Improving state's higher ed systems

Long lines, closed sections and crowded classes are difficult enough, but students at the University of California and California State University campuses also saw a 32 percent jump in their fees this school year.

Costs at the four-year schools have been on a roller coaster for decades, making it hard to students and their families to save and plan for college.

Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater, has introduced a bill that would smooth the way. His proposal, the Student Protection Act, would require that the two university systems provide a 180-day waiting period between when a fee hike is approved and when it goes into effect. Senate Bill 927 (for CSU) and SCA 26 also would limit fee increases to 10 percent per year.

We think these are sound ideas that deserve serious consideration in the Legislature this session.

Republican legislators often have a hard time getting bills out of committee, but Denham has a Democratic co-sponsor and some conceptual support from higher education that should help his idea move along.

In announcing the bill, Denham cited examples of extravagance by the university system, including UC's "fantasy island resort," actually a research station on Tahiti, and high administrative salaries and expenses.

We're very troubled by the expensive travel habits of some administrators and by the high overhead throughout the systems.

But Denham's proposal can be argued more persuasively on the basic issue of fairness to students and families.

California and especially the valley need more students graduating from college, not fewer. Quickly escalating fees deters students, and they're hardest on middle and higher income Californians. More than a third of CSU and UC undergraduates have full fee waivers, usually because they are low income.

Meanwhile, in addition to the financial crises of the moment, a provocative new report from the Legislative Analyst Office suggests that public higher education in California has system problems.

Among them: duplicative programs and an emphasis on adding degree programs, such as law, that bring prestige to a campus but aren't greatly needed in the state.

The LAO is doing a series of reports looking at how the state is fulfilling its almost 50-year-old Master Plan for Higher Education. When people refer to the master plan, they often cite the fact that it called for easy -- and relatively cheap -- access to higher education for Californians.

This latest LAO report looks at coordination shortcomings, including "mission creep." The master plan specified that the UC, CSU and community college systems had distinct missions; the LAO says those are being abandoned or muddied.

The creation of UC Merced is cited as an example of this mission creep, with the argument that the master plan called for CSU to meet regional needs and UC campuses to all have a statewide emphasis.

The report also notes that CSU has introduced doctorate programs that once were identified as the purview of the UCs. Another issue raised in the report: Colleges are funded based on the number of students who enroll rather than the number who graduate -- providing an incentive to get students in the door but not to assure that they earn a degree.

We don't agree with every conclusion of the LAO report, but it surely raises good points about weak accountability and how the three branches -- UC, CSU and community colleges -- are each lobbying for their own interests, with little regard for the collective good of the state.

Our bottom line: Denham has introduced a bill to provide some important financial predictability for California's college students -- current and future. And the LAO report identifies ways to assure that California's public universities operate efficiently.