Hello Anteaters! The ASUCI Academic Senate under the Office of Academic Affairs would like to publish its biquarterly notes for the Fall quarter in regards to information discussed in UCI Academic Senate meetings. The notes comprise of the following councils here at UCI :


Council on Educational Policy

Council on Faculty Welfare, Diversity, and Academic Freedom

Council on Research, Computing, and Libraries

Council of Teaching, Learning, and Student Experience

Board of Undergraduate Scholarships, Honors & Financial Aid

Assessment Committee

Subcommittee on Courses & Continuing, Part-Time, & Summer Session Education


If there are any questions about the information or you’d like more information, please reach out the ASUCI Academic Senate at academicsenators@asuci.uci.edu



Council on Educational Policy

October 5, 2017


  • CEP’s Purpose:
  • Direct policy influence (educational)
  • Considers academic policy and advises on matters pertaining to undergraduate and graduate education.
  • Review Annual Report (if accessible)


  • Dr. Ramarajan’s Summary – Discussion
  • Audit of President’s office
  • Want to cut UCDC
  • Articulation requirements (assist.org)
    • Make transfers more smooth
    • People who want to transfer should be able to easily be able to see which courses to take which can transfer to all the UC’s
    • The goal is to basically ensure that if one campus accepts a course, all schools should be able to accept it
    • Difference in terms of student preparedness leaves transfers at risk.
    • The problem is that professor’s have control over courses and they should be the final authority in terms of requirements.
    • Furthermore, the CSU’s and community colleges may not teach the students everything they need to be prepared for the courses offered at certain campuses
    • Students were not quite prepared in the classes they were taking there
    • Community colleges also do not offer enough information on the courses to give us a clear enough picture on what requirements it can satisfy


  • CEP Review of the External Review Report for the 16-17 UCI Summer Session Review and Response to the Report
  • History: Review of summer session; Summer Session responds to review; CEP’s overall response.
  • Quality of instruction is a concern.  There is no proper definition of “quality instruction”
  • Student’s concern: price is too high.
    • Prices are still actually the same as normal quarter. However some years have the 8 unit cap and some years don’t
    • Have to pay for taking exams in online exams due to proctoring services
  • Communication is something that needs to be strengthened. Between students, the classes, summer session, etc.
  • Students do struggle to get financial aid. That packages they get are not directly related to the courses they take. System is not meant for the number of people involved.
  • The general perception initially was that Summer Session was doing everything perfectly and that communication was the problem. However, it is more that there a lot of problems that do need to be addressed that were not clear at first glance.
  • There is also the issue that other students may not fulfill certain prerequisites and thus may not be prepared to succeed in the class
    • Summer Session states that it is the problem of the individual schools and that Summer session doesn’t have to fulfill it. The problem with that is that the individual schools do not have the information or resources to properly enforce prerequisites
    • Courses typically need about 13 people in order to break even, and the course is dropped if it doesn’t have that many people.
  • With a different legislative system, there are discrepancies in terms of student preparation.
    • There is no prerequisite checking system.
    • IF we are putting the job of seeing if students are meeting requirements is onto the Department, then there needs to be a system that checks it.
  • DECISION: CEP Response: Information of how summer session is needed, initial response is not sufficient to address the concerns of reviewers. New system may help alleviate the stress of this issue, however, there should be much more communication between summer session & individual departments until that happens.
  • Waitlist system will be edited with the new implementation of the updated school system. This system is in the works and new information will be given at a later date.


  • CEP Upcoming Review of UCI degree credit undergraduate online courses
  • If online courses were reviewed, in terms of delivery, (proposed all-online degree) which parts of the course do we want to examine? (quality education? What does that mean? How will we incorporate that into an online course as opposed to traditional methods?)


  • The UC Academic Council has requested a review of the Proposed revisions to Senate Regulation 424.A.3 (additional science course)
  • Definition of science = broad; students will be required to take 3 sciences within this broad definition.
  • Certain schools, especially minority-serving institutions, may not be able to offer these courses.
    • Must have “hands-on” laboratory.
  • Ordinary science courses can now have online labs
  • 95% of people already come in with at least 3 science courses. However, 60% of those that don’t are from poor areas and are underrepresented minorities.
    • Should look at data on how these people perform in college and use that data to inform and influence our decision
  • Concerns:
    • Lack of sufficient funding for these extra classes.
    • Could be restrictive for the students who attend underserved high schools.


Council on Faculty Welfare, Diversity, and Academic Freedom

October 10, 2017


  • Task was to look over the past 3 years and find out whether there was evidence of pos or neg effects of NSTP; salary compensation based on the money from external sources
  • Increased recruitment of faculty
  • Task force recommendation:
    • Based on very little evidence of negative consequences; large amount of Senate faculty were concerned with how it would affect campus and their perceptions
  • Ended with more positive reviews.
  • No data in decrease in research group or graduate students
  • If we did not have program then it would be hard to keep the faculty that are already in it
  • Allows people to bring money from external sources, only allowed to individuals not in the health sciences program
  • UCI will become third pilot campus for this program
  • Problems with analysis
  • Half believe it should be implemented right now, others need more data; claims are not warranted by the data


  • Accessibility of Buildings Discussion
  • Some older buildings may not be in compliance, a lot of staff who suffer from immobility.
  • Health facilities are all compelled by externally regulating forces
  • Compliance changes every 3 years. Patient care areas have to be in compliance
  • There is a prioritization of how things need to be held; no certain threshold
  • The requirements may not be sufficient enough to assuage the grievances of people who are suffering from immobility
  • 10 year capital plan


  • Topics council wants to cover:
  • Mental health initiative dedicated to teachers
  • Has asked vice provost to come back and get feedback on faculty who do not follow established rules
    • Pushing for faculty representation and sanctions for misbehavior
  • UCIPD – University Hills community relations
    • How can we improve relationship between the police force and the UCI community?
    • Racial profiling
    • Taking fire-arms out when responding to call
    • Stopping people maybe not in an entirely mutual way
    • Perception of police force has to change
    • Change needs to happen to complaint process
    • There will be a systemwide task force


Council on Research, Computing, and Libraries

October 19, 2017



  • Reports


  • Policy concern on cannabis research
    • UC institution wants to research cannabis and they have come up with some guidelines.
    • All cannabis used for research have to come from a specific location in Michigan.
    • We have a world renowned cannabis researcher in campus and wants him to review whether we should partake in the research.
  • Pursuit of state funded research
  • Computer Electronic Security
    • Apparently last year, board member Tom Andriola presented UCORP about IT dangers and risks that we run. Apparently, there was a malware that threatened people with their research. Recommend that people backup their data.
    • Working to improve safety for research.
    • Student Information System Research Center
  • Move to Canvas
    • Canvas is a whole new system and we’re trying attract vendors. Will remove EEE.



  • Library Reports


  • Open Access Week (Monday, October 23, 2017)
  • Proposal for new library system and a discovery service
  • new data center.
    • Does citation analysis.



  • Hthaitrust Shared Print Monographs Program


  • “Steward print copies of all HathiTrust digital holdings.
  • About 16k of these are UC irvine holdings that were digitized through the Google Books Project.
  • Important step in ensuring the persistence of the scholarly record.
  • UCI libraries will not deaccession based on materials being held under the auspices of Program as currently structured.



  • Task Force Report on Negotiated Salary Trial Program


  • Issue: The NSTP was initiated on three campuses including UCI in 2013 for a five year trial. A full review took place on the fourth year.
    • Program allows faculty to use external funds to supplement their salary.
    • Modeled after Health Sciences Compensation plan.
    • Goal is to increase faculty recruitment.
    • Max= 30% of base salary.
    • Participating faculty have to still meet obligations.
    • Initial Concern would lead salary inequity.
      • Could lead to fail to competitive pay
      • Using external funds to salary to increase salary.   
    • Base Salary- $240,000. Use more funds to increase their salary.
    • “Recruitment and Retention”
    • Competitive pay



  • Sunset Review of UCI Mind


  • All members voted to extend the UCI Mind.



  • Maria Pantella Review


  • Discuss creative ways for faculty to conduct research.
  • Over enrollment
    • There was an audit and will hear soon.
  • Massive donation
    • Received a large sum of donation. Senate was supposed to be consulted but wasn’t told. What will they do with the money?
    • They are asking for some guidelines. F.e. School name, courses, requirements.
    • Anteater Leader Academy



  • CORCL Faculty Research Funding Model


  • Unanimously adopted by CORCL and the Senate. Basic Research funding.



  • CORCL Budget Allocation


  • Looking over allowed budget and planning to make sure each department gets a fair share of the amount.


Council of Teaching, Learning, and Student Experience

October 2, 2017


  • Office of the Ombudsman
  • Environment to discuss complaints, concerns, or problems confidentially. The office assists in resolving issues informally, helps raise questions and issues, and is confidential, impartial, and independent.
  • Chair – Michael Chennault
  • Does the current language in the policy effectively guide faculty in defining what is considered “non-academic criteria”?
  • Can it be legitimately used in part or whole to determine a student’s grade, especially if it is not directly reflective of class performance?
  • Summer quarter 2017 grading issue
    • Undergraduate student was interested in filing a formal academic grievance with the Senate over what the student considered unfair grading practices.
    • During grievance process, issues were revealed such as the process, language, and clarity of the Student Academic Grievance Policy (Appendix II).
  • Suggestions:
    • Stronger criteria on how grades are defined in regards to research performance along with clearer appeals process.
    • Policy should include mediation and/or intermediary information prior to a formal grievance.
  • Students can access OEOD (UCI Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity) in regards to discrimination issues and non-academic criteria.
  • “non-academic criteria” is still not clearly defined.
  • Council will return to this issue later on


  • Center for Engaged Instruction Discussion
  • Andrea Aebersold and Daniel Mann are now the Co-Program Directors (with Daniel focusing on instructional development for the graduate students and postdoctoral scholars and Andrea focusing on instructional development for the faculty)
  • Center for Engaged Instruction had its name changed to the Division of Teaching Excellence and Innovation
  • Working to improve undergraduate faculty STEM teaching, and working to make the Celebration of Teaching into a weeklong event.


Board of Undergraduate Scholarships, Honors & Financial Aid

October 25, 2017


  • Scholarship Opportunities Program Presentation by Courtney Santos
  • Goldwater: Faculty needed from science majors for deciding UCI nominations–coming up in finals week of fall quarter
  • Truman: Week 1 or 2 of winter — open to all majors
  • Carnegie: Feb–need and merit based
  • Fulbright– graduate level study for fields not well supported in US, Language based
  • Schwarzman–summer (interview in May, had an int’l student finalist)
  • Europe based scholarships: early spring quarter
  • How much is the workload for interviewing? Around 1 hour/student and a little bit of review of resume


  • Latin Honors:
  • Voted to change the percent of those graduating with Latin Honors from 12% to 16%  to be more in line with other UC campuses
  • ICS – too high (the standard for 2016-2017 was still 12% and ICS had 17%)
  • Pharmaceutical Sciences was too low
  • BUSHFA responds to issues such as these by sending departments letters informing them about the rates and the requirement and need to comply with the requirement
  • ICS: same issue in 2015-2016, didn’t respond positively.
  • What action should be taken against ICS since it’s the second time happening? Proposed solution: Get the Dean of Student Affairs to talk, not to approve their percentages if they repeat…. The letter for ICS should be more forceful
  • Should students complain about low compliance or high compliance?
  • 4 options for process to pick latin honors students
  • 4th option: use option 1(cut-offs) and some extra criteria—-increase cut offs
  • Get the schools out of whack into line (like get the directors of all schools to meet)
  • Maybe take a survey of students on this—ASUCI work?


  • Council Issues Review:
  • Honors, SOP Selection process review, UCI Medal
  • Financial Aid wants to meet in April and not May to review Scholarships
  • Add a person to BUSHFA


  • Financial Aid
  • New system : Banner
  • Main change: Regents award, get a big list then divide up major wise and look at historical data (%’s) to award regents. This is the current system.
  • Want to change selection criteria for regents for 2019-2020, it’ll be based on the same current minimum requirements and test scores but be more aligned with the admissions agenda (like targeted more towards some school that’s underperforming)
  • Ex: School A isn’t super strong at UCI, Admissions wants to be competitive in attracting students to School A, but Financial Aid just uses data from last year rather than the admission goals
  • Question Raised: Is there resources that are being taken from other strong schools? No the strong schools will anyways get in, so its just an additional step to make schools more competitive
  • Question Raised: Is there any consideration to increase the Regent’s scholarship to attract more students? It was high (8,000), then due to underperformance it was cut to 2,500
  • Vote on : how students are selected? Is it ok if financial aid to talk to admissions
  • DECISION: Vote taken: passed, financial aid will coordinate with admissions
  • Academic works: new software, more streamlined than the current app, in 20-21 it’ll be open for first access to this system. Year 1 will have freshman, transfers , year 2 it’ll open to continuing students


  • Status Reports:
  • Financial Aid: 2 year funding for non DACA students. In 16-17 it was just awarded as a scholarships, in 17-18 they want to allow students to work with profs, as profs want to give stipends, tips. So they want this to be a scholarship and an academic enrichment program with programs to like help with resume writing etc. But 17-18 is the last year of funding, so they really want to encompass faculty and admin to create this scholarship+enriching program for non DACA kids.
  • Financial Aid Scholarships: Starting work on 2018-2019 cycle, getting prepped up, verifying all the info on the website, January opening of scholarship and March 20th
  • CHP: New changes: New track called “Sustainable Sciences” — It explores the question of why societies succeed or fail, there’s a pilot group of 30 kids taking it right now. CHP is growing, 850 students vs 750 students of past years. More first gen students than previous year. Question Raised: What’s being done to encourage current students to get involved and increase diversity?
  • Plan to create an honors college… The plan is to work with existing faculty and enrich the program. How big is it going to be? Don’t know
  • SOP: 467 students attended all the workshops last year, 8.6% more students are interested. Goldwater was good last year, NSF scholarships is something provosts want to promote.


Assessment Committee

October 12, 2017

  • Chair’s Report
  • Subcommittee of CEP
  • Went over purpose of CAC
  • Next WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges) visit in either 2020, or 2021
  • One of the biggest challenges is trying to get responses for the things that we ask departments to do


  • Last year’s report
  • Every year, departments submit assessment reports responding to different questions asked by CAC. Vanette reviews the report.
    • We should review this report and see if the questions asked are appropriate


  • GE Assessment
  • Last year, 2 separate assessments by CEP and CAC
  • Trying to evaluate if students learn anything from our courses.
  • Need to prove that students are learning with numbers
    • Only a small fraction of faculty respond
    • If there is no response for the assessment report, then the GE course will be cancelled.
      • Reports are sent directly to the professors right now


  • GE 7
  • Learning outcomes have changed a lot in the past few years, and is much more about facing oppression than before.
  • All the GE classes were asked to send in reports to show that they fulfilled the new learning outcomes
  • Political push by African-American organization
  • As long as it talk about oppression should be okay
  • If it doesn’t fit requirements, it won’t be a GE
    • A lot of courses would lose GE status under these new rules


  • GE
  • From next quarter ask every GE to send assessment reports. WE pick random samples to see if they fulfill requirements
  • Hopefully have a point person for GE classes
  • It will be up to the people in the committee to work with the chair to select a point person
  • Worthwhile to have a periodic quarterly review of majors since GE’s aren’t properly evaluated most of the time.


Subcommittee on Courses & Continuing, Part-Time, & Summer Session Education

October 10, 2017


  • Program Modifications
  • Psych and Social Behavior Course: a specialized writing course that was renumbered to be another course. (APPROVED)
  • Crim Law Courses : adding courses to an existing list creating more elective choices (APPROVED)
  • Public Health appeal to take away math courses: Came before committee last year — justification for B.A. degree in Public Health policy: make a number of changes including a reduction in math requirement, no calculus, more math type classes for public health, used links to show other colleges w no calc or statistics involved, but they have 1 statistics  class  —— argued that they’re replacing math with nothing related to math, for example, scientific facts courses
    More math should be necessary, which philosophy course should even fulfill a quantitative requirement? Asked for clarification and find better peer institutions for examples, more institutions of higher merit
  • Add electives to minoring civic and community engagements, wanting to give more options for students. No acknowledgement of civic engagement as an academic field.
  • Big Approval for Consent Calendar Courses, around 50-60 classes approved without PHMS 178
    Not approved (PHMS 178) proposal of new course because it’s an old course number
  • ART, 115W: Writing Nearby
    They need to change date for final & more time in the course because it is a three hour seminar : RETURN. Argument on time of class and equivalence and unit credit ; asking on justification for four hours
  • CLS: C119: Violence on Intimate Relationships
    Asking for certificate, which SCOC does not do. Have no other form of review, unlike a degree program. RETURN
  • EDUC 25: Intro to Education . APPROVED
  • EDUC 127A&B . Elective for education major and minor. Paper due during finals week. Still meets all requirements. APPROVED
  • ESS 40A: Earth Science Chem
    Applied for both GE2 and GE5 —— send it back to clarify the amount of lab time. RETURN
  • PLSC 147D
    3 hours of seminar and four units= unequal timing. Discussion based upon the fact that there’s no discussion or etc. RETURN.
  • PUBH 30: Intro to Urban Environmental Health. Revamped to meet APHA demands

Revised by Angeline Phan, 11/12/2017