CSUF News Service
Chancellor White Approves Student Success Fee for Fall 2014
Authorization Follows President García's Recommendation on the Fee Committee's Amended Proposal
March 21, 2014
CSU Chancellor Timothy White authorized Cal State Fullerton to adopt a Student Success Fee this fall that will mean an infusion of funds for academic services and other resources for students.
White approved the fee this week, setting the stage for implementation beginning with the fall 2014 semester, when the overall cost for full-time students will be $3,153.33. The fee is being phased in over a three-year period when it will total $181 a semester by 2016-17.
Fullerton is the 11th campus in the 23-campus CSU to initiate such a fee, which will bring additional resources for expanded course sections and library hours, expanded academic advising, plus support for learning communities and supplemental instruction, among other resources students have requested. Allocations are detailed online.
After four weeks of consultation that included 153 public forums and group presentations, along with a campuswide information effort to put the proposed Student Success Fee on the radar of every student via ads, fliers, email, social media and portal announcements, the proposal was amended and approved by the CSUF Student Fee Advisory Committee.
Its members — a majority of whom are students — forwarded the amended fee proposal to CSUF President García, who approved and forwarded it to the chancellor with her recommendation for his approval.
"Any proposal to increase the cost of higher education is not one I take lightly," noted García in an email sent today (March 21) to the campus community. "However, my number one priority has been— and must be —our students' academic and professional success. I also recognize that the many financial pressures we are facing, including the fact that our campus-based fees are the third lowest in the 23-campus system, make it difficult to achieve the vision of what we aspire to become."
The committee had elected to pursue a consultative process stemming from its members' conviction that a low-turnout student referendum wouldn't convey much information beyond the up-or-down vote. A consultative process would yield more information and result in a more-informed decision by the committee.
The volume of data gleaned by the process, including the 3,809 valid paper and online surveys received during the monthlong campus consultation, serves to validate the committee's choice about process. The number of survey participants is two-thirds larger than the average turnout for campuswide student elections in the last three years and larger than the total votes cast in any year since 2008.
Noted García: "I was proud of the quality and inclusiveness of the process, the vibrancy of the discussion, and the fact that the final proposal I received reflected what students voiced as those things important to them."