Campus Quality Fee Appendix I.f

Campus Quality Fee Feedback Forum

Student Forum

April 22, 2008 

No. of students in attendance: 17

Related to Alternative Consultation Process:

Questions:

None

Comments:

• I feel the wording of the pre-proposal survey was tricky.
• The statistic in the proposal of "75%" of student wanted CSUN to be more "competivite" is inaccurate.
• I still think this should have been voted on by the students. (Even if it would be only advisory.)
• Cal State is more like communist than democratic because the president is going to decide on this.

Related to Fee 

Questions:

• What are you speaking about when you say course related fees? Is this for labs, printers, ink, etc?
• I'm curious why the university would allocate 42% of the fee to Athletics when 42% of our students are not athletes. (2)
• How can you say that the statistics of 1400 students accurately reflect the desires of the entire student body?
• There are a lot of athletes here. Will the president base her decision on the number and kinds of students who attend the forums? (Will they have more say?)
• One of the major student concerns in the discussions we've had is transparency. Will students be able to see exactly where this money is going to be spent?
• In Table 2, the IRA type support only shows $500,000 in the first year. Why is that?
• Are we going to be able to see the report that goes to the committee?
• Are all athletic scholarships full-ride?
• When we're suffering a lot to pay fees to fund these things, how can the president get such a big raise? (2)

Comments:

• I can see why they would need to allocate money to labs but giving to athletics is more of a want than a need.
• Supporting Athletics could improve our success, raise spirit, get more students involved, raise our image and help to attract more quality students.
• The fact is, we're a commuter campus. That's why students aren't involved.
• Some of this makes sense, like the student services, but it's not fair to pay for a lab you're not taking or someone else's scholarships.
• The timing of this concerns me, in light of the fact we're facing a state increase. At the same time, isn't a lot of financial aid (CAL ACCESS Grant) going away?
• Even if we did have to pass a fee, I think it would have been better to wait.
• I believe the Cal Grant will be eliminated.
• The forum wasn't long enough.
• It makes sense that some things we pay for won't directly benefit us when others are paying for some of the things we're getting.
• I support the fee for:
  • All aspects (3)
  • Course Fee Elimination (2)
  • Technology (3)
  • Athletics
    • Scholarships, facilities, and equipment (4)
    • Increased spirit = improved student experience/participation (2)
    • Community involvement (1)
    • School's Reputation (3)
  • Student Services (3)
• Even though I'm an athlete who does not receive any financial aid or athletic scholarship money from the school and understand why some people wouldn't want to pay for other people's scholarships, I support this fee. It can help the school out in many different ways such as better technology and participation in school athletics.
• I especially need more hours for available tutors.
• Campus spirit positively affects athletics and vice versa. It's hard to keep asking my parents to pay for me to go to my tournaments so I can represent the school.
• It is contradictory for our campus president, who at the campus budget form announced she would not be supporting tuition increases to be supporting this fee.
• The budget is very vague and lacks a method for accountability of the money.
• Students choose the program they want to associate with (i.e. Athletics, Art.) It's their responsibility to find out what the related extra expenses are and pay for their own. One who is planning to study abroad cannot expect a low-income student to pay for him or her.
• By year three 43% of our fees are going to athletics.