About UCSC Academic Programs Research News & Events Administration Prospective Students & Admissions Full Search A-Z Index Find People FAQ
UC Santa Cruz Skip UC Seal
Subject Links  
Utility Links

Administrative Messages

December 19, 2003

To: LRDP Committee, Campus Community

From: Gary Griggs, Chair, Strategic Futures Committee

Re: Strategic Futures Committee

Dear Colleagues:

Two committees have been appointed as part of the process to update the campus' long range development plan. The Strategic Futures Committee (SFC), charged with considering possible enrollment and academic program development trajectories for UCSC over the next fifteen years, has organized itself into four subcommittees:

  • The first group is drafting a vision statement that will identify goals and principles to guide the campus' future academic and research development;

  • The second is giving consideration to the implications of California's population demographics and the University's mandate to provide an education to all qualified high school graduates, to California's needs in graduate and professional education, and to the importance of graduate and professional education to the campus' intellectual vitality;

  • The third is reviewing the campus' academic program aspirations and the facility/space requirements that would enable campus departments/academic divisions to achieve their goals; and

  • The fourth is considering the land use planning implications of new academic and research opportunities.

As noted in my November 14th letter to the campus community, these subcommittees have been talking with department chairs and deans and consulting as widely as possible. In March 2004, the Strategic Futures Committee plans to issue a draft report for comment as part of its effort to solicit broad campus and community input. Among the topics planned for this report are academic and research principles that should guide future growth and development, and a characterization of strategic program directions and opportunities that might affect the campus' need for buildings and infrastructure.

In the meanwhile, however, the planning consultants who are working closely with our colleagues on the LRDP Committee have asked that SFC suggest a number of enrollment "scenarios" on which they can base initial land use studies and impact analyses. It is important to recognize that the four "scenarios" identified below are not intended as a recommendation by members of the SFC nor as enrollment alternatives that have been either considered or endorsed by the campus administration or the Academic Senate. These "scenarios" will simply be used by our external academic planning consultants, Cooper, Robertson & Partners, to help understand land development issues and impacts. By considering a wide range of scenarios, these two committees and the campus will be in a position to understand more fully the implications of alternative futures.

Accordingly, an analysis of the implications of four scenarios for on-campus, fall/winter/spring three-quarter average, full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollments is suggested:

  • "No Growth" scenario" (15,000 FTE). In this scenario, the campus would limit enrollment growth to that articulated in the 1988 LRDP. Given the campus' commitment both to a quality undergraduate experience and to the growth of graduate enrollments (to fifteen percent of overall enrollments), under this scenario the campus would need to reduce the number of undergraduates it currently enrolls.

  • "Base" scenario (17,000 FTE). This "base" scenario maintains undergraduate enrollment at the levels projected for 2005 while growing graduate enrollments to fifteen percent overall. I.e., this "base" scenario maintains the campus' commitment to provide access to a quality undergraduate education at current levels but does not address projected future demand.

  • "Moderate growth" scenario (21,000 FTE). This scenario is simply the mid-point between the "base" scenario and the one described below. It allows for growth in graduate programs to fifteen percent of total enrollment, and undergraduate enrollment increases by 26% over the "base scenario."

  • "Respond to State demographic demand and campus program aspirations" scenario (25,000 FTE). In this scenario, the campus would offer admission to its share of the anticipated demand by qualified California high school graduates for a UC undergraduate education; graduate and professional enrollments would grow to fifteen percent; and existing (as well as a suitable number of new academic and professional) programs would be provided with the resources to expand--thereby developing greater depth and breadth in the campus' academic offerings.

As members of the four SFC subcommittees continue to consult with the campus community and undertake their analyses, we will refine the basic data used to construct these initial scenarios, as well as assess the potential and space/infrastructure requirements for achieving the campus' mission through off-campus and alternative programs. In addition, the analysis of these four scenarios by and feedback from the LRDP Committee and our external academic planning consultants will be incorporated into the SFC initial recommendations in March 2004.

Please feel free to contact or provide input to any member of the Strategic Futures Committee. We will be meeting regularly in the months ahead, interacting with the LRDP Committee, and consulting as widely as possible to prepare a reasoned plan for our future.

Sincerely,
Gary Griggs (9-2464)

Web resources:

 

Back to Administrative Messages Index



Maintained by:pioweb@ucsc.edu