14% Cal State Fee Hike OKd; UC Panel Balks

Trustees of the California State University system approved a 14% hike in student fees Wednesday, while some members of the governing board of the University of California system balked at approving their own fee increase.

All but one of the Cal State trustees meeting in Long Beach voted for the fee increase, saying that it was necessary due to the state’s budget crisis and was part of a compromise struck last week among the heads of the Cal State and UC systems and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Cal State’s annual average undergraduate fees for state residents will rise to $2,334. Before the vote, Cal State students and faculty criticized the “compact agreement” between Schwarzenegger and the university administration. Speakers said it would unfairly tax students for the budget shortfalls and would force middle-income students out of the university.

“This is what I propose: All of you take a 2% cut in your salary and give that to higher education,” said Blanca Castaneda, 30, a Cal State Los Angeles student. “This is outrageous.”

Cal State officials said the fee increase would curb further cuts in courses, staffing and enrollment. “When California is in a deep budget hole everybody has to be part of the solution,” said Cal State Chancellor Charles Reed. “Sure, you never want to increase fees on students, but sometimes it’s just necessary.”

But in at least a temporary setback for the governor’s deal, a UC Regents committee deadlocked over the system’s own proposed 14% fee increase. Meeting in San Francisco, the regents’ committee voted 5 to 5 on the hike, with critics concerned about the rising cost of a UC education and the unresolved state budget in Sacramento.

The tie came despite appeals from UC President Robert C. Dynes and other UC officials to approve the fee hikes and allow students and their parents as much time as possible to plan for the coming term.

The full Board of Regents will take up the fee hike today, and several regents said they expected that it would pass.

If the regents approve the increase, UC fees will rise to $5,684 for undergraduate residents. Also on the table will be larger increases for graduate and professional school fees.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles), who is a regent by virtue of his government post, urged a vote against the fee hike and criticized the recent “compact” between Schwarzenegger and university leaders, in which UC and Cal State would accept this year’s budget cuts in exchange for the promise of better funding in years to come.

Nunez said the agreement “took the wind from under the sails” of legislators trying to restore funding to the universities.

Matt Kaczmarek, a UCLA student who is chairman of the systemwide UC Student Assn., also criticized the agreement. “It is the feeling among students that the university systems got the raw end of this deal,” he said.

As the governing bodies debated fee levels Wednesday, a state commission determined that the university systems had slightly missed the admission targets set by the state’s master plan for higher education.

Under the 44-year-old plan, the UC system is to take the top eighth of the state’s public high school graduates, and Cal State is to accept the top third.

But the study by the California Postsecondary Education Commission found that UC’s current admissions criteria of grades and test scores qualifies more students than the master plan calls for, while Cal State’s requirements make somewhat fewer students eligible than the target.

The study found that 14.4%, or 48,300, of California high school graduates in 2003 met UC’s eligibility requirements. That is more than 6,000 students more than would be eligible if admission were limited to the master plan’s 12.5%.

UC is not bound to adhere strictly to the master plan percentage, but officials said they would study ways to tighten eligibility standards. UC faculty representatives are expected to present proposals for doing so at the regents’ July meeting.

UC President Dynes and other officials said they were not surprised by the report, which was similar to a preliminary analysis by the university in December.

“These results indicate that more and more California high school students are working hard and excelling at the level needed to achieve UC eligibility,” said M.R.C. Greenwood, UC’s provost.

California Post-Secondary Education Commission officials also pointed out that 7% to 8% of California high school graduates actually enroll at UC, far fewer than the percentage eligible.

Board of Regents Chairman John J. Moores has contended that UC eligibility criteria are too low, allowing under-qualified students to be admitted to the university. Moores, who sparked controversy last fall with an analysis critical of UC Berkeley admissions, appeared to be still concerned about the issue Wednesday.

In response to a comment by Regent Sherry L. Lansing that all UC-eligible students are well-qualified for the university, Moores expressed skepticism. “Would that it were true,” he said.

Both UC and Cal State systems uphold minimum eligibility standards that admit students to the system but not necessarily to the campus of their choice. Admission to specific campuses and programs can require far higher grades and test scores than the eligibility requirements.

Now, a California student who scores 1000 out of a possible 1600 on the basic SAT and 500 out of a possible 800 on each of three required SAT II tests would qualify for UC with a grade average of 2.95, just under a B.

For the Cal State system, California students with a B average qualify for admission. Standardized tests are required only for those with lower grades or students applying to more selective campuses and programs within Cal State.

Cal State officials said they had no plans to change their admission requirements after the commission’s study. Though the commission study found that 29% of high school graduates qualify for CSU admission, Cal State officials said that if continuation and alternative school students -- few of whom attend Cal State -- were removed from the pool, the eligibility figure would meet the 33.3% master plan target.

*

Hong reported from Los Angeles, Trounson from San Francisco and Hernandez from Long Beach.