Summer Session Working Group Report (Revised)

Summer Session Working Group Report (Revised)

The following material arises from the University of Oregon's productivity planning process and is made available here in the hope of engaging the whole university community in that process. This material contains the conclusions of one of the nine productivity working groups; it does NOT represent official university policy.

We solicit your responses and suggestions. Please direct them to the chair of the working group or to Charles Wright, Department of Mathematics.

SUMMER SESSION PRODUCTIVITY GROUP Members: Ralph Barnhard, Chemistry Thomas Bivins, Journalism Richard Kraus, Political Science Gary Martin, Music James Mohr, History Ilsa Schwarz, CDS Ron Trebon, Continuation Center Michael Utsey, Architecture J. Wade, Academic Advising Carl Hosticka, PPPM, Chair

DRAFT REPORT

The Summer Session Productivity Group met twice (October 29 and November 9, 1993) to brainstorm ways that summer session could contribute to the University's efforts to increase productivity. At the first meeting we discussed changes in summer session offerings. At the second meeting, we discussed incentives for students, faculty, and departments to maximize the chances that changes will be implemented.

The discussion was based on Provost Wessell's "Charge to the Summer Session Productivity Group" and addressed specific suggestions contained in that charge.

The productivity goals addressed by the summer session group included:

o decreasing time to degree; i.e. making it possible for students to complete degrees in a shorter time. This can be accomplished by utilizing the summer to get a "head start" on university work and/or to complete needed course work in the summer.
o more efficient utilization of University resources. The physical plant is a limited resource but may be underutilized during the summer. Putting these underutilized facilities into service can make the entire university more productive.

Consumers for summer session were identified as follows:

o regular U.O. students who might want to take advantage of summer to complete degrees more quickly,
o pre-U.O. or pre-OSSHE students who would use summer to get a headstart on their educational program,
o non U.O. students who take courses for transfer to other institutions or to fulfill a professional or personal interest.

The group did not agree that we should require U of O undergrads to take a specific number of credits in the summer nor should we recommend that faculty be required to teach in the summer. We felt it was important to find specific ways to design incentives for both student and faculty participation in summer session activities.

The idea of faculty teaching during the summer in exchange for time off in another quarter deserves more analysis than our group was able to give. It is not clear that there would be an increase in productivity if departments had to hire other people to teach during the regular year or forgo offering courses at that time.

The group made two specific proposals:

(1) offer more general education courses during the summer especially those that represent "barriers" to graduation either because they are oversubscribed and routinely closed during the regular year or because substantial numbers of students are unable to pass them.

(2) create "summer academy" programs to offer courses that will bring high school students up to our admissions standards or give them a head start on college requirements. This concept could include graduate programs so that students could complete all the prerequisites for a graduate program before they formally enrolled during the regular year.

There was some interest in the notion of packaging programs for students from other institutions in a condensed format. In addition, it was suggested that departments might offer more instruction in alternative formats during the year, moving away from all instruction consisting of 10 week, three-hour-per-week courses.

The group suggested that departments explore ways to facilitate students' completion of terminal projects and theses during the summer where these are a significant barrier to graduation.

Finally, we considered the issue of incentives to faculty and departments for increased summer activity.

INCENTIVES FOR STUDENTS:

We discussed the possibility of offering a price break for students during the summer as an incentive.

The group recommends:

o "plateau pricing" for summer session in which students who pay for twelve credits can take up to eighteen without additional costs.
o the non-resident fee differential be included during the summer but be less than for the academic year.
o summer students could receive some sort of pre-registration breaks during the regular year. For example, if they are willing to take a "barrier" course during the summer, they can be guaranteed first shot at some of the desirable advanced courses during the regular year.

Additional incentives include condensed time schedules, leaving more time for other pursuits during the summer, and non- standard credit formats for those who do not require the standard three/four credit courses.

INCENTIVES FOR FACULTY: The group clearly felt that faculty need more incentives to teach during the summer. In addition to financial incentives, the University could count summer teaching in calculations of eligibility for sabbaticals and promotion. Some faculty may find the condensed time schedules an attractive feature of summer teaching.

In general, we agreed that incentives should be worked out at a departmental level. Departments could receive a budget based on target credit hour production with profit sharing for credit hours generated above the target. Department heads would develop incentives for members of their individual departments. For example, departments could offer high enrollment courses and use some of the proceeds to compensate faculty for working on terminal projects or other activities that may not generate large monetary returns but have significant impact in meeting the goals of more students completing degrees in less time.

The group concluded that it is possible for summer to generate more revenue, while charging students less and paying faculty more. This will happen only if we increase the number of students participating in the summer. Eventually, the University could move to a year-round schedule in which flexible formats are offered in each term, more regular courses are offered in the summer and the student population is relatively constant through four quarters. The group felt that we can make moves in that direction by incremental activities initiated at the departmental level and supported by the central administration.

Several issues arose that need further investigation:

o Is it possible for students to get credit towards high school graduation (or the CIM and CAM) and for college graduation from the same course?
o Do we have to offer faculty more pay as an incentive to teach in the summer and change expectations for non-teaching activities such as advising and departmental committee work?
o How do we handle competition that faculty may feel between using summer for research rather than more teaching?

It will be necessary for the central administration to support these changes through provision of venture capital by either appropriating money or waiving part of the summer session overhead. Advances in the summer will require flexibility on the part of administrators since each department may have different opportunities and develop different solutions.

[Submitted by: Charley Wright
Fri, 3 Dec 93 12:49:11 PST] [Copyright 1993, University of Oregon]

Web page spun on 25 June 2002 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises