U N I V E R S I T Y   O F   C A L I F O R N I A

BERKELEY   •   DAVIS  •   IRVINE   •   LOS ANGELES   •   MERCED   •   RIVERSIDE   •   SAN DIEGO   •   SAN FRANCISCO		SANTA BARBARA   •   SANTA CRUZ
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT	1111 Franklin Street Oakland, California 94607-5200 Phone: (510) 987-9074 Fax: (510) 987-9086 http://www.ucop.edu

November 22, 2000

CHANCELLORS

Dear Colleagues:

I am writing to summarize how the University intends to proceed with regard to the fee structure for an expanded summer program. This will amend the Guidelines Governing Summer Session Operations issued March 14, 1975 with respect to setting summer session fees for UC matriculated students.

As we have discussed, the University will need to employ a number of strategies to accommodate the additional 63,000 FTE students projected to enroll by 2010-11. While the majority of these students can be accommodated under the campuses' existing Long Range Development Plans, substantial increases in summer enrollments also will be necessary. The 2000 Budget Act provided $13.8 million to the University to reduce summer session fees for UC students beginning in Summer 2001. We are confident that the State will provide the University with the remaining funds needed to meet the increased enrollment demand.

There are three clear policies for general campus programs that we want to implement in the long run with regard to summer. There will be no change to current practice for programs in the health sciences. The three policies for general campus programs are:

• First, with full State funding, summer course offerings will be comparable in quality to those provided during the regular academic year.

• Second, student fees for summer instruction will be the same in structure as those charged during the regular academic year, although they will be charged on a per-unit basis.

• In addition, at least one-third of the revenue from mandatory summer fees (equivalent to the Educational Fee and the University Registration Fee) paid by UC students will be rolled into the systemwide pool of need-based student support funds, i.e., the University Student Aid Program (USAP).

However, it is also clear from your written comments and our discussion at the Council of Chancellors meeting on November 1, along with comments of the Academic Council, that a transition period is needed during which time summer fees can be treated flexibly in order to encourage students to attend during the summer and enable campuses to develop an appropriate level of student services. Accordingly, we will proceed as follows for the next several years during the transition to full State funding:

• Campuses may not charge summer fees that exceed an amount equivalent to a per-unit fee level comparable to that charged during the regular academic year, but as an incentive to encourage summer enrollment campuses may, on a temporary basis, charge fees lower than the appropriate per-unit fee level. Some examples include:

  • charging a summer fee that does not include Nonresident Tuition in order to encourage nonresident UC students to attend;

  • charging a summer fee that does not include a professional school's differential fee in order to encourage students in those schools to attend; or

  • charging resident fees that are lower than the Universitywide fee levels.

• If a campus chooses to reduce summer fees as an incentive, it should simply charge the fee at the reduced level rather than charging the full fee and then waiving a portion. Ordinarily the waived amount would have to be funded from other sources. Under the new plan, any loss of revenue experienced by the campus as a result of the reduced fees will not be replaced by other fund sources.

• A campus that has received full State summer funding will return at least one-third of summer fee revenue to an interim systemwide summer need-based aid pool. If a campus that has received full State summer funding implements incentives that reduce fees, its return-to-aid amount from summer fee revenue will be correspondingly reduced. Campuses that have not received full State funding will not contribute to the interim systemwide summer aid pool.

• During the transition period, campuses will charge a consolidated summer fee rather than separate Educational and University Registration Fees to allow campuses flexibility in the uses of student fee revenue. Chancellors will be responsible for determining the nature and level of student services necessary for summer operations.

Campuses will be asked to report annually on the transition period strategies for expanding summer enrollment including information on the academic programs offered, the number and academic rank of the faculty teaching during the summer, the fee strategies employed, and the amount of foregone revenue due to implementation of incentives.

In the annual report, we will also want to know what fee incentives you anticipate implementing for the coming summer so that we can share this information across campuses, to encourage the development of expanded summer programs while minimizing intercampus competition.

The University will evaluate these transitional strategies on an ongoing basis and it is anticipated that the permanent fee policies will be implemented in 2005-06. Both the transition and long-term policies will apply only to fees charged to UC students. Campuses may continue to set fees for non-UC students as they have in the past.

The attached document describes the summer session fee policies in more detail. Any questions on these policies should be directed to Assistant Vice President for Planning and Analysis Sandra Smith at (510) 987-9147.

Sincerely,

Richard C. Atkinson
President

Attachments

cc:

Members, President's Cabinet
Provost King
Academic Council Chair Cowan
Academic Vice Chancellors
Assistant Vice President Smith