Administration considers per-course fees

Wednesday, 4/30/97 Administration considers per-course fees
‘Materials’ charge could be $100 for each course, officials say

By Brooke Olson Daily Bruin Senior Staff If the governor "buys
out" proposed UC fee increases, then students will pay the same
amount next year as they did this year, right? Wrong. The UC Board
of Regents won’t raise fees next year, but UCLA administrators
might. UCLA officials are currently in the midst of considering
several different fee proposals which could potentially raise costs
by several hundred dollars a year per student. If these fees are
approved, it will make UCLA the most expensive university within
the nine-campus system. The university may soon charge $30-$100 per
class, under the guise of a recently approved Course Material Fee
Policy, but the only acknowledged fee hike is for "instructional
enhancement." In its current stage of development, the initiative
would provide a World Wide Web site for every course as well as
offer virtual office hours for classes and provide enhanced drop-in
computer and science labs. The fee for these enhancements would be
based on the number of credit hours taken. Non-science courses
would cost less than science courses because they tend to use less
technology, said David Wilson, assistant dean of humanities and
member of a "user committee" that is currently drafting the
proposal. "The idea is that for the humanities and social sciences,
the fee we will be proposing is probably in the area of $2.50 per
credit hour, while the South Campus (classes) would probably be
$3.50 per credit hour," Wilson said. Costs per course could range
from $9 to $13 for each undergraduate, nontutorial class – a "small
price" to pay for entering the 21st century, supporters of the fee
said. Opponents of the fee argue that the university’s proposal
lacks both foresight and an accurate survey of student and faculty
needs. The user committee, which consists of eight students,
several assistant deans and a representative from the chancellor’s
office, has relied on "anecdotal" evidence as well as their own
ideas in establishing a proposal for the fee, Wilson said. "I’m all
for technology, but … the plan is rather ill-conceived," said
Justine Hernandez, a graduate student in English. "I just think
they really need to think about exactly what they’re doing,"
Hernandez said. "This fee is really going to change the way
professors teach and increase the number of hours teaching
assistants must work for their classes," she added. Members of the
committee note that although their proposal is not finalized, they
believe that it is a fair and modest fee. "The fee is pretty small
compared to how much it is going to accomplish," Wilson said. "We
would prefer not to have the students pay for anything. "At the
same time we think students understand that there are things they
have to pay for in order to enhance their education," Wilson said.
Whether or not technology is essential to education, though, is a
debate that rages from the steps of Kerckhoff Hall to the state
Legislature’s meeting room. "To compete, our students must have
easy access to all forms of information and technologies, including
equipment, systems and networks," said Assemblyman Ted Lempert,
D-Palo Alto. "(But) fees for using campus computers certainly offer
a barrier for many students" who will be unable to pay for the
additional fee. User committee members said current proposals would
have the "enhancement" fee folded into a student’s financial aid
package. Since there’s no way to determine which and how many
classes the student will take, the financial aid offered would be
an estimate, Wilson said. The proposal will be presented to the
Student Fee Advisory Committee for approval by May 19, after which
it will be forwarded to the chancellor for possible implementation.
But the enhancement fee is just one cost students will bear over
the next few years – additional mandatory course fees will also be
implemented, sources said. To a certain extent, course fees already
exist in the form of lab fees that provide the students with
additional materials. However, because mandatory course fees within
the UCs were then illegal, the lab fees were optional. Students
could purchase the materials from a different source. But when UCLA
discovered four UC campuses charging mandatory course fees, the
administrators succeeded in lobbying the UC Office of the President
(UCOP) to change the policy last May. "At this point, these fees
are a definite certainty," said Undergraduate Cultural Affairs
Commissioner Max Espinoza. Now that the president’s office has
changed the policy, the only barrier to charging for each course is
UCOP’s and campus administrators’ approval – a goal some say is
easily achieved. There’s no student vote nor legislative approval
necessary – an advisory committee composed of students and
administrators is responsible for drafting and submitting the
proposal. "Pretty much the university can do what they want," said
John Lee, an undergraduate student who serves on the Student Fee
Advisory Committee. "If the administration sees these course fees
justified, then there really is no problem in getting these
implemented." Although several administrators denied that UCLA
would implement course fees next year, members of SFAC noted that
university officials have been discussing the possibility of such a
fee since last May. The fee, under the guidelines established by
UCOP, would not exceed the cost of an average textbook – anywhere
from $30 to $100 per course. Departments will use the money to
purchase materials or products germane to the class, such as
overhead projectors and handouts. Some fear that the fees will not
directly benefit the students but will instead be used to enhance
various faculty salaries. University officials, though, deny the
claim, noting that if mandatory course fees were implemented,
students would directly benefit from the costs. Students, staff and
faculty can post questions and comments on UCLA fees at
http://www.humnet.ucla.edu /voh/iei.html. Previous Daily Bruin
Story: UC Regents propose new fee increases, January 20, 1995