• Print

May 10 2005

University of the Pacific
Minutes, May 10, 2005
Taylor Conference Room
 

Call to Order: 3:13

Present: Brodnick, Chi, Fries, Gilbertson, Hoverstad, King, Perro, Sexton, Sina

Not Present: Byl, Cavanaugh, Dugoni, Ensign, Jacobson, Lackey, Miller, Richmond

Minutes: Minutes of the April 26 meeting were reviewed, and approved.

Standing Reports:

Current Agenda Items:

Gilbertson opened the meeting by summarizing the President's presentation of priorities for the 18 month MVP planning process. The following are the President's key points:

  1. Develop a University-wide, collaborative process that identifies and communicates the outcome of the retreat framed by a single model that combines balance and distinction among Pacific’s programs
  2. Affirm Pacific’s mission statement through the expansion of interdisciplinary programs, attention to student leadership/citizenship development, and a continued commitment to international education
  3. Strengthen plans to advance diversity at the University
  4. Develop a financial plan that generates adequate resources to make needed investments, increasing tuition on par with private comparables without increasing the tuition discount
  5. Review the undergraduate admission process to assure that selection is informed by attributes in addition to SAT/GPA scores

Defining Program Distinctiveness

Sina led a discussion of the meaning of distinctiveness and compared institutional quality versus uncommonness. The group then added additional commentary on the definition of distinctiveness in response to the three questions:

  1. Pacific aspires to be different from other universities, not for the sake of difference, but in order to…?
  2. List key characteristics of academic distinctiveness.
  3. In what ways are academic programs distinctive?

Review of Program Review Process

Brodnick discussed the Program Review Process and commented on quality program review in higher education. Pacific's goal is to move programs toward higher quality and more uniqueness. Three alternatives to the current process were presented for discussion: no change, completely replace, add a secondary review process. The group completed an exercise mapping their opinions for the future of program review and discussed the outcome.

Next meeting: May 24, 2005, 3-4pm

Meeting adjourned at 4:06