The Master Plan at 50: Guaranteed Regional Access Needed for State Universities

The Master Plan at 50: Guaranteed Regional Access Needed for State Universities M AC TAylor • l e g i s l A T i v e A n A l y s T • februAry 14, 2011 An LAO RepORt 2 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt ExEcUTivE SUMMARy In 1960, California adopted a Master Plan for Higher Education that assigned distinct missions to California’s two public university systems and its community college system. It charged the University of California (UC) with serving a relatively small number of the most academically accomplished high school graduates statewide, while the community colleges were to serve their local communities as open-access institutions. While the Master Plan did not specifically assign to the California State University (CSU) a regional role, CSU campuses—through their admissions policies and other practices—largely focused on regional education needs. Recent enrollment management efforts undertaken at several campuses have the potential to weaken that regional role by leaving some CSU-eligible students without guaranteed access to their local campus. In this report we review how the Master Plan envisioned CSU’s place in the higher education system, and assess how the university has carried out its role in the face of changing enrollment demand and funding limitations. We conclude that CSU’s regional role is an important component of the state’s higher education system, and recommend that the Legislature take steps to protect that focus in the face of enrollment pressures and efforts by some campuses to become more selective. Specifically, we recommend that the Legislature (1) formalize a regional education role for CSU in statute, (2) codify its expectations for CSU’s eligibility pool, and (3) direct CSU to adjust its enrollment policies accordingly. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 3 An LAO RepORt 4 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt ThE cSU UNdER ThE MASTER PlAN Master Plan Assigns distinct Missions to Master Plan Also defines Eligibility The Three higher Education Segments Pools and Enrollment Priorities The state Master Plan for Higher Education, In addition to assigning the higher education adopted in 1960, promises access to a baccalaureate segments distinct missions, the Master Plan also education for all qualified students through three directs each segment to draw its students from public higher education segments, each with different, though overlapping, eligibility pools. a distinct mission. Specifically, the California As a result, the segments have different levels of Community Colleges (CCC) are to provide academic selectivity. and vocational instruction through the first two Freshman Eligibility. The Master Plan directs years of undergraduate education. Their mission also CSU to select its freshmen from the top one-third includes remedial instruction, English as a Second of high school graduates, placing it in a middle Language instruction, and other education services. ground between UC (which selects from among The UC is designated the state’s primary academic the top one-eighth) and the community colleges research institution and is to provide undergraduate (which admit any applicant capable of benefiting and graduate instruction in the liberal arts and from instruction). The CSU defines its eligibility sciences. The UC has exclusive jurisdiction over pool by an “eligibility index” which combines grade instruction in the profession of law and graduate point average (GPA) and standardized test scores instruction in the professions of medicine, dentistry, from the SAT or ACT. In general, a student with a and veterinary medicine and awards virtually all lower GPA needs a higher standardized test score. public doctoral degrees in the state. In addition, students must obtain a grade of “C” or The Master Plan created CSU out of the state higher in certain college preparatory coursework. teacher colleges, which had been under the state The eligibility index in place for 2010-11 is shown Department of Education. Today, CSU comprises in Figure 1 (see next page). (The CSU periodically 23 campuses and is governed by an appointed adjusts the index to capture the top one-third of Board of Trustees. The Master Plan directs CSU high school graduates.) to offer undergraduate and graduate instruction Transfer Eligibility. At the time the Master leading to bachelors and masters degrees in Plan was adopted in 1960, CSU was requiring that the liberal arts and sciences, the applied fields, community college students achieve a GPA of at and the professions, including the authority to least 2.0 in order to be eligible for admission as a award doctoral degrees jointly with authorized transfer student. The Master Plan report expressed institutions. concern about this threshold (particularly as The assigning of distinct missions to the three applied to students whose high school performance segments has been widely regarded as one of the had been deficient) and called on CSU to assess most important, valuable, and frequently copied whether a higher community college GPA should elements of the Master Plan. It has helped to justify be required. state support for two separate public university Currently, CSU requires that upper-division systems, impede mission-creep among institutions, transfer students have completed at least 60 contain growth in costs, and facilitate college access semester units of coursework with an overall GPA for all eligible students. of at least 2.0. Students must also complete four www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 5 An LAO RepORt general education requirements: oral communi- (excluding the San Luis Obispo campus) should cation, English composition, critical thinking, and “continue to be responsive to well-documented math/quantitative reasoning with a “C” or higher. regional needs.” Moreover, the Master Plan’s Enrollment Priorities. State law specifies approach to new campus locations suggests a focus enrollment priorities for the public universities. on regional needs. New campus locations were Generally, CSU is to maintain a student body chosen to increase higher education access for comprised of 40 percent lower division students California students using regionally focused criteria: and 60 percent upper division students (achieved · The relative numbers of high school in part through transfer admissions). Statute also graduates, the location of existing institu- directs the universities to assign admission priority tions in the various areas of the state, and to specified groups of students. (See nearby box.) the relation between their capacity and the Community college transfer students are to be estimated enrollment in the areas served by granted one of the highest priority levels. Students each institution. who are place bound are also recognized among the priority groups. · The relative number of potential students within reasonable commuting distance of cSU’s Regional Role Established each of the proposed sites. in Practice, Not in Statute The framers of the Master Plan recognized Generally, CSU campuses have served as regional that location and enrollment priorities were key to institutions, developing relationships with local high CSU access and emphasized that priority be given schools and community colleges and granting priority to students who would have difficulty attending an admission to local students. This regional focus, out-of-area campus. however, is not specifically required by statute. Master Plan Assumes, Figure 1 but Does Not Require, California State University Eligibility Index Regional Approach. While the Master Plan For High School Graduates Applying to CSU’s 2010-11 Academic Year (Minimum Score Necessary) does not specifically Grade Point Average (GPA) ACT Or SATa require CSU to serve a >=3.0 n/ab n/ab regional role, such a role 2.99 10 510 clearly was envisioned 2.9 12 580 in discussions during 2.8 14 660 2.7 16 740 the Plan’s development. 2.6 18 820 For example, in the 1955 2.5 20 900 Restudy of the Needs 2.4 22 980 2.3 24 1060 of California in Higher 2.2 26 1140 Education that informed 2.1 28 1220 the development of the 2 30 1300 <2.0 n/ab n/ab Master Plan, the state’s a Sum of SAT mathematics and critical reading scores, with maximum score of 1,600. education leaders argued b Freshman applicants with high school GPAs of 3.0 or higher are eligible with any ACT or SAT score; applicants with GPAs lower than 2.0 are not eligible. that state college campuses 6 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt CSU Campuses Have Behaved Like Regional of applications coming from further afield. Even Institutions. Admission policies and practices at then, serving large numbers of out-of-area students CSU’s campuses have reflected a focus on regional has not historically been in conflict with serving needs. Campus outreach programs have targeted local needs. With the exception of the San Luis high schools within their local service areas, even Obispo campus (discussed below), CSU campuses while some campuses developed reputations as have until recently been able to accommodate all “destination campuses” with a significant portion eligible local applicants. ENRollMENT MANAGEMENT: PRovidiNG AccESS wiTh FiNiTE RESoURcES Although the Master Plan’s eligibility policy expected to serve. The statewide Chancellor’s office promises access to every eligible applicant who must work with campuses to manage enrollment applies, CSU’s budgetary resources in any given demand to achieve enrollment totals close to their year are finite. The General Fund appropriation targeted levels, while still ensuring that all eligible for CSU in the annual budget act typically is based applicants are offered an enrollment slot. Achieving on a target enrollment level that the university is these twin goals sometimes has involved making it C R p a ampuses equiRedto RioRitize ppliCants The Education Code requires that California State University (CSU) and University of California (UC) campuses admit students in the following priority order: 1. Continuing undergraduate students in good standing. 2. California Community College (CCC) transfer students who have successfully concluded a course of study in an approved transfer agreement program. 3. Other CCC students who have met all of the requirements for transfer. 4. Other qualified transfer students (California residents transferring from UC or CSU campuses or from independent colleges who meet the admission standards). 5. California residents entering at the freshman or sophomore levels. Further, the Education Code specifies that within each of the five categories above that the following groups of applicants receive priority consideration: 1. Veterans who are residents of California. 2. Transfers from CCC. 3. Applicants who have been previously enrolled at the campus to which they were applying, provided they left the institution in good standing. 4. Applicants who have a degree or credential objective that is not offered generally at other public postsecondary institutions. 5. Applicants for whom the distance involved in attending another institution would create financial or other hardships. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 7 An LAO RepORt harder for students to submit eligible applications— guaranteed admission to Cal Poly programs, and for example, by moving application deadlines or more than 90 percent of admitted students came modifying transfer requirements—but qualified from more than 90 miles away. Then, in the early applicants who were attentive to (and met) CSU’s 1990s, San Diego State University (SDSU) began to admission requirements could count on admission. move in a similar direction, requiring applicants for Conversely, some campuses have at times sought to various programs and majors to meet admissions increase enrollment by easing application require- criteria that exceeded systemwide eligibility. ments, such as extending application deadlines Desiring to create a more uniform policy for up to the beginning of the term. (See nearby box campus admissions, the CSU Board of Trustees for a recent example of CSU’s efforts to manage appointed a task force to examine systemwide enrollment in the face of a changing state budget.) admissions issues, including impaction (described in the next section). According to official New Policy Adopted in 2000 documents, the “key policy question” confronted In the decades after the Master Plan was by the task force was “the extent to which CSU adopted, enrollment to CSU (and to the other campuses should provide access to fully eligible segments) increased substantially. Partly this local applicants.” After extensive discussions, the was driven by population growth, but it also task recommended a new systemwide policy that reflected the increased importance of college permitted campuses to use a variety of enrollment degrees. Although new campuses were opened and management tools (see Figure 2) while guaran- enrollment capacity increased, some campuses teeing all CSU-eligible students admission to a local began to experience difficulty accommodating all CSU campus. The Trustees adopted the task force’s eligible applicants. recommendations in 2000. For many years, California Polytechnic State impaction University San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) had stood out as a more selective “destination” campus that An especially powerful enrollment maintained admissions criteria that exceeded management tool is “impaction,” whereby systemwide eligibility. Not even local applicants were admissions criteria can be raised above the Figure 2 Examples of Enrollment Management Techniques • Adjust application deadlines. • Restrict lower-division transfers. • Establish prerequisites for admission to upper-division status. • Require incoming students to attend orientation and/or pay enrollment deposits. • Make offers of admission provisional on meeting conditions, such as completing courses in progress at time of application, maintaining minimum grade point average, and providing supporting documents. • Implement standards for academic disqualification (for example, do not permit students without good academic standing to reenroll). • Reduce the number of students admitted by exception. • Impose unit caps for currently enrolled students. • Declare program or campus “impaction,” allowing campuses to use supplemental eligibility criteria. 8 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt systemwide requirements for certain programs are guaranteed admission to the campus. or groups of students. In contrast to most other This points to a key distinction between enrollment management techniques (which still how UC and CSU fulfill the eligibility guarantee a spot for all eligible applicants to a guarantees called for by the Master Plan: campus), impaction allows campuses or programs while UC regularly redirects applicants to deny admission to applicants who do not from oversubscribed campuses to open meet enhanced requirements beyond statewide ones, CSU has generally sought to ensure eligibility. There are two primary categories of admission to each applicant’s local campus impaction: (while sometimes restricting applicants’ access to nonlocal campuses). · Campus impaction can be triggered when the number of qualified applicants to a Under the local admission guarantee, campus exceeds campus capacity. An each impacted campus designates a local impacted campus may establish admissions admission area. Guaranteed admission criteria for all nonlocal applicants that is extended to first-time freshmen and are stricter than systemwide minimum upper-division transfer students who meet eligibility. Consistent with the Trustees’ systemwide eligibility criteria, and whose policy of protecting local access, all local high school or community college lies applicants who meet systemwide eligibility within the local admission area. Students u B e e p nCeRtain udget xaCeRBates nRollment lanning Systemwide Enrollment Reductions implemented… Facing increasing enrollment demand at a time of declining state budget support, the California State University (CSU) Chancellor’s Office in 2009 took significant steps to bring enrollment into line with available resources. The Chancellor’s Office planned a systemwide enrollment reduction for the 2010-11 year of approximately 30,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) students, or about 9 percent lower than prior-year levels. (Among other things, this enrollment target assumed CSU would not receive an enrollment funding augmentation in 2010-11.) To achieve this enrollment reduction, CSU instituted new systemwide enrollment constraints and authorized a wide range of enrollment management methods to be employed by the individual campuses, including a fast-track process for declaring impaction. ...Followed By Scramble to Use Enrollment Funding Contrary to CSU’s early assumptions, the 2010‑11 Budget Act included substantial General Fund augmentations. Part of this funding was tied to CSU’s meeting an enrollment target of 339,873 FTE students, or about 30,000 FTE students more than the system’s target. (The budget act requires that CSU return some funding if it fails to meet the specified enrollment target.) Complicating matters, the budget was not adopted until October, well past the beginning of the fall term. As a result, campuses found themselves having to significantly increase enrollment for the spring term in order to meet the enrollment target established in the budget act. At the time this report was prepared, it was unknown whether CSU would succeed in meeting that enrollment target. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 9 An LAO RepORt from outside the local area must meet the programs, although local students may supplemental eligibility criteria. Figure 3 be awarded extra eligibility index points describes the various local admission areas to help make them more competitive. at the end of 2010. Historically, only a relatively small number of programs were impacted—primarily · Program impaction can be triggered when programs with unusually high demand, the number of qualified applicants to a or more costly programs with enrollment particular program—such as mechanical limited by resource constraints. engineering or nursing—exceeds available space. Impacted programs may establish Tension With Local Guarantee. About three supplemental admissions criteria for all quarters of CSU campuses are impacted, and all of applicants. In other words, there is no them have at least some impacted programs. There local admissions guarantee for impacted is a tension between campus impaction (which Figure 3 CSU Local Admission Areas for First-Time Freshmena Campus Local Admission Area Chico All high schools (HS) in counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, and Yuba, and four school districts in Trinity: Mountain Valley, Southern Trinity, Trinity Alps, and Trinity HS. Fresno All HS in Fresno, Kings, Madera, Tulare counties, and partner schools in other counties. Fullerton All HS in Orange County, Chino, Corona/Norco, Walnut, Whittier, and Alvord School District. Humboldt All HS in Del Norte, Humboldt, northern Mendocino, and western Trinity counties. Long Beach The following school districts: ABC, Anaheim (Cypress and Oxford only), Bellflower, Compton, Downey, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, and Paramount. Los Angeles All HS located east to 605 freeway and the Los Angeles County line, west to 405 freeway, south to Highway 42 (Firestone Blvd.), and north to Los Angeles County line. Northridge All HS in main portion of Los Angeles County and Ventura County. Pomona All HS west of the 15 freeway, north of the 60 freeway, east of the 605 freeway, and south of the 210 freeway. Sacramento All HS in El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo Counties. San Bernardino The following school districts in San Bernardino County: Apple Valley, Chaffey, Colton, Fon- tana, Hesperia, Morongo, Redlands, Rialto, Rim of the World, San Bernardino City, Victor Valley, and Yucaipa. The following school districts in Riverside County: Banning, Beaumont, Coachella Valley, Desert Sands, Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley, Palm Springs, and Riverside. San Diego All HS south of State Highway 56 in San Diego County and all HS in Imperial County. San Francisco All HS in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties. San Jose All HS in Santa Clara County. San Luis Obispo All HS in San Luis Obispo, southern Monterey, and northern Santa Barbara Counties. San Marcos All HS north of Highway 56 in San Diego County plus Capistrano and Saddleback Valley, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Val Verde. Sonoma All HS in Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. a Bakersfield, Channel Islands, Dominguez Hills, East Bay, Maritime, Monterey Bay, and Stanislaus campuses designate the entire state as their service area. 10 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt guarantees local students’ access to the campus) minimum eligibility. At some point, a large and program impaction (which provides no such percentage of impacted programs undermines the guarantee). The more programs that are impacted local guarantee provided by campus impaction. As at a campus, the fewer options are afforded to described below, several campuses have declared all a local student who only meets systemwide their programs to be impacted. locAl GUARANTEE wEAkENEd By PRoGRAM iMPAcTioN Various campuses have made use of the systemwide policy of serving regional needs— enrollment management tools established by especially because two more campuses quickly systemwide policies. Many campuses have followed SDSU and declared all their programs tightened application deadlines, closed off spring impacted. Below we discuss the shift at SDSU to term for new admissions (though this was largely illustrate in more detail the effects of all-program reversed for spring 2011), and taken other steps impaction on local access. to restrict enrollment. Some campuses have also The Road to impaction at SdSU put in place enhanced admission requirements as permitted under the system’s impaction policies. Between 1996 and 2010, SDSU experienced All-Program Impaction. As discussed above, a rapid increase in enrollment demand, with the CSU-eligible students are guaranteed access number of applications for admission almost to their local campus, even if it is an impacted tripling. Although it received money for growth, campus. However, they are not ensured access to high enrollment demand at the popular campus impacted programs at their local campus. This exceeded available slots. Over the years, the points to a potential weakness in CSU’s admissions campus adopted an array of measures to manage policies. Admission to a campus is of little value its enrollment, including priority deadlines and if the student cannot be admitted to the major mandatory summer remediation courses, as well as or program of his or her choice. This becomes campus and program impaction. especially problematic at campuses where a large Campus Reduces New Enrollment. Responding percentage of programs are impacted. Figure 4 to systemwide budget constraints in 2008, the CSU (see next page) specifies the number of programs Chancellor’s Office reduced the amount of funding it impacted at each CSU campus for fall 2011, and allocated to most campuses, including SDSU, with the shows the five campuses where program impaction expectation that campuses would accommodate the is extensive. As discussed earlier, for years all reductions by enrolling fewer students. Accordingly, programs at Cal Poly have maintained admission SDSU reduced the number of enrollment slots standards higher than systemwide eligibility. available for both freshmen and transfer students, as Other campuses over the years have declared more illustrated in Figure 5 (see page 13). and more programs impacted. Then, in fall 2009, Enrollment Reductions Create New Tension SDSU became the second CSU campus to declare Between Local and Nonlocal Applicants. The all its programs impacted, effectively ending its reduction in enrollment slots for a growing local admission guarantee. This can be seen as an number of new applicants made SDSU admissions important milestone in the weakening of CSU’s even more competitive. Among other things, www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 11 An LAO RepORt this increased the stakes of maintaining a local enrollment reductions would be concentrated on guarantee under campus impaction. If all eligible out-of-area students. Campus officials expressed local students continued to be admitted using concern about how this could affect certain minimum systemwide eligibility criteria, then measures of student performance on campus (see box on page 14). Figure 4 Transfer Eligibility Impacted CSU Undergraduate Programs and Campuses Tightened, but For 2011-12 Academic Year Priority Maintained Undergraduate Programs Upper division transfer Impacted Campus Total Impacted Campus?a students have the highest admission priority in Bakersfield 24 1 the CSU system. Like Channel Islands 14 1 many other campuses, ü Chico 33 2 SDSU offers “Transfer Dominguez Hills 27 2 Admission Guarantees” ü (TAGs), whereby East Bay 30 2 ü students are promised Fresno 30 2 ü upper-division transfer Fullerton 30 30 admission to SDSU in ü Humboldt 25 1 a specific major upon ü Long Beach 32 15 satisfactory completion of ü Los Angeles 31 5 specified coursework at a community college. With Maritime Academy 2 0 increased competition Monterey Bay 22 0 for freshman enrollment ü Northridge 28 1 at SDSU, many students ü Pomona 31 4 make use of TAGs. ü Sacramento 31 4 Recent budget reduc- ü tions have forced SDSU, San Bernardino 29 3 ü like other campuses, to San Diego 35 34b make adjustments to ü San Francisco 36 9 admission guarantees. ü San Jose 36 35b Predicting that there ü San Luis Obispo 25 25 would not be enough ü transfer enrollment slots San Marcos 20 4 ü in fall 2010 to accom- Sonoma 23 8 modate all transfers who Stanlislaus 24 2 met the 2009 TAG, SDSU a Impacted for freshmen, transfers, or both. b The only unimpacted program at the San Diego and San Jose campuses is a specialized nursing revised its TAG for 2010. program only open to upper-division students. The changes are outlined 12 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt in Figure 6 (see page 15). The main differences applicants do not necessarily receive course priority between the two agreements are the requirements over the university’s regularly enrolled students. to complete all transferable courses, including all Effect on Transfer Students. As it turned major preparation courses, at a local community out, 750 applicants met all of the new TAG college. Although these changes shrink the number requirements for fall 2010. However, the campus of students guaranteed transfer admission to SDSU, had about 2,150 slots available to accommodate they do continue to prioritize admission for students transfer students. To fill the remaining slots, who have attended local community colleges. SDSU admitted additional transfer students in the Concerns Expressed About Course following priority order: Availability. Even though the new TAG preserves 1. Applicants who met TAG requirements but guaranteed admission for students who meet with 50 percent of their work from local certain requirements, there has been some concern community colleges (283). that it is not always possible for students to meet those requirements. The seven local community 2. Applicants from community colleges colleges in SDSU’s admission area expressed adjacent to the service area who completed particular concern with the requirement that all required transfer work and applied to a students complete 100 percent of their major prepa- major that was not already at its enrollment ration requirements at a local community college, limit (64). owing to the fact that some of the required courses are not available at all the community colleges. In Figure 5 fact, major preparation for San Diego State University Reduces New Enrollment only 6 of the top 13 majors Number of Admissions can be completed at all the 6,000 local community college campuses. For example, New Freshmen 5,000 two required courses for New Transfers sociology transfers are not available at any of the 4,000 seven local community colleges. When a needed 3,000 transfer course is not offered, the student may 2,000 consider the SDSU cross- enrollment option. But 1,000 cross enrollment is at the discretion of the campus, on a space-available Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 (Estimated) basis. Cross-enrollment www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 13 An LAO RepORt 3. Local service area applicants missing some Under these new requirements about 1,900 portion of coursework for an undersub- transfers from the local area were admitted. scribed major (865). This represents 85 percent of the total transfer enrollment slots. Figure 7 shows the proportion 4. Out-of-area applicants who met 100 of local transfer admissions from 2005 to 2010. percent of required transfer work (270). As reflected in the figure, SDSU has increased the sdsu o C a l g ffiCials onCeRned Bout oCal uaRantee When budget constraints forced San Diego State University (SDSU) to admit fewer students, the existing local guarantee would have required that enrollment reductions be concentrated among nonlocal students. Because local applicants would be held to a lower admission standard than nonlocal ones, the result could be a reduction in the average level of preparation of incoming students. This, in turn, could depress graduation rates at Graduation Rates Associated With Eligibility Index the campus. The Projected Six-Year Graduation Rates of SDSU Students, figure below shows By Average Eligibility Index Scores how graduation rates are related to eligibility index scores at SDSU. Nonlocal Average (4,041) Campus officials cited this issue as one reason to Local Average (3,644) relax the local guarantee. The campus president Minimum Eligibility (3,000) emphasized this point in press interviews saying, 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80% “At some point, SDSU = San Diego State University. I’ve got to place my bet on the student that’s most likely to be able to succeed and graduate.” While limiting local students probably helps somewhat to raise graduation rates at SDSU, it does not necessarily improve systemwide performance. For instance, having a higher percentage of better- prepared nonlocal students at SDSU means that the graduation rates at the CSU campuses they otherwise would have attended are now somewhat lower. In essence, limiting preference for local students allows for the grouping of better-prepared students at particular campuses, leaving the less-prepared students to attend other campuses. We discuss this issue further in the “Statewide Policy Implications” section later in this report. 14 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt Figure 6 Requirements for the San Diego State University (SDSU) Transfer Admission Guarantee 2009 Requirements 2010 Requirements “Golden Four” Complete General Education (GE) No change. requirements in oral communication, written communication, critical thinking, and math/quantitative reasoning with “C” or higher grades. Grade Point Average (GPA) Meet the GPA requirement for the major Meet the GPA requirement for the listed in the SDSU General Catalog. major or 2.4 whichever is higher. Units Complete a minimum of 60 transferable No change. semester units. Local Coursework Requirement At least 50 percent of transferable course- 100 percent of transferable work must be from a local community col- coursework must be from a local lege or SDSU. community college or SDSU. General Education Complete a certified GE package of No change. 39 units (CSU GE or IGETC) or any applicable lower division GE pattern listed in the SDSU catalog. Major Preparation Complete at least two courses of major Complete all major preparation preparation listed in the SDSU General listed in the SDSU General Cata- Catalog. log, at a local community college. IGETC = Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum. priority given to local Figure 7 transfer students in the More Local Students Among Transfers Admitted to SDSU past two years. Some transfer appli- Percentage of New Transfer Students, by Geographic Origin cants who are denied 100% admission to SDSU have other options within the CSU and UC systems, 80 provided they have the flexibility to leave 60 the region. At all CSU campuses except Cal Poly, transfer students Nonlocal 40 Local receive priority over freshmen. More than half of these campuses are 20 impacted for transfers, however—they impose supplemental eligibility Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 criteria for nonlocal applicants. The San www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 15 An LAO RepORt Diego-area community colleges also have TAGs freshmen. On September 10, 2009, SDSU requested with all UC campuses except Los Angeles and approval from the Chancellor’s Office to declare full Berkeley. In fact, San Diego-area transfer center impaction for freshman admission in all programs. directors and community college counselors report Six days later, SDSU received official approval and that it is now easier for a local community college was able to increase eligibility standards for all student to transfer to University of California, freshman students. The campus thus ended the San Diego (UCSD) than SDSU. The UCSD accepts local admission guarantee for high school students, all transfer students who have completed (1) the who were previously guaranteed admission if they required courses in English and mathematics, (2) at met the minimum CSU eligibility requirements. least 60 transferable units, (3) the Intersegmental (Figure 8 shows SDSU’s local area.) General Education Transfer Curriculum, and Local Concerns Raised. Officials in local high (4) two regular community college terms, as school districts and community colleges, as well well as achieved a cumulative GPA of at least as some community organizations, expressed 3.0. (Some majors may require completion of vocal concern about some of the policy changes. additional specific major preparation course work.) One objection concerned the short time frame Completing these requirements guarantees junior for local students to make alternate plans; the standing in the major. policy change was made public about two weeks before the start of the application period. More campus declares impaction for All Programs fundamental were objections that (1) high school More controversy was generated when SDSU students in San Diego, unlike students in other next tightened enrollment of local first-time parts of the state, would not be assured access to their local CSU campus, and (2) some community Figure 8 college students who had San Diego State University (SDSU) Local Admission Area been following SDSU’s transfer rules suddenly faced revised admissions criteria. We examine the effects of the policy Pomona changes in more detail San Bernardino below. Los Fullerton Angeles Dominguez Hills Effects of All-Program Long Beach impaction on First- Time Freshmen San Marcos Under the new San Diego admission policies, CSU-eligible local high school graduates are SDSU Local Admission Area no longer guaranteed admission to SDSU. 16 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt Instead, local students must compete with out-of- · The CSU system does not maintain a area students for admissions slots (although local centralized application process, and SDSU students receive extra eligibility index points to does not redirect to other campuses enhance their competitiveness). applicants who are denied admission. Students Turned Away. Of the almost 4,800 · The student would have to be able local applicants to SDSU who met minimum CSU to relocate to attend the out-of-area requirements for the fall 2010 term, about 1,740 were institution. This could prove difficult denied admission under the new policy. About half for students with local family or work (934) of these students accepted SDSU’s offer to be obligations. placed on a wait list. As slots became available, 82 of these students were offered admission, and 51 of · Several other campuses are designated as them ultimately enrolled for the fall term. Rejected impacted and can set higher requirements eligible applicants were also offered the opportunity for nonlocal students. San Diego students to complete lower-division coursework at a local who apply to those campuses must meet community college within three years and be the higher standards, and must compete guaranteed admission to SDSU as a transfer student. with other nonlocal students from across A local student who meets CSU systemwide the state for a limited number of slots. eligibility criteria, but who is not granted admission Shift in Student Population. As shown in to SDSU, remains eligible for admission to another Figure 9 (see next page), local students’ share of campus within the system. However, several factors new student cohorts increased steadily from 2005 could impede this option: through 2009, when they constituted 55 percent · The student would have to apply to the of new students. This percentage dropped to other institution by the November 30 43 percent in 2010, after SDSU eliminated the local deadline, but would be unlikely to hear guarantee. At the same time, the university estab- from SDSU on admissions decisions until lished a floor of 37 percent for the share of the new the spring. student cohort to be held by local students. STATEwidE Policy iMPlicATioNS Historically, most CSU campuses have while protecting local access. (As described in the drawn students primarily from high schools and nearby box, recent legislation strengthens protec- community colleges in the same region. For many tions for local access.) Some campuses continue years, there was little difficulty in meeting demand to embrace the regional role assumed by that from local and nonlocal students alike, as all system policy, but others are adopting more of a campuses (with the exception of Cal Poly) had the “destination campus” identity that is at odds with capacity to accept all applicants to at least some a regional role. This tension will likely increase as programs. As enrollment levels grew to fill much more programs become impacted. of that capacity, some campuses became unable This raises important policy questions about to accept all eligible applicants. In response, the how CSU should carry out its Master Plan respon- Trustees adopted policies to manage enrollment sibility to accept all eligible applicants somewhere www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 17 An LAO RepORt in the system, and Figure 9 in particular its role Percentage of Local Freshmen Enrolled at in meeting regional San Diego State University Drops education needs. In general, we believe that 100% eligible applicants to CSU should be able to attend 80 their local campus. We realize, however, that achieving this involves 60 important tradeoffs and other considerations, which we discuss below. 40 Integration Within the Higher Education Nonlocal 20 System. The Master Plan Local envisions CSU as part of a multifaceted higher education system. For Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 that system to work that of UC and CCC, as are its academic selectivity, properly, there needs degree of campus autonomy, instructional costs, to be sufficient coordination and integration and the number of campuses spread across the among the component institutions. (See an earlier state. With regard to the geographic focus of publication from this Master Plan at 50 series: individual campuses, we believe it makes sense for “Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts—Coordinating CSU similarly to occupy a position between UC Higher Education in California.”) For example, and CCC. The UC’s admissions policy guarantees the different eligibility targets assigned to the three students access to the system, but not to any public segments were designed to balance the desire particular campus. As a result, most UC campuses to maintain a limited number of selective campuses serve a diverse group of students from across the (at the UC) with universal access to higher state. In fact, at every UC campus, local students education (through the open-access community constitute a minority of enrollees. Conversely, colleges with a transfer pathway to the universities). students apply to each CCC campus individually, Similarly, the Master Plan balances the need to and each campus controls its own admissions address different types of public interests through process. In this context, it would make sense for governance structures that focus at the state level CSU to focus its admissions process at a regional (UC’s Board of Regents) and the local level (locally level, ensuring eligible students access to a campus elected boards of trustees in each community within their own region. college district). Aligning Access. A regional focus for CSU The CSU tends to occupy the middle ground helps to justify the existence of two public with regard to many of the Master Plan’s balancing university systems whose eligibility pools efforts. The size of its eligibility pool is between 18 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt R l a l a eCent egislation ffeCts oCal dmissions Legislation enacted in 2010 gives additional support to California State University’s (CSU’s) regional role. In particular, two new statutes strengthen CSU’s commitment to local applicants. Chapter 262 (AB 2402, Block) effectively ends CSU’s policy to expedite new impaction efforts. Chapter 262 requires that a campus provide specified public notice and hearings when it proposes a change in admissions that would affect applicants from the campus’ local service area. (Such proposals could include major impaction or changes to transfer admission criteria.) Once a campus has satisfied those requirements, the campus may submit the proposed change to the system Chancellor for approval. If the proposed change stems from constraints on resources, it can become effective six months after approval by the Chancellor. If the change is not based on resources constraints, the change cannot become effective until at least one year after approval by the Chancellor. Chapter 428 (SB 1440, Padilla) creates an associate degree for transfer for community college students that, beginning in fall 2011, guarantees eligibility for transfer to a CSU baccalaureate program under certain conditions. While the legislation does not guarantee admission to a specific major or campus, it requires that CSU grant such students priority admission to their local campus and to a major or program determined to be similar to the student’s community college major. significantly overlap. More practically, it can help ensuring local access to all eligible students is more ensure meaningful university access for eligible important than maintaining equal admissions applicants. Simply guaranteeing that all eligible criteria for all applicants to a given campus. Given students are offered admission somewhere in that some potential students are unable to relocate the UC and CSU systems may not be enough for outside of their region and the existence of UC students whose family or work obligations make campuses as statewide institutions, we conclude relocating to a different region impractical. Many that providing practical access to all eligible CSU students at CSU in particular find themselves in applicants is more important than maintaining these circumstances. equal admissions standards for all. On the other hand, granting preference to Use of Existing Capacity Also a Factor. The local students over out-of-area students could be dilemma of choosing between local and out-of-area perceived as inequitable—particularly when the applicants stems in part from a misalignment out-of-area student is better qualified. Moreover, between enrollment demand and the enrollment given that CSU campuses differ in terms of size, capacity of individual campuses and programs. campus amenities, program offerings, student Thus, the policy problem could be mitigated by bodies, and other characteristics, there could be better aligning resources with demand. In recent situations when a student’s local campus is not the years, for example, some campuses have struggled best suited to that students’ needs. to fill all the enrollment slots allocated to them While acknowledging that there is no ideal by the Chancellor’s office, while other campuses approach to local eligibility, we believe that have had to turn away students. Similarly, many www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 19 An LAO RepORt campuses have departments with fairly low and the financial resources to pay for faculty and utilization of classroom space while others are staff. And the ability to shift resources to meet filled beyond capacity. Moreover, almost all CSU changing demand requires flexibility that is not campuses—even those that have been declared always possible with existing tenure and other labor impacted—have considerable unused capacity rules. But it is evident that there are opportunities during the summer months. Of course, the ability to better meet enrollment demand with existing to serve more students requires both physical space financial and physical resources. lAo REcoMMENdATioNS While the Master Plan does not specifically amendment could clarify the distinction between assign CSU a regional role within the state’s the UC and the CSU as public university systems. tripartite public higher education system, CSU It could also specify that local students be given campuses—through their admissions policies admission priority at CSU. and other policies—have largely focused on Codify Eligibility Targets. Because serving regional education needs. Demographic changes regional needs depends to a large extent on how over the past 50 years, as well as changes in the eligibility is determined, we recommend that state’s education needs, have generally increased the Legislature codify its expectations for CSU’s the importance of that regional focus. However, eligibility pools. (A codified eligibility target for recent enrollment management efforts undertaken UC similarly would make sense.) The CSU could at campuses such as SDSU have the potential to be directed to draw its freshman admissions from weaken that regional role. We recommend that the top one-third of high school graduates, as origi- the Legislature take steps to formalize a regional nally called for in the Master Plan. Or a different education role for CSU, and direct CSU to modify target could be adopted if the Legislature felt it was its enrollment policies accordingly. warranted. Alternatively, the Legislature could do away with the Master Plan’s focus on a fixed share Recommend Amending Master Plan to Assign of high school graduates, and instead adopt some cSU a Regional Role in Education System kind of “college readiness” standards that are not Current statute specifies the types of programs linked to any particular percentage of graduates. and degrees CSU is to offer, but not the geographic Recommend directing cSU to focus of campuses’ enrollment decisions for those Revise Admission Policies programs. Statute does not address how CSU should define its eligibility pool. Although the As discussed above, some recent enrollment original Master Plan document recommended that management decisions threaten to weaken CSU’s CSU draw from the top one-third of high school ability to serve a regional education role. Program graduates, this provision was never codified. impaction policies in particular may result in Assign Specifically Regional Role. We some CSU-eligible students having no guaranteed recommend that the Legislature amend statute access to a campus in their region. We believe that specifically to assign CSU a regional role within those policies should be consistent with broader the state’s public higher education system. Such an state expectations for the public higher education system. 20 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt Direct Chancellor’s Office to Align Policies is completed, CSU should amend its policies as With Amended Master Plan. If the Legislature necessary to ensure they are aligned with legislative amends state policy to clarify its intent with regard intent. We recommend that the Legislature also to CSU’s regional role, we recommend that it direct direct the Chancellor’s Office to submit a report the Chancellor’s Office to review its admission, with the results of its review and an explanation of enrollment management, and other policies for the steps taken in light of that review. consistency with its mission. Once this review www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 21 An LAO RepORt 22 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 23 An LAO RepORt LAO Publications This report was prepared by Steve Boilard and Judy Heiman, with research assistance from Anabel Páez. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an email subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 24 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov