What should be included in the Round 2 proposals?
Please follow this template in preparing your submittal. It is possible that a large portion of the preparation of this submittal can be a 'cut and paste,' with modifications, from one or more initial submittals, assuming the specific questions below are addressed. We strongly encourage, where appropriate, consolidation of proposals from “Round One” to form stronger, more comprehensive initiatives.

Please include the following sections:

Executive Summary of Initiative
Definition of Thematic area
Intellectual components of the Initiative
UCM's Role
Faculty Participation
Special Programmatic Needs

Specifically, each section should address the following questions:

Executive Summary (self explanatory)
Succinct definition of Thematic area

Does it fit in onf of the nine (9) defined Themes?

Is this a more sharply defined theme within one of the nine Themes?
Is this an area of research and scholarship that cuts across more than one Theme?

Is it part of a different Theme?
Are there other SAF Initiatives that, in your opinion, might contribute to this Theme?

Intellectual components of the strategic initiative

Why is this area(s) important?
What are the current key areas/achievements in this field, and those going forward?

UCM's role in this Theme

The UCM Campus' unique position in this particular field

Current strengths on campus in this area
Potential research areas of expansion

How will investment in this area make our program distinctive/competitive when compared to programs within UC and other research universities?

What bylaw units/grad groups might participate, and how would they participate?
General description of special programmatic needs (specialized space requirements, special library collections, etc.).

We encourage you to revisit your first proposal in light of any feedback you may have received. You are free to revise and submit this proposal in accordance with the questions above, or to submit a new proposal derived from consolidation and refinement of multiple previous submissions.

Is there a template or format for submitting ideas for Strategic Academic Focusing?
One primary concern about using a detailed, prescriptive template is inadvertently stifling creative and innovative ideas for advancing the university's academic mission. Therefore, we will use the web-based form on this site. The required sections on this form for the submittals are:
- Title of Initiative
- Names of Principal Authors
- Executive Summary (150 word max)
- Initiative Description (1-4 pages max; we recommend pasting in text from a Word document)
- Impact metrics worksheet including enrollment and FTE actuals and estimates
Separate worksheets/narratives may be submitted for undergraduate and graduate programs, such as in the case of programs that are not vertically aligned, or to differentiate faculty FTE available for graduate vs. undergraduate instruction. The faculty FTE listed by year in the worksheet should be the total number, not new request.

Some basic ground rules are:
- Everyone will have to 'register' on the website, using their UCMERCED email as your user name. You can pick your own password.
- For ease of tracking and modification, each initiative will have one principal author, responsible for submitting the initiative and making subsequent modifications.
- All submittals are open and viewable by all.
- All comments and suggestions for improvement are viewable by all.
To encourage an open and transparent process wherein all faculty members can see the progress of this academic focusing exercise, we will be utilizing the 'Open Proposal' process and web site developed for us by UCSF. The web site can be found at:
http://open-proposals.ucsf.edu/ucmerced/saf2020

Don't we already have a Strategic Plan? Why can't we just use that plan to guide our growth trajectory?
We could indeed follow the current (2009) Strategic Plan. How relevant is that plan to current and future program objectives? Does that plan adequately describe the vision for your program? If not, would modest modification of the plan make it more relevant for your program? Does it require major revision? Or, should we, in effect, 'start over'?

The campus has already established a number of strong graduate programs but the distribution of resources (including faculty time) hinders the optimal growth of these programs and may limit the richness of opportunities for our students. Can the campus reprioritize the distribution of its resources to create more optimal programs for our students?
As you define the programmatic needs in your areas you should list all of the resources needed (space, faculty lines for graduate program instruction and research initiatives, staff support) to optimize your current or future graduate program.

Isn't this just a 'blue sky' exercise with little accountability for future progress?
It could be, if rational metrics to assess program progress and quality are not defined and monitored. There is no 'uniform' standard against which every single program can be evaluated. But every individual program can define, for the discipline, appropriate metrics. Each submitting group is asked to identify those metrics as well as reasonable targets for evaluating progress. Since strategic academic focusing is meant to define where we should be in 2020 as well as the trajectory to follow in getting there, it will be possible to track progress of each initiative and make appropriate modifications to the plan if necessary.

WHO CAN SUBMIT

Why is there an emphasis on self-assembled faculty groups?
The campus already has a number of strong programs, but the Working Group does not want to limit the creativity of the faculty by limiting input from only existing groups. Rather we wish to allow the best ideas of all faculty to receive full consideration.

What kinds of self-assembled groups can form, and what types of faculty associations will be recognized?
Faculty are strongly encouraged to assemble any type of group, with any type of association, in which a critical mass of contributors are willing to cooperate for constructing their proposal. This could be an interdisciplinary collection of faculty across all three schools whose focus is on common research goals. It could be an undergraduate program that envisions national recognition. It could be a graduate program that plans to expand rapidly. It could be a group of faculty who see the need for a particular campus resource. We intend for no one to be excluded from submitting a proposal, and individual faculty are permitted to be involved with multiple proposals. Whatever idea or concept around which the Self-Assembled Group is formed, the more competitive proposals will be the ones that compellingly address all of the questions posed by this Strategic Academic Focusing initiative, e.g., research excellence with metrics for comparison, resource issues, undergraduate enrollment, graduate enrollment, etc.

THE EMPHASIS

Why are we talking about recruiting new faculty when we cannot adequately support the faculty we have?
Strategic academic focusing is as much about supporting existing programs and faculty as it is about adding new faculty to expand those programs or begin new programs. To the extent possible, each initiative should carefully articulate resource requirements in all dimensions, including resources needed for the program(s) as they exist today, as well as anticipated future resource needs.

To what extent should we look at what we already have? Will there be tradeoffs between different graduate programs and between graduate and undergraduate programs?
The campus definitely needs to take stock of its existing programs and weigh them in the balance of increasing emphasis in particular areas. To date, there has been little or no enrollment management between programs. Rather, the undergraduates have voted with their feet and the campus has grown its programs accordingly. As we strive to grow the total graduate student population to approximately 1000 students, we will need to strike balances between programs and between graduate and undergraduate enrollment. While doing so we must remember that quality is as important as size. We do not want to simply grow the graduate student population without also ensuring that it is comprised of UC-quality graduate students.

Will this process decide the relative growth rates of respective research groups?
While all groups will continue to grow, the rate of growth will not be equal. This process will identify those programs that will grow at a faster rate based on their potential impact to the broader campus goals of research excellence, distinctiveness and prominence.

DISCIPLINARY vs INTERDISCIPLINARY

How will the Working Group take into account interdisciplinarity in the proposals?
Interdisciplinary research and teaching has been, and continues to be, a defining point of this institution. When resources are limited, it is often the case that interdisciplinary enterprises are the one place where a critical mass of research and teaching excellence can be developed quickly – without necessarily pitting one discipline against another in the competition for resources. Please note that the working group does not have a pre-defined notion of what counts and does not count as interdisciplinary. We will allow faculty to define interdisciplinary.

How do we strike a balance between mission-driven or problem solving oriented work and basic work? Will there be a bias towards inter- / multidisciplinary programs at the expense if disciplinary efforts?
While the concept of interdisciplinary work was embedded into the DNA of UC Merced at its inception, strong interdisciplinary efforts can only exist with the support of strong, fundamental disciplinary programs. Problem solving or mission-driven work is not successful without basic academic efforts. Furthermore, academic excellence for the sake of creating new knowledge has always been a hallmark of UC and it will remain a hallmark of UC Merced. The campus values excellence in academic programs, regardless of their nature. We will look at how all programs contribute to the growth and excellence of the campus.

METRICS

Do we need to provide data related to the number of graduate students, the number of grants, or other signs of productivity that will be associated with our program?
If graduate education is an important aspect of your program please indicate the size of this activity.

Faculty should indicate what the signs of success are in their areas of study. If this is typically indicated by the number and quality of graduate students, the size of the extramural grants program or the extent of research expenditures, then it would be helpful to estimate these numbers. However if other metrics of success and excellence are used in your field please indicate these and provide some estimate of their magnitude and quality.

WHO EVALUATES

Who will receive the results of this effort besides the Working Group?
The purpose of this exercise is two-fold. First, it is to provide some guidance to the 2020 Capital construction project so that the next set of buildings fully meet the space and facilities needs of the campus's academic programs. Second, this exercise will help to focus some of the campus's investments with the goal of shortening the time required for the development of some signature programs that will bring external recognition to UC Merced. This in turn should increase the ability of the campus to attract external dollars for continued investment and increase our ability to continue to attract and recruit outstanding students and faculty.

WHAT IS EVALUATED

What criteria will be considered in evaluating faculty white papers? What will be the role of the Working Group and other campus groups or individuals (the Senate, the Deans, the Chancellor) in the decision making process?
The criteria for excellence varies with discipline and research area. For example, traditional metrics of success in the physical sciences are quite different than those commonly adopted by the humanities. We ask faculty groups to list their own indicators of success and excellence as is appropriate for their fields. In doing so faculty may want to consider the metrics that lead to highly ranked academic programs in their disciplines.

This will be an open and transparent process. All white papers will be available on a website for evaluation and comment by the entire campus community. In this first round the Working Group will look at these white papers to provide information to the 2020 capital construction process. Namely, it will try to provide potential developers with a sense of what facilities will be needed to support existing and future academic programs. Going forward, the Working Group will look at the feasibility of the proposed growth plans for each academic area with an effort to assess the potential for academic excellence.

In the second round of this process, it is expected that a group of external reviewers will be assembled to assist the campus in its deliberations. Ultimately the final decisions will be made by the Chancellor after considering the input of the external reviewers, the Working Group and the broader campus community.

What factors will be used to evaluate and prioritize the Strategic Academic Focusing Initiatives?
Once again, there is no 'uniform' standard against which every single program can be evaluated. Every individual program can define, for the discipline, appropriate metrics. But metrics for academic success are not that different from discipline to discipline. At the core of every metric must be the role any program plays in the education of students, whether that education takes place in the classroom, in the research environment or anywhere else. We are a research university, not a research institute or an undergraduate college. Those programs contributing most significantly to the mission of a research university will be given highest priority.

I don't think you have adequately considered all the important factors in this process. What can I do about that?
Like the initiatives, the Strategic Academic Focusing process itself is an iterative process. We have the opportunity, through a totally transparent initiative development, to collaboratively build a plan that may actually WORK because both the initiatives and the process will be owned by the faculty. If important questions have been poorly articulated or not articulated at all, they can be added to the process and used to further refine each initiative.

MISCELLANEOUS

What are the buildings that we expect in the near-term?
There are three academic buildings either in construction or about to start. These are the Student Services Building, Science and Engineering II and Classroom and Office Building II (to start this winter). There are no other buildings in line for construction. The purpose of this initial strategic focusing effort is to develop a strategic academic plan that will inform the 2020 capital construction project on the space and facilities needs of the current and future academic programs between now and 2020.

Will campus be expanding across the canal?
Expanding the campus beyond the canal will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, probably better spent in the interim on expanding the intellectual capital of UC Merced toward fulfilling the 2020 Project on the campus footprint that we currently have. The anticipated population on campus for the 2020 Project is specifically aimed at living within the means of our current infrastructure and power usage.

Commenting is closed.