Academic Policy Goals for 2020-2021

Reacting to COVID-19

The pandemic has brought a lot changes, alterations, and exceptions when it comes to policy in order to adapt to the current global crisis and remote education. Our priority during this time has to first ensure that in the changing landscape graduate students are kept in mind with university communication and policy changes. As such we support the following:

• Increase in total number of TA quarters
  Policy passed by UCOP. The 18 quarter limit has been extended to 21 quarters for those who have had to prolong their studies due to the pandemic.  See details here.
• Increase in time-to-degree (TTD) for those affected by the pandemic.
  TTD impacts students academic standing and funding qualifications. Currently UCLA has let individual departments decide if they will increase TTD for their students. GSA is advocating for a centralized application, outside of departments, where students can petition for an increase in TTD. Currently, departments have no incentive to increase TTD for their students as it can lead to repercussions in funding, student recruitment, and more. We believe that with a centralized application process outside of department jurisdiction students' cases are more likely to be evaluated fairly.
• Insurance that student researchers aren't being coerced into coming back to campus during ramp-up procedures.
  Reporting system created for researchers. Vice-President of Academic Affairs Letty Treviño and President JP Santos met with Vice-Chancellor of Research Roger Wakimoto, Interim Dean of Graduate Education Susan Ettner, and colleagues from their offices to discuss student concerns regarding research ramp up. A reporting system was established for graduate students and post-docs to voice their concerns or receive support in negotiate fair research expectations. 
  See details here.​

Improving Mentorship

PhD Mentorship/Advising
Multiple graduate students are involved in the MEGAP Implementation Committee (Fall 2019-Present) which is charged with carrying out the charges stipulated in the MEGAP Report.

• Create and publicize mentoring resources (digital and hard copy) for faculty and Ph.D. students
• Create resources to address the specific mentoring needs of underrepresented and under-served populations
• Institute a mentoring training and certificate program for faculty
• Incentivize mentoring among Ph.D. programs to encourage structural improvement of practices
• Encourage the Council on Academic Personnel (CAP) and the Academic Personnel Office (APO) to integrate mentoring into the promotion and review of faculty
• Include “Mentoring” as a distinct category of evaluation in program review
• Mandate that Ph.D. programs conduct annual graduate student reviews
• Co-charge, with Graduate Division, a mentoring implementation workgroup

Mentorship University-Wide

• ​Make a mentorship/advising contract common practice and mandatory.
  A preventative measure to improve quality of mentorship is to establish clear expectations for both the mentor and mentee so that each person in a mentorship relationship knows what to expect and what they are holding themselves accountable to. Explicit and respectful communication in relationships where the power differential is huge is extremely important.
  
• Improve Reporting Structures with Real Consequences.
  Our Direct of Diversity Isaiah Sampson is leading the project on improving reporting systems. The goal is that every code of conduct (students, staff, faculty, etc.) be consistent and that every member of the UCLA community be held to the same standards. We are also advocating for more transparency to the reportee as to which services are confidential and what happens after they make a report.

Making Students More Active in Program Reviews

Contrary to popular belief, graduate education is not highly regulated campus-wide and it was decided a long LONG time ago that the experts in your field know what's best for your graduate education. Therefore the authority to change a program or evaluate the quality of education in a program is left mostly to departments. For students this can pose a bit of a challenge. The success of student self-advocacy is highly dependent on the leadership of your department, department climate, graduate student leaders, and student engagement in crafting department policy. 

Every 8 years or so, departments undergo a department review in which UCLA faculty from other departments at UCLA and faculty outside of UCLA but in the same field evaluate the program. Students are sent a survey by the academic senate to provide feedback on their graduate studies. However, during this process students can also do a number of actions to advocate for changes in policy (have access to the review written by their department, write their own review of the department, send an anonymous letter to the review committee, request to meet with the review committee when they come, see the final review drafted by the committee, etc.)

As such we want to empower students to know about all of their self-advocacy venues and to take action when they think it's appropriate. Therefore, GSA is advocating for...

• The graduate student body of each department have the right to write their own department self-assessment to be added to the department self-assessment as an appendix item.
• A meeting to organized between the review committee and the graduate student body during a time that DOES NOT conflict with the majority of student schedules and for that meeting to be publicized 10 days in advance.
• Students to visit with higher level administrators (deans, assistant deans, etc.) prior to the review to discuss any concerns and to report any incidents of retaliation.