اینترنت

برچسب: fall

  • University of California enrolled a record number of California residents in the fall

    University of California enrolled a record number of California residents in the fall


    Student walk up and down the Promenade to Shields Library at UC Davis.

    Credit: Gregory Urquiaga / UC Davis

    The University of California increased enrollment of in-state students by more than 4,000 this past fall, keeping with demands from lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom to grow the number of California residents who get a coveted spot at the university system. 

    Not only did UC enroll a record number of Californians and its largest-ever class of California first-year students, but the rate of increase for those students was higher than in recent years, when UC has often seen only modest growth.

    That freshman class had 42,058 Californians — or 2,094 more than the previous fall. In addition to the uptick in first-years, UC enrolled more returning in-state sophomores, juniors and seniors than the previous year. Overall, UC enrolled 194,571 California resident undergraduates — or 4,145 more than fall 2022, a 2.2% jump. That accounted for 83.4% of UC’s total undergraduate enrollment. Enrollment of out-of-state students declined, thanks to a drop in the number of returning international students. 

    The historic jump in California residents is a turnaround from last year when lawmakers were critical of UC for failing to meet their demands.

    Campuses that welcomed an increase in California freshmen last fall are: Santa Cruz, Irvine, Davis, UCLA, San Diego and Santa Barbara. Berkeley and Merced saw only modest increases. When including returning students, the largest increases of California residents happened at the Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Diego campuses. UC officials cited higher retention rates as being among the main drivers of those increases. 

    “When we take a look at California resident students, this is the largest number that we’ve ever had,” Pamela Brown, UC’s vice president of institutional research and academic planning, said on a call with reporters this week.

    Over the last several years, UC has faced pressure from lawmakers and Newsom to prioritize enrollment of California resident undergraduates. In 2022, Newsom implemented a multiyear agreement — or a “compact” — with the system. Under the agreement, Newsom pledged annual budget increases of 5% in exchange for increased enrollment of in-state students, among other things.

    The system at times has struggled to keep up with those requests, with higher numbers of admitted California residents not always translating to enrollments in recent years.

    UC officials maintain they are committed to continue growing enrollment of California residents, even though Newsom earlier this month proposed deferring $258.8 million in state dollars for UC until 2025. That includes the funding for a 5% increase to UC’s base budget that the system is supposed to receive as part of the compact. 

    “We’re all in on the compact,” Brown said. 

    UC also enrolled a more racially diverse student body this past fall. Across the undergraduate student body, the share of students from underrepresented racial groups — including Black, Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander students — grew by 1.1% or 3,481 students. By far, the largest increase was among Latino students. UC enrolled 61,075 Latino students, 2,671 more than the previous fall, with California residents making up the vast majority of those students.

    UC achieved the increases despite a small decline in California residents transferring from a California community college, with the number of first-time transfer students down by 72. That decline, however, was much more modest than the previous year, when the number of in-state residents who transferred from a California community college declined by more than 1,000 students.

    Officials have attributed the drop in transfer students to declines in the number of students attending community colleges, which suffered massive enrollment losses during the pandemic. But with enrollment at the state’s community colleges now showing signs of recovery, those trends could be reversing.

    “We feel that this is something that is going to continue to improve in the next few years,” Brown said.

    UC’s optimistic estimates for in-state enrollment marks somewhat of a contrast from just a year ago, when UC told lawmakers it was behind schedule in increasing the enrollment of those students. UC estimated at the time that its enrollment of in-state students would decrease in the 2022-23 academic year, frustrating lawmakers who had asked UC to add thousands of California residents.

    In fact, though, UC ended up increasing enrollment of California residents on a full-time equivalent basis by more than 1,500 students in 2022-23, officials said this week. That was because students took more classes in the spring and winter than UC had anticipated. 

    The full-time equivalent calculation is different from headcount enrollment, which is a simple count of the total number of students. The number of full-time equivalent students, which is how the state calculates enrollment for funding purposes, is based on the total number of credits that students take. Under the multi-year agreement with Newsom, UC is expected to have added 8,000 full-time equivalent resident undergraduates by 2026-27, with 2022-23 serving as the baseline.

    UC won’t know its 2023-24 full-time equivalent enrollment numbers until the end of the academic year, but the increase in headcount enrollment in fall 2023 suggests that number is continuing to trend upward. 

    And even though UC is funded based on its full-time equivalent enrollment, lawmakers are just as concerned with ensuring the system continues to increase the total number of residents who attend. 

    The university’s plans for sustained enrollment growth does raise the question of whether its campuses have the capacity for that growth, particularly with some campuses already facing housing shortages.

    During this week’s call with reporters, officials cited new housing projects that are underway at several campuses and noted that future new students may not all be attending UC’s traditional brick-and-mortar campuses.

    “We are evaluating opportunities for students to pursue their degrees through things like our University of California in DC program, through our Sacramento program, which may not have direct footprints on campuses, but still allow them to have the in-person educational experience,” said Ryan King, a spokesperson for the system. 

    King added that UC will also look to increase online offerings.

    Brown also noted that the compact with Newsom has provided the “stability of knowing what we’re getting” and will help support enrollment growth.

    This year, under Newsom’s proposed budget deferrals, UC would be asked to borrow money to cover its compact funding — $227.8 million, plus another $31 million to increase resident enrollment and offset declines in the enrollment of nonresidents, who pay more tuition.

    In his budget proposal, Newsom said UC would get reimbursed in next year’s state budget. In its analysis of Newsom’s budget, the Legislative Analyst’s Office warned that plan could be risky. 

    “Not only would this proposal increase the pressure on the state to provide these payments next year—despite continued deficits — but it also would shift fiscal risk to these entities in the event the state does not ultimately make these payments,” the LAO wrote. 

    Brown, though, said UC remains confident in the compact and noted campuses are already moving forward with their 2024-25 enrollment planning, when UC expects to further increase California resident enrollment.

    “Campuses have set out targets that are helping us achieve the compact goals, and we’re continuing with those,” Brown said. “All our enrollment planning functions are looking to achieve the compact goals, and we are expressing great confidence that we’ll continue to get that support from the state.”





    Source link

  • Oliver Darcy: Don’t Fall for the Rightwing Attacks on Biden

    Oliver Darcy: Don’t Fall for the Rightwing Attacks on Biden


    Oliver Darcy is a media expert who reports on the media at his blog called Status. He here writes about the unwarranted jubilation of rightwing pundits who believe that their relentless attacks on Biden’s cognition were correct after all. This turns out to be a useful topic for them right now as Trump is hoovering up all the cash he can handle from his profitable dealings in real estate, bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and other lucrative deals.

    When you compare the two, it’s clear that Biden’s presidency was unblemished by corruption or scandal. The unemployment rate was low, inflation was dropping, and relationships with our allies in Europe, Canada, Mexico, and Asia were strong. The Economist said that the American economy was “the envy of the world.”

    Now we are locked, as Rahm Emanuel wrote in The Washington Post, in a state of chaos, corruption, and cruelty. Every government agency has been ripped apart by Elon Musk’s DOGS, and our democracy is turning into an imperial presidency. Trump has assembled a Cabinet of billionaires and FOX News personalities. From day to day, we wonder which government responsibility will be cast aside.

    I don’t know what Biden’s mental state was. But I liked his government far more than Trump’s cruel autocracy.

    Darcy writes:

    For years, right-wing media pushed a warped narrative of Joe Biden as a brain-dead puppet controlled by sinister, shadowy forces. Now they’re demanding vindication—but they do not deserve it.

    Over the last week, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s new book, “Original Sin,” has landed with a flurry of attention-grabbing headlines—not just for the reporting, but for what Tapper has said during the press tour. In an interview with Megyn Kelly on Tuesday, Tapper declared that “conservative media was right and conservative media was correct” about Joe Biden’s mental state. 

    But that’s not quite true. Or rather, it simplifies a much more nuanced media and political reality. While it’s fair to argue that the press should have covered Biden’s age with greater urgency—and to acknowledge that Biden clearly lost a step during his presidency—that’s a far cry from validating the deeply irresponsible narrative right-wing media spun for years: that the president of theUnited Stateswas a mentally incapacitated puppet with dementia, unaware of his own surroundings, and propped up by a “shadow government” running the country in his name. 

    That was never journalism. It was propaganda. Full stop.

    Since the early days of the 2020 campaign, MAGA Media figures—particularly on Fox News—lobbed increasingly absurd claims about Biden’s mental faculties. They painted him as a senile old man who didn’t know what day it was, who couldn’t walk unaided, and who spent his presidency dozing off while Barack Obama or Ron Klain or some other shadowy liberal elite force secretly ran the country behind closed doors.

    This wasn’t grounded in evidence. It wasn’t the result of deep reporting or careful observation. It was pure narrative warfare—an attempt to delegitimize Biden not just as a candidate but as a commander-in-chief. And the coverage became so cartoonish at times that no amount of fact-based reporting about Biden could pierce the right-wing media bubble.

    None of this is to deny that Biden was aging. He was. By the end of his term, it was obvious to those around him—and to many voters—that he lacked the energy he once had. Even Democratic operatives privately acknowledged that he didn’t have his fastball anymore. But there’s a world of a difference between an 80-something president, who has always been prone to gaffes, showing his age and a man secretly suffering from debilitating dementia or worse. And conflating the two, as Fox News and its allies routinely did, wasn’t just misleading—it was malicious.

    Yes, Biden’s debate performance on CNN was troubling. Yes, the press should have been more aggressive in scrutinizing his capacity to serve a second term. But reporters who refrained from joining the right-wing media hysteria were not negligent or part of a cover-up—they were simply cautious. They understood the weight of diagnosing a president with a serious neurodegenerative disorder without hard evidence. And they understood the cost of being wrong, particularly asDonald Trump ran on an authoritarian-like platform that he is now implementing in office.

    MAGA Media’s goal was never honest diagnosis. It was political demolition. They weaponized Biden’s verbal gaffes, his slower gait, and his lower-energy demeanor to manufacture the idea that he was mentally vacant. Never mind that Biden managed the job without the chaos and confusion that has markedTrump’s second term. No matter what Biden did—whether it was biking, traveling, or delivering speeches—the same echo chamber smeared him with the same predictable attacks.

    That wasn’t journalism. It was performance. And it came from people like Kelly and Sean Hannity, who weren’t doing reporting at all. They weren’t gathering facts. They were throwing mud, hoping some of it would stick. And in many corners of the country, it did.

    That’s what makes the current revisionism so maddening. Now, with Tapper and Thompson’s book pointing to Biden’s visible decline, MAGA Media figures are claiming vindication. They’re demanding apologies from journalists who didn’t amplify their dementia narrative—insisting, once again, that they were “right all along.” 

    It’s reminiscent of how right-wing media rewrote history around Robert Mueller’s Russia probe or the COVID-19 pandemic: flattening complexity, cherry-picking facts, and pretending their worst-faith speculation was truth from the start.

    But they weren’t right. They were irresponsible. They didn’t try to understand what was happening behind the scenes—they invented a version of it that was politically convenient. And just because Biden aged, and struggled in the final days of his presidency, doesn’t make their years of bad-faith character assassination suddenly noble. Notably, while they maligned Biden, they let Trump—a man prone to deranged rants and wild conspiracy theories—off the hook entirely.

    Biden didn’t have a perfect presidency, and his age became an unavoidable liability. But he was not an empty shell of a man, either. He governed. He made decisions. He passed legislation. And he did it while under constant attack from a media machine that acted not as a watchdog—but as an attack dog.

    No one owes that dishonest machine an apology.



    Source link

  • Short of signatures for fall, organizers target California’s 2026 ballot for tightening transgender rights

    Short of signatures for fall, organizers target California’s 2026 ballot for tightening transgender rights


    Conservative groups and LGBTQ+ rights supporters protest outside the Glendale Unified School District offices in Glendale on June 6, 2023. Several hundred people gathered at district headquarters, split between those who support or oppose teaching that exposes youngsters to LGBTQ+ issues in schools.

    Credit: Keith Birmingham/The Orange County Register via AP

    California activists seeking to rein in transgender children’s rights to care and self-expression failed to place a trifecta of restrictions on the November ballot.

    The organization Students First: Protect Kids California started too late to consolidate their three separate initiatives into one, and its signature-gathering came up short of the 546,651 verifiable signatures that had to be collected within six months to make the presidential election ballot. The goal was to collect 800,000 signatures to be safe.

    But battles over transgender issues will continue to burn bright in courts, school districts and the Legislature. Despite a setback, initiative organizers were buoyed by the 400,000 signatures that thousands of volunteers collected. They are confident that they will attract more donations and enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot two years from now — and find more support than leaders in heavily Democratic California assume exists.  

    “We’re very confident that voters would pass this if it gets to the ballot box,” said Jonathan Zachreson, a Roseville City school board member and co-founder of Protect Kids California. “We gathered more signatures for a statewide initiative than any all-volunteer effort in the history of California.”

    The three-pronged initiative would:

    • Prohibit transgender female students in grades seven and up from participating in female sports while restricting gender-segregated bathrooms and locker room facilities to students assigned that gender at birth. The initiative would overturn a decade-old state law that requires schools to accommodate a student’s gender identity in their choice of sports and activities.
    • Ban gender-affirming health care for transgender patients under 18.
    • Require schools to notify parents if a student identifies as transgender through actions like switching a name or to a pronoun associated with a different gender, joining a sports team or using a bathroom that doesn’t match the student’s sex assigned at birth or school record.

    The last issue has sparked a firestorm within the past year.

    Last week, a Democratic legislator introduced a late-session bill that would preempt mandatory parental notification. Assembly Bill 1955, by Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego, would prohibit school districts from adopting a mandatory parental notification policy and bar them from punishing teachers who defy outing policies of LGBTQ+ students.

    Last year, Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Corona, introduced a bill that would require parental notification, but AB 1314 died in the Assembly Education Committee without getting a hearing. Committee Chair Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, reasoned the bill would “potentially provide a forum for increasingly hateful rhetoric targeting LGBTQ youth.”

    Ward cited surveys of transgender and gender nonconforming youths that found most felt unsafe or unsupported at home. In one national survey, 10% reported someone at home had been violent toward them because they were transgender, and 15% had run away or were kicked out of home because they were transgender.

    The California Department of Education has issued guidance that warns that parental notification policies would violate students’ privacy rights and cites a California School Boards Association model policy that urges districts to protect students’ gender preferences.

    But Zachreson argues that even if children have a right to gender privacy that excludes their parents, which he denies exists, students waive it through their actions.  “At school, their teachers know about it, their peers and volunteers know about it, other kids’ parents know about it —  and yet the child’s own parent doesn’t know that the school is actively participating in the social transition,” he said.

    In some instances, he said, schools are actively taking steps to keep name changes and other forms of gender expression secret from the parents.

    “What we’re saying is, no, you can’t do that. You have to involve the parents in those decisions,” he said.

    Ward responds that many teachers don’t want to be coerced to interfere with students’ privacy and gender preferences. “Teachers have a job to do,” he said. “They are not the gender police.”

    A half-dozen school districts with conservative boards, including Rocklin, Temecula Valley and Chino Valley, have adopted mandatory parental notification policies. Last fall, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Chino Valley, arguing its policy is discriminatory. A state Superior Court judge in San Bernardino agreed that it violated the federal equal protection clause and granted a preliminary injunction. The case is on appeal.

    Last July, a judge for the U.S. District of Eastern California threw out a parent’s lawsuit against Chico Unified for its policy prohibiting disclosure of a student’s transgender status to their parent without the student’s explicit consent. The court ruled that it was appropriate for the district to allow students to disclose their gender identity to their parents “on their own terms.” Bonta and attorneys general from 15 states filed briefs supporting Chico Unified; the case, too, is on appeal.

    While some teachers vow to sue if required to out transgender students to their parents, a federal judge in Southern California sided with two teachers who sued Escondido Union School District for violating their religious beliefs by requiring them to withhold information to parents about the gender transition of children. The judge issued a preliminary injunction against the district and then ordered the return of the suspended teachers to the classroom.

    No California appellate court has issued a ruling on parent notification, and it will probably take the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive decision. Essayli pledged to take a case there.

    The national picture

    Seven states, all in the deeply red Midwest and South, have laws requiring identification of transgender students to their parents, while five, including Florida and Arizona, don’t require it but encourage districts to adopt ther own version, according to the Movement Advancement Project or MAP, an independent nonprofit.

    Two dozen states, including Florida, Texas, and many Southern and Midwest states ban best-practice health care, medication and surgical care for transgender youth, and six states, including Florida, make it a felony to provide surgical care for transgender care. Proponents cite the decision in March by the English public health system to prohibit youths under 16 from beginning a medical gender transition to bolster the case for tighter restrictions in the United States.  

    California has taken the opposite position; it is one of 15 like-minded states and the District of Columbia with shield laws to protect access to transgender health care. They include New York, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Massachusetts.

    Twenty-five states have laws or regulations banning the participation of 13- to 17-year-old transgender youth in participating in sports consistent with their gender identification.

    Not one solidly blue state is among those that have adopted the restrictions that Protect Kids California is calling for. But Zachreson and co-founder Erin Friday insist that contrary to the strong opposition in the Legislature, California voters would be open to their proposals. They point to favorable results in a survey of 1,000 California likely voters by the Republican-leaning, conservative pollster Spry Strategies last November.

    • 59% said they would support and 29% would oppose legislation that “restricts people who are biologically male, but who now identify as women, from playing on girl’s sports teams and from sharing facilities that have traditionally been reserved for women.”
    • 72% said they agreed, and 21% disagreed that “parents should be notified if their child identifies as transgender in school.”
    • 21% said they agreed, and 64% disagreed that “children who say they identify as transgender should be allowed to undergo surgeries to try to change them to the opposite sex or take off-label medications and hormones.”

    The voters surveyed were geographically representative and reflective of party affiliation, but not demographically: The respondents were mostly white and over 60, and, in a progressive state, were divided roughly evenly among conservatives, moderates and liberals.

    Two versions of protecting children

    Both sides in this divisive cultural issue say they’re motivated to protect children. One side says it’s protecting transgender children to live as they are, without bias and prejudice that contribute to despair and suicidal thoughts. The other side says it’s protecting kids from coercion to explore who they aren’t, from gender confusion and exposure to values at odds with their family’s.

    Zachreson and Friday wanted to title their initiative “Protect Kids of California Act of 2024.” But Bonta, whose office reviews initiatives’ titles and summaries, chose instead “Restrict Rights of Transgender Youth. Initiative Statute.” Zachreson and Friday, an attorney, appealed the decision, but a Superior Court judge in Sacramento upheld Bonta’s wording, which he said was accurate, not misleading or prejudicial.

    Zachreson is appealing again. A more objective title and summary would make a huge difference, he said, by attracting financial backing to hire signature collectors and the support and resources of the California Republican Party, which declined to endorse the initiative. That was a strategic mistake in an election year when turnout will be critical.

    ”The people who support the initiative are passionate about it,” he said.

    Political observer Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University, agreed that the gender debate could have motivated Republicans and swing voters to go to the polls. 

    “There’s no question that the Attorney General’s ballot language had a devastating effect on the initiative’s supporters, and it could have almost as much of an impact on Republican congressional candidates this fall,” he said.





    Source link

  • Cal Poly Humboldt will cover gap between tuition and aid for eligible students next fall

    Cal Poly Humboldt will cover gap between tuition and aid for eligible students next fall


    A new initiative at California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, seeks to allay students’ doubts about whether they can afford to enroll there. If there is a gap remaining after traditional financial aid awards, Humboldt says it will pick up the balance starting in the fall.

    Cal Poly Humboldt’s Green & Gold Guarantee makes it the second among the 23 California State University (CSU) campuses to launch a last-dollar tuition guarantee after California State University, Fresno began one last fall. Based on previous enrollment trends, the Humboldt program could cover as many as 2,000 students a year.

    The average award is expected to fill a gap of roughly $200 on average, not an enormous amount on its own but enough to provide a sense of stability to worried students, officials say. And by attracting and keeping more students, Humboldt hopes to continue its climb back from a drastic enrollment drop in the past decade. 

    Chrissy Holliday, Humboldt’s vice president for enrollment management and student success, said students will learn whether they are eligible for the guarantee soon after submitting financial aid applications, rather than having to wait for their entire aid package to be determined in detail. “It creates just a level of certainty that they wouldn’t have otherwise,” she said. 

    Cal Poly Humboldt’s guarantee program is open initially to new first-year and transfer students who are California residents or otherwise qualify for in-state tuition and meet financial criteria. It can continue for up to four years for full-time students and two for transfers. There is no separate application after filing the usual Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) or the California Dream Act Application. The guarantee at the campus of roughly 6,000 students covers tuition and mandatory fees — such as those used to fund health services and the student center — but does not cover other expenses like food and housing.

    Admissions trends suggest the program could benefit hundreds of incoming students, if not more. Cal Poly Humboldt estimates that 300 first-time students per year would have received the guarantee in 2023 and 2024 if the program had existed. The university additionally admitted an average of 1,700 applicants who would have been eligible had they chosen to enroll at Humboldt. 

    “When it comes to programs like this, it’s so, so helpful to students that are low-income, maybe first-generation, whose primary barrier to college access is going to be financial aid,” said Rachel Perry, who assists high school students with financial aid applications through her work with the North Coast California Student Opportunity and Access Program Consortium. “There are so many students who I see at my workshops every week that are discouraged because they feel like, ‘Even if I get some financial aid, is it going to be enough?’”

    California State University, Fresno, launched a similar initiative, Tuition Advantage, in fall 2024. Phong Yang, the interim vice president for student affairs and enrollment management at Fresno State, said the program is a response to concerns from students who report in surveys that “the cost of college is always towards the top of their priorities.” Given that reality, university officials were also concerned about how the troubled rollout of the 2024-25 Free Application for Federal Student Aid might impact prospective students.

    In its first year, Fresno State awarded 111 students between $70 and $3,300 through Tuition Advantage, Yang said, at a total cost of roughly $200,000. It’s hard to gauge whether the new program was a deciding factor for those students in its first year, he added, but enrollment rose 3.6% this fall from 2023.

    Students weighing whether to pursue a college degree may have difficulty estimating how much their education will cost because the sticker price on many academic programs can deviate from students’ actual costs after scholarships, financial aid and loans. Living expenses can also add to students’ overall cost of attendance, adding to unpredictability.

    At Cal Poly Humboldt, a full-time, first-time undergraduate living off campus with family and receiving in-state tuition could expect expenses of $12,316 a year including food, housing and other costs before aid, according to federal data for the 2022-23 school year. An in-state student living on campus faced estimated expenses of $24,856 before aid. 

    But if a student qualifies for financial aid, that won’t be their final price tag. At Cal Poly Humboldt, in-state undergraduates in the lowest income bracket — those with a family income of $30,000 or less — faced an average net price of $8,090 for all costs in the 2022-23 school year after average aid awards, the most recent data available. Those in the next-highest income bracket, which is capped at $48,000, had an average net price of $9,623.

    The Green & Gold Guarantee could reduce tuition and fee costs further for selected students. Eligibility will be based on a measure of financial need called the student aid index, which is calculated when students apply for state or federal assistance to attend college. Manny Rodriguez, the director of policy and advocacy in California for The Institute for College Access & Success, said the program seems like it will support low- to moderate-income students, including those who receive a minimum or partial Pell Grant, a common form of federal aid. It also could support students who do not qualify for a Cal Grant because of factors like age or time out of high school, he said, even though they are Pell-eligible.

    Students who take a break from school or return to Humboldt after transferring to another institution lose eligibility. The guarantee is also not open to students in graduate, credential or extended education programs, nor to students who entered Humboldt before fall 2025.

    To be eligible, students must also be enrolled full time, maintain at least a 2.0 GPA and renew their financial aid application annually.

    Cal Poly Humboldt, formerly Humboldt State, has in recent years transitioned to a polytechnic university, concentrating more on science, technology, engineering and mathematics programs. 

    The university in far Northern California anticipated that its polytechnic status would bring a wave of new students after a period of decline. That prediction has proven at least partially true: The student body grew 5% between 2021, the year before its name change became official, and fall 2024. However, overall enrollment remains more than 30% lower than a decade ago in 2015. While Cal Poly Humboldt’s beautiful location attracts students, others have felt too far away from metro areas around the state. 

    Cal State data shows that another challenge has been retaining students who are already enrolled. Though Cal Poly Humboldt’s first year continuation rate has risen slightly in recent school years, it still lags most of its sister campuses in the CSU system. Across the CSU system, 83% of full-time, first-time freshmen who started in fall 2023 continued to a second year, while a slimmer 76% of Cal Poly Humboldt first-year students returned to the campus for year two. 

    Mary Mangubat, a Cal Poly Humboldt student who participates in the Students for Quality Education internship program, which is funded by the California Faculty Association, said one of her concerns about the Green & Gold Guarantee is that it’s not open to current students. “We as continuing students don’t get a lot of support or outreach from the university,” Mangubat said, “and so people often can’t sustain themselves here on this campus and they transfer out.” 

    The university anticipates that the program will cost about $82,000 annually. In its first year, it will receive one-time funding from the university’s contract with food vendor Chartwells, Humboldt VP Holliday said, and will be funded by tuition revenue going forward.

    This post has been updated with the legal name of California State University, Fresno.





    Source link