DRAFT TWO, Version 3. [Note Title Change]
For ATAC review but not for dissemination.
A Review of Options for Facilitating Student Progress to the Degree
By Means of Taking Classes at CSU Campuses Other than the “Home” Campus of Matriculation
Keith Boyum
Professor of Political Science, Emeritus
California State University, Fullerton
kboyum@fullerton.edu
March 9, 2009
Replaces Draft Two Version 2, dated February 12, 2009
Replaces Draft Two, dated February 11, 2009
Replaces Version 1.1 dated January 26, 2009
1
Especially as online courses and programs grow in number and as larger numbers of students make such online offerings their first choice, CSU will
experience growing interest, demand, for easy ways by which a student matriculated at one regional California State University campus may enroll
in offerings available at another CSU campus.
Anticipating this, and wishing to serve our state and its many regions with high-quality affordable curricula, CSU leadership is clear that:
 online programs are a strategic priority;
 the Chancellor’s Office will actively encourage online programs, facilitating their development and eliminating policy barriers;
 especially in budget-constrained times, extended and continuing education units will take substantial leadership.
Deans of extended / continuing education, provosts and presidents have all generally endorsed the idea that sharing of curriculum between and
among CSU campuses should be facilitated, where appropriate. These academic leaders have online curriculum chiefly in mind, because it may be
easily shared via the Internet. This brief paper seeks to identify ways in which such sharing can be done consistent with current policy. The
headline is that there is considerable existing policy “permission” to share curricular offerings. Sister California State Universities can do a lot now,
where it seems efficient and in students’ interests. It will be helpful to receive advice about what policy changes would be useful to facilitate
curricular sharing even more easily.
I. Residence Credit: A Preliminary Topic.
Let us briefly raise the topic of residence credit. The policy issue is that CSU One currently
requires that a minimum portion of a degree program be earned at that university, in order that the CSU One faculty may genuinely affirm that the
student has studied a coherent program and has mastered learning to a level appropriate for a degree. It follows that there are limits on the
number of credits that may be transferred in to CSU One. For a thirty semester-unit master’s degree, nine units is the normal limit on transfer.
 The short report is that after appropriate consultation, review and recommendation from the faculty, presidents may agree that
some or all credits earned at CSU Two or CSU Three or CSU Four will count as residence credit, as if earned at CSU One. [See
Title 5, Section 40403 (c)] Note that an academic decision like this could be taken only after the faculty had assessed the
essentials and were satisfied that this kind of rich sharing both met legitimate student needs, and represented high quality. It
takes an MOU, but that’s all. Presidents have the needed authority to eliminate any barrier that might otherwise be posed by
residence credit policy.
II. Curricular Sharing in General: Considering General Variables.
Let us begin quite generally, with a focus on two different CSU
universities. We reference in Chart One below “Campus One” and “Campus Two.” The other important conditions are whether the student, on one
hand, and the curricular offering on the other hand, are supported in large part by California taxpayers through the state’s general fund allocation
to the California State University, or are in special sessions where student fees pay for all costs.
2
Chart One. Curricular Sharing Between Different CSU Universities
TO:
Student takes class(es)
offered via General
Fund at Campus “Two”
Student is
matriculated in
F
General Fund
R
Program at
O Campus “One”
M
Student is
matriculated in
Special Sessions
Program at
Campus “One”
A. Facilitate, extend,
promote Intrasystem
Visitor Enrollment
C.
Facilitate, providing
models & examples.
Please note Cells A, B, C, and D in Chart One. Our discussion will take up each in turn.
3
Student takes class(es)
offered via Special
Sessions at Campus “Two”
B. Facilitate, providing
models & examples.
D. Agreement between
extended ed. units:
facilitate, providing
models & examples
Condition A (1):
A student matriculated in a general fund-supported program at CSU One
wishes to take one or more courses offered via general fund support at CSU Two.
Use Case Analysis.
Jane Junior must complete a required course for her degree major, but finds it unavailable at her home
campus of matriculation, CSU One. The course of interest might be full, with other students having taken the available seats. Or
the course of interest might be offered at a time and / or location that the student’s life circumstances make very difficult. Jane
might have job or family duties that interfere; she might face rush hour traffic that imposes a high cost in time and stress.
Suppose, alternatively, that a course on a specialized topic offered at CSU Two, but not at CSU One, met the interests of a
CSU One matriculant in a special way. Perhaps this is Sam Senior’s circumstance. The course might fit Sam’s interests, pure and
simple. Or the course might advance the CSU One student’s (Sam’s) career preparation or preparation for graduate school in a way
that no course readily available at his home campus would.
Now suppose that via a convenient Internet-based schedule of classes (or in any other way) Jane, or Sam, discovers that a
sister CSU campus, CSU Two, offers a course that is more convenient or desired, that will fully substitute for the course of interest
for the degree program at CSU One, and that will “count” for the degree with complete assurance. Understandably, Jane and/or
Sam will want a convenient option to do just that. As Internet-based, online courses become more widespread and ordinary, we
should expect that many students will press CSU hard to provide just that.
CSU policy has permitted this for a number of years, though of course practice has involved physical attendance in face-to-face classes. The key
mechanism for individual students is “Intrasystem Visitor Enrollment.” A paper form-based process to take advantage of Intrasystem Visitor
Enrollment is available at CSU campus Admissions & Records offices. But making allowance for the activity is a considerable distance from making it
easy, much less encouraged. A number of things would make this kind of enrollment easier and more frequent.
Actions Needed
1) A paper form-based process should be supplanted by an Internet-based process. The paper form must be hand-processed by Admissions
& Records offices, rendering Intrasystem Visitor Enrollment administratively difficult and expensive.
a) What can be done that takes advantage of the Common Management System?
i) Can a student with a few key strokes populate a form with his or her name, date of birth, identification number, social security
number if needed, mailing address, and the rest?
ii) Can a student’s status relative to fee payment be automatically provided?
iii) Can a student’s status relative to any “pertinent health-related requirements” be certified?
4
2) Students should be provided a reliable and easy [online] discovery process for course equivalents that will “count” for the undergraduate
major at the lower division [consider the Lower Division Transfer Patterns program]/ for general education / for upper division credit to the
major.
a) General education classes should “count” seamlessly by current policy.
3) Articulation of courses. To permit courses to “count” requires articulation.
a) The Lower Division Transfer Patterns (LDTP) program offers a very convenient way to make progress.
i) Available now are statewide transfer patterns for 44 discipline majors that are popular among students transferring from
community colleges to the CSU. See http://www.calstate.edu/acadaff/ldtp/agreements.shtml
ii) For the key courses at the lower division for these majors, Course Descriptors that CSU faculty have developed are available. See
http://www.calstate.edu/acadaff/ldtp/ldtp-CrsDescription.shtml.
iii) All that CSU departments must do is to affirm that their lower division courses taught to CSU students who are in the lower division
[i.e., who have not gone to community college] are consonant with the systemwide Course Descriptors.
(1) The Academic Senate CSU has encouraged CSU departments to do this: see
http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Resolutions/2006-2007/2799.shtml
b) The next challenge will be to articulate undergraduate major courses at both lower and upper division that are not included in the LDTP
program. We would have in mind courses that are required for the major. Electives would presumably not require articulation.
4) Good advising.
a) At the graduate level, the assumption would be that individual courses would be carefully reviewed by the student and an advisor,
whose signature on a study plan [showing approval] would presumably be required.
b) At the undergraduate level, faculty help would be indicated to assist students in making wise choices, and to ensure that choices
ultimately were covered by articulation agreements.
5) Financial considerations can be made apparent. They include these.
a) The apparent default condition for sharing resources would be that the student pays fees only once, to his or her home campus. The
campus offering the instruction (“CSU Two” in this example) would receive any general fund support on a per-FTES basis.
i) This is longstanding practice in the CSU, if ‘til the present undertaken on an occasional basis.
ii) Some campuses have imposed a very modest administrative fee to help to defray paperwork costs.
b) The incentives here would seem to favor over-enrolled [relative to campus targets] campuses sending students to campuses that may
be seeking additional enrollment in order to achieve enrollment targets.
5
Condition A (2): A Cohort of Students matriculated in a general fund program at CSU One
wish to take one or more courses offered via general fund support at CSU Two.
Use Case Analysis.
Specialized or distinctive curricula may arise because things just worked out that way. On the other hand,
such specialized curricula may arise according to plan – regional interests in agriculture, or forestry, or in port logistics, may lead a
campus to hire with specific purpose. Whatever the genesis, in this use case it turns out that CSU Two has three or four faculty who
share well-focused interests in teaching and research. Because of this, they decide to offer a specialized set of courses in public
finance that will count to a degree in public administration. Another group of faculty is expert at scenery design: they offer ten
units within the bachelor’s program in theater arts. Still another group of faculty are experts in forest husbandry, and they
formalize a 12 unit concentration within a program leading to the bachelor of science in environmental science. CSU One has a
group of students who wish to take a specific set of courses.
In fact, specializations of this kind, and formal concentrations, may be more common and more sought at the level of the
master’s degree. An interesting example is the shared professional science master’s program offered consortially by CSU Fullerton,
CPSU Pomona, and CSU Los Angeles leading to a Master of Biotechnology degree. While not using concentrations in their curricular
design, the program explicitly seeks to direct students to classes at the campus that has the right faculty and facilities.
Consider finally the low-demand but strategically needed curriculum. CSU One, CSU Two and CSU Three discover that to
continue to offer their master’s degree in a language of low demand is very expensive: they just cannot attract the number of
graduate students that would make it affordable to assign faculty to the specialized teaching. However, they discover that across a
thirty-unit master’s degree they can direct students from all three universities for nine semester units of work at CSU One, nine
semester units at CSU Two, and nine semester units at CSU Three. A culminating experience in the graduate program accounts for
the final three units to the master’s degree.
Actions Needed
1) Development of Agreements or MOUs. A cohort could be provided-for by administrative agreement. Recurring cohorts probably should
be provided-for by a formal MOU.
a) Incentives for doing this could include faculty and facility availability. The right expertise, and the right learning spaces – laboratories,
perhaps – could draw program designers to this solution.
b) Incentives would also seem to favor over-enrolled [relative to campus FTES targets] campuses sending students to campuses that may
be seeking additional enrollment.
6
c) The beginning-point for handling revenues is quite apparent.
i) The campus that does the teaching receives the state general fund subvention, the “marginal cost” support.
ii) However, students pay fees only once, to one campus, and that would mean that the sending campus would retain the State
University Fee (S.U.F.).
iii) As noted previously, there is precedent for a small administrative fee to cover some of the costs of enrollment at more than one
campus.
d) Apparently, as the S.U.F. increases as a fraction of total revenue, this amounts to a disincentive on the part of the campus that offers
the class.
i) It is possible that an MOU between the campuses would call for a distribution of revenues that would, in some circumstances, send
a portion of the S.U.F. from CSU One, where the student is working toward her degree, to CSU Two where the student is enrolled in
one or more courses.
2) Using CMS, make enrollments and transcripting easy for students, and low-cost for participating universities.
3) Figure out student financial aid.
a) In an instance where a student already pays CSU’s price for six units or more to her campus of matriculation, and takes a course from
Campus Two online, she may experience only the additional costs associated with a particular class. This could normally include the
price of books or other learning materials. This could affect financial aid.
4) We may consider whether to provide a consolidated method – likely, a web site – at which campuses could advertise their specialties in
curriculum. A policy decision may be needed as to how vigorously to promote cross-enrollment options.
7
Condition B (1):
A student matriculated in a general fund-supported program at CSU One wishes
to take a course offered in a special sessions (self support) program at CSU Two.
Use Case Analysis.
CSU Sacramento offers an online degree program in Criminal Justice via special sessions; student fees
support all costs. http://www.cce.csus.edu/programs/crj.htm The high price relative to her state-supported program notwithstanding, Sally Senior at CSU Fullerton, and John Junior at CSU Long Beach both want to take an online Sacramento course. Sally wants to
take CRJ 120 at Sacramento, “Fundamentals of Corrections,” and wants it to count as the corrections course that her Fullerton
major requires. John notes that his Long Beach program has no course like Sacramento’s “Criminal Justice Systems of the Future.”
An elective to the major at Sacramento, John would also use the futures course as an elective in his Long Beach major.
1. How can Sally figure out if the Corrections class will count toward her Fullerton major requirement?
2. How can John be assured that the Futures class will be okay as an elective to his Long Beach major program?
3. What other barriers may prevent them from taking advantage of the online offerings from Sacramento?
For questions 1 and 2, please compare the comments above for Condition A (1). As we noted there, articulation and good advising are the real
keys. Willing faculty can agree that Sally may count the Corrections class as meeting the Fullerton major requirement. Willing CSU Long Beach
faculty should find it even easier to say “yes” to John’s use of the Futures class as an elective.
Let us turn to question #3 from the Use Case immediately above.
Note first that students at CSU One who are enrolled in a state-supported program must have at their home campus a state-supported option
available to complete the degree. Policy prevents the development of a program at CSU One that depends specifically on its students taking selfsupport courses - at CSU Two or anywhere else - in order to achieve the diploma. The apparent rationale is that state-supported programs should
be exactly that, state-supported, in their entirety.
 For Sally and John, this is not a problem. Sally could take the Corrections requirement at Fullerton, but for convenience (probably), wants
to get the course online from Sacramento. By accessing a more convenient offering online, Sally could very well speed her progress to the
degree – a worthwhile policy aim.
 John could take electives at CSU Long Beach, and complete the degree. It’s the particular content that we hypothesize as specially
attracting him. However, he may also speed his progress to the degree if his attraction to the Futures course results in his taking an
additional course in a given semester.
8
There is an interesting variation to this. One might arrange for a different strand, component, or even concentration to the CSU One degree that is
only achievable by study in self-support mode at CSU Two. Notice that the difference is that the degree may be obtained in full state-support mode
from CSU One, even if the [perhaps more expensive, perhaps exotic] specialization available at CSU Two is provided only via self-support.
 San Diego State University provides via self-support online classes in Regulatory Affairs as an attractive part of a professional science
master’s program. Because professional science master’s programs focus clearly on preparing students for the scientific work place,
program designers at sister CSU campuses have inquired about accessing this curriculum. They are in luck. Assuming that administrative
considerations made it attractive and possible for San Diego State to do so, there is no policy bar to a student in a state-supported master’s
program from [a] seeking advisor approval, and armed with that [b] taking the courses as an integral part of the work to the degree.

With graduate students in mind [i.e., different, then, from our Use Case examples above], we may make a more general statement: the
CSU One graduate student who has room in a study plan may choose the self-support course at CSU Two with advisor approval, and simply
do the learning. Credits earned at CSU Two are treated as transfer credits on the student’s CSU One study plan. If transfer versus residence
credit proves to be an obstacle for a student, a CSU One graduate dean may grant a request for an exception to the residence credit rule.
Actions Needed
1) Provide information to campus program / policy leaders to ensure that this option is understood.
Same Campus Enrollment of General Fund-Supported Students in Special Sessions Classes is Not
Forbidden. The California Education Code § 89708, and Executive Orders 802 and 805, stipulate that special sessions class shall not
supplant regular course offerings available on a state-supported basis during the college year. This can be over-interpreted to lead to a
conclusion that general fund-matriculated students from CSU One may not enroll in special sessions classes at the same CSU One. Our
review of both regulations and practice, however, lead to a different conclusion. If there is no full substitution of self-support classes for
state-supported classes without reasonable opportunity to complete a degree by state-supported classes, then reasonable provision may
be made for students from CSU One to take special sessions classes at CSU One.
9
Condition B (2): A Cohort of Students matriculated in a general fund program at CSU One wishes to
take course(s) offered in a special sessions (self support) program at CSU Two.
Use Case Analysis.
CSU San Bernardino offers an online master’s degree program in Public Administration (MPA program)
http://www.cbpa.csusb.edu/academic_departments/pa_department/mpa_program.htm via special sessions, which means that
student fees support all costs. Suppose that CSU Two decides to offer a similar online MPA program, but supported via the general
fund. However, CSU Two finds it difficult to marshal the faculty resources to offer online courses at the graduate level in the subarea of public finance, which all MPA students would be required to take. The solution is that CSU Two may work with CSU San
Bernardino to ask CSU Two students to enroll in two online courses in public finance at San Bernardino.
•There is no problem about whether the courses will “count” for the program. Faculty and administrators have taken care
of that via a clear agreement.
•Nor is there a problem for individual students in the cohort, for they are doing the work they are told to do by their
graduate advisers.
Here are the “somewhat open” issues.
1. How can CSU Two ensure that the general fund-matriculated students are afforded a reasonable option to complete their
program via state support?
2. How can we support CSU Two and San Bernardino faculty and administrators in doing what they wish to do?
Actions Needed
1) CSU Two must ensure that CSU Two MPA students have at least a reasonable chance to complete an MPA via state support. CSU Two could:
a) Offer face-to-face instruction in the area, clearly telling students who otherwise have online preferences for their learning that they could
take the courses by commuting to the campus. If reasonable reviewers of the program found that this constituted an authentic statesupported option for the students, it would fulfill the mandate even though the learning was not online.
b) Waive or alter the requirement with faculty judgment and consent, pending the development of online courses.
c) Seek an option for their students to study online in general fund support mode:
i) At CSU Long Beach: http://www.csulb.edu/colleges/chhs/departments/public-policy-and-administration/
ii) Or at CSU Dominguez Hills: http://mpaonline.csudh.edu/
10
We note that CSU Two might in fact have considered online state-supported options for their students in the first instance, by working with
CSU Long Beach or CSU Dominguez Hills. However, we understand that such agreements may not be easy; and for faculty availability or for
other reasons, CSU Long Beach and CSU Dominguez Hills might be unable to work with CSU Two – but by hypothesis, CSU San Bernardino
finds it possible and attractive.
2) Provide sample agreements. A cohort, or even recurring cohorts, could be provided-for by administrative agreement, perhaps a formal MOU.
Incentives for doing this would seem to favor over-enrolled [relative to campus FTES targets] campuses sending students to programs at sister
campuses that, being self-support, typically seek additional enrollment.
a) Note, however, that if a new class section is required to accommodate the CSU Two students the administrative costs are higher: recruiting
the faculty member; allocating space; etc. All possible partners may not find it attractive to accept students, given these issues.
3) Provide information about prices and revenue sharing. Revenues are collected by the extended education unit at CSU San Bernardino or any
other partner.
a) The “opening” price might be exactly what all other students in the special sessions program at CSU San Bernardino pay.
b) However, different bargains could be struck by willing persons; and it could be that publicity and recruitment costs that extended education
units would otherwise normally incur could be foregone in the presence of a continuing agreement for cohorts of students to take a class or
set of classes. If so, the price to the CSU One students could be lowered somewhat.
MOU’s can be developed to cover the cost, price and revenue issues. We assume that an MOU would also take care of any issues concerning
residence credit.
11
Condition C (1):
A student matriculated in a special sessions (self support) program at CSU One wishes
to take a course offered via a general fund-supported program at CSU Two.
Use Case Analysis: Graduate Student. CSU San Bernardino offers an online master’s degree program in Public Administration
(MPA program) via special sessions http://www.cbpa.csusb.edu/academic_departments/pa_department/mpa_program.htm, which
means that student fees support all costs.
San Bernardino’s student, George Graduate, discovers PPA 570, “Negotiating Dynamics” at CSU Long Beach, and wishes to
take that state-supported course. With the approval of his adviser at San Bernardino, George contacts the department at Long
Beach, learns that there will be room for him in the course, and with Long Beach instructor approval George enrolls via Open
University [aka Concurrent Enrollment].
•There is no problem about whether the course will “count” for the program. George must secure his adviser’s approval.
Use Case Analysis: Undergraduate.
CSU Sacramento offers an online degree program in Criminal Justice via special sessions;
student fees support all costs. See http://www.cce.csus.edu/programs/crj.htm. Sacramento student Spencer Senior finds a
general fund-supported online course at CSU Fresno that attracts him. He wishes to enroll in Criminology 140, “Family Violence,” a
topic that specially interests him.
CSU Sacramento may feel reluctant if many students want to take a class from another CSU: managing the costs, including
instructor salaries, may depend upon a certain number of enrolled students in Sacramento’s special sessions program. Assuming
that such a problem is minimal in the instance of one student, however, Spencer may seek to enroll in the Fresno course via Open
University / Concurrent Enrollment.
Open University (also known as Concurrent Enrollment) is the available option to take care of the occasional student who wishes to “pick up” a
course that she finds attractive at a sister university. It is important to note that permission of instructor is needed for enrollment via Open
University, for the easily identifiable reason that the instructor’s workload is increased, with no increase in compensation. Beyond workload,
instructors may deny Open University students entry to a class for academic reasons, such as failure to complete a prerequisite course.
Actions Needed
1) Ensure that provosts, graduate deans, associate vice presidents for undergraduate programs, or other appropriate administrators, have good
information about this option.
12
Same Campus Enrollment of Special Session (self-supported) Students in General
Fund-Supported Classes is Explicitly Permitted, Under Specified Conditions.
From The CSU Extended Education Policies and Operations Manual, Updated 2/18/02. This is apparently current policy.
1501.04 SPECIAL SESSION ENROLLMENT IN REGULAR CURRICULUM OFFERINGS. References:
Title 5, § 40202 (3); § 40407.1 (5); Letter of Authorization from Interim Senior Vice Chancellor:
“Redesignation of Concurrent Enrollment Program Credit,” dated October 8, 1997
Each campus may designate each semester or quarter those state-supported regular course offerings that may be attended for special
session credit, provided that enrollment in any such course for special sessions credit shall be permitted only after students otherwise
eligible to enroll in the course as a state-supported regular course offering have had an opportunity to do so. [Title 5, § 40202] (This
procedure is referred to as Open University or Concurrent Enrollment, as designated by the campus.)
A maximum of 24 semester units in special session course credit earned through state-supported regular course offerings may be
applied toward the degree. The chancellor is authorized to establish and revise criteria for application of special sessions credits
earned through enrollment in state-supported regular course offerings toward the degree- in accordance with applicable law. [Title 5,
§ 40207.1]
Each campus may require that special session students meet course prerequisites and may establish other requirements for
enrollment in particular courses.
Faculty who teach regular courses in which special session students are enrolled shall not be paid additional direct faculty
compensation.
Special session enrollments (or potential enrollments) shall not be used as the basis for adding a new course section, nor shall they be
used as justification for continuing a course section that would otherwise be cancelled because of low enrollment of regular matriculated
students. [References in EO 802 and 805 reference non-matriculated status for these rules.]
13
Condition C (2): A cohort of students matriculated in a special sessions (self support) program at CSU One
wishes to take course(s) offered via a general fund-supported program at CSU Two.
Use Case Analysis.
CSU One offers an online degree program (master’s or baccalaureate) via special sessions, which means
that student fees support all costs. Inevitably, however, CSU One cannot offer all possible courses, due to budget constraints and
faculty talents and inclinations. An attractive course, or small set of courses, is available online, supported by the general fund,
from CSU Two: having these courses on a transcript will make a graduate of the program a more attractive candidate for
employment or for graduate work (or further graduate work). CSU Two for its part is interested in ensuring that its specialized
classes “fill” to the right number, making them economical to offer.
•If faculty and administrators at both institutions deem it educationally valuable for a cohort of students, on one hand, and
economical in terms of optimally filling classes at CSU Two on the other hand, how can this be accomplished?
Handling a cohort via Open University would likely prove awkward, though if cohorts were one time-only, administrators might be able to plan for a
group of students in non-matriculated status to enter the class in that way.
If recurring cohorts were planned for, an attractive option would be for CSU Two to develop a credit certificate program, and to invite the
interested students who comprise the cohorts from CSU One to apply for and receive formal admission to CSU Two. Note that having a program to
which the CSU One students may apply provides them with some admissions priority – at least, relative to postbaccalaureate students with no
degree objective. At the conclusion of their short program, CSU One students would receive a certificate from CSU Two. The certificate may or
may not be valued either by the students or by CSU One. However, CSU One could recognize the course work via transfer, and permit the students
to continue to their goal of a special sessions degree. If the number of courses taken by CSU One students at two exceeded the usual ceiling for
transfer units, an MOU between the two campuses could be developed by means of which CSU One could recognize as residence credit the work
done at CSU Two.
Actions Needed
1) Ensure that provosts, graduate deans, associate vice presidents for undergraduate programs, or other appropriate administrators, have good
information about this option.
14
Condition D (1):
A student matriculated in a special sessions (self support) program at CSU One wishes
to take course(s) offered in a special sessions (self support) program at CSU Two.
Use Case Analysis.
CSU One offers an online degree program (master’s or baccalaureate) via special sessions, which means
that student fees support all costs. Inevitably, however, CSU One cannot offer all possible courses, due to budget constraints and
faculty talents and inclinations. An attractive course, or small set of courses, is available online via special sessions (self support)
from CSU Two: having these courses on a transcript will make a graduate of the program a more attractive candidate for
employment or for graduate work (or further graduate work). CSU Two for its part is willing to offer spaces in existing or planned
sections of the courses.
Willing program leaders should find no policy bar to a self-support student from CSU One taking a self-support course from CSU Two. Keys to such
willingness would seem to rest on whether the choice makes economic and administrative sense.
 It might not make sense if, for example, plans were made at CSU One to educate cohorts of students in a self-support program, who take
the same courses together. Cohorts may yield economies of program planning, and efficient hiring and compensating both faculty and
staff. If an individual student wished to depart from a planned cohort, program leaders might discourage the individual student from
making this choice.
 On the other hand, it could make good sense if the CSU One student has options for study within her overall degree program, and is not
quite “wed” to the cohort. Using a bit of freedom to do so, then, she may discover that CSU Two has an attractive course, or set of courses,
that CSU One just doesn’t have. Because her CSU One program has (by this hypothesis) options in the program, the program leaders at CSU
One could be financially indifferent to the student’s choice.
Actions Needed
1) Provide sample agreements.
15
Condition D (2): A Cohort of Students matriculated via special sessions (self support) at CSU One
wishes to take course(s) offered via special sessions (self support) at CSU Two.
Use Case Analysis: Graduate Students.
San Diego State University offers an online certificate program in Regulatory Affairs
via special sessions, which means that student fees support all costs. The Regulatory Affairs courses are integral to a professional
science master’s program offered by SDSU, but also can stand alone. CSU East Bay plans a professional science master’s degree
program in Biostatistics, and wishes to use Regulatory Affairs courses as a part of the program.
Use Case Analysis: Undergraduates.
CSU One and CSU Two discover that they have sufficient students, or sufficient
faculty, or sufficient courses online for about a half of an online degree program apiece. They decide that they would like to
partner, directing students for half of the course work to CSU One and for the other half to CSU Two.
Where one special sessions program wishes quite directly to use courses offered by a special sessions program offered by a sister CSU campus,
agreements between willing partners will be the key. One may envision a marketing and recruiting agreement between SDSU and CSU EB in the
instance of the graduate certificate. CSU EB in this view would market, recruit, and collect fees, relieving SDSU of those requirements. In that case
it might be reasonable for SDSU to provide East Bay with a share of the proceeds, to be used to do the referenced marketing, recruiting and
collection, and to defray other costs. Experience will determine whether the right percentage would be 10%, 15%, or even 20%.
It would seem preferable for a student to enroll at her own CSU EB to take the course offered by SDSU – rather than being re-directed, managing a
new enrollment environment, paying fees to a second entity, etc. An MOU between program administrators can make this possible, and East Bay
and San Diego State are doing that now.
Actions Needed
1) Provide sample agreements.
16
III. Preliminary Conclusions.
There appears to be considerable existing policy “permission” to share curriculum between and among
sister campuses in the California State University. This review sought to name, preliminarily, some actions that appear to be needed in order to
more widely provide opportunities to students to access and enroll for courses offered at CSU regional universities other than the one at which they
are matriculated and from which they seek a degree.

Many proposed actions are calls for information, in this preliminary sketch. One could envision coded memoranda from the Chancellor’s
Office that brought opportunities to the attention of program leaders and campus policy makers.
o It seems straightforward to suggest that the Chancellor’s Office develop a web site where useful information could be easily
accessed.

Other actions imply expenditures of time and resources.
o
o
To make easily available a coordinated catalog of online courses, together with pre-determined correspondences between
particular courses [to see which may “count” for a major, for example] may be a long journey.
A shorter journey that nevertheless would demand some time and resources would be to make electronically available via the
Internet the necessary information exchange to facilitate Intrasystem Visitor Enrollment.
IV. General Issue for Consideration.
This issue emerges from the previous considerations – but goes well beyond them. We set it out,
therefore, with its own major (Roman numeral) heading.
 It may be timely to revisit Executive Order 802, “Special Sessions.” Senior leaders in the CSU may wish to consider the extent to which
the strategic future of the CSU will involve more self-support curricula than have been common in previous years.
o What is the future of public finance in California, and the consequent state of taxpayer support for the California State University?
 Should self-support (special sessions) programs be the model of choice more often as the future unfolds?
 Should particular programs – e.g., higher-cost, or graduate-level – be considered for self-support status routinely, with state
support being unusual for these types of programs?
o Irrespective of prospects for public finance, will the easy access via the Internet of many courses, offered by many CSU campuses, in
both state support and self-support modes, lead us near-inevitably to the need for “mixing and matching” with ease many courses
from many places offered at many prices?
17