Student Access Initiative
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the Student Access Initiative (SAI)?
The SAI is a proposal resulting from the Scheduling Task Force. The Scheduling Task Force
was formed by Provost Oberem in early Fall Semester 2013 and charged with:
 Examining the impact of growth (in terms of FTES and the additional courses
needed to serve students) on current scheduling practices
 Ensuring that scheduling patterns and practices provide adequate access to the
courses students need as they make progress to graduation
 Making recommendations for change
2. Why is a scheduling change needed?
FTES counts at CSUSM have increased by at least 5% in each of the last 2 years, and
are projected to increase by the same amount yearly for the coming 5 years. This growth
translates to approximately 100 more courses (requiring rooms) per year, while classroom
space is not growing. Fall Semester 2014 saw 160 courses appear on the Impossible to
Place list compared to 60 courses in Fall Semester 2013. Most of our utilization occurs
between the hours of 9am and 5pm Monday through Thursday (prime times). Our
projected growth cannot be achieved without utilizing non-prime times including Fridays.
Additionally, our current approach to scheduling produces many overlapping course
sections, which restricts student access to courses by decreasing choice, while at the same
time resulting in many times throughout the week when classroom are unused.
3. What is the proposed model?
The model proposed by the Scheduling Task Force is outlined in the “Approved
Class meeting Times Proposal Link 1”. “Approved Class meeting times Link 2.” This
model is designed to give students greater flexibility in creating their schedules while at the
same time decreasing the unused classroom time throughout the week. This is achieved by
adopting a new pattern of meeting times in which 2, 3, and 4-unit classes can be scheduled,
except in the case of dedicated classrooms.
4. What will be the impact on students?
The SAI is designed to give students more flexibility in creating a schedule and more
non-overlapping classes from which to choose. This should be particularly helpful to
students who are juggling work and family commitments in addition to their classes.
Presently, 88% of all CSUSM students taking 12 or more units have a class schedule which
brings them to campus three or more days a week (52% of students have a schedule which
brings them to campus 4 or more days). Studies show that when scheduling rules are
tightened (and therefore the potential for course overlaps decreases), student access to
classes increases and graduation rates go up.
5. What will happen to University Hour?
University hour will remain unchanged. As is the practice currently, no courses
other than labs will be scheduled during University Hour.
6. Will faculty be expected to teach on Friday?
Some but not most: While the SAI is designed to increase utilization where space is
available, and this includes Fridays, the majority of courses will not have a Friday
component. Additionally, even when the classroom space fills up, the projected worst case
scenario for having to create a MWF schedule is that it could impact at most one third of
those 3-unit classes currently offered. Due to the flexibility in creating a schedule and the
creativity of the people doing so, the actual number of classes that will have to be MWF
(eventually) is likely to be small.
7. Will it still be possible to offer twice-a-week three or four unit courses and once-a-week
courses?
Yes, but it might be necessary to move the class to a different time of the day. For
example, MW 3-unit classes that meet before 2:30 can still meet on MW provided that they
are scheduled after 2:30. Almost all other current 3-unit courses, including once-a-week
courses, can still be offered in the SAI proposal within 30 minutes of their current times.
We recognize the importance of particular class durations and scheduling patterns to the
pedagogy in some cases. There is sufficient flexibility in the new proposed model to allow
for a wide variety of scheduling options. As the classroom space fills up (in the coming
years), the flexibility will decrease, but that will happen much sooner if we retain our
current scheduling model.
8. Is it possible to offer courses on MF or WF?
Yes: 2-unit courses and 4-unit courses can be offered any time on MF or WF
(possibly in a dedicated classroom), and 3-unit courses can be offered MF or WF after 2:30.
9. What will be the policy on puzzling rooms?
Departments or groups of departments can puzzle rooms as long as the approved meeting
times are followed. The advantage or room puzzling is that puzzled courses do not carry
the risk of appearing on the Impossible to Place list.
10. Is the proposed plan similar to ones used at sister campuses?
Yes. Many semester campuses nationally and in the CSU follow a scheduling pattern similar
to the one the SAI proposes. For example, SDSU, CSU, Stanislaus, and Chico State have a
scheduling pattern that is almost identical to the one proposed.
11. Can we adjust the SAI model later if it is not doing what we expect?
Yes. The Academic Scheduling Office has always operated (and will continue to
operate) by one main principle: implement a scheduling practice which maximizes student
access while serving well the university’s instructional mission. Any adjustment to the SAI
model, whether major or minor, which is in line with this principle, will be seriously
considered and implemented after due consultation with the faculty.
12. What is the proposed timeline for implementation?
Spring 2016 at the earliest, and the earlier the implementation, the easier the
transition into different modes of offering that make use of the current available space.
13. What has been the process of consultation with faculty, students and others to date?
The Student Access Initiative was (or will be) presented or discussed at each of the
following meetings, listed in chronological order. Provost Oberem, Vice Provost Haddad or
Scheduling Task Force Chair Seleski led the presentation or discussion.
 CoBA Dean and Associate Dean (6-27)
 College Deans and Provost (7-15)
 Associate Deans Council (7-30)
 Final Summer meeting of the Scheduling Task Force (8-8)
 Scott Hagg and Lorena Meza (8-13)
 Senate EC meeting (8-27)
 Associate Deans Council (8-28)
 Student Affairs SLT (9-2)
 President’s Executive Council (9-15)
 Scheduling Task Force (9-18)
 ASI (9-19)
 Open Forum for Chairs, taped (9-30)
 Open Forum for Chairs (10-1)
 Open Forum for the campus community (10-3)
 CoBA Chairs (10-15)
 Chair of Biology (10-16)
 CoBA Faculty (10-17)
 E-mail communication to Chairs and program Coordinators (10-22)
 Academic Senate Officers (10-27)
 Department of Sociology (10-28)
 School of the Arts (11-4)
 Cougar Chronicle (11-5)




Academic Senate (11-5)
ASI (11-21)
Department of Literature and Writing (11-21)
CEHSS Faculty (1-22)
14. Will there be further opportunities for faculty, students, and others to provide input?
Yes. Additional opportunities for consultation will be arranged as necessary. The
Academic Senate and the Provost’s Office are also appropriate venues for providing input.
This can be done below: