Members Present: Genaro Padilla (Co-Chair), Dean Porter (Co-Chair), Alice Agogino, Robert Brentano, Barbara Davis, Catherine Koshland, Christina Maslach, Ellen Meltzer, Kwong-Loi Shun, Mark Tanouye.

Staff Present: Gail Kaufman, Cynthia Schrager, Alix Schwartz

Unable to Attend: Michael Mascuch, Angelica Stacy, Ling-Chi Wang

At this meeting the members engaged in a brainstorming session to flesh out some issues and problems to be addressed by each sub-committee—in essence, they wrote their own sub-committee charges. In lieu of minutes, we record here the results of their work, in the form of a list of questions and issues to be used as a starting point for each sub-committee. Note that many of the topics are relevant to more than one sub-committee; both or all three groups will consider these issues from their particular angles.

ADVISING SUB-COMMITTEE

Members: Padilla (Chair), Shun, Kaufman (staff). Mascuch may also join this group.

Issues and Questions:

How can we better advise students on breadth?
How can we provide more and better advice to students before they arrive on campus?
Is CalSo adequate? What if a student misses CalSo?
What additional interventions or encouragement need to be created (for instance, to induce students to declare the major in a timely fashion)?
How can we strengthen the liaison between colleges and departmental faculty?
What other models besides one-on-one advising might we explore?
How can undeclared Letters and Science students gain access to academic advising?
How can we capitalize on the fact that students pay more attention to their peers than to faculty?
This group will focus on both staff and faculty advising.


INTEGRATIVE INTELLECTUAL EXPERIENCES SUB-COMMITTEE

Members: Porter (Chair), Agogino, Brentano, Meltzer, Stacy, Wang, Schwartz (staff).

Issues and Questions:

How can we make curricular options and interconnections more coherent?
How might we re-configure breadth? Does it necessarily belong exclusively at the lower-division level?
How do we ensure meaningful intellectual contact with faculty?
What incentives are there for double majors to integrate their major coursework intellectually? What can we find out about double majors, and are there any recommendations we might make about them?
How might we create or encourage group experiences within a major?
How can we best develop our students’ effectiveness as writers, speakers, and users of multi-media?
What should not be done by a computer, when it comes to teaching?
How might we address the problem of weeder courses?
How might we promote the creation of rigorous courses for non-majors, especially in the sciences?
What does—and should—each year (freshman, sophomore, junior and senior) look like from an academic standpoint?
Have patterns of student course taking changed?
This sub-committee will address issues related both to teaching and to learning.
How can we ensure that students have access to networked computers even after they leave the residence halls?


EDUCATIONAL / ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Members: Koshland (Chair), Davis, Mascuch (tentative), Maslach, Tanouye, Schrager (staff).

Issues and Questions:

How do we build stronger linkages between extra-curricular programs and the academic curricula?
How can we work with the Development Office to expand enrichment opportunities?
How can we build on existing premium programs to benefit more students?
What existing programs work well? What are their features? How can we use our knowledge about proven successes to influence our plans for new programs?
How can we give more students the opportunity to participate in small, integrated group experiences, i.e. small intellectual communities?
How can we maximize the amount of face-to-face time undergraduates enjoy with faculty?
What opportunities do we owe our undergraduates? Which opportunities should we ensure for them in each year of their undergraduate careers?
How can we organize and promote these opportunities?
What is the big picture of the four years (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior), in terms of enrichment opportunities?

Future meetings:

Vice Chancellor Padilla announced a new meeting structure, with three different kinds of meetings: 1) strategy meetings attended by the Chairs of all three sub-committees; 2) sub-committee meetings, to be scheduled by sub-committee members with the aid of their staff; and 3) plenary meetings. Scheduling the plenary meetings so that every CUE member can attend every meeting has proven impossible, so we ask instead that everyone attend every plenary meeting that fits into his or her schedule, and we will schedule these meetings so at least one representative from each sub-committee will be in attendance.