Just as UC Davis has evolved since the last reaffirmation of accreditation in 1992, so has WASC shifted its approach to the process of accreditation. The former model emphasized a set of 200 plus standards for which each institution in the region was expected to demonstrate compliance. The model codified in 2001 recognizes the range of institutional missions and resources and offers more potential for colleges and universities to use the accreditation process to answer questions that are at once important in terms of determining their worthiness for accreditation but also in terms of their own campus-specific goals and objectives.

Although WASC has dramatically reformulated its processes, it does expect institutions to note the efforts they made in response to the recommendations that emerged under the old model. The report from the 1992 reaffirmation of accreditation visit for UC Davis was very productive for the campus. The visiting team was impressed by many aspects of our campus and its approach to the delivery of the curriculum. At that time the team recommended an interim visit and the Commission's report from that visit is dated June 1997. Planning and General Education are the key issues addressed in that document.

Planning

The team commented favorably upon the then recent formation of "an Academic Leadership and Planning body." Now known as ALAP that group is in its sixth year of existence. It is a relatively small group of nine members of the senior management team chaired by the Chancellor or in his absence, the Executive Vice-Chancellor/Provost. ALAP is charged with thinking proactively about the campus's academic future and with keeping priorities for the campus moving forward. A key new member of the ALAP committee is the Vice Chancellor for Resource Management and Planning (ORMP). This major campus office has been formed since the 1997 visit. As its title suggests, this office plays an extremely important role in our efforts to coordinate our often lofty academic goals and plans with our often limited financial resources. In preparation for a possible comprehensive campaign, ALAP has begun to discuss the pros and cons of embarking on a strategic planning process.

The 1997 team concludes its section on planning by noting,

"Coordination and synchronization are needed for long-term planning, short-term planning, budgeting and financial forecasts, data collection and maintenance, and periodic updates of the Strategic Plan. The Committee is convinced that the bases have been laid for the planning activities ahead."

In the essays and on-line portfolio constructed for this review, we identify the many planning processes the campus undertakes. As we note in our initial comments on Standard 1, our own campus planning is linked to and sometimes limited by our obligations to the University of California system. In recent years, our efforts have focused on planning for growth, and in recent months, we have been particularly dedicated to developing workable strategies for managing campus growth in an increasingly dire state budget situation. Fortunately for the campus, enough of the individuals who were experienced the budget shortfalls of the early 1990s are still here and we are benefiting from their insights.

General Education

The 1997 committee summed up its comments on general education by saying,

"Crafting a solid general education curriculum is a challenge for all universities, and especially one as large and complex as the University of California, Davis." Nevertheless, the Committee urges that the University give increased attention to general education to find ways to cut across political boundaries and claims of ownership. Relying upon data from the assessment of academic achievement can provide a sharp instrument for that evaluation.

In our Standard 2 essay, we acknowledge that we remain somewhat dissatisfied by some aspects of our General Education curriculum. However, we make the case that our campus offers students such a broad range of courses and co-curricular activities that most of our students satisfy the most generally agreed upon goals of a liberal education as traditionally defined. As noted in the Standard 2 essay and given in more detail at Criterion 2.2 in the portfolio, the actual practice of students in selecting a broad range of courses is quite good. We see more grounds for optimism than for pessimism. The resources infused into the campus by the Hewlett grant have stimulated extensive faculty interest and some very innovative pilots. The General Education committee that was established by the Senate in June 2002 will be able to pursue its work with the benefit of progress reports already submitted by the external consultant. Indeed, because of the sophistication of our data management systems, we will be able to provide very rich detailed information about our student's academic profiles. In implementing the Hewlett grant, we have made good use of the campus's Data Warehouse, and this tool will facilitate data driven discussions for the GE committee.