THE RUSS REPORT - Come Spring 2013, California residents will not be accepted in most graduate programs offered at California’s 23 State University campuses … because the university cannot afford them. Tuition for California students covers just a fraction of costs to actually educate them.
Applications will be limited to those who earned an Associate degree and transfer from a CA Community College.
The CSU system will enroll only out-of-state residents and international students citing budget cuts and a loss of $750 million in state funds.
In a recent interview, Mike Uhlenkamp, spokesperson for the California State University (CSU) Chancellor's office explained, “We Made the decision to re duce our enrollment, system wide, based on years of ongoing budget cuts. We’re currently receiving about $2 billion from the state, which is about the same level we received in the late 90’s even though we are serving about 90,000 more students. So we’re moving to reduce our enrollment. That includes the move to shut down the spring enrollments of 2013.”
Uhlenkamp stressed that CSU had lost a billion dollars in the last five years.
Excluding CA resident students flies in the face of the CSU Mission Statement that says CSU must be responsive to the needs of the citizens of the state of California.
Maria Nieto, Professor, Dept. of Bio. Sci. California State University, East Bay (CSUEB) feels strongly about it, “The CSU has, and hopefully will always embrace qualified out-of-state applicants, but this should never be at the exclusion of California residents. The Chancellor's office and CSUEB's policy to only allow acceptance of non-resident and international students in the spring is discriminatory. In keeping with our mission we need to find ways to open doors and keep them open, not close them.”
“Through a public institution of higher learning,” she said, “we are here to serve our students. We are distinct from a for-profit business. Our profit is seen in our students' successes, and what they'll bring in benefit to our greater community.”
Nieto says that most Professors throughout the CSU system share her views on the education the universities provide. It is discrimination against the very families who pay taxes to the State.
The CSU Public Affairs Press Release indicates that this reduction in enrollment will affect the entire college system.
"Providing access to a quality education for students of California continues to be a bigger challenge as ongoing reductions in state funding are forcing campuses to reduce enrollment to match the level of available funds," said Ephraim Smith, CSU executive vice chancellor and chief academic officer, "An additional mid-year cut could result in even further reductions to enrollment.”
CSU is “hanging its hat” on the possible passage of Prop 30, “The Schools and Public Safety Protection Act of 2012, this November that purportedly will spare the university another $250 Million cut. CSU Trustees are exploring options that would include reduced payroll costs, more enrollment reductions and other means to generate more revenue and reduce spending.
The wording for Prop 30 states, in part, “The chief purpose of this measure is to protect schools and local public safety by asking the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. The new tax revenue is guaranteed in the Constitution to go directly to local school districts and community colleges.”
To a layman, “The Schools and Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 appears a bit misleading in that under the guise of “Public Safety” a good portion of the funds will be appropriated for (b) “managing local jails and providing housing, treatment and services for and supervision of Juvenile and adult offenders and; (e) preventing, treating, and providing recovery services for substance abusers,” among others under the 2011 Realignment Legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012.
It is not clear how much money will be spread out between primary and secondary education and universities.
Some view Prop 30 as an unconstitutional law and expect it will be challenged. Others seem certain a tax increase will fail on the ballot citing the state of the State as a reason.
Norman Matloff, Professor of Computer Science-UCDavis, is not happy with the denial of resident students in January 2013. “The foreign students,” he said, “at US schools, on average, are no better than, and by many measures, are actually weaker than their US citizen and permanent resident peers. Yes, of course, there are some geniuses among the foreign students, and we should facilitate their enrollment and eventual immigration, but they are in the small minority.”
Jonathan P. Roth, Professor History Department, San Jose State University, called this move horrible. Roth said, “This year,” a frustrated Roth reminded, “we're spending 5.5 million dollars on the Athletics Program, which is primarily spent on football. This money is coming out of the general fund and might have paid for all or most of the 500 classes that were cut this semester. Our mission should be educating students in the classroom."
Nieto summed it up; “I am disheartened when I have to be the one to tell a prospective student you need not apply if you're a California resident. And I'm left to ask myself, have we truly done enough to curtail administrative costs so we can provide room in classes to admit California residents?”
CSU reports that only 300 to 500 students will be affected. For taxpayers, and most Professors who teach them, even if one student is affected, that’s one too many.
(Katharine Russ is an investigative reporter. She is a regular contributor to CityWatch and to the North Valley Reporter. Katharine Russ can be reached at: [email protected] ) –cw
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 67
Pub: Aug 21, 2012