment and Promotion – Faculty Administrators (Positions less

than 100%) – Raised no objections to the proposed revisions. 11. Proposition 30 – No action needed/taken. 12. Re-benching Issues – No action needed/taken. 13. Lab Safety – No action needed/taken. 14. UC Observatory – No action needed/taken. 15. The Compendium draft revisions – No action needed/taken. 16. Negotiated salary pilot program – No action needed/taken. 17. Cal ISI Reviews – No action needed/taken 18. NSF survey results – No action needed/taken. 19. Senate Bill 520 – No action needed/taken. 20. Organized Research Unit: Five Year Review of the Stein Institute for Research on Aging (SIRA) –

Supported the continuation of this ORU and noted that it has positioned itself as a leading research institute in the field of successful aging.

29

21. Organized Research Unit: Five Year Review of the San Diego Supercomputer Center SDSC) – Recommended continuation of the ORU and reappointment of its current director with the expectation that it will continue to make progress toward increased external funding and to pursue opportunities for collaboration with industry.

22. Organized Research Unit: Proposal for the Establishment of the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation (CMBC) – Recommended that the ORU advance to phase II review but would like to see more evidence of planning for external support and stronger evaluation measures.

23. Organized Research Unit: Proposal for the Establishment of the Center for Drug Discovery Innovation (cDDI) – Recommended that the ORU advance to phase II review, conditional on improvement in proposed evaluation measures and a clearer plan for external consultation.

24. Organized Research Unit: Five Year Review of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (CCIS) – Supported continuation of the ORU for another five years under its current directors and recommended attention to, or perhaps revision of, its governance structure.

25. Organized Research Unit: Five Year Review of the Center for Human Development (CHD) – Supported continuation of this ORU for another five years under its current leadership, noting it has an impressive record of bringing researchers together across departmental and divisional lines to produce innovative research on human development but recommended reorganization of its governance structure.

26. Organized Research Unit: Five Year Review of the Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies (CILAS) - Supported continuation of the ORU for three years only under its current leadership, during which time it should be reviewed to determine whether the ORU continues to be the optimal administrative structure for CILAS and provide time to see a more realistic alternative funding plan.

27. Organized Research Unit: Five Year Review of the Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA) – Recommended continuation of this ORU for another five years under the current leadership noting that this is a model ORU which is extraordinarily successful at brining cutting-edge research to the public and is the public face of research at UCSD.

28. Organized Research Unit: Interim Report – Center for Magnetic Recording Research (CMRR) – Three-year report showed evidence that the CMRR is moving in the right direction and members found the trends to be positive.

29. Organized Research Unit: Five Year Review of the AIDS Research Institute (ARI) – Recommended continuation of this ORU for five years under current directorship noting that the ARI is an asset that brings national and international recognition to UCSD.

GENERAL CAMPUS SUBCOMMITTEE The General Campus Subcommittee on Research met on November 28, 2012 and March 1 and May 20, 2013 to review research and bridge grant applications for FY 2012/13. The Subcommittee reviewed the results of the bridge funding grants previously awarded. Based on the progress reports received on these projects, the Subcommittee was convinced of the importance and need for continuation of the Bridge Funding program initiated in FY1995/96. Due to budget constraints, the Subcommittee agreed to continue its policy limiting the ceiling for bridge funding to $25,000. Two calls for bridge funding applications were transmitted. Five Bridge Funding program applications were reviewed and were funded, totaling $124,550. Applicants were required to demonstrate strong proposals for continuing research programs that had received peer-reviewed extramural funding for at least four of the last five years and, that despite efforts to re-establish funding, were without any funding between June 30 and December 31, 2012. The Subcommittee’s evaluation of proposals emphasized the quality of the research, past publication record, and the likelihood of future funding. The existing policies regarding awards for bridge funding, individual research proposals, travel to scholarly meetings, and the intercampus exchange program were thoroughly reviewed by the Subcommittee and a few notable modifications were incorporated in the application call letters on the Subcommittee’s website at http://senate.ucsd.edu/rgc.htm. The Subcommittee agreed to continue its policy limiting the ceiling for individual grants to $15,000 and the maximum cumulative support figure to $45,000 over a ten-year period. Research – Of 98 individual applications reviewed, 84 were funded for a total of $752,619. Six awards totaling $80,500 were made possible by the Earl C. Anthony Endowment Trust Fund. Fourteen requests totaling $163,916 were denied. The breakdown of awards by faculty rank is as follows:

30

http://senate.ucsd.edu/rgc.htm

Level Awards Assistant Professor 15 Associate Professor 27 Professor 37 Professor Emeritus 1 LSOE 3 Senior LSOE 1

84 The breakdown by department and discipline is as follows: Department Awards Amount Anthropology 4 $ 29,757 Cognitive Science 2 27,000 Communication 1 5,450 Economics 1 5,419 Education Studies 0 0 Ethnic Studies 6 37,257 Linguistics 1 13,032 Political Science 13 141,913 Psychology 2 16,287 Sociology 4 26,387 Total Social Sciences 34 $ 302,502 History 11 72,132 Literature 3 18,994 Music 10 67,080 Philosophy 0 0 Theatre & Dance 4 18,835 Visual Arts 7 79,878 Total Humanities and Arts 35 $ 256,919 Cell & Developmental Biology 3 35,500 Ecology, Behavior & Evolution 1 6,411 Molecular Biology 4 60,000 Neurobiology 2 30,000 Total Division of Biological Sciences 10 $ 131,911 Chemistry & Biochemistry 0 0 Mathematics 0 0 Physics 1 15,000 Total Division of Physical Sciences 1 $ 15,000 Bioengineering 0 0 CSE 0 0 ECE 0 0 Nanoengineering 0 15,000 MAE 1 0 Structural Engineering 0 0 Total Engineering 1 $ 15,000 Center for the Humanities 1 22,500 Graduate School of IR/PS 1 2,087 Sixth College 1 6,700 Total Schools/Colleges 3 $ 31,287

Total Individual Research Awards: 84 $752,619

31

Bridge Funding Awards Cell & Developmental Biology 2 50,000 Chemistry & Biochemistry 1 25,000 Physics 1 24,550 Psychology 1 25,000 Total Bridge Funding Awards: 5 $ 124,550

GRAND TOTAL: 89 $877,169 Intercampus Exchange Program (FY 12/13) - Fifteen academic departments received grants totaling $54,906 in support of the University's Intercampus Exchange Program. A formula of $75 per Academic Senate member plus $11 per registered graduate student was used to determine the total amount of this award. Unused funds totaling $46,523 were returned to the Subcommittee for redistribution. Travel to a Scholarly Meeting – Of 228 applications reviewed, 223 were funded totaling $138,386; $15,374 was returned for redistribution; five requests totaling $4,802 were denied. Eighty-nine of the trips funded were for foreign travel and 134 for domestic travel. The breakdown by discipline and department is as follows: Department Awards Amount Anthropology 10 $ 6,415 Cognitive Science 6 4,048 Communication 9 5,898 Economics 7 5,247 Education Studies 6 2,274 Ethnic Studies 11 5,264 Linguistics 5 4,266 Political Science 13 5,252 Psychology 2 602 Sociology 13 6,453 Total Social Sciences 82 $ 45,719 History 14 8,068 Literature 16 7,635 Music 7 4,550 Philosophy 5 3,432 Theatre & Dance 8 5,616 Visual Arts 3 1,603 Total Humanities & Arts 53 $ 30,904 Cell & Developmental Biology 7 4,700 Ecology, Behavior & Evolution 3 1,200 Molecular Biology 9 5,804 Neurobiology 3 2,350 Total Biological Sciences 22 $ 14,054 Chemistry & Biochemistry 14 9,172 Mathematics 4 4,000 Physics 7 5,607 Total Physical Sciences 25 $ 18,779 Bioengineering 3 2,818 CSE 2 1,500 ECE 5 4,500 MAE 11 8,345 Nanoengineering 5 2,822 Structural Engineering 1 1,000 Total Engineering 27 $ 20,985

32

Graduate School of IR/PS 4 1,550 Muir College 1 1,000 Sixth College 1 827 Rady School of Mgmt 8 4,568 Total Schools/Colleges 14 $ 7,945 GRAND TOTAL: 223 $138,386

HEALTH SCIENCES SUBCOMMITTEE

The Health Sciences Subcommittee on Research met on November 27, 2012 and February 13 and May 15, 2013 to review applications for FY 2012/13. The Subcommittee reviewed eleven and funded nine bridge program applications, totaling $224,388. The existing policies regarding awards for bridge funding, individual research proposals and travel to scholarly meetings were thoroughly reviewed by the Subcommittee, and the modifications were incorporated in the application call letters on the Subcommittee’s website at http://senate.ucsd.edu/rgc.htm. The Subcommittee agreed to continue its policy limiting the ceiling for individual grants to $10,000 and bridge funding to $25,000. Priority will continue to be given to junior faculty; and faculty who have received support on three consecutive occasions will be considered only for projects leading them into a different research direction. Research – Of 56 research applications reviewed, 29 were funded, totaling $282,002; twenty-seven requests totaling $263,637 were denied primarily due to budget constraints. The breakdown of the awards by rank is as follows: Level Awards

Assistant Professor 1 Assistant Professor-in-Residence 5 Assistant Prof of Clinical X 1 Assistant Clinical Professor 2 Assistant Research Scientist 1 Assistant Project Scientist 1 Assistant Adjunct Professor 4 Associate Professor 1 Associate Prof-in-Residence 1 Associate Clinical Professor 1 Professor 3 Professor-in-Residence 2 Professor of Clinical X 4 Professor-in-Res Emeritus 1 Adjunct Professor 1 29

The breakdown by department is as follows: Department Awards Amount Anesthesiology 1 $ 10,000 Cellular Molecular Medicine 0 0 Family & Preventive Medicine 1 10,000 Medicine 5 50,000 Neurosciences 1 12,204 Ophthalmology 0 0 Orthopedic Surgery 2 20,000 Pathology 2 20,000 Pediatrics 6 53,080 Pharmacology 0 0 Psychiatry 2 20,000 Radiation Medicine 2 19,800

33


Radiology 1 10,000 Reproductive Medicine 3 27,000 SSPPS 1 10,000 Surgery 2 19,918 Total Individual Research Awards: 29 $ 282,002 Bridge Funding Awards Medicine 2 50,000 Neurosciences 2 50,000 Pediatrics 1 25,000 Psychiatry 2 49,400 SSPPS 1 25,000 Surgery 1 24,988 Total Bridge Funding Awards: 9 $ 224,388 GRAND TOTAL: 36 $ 506,390 Travel to a Scholarly Meeting – Of 103 applications reviewed, 92 were funded totaling $41,103; $7,194 was returned for redistribution, and 11 applications totaling $9,126 were denied. Thirty-five of the trips were for foreign travel and 57 were for domestic travel. The breakdown of the awards by department is as follows: Department Awards Amount Anesthesiology 5 $ 2,500 Cancer Center 1 500 Cellular Molecular Medicine 0 0 Emergency Medicine 2 727 Family & Preventive Medicine 2 800 Medicine 15 7,140 Neurosciences 4 1,800 Ophthalmology 1 500 Orthopedic Surgery 6 2,470 Pathology 7 3,284 Pediatrics 10 4,750 Pharmacology 1 500 Psychiatry 12 5,474 Radiation Medicine 2 1,000 Radiology 13 4,702 Reproductive Medicine 4 1,811 SSPPS 4 1,645 Surgery 3 1,500 Total Travel Awards: 92 $ 41,103

MARINE SCIENCES SUBCOMMITTEE The Marine Sciences Subcommittee on Research met on October 29, 2012 and February 11 and May 16, 2013 to review applications for FY 2012/13. The Subcommittee agreed to continue its policy limiting the ceiling for individual grants from to $10,000 and, in an effort to ensure a reasonable distribution of funds, agreed to maintain the maximum cumulative support figure of $30,000 over a ten-year period. The existing policies regarding awards for research and travel to scholarly meetings were thoroughly reviewed by the Subcommittee. The guidelines for funding were reviewed and the modifications were incorporated in the application call letters on the Subcommittee’s website at http://senate.ucsd.edu/rgc.htm. The Subcommittee would like new requests for support to demonstrate more evidence of results from previous Academic Senate funding, such as a manuscript or the receipt of a larger award stemming from a "seed" money grant. Research – Of 11 research applications reviewed, 8 were funded totaling $56,227. Three requests totaling $20,818 were denied. The breakdown of the awards by rank is as follows:

34


Level Awards Associate Professor 1 Professor 6 Professor Emeritus 1 8

The breakdown by division is as follows: Division Awards Amount CASPO 2 $ 19,225 GRD 5 28,889 IOD 1 8,113 Total Research Awards: 8 $ 56,227

Travel to a Scholarly Meeting – Of 37 applications reviewed, 36 were funded, totaling $40,737; $5,895 was returned for redistribution. The request denied was a second requests within this fiscal year. Twenty-seven awards were for foreign travel and nine were for domestic travel.

Division Awards Amount CASPO 7 $ 8,692 CMBB 2 2,670 GRD 6 5,807 IGPP 8 9,929 IOD 8 6,934 MBRD 4 5,205 MPL 1 1,500 Total Travel Awards: 36 $ 40,737

Respectfully submitted, Division Committee Katja Lindenberg

Jennifer MacKinnon Cornelis Murre Victor Nizet Sheldon Nodelman (F) Babak Rahimi (W/S) Joseph Wang

Sandra Brown, ex officio Shlomo Dubnov, UCORP Representative Frank Wuerthwein, Vice Chair Isaac Martin, Chair

General Campus Subcommittee Andrei Both Catherina Gere Harvey Goldman

Kimberly Prather Deborah Yelon Sheldon Nodelman, Vice Chair (F) Babak Rahimi, Vice Chair (W/S) Katja Lindenberg, Chair

Health Sciences Subcommittee Marianna Cherner Pieter Dorrestein

Peter Ernst Tony Yaksh Victor Nizet, Chair

Marine Sciences Subcommittee Katherine Barbeau Gregory Rouse Jennifer MacKinnon, Chair

35


October 29, 2013

REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

The Graduate Council approved a proposal for a new program of study leading to a Master of Finance at the Rady School of Management. The Master of Finance is intended to be a one‐year full‐time program for working professionals, which will emphasize empirical finance, quantitative methods, financial econometrics, data analysis, and risk management to give students a solid foundation in econometric modeling and empirical finance. Students will complete a total of 52 units: 16 units of core coursework, 32 units of elective coursework, and a four‐unit capstone course. The curriculum is designed to specifically address the growing demand for graduates who are able to understand and implement financial models and to innovate and improve upon current empirical methods using a variety of structured and non‐structured data sets.

The Master of Finance is a professional degree program and the Rady School of Management has proposed a self‐supporting budget model. The Committee on Planning and Budget (CPB) reviewed the proposal and provided its comments to the Graduate Council. The Council determined that the Rady School of Management is well positioned to offer the proposed Master of Finance and the unique emphasis on statistical, computational, and empirical techniques is likely to attract a strong applicant pool.

The Council is supportive of this academic endeavor and recommends that the Representative Assembly approve the proposal.

Joel Norris, Chair, and Kwai Ng, Vice Chair Graduate Council

The complete proposal is available for review in the Academic Senate Office, 215 University Center.

************************************************

Proposal for a new Master of Finance at the Rady School of Management

Executive Summary

The Rady School of Management’s (Rady School) Master of Finance degree offers rigorous, hands‐on training preparing students to work in an environment where quantitative and analytical skills are at a premium. The degree combines courses offering training in econometric and statistical methods with courses emphasizing computational and data analysis skills designed to offer practical, hands‐on experience with financial data.

The year‐long, self‐supporting program emphasizes rigorous training in empirical finance, quantitative methods, financial econometrics, data analysis, and risk management. Students are given a solid foundation in econometric modeling and empirical finance. The School is seeking to satisfy the growing demand for graduates who are able to understand and implement financial models and to innovate and improve upon current empirical methods using a variety of structured and non‐structured data sets.

UC San Diego’s Rady School is in a unique position to offer a Master of Finance that emphasizes quantitative methods, empirical work, and financial econometrics. UC San Diego has a rich tradition in empirical and theoretical econometrics. Some of the most widely‐used empirical models in finance and econometrics were based on research of UC San Diego faculty. Students will be exposed to some of the most innovative work in empirical finance and financial forecasting. The emphasis on rigorous empirical data‐driven methods differentiates the Rady School’s Master of Finance from programs specializing in financial engineering.

36

The core of the program emphasizes knowledge in accounting, portfolio analysis (investments), risk management, as well as training in quantitative methods in areas such as econometrics and forecasting. Optional courses allow students to further specialize in these areas or add more traditional courses in corporate finance such as venture capital, mergers and acquisitions, or behavioral finance.

With an inherent focus on issues faced by innovative‐driven, high‐technology companies, the Rady School is unlike any other business school. With considerable strength in portfolio analysis, risk management, econometric and forecasting methods, corporate finance, behavioral finance, and computational finance, the Rady School’s Master of Finance will give students the essential quantitative skills necessary for them to work in the finance industry skilled at identifying and measuring sources of risk, as well as formulating strategies to address and manage risks once they transpire.

37


October 29, 2013

REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

At its June 10, 2013 meeting, the Graduate Council approved a proposal from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering for the establishment of a new program of study leading to a M.S. or Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering (Medical Devices and Systems). Students in the Medical Devices and Systems (MDS) program must satisfy all degree requirements for an M.S. or Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering and complete required coursework in Medical Devices and Systems. The Council is supportive of this academic endeavor and recommends that the Representative Assembly approve the proposal.

Joel Norris, Chair, and Kwai Ng, Vice Chair Graduate Council

The complete proposal is available for review in the Academic Senate Office, 215 University Center.

************************************************

Proposal for new M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering (Medical Devices and Systems) in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) plans to offer a new research program area in Medical Devices and Systems (MDS) for its graduate students. Students who complete the new program of study will receive an M.S. or Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering (Medical Devices and Systems).

The MDS program is intended for ECE students who are interested in applying their knowledge in electrical and computer engineering to medicine. The goal of the program is to educate graduate students to improve, develop, and invent multidisciplinary electrical engineering tools and techniques for medicine to benefit patients, care givers, and society. As point‐of‐care, genetic, preventive, personalized, and remote medicine become the global trends for 21st century medicine, electrical and computer engineering will play an increasingly important role in developing safe, effective, and inexpensive health care solutions, through collaborations with bioengineering, mechanical engineering, nanoengineering, and medicine. In recognition of this strong and imminent need, ECE plans to develop the MDS program, in coordination with the Center for Medical Device and Instrumentation (CMDI) within the Institute of Engineering in Medicine (IEM).

ECE currently offers specializations in the following core ECE competencies (specialties): Applied Physics, Photonics, Communication Theory and Systems, Electronic Circuits and Systems, Computer Engineering, Intelligent Systems, Robotics and Control, Signal and Image Processing, and Nanoscale Devices and Systems. The degree title for each specialty area is M.S. or Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering (specialization).

Each ECE specialty area, including MDS, has an individual set of competency course requirements, but all programs have the same degree requirements for the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees. To best prepare students for an academic or industrial career in related fields, the MDS program requires students to complete the following coursework: one graduate course in biophysics (4 units); two courses from a group of seven courses related to biomedicine (8 units); two graduate courses in one of the specialty areas of ECE (8 units); one senior/graduate course on subjects related to biology, biochemistry, or medicine (4 units); and 24 units of technical electives. This amounts to a total of 48 units of coursework.

38

university of california san diego division of the...

Documents