Executive Summary

The University is obliged to report faculty teaching load statistics annually to the Legislature. Although the data it provides are aggregated for the system as a whole, the underlying detail reveals considerable variation across the campuses. The fact that Berkeley's teaching load is

by far the highest has troubled some of the other campuses and has led their vice chancellors to speculate that inter-campus differences in teaching loads are the natural result of differences in curricula.

At the June 1995 meeting of the Systemwide Council of Vice Chancellors, participants agreed to attempt to: (1) define primary classes appropriate for non-ladder rank faculty to teach, (2) group the non-ladder rank into 4 categories, (3) analyze the teaching patterns of ladder and non-ladder ranks against the definitions; and be prepared to discuss definitions and any anomalies at the September meeting. Berkeley has approached the task in two ways: by canvassing the Deans and by analyzing the classes actually taught in Fall 1994.

The Deans indicate that the use of non-ladder faculty within the undergraduate curriculum should be limited to instruction in basic skills (e.g. foreign language, English, and the like) with few narrowly defined exceptions (e.g. specific applied courses in the professions or performing arts for which expert practitioners are the best instructors).

Berkeley's data for Fall 1994 demonstrate that campus practice largely accords with the Deans' assertions. In particular, the ladder faculty do in fact teach 83% of the curriculum for which they are responsible (86%, if emeriti, recall and visiting are included). Sabbaticals (one year in seven, or 14% of faculty effort), other leaves, losses, and administrative duties prevent them from teaching and require the campus to use non-ladder faculty from year-to-year to cover the remaining 14%.

I. THE DEANS' PERSPECTIVE

In response to an inquiry from The Vice Chancellor and Provost, the Deans and, in some instances, their Chairs, have affirmed their commitment to undergraduate education, and have asserted that there are few types of undergraduate classes which are appropriate for

non-regular rank faculty to teach. Such classes fall into one or another of the following Basic Skills category:

* Foreign Language -- e.g. basic lower division instruction in spoken and written language as distinct from literature

* English Language -- e.g. reading and composition; college writing

* Other -- e.g. communications courses in business and engineering

Certain other kinds of courses could sometimes appropriately be taught by non-ladder faculty:

* Selected introductory or survey courses -- e.g. pre-calculus math; introduction to statistics

* Clinical courses -- e.g. selected courses in the health sciences

* Selected laboratory courses -- e.g. introductory geology lab

* Special topics -- e.g. in business, film, etc.

* Providing campus-wide, service classes with content that is fundamentally skill or activity based (School of Library and Information Studies; Humanities in the areas of English Language and Foreign Language; Biological Sciences in the area of Human Biodynamics (PE); Math in pre-calculus; Statistics in elementary classes; Chemistry in its introductory Chem 1A-1B survey classes; History in its senior research seminar (though under the general supervision of a Regular faculty member)

The definition of these categories, and the assignment of classes to them, is clearly subject to debate. Drawing boundaries regarding the nature of what constitutes teaching elementary or basic versus more advanced knowledge, or what constitutes a "skill" as opposed to information which is more theoretically based will undoubtedly be an ongoing discussion. However, if part of the point is to take a rough pass at what parts of the undergraduate curriculum should appropriately (and in many instances more effectively) be taught by non-ladder rank faculty, then these categories provide at least a starting point.

Other justifications for the use, temporary or otherwise, of non-ladder faculty include:

* Gaps created by VERIP, other retirements and separations

* Natural changes in the cutting edge of a particular field or area of knowledge not coinciding with available faculty FTE

* Sabbatical leaves

* Use of visiting faculty on a rotating basis as part of conscious curricular design centered on special topic and enrichment offerings

* Supporting newly formed programs where complete regular ladder faculty complement has not yet been fully identified (CNR in the newly formed Environmental Science, Policy and Management classes)

* Keeping level with fast-paced changes within the industry or field (reported by Business, Journalism, Environmental Design, Public Health, Education, and Social Welfare)

II. THE DATA FOR FALL 1994

The Table which follows arrays all regularly scheduled lower and upper division primary classes taught in Fall 1994 according to the category of class (as defined above) and the type of instructor. That is, it focuses on regularly scheduled classes as distinct from independent studies;

on classes as distinct from courses; and on primary class meetings as distinct from discussion or lab sections. Ladder rank faculty, including recall, emeriti and visiting faculty, are distinguished from the four non-ladder ranks called for by the Office of the President.

III. TEACHING PATTERNS

Categorizing the Fall 1994 classes (listed in the previous table) according to the Deans' definitions results in the following broad distributions:

% of Classes	Lower	Upper
Appropriately Taught by	Division	Division	Total

Non-ladder Rank Faculty	55%	13%	29%
Non-ladder or Ladder	18%	21%	20%
Ladder Rank Faculty	27%	66%	51%

It seems reasonable that the majority of the lower division classes would be appropriate for non-ladder ranks to teach, and the majority of the upper division classes for ladder ranks. Overall, ladder rank faculty are expected to teach more than 50% of the undergraduate classes offered.

Comparing expectations with reality in Fall 1994, non-ladder rank faculty taught 95% of the lower division classes judged to be appropriate for them to teach, and 81% of the upper division classes. It may be that a part or all of the remaining 19% (which were taught by ladder ranks)

we inappropriately classified as skills classes.

Ladder rank faculty taught 86% of the lower division classes judged to be appropriate for them to teach, and 82% of the upper division classes. In view of sabbaticals, administrative responsibilities, and the heavy losses from VERIP (-10%), these numbers are quite remarkable

and demonstrate that Berkeley's faculty are taking undergraduate education seriously.

IV. GSIs AND OTHER NON-LADDER RANKS

Intro/Survey Classes Taught by Non-ladder Faculty:

Exactly 1/3 of combined upper and lower division classes (60 classes total) classified as Introductory/Survey classes were taught by ladder rank faculty. The other two thirds were taught by non-ladder faculty. This particular finding is one which bears further examination with

regard to policy and faculty consensus regarding which Introductory/Survey classes should or should not appropriately be taught by ladder rank faculty. Note: Classes initially placed in this category, with further review, might be reclassified as Skills classes. However, consensus on

policy regarding who should appropriately teach Introductory/Survey classes remains as a separate discussion.

GSIs Teaching Classes Appropriate to the Ladder Ranks:

Particular attention was also paid to the teaching activity of Graduate Student Instructors. Of the 6 LD and 20 UD classes taught by GSIs in the category designated as appropriate for ladder rank faculty, half appear to be related to the American Cultures requirement, some form of ethnic or gender study, or classes within one of the more specialized ethnic majors (e.g. Native American Studies, S Asian Studies, SE Asian Studies, etc.)

The Anthropology Chair specifically mentioned Anthro 122D, 158, and 177 as classes being taught from time to time by advanced graduate students even though regular faculty were preferred. Early retirements were mentioned as contributors to this practice. Possibly a number of

academic units find it necessary in the wake of VERIP to use GSIs in situations where they might prefer to use regular faculty.

The 12 remaining classes do not appear to reflect any particular pattern.

GSIs Teaching Classes Appropriate to Non-ladder or Ladder Ranks:

In the group of classes appropriate for teaching by non-ladder or ladder rank faculty, GSIs taught 42 classes or 27% of the lower division group. However, 11 of the 36 introduction/survey classes are Introductory Electronics Labs and another 13 are Introductory Computer Labs or basic or introductory math classes. Further analysis indicates that these classes could have been classified as Skill classes which would have altered this group considerably.