I REPOR T RESUMES ED 012 588 JC 660 198 CALIFORNIA'S NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL CENTERS OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION. BY RICHARDS, JOHN R. AND OTHERS C.4LIFORNIA STATE COORD. COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUC. REPORT NUMBER CCHE-1014 PUB DATE DEC 64 EDRS PRICE MF$0.50 HC $3.28 82P. DESCRIPTORS *JUNIOR COLLEGES, *MASTER PLANS, *COLLEGE PLANNING, *EDUCATIONAL PLANNING, PLANNING, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, *STATE PROGRAMS, *HIGHER EDUCATION, EDUCATIONAL NEEDS, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA SINCE 1959, 11 NEW JUNIOR COLLEGES HAVE BEEN ORGANIZED IN THE 21 AREAS RECOMMENDED IN THE MASTER PLAN. ANNEXATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OR PLANNING OF NEW cAgruscc NAVE TAF.c"M PLACr IN.ALL THE REMAINING AREAS. AS A RESULT OF THIS GROWTH, PLUS INCREASE IN SIZE OF EXISTING DISTRICTS, OVER 80 PERCENT OF THE HIGH SCHOOL AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE AND OVER 80 PERCENT OF THE STATE'S ASSESSED VALUATION ARE WITHIN DISTRICTS MAINTAINING JUNIOR COLLEGES. HOWEVER, 20 PERCENT OF THE STATE IS NOT YET INC'.UDED IN SUCH DISTRICTS, AND POCKETS OF WEALTH IN TERMS OF ASSESSED VALUATION CONTINUE TO EXIST OUTSIDE OF ANY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT. THE GOAL OF INCLUSION OF THE ENTIRE STATE WITHIN JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICTS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE STRESSED UNTIL ACHIEVED. UNIVERSITY AND STATE COLLEGE FACILITIES NEEDS ARE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL. (HS)
Transcript
I
REPOR T RESUMESED 012 588
JC 660 198CALIFORNIA'S NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL CENTERS OF PUBLIC HIGHEREDUCATION.
BY RICHARDS, JOHN R. AND OTHERSC.4LIFORNIA STATE COORD. COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUC.REPORT NUMBER CCHE-1014 PUB DATE DEC 64EDRS PRICE MF$0.50 HC $3.28 82P.
SINCE 1959, 11 NEW JUNIOR COLLEGES HAVE BEEN ORGANIZEDIN THE 21 AREAS RECOMMENDED IN THE MASTER PLAN. ANNEXATIONSAND CONSTRUCTION OR PLANNING OF NEW cAgruscc NAVE TAF.c"M PLACrIN.ALL THE REMAINING AREAS. AS A RESULT OF THIS GROWTH, PLUSINCREASE IN SIZE OF EXISTING DISTRICTS, OVER 80 PERCENT OFTHE HIGH SCHOOL AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE AND OVER 80 PERCENTOF THE STATE'S ASSESSED VALUATION ARE WITHIN DISTRICTSMAINTAINING JUNIOR COLLEGES. HOWEVER, 20 PERCENT OF THE STATEIS NOT YET INC'.UDED IN SUCH DISTRICTS, AND POCKETS OF WEALTHIN TERMS OF ASSESSED VALUATION CONTINUE TO EXIST OUTSIDE OFANY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT. THE GOAL OF INCLUSION OF THEENTIRE STATE WITHIN JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICTS SHOULD CONTINUETO BE STRESSED UNTIL ACHIEVED. UNIVERSITY AND STATE COLLEGEFACILITIES NEEDS ARE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL. (HS)
111111111
C
C
H
E4111111111
1OORDINATING
ikLIFORNIA'S
HIGHER
1
CDUCATIONC
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE
PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS
STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION
POSITION OR POLICY.
CALIFORNIA'S NEEDS FOR2-",, 1^!, T /71 ir 1" 7.. 7 F cif ri D In rALI1J11.1U1Viii. Le.C. IV Editk=7 Ui
PURI.fr
OORD1NATING
OUNCIL FOR
1GHER
DUCATION
HY-WU EDUCATION
NUMBER 1014
DECEMBER 1964
The Council is composed of fifteen members representing thevarious segments of higher education and the general public.
MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
Representing the General Public:
WARREN M. CHRISTOPHER, Los Angeles, President of the CouncilANDREW F. FAY, Del MarBERT W. LEVIT, San Francisco
Representing the Private Colleges and Universities:
FAT.LIER, CHARLES S. CASASSA, Pre6ideni, Loyola Univrsity of LosAngeles
DR. ARTHUR G. COONS, President, Occidental College, and Vice Presi-dent of the Council
DR. ROBERT WERT, Vice Provost, Stanford University
Representing the Public Junior Colleges:
MRS. ELEANORE D. NETTLE, Trustee of the College of San MateoWILLIAM A. NORRIS, Member State Board of EducationSTUART M. WHITE, Superintendent, State Center Junior College District
Representing the California State Colleges:
DR. GLENN S. DUMKE, Chancellor of the State CollegesLOUIS H. HEILBRON, TrusteeCHARLES LUCKMAN, Chairman of the : oard of Trustees
Representing the University of California:
EDWARD W. CARTER,RTER, Chairman of the Board of RegentsDR. CLARK KERR, President of the UniversityDR. DONALD H. McLAUGHLIN, Regent
COUNCIL STAFF
JOHN R. RICHARDS, DirectorRUSSELL W. BARTHELL, Associate DirectorFinance and FacilitiesWILLARD B. SPALDING, Associate DirectorEducational ProgramsKEITH SEXTON, Project Coordinator and Assistant to the CouncilJOHN M. SMART, Assistant DirectorCOURTLAND L. WASHBURN, Fiscal SpecialistJ. CLAUDE SCHEUERMAN, Fiscal SpecialistFRANKLIN G. MATSLER, Facilities and Planning SpecialistDAVID A. DUXBURY, Fiscal AnalystFRANKLIN V. THOMAS, Researc:J. AssociateBERT K. SiMPSON, Research Assistant
CALIFORNIA'S NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL CENTERS
OF
PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION
A REPORT OF THE COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCAT;ON
SACRAMENTO AND SAN FRANCISCO
DECEMBER 1964
I
I
II
I
I
I
1
1
PREFACEThe report following presents pertinent data and information concerning the
needs for additional centers of public higher education in California. Materialpresented has been collected by the staff of the Coordinating Council for HigherEducation with the close cooperation and the assistance of the office of theChancellor of the California State Colleges, the statewide administration of theUniversity of California, the Bureau of Junior College Education of the StateDepartment of Education, and other state agencies.
The report has been prepared to meet the obligation placed upon the Councilto advise the governing boards of public higher education and appropriate Stateofficials on ". . . development of plans for the orderly growth of public highereducation and the making of recommendations on the need for and location ofnew facilities and programs." 1 The task of the Council has been further empha-sized in statute by the Legislature :
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Legislature not to authorizeor to acquire sites for new institutions of public higher education unlesssuch sites are recommended by the Co-ordinating Council for HigherEducation and not to authorize existing or new institutions of public educa-tion . . . to offer instruction beyond the 14th grade ievel.2
The most recent, complete review of the need for additional centers of publichigher education was conducted in connection with the Master Plan for HigherEducation survey of 1959. The provisions of the Master Plan report includeda directive to the coordinating agency (subsequently designated as the Coordi-nating Council for Higher Education) to review needs for new centers in 1965and again where applicable in 1970. This report is in response to that directive .8
The following pages present an extensive review of factors bearing upon theneed for new institutions of public higher education. To those who have assistedin its preparation goes the great appreciation of the Council and its staff.
1 Education Code, Sec. 22703.2 Education Code, Sec. 22501.2.4 Master Plan for Higher Education in California, 1960-75, (Sacramento: Dept. of Educ.
1960), recommendation no. 5, P. 10 and recommendation no. 8, P. 11. A preliminary report wasprepared in 1963, see, Interim Report on the Need for Additional Centers of Higher Education,(63-2), May 7, 1963. 44 pp.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
Preface 3
Recommendations 7
Chapter IPlanning Facilities to Meet GrowingCollege Enrollment 9
A Tradition of Statewide Planning 9
The Scope of the Study 9
Chapter IIFramework for the Consideration ofthe Need for New Centers of Higher Education 10
Criteria and Principles to be Applied 10
The 1957 Additional Centers Study 10
Master Plan ARR-mriptigTheGuidelines for Staff Report 10
Consideration of Enrol Ithent Potential on News P's7;1041-110. nowymwsonn ii
Setting a MilXiM111)1 Enrollment Figure 11
Setting a Minimum Enrollment Figure 13Currently Planned Enrollments of University
and State Colleges 14University of California 14The California State Colleges 14
Lead Time 15The Factor of Isolation 15The Advanced Acquisition of Sites 15
Chapter IIICalifornia's Population and HigherEducation Enrollment Growth 17
Higher Education Enrollment Projections 17The Effect of Diversion on College Enrpliments 19Year-Round OperationsThe Effect on Enroll-
ments 19
Chapter IVPrivate Colleges and Universities inCalifornia 21
Enrollment Growth 21New Private Institutions of Higher Education 21
Chapter VThe Need for Additional JuniorColleges 23
Chapter VIThe Need for Additional StateColleges 25
State College Enrollment Areas 25
Page
The Bay Area Counties 26
San Mateo County 28
Contra Costa County 29
The Los Angeles Area Complex 30
Glendale-Griffith Park Area 32
Ventura County 34
Kern County 34
Student Mobility 35
Potential Enrollments in Possible New Locations 36The Effect of New State Colleges on Existing
Enrollments 36
VII 7T11. A A.4.4;rvirlo I frilVPr-Lc": v kx,u. ''' -_
sity Campuses 38
University Enrollment Patterns 38
The Effect of Year -hound Operai,ion 38
Identifying Area Needs for University Campuses 39
Projected Fall Term Enrollments and PlannedCapacities 39
Characteristics of the Five Areas 41
Area 1 41
Area 2 41
Area 3 41
Area 4 41
Area 5 41
Enrollment Potentials for Assumed New Uni-versity Campuses 41
Chapter V illFindings on the Need forInstitutions of Higher Education 43
The Needs of the State as a Whole 43
Lead Time __ 44
Student Mobility 44
Effect of Year-Round Operations 44
The Isolation. Factor 44
Au Assessment, of the Need "or New State Col-leges and University Campuses 44
State Colleges 44
University of California_.__ 45
Recommendations 45
"NinTs
APPENDICES
Table IITotal Population of California Coun-ties, 1960 with Preliminary Projections to 1980 54
Table ill.Provisional Projections of PublicSchool Twelfth Grade Graduates by CountyThru School Year Ending June 1980 55-57
Table IV ?rojection of Full-Time Students Cali-fornia Independent Institutions of Higher Edu-cation, By County of Location, 1965-1980_58, 59
APPENDIX AA Review of Studies on the Need for Additional
Centers of Higher Education_ 48
APPENDIX 33Table IRelation of Concepts of Student Enroll-
ments to Maximum and Minimum EnrollmentRanges 53
4
Ia
TABLE OF CONTENTSContinued
APPENDICESContinued
PageTable VReported and Projected J.C. Full-time
Enrollments of Existing Institutions, 1961-1980 60, 61
Table VICalifornia State Colleges First-TimeFreshmen By County of GraduationFall 1963 62
Table VIIUniversity of California First-TimeFreshmen By County of High School Gradua-tionFall 1963 63
Table VIII--Rates Per 1000 Public High SchoolGraduates ;in 1963 Attending California HigherEducational Institutions As Pirt-rrirn(4 Fresh-m 1963 64
Table IXSrimmary of Pilhlio 'FHA Sohnnl Grad-uates by Pr ay and Secondary EnrollmentZones of Possible New State Colleges, 1970-71to 1980 65
Table XSummary of Levels of Factors Selectedfor Enrollment Projections for Possible NewState Colleges After an Initial Ten-Year Periodof Development, With Projected Enrollmentsfor 1980-81 65
Table XIEstimated Effect of a New State Col-lege in Contra Costa County on Potential En-rollments From Contra Costa County to Exist-ing State Colleges- -Pall -time 66
Table X11Estimated. Effect of a New State Col-lege in Los Angeles County on Potential En-rollments at Existing State CollegesFull-time 66
Table XIIIEstimated Effect of a New State Col-lege in San Mateo County on Potential Enroll-ments at Existing State CollegesFull-time 67
PageTable XIVThe University of California Esti-
mates of Four Term EnrollmentsJune 1964_ 6'8Table XVZonal Rates First-Time Entering
Freshmen Per 1,000 Public High School Gradu-ates, 1961, 1962, 1963U.C. (Davis, SantaBarbara, Riverside, Berkeley, Los Angeles) ____ 69
Table XVIGeneral Relations of First-Time En-tering Freshmen, Undergraduate and GraduateStudents 1961, 1962, 1963U.C. (Davis, SantaBarbara, Riverside, Berkeley, Los Angeles)____ 69
Table XVII-1980 Potential EnrollmentTime Entering Freshmen Assuming a New Uni-versity Campus in the South San Joaquin Valley 70
7i1.-7.1c XVIII 1030 Potential Enrollment ofFirst-Time Entering Freshmen Assuming a NewUniversity Campus in North Sacramento Valley 70
Table XIX-1980 Potential Enrollment of First-Time Entering Freshmen Assuming a New Uni-versity Campus, Los Angeles County 71
Table XX-1980 Potential Enrollments of First-Time Entering Freshmen Assuming a New Uni-versity Campus in North San Francisco BayArea 71
Table XXIActual and Projected Full-Time Stu-dent Enrollments, California State Colleges forEach Year, 1960-1980 (Based on a Two-TermCalendar) 71
APPENDIX CCalifornia Public a:ad Private Institutions of
Higher Education by County of Location 72Areas Represented at the Meetings of the Commit-
tee on Physical Facilities, September 15-16, 1964 75
TABLES IN TEXT
Table 1Minimum and Maximum EnrollmentRanges in Fall Term Enrollment in the 1964Additional Centers Study 14
Table 2Planning Fall Term Enrollment Limitsfor Capital Outlay Purposes of the CaliforniaState Colleges 14
Table 3Time From Authorization to Opening,Selected Campuses 15
Table 4Actual and Projected Full-Time StudentEnrollments, California Institutions of HigherEducation, 1960 -1980 17
Table 5Master Plan and Current 1975 Projec-tions of Full-Time Fall Term Enrollments, Cali-fornia Institutions of Higher Education 17
Table 6First-Time Freshmen and Transfer Stu-dents From Other States Who Attended Cali-fornia Institutions of Higher Education, Fall1963 19
Table 7Current Projections of State Collegesand University of California Full-Time Stu-dentsModified and Status Quo 19
Table 8Fall Term lihirollment Projections BasedUpon Fall 1963 Survey of California PrivateInstitutions of Higher Education 21
Table 9 Projected Annual Full-Time Equiva-lent,,, 8-AM-5-PM, California State Colleges,1964-65 to 1975-76 25
Table 10Full-Time Enrollment Projections Ex-isting Bay Area Colleges and Universities 26
5
TABLE OF CONTENTSContinued
TABLES IN TEXTContinued
PageTable 11Projected Annual Full-Time Equiva-
lent Enrollments, 8-AM-5-PM, Bay Area Col-leges, 1964-65 to 1980-81 26
Table 12Mileage and Driving Time to and FromSelected Points in San Francisco Bay Area 28
Table 13High School Graduates, Contra Costaand San Mateo
Table 14Full-Time Enrollment Projections, Ex-isting Los Angeles Area Co lleven anti T..litiversi-ties
PageTable 15Projected Annual Full-Time Equiva-
lents, 8-AM-5-PM, State Colleges in Los An-geles Area Complex 32
Table 16Mileage and Driving Time to and fromSelected Points in Five County Los AngelesComplex 32
Table 17Fall. Term Enrollment Projections for28 Possible New State Colleges After an Initial
Ten-Year Period of Development 1980-81 36
Table 18Actual and Projected Full-Time Stu-dent Enrollments, University of California, Per
30 Year, 1961-1980 38
snrn...11JIILLAJ 1111114/
Public Four-Year Institutions of Higher Educa-tion 12
Actual and Projected Full-Time Fall Term En-rollment of California Institutions of HigherEducation, 1950-1980 (Figure) 18
California School Districts Maintaining JuniorColleges 23
6
MAPS IN TEx
Bay Area ComplexState Colleges Denoted by 20Mile Radii 27
Five County Los Angeles ComplexState CollegesDenoted by 20 Mile Radii 31
Los Angeles County High School Districts 33University of California Enrollment Projection
Areas 40
RECOMMENDATIONS'It is recommended that:(1) The Council advise the Legislature that it
should authorize in 1965 a California State Collegein Kern County.
(2) The Council on November 24, 1964, adoptedthe following policy :
Where the Council finds there is a definite ulti-mate need for a campus, acquisition of sites inadvance of authorization to start a campus maybe justified in carefully restricted circumstances,as found by the 0.1 1 C11 oh a ''bore land maynot subsequently be available without excessivecost or where there may be special opportunityto obtain the land.
In conjunction with the above stated policy, cur-rent data show that :
(a) A "definite ultimate need" exists for newCalifornia State Colleges to serve students in thefollowing areas, listed alphabetically : ContraCosta County, the San Mateo County-SantaClara County area, and in Ventura County in alocation to serve students from both the cities ofVentura and Oxnard as well as from cities innorthern Los Angeles County. It appears at thistime that authorization for the establishment ofone of these three campuses may be recom-mended by the Coordinating Council to th- IL, s-lature prior to 1969 and the second any `Birdcampuses in 1969 or thereafter.(b) A "definite ultimate need" exists for aUniversity campus in the Los Angeles area (thecounties of Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernar-dino, Riverside and Orange) and for one in theSan Francisco Bay Metropolitan Area (thecounties of San Francisco, Marin, Solano, Sonoma,Napa, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara andSan Mateo). It appears at this time authorizationfor the establishment of one of these campusesmay be recommended by the Coordinating Coun-cil to the Legislature in 1969 and recommenda-tion for the second campus approximately in1975.
(3) The Council further advise the Legislaturethat sites for institutions of public higher education
1 Approved by the Council on November 24, 1964.
2-36235-C
41111111111111M111111111,
should be acquired in advance of legislative author-ization of the institutions through use of the follow-ing procedures:
(a) Advance acquisition of sites for a StateCollege located in Contra Costa County, for aState College located to serve students from SanMateo and Santa Clara Counties, and for a StateCollege located serve students from VenturaCounty and Los Angeles County will be justifiedin each instance where the Trustees of the Cali-fnvrtin Q+ntit Clealecrea ivaran+ erxr-MerInc..,
Council finds that "carefully restricted circum-stanr:es" warrant it, "such as where land maynot subsequently be available without excessivecost or where there may be special opportunity toobtain the land", and upon such findings theCouncil will recommend appropriations for theacquisition of such sites.(b) Advance acquisition of sites for a Univer-sity of California campus in either the Los An-geles or San Francisco Bay Area would be justifled when the Regents of the University presentevidence and the Council finds that "carefully re-stricted circumstances" warrant it, "such aswhere land may not subsequently be availablewithout excessive cost or where there may bespecial opportunity to obtain the land", andupon such findings the Council will recommendappropriations for the acquisition of such sites,
(4) And the Council further advise the Legislaturenot later than 1969 and each five years thereafter un-til all needs have been met, it will conduct a statewidesurvey of the then existing needs for additional cen-ters of public higher education and the need for ad-vanced acquisition of sites.
(5) And the Council further advise the Legisla-ture to expedite the inclusion of all areas of the Statewithin Junior College districts.
(6) In the light of the request of the Universityof California, the Council indicate that it will con-sider a staff report on the need for specialized pro-grams such as graduate agriculture and graduatehealth science programs in the San Joaquin Valleyat its December 15 [1964] meeting or at suchsubsequent meeting as the data may be available.
CHAPTER I
PLANNING FACILITIES TO MEET GROWINGCOLLEGE ENROLLMENT
A Tradition of Statewide PlanningThe necessity for statewide planning in California's
rapidly growing society and expanding economy isapparent even to the most casual observer. The needto base judgments about future requirements forhigher education on complete and objective assess-ments of known or obtainable farts aryl nr prcdictcdticiids is aisu uppartn.i. Ile experience gained hasindicated clearly that errors have been made only inthe cases of marked departure from the context ofrecommended actions. Findings of statewide surveysand consequent projections of needs have been provedto be essentially correct with the passage of time.
This report prepared in the light of previousstudies, is one of a series of objective, comprehensivedocuments on the need for additional centers. Sincethe "Strayer Report" of 1948 1 some nine studieshave been prepared on various aspects of the needfor new collegiate centers. Conclusions of these majorstudies are summarized in Appendix A.
The Scope of the StudyThe Master Plan for Higher Education, provisions
of which were approved in December 1959, stated thata review of the need for additional centers should becompleted in 1965 with a subsequent review in 1970.The Plan further specified certain geographic areaswhich should be included within that review, as dis-cussed later in this report.
The Council in general has accepted these direc-tions of the Master Plan. For this reason, this re-port defines needs for new riblic collegiate facilitiesthrough 1969. By that year (the year of a GeneralSession of the Legislature) another review will beconducted, for quinquennial review allows time fortrends to become apparent, yet not too prolonged aperiod over which to project needs.
1 Monroe E. Deutsch, Aubrey A. Douglass, and George D.Strayer, A Report of a Survey of the Needs of California inHigher Education (Berkeley: University of California Press,1948).
There is little doubt that this present review iscalled for. The population of California is increasingat a continuing rapid pace, and demands on bothprivate and public colleges and universities can beexpected to become greater each year.
The 1963-64 listing of higher education institutionsDrennrarl by the T.N. OEL, a. Education lists 134zi.(:ui edited colleges and universities in Californiaespublic and 86 private? Preliminary enrollment totalsfor the Fall Semester 1964 show some 370,000 full-time students attending California collegiate institu-tions. This represents a 64% increase above 1958 en-rollments. Continued enrollment growth is the clearpattern ahead.
The following pages pr ,sent in a comprehensiveform aspects of the need for additional centers ofpublic higher education. Chapter II sets forth theprinciples and criteria employed in establishing areaneeds and other rclated considerations. Chapter IIIexamines California population growth patterns andcorresponding higher education enrollment trendsmaking use of data produced by the State Depart-ment of Finance. Chapter IV examines the status ofplanning for new centers by independent colleges anduniversities; Chapter V considers the pattern ofJunior College coverage of the state. Aspects bearingupon the need for new California State Collegeties are explored in Chapter VI, and for Universityof California campuses in Chapter VII. Chapter VIIIpresents findings and recommendations developedfrom the foregoing information.
Throughout the report use has been made of mate-rials pro'ided by interested citizens and groups fromseveral areas throughout the state. These materialswere made available to the Council on various occa-sions and particularly at the meetings of the Com-mittee on Physical Facilities held on September 15and 16, 1964, at which some 56 persons appeared onbehalf of 12 areas of the state. A listing in AppendixC shows the areas represented at those meetings andthe persons appearing before the Committee..
2Education Directory 1963-64, Part 3, Higher Education.
9
CHAPTER II
FRAMEWORK FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE NEED
FOR NEW CENTERS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Criterio and Principles to Be Applied.
Council action on February 28, 1964, established a
number of principles and criteria to be used in thisstudy of the need for additional centers. The approved
Prospedus 1 for the study listed the criteria and de-fined the study scope. Council action on November 10,
1964, suggested guidelines in developing the reportand expanded the scope of the study? These princi-
ples and criteria are presented below together with
notation of their historical development within pre-
vious reports.
The 1957 Additional Centers Study. The State
Board of Education and the Regents of the Univer-
sity of California prior to the conduct of the 1957
study approved these principles : 3
(1) The expansion of existing institutions and theestablishment of new ones should der enil oathe optimum use of the state's resources forhigher education in relation to the greatestrelative need both geographically and func-
tionally.(2) Differentiation of functions so far as possible
of the three segments of public higher educa-tion, namely the Junior Colleges, the State Col-
leges and the University of California, is im-
perative if unnecessary and wasteful duplica-tion is to be avoided.The assumption that adequate Junior College
facilities 4 will be provided through local initia-
tive and state assistance prior to the establish-
ment of additional State College or University
campuses is basic to this (1957) report.
(4) The financing of new publicly supported in-stitutions should be such that it interferes in
no way with the needs, including necessary im-
provement or expansion, of existing ones.In order that a possible new institution may
serve the greatest number of eligible students,it should be placed near the center of the pop-ulation served by it.
See, Coordinating Council for Higher Education, Minutes of
pro Meeting, .,.'ebruary 28, 1964; the title of the document ap-ovetz r,;;;;;;cctu. for lOG staff Report on Cal fornia's
Needs for Additional Centers of Publio Higher Education, 1963-
1980, (64-4).2See, Coordinating Council for Higher Education, Minutes of
the Meeting, November 10, 1964.3H. H. Semans, and T. C. Holy, A Study for the xv eed of Ad-
ditional Centers of Higher Education in California (Sacramento:California State Department of Education 1957), p. v.
As defined by the Coordinating Council for Higher Educa-tion. (See Minutes, February 28, 1964 )
(3)
(5)
10
(6) Extension of publicly supported institutionsto the degree that the continued operation ofprivate ones long in existence and seeminglyserving the community well is jeopardized, isnot in the public interest.
Master Plan Assumptions. The kaster Plan, inconsidering the need for additional public institu-tions, emphasized these basic assumptions:
. . . that, while the particular needs of localitiesshould not be overlooked, the general interest of thestate is paramount. Therefore, in determining theneed for additional junior college facilities, the lo-cation of new state colleges and new campuses ofthe University, the following are most important :
(1) The .relative numbers of high school gradu-ates, the location of existing institutions in thevarious areas of the state, and the relation betweentheir capacity and the estimated enrollment in the
area served by each institution.(2) The relative numbers of potential students
within reasonable commuting distance of each of
the proposed sites.(3) The need to accommodate numbers of stu-
dents in excess of the capacities of the physicalplants of existing junior colleges, state colleges, and
campuses o.2 the University.5
A fourth relevant assumption to those containedwithin the Master Plan report may be added:
(4) Providing additional educational opportuni-ties in counties not within reasonable commutingrange of existing colleges and offering opportunity
to a large number of students who otherwise would
not secure a college education.°
After considering the above principles and cri-
teria, the Council suggested the following guidelines
for this report, its action specifically not committing
any member of the Council to a precise position.
Guidelines for Staff Report
1. The Council should recommend additional cen-ters to meet the needs of the State of California
as a whole for: additional student plaees. based
a Master Plan, pp. 99-100.e This general assumption to those in the Master Plan report
was adopted specifically by the Committee on Physical Facilitiesas appropriate for the purposes of the present Council study andwas included in the Prospectus. See also Council Minutes, No-vember 10, 1964.
(a) upon estimates of the number of high schoolgraduates and of the increasing portion of them..,he will attend. ee"egc, (b) upon the existing,or planned places in existing institutions, (elupon the statutory differentiation of functions,and (d) upon comparable costs per student.
2. Added campuses may be needed because of theisolation of specific areas in the state.
3. Aside from these areas of isolation, additionalcampuses should be located in the areas of heav-iest need to serve the largest number of students.
4. Each segment should be permitted an adequatelead time to develop any recommended campuses.
'he preceding criteria and principles, employed inthe 1957 study and the Master Plan report and sup-plemented by Council action, form the general con-siderations upon which this report is based. In apply-ing them, the enrollment potential and maximum lim-itation placed on physical plant must receive exam-ination. Lead time required to establish a programand the factor of isolation also deserve close atten-tion. The question of advance acquisition of sites isalso examined. Locations of public four-year collegesand university campuses are on the map following.
Consideration of Enrollment Potential on Newand Existing Campuses
One of the Master Plan assumptions cited abovestresses the importance of the relative numbers of po-tential students within reasonable commuting dis-tance of proposed sites. The need to establish a mini-mum enrollment goal for a new institution after areasonable period of operation, such as five years, isreadily apparent. Concerning this problem, the 1957study concluded :
. . . that, 2,000 full-time equivalents of regu-lar students, after five years of full operation(freshmen through graduate classes), is a mini-mum potential that would justify the establish-ment of a state college.?
The 1957 Additional Cente "s Study further statedthat while 2,000 students are sufficient to operate anundergraduate program of university caliber, anenrollment of 10,000 full-time students should be at-tending a campus with full-scale university func-tions An enrollment of 25,000 was considered a max-imum.
The Master Plan modified this criterion somewhatby raising the minimums and at the same time length-ening the time in which a new institution shouldreach the minimum. It established full-time enroll-
7Semans and Ilo:37, op. cit., p. 46. This was based upon con-siderations of unit costs and balanced programs.
ment ranges to by observed for existing institutions,for those authorized but not yet established, and for411;s7gc, later to be cztablished.
The minimums and maximums employed in theMaster Plan have been modified to a limited extentby action of the Council following PLudy by a tech-nical committee composed of Council staff andUniversity and Stai,e College representatives. Thesechanges are set forth in the paragraphs below.
Setting a Maximum Enrollment Figure. The es-tablishment of an enrollment ceiling at each institu-tion is necessary for proper planning of educationalprograms and physical plant. It is also necessary fromthe standpoint of statewide planning and orderlygrowth. The redirection of students within a segmentand the diversion of students (as provided for bythe Master Plan) to the Junior Colleges is facilitatedby firmly established ceiling enrollments.
Ceilings at University campuses were set at 27,500full-time students. This ceiling at the Universitycampuses appears justified for several reasons. (1)With a large proportion of graduate students, largeand costly libraries and laboratory and research facil-ities are needed. Graduate programs are also gener-ally more costly than undergraduate programs andthus larger graduate schools are desirable in orderto make possible reductions in unit costs. (2) Theenrollment maximum stated above includes studentsin the professional schools such as law and medicine,programs unique to the University among public col-leges. (3) The presence of other specialized programswhich serve the state as a whole is relevant.
The Master Plan provided for a ceiling of 20,000full-time students for the State Colleges in denselypopulated areas in metropolitan centers, and 12,000outside metropolitan areas. The rationale for establish-ing the lower maximum in State Colleges outside met-ropolitan areas can be based on the probability thatthe programs will not normally be located at suchcolleges but rather at those colleges in densely popu-lated areas where the greatest number of students willbe accommodated. It is also more desirable to havemaximum enrollments that can be attained in theforeseeable future.
The three largest Junior Colleges in the state, allin metropolitan areas, had fall 1963 enrollments total-ing from 5,000 to 6,000 full-time students. The LosAngeles City Junior College District now plans itscampuses for a maximum of 7,500 full-time studentsalthough Los Angeles City College is now masterplanned for 10,000 on a high-rise campus. 7,500 full-time students appears to be an appropriate recom-mended ceiling for Junior Colleges allowing for amaximum amount of service to a community (althoughexceptions may be required in certain metropolitanareas). The likelihood of the need for larger campusesis remote in view of the Junior Colleges' objective to
serve a comma._ public. Unless they are placed inextremely densely populated areas, their size is de-termined by the numbers of students who can easilyattend.
An inspection of available data on unit operationalcosts of the University and the State Colleges suggeststhat the unit cost tends to level off as maximum en-rollments are reached.8 Capital cost data containedin the Master Plan report and the reports of its Tech-nical Committee on the Cost of Higher Education inCalifornia bear out the Master Plan conclusion that,with a constant percentage of students housed, littleadvantage is gained in cost savings by expanding anexisting campus as opposed to development on a newcampus. Factors such as land costs could tip thescales either way.
The Master Plan also included the term "optimum"enrollments for campuses. However, existing, plannedmaximum enrollment limits of University campusesand State Colleges do not conform to the "optimum"figures. In addition, available data on unit costs donot tend to support this optimum concept and noquantitative data arc available which elate quality ofeducation to campus size. However, in the develop-ment of new collegiate centers a maximum set forthas a range could well be used as a guide to futureplanning since, (1) capital costs for expansion orinitiation of new facilities vary, (2) potential enroll-ment may vary among service areas to be covered,and (3) enrollment maximums for campuses and col-leges may also vary. Furthermore, a range rather thana single figure allows for time in which a college mayadjust to the "topping out" stage. The followingmaximum ranges were developed by the TechnicalCommittee.°
Type of InstitutionMaccim11111, Ranges
(Fall Term Enrollment)Junior Colleges 5,000 7,500 *state Colleges
In densely populated areas inmetropolitan centers 17,500-20,000
Outside metropolitan centers 9,500-12,000University of California Campuses 25,000-27,500
( To be modified upward in densely populated areas at the discretion of thelocal governing board.)
Setting a Minimum Enrollment Figure. A mini-mum enrollment figure is essential as a guide in de-termining the need for a new college campus in aparticular area, for a sparsely settled community maynot be able to supply a new college with enough stu-dents to warrant the establishment of a campus. Theenrollment minimum should be based on the type andquality of education desired and the unit costs in-volved. A new campus should be expected to growin a reasonable length of time to a point where costsare in line with comparable institutions and the edu-
e Report of Ad Hoc Technical Committee on Maximum andMinimum Enrollment Ranges, a report to the. joint meeting ofthe, Council's Committees on Physical Facilities and EducationalPrograms, June 29, 1964.
9 Ibid.
cational prc gram is assured of reaching a desiredminim um o.tici
As set forth in the Master Plan, the present policyof the Board. of Regents is that each general Univer-sity campus will develop into a complete universitywith equality in terms of most programs. Since theseprograms inzlude graduate and professional schools,the minimal size of a complete University campus canbe expected to be larger, on the average, than theminimal size of a Junior College where an inexpensiveundergraduate liberal arts transfer program can beefficiently initiated with a relatively small studentenrollment potential. The same is true, although toa lesser degree, when a State College is compared toa Junior College. A State College located in a non-metropolitan area may be able to fulfill its ''unctionby offering a four-year liberal arts program with lessexpensive graduate programs. In such a case enroll-ments at newly established colleges in isolated areasneed not be expected to grow quite so rapidly.
Most significantly, the evidence available on unitoperational costs for University campuses of varioussize and State Colleges tends to indicate that econ-omies of scale begin when a range of between 3,000and 5,000 students are being served by a State Collegeand 5,000-7,000 by a University campus.
The California Education Code provides that withcertain exceptions no Junior College district shall beformed if the assessed valuation of taxable propertyin the proposed district is less than $150,000 for eachunit of estimated potential average daily attendance.1°
The minimum potential average daily attendanceis also established by law as follows:
Section 25431. Except as provided in Section25432.5 no junior college district shall be formed,and the State Board of Education shall not approvea petition to form a junior college district if theestimated potential average daily attendance of thedistrict is less than 1,000 units of daily attendance.
This statutory direction was subsequent to thePlan and raises the minimum of 400 full-time
students to the equivalent of 900. Section 25432 ofthe Education Code also sets a time limit for attainingthe minimum to "the second school year after thedate the district is in existence for all purposes."
In summary, for purposes of this study and withthe exceptions noted the following minimums andmaximums have been used :
"Seg. 25,01,5. The exceptions are stated as follows: If theState Board of Education determines tnat the proposed districtwill serve an area which is isolate( from other existing juniorcolleges or if existing junior colleges are inaccessible to resi-dents of the area to be served, the State Board of Educationmay approve the formation of a new district junior college witha mane. estimated potential average daily attendance or as-sessed valuation for each unit of estimated potential averagedaily attendance than that required by Sections 25431 and25431.5.
13
TABLE
Minimum and Maximum Enrollment Ranges in Fall TermEnrollment Applied in the 1964 Additional Centers Study
(Full-time Students)
Type of Institution Minimum Maximum
Junior Colleges 900 5,000- 7,500
State CollegesIn densely populated areas in metropolitan
centers 5,000 17,500-20.000Outaide such areas 3,1,30 9.500-12,000
University of California Campus 5,000 25,000-27,500
NOTE: The minimum figures for State College and Universitycampuses are to be attained within seven to ten years afterstudents are first admitted. The minimum for Junior Colleges isto be attained within two years, and may be lowered if theState Board of Education so determines due to isolation factorsas provided in the Education Code. Also the maximum for JuniorColleges may be exceeded in densely populated areas in metro-politan centers.
Currently Planned Enrollments of Universityand State College Campuses
University of California. The governing boardshave from time to time set maximum capacity limitsfor their colleges and campuses. The University utiliz-ing the full-time student concept has established max-imum capacities for its campuses. For general cam-puses these limits range from 10,000 at Riverside to27,500 at Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Diego, SantaCruz and Irvine and are as follows:
Maximum Fall Term.Enrolltnentsli
Futl-Time StudentsUniversity CampusBerkeley 27,500Los Angeles 27,500Davis 15,000Santa Barbara 15,000Riverside 10,000San Francisco Medical 7,500San Diego 27,500Irvine 27,500Santa Cruz 27,500
Total 185,000
The rationale for the upper limits and variationsbetween campuses is fully explained in the Univer-sity Plan for Growth.12 In the Plan enrollments ofthe University system are projected to the year 2000A.D. when 214,000 full-time students are expected.
The assumed growth rates that allow for academieplanning, recruitment of faculties, acquisition of li-braries and all the other facilities which must precedethe admission of students are:
Fall Term Errollment Growth2,500 and below 500 per .,-,fIr2,500- 5;000 750 per year5,000-10,000 1,000 per year
10,000-20,000 1,500 per year20,000 and over 2,250 per year
11 Except for Berkeley and Los Angeles, maximums will not bereached until the late 1970's and the 1980's.
3.2 A Recommended Plan for Growth of the University of Cali-fornia, May-June 1960.
14
Lower maximum ern:Ili:lents at Davis, Santa Bar-bara and Riverside arise because forcing these cam-puses to reach the lai,;her figure by 1980 would pushtheir rates :A growth above those accepted as desir-able. In addition, forced growth at these campuseswould deny nearby educational opportunities toyoung people in the state's most rapidly growingareas. Further, new campuses will be 7:equired in anyevent and delay in launching them would make moredifficult the problems of site acquisition and forceddraft growth.13
TABLE 2
Planning Fall Term Enrollment Limits for Capital OutlayPurpoEts of the California State Colleges
California State Colleges
Fall Term F.T.E.Enrollment Limit
8 a.m.-5 p.m.*
Fullerton 20,000Hayward 115.000Long Beach 20,000Los Angeles 116.800Palos Verdes 16,000San Bernardino 20,000California State Polytechnic College
Kellogg Voorhis 20,000San Luis Obispo 12,000
Chico State College 6,000Fresno State College 20,000Humboldt State College 12.000Sacramento State College 20,000San Diego State College 20,000San Fernando Valley State College 20,000San Francisco State College 115,000San Jose State College 17,000Sonoma State College 12,000Stanislaus State College 12,000
293,800
* Full-time equivalent enrollment of regular students (F.T.E.)is used in determining the need for capacity in instructional fa-cilities. The full-time equivalent enrollment of regular studentsis determined by dividing by 15 the aggregate number of creditunits earned by students taking more than 6 units. Enrollmenttotals of those taking more than six units is used in determin-ing the need for cafeteria seating, parking spaces, and studenthealth facilities. Office capacity is based on needs developed bythe application of existing staffing criteria to the various enroll-ment bases.
1 These are interim planning figures. Both Hayward and LosAngeles have a possible potential of 20,000 if land acquisitionand/or ingress-egress problems can be solved. San Franciscoplans to go to 15,000 if the necessary site can be acquired.
The California State Colleges. For the past dec-ade the State Colleges have based their capital outlayneeds on the estimated annual full-time equivalent(F.T.E.) enrollment from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Basedupon the approved Board of Trustees (Table 2 pre-ceding) enrollment limits, planned maximum enroll-ments vary from 12,000 F.T.E. at the non-metropoli-tan campuses to 20,000 F.T.E. for most of the metro-politan campuses.
Table I in Appendix B details the above concern-ing the interpretation of these figures in terms of theability of a campus to handle students. For example,a State College campus planned for 20,000 F.T.E.(8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) could accommodate 18,700 full-time students and at least an additional 2,000 F T.E.
Ia Ibid.
after 5 pail., for a total of 22,000 F.T.E. On such acampus as many as 32,000 individual students, full-time and part-time, could be enrolled.
At the present no State College is near the 20,000F.T.E. (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) level. San Jose State, thelargest college, in the fall of 1963 had approximately15,358 F.T.E. students between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.with a student body of 19,450. San Francisco, SanDiego and Long Beach State Colleges were all above10,000 F.T.E. (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.). On the basis of theevidence at hand, these campuses are not so large asto pose serious administrative or educational prob-lems. Economically the larger State Colleges operateat about the same cost per student as those that areat 5,000 F.T.E. or somewhat above.
Lead TimeOnce a new institution is established by the Legis-
lature many things must be done before students canbe enrolled !nr the first time. A site must be chosenand purchased, a cadre staff must be organized, afaculty must be recruited and an academic plan mustbe formulated. Plannirg and construction of build-ings are also time consuming. A review of the lengthof time from date of legislative authorization to open-ing date for a number of State Colleges and Univer-sIty campuses appears below.
TABLE 3
Time From Authorization to Opening, Selected Campuses
CampusDate of
AuthorizationDate ofOpening
FirstPenn. Bldgs.
ITC at San Diego 1957 1964* 1964*ITC at Irvine 1957 1965 1965ITC at Santa Cruz 1957 1965 1965C.S.C. at Hayward 1957 1959 1963C.S.0 at Fullerton 1957 1959 1963Stanislaw State College 1957 1960 1965Sonoma State College 1957 1961 1966C.S.C. at Palos Verdes 1960 1965 1966C.S.C. at San Bernardino 1960 1965 1965
*Date when freshmen were admitted for the first time.
The above indicates that it is possible to open a newcampus very soon after its authorization by the Legis-lature, particularly if temporary or rented quartersare used. Indeed, there have been campuses whichhave received students the same year in which theywere legally established. However, experience in bothsegments indicates that it is far better to allow for asufficient time to plan and accomplish the steps men-tioned above before admitting the first student.
This study assumes a lead time of six to eight yearsfrom the date of authorization to admission of thefirst student as being desirable in the proper planningof any public higher education institution.
One additional concept is that of total lead timethe time between the date of authorization and thedate when an institution is enrolling additional stu-
dents at an appreciable rate each year. Total leadtime for University campuses, for planning purposes,is approximately 15 years. At the end of that time, acampus should be growing at the rate of about 1,000students per year. The State Colleges do not havesuch a growth plan. A total lead time of ten yearsrather than 15 years appears to be reasonable becauseof the smaller graduate programs in the State Col-leges. It is expected that California State Colleges atHayward and Fullerton will reach a growth rate ofabout 800 F.T.E. in 1967ten years after their au-thorization. San Bernardino and Palos Verdes expectto grow about 500 F.T.E. per year after ten yearstotal lead time. Therefore, in considering new StateColleges an annual growth of from 500 to 800 F.T.E.can be expected in 10 years.
The Factor of Isolation. The term "isolation" asused here, means the presence of a substantial num-ber of students who are not within reasonable com-muting distance from an existing college. Isolationcan exist in either of two distinct sets of circum-stances. It is most obvious in counties remote frommetropolitan areas, where the number of high schoolgraduates seems likely to be relatively small in theimmediate future. Minimum enrollment for present orprojected State Colleges in these areas is set at 3,000(See Table 1).
Isolation can also be found within large metropoli-tan areas where public transportation is either inade-quate or unusually time consuming and where poten-tial students cannot afford to live in dormitories atremote distances. Time used in travel reduces timeavailable for part-time employment. A relatively loweconomic status of students and their families canlead to this type of isolation.
The degree of isolation of various areas in the statecan best be seen by examining the several maps inthis report. The two large areas not now being servedby the University of California are the North Sacra-mento Valley and the San Joaquin Valley. Populousareas not now being served adequately by the StateColleges include Kern County, and parts of ContraCosta and Ventura Counties.
The Advanced Acquisition of Sites. The subjectof possible advanced acquisition of sites for collegiatepurposes considerably in advance of development hasbeen studied by both the Tliiiversity and State Col-leges staffs as well as the staff of the CoordinatingCouncil.
The Assembly Interim Committee on Education,Subcommittee on Research, Structure and Functionconducted a hearing on this matter in response toHouse Resolution No. 337 (1963 Session) on October23, 1964. Testimony of the Council staff at that hear-ing listed some of the advantages and disadvantagesas follows: Advantages. (1) The ability to better se-
15
cure donated sites for facilities or sites at evilipara-tively lesser cost in land-short areas. (2) Early selec-tion of sites frees prospective donors of less suitableland to make use of their land in other ways. (3)Early designation of future sites would contribute notonly to statewide long-range planning but would helpthe local area in its long-range developments, bothpublic and private. Disadvantages. (1) Removal ofland from tax rolls at an early date. (2) Possiblespread of the practice among several State agenciesfor a variety of purposes. (3) Advance acquisitionmay support pressures to develop a facility in advanceof planned need, and, therefore, may work againstthe principle of orderly growth. (4) Perhaps most im-portantly, the acquisition of sites considerably in ad-vance of planned development may tend to discourage
16
development of new alternatives which might be de-sirable in the period between acquisition and actualdevelopment. For example, pop ulettluu comp ubilluuchanges during a five to ten year period might sug-gest a new location.
After considering these factors, the Council acted asfollows at its meeting on November 10, 1964:
Where the Council finds there is a definite ulti-mate need for a campus, acquisition of a site inadvance of authorization to start a campus maybe justified in carefully restricted circumstancesas found by the Council such as where land maynot subsequently be available without excessivecost or where there may be special opportunity toobtain the land."
California's popnlation, estimated at over 17 mil-lion in 1963, is expected to grow to nearly 25 million
in 1975 and to over 28 Million by 1980. Counties with
a net change in population of: over 200,000 persons
and a 50% or greater increase over the 10-year period
from 1950 to 1960 include: (1) Orange, 225.6%, (2)
Santa Clara, 121.1%, (3) San Diego, 85.5%, and (4)Sacramento, 81.4%. Los Angeles County's increaseover this same period was nearly two million butwith a percentage increase of 45.5. Counties expectedto grow more than 200,000 between 1960 and 1970
are: (1) Alameda, (2) Contra Costa, (3) Los Angeles,
(4) Orange, (5) Sacramento, (6) San Bernardino,
(7) San Diego, (8) San Mateo, (9) Santa Barbara,(10) Santa Clara, and (11) Ventura. (See Table II,Appendix B, which presents projections by individual
county.)
Higher Education Enrollment Projections
Table 4 following shows the actual and projected
full-time student enrollments for all four segmentsto 1980. These enrollments, S a percentage of thetotal population, have increased slightly from 1955
and are expected to increase from the present 1.9%
of the total state population to about 2.7% by 1980.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between college en-rollments and high school graduates for correspond-ing years as reflected in the iwojtions used for this
study.The 1975 estimates show enrollment totals about
twice the size of the 1963 enrol? .dents. By 1980, it
can be foreseen that over three quarters of a million
I Population and enrollment projections presented herein wereprepared by the California State Department of Finence.
full-time college students must be accommodated in
California. The current projection for 1975 (649,825
full-time students) compares closely with the Master
Plan Survey Team's estimate of 659,500 students for
that year. (See Table 5.) However, there have been
adjustments made for all segments, so that while the
total appears quite similar, each segment has been
affected by the new projections.
Out-of-state students attending California's colleges
and universities and categorized as first-time fresh-
men or as transfer students are tabulated in Table 6.
The number of these students includes part-time stu-
dents and constitutes only a small proportion of the
total enrollments of the state.The basic data for determining the enrollment pro-
jections for this study were the number of actual and
projected public high school graduates for each
county. Table III, Appendix B, contains these projec-
TAI3LE 5
Master Plan and Current 1975 Projections of Full-time Fall
Term Enrollments, Californa Institutions of Higher Education
Current ProjectionsMaster
Plan Projections
Junior Colleges 267,100 288,950
California State Colleges 166,325 180,650
University of California 125,300 118,750
Private Institutions 91,100 71,200
649,825 659,550
NOTE : Both of the above projections were prepared by theCalifornia Department of Finance. The Master Plan Projectionswere developed in 1957, the current projections in 1964.
TABLE 4
Actual and Projected Full-time Student Enrollments, California Institutions ofHigher Education-1955-1980
* The 1980 projections are extrapolations from 1975 at the same rate of change as was expected for 1970-75. The projections for
the State Colleges and the University reflect the Master Plan provisions which would produce a 40/60 relationship between lower and
upper division students by 1975.SOURCE: Department of Finance, 1964.
.17
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,W0
20,000
100,000
0
FIGURE 1
ACTUAL AND PROJECTED FULL-TIME FALL TERM ENROLLMENTS OF CALIFORNIAINSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 1950-I13O----- with blab school graduates for salsa years)
IOW
College Enrollments
--High School Graduates
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
SOURCE: Statistics for this graph were obtained from the California Department of Finance.
18
TABLE 6
First-time Freshmen and Transfer Students From Other StatesWho Attended California Institutions of Higher Education,
Fall 1963
J. C. C.S.C. U. C.PrivateInst.*
First-time freshmen
Transfer students(Undergraduate)
12,314
7,816
960
2,174
640
1,483
3,292
663
* These figures are for the 56 institutions responding to a De-partment of Finance questionnaire. These institutions accommo-date over 85% of the students in private colleges and universitiesin California.
tions to the year 1980, by county.2 The number of1963 full-time freshmen students for all four segmentswas 79% of the state's public high school graduatesfor that year. Total full-time enrollments for all seg-ments were 190% of the 1963 public high school grad-uates for that year.
The number of part-time individual students en-rolled in public colleges and university campuses issubstantial as can be seen below :
1961 1962 1963
1963% IncreaseOver 1961
State College ExtensionCredit 16,328 18,942 21,669 32.7%Non-Credit n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
State College Part-TimeRegular Program 41,759 46,555 52,920 26.7%
University ExtensionCredit 39,602 43,844 47,343 19.5%Non-Credit 16,663 13,793 19,199 15.2%
The Master Plan recommeni raising admissionrequirements to the State College,nd the University.It also recommended that by 1975 in each of the seg-ments of public higher education, upper division en-rollment become 60% of the total undergraduateenrollment, lower division enrollment becoming 40%.Both recommendations were designed to encouragediversion of lower division students to Junior Col-leges. The purposes for this action were reported asfollows in the Master Plan.3
1. Easy accessibility to students (attending JuniorColleges) and the consequent reduction in costto them.
2. The high scholastic records made in both theState Colleges and the University by JuniorCollege transfers.
2 The projections listed in the Appendix and quoted extensivelyin this study are for the public high schools ; the number ofparochial school 12th grade students on June 1, 1963, was 13,969,slightly over 8% of the total public 12th grade enrollment fuLthat year. 6,556 of these students were in the County of LosAngeles and 1.498 in San Francisco.
Master Plan, pp. 58-59.
3. The Junior College screening function of indi-cating those students most likely to succeed intheir education beyond the lower division.
4. The adopted policy of nalifornisx's trinartitesystem' of public higher education for the Uni-versity and the State Colleges to place increasedemphasis on upper division and graduate pro-grams.
5. The diversion of a portion of lower division stu-dents from the State Colleges and the Universityto the Junior Colleges to aid in controlling theunmanageable size of certain institutions.
6. Costs pe-- student to the State for both operationand plant are lower in the Junior Colleges thanin the State Colleges and the University.
The Coordinating Council on December 17, 1963,recommended that this diversion of students be re-flected in the enrollment projections used in the capi-tal outlay requests of the segments for the 1964-69five-year capital outlay program. The enrollment pro-jections for the two, four-year segments in Table 4and elsewhere reflect this diversion as closely as pos-sible. (A comparison of modified and status quo pro-jections is presented in Table 7.) Junior Collegeprojections, however, do not consider this factor since,at the time they were computed (August, 1964), nostatistical method for determining the number of di-verted students who enroll in Junior Colleges hadbeen developed.
TABLE 7
Current Projections of :ate Colleges and University ofCalifornia Full-time Students-Modified and Status Quo
Fall Term 1970 Fall Term 1975
Modified Status Quo Modified Status Quo
State Colleges
Univ. of Calif.
Diverted Students
134,475
105,150
21,500
149,175
111,950
166,325
125,300
42,125
190,150
143,600
Year-Round Operations-The Effect on Enrollments
The Master Plan provided that the Council studythe relative merits of the trimester and four-quarterplans for year-round use of the physical plants ofboth public and private institutions. On the basis ofthat study the Council recommended that a four-quarter calendar be used by the two, four-year publicsegments by 1975.4
The inauguration of year-round use of facilitiesdoes not change the number of students to be educatedin a given year. Rather it spreads the same number
CCHE Minutes of Meeting., January 28, 1964. Tt should benoted that studies were made of the 16-16-12, 16-16-6-6 and18-18-12 calendars as well. See A Comparison of the Trimesterand Four - Quarter Calendars for Year-Round Operations. . .No. 1009, February 1964.
19
of students over the entire year so that in any giventerm the number of students being educated is less.The effect, then, is a delay in the date when campuseson year-round operation reach maximum enrollmentsiu the fan term. The :onotint of delay depends uponthe number of students enrolling in the off-peakquarters.
Estimates as to the number of students desiring toaccelerate their higher educational program and theconsequent effect on enrollments in t1 e fall of eachyear have been made. University of California esti-mates show that year-round use, instituted as nowplanned, will reduce the fall enrollments in 1970 by7,375, and in 1975 by 12,325, or 7%. The California
State Colleges report iat enrollments would be de-creased by 7 to 9% depending upon the schedule
adopted.It is estimated that a reduction of 10% is a reason-
able, though conservative, amount to plan for eachsegment by 1975 And of 15% by 1980.
Enrollment projections present a clear view of con-tinued growth in student bodies in the next 10-15
year period. In the next chapters the ability of thesegments of higher educationprivate colleges anduniversities, Junior Colleges, California State Col-leges and the Jniversity of Californiato handle thisgrowth is closely examined.
CHAPTER IV
PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UN'IVERSITIES IN CALIFORNIA
The U.S. Office of Education lists 86 private ac-credited colleges and universities in California.1 Themost complete listing available shows that there is atotal of 134 private institutions (including off-campuscenters) offering some type of higher education (SeeAppendix C). Although some of these schools are notaccredited by a recognized agency, it is evident thatthe private segment's contribution to higher educa-tion in the state is substantial. The Preface in TheMaster Plan pointed out:
The Master Plan Survey Team recognizes thegreat contribution private colleges and universitieshave made and will continue to make to the state.It has included these institutions in the recom-mended state-wide coordinating agency with theopportunity for an authentic voice bearir.g on poli-cies directly affecting their welfare.2
Enrollment GrowthIn the fall of 1963 about 18% of the full-time stu-
dents in the state attended private colleges or uni-
TABLE 8
Fall Term Enrollment Projections Based Upon Fall 1963 Surveyof California Private Institutions of Higher Education
I J.S. Office of Education, Education Directory, 1963-64. Part8, HIgher Education.
2 Master Plan, p. xii.
versities.3 A comparison of the current projections of
the 72 institutions queried during the development ofthe Master Plan in 1957 with projections developed atthat time show that the present plans for these insti-tutions c.:1 for an expected increase of about 20%over what was expected in 1957 An even greater in-crease in what can be expected from the private seg-ment is shown in Table 8 which contains the projec-tions for the 81 schools as compared with those of the72 institutions in the Master Plan's estimates.
The private colleges and universities, with very feuexceptions, are located in the metropolitan areas ofeither San Francisco or Los Angeles. Table IV inAppendix B shows the enrollment projections of insti-tutions within counties where they are located. Only21 of the 58 counties have private institutions of anykind. The Los Angeles Area complex is expected toenroll about 53% of the full-time students in the statein private institutions in 1965 while the San Fran-cisco Bay Area is expected to enroll about 37% of thestudents.
Today, the private institutions accommodate about18% of the state's full-time students, but this pro-portion is diminishing from 23% in 1955 to an ex-pected 13% by 1980.
New Private Institutions of Higher Education
On March 31, 1964, representatives of the Associa-
tion of Independent California Colleges and Universi-ties presented a report on private education in Cali-fornia to the Coordinating Council for HigherEducation which included some prognoses of the de-
velopment of that segment in the forseeable future.The information on projected growth is summarized
below.4Since World War II ended, seven, four-year pri-
vate colleges have been established in California : Cali-fornia Lutheran College, California Western Uni-versity, Claremont Men's College, Harvey MuddCollege, Marymount College, University of San DiegoCollege for Men, and University of San Diego Collegefor Women. Their combined enrollment in the fall of1963 was 4,087.
3 Enrollment data used in this chapter were compiled by theDepartment of Finance by use of a questionnaire sent to each ofthe accredited private institutions. Responses from 81 schoolswere used in development of the projections shown in Table 8following.
4 The Very Rev. Charles S. Casassa, S.J., Statement to theCoordinating Council on the Growth Projections for Private In-stitutions of Higher Education in California, March 31, 1964.
21
Pitzer College, part of the Claremont group, openedin September 1964. It is a college for women and itexpects to enroll 100 to 125 students this fall.
St. Michael's, a co-educational institution sponsoredby the Episcopal Church, is definitely projected at theUniversity of the Pacific, but it is not known when itplans to receive its first 'lass.
Yeshiva University, E.. Jewish-sponsored institution,plans to build a $2,000,000 complex to include a lib-eral arts college and an expanded teachers' institutein Los Angeles. The opening date is uncertain.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintshas acquired two sites, one in the San Fern,...do Val-ley and the other northwest of Anaheim, for futurejunior colleges. It is possible that these two institu-tions would later expand into four-year colleges.
There has been some discussion of a Presbyterian-sponsored college at the University of the Pacific, but,this is still quite nebulous. The President of the Uni-versity of the Pacific has said that there is some inter-est in a Catholic-sponsored college within the Uni-versity, though this, too, is still very uncertain.
Representatives of Antioch College of Ohio havebeen exploring the possibility of encouraging the de-velopment of an Antioch-type college in California.
The long-range policy of the Claremont Colleges isto develop additional colleges as needed and as re-sources can be found. Since 1945, Claremont Men'sCollege, Harvey Mudd College and now Pitzer Collegehave been established in accord with this policy. Landis still available for six new colleges.
In brief, one new, four-year private college wasopened in September, 1964. Other colleges are defi-nitely planned, but their dates of opening are uncer-tain. Three more are not beyond the discussion stage.Two junior colleges which may ultimately expandinto four-year colleges have progressed to the pointof actual land acquisition. At Claremont additionalcolleges are a genuine possibility under the group'slong-range policy.
* * *
In his remarks to the Council's Committee on Phys-ical Facilities on SeptemLer 15, 1964, President
22
George Benson of Claremont Men's College had thefollowing to say relative to the role of the private seg-ment :5
In thinking about the role of independent in-stitution: in a state where public higher educa-tion is as important and as high quality as inCalifornia, I like to think of several specific val-ues in the private higher educational program.
1. Independent institutions take a considerableload off of the state budget estimated to be wellover $110,000,000. Aside from the CaliforniaState Scholarship program and federal researchprograms, the whole budgets of these institutionsare carried by tuition payments and by privatedonors.
2. The independent institutions add a consid-erable opportunity for variety and experimenta-tion in educational programs. The foreign cam-pus programs of Stanford, Redlands and Whit-tier are examples, as are the formation of thegroup plans in the Claremont Colleges and at theUniversity of the Pacific. We are pleased to notethat the University of California is using somefeatures of the group plan on two of its campuses.
3. The existence of independent institutions is,I believe, a real bulwark of academic freedomand academic independence. If we go back to theteachers' oath controversy at the University, forexample, I am sure that the lack of such oaths inindependent colleges was helpful. I am sure thatundue legislative interference with the Univer-sity and State Colleges is avoided in part be-cause there are private colleges and they haveestablished a tradition of independence whichpeople wish public institutions to have simulta-neously. We were all very pleased when the StateColleges received a degree of independence some-what corresponding to that of the University.
If these reasons are valid, we all (public andprivate) have a genuine stake in the preservationand growth of independent higher educationalinstitutions of the state.
& George C. S. Benson, remarks to the Committee on PhysicalFacilities of the Coordinating Council for Higher Education,September 15, 1964, In Los Angeles.
CHAPTER V
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL 'JUNIOR COLLEGES
In 1959 the Master Plan for lEgher Educationidentified the need. for new Junior College campusesin 21 different areas of the state. In addition, the Planrecommended inclusion, as rapidly as possible, of allterritory in the state within districts operating JuniorColleges, so that all parts of the state would share inthe operation, control and support of Junior Colleges.
Despite the fact that the recommendations regard-ing the financing of both operating and capital out-lay expenditures for the Junior Colleges have not beenfully realized, it is interesting and highly encouragingto review what has happened in Junior College de-velopment in California since 1959.
Shown below is the list of school districts reportedin the Matter Plan as neerling new Junior Colleges,along with actions taken in each area since that time.
-Eleven new Junior Colleges have been organized inthe 21 areas recommended by the Master Plan, andannexations and the construction or planning of newcampuses have taken place in all the remaining areas.In addition, the following new districts also have beencreated: College of the Desert (1962), Mt. SanJacinto (1963), College of the Redwoods (1964) andNorth Orange County (1964).
Since 1959 there has been a great expansion in thesize of existing Junior College districts. As JuniorColleges have separated from unified and high schoolsdistricts the newly created district boundaries haveoften exceeded those of the old ones. As of July 1,1964, there were only eight unified schocl districts andtwo high school districts maintaining Junior Collegeswhile there were some 56 separate Junior College dis-tricts. As a result of this expansion over 80% of thehigh school average daily attendance and over 80%of the state's assessed valuation are within districtsmaintaining Junior Colleges according to a 1963 sur-vey of the California Junior College Association.
The map shown on the following page, prepared bythe Bureau of Junior College Education of the StateDepartment of Education, graphically illustrates thecoverage of the state by districts operating JuniorColleges. This map was prepared in April 1964 andalready since that time several new districts havebeen formed bringing additional new territory withinJunior College districts: the Los Rios District encom-passing Sacramento, El Dorado and Polo counties anda new district in the northern part of Orange County.
A number of existing districts are also currently inthe process of constructing or actively planning addi-
3-36336-C
School Districts to be included County Action
San Diego City Unif. (Additionalcampuses)
Loa Angeles J.C. (Additionalcampus)
Alhambra H.S., El Monte U.H.S.and Montebello Unif.
Hayward r.H.S., Wasl.ingtonU.H.S., and San Leandro Unif.
Whittier U.H.S.
Sequoia U.H.S. and Pe,scaderoU.H.S.
Anaheim U.H.S.
Campbell U.H.S., Live OakU.H.S., and Santa Clara U.H.S.
San Mateo J.C. (additional cam-pulses)
Oxnard U.H.S., Moorpark Memo-rial U.H.S., Santa Paula U.H.S.Fillmore U.H.S., and SimiUnif.
Contra Costa J.C. (additionalcampuses Antioch and aforaga)
Foothill J.C. (additional campus)
Albany City Unif., Berkeley CityUnif. and Emeryville Unif.
All unified and high school dis-tricts in Merced and Maderacouralea
Burbank Unif.
San Luis Obispo (county unit.)___
Unified and high school districtsin East Kern and Inyo counties
Victor Valley U.H.S
Barstow
San Diego
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Alameda
Los Angeles
San Mateo
Orange
Santa Clara
San Mateo
Ventura
San Diego
Contra Costa
Santa Clara
Alameda
Merced-Madera
Los Angeles
San Luis Obispo
East Kern-Inyo
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
San Diego Mesa
Campus in planningstage
Annexed to Los AngelesJunior College Dis-trict
Chabot College (1961)
Rio Hondo College(1963)
Annexed to San Mateo
North Orange CountyJ.C. District (1963)
West Valley J.C. (1964)
In planning stage
Annexed to VenturaCollege (1963)
Grossmont College(1961)
Survey taken
In construction
Part of Peralta JuniorCollege District(1964)
Merced College (1963)
Annexed to Los Angeles
San Luis Obispo CountyJ.C. District (1964)
Annexed to BakersfieldJ.C.
Victor Valley College(19d1)
Barstow College (1960)
tional new campuses for their districts. These includeLos Angeles, San Mateo, Foothill, Los Rios, OrangeCoast and Peralto
Growth, often times at a rapid rate, has been thehistory of the Junior Colleges, and from projected en-rollments made by the State Department of Finance
23
it appears that this will continue to be the futurepattern as well. Table V, Appendix B, shows projec-tions to 1980 by county for full-time students forexisting Junior Colleges.
Great strides have been made within the last fiveyears in the development of new Junior College dis-tricts, the expansion of existing ones, and the creationof ajditional campuses within existing districts. How-ever, it must be pointed out that 20% of the territory
24
of the state has as yet not been included within JuniorCollege districts and that pockets of wealth in termsof assessed valuation continue to exist outside anyJunior College district. Therefore, the goal of inclu-sion of the entire state within Janior College districtswhich was set forth in the Master Plan and which hasbeen consistently reaffirmed by legislative resolutionshould continue to be stressed until it is ultimatelymet.
0
0
CA
LIF
OR
NIA
SC
HO
OL
DIS
TR
ICT
SM
AIN
TA
ININ
G J
UN
IOR
CO
LLE
GE
SU
nifie
d S
choo
l Dis
tric
ts
Oth
er m
arki
ngs
Hig
h S
choo
l Dis
tric
ts
Juni
or C
olle
ge D
istr
icts
LE
GE
ND
:(J
) in
dica
tes
a ju
nior
col
lege
dis
tric
t; (H
) in
dica
tes
a hi
gh s
choo
l dis
tric
t; (U
) in
dica
tes
a un
ifie
dsc
hool
dis
tric
t.
1.A
ME
RIC
A*:
RIV
ER
(J)
23.
LO
NG
BE
AC
H (
U)
45.
SAN
FR
AN
CIS
CO
(U
)2.
AN
TE
LO
PE V
AL
LE
Y (
J)24
.L
OS
AN
GE
LE
S (J
)46
.SA
N J
OA
QU
IN D
EL
TA
(J)
3.B
AR
STO
W (
J)25
.M
AR
IN (
J)47
.SA
N J
OSE
(J)
*4.
CA
BR
ILL
O (
J)26
.M
ER
CE
D (
J)48
.SA
N L
UIS
OB
ISPO
CO
UN
TY
(J)
**5.
CE
RR
ITO
S (J
)27
.M
OD
EST
O (
J)49
.SA
N M
AT
EO
(J)
6.C
HA
FFE
Y (
J)28
.M
ON
TE
RE
Y P
EN
INST
ILA
(J)
50.
SAN
TA
AN
A (
J)7.
CIT
RU
S (J
)29
.M
T. S
AN
AN
TO
NIO
(J)
51.
SAN
TA
BA
RB
AR
A (
J)*
8.C
OA
CH
EL
LA
VA
LL
EY
(J)
30.
MT
. SA
N J
AC
INT
O (
J)52
.SA
NT
A M
ON
ICA
(U
)9.
CO
AL
ING
A (
J)31
.N
APA
(J)
*53
.SA
NT
A R
OSA
(J)
10.
CO
MPT
ON
(J)
32.
OC
EA
NSI
DE
-CA
RL
SBA
D (
J)54
SEQ
UO
IAS
(J)
11.
CO
NT
RA
CO
STA
(J)
33.
OR
AN
GE
CO
AST
(J)
55.
SHA
STA
(J)
12.
EL
CA
MIN
O (
J)34
.PA
LO
MA
R (
J)56
.SI
ER
RA
(J)
13.
FOO
TH
ILL
(J)
35.
PAL
O V
ER
DE
(U
)57
.SI
SKIY
OU
(J)
14.
FUL
LE
RT
ON
(J)
36.
PASA
DE
NA
(J)
58.
SOU
TH
CO
UN
TY
(J)
15.
GA
VIL
AN
(J)
37.
PER
AL
TA
(J)
*59
.ST
AT
E C
EN
TE
R (
J)*
16.
GL
EN
DA
LE
(U
)38
.PO
RT
ER
VIL
LE
(H
)60
.SW
EE
TW
AT
ER
(J)
17.
GR
OSS
MO
NT
(J)
39.
RE
DW
OO
DS
(J)*
*61
.V
AL
LE
JO (
U)
18.
HA
NC
OC
K (
AL
LA
N)
(J)
40.
RIO
HO
ND
O (
J)62
.V
EN
TU
RA
CO
UN
TY
(J)
19.
HA
RT
NE
LL
(J)
41.
RIV
ER
SID
E (
J)63
.V
ICT
OR
VA
LL
EY
(J)
20.
IMPE
RIA
L (
J)42
.SA
CR
AM
EN
TO
(U
)64
.W
EST
KE
RN
(J)
21.
KE
RN
(J)
43.
SAN
BE
RN
AR
DIN
O V
AL
LE
Y (
J)65
.W
EST
VA
LL
EY
(J)
**22
.L
ASS
EN
(H
)44
.SA
N D
IEG
O (
U)
66.
YU
BA
CO
UN
TY
(J)
*Cha
nged
to a
sep
arat
e ju
nior
col
lege
dis
tric
t, ef
fect
ive
as o
f Ju
ly 1
, 196
4.**
New
juni
or c
olle
ge d
istr
ict e
ffec
tive
as o
f Ju
ly 1
, 196
4.
The
re a
re p
rese
ntly
66
dist
rict
s m
aint
aini
ng ju
nior
col
lege
s as
fol
low
s (i
nclu
ding
cha
nge
in d
istr
ict o
rgan
izat
ion
and
new
juni
or c
olle
ge d
istr
icts
eff
ectiv
e: a
s of
Jul
y 1,
196
4):
56 ju
nior
col
lege
dis
tric
ts,
2 hi
gh s
choo
l dis
tric
ts8
unif
ied
scho
ol d
istr
ict',
BU
RE
AU
OF
JUN
IOR
CO
LL
EG
E E
DU
CA
TIO
NST
AT
E D
EPA
RT
ME
NT
OF
ED
UC
AT
ION
APR
IL, 1
964
SAN
FR
AN
CIS
CO
C
4111
11N
RIM
IRI
T U
O L
U M
N E
MO
NO
SA
N F
RA
NC
ISC
O oitq
w-t
xd,
IN
0
0
<<
0
43
30N
R
E 0
0I
L
ST
AT
E O
F
CA
LIF
OR
NIA
OR
AN
GE
2/
1111
1111
011i
iiiIM
MN
iiiill
ailo
lork
irrm
erim
arar
oila
irids
mai
softr
uurr
ilara
il
CHAPTER VI
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL STATE COLLEGESThe eighteen State Colleges which are located from
Humboldt County in the north to San Diego in thesouth accommodated 80,021 full-time students in1963, about 24% of the full-time students attendingall institutions of higher education in California.Their phenomenal growth is a reflection of Califor-nia's continued support of public higher educationthrough the years.'
State College Enrollment AreasTable 9 presents the projected, annual full-time
equivalent enrollments, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., in the Cali-fornia State Colleges to 1975-76. These projectionsare those used in developing the 1965-67 capital out-lay programs. While the disparity between the ulti-mate capacity of these institutions and the presentenrollments is great (See Table 2, Chapter II) itshould be noted that some of these institutions willnot reach their maximum capacities in the foreseeablefuture at their present rates of growth, while othersare already approaching their authorized maximums.
In collecting data about present and projectedneeds for State Colleges, all areas of the state were
I For an account of the development of the State Colleges fromthe first normal schools see, S. Burton Vasche, "The CaliforniaState Colleges: Their History, Organization, Purposes, and Pro-grams," California Schools, Vol. XXV, No. 1, 1954.
examined. The Council Committee on Physical Facil-ities held hearings at which interested citizens pre-sented evidence with respect to specific areas of thestate. A list of those who appeared before the Com-mittee is in the Appendix.
Boundaries of enrollment areas used in this portionof the report have been determined by staff judg-ments after study of available evidence. Within eacharea, three factors are considered in ascertaining rel-ative needs for a new State College. The first factor isthe degree to which the projected numbers of highschool graduates are sufficient to support a college.The second is the degree to which existing facilities orplanned facilities can accommodate the projectednumbers of high school gra,- sates who will enter col-lege. The third factor is the degree of isolation undereither of the two sets of circumstances describedearlier.
Au examination of all areas within the state indi-cates that enrollment pressures in the five areas listedin the Master Plan still remain (i.e., Los Angelesin the Griffith Park-Glendale vicinity, San MateoCounty, Contra Costa County, Kern County andVentura County). The degree of isolation, however,is greater in some areas than in others.
TABLE 9
Projected Annual Full-time Equivalents, 8 A.M.-5 P.M.California State Colleges, 1964-65 to 1975-76
* Enrollment potential in excess of college planning figure.SOURCE: Institutional Research, The California State Colleges, Office of the Chancellor, 7-20-64.NOTE: These FTE projections are based on the same basic data as the projections for full-time students prepared by the Departmentof Finance. They reflect Lne increasing portion of high school graduates attending college as shown in Figure 1. This table shows SanFrancisco State College's ceiling enrollment as 12,000. The official ceiling is now established at 13,000 with the proviso that it will beincreased to 15,000 if additional site adjacent to the campus can be acquired.
25
_ _
A county by county canvass of the numbers of highschool graduates expected in 1980 indicates that inaddition to the five areas mentioned above, otherareas also may need additional colleges sometime inthe future. Los Angeles County, for instance, expectsa total of 112,250 high school graduates in 1980. Thisis a little over 30% of the total number expected inthe state. However, new campuses in Los Angelesoffer a large amount of potential capacity which canaccommodate students for some time yet. OrangeCounty, too, is growing rapidly so that by 1980 therewill be an expected 45,325 high school graduates.California State College at Fullerton (OrangeCounty) will not have reached its ceiling enrollmentbefore some date beyond 1980. Projections show thatenrollment pressures will surely build up in this areabut not until sometime after this date. RiversideCounty expects 8,950 high school graduates by 1980,more than enough to meet the Master Plan minimumpotential enrollment for a new State College. How-ever, the opening of San Bernardino State College inthe-fall of 1965 and the proximity of California StatePolytechnic College at Kellogg-Voorhis as well asCalifornia State College at Fullerton suggests thatalthough it will be necessary to seriously consider therequirements of this area in 1970, present needs canbe accommodated by existing and planned facilities.Santa Clara County also shows a growing need forconsideration of a new State College in the not-too-distant future. San Jose State College will reach itsceiling enrollment soon after 1980 if year-round useis instituted as anticipated. The 28,500 high schoolgraduates expected in 1980 will offer a tremendousenrollment potential for a possible new campus. The
effect of this college's reaching its ceiling enrollmentis examined below.
In compliance with the Master Plan provisions, thefive areas listed above have been studied to determinethe actual need for new State Colleges as well asother areas where the possible need exists. Statisticalmaterial concerning the two major metropolitan areasin the state-the Los Angeles complex and the San.Francisco Bay area-together with special review of.San Mateo, Contra Costa and Ventura Counties andthe Glendale-Griffith Park Area are included below.Kern County is separately examined.
The Bay Area CountiesThe estimated population for the nine Bay Area
counties as shown in the map following in 1963 was4,078,800 or about 22.1% of the total population ofCalifornia. This proportion is expected to hold firmin 1975 and 1980 when the population increases to 5.7million and 6.6 million in those years.
The are 71 institutions of higher learning in theBay Area accommodating over 100,000 students.Table 10 projects the full-time enrollment for thesecolleges, by segment, to 1980.
26
TABLE 10
Full-time Enrollment Projections Existing Bay AreaColleges and Universities
1963 1970 1975 1980
Junior Colleges 28,745 52,075 65,000 83,275
State Colleges 23,610 37,850 44,500 54,075
University of Cali-fornia' , Berkeley 26,632 27,500 27,500 27,500
Private Institutions_ 22,271 25,100 27,200 29,300
101,258 142,625 164,200 194,150
Although the Bay Area's population is only 23.1%of the total state's population, full-time enrollmentsare about 31% of all those in California. In 1980 thispercentage is expected to drop to about 25%.
Table 11 shows the F.T.E. projections of the BE..yArea State Colleges as they were submitted with thetwo-year capital outlay budget requests for 1965-66and 1966-67. If the college-going rate continues as ispredicted in this table, there would be a deficit ca-pacity for the four colleges of 1,100 F.T.E. students(710 at San Francisco and 390 at San Jose) by 1975
were it not for the scheduling of year-round opera-tion.
TABLE 11
Projected Annual Full-time Equivalent Enrollments8 A.M.-5 P.M. Bay Area State Colleges,
1964-65 to 1980-81 *
1964-65 1970-71 1975-76 1980-81tEnrollment
Ceiling
Hayward 2,210 6,700 9,960 14,806 15,000
San Francisco 11,140 14,960 15,000 15,000 15,000$ (710) $ (1,497)
San Jose 13,730 15,750 17,000 17,000 17,000$ (390) $ (2 ,200)
Sonoma 580 2,180 3,700 6,279 12,000
27,660 39,590 46,760 56,782 59,000
* Source: Extracted from Table 9.t Extrapolated.$Eliminated with year-round operation.NOTE: This table assumes a 15,000 ceiling enrollment at San
Francisco State College instead of the 13,000 which is the pres-ent official figure. With a ceiling of 13,000 there would be adeficit of 3,100 which can be eliminated by instituting year-round use of facilities at all campuses by 1975. Year-round useshould eliminate the deficit capacity in the Bay Area with eitherthe 13,000 or the 15,000 ceiling enrollment in San Francisco.
Two factors can reduce this deficit. The first is apossible increase in capacity at any one of the StateColleges.2 The second is a reduction of enrollmentsin each term due to all-year use of the .physical facili-ties. A 10% increase in the efficiency of use of allfacilities because of all-year use in the_Bay Area in
2 A resolution of the Board of Trustees of the California StateColleges at its meeting of September 3, 1964, approved the planto increase the F.T.E. capacity of San Francisco State Collegeto 15,000 based upon the acquisition of approximately 8 to 10acres of land located north and adjacent to the campus.
still
BAY AREA COMPLEXSTATE COLLEGES DENOTED BY 20 MILE RADII.opeueLok,
r-anew. to am.. et ammo
e ind Cloverdale
0 Anozpolis
Block Pe%
Stewartti
10
Asti
IZ"14. 115AZ:m
'N. Cobb Mulroilg44611g Pallek;:
Middletown
101 'tGat/was 115
Skelpsa. Lytton
Heatdsburg
S 0 NCazadaroo Rio
Gurnevillon Is Ri
Jannw
Down Ofj
Bode Q* vs
Belga iYtc
JI s)
ton
iro
ebro.116 pcidentalcn
'193. ,4(31C414
Pt PA....
FARALLOY ISLANDS
BloomfieldFt&
Nteluma
128
%.1.1
r7,
'19t,t,
/11Santa
RosaEllen
/ ntiFethrsSprs
1\ram
\ GoindaDynnigan) \ 051 YBrooks
O Ei
IS
Berms°Rd.
Winters
oPopeVall
sto aAAP'
Kenviood
12 \q
tints
0
onoma
114
Noyl4kA Vallt
.
Ih
amts.
221
505
Ma 16'
orleasar w
111%
Grove
99 1 Roseville `;ii,
°Florin
71 3unitas 0/1(4' .0.
0 pityury
le*
socb
oaL A N7.0Fa12 113
stow^ 02totly
RiC11:12
Collinsvir
4a n
24
SausalitoPt Bonito
sn Feacisco
Daly City
Pacifica
001 DIMMINGOUNCIL FOR*HER
UCAT1ONSeptember 1964
SCAld IN Mlle
2.
oncord
0 NWalnut Cree
dS T
landa
ton
C RElk Gra
.124 84Termini9ir; t215_
" 'Oak, y
Brentwood StOCktOw.0Mr.
r1131.1
A
; ;r4%Jo4 R
x'%239 Rattan 5205
[to
580 I '`;r1fa<33ore t
oss Beach
Pillar Pt
oonBay\C;
MINIM /1140
\41,11.11
San Gregorio
FescaderoPesconero Pt
oleos Pt
6?
Woos°
O Sar 100r;
:11S A\ T
Ben Lcrnond
J;IDavenport
\ 1/.
Santa Cry0'
10
Wilsey+
O a;
2
vas
ei4anJose 130
Coyote
17 S THoly CityMadrona m
A ***%, C
Aptosi
110
1'
A
A RSan Martin
Gilroy
A
152San FNIpr
Freedompdola
WatsonvillePsjsro POP'
rzrl2
1Sonoma State College2San Francisco State College3California State College at Hayward4San Jose State College5Sacramento State College
25155
HnIlistes
27
1975 should allow the colleges to accommodate over4,000 additional F.T.E. students with the facilitiesthey are now planning fer that year (computed bytaking 10% of the projected enrollments for 1975).
In 1964, F.T.E. enrollments at the four collegeswere 55% of the high school graduates in the ninecounty area. In 1975, F.T.E. enrollments are projectedto be 62% of high school graduates (See Figure 1)and in 1980, 68%. The increase in percentage of highschool graduates accounts for an increase of 5,260F.T.E. students. This means that (if the projectionswere ccrrect) while the proportion of eligible highschool graduates will diminish because of the risingadmission standards, the proportion of eligible stu-dents expected to attend will increase.3 While it isdifficult to accurately foresee what will happen, it isquite possible that the actual numbers will not exceedthese projections and may even be somewhat less.
Sonoma State College is somewhat isolated from themore populous areas of the Bay Area, and it is notexpected that students who live in Santa Clara forexample should commute to Sonoma to attend college.Consequently special cwaldt,zation should be made toexclude the effect of that campus on enrollments else-where.
The three State Colleges at Hayward, San Fran-cisco and San Jose, taken together, will have grownon the average of about 1,500 F.T.E. per year from1965 to 1980. If year-round operation reduces the en-rollment pressure by 10% in 1980 for these three col-leges, in 1981 or 1982-1,500 F.T.E. students in theBay Area would not enroll in a State College. A re-duction of 15% would delay this by about a year.Each campus authorized in 1970 or 1971 at previouslymentioned growth rates would absorb this deficit ca-pacity by 500 to 800 students, per campus.
Table 12 contains a tabulation of the driving timeand mileage to and from selected points within theBay Area. Table 13 is a comparison of population andnumbers of high school graduates 1960-1980 for SanMateo and Contra Costa counties. Needs of bothcounties are considered specifically below.
TABLE 12
Mileage and Driving Time To and From Selected Points inSan Francisco Day Area
From To
Drivingtime
(minutes)Numbermiles
San Francisco State Walnut Creek 50 33
Walnut Creek Hayward 35 28
Hayward San Mateo 25 18
San Mateo San Jose State 45 31Redwood City San Jose State 35 22Redwood City San Francisco State 35 31
NOTE: These mileages were logged between the hours of 10a.m. and 2 p.m., Wednesday, September 28, 1964.
3 This was also borne out in the 1963 Chancellor's report onthe need for new State Colleges.
28,
TABLE 13
High School Graduates, Contra Costa and San Mateo
1960 1905 1970 1975 1980
Contra CostaHigh School Graduates__ 4,958 7,475 9,200 10,150 11,100Population 432,000 510,200 617,700 736,300 864,800% High School Graduates_ 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3
San MateoHigh School Graduates 4,036 6,775 7,850 8,350 9,075Population 449,100 553,600 652,200 756,500 866,800% High School Graduates_ .9 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0
Source: State Department of Finance.
San Mateo County. The County of San Mateonow has a population of over half a million persons.4The county is expected to grow to over 866,000 per-sons by 1980. The 1962-63 rate of change was 4.1%,slightly higher than the 3.7% for the state as a whole.About ±54 square miles in area, the population den-
sity oi the county is now computed at about 1,000persons per square mile. Four principal cities, SanMateo, Daly City, Redwood City and South San Fran-cisco, include somewhat less than half of the popula-tion in the county.
With its 291,000 acres, it is the third smallestcounty in the state. It is bounded on the west by 55miles of coastline, on the east by 34 miles of bayshoreline, on the north by San Francisco and on the southby Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties. The majortopographical feature of the county is the range ofmountains running north and south, densely woodedwith redwood and oaks and averaging 1,600 to 2,000feet in elevation. About 82% of the land in the countyis privately owned. The major portion of public landis owned by the City and County of San Franciscofor its water system, airport and golf course.
The assessed valuation of property in the countytotals nearly one billion dollars. Per capita income in1963 was $3,226 as compared to $2,944 for the stateas a whole.5 Manufacturing led all industries in num-bers of persons employed in 1960. The number of em-ployed civilian residents in all industries in 1960 was175,099. This amounted to a percent change of 94.2%
over 1930. The percent change in the state over thesame period was only 47.7%.
The San Mateo County Master Plan, 1962 predictsthat the number of San Mateo County residents whowork outside the county will continue to increase, butthe proportion of the total labor force working outsideof the county will diminish as employment opportuni-ties in the county increases .° Population migration
4 San. Mateo County Facts and Figures, a pamphlet preparedby the San Mateo County Development Assn., Inc., Burlingame,California, 1963.
5 California Statistical Abstract. 1963.0San Mateo County Planning Commission, Master Plan, 1962,
October 9, 1962. In 1962, 33% of the workers were employed inSan Francisco, 8% in Santa Clara County.
will take place primarily into the central and southcoastal region in the future.
There are presently two junior Colleges: (1) Col-lege of San Mateo with a full-time enrollment of 3,664(total enrollment was 11,747) in the fall of 1963, and(2) Menlo College, a private college in Menlo Parkwith a full-time enrollment of 483 students. Money isavailable for two additional campuses of the Collegeof San Mateo. Two private four-year institutions arein the county, College of Notre Dame in Belmont with354 full-time students and St. Patrick's College inMenlo Park with 251 students.
The number of high school graduates in the springof =1964 was 6,500. It is expected that by 1980 therewill be 9,075. The college-going fate,. computed bycomparing the number first-time freshmen fromSan Mateo attending all institutions in the state withthe number of high school graduates for that sameyear, is 629 per 1,000 high school graduates as com-pared with the state rate of 559.7 San Mateo sent 344students to the various campuses of the University ofCalifornia in the fall of 1963 as first-time freshmen.Of this number, 186 went to the Berkeley campus, 54to the Davis campus, 14 to UCLA, 6 to Riverside and84 to the Santa Barbara campus.
San Francisco State College accommodated 207first-time freshmen from San Mateo's high schools inthe fall of 1963 while San Jose State received 243.Two other State Colleges enrolled more than 10 firs,time freshmen from San Mateo County that year,California State Polytechnic College at San LuisObispo with 41 and Chico State College with 24. Atotal of 262 first-time freshmen in the county attendedsome private college, or university campus during thefall of 1963. Of these 44 attended Stanford Univer-sity.
Table 12, preceding, shows the travel time fromvarious points in the Bay Region to the State Collegesin the area. The San Mateo County DevelopmentAssociation lists thriee ,important factors which willchange the transportation picture in the county andwill probably accelerate the growth of the area. Theseare: (1) the completion of the East-West Highway186, San 'Bruno to Pacifica, will provide easier crosscounty travel, and the final planning for the extensionof 19th Avenue Freeway to the coast will open theentire South Coast area for development; (2) a co-ordinated city/county road system will have beenestablished by 1980, and (3) full planning and adop-tion of a mass transportation system will link thecounty to both tho San Francisco metropolitan areaand also to Santa Clara County-San Jose area.8
7 For a further analysis of the college going rates in all coun-ties see Table VIII in Appendix B.
8 Henry Bostwick, ,Jr., San Mateo County Development Asso-ciation, Inc. a letter to the Council staff, October 1, 1964.
Contra Costa County. Contra Costa hp d an esti-mated population of 468,200 persons in 1963.8 Thecounty is expected to increase to 864,800 by 1980.The rate of change from 1962 to 1963 was 4.6%, al-most one percentage point above the state rate ofchange for the same period. The county has134 squaremiles of area with a density of population of over550 persons per square mile. Three cities lying alongthe San Francisco and San Pablo BayRichmond,El Cerrito and San Pablohave a combined popula-tion of over 120,000 people. The larger cities east ofthe hills, which divide the count: 7, include Concord(population 52,500), Antioch (population 19,800),Walnut Creek (population 13,700), and Martinez,(population 11,600).
The following excerpt from the, California StateDevelopment Plan Program 10 summarizes some of theeconomic changes over recent years :
Heavy industrial expansion along the northshore of Contra Costa County occurred in the early1950's or before, and employment has been stableduring the past five years. Those employing over1,000 are California and Hawaiian Sugar, Crock-ett ; U.S. Steel, Pittsburg ; Shell Oil, Martinez;and Tidewater Oil, Avon. (U.S. Steel, whichnow employs 3,200-3,700, recently acquires andfor expansion to 11,000-14,000 jobs.) Nortaernand central Contra Costa County industries inthe 500-1,000 employee bracket are Aerojet-Gen-eral Nucleonics, San Ramon ; Crown Zellerbach,Antioch ; Dow Chemical, Pittsburg; FibreboardPaper Products, Antioch; and Union Oil, Rodeo.Those employing 250-500 persons are Ameri-can Smelting and Refining, Selby ; Johns-Man-ville, Pittsburg ; Shell Chemical, Pittsburg ; andSystron-Donner, Concord. Aerojet and Systron-Donner are the largest employers among severalfirms that presage the beginning of a space ageindustrial complex in the Concord-Walnut Creek-San Ramon area, which is readily accessible bothto the University at Berkeley and the AEC instal-lation at Livermore. Bethlehem Steel Companyrecently bought an 1,800 acre site at Pinole Pointnorth of Richmond and is expected to build asteel plant that will create 4,000 jobs.
The number of employed civilian residents in allindustries in 1960 was 142,569. This amounted to apercent change of 46.1% over 1950. Per capita incomefor 1963 was $2,245 and the assessed valuation ex-ceeded $1 billion.
In a letter to the Council staff, the Contra CostaCounty Director of Planning stated the following withrespect to future transportation, problems and solu-tions :
°Department of Finance, op. cit.10Livingston and Blayney, California State Department Plan
Program, Report to the State Office of Planning, November 1963,p. 8.
29
We anticipate that the advent of rapid transitservice to Contra Costa County will intensifyand expand residential and commercial develop-ment in central Contra Costa. Commute time toand from major employment areas in the EastBay and San Francisco is expected to be substan-tially reduced, thereby enhancing the accessibil-ity and desirability of residential areas in thecentral county.
Completion of the freeway route connectingInterstate 80 at Cordelia with San Jose andthe South Bay via the Martinez-Benicia Bridgeand central Contra Costa County will enable sub-stantial volumes of truck and automobile trafficto bypass the congested East Bay, enroute to Sac-ramento and points east. This new flow of trafficis likely to stimulate highway oriented commer-cial development in the central county. 11
Two Junior Colleges-Contra Costa College in SanPablo and Diablo Valley Coll3ge in Concord-enrolled a total of 4,466 full-time students in 1963. Totalenrollment exceeded 11,000 that year. Two privateinstitutions of higher education in the county are St.Mary's Ni lege in Moraga Valley enrolling 862 full-time students and Western Baptist College (a BibleCollege) in El Cerrito with 155 students. Other JuniorColleges are being contemplated in the vicinities ofDanville, El Cerrito, Richmond and Antioch:
The number of high school graduates in the springof 1964 was 7,300. It is expected that by 1980 therewill be 11,000. The college-going rate, computed inthe same manner as was done for San Mateo Countyby comparing the number of first-time freshmenfrom Contra Costa attending all institutions in thestate with the number of high school graduates forthat same year, is 580 per 1,000 high school graduates.(Again, the state rate for 1963 was 559.)
Contra Costa sent 404 students to the various cam-puses of the University of California in the fall of1963 as first-time freshmen. Of this number, 222went to the Berkeley campus, 109 to the Daviscampus, 12 to UCLA, 5 to Riverside and 56 to SantaBarbara.
The distribution of high school graduates in 1963to the various State Colleges in the state as first-timefreshmen was as follows :Hayward 13 San Diego 5Cal. Poly., S.V. 3 Sonoma 1Chico 67 Cal. Poly., S.L.O. 53Fresno 36 San Fernando 2Humboldt 14 San Francisco 116Long Beach 1 San Jose 91
attending private colleges in the state in the fall of1963.
22
There were 184 first-time freshmen from Contra Costall
Sacramento
u Thomas G. Heaton, Director of Planning, Contra Costa
L--
County, a letter to the Council staff dated October 6, 1964.
30
The Los Angeles Area ComptazThe Los Angeles Area complex as defined for this
study consists of the countts of Los Angeles, Ven-tura, San Bernardino, Riverside aLd Orange. The mapfollowing shows the location of each of the existingState Colleges with the area encompassed by a radiusof twenty miles from each campus center. The esti-mated population for these counties in 1963 wz.s.,s
8,773,900 or about 49.6% of the total population inCalifornia. 12 This proportion is expected to be aboutthe same in 1980.
Seventy institutions of higher education accommo-dated 149,936 full-time students during the fall of1963 within this complex. Table 14 projects the full-time enrollments of the existing institutions in thearea by segment to the year 1980. The full-time highereducation enrollments in the Los Angeles complexwere 45.6% of the total enrollments of the state, in-dicating perhaps that the opportunity for higher edu-cation is greater in the Bay Area than in Los Angelesor perhaps that the college-going rate among highschool graduates is higher in the former, or that bothfactors are operative.
TABLE 14
Full-time Enrollment Projections, Existing Los Angeles AreaColleges and Universities
Table 15 shows the projected annual F.T.E. en-rollments (8 a,.m.-5 p.m.) in the State Colleges ofLos Angeles Area complex to 1980. By that year,without considering the effect of year-round use offacilities, Long Beach State College will have justreached its ceiling enrollment capacity and Los An-geles State College will have exceeded its ultimatecapacity (16,800 F.T.E.) by about 2,000 F.T.E. Year-round use of facilities will delay the time when theretwo institutions will reach their maximum enroll-ments to a date beyond 1980.
In 1964, F.T.E. enrollments in the State Colleges inthe Los Angeles Area were 27.5% of the high schoolgraduates in contrast with 55% in the Bay Area.Projected enrollments anticipate that the percent willrise to 51% in 1980.
Enrollments in the seven State Colleges of the five-county Los Angeles Area Complex are expected to
11 Based on a total population computed at 17,676,00G in July1968.
,...
FIVE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COMPLEXSTATE COLLEGES DENOTED BY 20 MILE RADII
.., a. a.m. a. 1°77 riTr.Neeriach
IC4°I31g000000 ":. °Fairmont
B 00F0
°00o Ws Hughes
5 70045fart. -00000
.N T U150
levier* 126 'F113,3anta Paula 26
5Gnt''1111 9kiI
Oftuxn132a
011
0000480000 0000000
Lancaster
14
.0 all INNIMID =
7,OS.
0.0E4oo900
00,
17
395
,1
1[15 Vtaa,
ISMes4
Laguna Pt
dans a
C18 BE. 0000o0oo00000
It I
BIG PonesPark
Adtlant
Wrigntw
13
15
ictorville
Is
ppleey
uc0(
Cajon2
38.4
BaBit
C--1
Hills 0
olton
velanNTA
411111111,
Pt Oumeed lands\
a.
Polo Vs Pt
nSan PedroPt Fermin
Hunti
Lobetong moneys
71 Perris
to AnN E
E°Ira buco
Elsinore
San Juan uee J\Hot Sprs. Elsinore
Beach
113 aliveMumeta
ont194
Dana PollCapistrano' each
San Clement.;
Sr, Juan Capistrand,
roOe Luz .
o . t
Fallb rook 212
i\
''.\So '16
San Luisll'ARey
NO KsA
Utucadia\Encinitas
CardiffSolana Eleac
Del M
San °noire
_COORDINATING
COUNCIL FOR
rl 'wickUCATIONSeptember 1964
SCALE IN NILES
Pala Obse
Palo
Oceanside
Carlsbad
Rin con
ov.ii.yc
1--San Fernando Valley State College2California State College at Los Angeles3--California State Polytechnic College
(Kellogg-Voorhis Campus)4California State College at Palos Verdes5-- California- State College at Long Beach6California State College at Fullerton7California State College at San Bernardino
95 gPoway
31
grow at the rate of somewhat less than 5,000 F.T.E.per year to 1980. (See Table 15.) Should this ratecontinue, deficit capacity will not begin to occur untilapproximately 1987.
TABLE 15
Projected Annual Full-time Equivalents, 8 A.M.-5 P.M., StateColleges in Los Angeles Area Complex, 19,5-66 to 1980-81
1(183)Los Angeles 8,500 12,860 15,600 16,800 16,800
t(2,124)Palos Verdes 3,600 6,530 11,845 20,000San Bernardino 2,990 5,040 8,496 20,000San Fernando Valley 6,390 9,610 11,700 14,244 20,000
30,210 55,190 73,230 99,146 136,800
* extrapolated.t Eliminated with year-round use.
Table 16 contains a tabulation of the driving timeand mileage to and from selec,ed points within theLos Angeles complex.
TABLE 16
Mileage and Driving Time To and From Selected Points inFive County Los Angeles Complex
From To
Drivingtime
(minutes)
Numberof
miles
Ventura San Fernando Valley StateCollege 58 56.9
San Fernando Valley State Glendale-Burbank AreaCollege ( meda St. at Hwy. 99) 29 23.0
Glendale-Burbank Area Los Angeles State College__ 17 13.2(Alameda St. and Hwy.99)
Loa Angeles State College Cal. Poly at K.V. 22 20.9Cal Poly at K.V. Riverside (Main at Hwy.
395) 31 28.6Riverside (Main St. at Hwy.
305)San Bernardino State Col-
lege (new site Kendalland Morgan) 21 16.3
NOTE : These mileages were logged between the hours of 10a.m. and 7 p.m. on Monday, October 19, 1964.
Glendale-Griffith Park Area. In listing the fivaareas which the Master Plan required be studied bythe co-ordinating agency "before considering theneed fnr new state colleges in any other areas of thestate . . ," one such area was described as the "LosAngeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Area, Griffith Park-Glendale vicinity." That area appears as Area IIIon the map of Los Angeles County High School Dis-tricts shown foB.owing.
In his testimony on Septtmber 15, 1964, before theCouncil's Committee on Physical Facilities, Louis R.Nowell, Councilman from the First District, City ofLos Angeles, presented the following growth expecta-tions for the area:
The present population of this East Valley StudyArea is estimated to be 524,811 with a projected popu-lation .1 595,000 Li 1970 and 708,000 in 1980.
The population table shown at the bottom of thispage indicates past growth and probable futuregrowth in the East Valley Area.
Since this area is only a portion. of the entirecounty of Los Angeles it is difficult to obtain certaineconomic data on a comparable basis with other coun-ties in the state. However, the followiig appears per-tinent :
The Monthly Summary of Business Conditions inSouthern California stated in its September 1964 pub-lication that :i3
Los Angeles County,' gaining almost 150,000 newresidents, has accounted for nearly 40 percent ofthe 14-county area growth in the past year. It is thefocal point of Southern California, and has beengairing in population through natural incrzase andin-migration almost equally. Much of the county'sgrowth is taking place in the outlying areas. At thesame time, its high degree of urbanization, and thedeclining availability of land for residential and in-dustrial purposes, has sparked the populationgrowth and economic expansion of adjacent coun-ties.
An indication as to where a large part of the growthhas recently taken place in Los Angeles County isgiven in a recent report: 14
73 Security First National Bank, Research Department, Sep-tember 1, 1964.
74 Population Estimate by Statistical Areas, City of Los An-geles, Bulletin 1961-3, July 1, 1961.
1950 1960 1964 1970 1980
Los Angeles City (portion) 159,435 262,260 288,600 338,000 424,000
Los Angeles County (portion) 5,000 8,500 . 10,100 11,000-12,000
1. Alhambra City High2. Antelope Valley Joint Union3. Arcadia Unified4. Baldwin Park Unified5. Bellflower Unified6. Beverly Hills `Unified7. Bonita Unified8. Burbank Unified9. Centinela ValleY Union
10. Charter Oak Unified11. Citrus Union12. Claremont Unified13. Compton Union14. Covina-Valley Unified15. Culver City Unified
1;r-flowed by the Office of Institutional
16. Downey Unified17. Duarte Unified18. El Monte Union19. El Segundo Unified20. Excelsior Union21. Glendale Unified22. Glendora Unified23. Inglewood Unified24. La Canada Unified25. La Puento Union26. Long Beach Unified27. 'Los Angeles City High28. Lynwood Unified29. Monrovia Unified30. Montebello Unified
31. Paramount Unified32. Pasadena Unified33. Pomona Unified34.- San Marino Unified35. Santa Monica Unified36. South Bay Union37. South Pasadena Unified38. Temple City Unified39. Torrance Unified40. West Covina Unified41. Whittier Union42. Wm.'S. Hart Union43. Ranchito Unified
Research, Chancellor's Office, California State Colleges Board of Trustees, Inglewood, California, 1963.
-33
In conformance with the established trend, theSan Fernando Valley accounted for the major por-tion of the City's population growth An estimated7,000 new residents during the second quarter ofthe year swelled the Valley population total to 778,-000 persons.
Higher education opportunities for the Glendale-Griffith Park area are substantially those outlinedpreviously for the Los Angeles Area complex-71 ofthe 97 institutions in the five county Los Angelescomplex are within Los Angeles County alone ; ofthese several are adjacent or within the San FernandoValley area.
Ventura County. The county of Ventura had apopulation of 252,600 persons in 1963, with 738,000expected by 1980. The 1962-63 rate of change was7.6%, considerably higher tr n the state average in-crease of 3.7%. The county encompasses 1851 squaremiles and the density of population was 136.5 personsper square miles in 1963. The cities of Fillmore, Ojai,Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Ventura and Santa Paulacontribute about half of the population of the countywithin their city limits. The population is distributedas follows by planning areas : 15
menBureau of Census, 1960 and Ventura Countyping Depat.)
describing the geographical make up of thecounty the study reported the following :
Ventura County involves two roughly equal sec-tions-a northern area consists of ruggoil, ails inmany parts inaccessible mountain country , and asouthern area of fertile valleys and low plains. Thesouthern area represents the urban center of theCounty. . A population of the northern area, be-cause of the rugged mountain terrain, is limited; inthe southern section, however, the topography ofthe land lends itself to enormous utilization as amajor population center.
tember 15, 1964.
34
State College Operational in 1970, a report submitted to thePhysical Facilities Committee a the Coordinating Council, Sep-
's Ventura County State Colle7e Committee, A Ventura County
One added factor may be of interest. If we drawa line bisecting tt e County from east to SantaPaula to east of Camarillo we now find that ap-proximately 75% of our population live west of thisline and more than 40 miles L'om the present SanFernando Valley State College. In 1985, the Ven-tura County Planning Department estimates that62% of the population will still live west of thisline.1°
The assessed valuation for the entire county for theyear 1963-64 was nearly $600,000,000. Per capita in-come for 1963 was $2,225, somewh .f. lower than theaverage for the state. Over 68,200 persons were em-ployed in the county in all industries in 1960 withthe greatest numbers in agriculture, trade and gov-ernment.17
The one Junior College in the county is VenturaCollege with a full-time enrollment of 1,921 studentsand a total enrollment of 5,156 and located in the cityof Ventura. Two private four-year institutions in thecounty are California Lutheran College in ThousandOaks with an enrollment of 537 full-time students,and St. John's College in Camarillo with a full-timeenrollment in 1963 of 358.
The number of high school graduates in the springof 1964 was 3,200 and it is expected that 1980 therewill be 12,750. The college-going rate, computed bycomparing the number of first-time freshmen fromVentura County attending all institutions in the statewith the number of high school graduates for the sameyear is 547 per 1,000 high school graduates, slightlylower than the State average of 559.
Ventura sent 105 students to the various campusesof the University of California in the fall of 1963 asfirst-time freshmen. Of this number, 21 attended theBerkeley campus, 6 went to Davis, 26 to UCLA, 2went to Riverside and 50 attended Santa Barbara.The distribution of first-time freshmen from Venturato the State Colleges is as follows:
Cal. Poly K.V. 6 San Diego 6Chico 4 Sonoma 1Fresno 6 Cal. Poly., S.L.O. 28Humboldt 2 San Fernando 10Long Beach 5 San Francisco 2Los Angeles 1 San Jose 16Sacramento 1
Kern County. Kern County had a population of312,900 persons as of July 1963. The county is ex-pected to grow to nearly 457,000 by 1980. The 1962-63rate of change was 2.0% as compared to the state rateof 3.7%. The area of Kern is 8,152 square miles, thedensity of population 38.4 persons per square mile.The county is the third largest in the state and lies atthe southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, theTechachapis making up the southern boundary of the
28Ibid.17 Ventura County Economic Development Association, Ven-
tura County, California 1964 Factual Analysis, Ventura, 1964.
county. The two largest cities are Bakersfield withmore than 160,000 people and Delano with a popula-tion somewhat larger than 11,000.
Four transcontinental highways cross Kern County,U.S. 99 running north and south through Bakersfield,1.S. 466 Barstow westward to Paso Robles, via Mo-jave and Bakersfield, U.S. 6 from Los Angeles throughRosamond and Mojave to points north in the SierraMountains, and U.S. 399 from Ventura on the PacificCoast through Maricopa and Taft to Greenfield whichlies seven miles south of Bakersfield.
The assessed valuation of the county in 1963-64 wasnearly $800,000,000 and the per capita income, $2,333which may be compared to $2,944 in the state. Em-ployment in the county for various categories of in-dustry in 1961 was: mining, 6,921 persons employed ;manufacturing, 6,281; construction, 4,338 ; utilities,4,061; trade, 16,516; finance, 2,332; service, 2021;other, 1,940.18
There are no four-year institutions of higher educa-tion in Kern County. There are two Junior Colleges,Bakersfield College with a 1963 full-time enrollmentof 2,667 and a total enrollment of 5,631 and Taft Col-lege in Taft with a 1963 full-time enrollment of 343and a total enrollment of 567. The Off-Campus Centerof Fresno State College located in Bakersfield enrolled146 full-time students in programs in teacher educa-tion (total enrollment was 500) in the fall of 1963.
The college-going rate, computed by comparing thenumber of first-time freshmen from Kern Countyattending all institutions in the state with the numberof high school graduates for that same year, is 535 per1,000 high school graduates as compared with the staterate of 559 per 1,000 for 1963.
Kern County sent 73 students as first-time fresh-men to the various campuses of the University ofCalifornia in the fall of 1963. Of these, 24 went toBerkeley, 8 attended Davis, 9 enrolled at UCLA, 7 atRiverside and 25 at Santa Barbara.
Distribution of first-time freshmen from KernCounty to the State Colleges during the fall of 1963was as follows :
Hayward 1 Sacramento 4Cal. Poly., K.V. 3 San Diego 8Chico 3 Cal. Poly, S.L.O. 42Fresno 12 San Fernando 2Long Beach 6 San Francisco 4Los Angeles 1 San Jose 14
The preceding sections have reviewed the situationby selected geographic areas. In canvassing the entirestate, county by county, the only counties with popu-lous areas lying outside the 20 mile radii of the StateColleges are Santa Barbara and Monterey Counties.The projected number of high school graduates inthese counties plus the proximity of a University
1Kern County Board of Trade, An Economic Survey, a reportcompiled by the Economic Deveirpment and Research Depart-ment of the California State Chamber of Commerce, Bakersfield,California, 1961.
campus indicate that neither presently has as pressingneeds for additional State Colleges as have the fiveabove mentioned areas.
Student MobilityThe term "student mobility" as used in the context
of this report is meant to connote the degree to whichstudents attend colleges outside of the area in whichthey normally make their residence. A difficulty inmeasuring student mobility lies in the practice ofmany students (especially graduate students andoften transfer students) of establishing residence nearthe location of the campus they are attending. (Tableshave been prepared to show the distribution of first-time freshmen from high schools in each county in thestate to the State Colleges and the campuses of theUniversity for the fall of 1963, see Tables VI and VIIin Appendix B.)
Student mobility is a function of several hard-to-measure variables. Three prominent ones are : (1) stu-dents often want to attend a college campus awayfrom parental and home-town environment; (2) somecolleges have specialized programs which attract stu-dents on a statewide basis, and (3) the older StateCollege and University campuses sometimes are seenas offering more prestige than newer ones.
An examination of the permanent residences offirst-time freshmen shows that the county in whichthe college is located contributes the greatest numberof students, as is to be expected. The colleges whichdraw the largest proportion of their first-time fresh-men from counties other than the county where theyare located arc : (1) California Polytechnic Collegeat San Luis Obispo- -about 90% from other counties ;(2) San Franciscoov,er 70% from other counties,most of them being from Contra Costa, Alameda andSan Mateo counties, and (3) Chico with over 70%from other counties. Los Angeles continues to sendmany first-time freshmen to nearly all State Collegecampuses. It is interesting to note, however, that thefour State Colleges within the county of Los Angelesdraw only about 14% of their first-time freshmenfrom other counties. (See Table VI, Appendix B)
In the fall of 1963 there were 638 undergraduatestudents from the various campuses of the Universityof California who transferred to one of the State Col-leges. In addition to these students, 10,796 studentstransferred from the Junior Colleges in the state and794 from the private colleges in the state. Out-of-state transfers totaled 2,174 and transfers within thesegment itself totaled 1,230.19
Student mobility does not appear to be a functionof unique programs, though a comprehensive studyon the subject has yet to be made. A preliminarystudy of the matter was recently made by Robert
19Department of Finance, Sources of Transfer UndergraduateStudents, Regular and Full Time, Fall 1963, an unpublished re-port dated June 9, 1964.
Beidahl for the Council. In hip report, Dr. Berdahlstated:
. . . When it comes time to redirect studentsto other campuses within the segments, neitherthe University at Berkeley nor the State Collegesat San Francisco or San Jose will experiencemajor difficulty in marshalling the requisite num-bers of students from among those unbound byconsiderations of specialized curriculums. Pre-sumably this will later hold true for other cam-puses when they are faced with overcrowdingproblems."
If students were completely mobile, unused capac-ity at any State College would be available to anyeligible student in the state. However, every StateCollege but one draws more first-time freshmen fromthe county of its lo.:ation than from any other county.Ten out of fieteen State Colleges attract a majorityof their first time freshmen from the counties wherethey are located. Thus, when a State College is closeat hand, most students tend to enroll in it ratherthan to attend elsewhere. In this report, students areconsidered to be mobile when distances and traveltimes to a college are not excessive.
Potential Fall Term Enrollments in PossibleNew Locations
Potential fall term enrollments for possible newState Colleges if located in the areas discussed abovemay be estimated. Table 17 shows the potential en-rollment in 1980 in colleges that might be establishedin the five areas, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Ventura,Kern and Los Angeles in the vicinity of Glendale-Burbank if opened in 1970. (These potential enroll-ments were developed by up-dating the CaliforniaState Colleges' Study on Need for Additional StateColleges data and using the college-going rates andenrollment drawing areas as defined in that study.21)
TABLE 17
Fall Term Enrollment Projections for Possible New StateColleges After an Initial Ten-year Period of Development,
1980 -81*
College location
Full-time fallterm enrollments
1980
Contra Costa 7,700Kern 3,820Los Angeles (Glendale-Griffith Park area). 8,300San Mateo 7,860Ventura 6,910
This table does not indicate priority of need, nor dues it.include the effect of possible new instructions on existing ones.
2° Specialized Curriculums and the Diversion and Redirectionof Students, a report prepared for the Council, No. 1010, June1964.= May 1. 1963. The high school graduates and the college-going rates used to compute the potential enrollment can befound in Table IIt, Appendix C and Table VIII, Appendix B.
36
Essentially the method used designates the countywhere the possible new campus is to be located as theprimary enrollment zone with the college-going ratederived from the experience at other colleges in thesystem. Secondary enrollment zones consist of thosecounties contiguous with the primary zone and whichcan be expected to contribute students to the newcampus but in much lesser proportioi'. The state asa whole is considered a tertiary zor e with a stillsmaller rate applied.22
Any one of the five areas, according to these pro-jections, could support a new State College meetingminimum - _rollments in Table 1. These campusescould be expected to grow with comparatively equalrapidity with the exception of Kern County, wherethere is considerably more isolation as well as fewerpotential enrollments. However, it sb.oald be notedthat. while today San Mateo County has somewhatmore than 40,000 persons than does Contra CostaCounty this lead is expected to drop to 2,000 in 1980and according to a recent U.S. Department of Com-merce Study, Contra Costa, in the year 2020 with apopulation of 2,120,000 will exceed that of San Mateo(with an expected population then of 1,750,000) by370,000 people.23 The number of high school gradu-ates in 1980 will be about 2,000 greater in ContraCosta County than in San Mateo. (See Table 13).
The Effect of New State Colleges on Existing En-rollments. A new State College in any one of thefive areas studied in this report would reduce the en-rollments in other institutions, especially those in theneighboring areas. Using the college-going rates em-ployed by the Office of the Chancellor of the StateCollege Board of Trustees and up-dating the basicdata, estimates were made as to the numbers of stu-dents who would be diverted away from certain ofthe existing State Colleges if new campuses wereplaced in. three metropolitan areas, Contra Costa, SanMateo and the Glendale-Burbank area. The methodused in determining these estimates can be found byexamining Tables XI, XII, and XIII in Appendix B.
A new State College campus in Contra Costa open-ing in 1970 could reduce enrollments in 1980 in Hay-ward by 1,277 students, in San Francisco by 1,277students, in San Jcse by 599 students and all otherState Colleges by 1,232 students. A new State Collegein the Glendale-Burbank area opening in 1970 couldby 1980 reduce the enrollments in the following col-
Exceptions to these definitions of primary and secondaryzones had to be made for Ventura and Los Angeles counties.The listings of counties making up the various zones along withthe expected high school graduates in the zones can be found inTable IX of Appendix B. The method used in computing thepotential enrollments for possible new campuses presents itselfin Table X of the Appendix B. It should be noted that any newcampus would naturally tend to reduce enrollments at neighbor-ing institutions and ...hat this method of computing potentialenrollment does not take into consideration the presence or lackof other colleges in the area.
23 U.S. Department cf Commerce, Future Development of theSan Francisco Bad; Area. 1960-2020, a report prepared for theU.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, December 1959.
leges by the various amounts as stated: CaliforniaPolytechnic Colley (11.V.) 449, Long Beach 449, LosAngeles 3,143, Sal Fernando Valley 1,347, PalosVerdes 898, and all other State Colleges 449.
By projecting Ventura's students attending SanFernando Valley state College to 1980 at the same
rate that the high school graduates are increasing,about 1,600 students could be expected to be divertedfrom that campus by 1980 if a new one were to openin Ventura in 1970. No estimates were made relativeto the effect a new campus in Kern County wouldhave on other areas due to its isolation.
CHAPTER VII
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES
The nine campuses of the University of Californiaincluding the San Francisco Medical Center areshown in Table 18. Other University facilities includeHastings College of Law, the Lawrence RadiationLaboratories at Berkeley and Livermore, the astron-omy laboratories at Mt. Hamilton and Hat Creek, theships and ship-operating base facilities at Point Lomanear San Diego, off-campus University Extensionfacilities in San Francisco and Los Angeles, agricul-tural field stations in 15 different counties plus otherfield stations throughout the State.
University Enrollment PatternsThe University enrolled 37,717 full-time students
''''' "155 and by 1963 steady growth resulted in enroll-silents exceeding 61,000. Projections to 1980 show thatsystemwide there should be over 151,000 full-time stu-dents taking 12 or more units A comparison of full-time enrollments in 1955 with the number of highschool graduates for that year shows that enrollmentswere about 41% of high school graduates. The pro-jections for 1980 show a similar proportion.
A comparison of the University's share of the totalfull-time enrollments in all four segments in the stateshows that about 21% of the students attended theUniversity in 1955, 18.6% in 1963 and 20% is ex-pected in 1980. Thus it can be seen that there is arelative consistency in the relationship between the
state's total pool of poterAial students and the num-bers expected at the University in the coming years.
Table 18 shows the projections of full-time students(on a two semester basis) at the nine Universitycampuses to 1980. If the ratio of University studentsto all of California's students holds firm, as is ex-pected in these projections, so that no more than the151,800 full-time students will be attending the Uni-versity, the distribution of these students in 1980among the campuses of the University will be as indi-cated in Table 18.1 Both the campuses at Irvine andat San Diego, according to the projections, will beapproaching their maximum enrollment capaPities by1980.
The Effect of Year-round Operation. Universityof California officials developed a tentative projectionof students to 1975-76 on June 10, 1964, based onfour term enrollments rather than the traditional twoterms. Table XIV, Appendix B, includes a summaryof these projections. The assumptions underlyingthese estimates contained in the June 10, 1964, mem-orandum from the President's office to the chief cam-pus officers are as follows:
These estimates are based on the same "statusquo" enrollment estimates which underlie the "Es-2 It should also be noted that the projections in Table 15 arefor two-term years, not for the anticipated four-quarter, year-round calendar. The statistics are presented in this manner firstso that comparisons with previous trends can be made.
TABLE 18
Actual and Projected Full-time Student Fall Term EnrollmentsUniversity of California, per Year, 1961-1980
(Based on a Two-term Calendar)
Year Total Berkeley Davis Los Angeles RiversideS. F.
NOTE: 1. Source: California State Department of Finance.2. Bold figures are those just preceding the ceiling enrollments for the institution.3. Projections assume diversion of lower division students to junior colleges as provided in the Master Plan.
`3ii
timates of Two Terra Enrollments, April 1964."These Four Term estimates also reflect:
(1) Limitation of total lower division enrollmenton all campuses combined, so that the samenumber of students is redirected outside theSystem. as would have been so redirected underTwo Term Operation in order to achieve aratio of lowe? division to upper division stu-dents of 46:54 in 1969 and 40:60 in 1975. (TheApril 1964 two term estimates did not achieve46:54 until 1970.)
(2) Implementation of year-round operation in ac-cordance With the plan outlined in the Univer-sity Bulletin in July 1, 1963. In the absence ofdefinite assurances of sufficient air conditioningat Davis or Riverside, estimates for these cam-puses ;show no summer term enrollments.
(3) A somewhat arbitrary set of assumptions withrespect to the pattern of attendance; theseassumptions were necessary in order to developterm by term. projections under year-roundoperation. They may need to be modified asadditional information becomes available.
Projections based on four terms show that the fall1975 enrollment for the system is 116,150 instead ofthe 125,300 projected for the two terms. In view ofthis, Santa Barbara should be delayed in reaching itsceiling fall term enrollments to 1976, rather than1973. Similar delays appear likely to occur at theIrvine and San Diego campuses.
Identifying Area Needs for University CampusesTaking into account well defined policies of redi-
rection of students within the University system andconscientious implemen...cion of such policies, it seemsmost reasonable to relate the projected needs forUniversity services and facilities to the overall Uni-versity system on a statewide basis.
However, in terms of viewing areas of the state toestimate potentials for future campuses when suchare needed, it is also desirable to examine these poten-tials in terms of broad general areas. As indicatedearlier, the Master Plan specified that, in 1965 andagain where applicable in 1970, careful studies bemade by the coordinating agency of the need for ad-ditional university facilities in the San Joaquin Valleyand the Los Angeles area. Furthermore in a letter ofFebruary 6, 1964, the President of the University hasasked that the San Gabriel-Puente Hills area be ex-amined and studies also be made of the upper Sacra-mento Valley area and the north San Francisco BayArea in the vicinity of Marin and Sonoma counties.
At its November 10, 1964, meeting, the Coordinat-ing Council instructed its staff "to include considera-tion of an institution in the San Joaquin Valleyoffering agricultural extension services and graduate
work in the health professions and in agriculture andonly offerings related thereto, with the. understandingthat the Staff PIS() CO:ngiaer related offerings in nearbyinstitutions." 2
While at the present time the University serves thestate as a whole, University campuses enroll first-timeentering freshmen at rates that &cline in relation togeographic remoteness. Accordingly, the state, forpurposes of this study, has been divided into fivebroad areas as illustrated in the following map.
Analysis of zonal rates for total areas in terms ofthe 1961-63 experience of the campuses at Davis,Santa Barbara, Riverside, Berkeley and Los Angelesis presented in Table XV, Appendix B, which showsdeclining rates for each campus in terms of the fol-lowing zones: county of location, contiguous counties,other area counties, and all other counties of the state.
This area approach furnishes a basis for projectingenrollment potentials for future University campusesfor the year 1980.
The following sections relate (1) projected enroll-ments to planned capacities on a statewide basis, (2)area charact, ristics, including number of higher edu-cational institutions, university rates of first-timeentering freshmen as compared to high school grad-uates, total rates for all institutions, the number ofinstitutions, the 1980 projected high school graduates,1980 population projections and per capita income,and (3) enrollment projections for assumed newcampuses as of 1980 utilizing the area approach.8
Projected Fall Term Enrollments and PlannedCapacities
The relation of system-wide projected fall termenrollments by areas for 1980 to ultimate plannedcapacities is as follows :
Planned Capacity Projected Fall Term Enrollments177,500 149,150
The figures above exclude the San Francisco Med-ical Center with a planned capacity of 7,500 and anestimated enrollment of 2,650 by 1980.
Applying the fsltor of a 10% reduction in fall termenrollment potel 1 to account for year-round opera-tion, the total re!, .Lonship for the University in 1980would be :
Projected Fall Term EnrollmentPlanned Capacity 10% for Year-round Operation
177,500 134,235
This ,...,.fference of 43,000 students results from theabove calculation, and is estimated to be an amountthat the established plant expanded to accept 5,000
See Coordinating Council for Higher education, Minutes ofthe Meeting, November 10, 1964.
9 It should be noted here that each local sub-area seeking theestablishment of a 'University campus within the five generalareas cited above has submitted detailed information on itspresent and projected characteristics, ranging from climatic tosocio-economic conditions to the Council, and its staff. Since thesedata and aspirations have been Presented orally and are inhand, it does not appear necessary to repeat them in this report.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ENROLLMENT PROJECTION AREAS1 2 3 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 31 22 23 24 25
POSTININ
I.
111NOCC
3
JACX11071
Al111444174
3JtAS
OR £G C ::
SIENNA
2
UCBSAN !RANT
UCD'
t A COSTA
ALAVERAS
ONO
r7RCEO 443
ROE
UCSClRESNO
MONTEREY IoURL
COORDINATINGC OUNCIL FOR
HIGHER
EDUCATION
September 1964
C47,04 INRINI /KRAUT 6741/AYe 64-8F-18
RN
CSNERALOA
10
UCSB
RANTS
UCI/ T. I tiz.I to I
142 476(121
rEVADA
INIL
CLAIM
11 y
4
CALI IONIA CO.111111440 4..4 X
PleIormRm. C INN
44... C II
7.117 ..... .4.= 4MVP CAN . I 3
17.43I Cu. CaNio. 617 Y71 OAK.. 2
IS 0. re
IP 73 4.+.......,....R 3n.116 . . ..... 7ROI Ur.
71.I 11.. R IIISIS 144
(AS1 IF
316.1111664 411
11.4X*WI 4.4.1.LIN130
74221 /R ow.43.541IR III 4.0. I I
72.021XXI ...... /NAM
71441 07312.176 17....w,..... C1L1341
7171117.11 5... .....MIN Sr /N.N.N. N 3346 6671144 04 144130 344 . I 316I SO43.353 S.r arc I 664.211 Sr. (M .. I 63,411 Sow C120 ............ 745
additional students per,year will accommodate by theyear 1989.
However, lead time to develop new campuses andto bring them to reasonable enrollment potentialsmust be considered. The projections for the new cam-puses at Santa Cruz and Irvine indicate that it willtake ten years from the date students are first ad-mitted to achieve the enrollments of 10,450 at Irvineby 1975, similarly, it will take 10 years to reach 7,200at Santa Cruz, according to State Department ofFinance projections.
Characteristics of the Five AreasArea 1. This area including the upper Sacra-
mento Valley and adjacent northern counties has a1980 projected population of some 775,000 comprising2.7% of the state's total projected population. 1961per capita personal income was $2,295 for the areaand was slightly above that of Area 3, the lowest ofthe five areas (the state average was $2,771). Therewere 6,063 high qehool graduates in 1963 or 3.5% ofthe state's total. By 1980 these are projected to be9,300 or 2.5% of the state's total.
While there is no university or private four-yearinstitution in the area, it contains two State Collegesand four public Junior Colleges. The University-goingrate of first-time entering freshmen per 1000 areapublic high school graduates was 28.2 in 1963, and wasexceeded by all other areas but Area 3. The 1963 ratefor this area to all California colleges and universitieswas 470 per 1000 high school graduates.4
Area 2. The northern California metropolitanarea stretches from the Pacific Ocean to the Nevadaborder and contains the San Francisco metropolitancomplex and that of Sacramento. The area's 1980projected population is 9.1 million or 32.4% of thestate's total as compared with 31.1% in 1963. 1961per capita personal income was $2,783, slightly inexcess of the state average. High school graduates forthe area numbered 22,000 in 1963 and are projectedto 114,000 by 1980 or 3f).8% of the state's total. Thereare three general University campuses in the area andthe Medical Center at San Francisco, five State Col-leges, the California Maritime Academy, twentyJunior Colleges and 56 private colleges and universi-ties. The area's University-going rate for first-timeentering freshmen per 1,000 public high school gradu-ates was 54.4 in 1963 exceeded only in Area 4. Asimilar rate for this area to all public and privatecolleges and 1..niversities in California was 584.4.
Area 3. Counties of the southern San JoaquinValley and adjoining counties to the east are includedin this area. The 1980 population projection is 1,879,-000, vc. ; close to Area 5, and represents 6.7% of the
4 The statewide college-going rate for all institutions was 559per 1,000 first-time freshmen for 1963.
state's 1980 projected population. Per capita personalincome of $2,264 in 1961 was the lowest of the fiveareas. There were 14,643 public high school graduatesin the area in 1963 and the figure projected in 1980is 22,400, or 6.7% of the state's total, e.kn comparableto projections for Area 5.
There is no university campus in the area; it doescontain two State Colleges, nine public Junior Col-leges and five private institutions. The University-go-ing rate of first-time entering freshmen was 18.3 per1000 high school graduates in 1963, the lowest of thefive areas. A similar area rate to all California collegi-ate institutions was 582.7.
Area 4. This area contains the Santa Barbaraand greater Los Angeles metropolitan complex. Halfof California's population resides in the area. 1.980projections show 14.5 million persons or some 51.4%of the total state population in the area. 1961 percapita income of $2,833 exceeded the state's average.
In 1963 public high school graduates numbered 86,-000 and are projected to be 204,000 by 1980, 54.7% ofthe state's total. Four University campuses are lo-cated in the area and there are eight State Collegesand some 64 independent institutions. The 1963 Uni-versity-going rate of first-time entering freshmen per1000 public high school graduates was 55.7, the high-est of any area. A similar rate to all California col-legiate institutions was 532.4.
Area 5. The San Diego-Imperial area had a 1963population of 1,245,000 which is projected by 1980 tobe 1,900,000, or 6.8% of the state's population. It isthe most compact of the areas, containing 8500 squaremiles as compared with Area 1-41,000, Area 2 -22,-600, Area 3 41,000, and Area 4-40,000. 1961 percapita personal income was $2,498 for this area.
There were 12,500 public high school graduates in1963 and 22,500 are projected by 1980, some 6% ofthe total for the state. The new general Universitycampus at San Diego is projected to grow to 10,000students by 1975. The area also contains a State Col-lege, six public Junior Colleges and nine independentinstitutions. While the University-going rate of 30.6for first-time entering freshmen per 1000 high schoolgraduates is low, this will undoubtedly increase withdevelopment of the ilew campus. A similar rate to allCalifornia collegiate institutions is high-651.7 per1000 high school graduates.
Enrollment Potentials for Assumed NewUniversity Campuses
As indicated above, detailed studies have been madeof Areas 1-4 to estimate an enrollment potential.5 Thezonal rates applied are contained in Table XV, Ap-
3 Area 5 is excluded in that a new general University campushas been recently established therein.
41
pendix B, and factors relating to the distribution ofstudents are listed in Table XVI, Appendix B. As inthe case of development of enrollment potentials forthe State Colleges, rates and factors are based on therecent experience of existing campuses. Tables XVIIthrough XX, Appendim 13, give the details of eachprojection. All estimates are based upon the State De-
- partment of Finance projections and enrollment re-ports.
The University campus whose conditions mostclosely resemble those of potential campuses in theSouth San Joaquin Valley and North SacramentoValley is at Davis, located in the Central Valley withclimatic and topographical conditions generally com-parable to those of Areas 1 and 3.
Also an established campus that would most closelyresemble a campus in the North San Francisco BayArea is at Santa Barbara. While the attractiveness oflocations are not precisely comparable this well maybe overcome by the fact that many major Universitycampuses will have reached their maximums by 1980or before and a vigorous program of redirection willtend to overcome these limitations.
With these reservations in mind, projections havebeen based on the following:
1. A new campus will begin admitting students in1970 and potentials are estimated for 1980, a ten-year period.
2. The rates of attendance of first-time enteringfreshmen and student distribution in the NorthSacramento Valley and in the San Joaquin Val-ley will be comparable to those at Davis.
3. The rates of attendance of first-time enteringfreshmen and student distribution of a campusin the North San Francisco Bay Area will begenerally comparable to those of Santa Barbaraexcept the rate of attendance from outside thearea is adjusted downward because the recentSanta Barbara experience appears atypical.With this adjustment a more conservative esti-
mate results.
42
4. The rates of attendance of first-time entering'freshmen at a second campus in the Los Angelesarea will generally resemble those for UCLA and.combined will produce the same proportion offirst-time entering freshmen student; at UCLA.as prevailed from 1961-63 and the remainderallocated to a new campus. Also, the Santa.bara pattern of distribution of studentsapply.
1980 potential enrollments for a possible new Uni-versity campus in the South San Joaquin Valley(Area 3) range from 5,075 to 6,600 depending uponthe county of location. A new campus in this area willrequire that 51% to 66% of the total enrollment po-tential must come from outside the Valley area.
For the North Sacramento Valley, Area 1, the 1980potential enrollment at a new Univergity carapuswould approach 4,300 to 4,400 students, short of theminimum for a new University campus. These num-bers could not be realized unless 80% of the studentscome from outside Area 1.
A possible new University campus in Los AngelesCounty has an estimated potential enrollment of some9,800 by 1980. This compares with the overall projec-tion of 10,450 fol-. Irvine by 1975 and some 10,000 forSan Diego. Some 12% of the potential is estimated tocome from outside Area 4.
For a possible new campus in the North San Fran-cisco Bay Area the fall term enrollment potential by1980 is 7,750 students, about 35% of whom wouldcome from outside areas. This estimate may be alsocompared with a 1975 estimated fall term enrollmentfor Santa Cruz of 7,200 by 1975.
While undoubtedly opening up new educationalopportunities for commuting students, in largest partthese potentials, if developed, will result in a slowingdown of growth rates projected for the Universitycampuses that have not reached their maximums andwill result in a redistribution within the Universitysystem.
CHAPTER VIII
FINDINGS nN THE NEED FOR NFW !NsTIIIITI0NSOF HIGHER EDUCATION
The Council on November 10, 1964, outlined fivegeneral policy guidelines to be followed by the staffin its preparation of its final draft on the report onthe need for additional centers of public higher edu-cation. They were :
1. The Council should recommend additional cen-ters to meet the need of the State of Californiaas a whole for additional student places, bred(a) upon estimates of the number of high schoolgraduates an of the increasing portion of themwho will attend college, (b\ upon the existingor planned places in existing institutions, (c)upon the statutory differentiation of functions,and (d) upon comparable costs per student.
2. Added campuses may be needed because of theisolation of specific areas in the state.
3. Aside from these areas o.' isolation, additionalcampuses should be located in the areas of heav-iest need to serve the largest number of students.
4. Each segment should be permitted an adequatelead time to develop any recommended cam-puses.
5. Where the Council fins there is a definite ulti-mate need for a campus, acquisition of sits inadvance of authorization to start a campus maybe justified in carefully restricted circumstances,as found by the Council, such as where landmaj not subsequently be available without ex-cessive ccst or where there may be special oppor-tunity to obtain the land,1
With the above guidelines in mind, following arethe findings apparent from the data reviewed in theconduct of this study and as presented in the fore-going chapters.
The Needs of the State as a WholeEnrollment projections show that a greater propor-
tion of high school graduates will be attending col-leges and universities in California in 1980 than ispresently f ase. Higher education enrollments willincrease at such a rate that by 1980 there will haveto be accommodated more than twice the presentnumber of collegiate students. While private inr,titu-tions are presently planning to receive a larger pro-portion of the total pool of high school graduates
CCM; 3finutee of the Meeting, November 10, 1964.
than anticipated at the time of the Master Plan forHigher Education, the proportion of the total num-ber of students in private education as compared topublic supported institutions will continue to declinefrom today's 18% to some 13% in 1980. Thereforemuch of the burden of providing for the increasingnumber of students will fall t, the State supportedsystems of higher educationthe Junior Colleges,the California State Colleges and the University ofCalifornia. How well is the State of California pre-pared to meet the need fo1 collegial; student spacesin 1980 ?
Junior College districting has increased markedlysince the time of the Master Plan survey. Todaymost potential students are within a Junior Collegedistrict and a substantial portion of these studentswill find a Junior College campus within commutingdistance of their homes. While long-range planningfor Junior Colleges must continue to go forward inan intensive manner, it appears that sufficient JuniorCollege oppoitunities will exist in 1980 close at handto nearly every student in the State.
Planned ceiling enrollment capacity for existingUniversity of California campuses now totals 185,000students. Full-time, fall term enrollments expected forthe University system in 1980 are estimated at 151,-800. When considering this total in relationship toplant capacities, it can be reduced some 10% to 15%because of year-round operation of facilities. Projec-tions show that students will not exceed the capacity;£ the University until sometime after 1980, possiblynot until after 1985.
Ceiling enrollment capacity of existing State Col-leges totals 293,800 full-time equivalent students. By1980 there are expected to be 184,298 .P.T.E. in thesystem. Again this figure, when considered in con-junction with plant capacities, can be reduced by10% to 15% in the fall term of 1980 due to year-round operations. However, other factors must be
considered in assessing actual statewide needs areaby area, especially for new State Colleges. A largeportion of the potential physical plant capacity forthe State Colleges lies in campuses remote from thetwo larger metropolitan areas of the State. Further-more, in some areas of the State no four-year highereducational opportunities exist or in some instancesconditims are such that great difficulty fal Is the stu-dent in his attempt to attend college either due to
43
commuting time or the fact of ceiling enrollments willbe reached soon in existing institutions in his region.
Lead Time
Lead time has traditionally meant the interval be-tween the date when a State College or Universitycampus is established or authorized by the Legisla-ture and the date it receives its first students. In thisstudy the minimum lead time considered to be de-sirable is not less than years. Perhaps more mean-ingful is "total lead time". This term has been usedherein to connote the time between the authorizationdate of a new State College or University campus andthe date when the campus begins to accommodaL.! ad-ditional students annually at an appreciable rate.Desirable "total lead time" for the University isconsidered to be fifteen years. After that time a Uni-versity campus should be at a state of deg elopmentto take an additional 1,000 students each year. "Totallead time" for the State Colleges is considerek., tcten years. After that period of time a new State Col-lege should be taking additional students at the rateof 500 to 800 students prr year.
Student MobilityThe term "student mobility" means the degree to
which students attend a State College or a campus ofthe University located in an area other than the coupties which they declare to be their places of residence.In are where the State supported institutions, es-pecially State Colleges, are reaching capacity enroll-ments the in-migration of students from other areasbecomes of significant importance. Greater system-wide control of student mobility appears to 'De ne. .3-sary for both four-year public segments if studentsare to be assured of being allowed to attend campuseswithin their own regions.
Effect of Year-Round OperationsYear-round, operation of facilities does not reduce
the number of students attending institutions ofhigher r..lucation, but .it does spread the numberthroughout a full year so that, in any one given term,there should be less students at an institution witha four-quarter calendar (with equal or rear equalenrollments each term) than there would have beenunder the traditional two-term calendar. In this studyit has seemed appropriate to apply a 10% reductionin the 1975 fall enrollment projectionwhich hasbeen based on the two-term calendarto properlyreflect e initial impact of year-round operation.This 10% figure shoull increase by 1980 to approxi-mately 15%. In addition, application of the year-round operation factor delays the date when a cam-pus is expected to reach its ceiling enroll'''. ent byapproximately three years.
44
The Isolation FactorIf campuses of the University of California are to
be located strategically throughout the State, geo-graphic isolation of students is a less important cri-terion than is the degree of student mobility. AsTable VII in the Appendix iws, first-time freshmenentering the University in 1963 were distributedwidely among the counties of the state. College-goingrates, however, are highest in the county of locationand contiguous counties as can be seen in Table XVof Appendix B.
The State Colleges are regionally oriented. For thisreason, students living beyond a 40 minute drive to aState College for purposes of this study have beenconsidered to be isolated from State College opportu-nities. The maps and tables in this report have de-picted gree of geographical isolation of por-tions of the ate without, of course, taking into con-sideration tilt, factor of those campuses reaching ceil-ing enrollments. Such data have pointed out substan-tial numbers of students currently unberved. by StateColleges and other four-year institutions.
An Assessment of the Need for New StateColleges and University Campuses
The planned capacity of existing State Collegesand University campuses can accommodate expectedenrollments for the two segments to 1980 and beyondif complete mobility of students is assumed. If stu-dents can be directed to institutions where plantcapacity existsassuming necessary residence hous-ing, capital outlay requirements met, and trails-porta-tion not a factorthen there clearly would be nodeficit capacity in either of the two segments before1980 or beyond. This does not mean, however, thatnew campuses should not be underway by that time,nor does it take into account the fact that some stu-dents residing in certain areas within the State areisolated, a degree greater than others, from theopportm.,ty to attend a four-year institution ofhigher educatidn.
State Colleges. State Colleges are now adequatelyserving the populous areas of the State except forKern County and portions of Ventura and ContraCosta Counties. State Colleges within the Bay Areaand the Los Angeles Area complex can accommo-date expected enrollments from their regions to 1980and beyond, assuming complete mobility of studentswithin the areas and year-round operation of facili-ties as now planned.
However, it cannot be assumed that complete stu-dent mobility is possible within regions as large asthe Bay Area and the Los Angeles Area complex.For example, students ii-:fag in Santa Clara tsountYshould not be expected to commute to Sonoma _StateCollege.- Considering the "total* lead time'3-' 're-
quired, projections show that two new State Col-leges must be established in the Bay Area soon after1970, one in the San Mateo-Santa Clara County areaand one in Contra Costa County.
The potential capacities of the several recentl:, g%Q-
tablished institutions in the Los Angeles Area ,)m-ple-: indicate that the date when students to be en-rolled will exceed capacity will occur somewhat laterthan that in the Bay Area. The rate of growth of thisdeficit capacity, when it does occurapproximately1987will be, howe ver, of great proportions. A suo-stantial segment of Ventura County is now isolatedfrom State College facilities and the enrollment po-tential estimated for a possible new State College inVentura County shows that enrollment growth wouldmeet the minimum standard considered desirable andwould later grow to substantial size. It appears thata new campus authorized for Ventura County soonafter 1970 would, by giving additional educationalopportunity to students not now being served, bemore advantageous to the State of California than ifa new State College were located in any other sectionof the Los Angeles Area complex.
As can be noted by examination of the map in thetext of this report, the Glendale-Burbank area isserved by several existing State Colleges. The need foradditional State Colleges in the Los Angeles areashould again be studied for reporting to the Legisla-ture in 1970. Specifically, the needs in the westernportion of Riverside County, all of Orange County,and the southeastern part of Los Angeles Countyshould be carefully scrutinized.
A great number of students w ,ald benefit from theaddition of a new State College in Kern County sincethere are no four-year collegiate institutions in thisarea. College-going students from this area will con-tinue to be isolated until a new campus is opened.Since a new State College in Kern County woulddraw sufficient numbers of students from the sur-rounding area to meet the minimum enrollments re-quired, it appears that a delay in authorizing a StateCollege in this area would unnecessarily deprive stu-dents of college opportunities.
University of California. A new University ofCalifornia campus in any one of the three areas: SanJoaquin Valley, Los Angeles Area, or the San Fran-cisco Bay Area, would grow rapidly enough to meetthe minimum desirable enrollment criterion within aseven to ten year period from the date of opening.A campus in the North Sacramento Valley Ns ouldnot grow fast enough to reach the 5,000 minimumwithin a ten year period. Furthermore, it should benoted that a new campus in the San Joaquin Valleywould require the University system to redirect stu-dents to the new Valley campus from other areasto the extent of from 51% to 66% of the total en-rollment. In the Los Angeles Area about 12% of the
students would need to come from other areas; in theSan Francisco Bay Area, the percentage would beabout 3b70.
In the light of enrollment predictions, it is appar-ent that a new University campus should be author-; somewhere in the State in 1972 or soon there-after. Two distinct and disparate criteria can be usedin deciding upon a general location for this campus.If the criterion is that of strategic geographic dis-persion of campuses throughout the State, the SanJoaquin Valley could he selected. If guidelinesadopted by the Council on November 10, 1964, andstated previously in this chapter become the criterion,the next campus should be located in the Los AngelesArea and in the Bay Area in that order. The needfor advance acquisition of a site in the Bay Areashould be studied by 1970. However, under carefullyrestricted circumstances, the University could requestthe Council to undertake an earlier study.
In the interim there should be extensive studymade concerning the need for specialized programssuch as graduate agriculture. graduate health scienceprograms and perhaps other professional programsin the San Joaquin Valley. Present offerings of theCalifornia State Colleges in this area should not beduplicated, however.
RecommendationsIt is recommended that :(1) The Council advise the Legislature that it
should authorize in 1965 a California State Collegein Kern County.
(2) The Council on November 24, 1964, adoptedthe following policy:
Where the Council finds there is a definiteultimate need for a campus, acquisition of sitesin advance of authorization to start a campusmay be justified in carefully restricted circum-stances, as found by the Council, such as whereland may not subsequently be available with-out excessive cost or where there may be specialopportunity to obtain the land.
In conjunction with the above stated policy,current data show that:
(a) A definite ultimate need exists for newCalifornia State Colleges to serve students inthe following areas, listed alphabetically: Con-tra Costa County, the Zan Mateo County-SantaClara County area, and in Ventura County in alocation to serve students from both the citiesof Ventura and Oxnard sz well as from cities innorthern Los Angeles Comity. It appears at thistime that authorization for the establishment ofone of these three campuses may be recom-mended by the Coordinating Council to theLegislature prior to 1969 and the second andthird -^,mpuses in 1969 or thereafter.
45
(b) A "definite ultimate need" exists Zs:: aUniversity campus in the Los Angeles area (thecounties of Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernar-dino, Riverside and Orange) and for one in theSan Francisco Bay Metropolitan Area (thecounties of San Francisco, Morin, So lano, So-noma, Napa, Contra Costa, Alameda, SantaCara and San Mateo). It appears at this timeauthorization for the establishment of one ofthese campuses may be recommended by theCoordinating Council to the Legislature in 1969and recommendation for the second campusapproximately in 1975.
(3) The Council further advise the Legislaturethat sites for institutions of public higher educationshould be acquired in advance of legislative author-ization of the institutions through use of the fol-lowing procedures:
(a) Advance acquisition of sites for a StateCollege located in Contra Costa County, for aState College located to serve students fromSan Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, and fora State College located to serve students fromVentura County and Los Angeles County willbe justified in each instance where the Trusteesof the California Sta.a Colleges present evi-dence, and the Council finds that "carefully re-stricted circumstances" warrant it, "such aswhere land may not subsequently be availablewithout excessive cost or where there may be
46
special opportunity to obtain the land, and uponsuch findings the Council will recommend ap-propriations for the acquisition of such sites.(b) Advance acquisition, of sites for a Univer-sity of California campus in either the LosAngeles or San Francisco Bay Area would bejustified when the Regents of the Universitypresent evidence and the Council finds that"carefully restricted circumstances" warrant it,"such as where land may not subsequently beavailable without excessive cost or where theremay be special opportunity to obtain the land",and upon such findings the Council will recom-mend appropriations for the acquisition of suchsites.
(4) And the Council further advise the Legisla-ture not later than 1969 and each five years there-after until all needs nave been met, it will conducta statewide survey of the then existing needs foradditional centers of public higher education andthe need for advanced acquisition of sites.
(5) And the Council further advise the Legisla-ture to expedite the inclusion of all areas of theState w 'lin Junior College districts.
(6) In the light of the request of the Universityof California, the Council indicate that it will con-sider a staff report on the need for specialized pro-grams such as graduate agriculture and graduatehealth science programs in the San Joaquin Valleyat its December 15 meeting or at such subsequentmeeting as the data may be available.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
A REVIEW OF STUDIES ON THEOF HIGHER EDUCA
The Liaison Committee of the Regents of the Uni-versity of California and the State Board of Educa-tion conducted a number of studies dealing with theneeds for additional centers of public higher educa-tion in California from the year of its creation, 1945,to the time of the transfer of its functions to theCoordinating Council in 1960.
The following pages present a brief summary of themajor studies conducted by the Liaison Committee andits J^int Staff as they are pertinent to this report.
I. Monroe E. Deutsch, Aubrey A. Douglass, andGeorge D. Strayer, A Report of a Survey of theNeeds of California in Higher Education. Univer-sity of California Press, Berkeley, 1948.
The Strayer Report, authorized by the Legislaturein 1947 and completed in 1948, made recommenda-tions cnicernint: new campuses and the expansion ofexisting ones. These recommendations, approved bythe State Board and the Regents, resulted, in part, inthe establishment of the following facilities and pro-grams :
1. Sacramento State College and Los Angeles StateCollege (Established by the 1947 Legislatureprior to completion of the Report)
2. College of Veterinary Medicine, U.C. at Davis(Classes began in 1948)
3. Long Beach State College (Established by t''1949 Legislature)
4. Medical School at UCLA (First classes held inSeptember, 1951)
5. Engineering School of UCLA6. University of California at Riverside (Opened
in 1953)
II. T. C. Holy and H. H. Semans, Report on Propo-sal for the Establishment of a School of Mines,Kern County, California.
H. H. Semans, T. C. Holy, Report of the JointStaff on the Proposal for a Four-Year State Col-lege in the Modesto Area. January, 1953. (Mimeo-graphed)
H. H. Semans and T. C. holy, Report on the Needfor a College of Agriculture in Imperial County,California. February, 1955. (Mimeographed)
40
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CENTERS
TION IN CALIFORNIA
The Liaison Committee of the Regents and theState Board of Education recommended, and bothboards approved, that a proposed School of Mines inKern County not be established because of the lack ofneed. The Legislature, concurring with this recom-mendation, did not authorize the establishment of thisschool.
The Liaison Committee also recommended and thegoverning boards approved, that no four-year StateCollege be established in the Modesto area until fur-ther increase of enrollment potential developed. (TheCollegeStanislaus--was not established until 1957.)The 1955 study of agricultural school requirementsrecommended, because of the relatively small need, anew college should not be established in ImperialCounty. The Legislature took no action on proposedlegislation to establish such a college.
III. T. R. McConnell, T. C. Holy and H. H. &mans,A Restudy of the Needs for California in HigherEducation, California State Department of Edu-cation, Sacramento, 1955.
In 1953 the Legislature authorized a major studyof higher education's needs under the general direc-tion of the Joint Staff of the Liaison Committee. Theresult was the most comprehensive study of the needsof higher education in California made up to thattime.
The major recommendabiviis of the .Restudy con-cerning additional higher education centers and asapproved by the two governing boards, included:
1. No new State Colleges or campuses of the Uni-versity be established before 1965. A review ofsuch needs, however, be undertaken in 1960.
2. The ceiling enrollments established by theStrayer Report be rescinded. (These were 6,000for State Colleges and 20,000 each for the Uni-versity of California at Berkeley and Los An-geles campuses.)
3. Active encouragement be given by all appro-priate agencies to establish needed junior col-lages.
4. Both the University and State Colleges reducethe proportion of their enrollments in lower divi-sions.
Approximate areas for Junior College expansionwere only suggested. These area? were :
Los Angeles County : Arcadia-Monrovia-Alhambra-El Monte
Alameda County : Berkeley-Albany-Emeryville andHayward-San Leandro-Alameda City
San Diego County: Grossmont-SweetwaterSouthern Ean Mateo CountySanta Clara County : Los Gatos-Palo Alto-Mountain
View-SunnyvaleRiverside county : Banning - Beaumont - Palm
SpringsColusa-Glenn-Butte CountiesSanta Cruz County : Santa Cruz:WatsonvilleMerced-Madera Counties,Siskiyou-Modoe CountiesLake-Mendocino Counties
IV. H. H. Semans, T. C. Holy, et al., A Study of theNeed for Additional Centers of Public HigherEducation in California. California State Depart-ment of Education, Sacramento, 1957.
This report, made primarily because of the largenumbers of bills introduced in the 1955 Legislature toestablish new State Colleges, develo:?ed a set of prin-ciples relating b the establishment of State Collegeand University campuses. These principles shownbelow, were reaffirmed by the State Board of Educa-tion and the Regents in joint session on April 15, 1959.
PRINCIPLES
1. The expansion of existing institutions and theestablishment of new ones should depend on theoptimum use of the state's resources for highereducation in relation to the greatest relative needboth geographically and functionally.
2. Differentiation of functions so far as possible ofthe three segments of public higher education,namely the Junior Colleges, the State Colleges"and the University of California, is imperativeif unnecessary and wasteful duplication is to beavoided.
3. The assumption that adequate Junior Collegefacilities will be provided through local initiativeand state assistance prior to the establishment ofadditional State College or University campusesis basic to the State College and University en-rollment estimates in this report.
4. The financing oi new publicly s- ported institu-tions should be such that it intei.kei es in no waywith the needs, including necessary improvementor expansion of existing ones.
5. In order, that a possible new institution mayserve the greatest number of eligible students,
it should be placed near the center of the popu-lation served by it.
6. Extension of publiely supported institutions tothe degree that the continued operation of pri-vate ones long in existence and seemingly serv-ing the community well is jeopardized, is not inthe public interest.
The need for new State College campuses vas de-scribed by compiling a list of areas in priorLy orderaccording to enrollment potential :
PriorityProf ected FTE,
Area 1970-711 Alameda 13,600
San Bernardino-Riverside 11,5003 Contra Costa County 6,8004 Kern County 4,200
10 Shasta 1,40011 Mendocino-Lake 1,30012 Imperial County 80013 Amador 600
The 1957 Legislature appropriated $4,300,000 forsite acquisitions for four new State Colleges, three ofwhich appear in the above list. The four collegesestablished were : Alameda County State College,Stanislaus State College, Sonoma State College andOrange State College. The Joint Staff concluded thatthose campuses currently in existence or plannedwould probably accommodate enrollments in the LosAngeles area through 1965.
This report included a similar priority list on theneed for new campuses of the University of Califor-nia. That list showed projected full-time enrollmentin 1965 and 1970 as follows :
GeneralDesignation of
Area in the StateSouthern California
Metro. CenterSection
South Central Cali;'or-nia Coast Section
South Cross SectionSan Joaquin Valley
SectionNorth Cross Section
Approximate Popu-lation Center
Southeast Los AngelesCounty and OrangeCounty
Santa Clara Valley
San DiegoMadera
Redding
ProjectedPal-time
Enrollments1965 1970
12,800 17,500
8,300 11,900
4,500 6,1004,500 5,000
1,400 1,700
At the October 1957 meeting of the Regents, ap-proval was given for the establishment of the newcampuses to serve the first three areas listed in theabove tabulationSoutheast Los Angeles and OrangeCounty, Santa Clara Valley and San Diego. At thissame meeting the Regents took the action, ". . . thatfurther study be given to the. establishment of acampus in the San Joaquin Valley."
Concerning the need for additional public JuniorColleges, the report lists 53 high school districts which
49
ought to be included in new Jualor College districts.Since that time many of these high school districtshave been incorporated in either existing or newJunior College districts.
V. Arthur D. Browne, and Thomas C. Holy, A Studyfor the Need of an Additional State College in theNorth Bay Area and of the Feasibility of Consoli-dating the Califoryfa Maritime Academy with aState College, prepared for the Liaison Committeeof the California State Board of Education andthe Regents of the University of California, No-vember, 1958.
In April, 1958, Senate Resolution No. 33 requesteda study of the need for a State College in the four-county area of Solano, Napa, Sonoma and Marin inaddition to Sonoma State College previously author-ized.
It was also requested that a study be made as towhether it would be feasible to consolidate a StateCollege with the California Maritime Academy inVallejo.
Assuming that the one College already authorized(Sonoma State College) in the North Bay Area wouldbe planned for the San Rafael-Petaluma area, theJoint Staff recommended and the two governingboards approved that :
(1) Consideration for a second college in this areabe deferred until at least 1965.
(2) A State College not be consolidated with theCalifornia Maritime Academy since the Acad-emy was not organized as an institution withthe same broad objective of "intellectual andother preparation for typical civilian life andeconomic activity such as characterized theState Colleges".
VI. T. C. Holy and Arthur D. Browne, A Study ofthe Needs for Additional Centers of Higher Edu-cation in San Mateo, Monterey, San Benito andSanta Cruz Counties. Prepared by the Joint Staffof the California State Board of Education and-the Regents of the University of California, De-cember, 1958.
In June 1957 the Assembly approved House Reso-lution No. 202 directing the Liaison Committee to re-study the data in the Additional Centers Study inlight of the special needs of San Mateo, Monterey,San Benito and Santa Cruz Counties.
The report, published in December, 1958, updatedinformation used in the previous study, summarizedresponses from Junior College officials in the areawith regard to its higher education needs, and addedsome specific information on the educational offeringsby the State Colleges and the University of Californiain the four-county area. It also included a study of
50
the commuting time from the surrounding areas toSan Francisco State College and to San Jose StateCollege in order to determine the effect of the estab-lishment of additional centers on these schools. Thestudy showed that from the population centers(Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City,Hillsdale, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Redwood City, San.Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Franciscoand Woodside) commuting time to San FranciscoState College seldom exceeded 45 minutes, and, withthe exception of Millbrae, Hinsdale, Woodside andSouth San Francisco, all were within 60 minutes ofSan Jose State College. Five were within 40 minutescommuting time.
The 1958 Study concluded, with the governingboards approving: ". . . it would be premature torecommend any specific action toward the establish-ment of State College facilities in San Mateo untilJunior College facilities are provided in southern SanMateo County and until the University of Californiahas established its new campus (Santa Cruz area)and the impact of these actions on State College en-rollments can be determined."
Since that report, Junior Colleges in this four-county area have been developed and now includeCabrillo at Aptos, Foothill in Los Altos, Hartnell inSalinas, Monterey Peninsula at Monterey, San Mateoin San Mateo, San Jose City in San Jose and SanBenito (just reorganized and including the Gilroyand Los Banos areas) to be located in the vicinity ofHollister.
VII. Arthur D. Browne and T. C. Holy, A Study ofthe Need for Additional state Colleges in LosAngeles County, Prepared by the Joint Staff ofthe California State Board of Education and theRegents of the University of California, Decem-ber, 1958.
A special study of Los Angeles County, publishedin December 1958, with respect to its need for addi-tional State Colleges was initiated by the passage ofHouse Resolution #282 in 1957. This study delineatedcollege enrollment areas in the following manner:
CollegeEnrollment
Area Subarea12A Northwest Los Angeles County
12B Central Los Angeles County
12C Southern Los Angeles County
12D Eastern Los Angeles County
12E Orange County
State CollegeSan Fernando Valley
State CollegeLos Angeles State
College of AppliedArts and Sciences
Long Beach StateCollege
Kellogg-VoorhisCampus
California StatePolytechnic College
Orange Co 1.n ty StateCollege
Enrollments were projected to 1970 for each seg-ment of public higher education. These projections,made by the Department of Finance, explained the"area of origin and grade-progression" of students.The resulting forecast enrollment for the four StateColleges in Los Angeles County was 81,800 full-timeequivalent students by 1970. The distribution wasestimated as follows :
Coilege Estimated FTE,1970San Ferbando Valley 18,200Los Angeles State College_Long Beach State _ 2,1,000Kellogg-V,,orhis Campus, Cal Poly 11,400
The Joint Staff assumed, that while it might bepossible for the four colleges to expand their campusesto accommodate the above enrollments, it would morethan likely be necessary to add new campuses before1970 in order to relieve Los Angeles State College.Relief for San Fernando Valley State College andLong Beach State College would probably be neededsoon after 1970.
The report also indicated a possible need for a StateCollege in the western part of the county betweenHarbor Freeway and the Pacific Ocean and, ulti-mately, one in Antelope Valley. The Report recom-mended and the governing boards approved thataction be deferred to provide opportunity to appraisethe probable impact of certain pending actions suchas the admission of freshmen students to Los AngelesState College, the establishment of Orange State Col-lege, and further development of private colleges andof public Junior Colleges in the county.
VIII. A Master Plan for Higher Education in Cali-fornia, 1960-1975, Prepared by the Master PlanTeam for the Liaison Committee of the Regentsof the University of California and the StateBoard of Education, Sacramento, 1960.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 88 approvedby the 1959 Legislature, requested the Liaison Com-mittee " . . to prepare a Master Plan for the devel-opment, expansion and integration of the facilities,curriculum, and standards of higher education, injunior colleges, state colleges, the University of Cali-fornia, and other institutions of higher education ofthe State, to meet the needs of the State during thenext 10 years and thereafter . . ." and to transmitthat plan, " . . to the Legislature at its 1960 regularsession within three days of the convening thereof
The Master Plan included specific provisions forthe establishment of new State Colleges in the vicinityof Los Angeles International Airport and the SanBernardino-Riverside vicinity to begin operation by1965. It further recommended completion withoutdelay of new University campuses in the areas of SanDiego-La Jolla, Southeast Los Angeles-Orange Coun-
ties, and the South Central Coastal area (Santa Clara,San Mateo, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and MontereyCounties). In addition, the Master Plan provided that:(a) State Colleges
"In 1965 and again in 1970, if applicable, andbefore considering the need for new state col-leges in any o her areas of the state, carefulstudies be made by the co-ordinating agency ofthe following State Economic Areas to determinethe actual need for new State Colleges thatexists a,; the time each study is made :
State EconomicAreaF Los Angeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Area,
Griffith Park-Glendale vicinityA San Francisco-Oakland Metropolitan Area,
vicinity of Redwood CityA San Francisco-Oakland Metropolitan Area,
Contra Costa CountyK Bakersfield Metropolitan Area, Kern County7 South Coastal Area, Ventura County"
(b) University of California"In 1965 and again where applicable in 1970,and before considering the need for new Univer-sity facilities in any other areas of the State,careful studies be made by the co-ordinatingagency of the need for additional University fa-cilities in the San Joaquin Valley and the LosAngeles area. In the latter area special consider-ation should be given as to how the difference be-tween the 1975 estimates of potential Universityenrollment or 52,550 and the 27,500 maximumfor the University of California, Los Angelescampus (some 25,000 students) can best be ac-commodated. Such consideration should includethe following :
a. To what extent will this difference be caredfor by the new Southeast Los Angeles-OrangeCounty campus, and to what extent could thesepotential students be diverted to the La Jolla,Riverside, and Santa Barbara campuses ?
b. Will there be a need for the establishment ofbranch installations in specialized fields ofstudy from existing campuses in this area sim-ilar to that included in Recommendation 7b ?" 1
IX. Lloyd N. Morrisett, Charles S. Casassa, FrancisJ. Flynn, and T. Stanley Warburton, Institu-tional Capacities and Area Needs of CaliforniaPublic Higher Education 1960-1975, Distributedby University of California, Berkeley,February,1961.
1Recommendaton lb, p. o7 t'Ae liaster Plan Report x.-lated to they Lierkeley campus e,10.1 proposed establishment ofbranch insta*lations vm existing campuses in specialized fieldsof study "such as in. .action in Science at Livermore".
1
This report, prepared for the Liaison Committeeand for the Master Plan Survey Team, considered theentire state with regard to possible need for new cen-ters of public higher education by 1975.
Some techniques were modified from previousstudies. Estimates on potential enrollment in possiblenew State Colleges were based upon zones of primaryenrollment potential, or commuting zones surround-ing the possible sites. By using this technique it waspossible to project future number and geographicconcentration of public high school graduates. Thestudy used the method of "State Economic Areas"(SEA) based on studies of the Department of Fi-nance and including the two categories, "metropoli-tan" and "nonmetropolitan" areas.
Estimates of enrollment potential for the variousareas (other than the Los Angeles area) are sum-marized below:
EnrollmentNew State College Areas Location 1970 1975
San Bernardino-Riverside Colton 9,200 12,800San Mateo County Redwood City 8,000 10,000Contra Costa County Walnut Creek 4,600 4,200Kern County Bakersfield 3,100 3,100Monterey Bay Area 2,400 2,900Ventura County Ventura-Oxnard 2,800 2,800San Joaquin County Stockton 2,300 2,200Napa-Solano Area Napa 2,100 2,100
The Committee estimated that if new State Col-leges in the Inglewood and Glendale areas were estab-lished, the 1975 enrollment potential at Los AngelesState College and Long Beach State College wouldbe decreased from 28,500 to 15,900 and from 24,850to 18,600 respectively. Enrollments of other StateColleges in the Los Angeles area would also be sub-stantially reduced.
The Master Plan Technical Committee recom-mended that the following range of full-time enroll-ments be observed for existing institutions, for thoseauthorized but not yet established, and for those laterestablished: 2
Type of Institution Minitnuml Optimum MaximumJunior Colleges 400 3,500 6,000 2
1 To be attained within seven to ten years after students are first admitted.11 In densely populated areas in metropolitan centers this maximum could be larger.2 This minimum figure assumes graduate work In basic disciplines and one or more
i.rofessional schools.
2 This recommendation was subsequently approved bj boththe State Board of Education and the Regents of the UniNusityof California.
APPENDIX BTABLE I
Relation of Concepts of Student Enrollments to Maximum and Minimum Enrollment Ranges
Minimum Maximum
California Public Junior CollegesFull Time Students (FTS) 900 5,000- 7,500Resident Average Daily Attendaine (RADA) 1,000 7,250-10,800Full-time equivalent students (FTE) 990 6,850-10,200
California State CollegesIn densely populated areas in metropolitan centers
Fulltime students (FTS) 5,000 17,500-20,000Fulltime equivalent students 8 am-5 pm (FTE 8-5) 5,400 19,000-21,000Fulltime equivalent students (FTE) 6,00P 21,000-23,500
Outside such areasFulltime students (FTS) 3,000 9,500-12,000Fulltime equivalent students 8 am-5 pm (FTE 8-5) 3,200 10,200-12,000Fulltime equivalent students (FTE) 3,500 11,200-14,000
University of California campusesFulltime students (FTS) 5,000 25,000-27,500Fulltime equivalent students 8 am-5 pm (FTE 8-5) 4,850 24,250-26,650Fulltime equivalent students (FTE) 5,050 25,300-27,800
SOURCE : Junior College Relationships as estimated by the Coordinating Council Staff. Relationship for the California State Collegesand the University of California based on estimates furnished by the respective segments.
53
11-
THE STATE
AlamedaAlpine
ButteCalaveras
Del NorteEl Dorado
Glenn
InyoAmador
ColusaContra Costa
Fresno
HumboldtImperial
LakeLassen
Kern
MaderaLos Angeles
Maria
MendocinoMerced
Kings
Mariposa
.A..... and County
Total Population of California Counties, 1960 With Prellainary Projections to 1980
Secondary Zor °s are as follows:1. Contra Costa-Alameda, Marin, San Francisco, San Joaquin, and Solano.2. Kern-Kings and Tulare.3. Los Angeles-Zones 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of Los Angeles County. See Map, page 50, Los Angeles County Enrollment Zone.4. San Mateo-Alameda, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and ..:;q.nta Cruz.5. Ventura-Santa Barbara.Nom : The definition of primary and secondary zones were developed by the Office of Institutional Research of the California StateColleges. Projections of High School Graduates were developed by tie California Department of Finance.
TAR! E X
Summary of Levels of Factors Selected for Enrollment Projections for Possible New State Colleges After an Initial Ten-year Period ofDevelopment, With Projected Enrollments for 1980-81
Factors .ContraCosta Kern
Los Angeles(Glendale)
SanMateo Ventura
1. First-time freshmen as percent of prior high school graduates:.From primary zone' 8.5 12.8 8.5 8.5 8.3From secondary zone 1.3 2.3 1.3 1.3 2.3-2. First-time freshmen from primary and secondary zones as a percent of the first-time from
California 95.0 95.0 95.0 95.0 95.03. First-time freshmen from California as a percent of total first-time 95.0 95.0 95.0 95.0 95.04. Undergraduate transfers as a percent of first-time freshmen2 91.8 83.1 91.8 91.8 91.85. "Old" as a percent of prior year total undergraduate enrollment 68.7 68.7 68.7 68.7 68.76. Graduate enrollment as a percent of otal undergraduate enrollment 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.47. Ratio of annual FTE to total fall enrollment 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 9
8. Projected Enrollment (1980-91)a. Total first-time 1,530 810 1,700 1,620 1,420b. Undergraduate transfers 1,400- 670 1,560 1,490 . 1,300c. Total fall undergraduates 7,240 3,590 7,800 7,390 6,490d. Total graduate enrollment 460 230 500 470 420e. Total annual FTE - 6,930 3,440 7,470 7,070 6,220f. Total full-time enrollment 7,700 3,820 8,300 7,860 6,910
1 It is assumed that 85% of th. State l'o7lege enrollment from a county would enroll in a State College located in that county. Anassumed rate for Kern County fo, 1975 to all State Colleges is 15%, of which S5% or 12.8% would enroll at a State College inthat county. A rate of 8.5%, or 85% of 10, was used for the other areas.2It was assumed that undergraduate transfers would be 83.1% of total first-time freshmen for Kern County. The other srzas havean assumed rate of 91.8%.Norm: The above projections were computed from rates developed by the Office of Institutional Research of the California StateColleges.
65
TABLE XI
riiimated Effect of a New State Collage in Contra Costa County on Potential EnrollmentsFrom Contra Costa County to Existing State Colleges
(Full-time)
Existing State Colleges
Estimated Enroll. Possible Other
Potential Contra Costa State
Year Diversion State College Hayward San Francisco San Jose Colleges Totals
Status Quo1962 From Conte Costa Co.1 268 853 555 639 2,315
Per cent 11.6 36.8 24.0 27.6 100.0
1980 From Contra Costa Co.: 1,665 1,665 832 1,368 5,550
Per cent 30.0 30.0 15.0 25.0 100.0
Asaume New S.C.:1980 From Contra Costa Co 46,605 388 388 233 156 7,770
Per cszt 85.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 100.0
1980 Diversion from ExistingState College Potentials 1,277 1,277 599 1,232 4,385
The 2,315 students from Contra Costa County attending all State Colleges in fall 1962 were 42.3% of the 5,471 public high schoolgraduates of 1961-62 for Contra Costa.
=Assume 50% of projected 11,100 public high school graduates for 1979-80 attend all State Colleges. The increase from 42.3% to50% due primarily to development of California State College at Hayward.
Assume 70% of projected 11.100 high school graduates will attend all State Colleges, if one is established in Contra Costa, with 85%attending the local new State College. Actual data for 1962, for the state, indicates total state college enrollments of 75.0% of prioryear public high school graduates. Of this proportion, from 85-90% attended state colleges in their own county, if available and enroll-ing freshmen.Additional students frori other counties would attend a new Contra Costa. State Cellege, perhaps 10% of a projected total enrollmentof 7,700 full-time stue.c...is.
NoTs: The tables are based on factors developed by the staff of the State Collz,-Fi Trustees.
TABLE XII
Estimated Effect of a New State College in Los Angeles County on Potential EnrollmentsAt Existing State Colleges
(Full-time)
Year
Estimated Enroll.PotentialDiversion
PossibleGlendale
StateCollege
. :g State Colleges
TotalsCal Poly LongBeach
LoaAngeles
SanFernando
ValleySouthBay
OtherState
Colleges
Status Quo1962 From Los Angeles Countyl 1,840 5,088 6,669 4,303 3,676 21,578
Per cent 8.5 23.6 30.9 19.9 17.0 100.0
1980 From Loa Angeles Countyl 4,939 8,980 11,225 8,0410 8.082 2,694 44,900
Per cent 11.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 18.0 6.0 100.0
Assume New S.C.1980 From Los Angeles County 16,735 4,490 8,531 8,082 7,633 7,184 2,245 44,900
Per cent 15.0 10.0 19.0 18.0 17.0 16.0 5.0 100.0
1980 Diversion from Existing State CollegePotentials f 49 449 3,143 1,347 898 44p 8,735
=The 21,576 full-time students from Los Angeles County attending all state colleges in fall 1962 were 35.4 per cent of the 61,025public high school graduatag of 1961-62 for Los Any7es County.
3Assume 40% of Projected 112,250 public high school graduates for 1979-80 attend all state colleges. The Increase from 35.4% to40% is due to development of South Bay State College.
3Additional students from other counties would attend a new state college in Los Angeles County, perhaps 5% of a projected totalenrollment of 8,300 full-time students.
:NOTE: The tables are basel on factors developed by the staff of the State Colleges Trustees.
66
TABLE XIII
Estimated Effect of a New State College In San Mateo County on Potential EnrollmentsAt Existi:4 State Colleges
(Full-time)
Year
Estimated Enroll.PotentialDiversion
PossibleSan Mateo
S.C.
Existing State Colleges
TotalsSan
FranciscoSanJose Hayward
All OtherState Colleges
Status Quo1962 From San Mateo Co.1 1,723 1,437 9 335 3,504Per cent 49.2 41.0 0.2 9.6 100.01980 From San Mateo Co. 2 3,131 2,654 681 340 6,806Per cent 46.0 39.0 10.0 5.0 100.0
Assume New S.C.1980 From San Mateo Co 45,785 340 340 204 137 6,806Per cent 85.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 100.01980 Diversion from Existing
State College Potentials. 2,791 2,314 477 203 5,785
1The 3,504 students from San Mateo County attending all State Colleges in fall 1962 were 75% of the 4,664 1961-62 public HighSchool graduates of San Mateo County.--Assume 75% or projected 9,075 public High School graduates for 1979-80 attend all .tate Colleges.3 Assume 85% of all San Mateo Cotalty State College enrollees will attend local State college if established.' Additional students from other counties would attend a new San Mateo State College perhaps 15% of a projected total enrollmentof 7,860 full-time students.NcrrE: The tables are based (Kt factors developed by the staff of the State College Truitees.
67
TABLE XIV
The University of California-Estimates of Four-term Enrollments, June 1964
Totals Berkeley Davis Los Angeles Riverside2San
FranciscoSanta
Barbara Irvine San Diego Santa Cruz
A, tual1961 Fall 53,761 23,605 3,441 18,676 1.963 1,885 4,041 _- 150 __
Source: University of California, Office of Analytical Studies.
68
TABLE XV
Zonal Rates First-time Entering Freshmen per 1,000 PublicHigh School Graduates, 1961, 1962, 1963, University ofCalifornia-Davis, Santa Barbara, Riverside,Berkeley, Los Angeles
Year
Campus and Zone 1961 1962 1963
DavisCounty of location
68.8 71.1 61.2Contiguous Counties 17.9 24.4 22.5Other Area Counties 9.7 0.1 11.6All Other Counties 2.0 2.1 2.2
Santa BarbaraCounty of location 71.0 74.5 73.6Contiguous Counties 15.6 10.6 19.1Other Area Counties 7.8 0.5 9.8All Other Counties 4.5 5.7 7.4
RiversideCounty of location 29.7 24.6 31.7Contiguous Counties 4.3 3.9 4.3Other Area Counties
1.3 .8 1.5All Other Counties 1.4 .8 1.3
BerkeleyUounty of location =4.0
32.3 43.8Contiguous Counties 37.4 34.4 32.0Other Area Counties 2n.0 17.3 10.6Ail {1th C-ntics MU 11.4 10.7
LtzCounty of location 28.5 28.9 31.0Contiguous Counties 7.4 8.1 11.1Other Area Counties 8.0 6.6 5.4All Other Counties 1.9 2.0 2.3
TABLE XVI
General Relations of First-time Entering Freshmen,Undergraduate and Graduate Students '961,1962, 1963, University of California-Davis,
Santa Barbara, Riverside, Berkeley,Los Angeles
Students
Year
1961 1962 1963
DavisFirst-Time Freshmen 793 879 1028% of Total Undergraduates 30.6% 28.3% 27.8%Total Undergraduates 2591 3108 3713Graduate Students 850 953 1192% of Undergraduates 32.8% 30.0% 32.1%
Santa BarbaraFirst-Time Freshmen% of Total Undergraduates_ ______Total UndergraduatesGraduate Students% of Total Undergraduates
RiversideFirst-Time Freshmen% of Total UndergradinfpgsTotal Undergraduatc3Graduate Students
oI Taal
Berkeleyk'ust-Time Freshmen% of Total UndergraduatesTotal UndergraduatesGraduate Students% of ,Total Undergraduzak.s
Los AngelesFirst-Time Freshmen% of Total UndergraduatesTotal UndergraduatesGraduate Students_% of Total Undergraduates
1127 1410 165229.3% 31.6% 29.9%
3851 445G 5522190 250 336
4.9% 5.6% 6.1%
526 456 56729.D% 25.2510 27.510
1778 15G6 zOit190 352 550I^a.V JO 2fi.5%
"/
2902 2870 286518.4% 17.3% 16.3%
15750 16596 175477855 8372 908549.9% 50.4% 51.8%
2030 2098 246116.2% 15.9% 17.4%
12501 13170 141396175 6817 755749.4% 51.8% 53.4%
69
TABLE XVII
1980 Potential Enrollment of First-time Entering FreshmenAssuming a New University Campus in the South
San Joaquin Valley
ZONE
1980 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATESRELATED TO COUNTIES
MADERAI FRESNO TULARE
Entrantsper' 1000
HighSchool
KERN Graduatzs
County of Location..Contiguous CountiesCher Area CountiesAll Gher Counties__
4750,050
12,275350,350
6,6757,1008,625
:-0,350
2,40013,1506,850
350,350
5,0503,825
13,525350.350
68.822.59.72.1
ZONE
FIRST-TIME ENTERING FRESHMENRELATED TO COUNTIES
MADERA FRESNO TULARE KERN
County of LoesuouContiguous Countit*.Al L Av.". el.ntIniiers
All Other Counties
Total
22 459
217 160119 84ro.
1105 1439
165296
66194
TABLE XVII:
1980 Potential Enrollment of First-time Entering FreshmenAssuming a New University Campus in North
Sacramento Valley
ZONE
1930 HIGH SCHOOL GRADITATESRELATED TO COUNTIES
SHASTA TEHAMA
Entrants'per 1000
High SchoolGraduates
County of Location 1,525 500 68.8
Contiguous Counties 1,825 4,925 22.5
Other Area Counties 5,950 3,875 9.7
All Other Counties 363,450 363,450 2.1
ZONE
FIRST-TIMEENTERING FRESHMENRELATED TO COUNTIES
SHASTA TEHAMA
347 County of Location86 Contiguous Counties
131 Other Area Counties.7ort mt
1'263 1300
1980 Potenftial Enrollment Assuming a New University CampusIn the South San Joaquin Valley
STUDENTS'
1980 POTENTIAL ENROLLMENTSRELATED TO COUNTIES
MADERA FRESNO TULARE BERN
First-time Entering FreshmenTotal UndergraduatesTotal Gra Ile StudentsTotal Pote,...alPercent from Outside Area__..
110539041171507566.6%
143950851525661051.1%
126344631339580258.3%
1300
455.4
1378
597256.6%
1Rates are comparable area by area with rates of the DavisCampus 1961-63.=Rates are comparable with the Davis pattern of distributionof students, 1961-63, i.e. first-time entering freshmen 28.3% un-dergraduates, and graduate students 30% of undergraduate.
70
m.a.-11.0 VC11.11
10541gg
7o8
967
34111az;
763
946
1980 Potential Enrollments Assuming a New L'niverbity CampusIn fihe North Sacramento Valley
STUDENTS' -.
1980 POTENTIALENROLLMENTS
RELATED TO COUNTIES
SHASTA TEHAMA
First-time entering Freshmen 967 915
Total Undergraduates 3416 3342
Total Graduates 1025 1003
Total Potential 4441 4345
Percent from Outside Area 78.9% 80.7%
1 Rates are comparable area by area for rates of the DavisCampus 1961-3.
2 Factors are comparable to the Davis pattern of distributionof students 1961-63, i.e. first-time entering freshmen 28.3% ofunder raduates and graduate students 30% of undergraduates.
TABLE XIX
1980 Potential Enrollment of First-time Entering FreshmenAssuming a New University Campus, Los Angeles County
ZONE
1980HIGH
SCHOOLGRADUATES
ENTRANTSPER 1000HIGH
SCHOOLGRADUATES
FIRST-TIMEENTERINGFRESHMEN
Cow sty of LocationContiguous CountiesOther Area CountiesAll Other Counties
Total
112,25072,37519,200
168,925
28.98.16.62.0
17372586127338
2788
1980 Potential Enrollment Assuming a New UniversityCampus, Los Angeles County
STUDENTS: POTENTIALENROLLMENTS
First-time Entering Freshmen 27RR'Pew Lrndr.-4gtmluates 9324Total Graduate Students 559Total Potentisi 9883r.,yani.. from Outside Area 12.1%
2 Rates are comparable area by area with rates of U.C.L.A.1961 -63.
The number derived from the rate is reduced by 1,507. Usingthe percentage of first-time entering freshmen to total freshmenat U.C.L.A. 1961-63 and applying this percent (44%) to 3,425freshmen projected for 1980 at U.C.L.A.
Factors are comparable with the Santa Barbara pattern ofdistribution, i.e. first-time entering freshmen of students 1961-63 -29.9% of undergraduates and graduate students, 6% of un-dergraduates.
TABLE XX
1980 Potential Enrollments of First time Entering FreshmenAssuming a New University Campus in North
San Francisco Bay Area
1980 HIGH SCHOOLGRADUATES
RELATED TO COUNTIES FIRST-TIMEENTERINGFRESHMEN
Entrants RELATED TO:per 1000 COUNTIES
HighSchool
ZONE MARIN SONOMA Graduates MARIN SONOMA
Count y of Location__ 4,000 4,175 73.6 294 307Contiguous Counties._ 9,425 5,775 19.6 185 113Other Area Countiea..- 101,303 104,778 9.5 962 995All Other Counties__ 258,022 258,022 3.0 774 774
Total 2215 2189
1980 Potential Enrollments Assuming a New University Campusin the North San Crtant.:= rzy
STUDENTS:
1980 POTENTIALENROLLMENTS
RELATED TO COUNTIES
MARIN SONOMA
First-time Entering Freshmen 2215 2189Total undergraduates 7408 7321Total Graduates 444 439Total Potential 7852 7760Percent from outside area 34.9% 35.4%
Rates are comparable with the Santa Barbara campus19 61-63 using a more conservative rate of 3 per 1,000 highschool graduates from outside the area because the Santa Bar-bara pattern appears atypical in this respect.
Factors are comparable with the Santa Barbara pattern ofdistribution of studints 1961 -63 i.e., first-time entering freshmen29.9% of undergraduates and graduate students 6% of under-graduates.
TABLE XXI
Actual and PF-ojected Fun.time Student Enrollments, California State CollegesEach Year, 19611-1980
NOTE : 1. Source, California State Department of Finance.2, Projections assume diversion of lower division students to junior colleges as provided in the Master Plan,Preliminary.
APPENDIX CCALIFORNIA PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION BY COUNTY OF LOCATIONCounty Institution
LOS ANGELESContinuedPublic: El Camino College
Glendale CollegeLong Beach City CollegeLong Beach State CollegeLos Angeles City CollegeLos Angeles Harbor CollegeLos Angeles Metropolitan CollegeLos Angeles Pierce CollegeLos Angeles State CollegeLos Angeles Trade-Technical CollegeLos Angeles Valley CollegeMt. San Antonio CollegePasadena City College
County Institution.ALAMEDA
Public: California State College at HaywardChabot CollegeOakland City CollegeUniversity of California, Berkeley
Private : Armstrong CollegeBerkeley Baptist DivinityCalifornia Concordia CollegeChurch Divinity School of the PacificCollege of the Holy NamesHeald's Business CollegeHighland School of NursingKaiser Foundation School of NursingMills CollegePacific. Lutheran Theological SeminaryProvidence College of NursingQueen of the Holy Rosary CollegeSt. Albert's CollegeSt. Margaret's HouseStarr King School for the MinistrySamuel Merritt Hospital School of Nursing
BUTTEPublic : Chico State College
CONTRA COSTAContra Costa CollegeDiablo Valley College
Private: St. Mary's CollegeWestern Baptist College
FRESNOPublic Coalinga College
Fresno City CollegeFresno State CollegeReedley College
Private : Mennonite Brethren Biblical SeminaryPacific CollegeWest Coast Bible College
HUMBOLDTPublic : Humboldt State College
IMPERIALPublic: Imperial Valley College
San Diego State College, oft campus center of ElCentro
INVOPrivate : Deep Springs College
KERNPublic :
LASSENPublic :
Bakersfield CollegeFresno State College, off campus center at Bakers-,
fieldTaft College
Lassen College
LOS ANGELESPublic: Antelope Valley College
California State POlytechn::: College, PomonaCeriitos CollegeCitrus CollegeCompto CollegeEast Los Angeles College
Non: All schools of nursing have been listed under the "Pri-vate" category.
Source: State Department of Finance.
72
Rio FrantlnSanta Monica City CollegeSan Fernando Valley State CollegeUniversity of California, Los Angeles
Private: Arlimgton CollegeArt Center SchoolAzusa CollegeBible Institute of Los AngelesCalifornia Baptist Theological SeminaryCalifornia College of CommerceCalifornia College of MedicineCalifornia Hospital School of NursingCalifornia Institute of TechnologyCalifornia Institute of the ArtsChurch Divinity School of the PacificClaremont Men's CollegeClaremont Graduate SchoolElectronic Technical InstituteFuller Theological SeminaryGlendale Sanitarium and Hospital School for
NursingHarvey Mudd CollegeHebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of ReligionHollywood Presbyterian Hospital School of NursingImmaculate Heart CollegeLaVerne CollegeLos Angeles College of ChiropracticLos Angeles College of OptometryLos Angeles County General Hospital School of
NursingLos Angeles Pacific CollegeLoyola University of Los AngelesMarymount CollegeMount St. Mary's CollegeMurphy Business CollegeNorthrup Institute of Technolf,gyOccidental CollegeOtis Art InstitutePacific Christian CollegePacific Coast University College of LawPacific Oaks CollegePasadena CollegePasadena Playhouse College of Theatre ArtsPepperdine CollegePomona CollegeQueen of Angels School of NursingSawyer SehOol of BusinessScripps CollegeSoutherg California School of Theolo4Southwestern UniversitySt. Vincent's College of Nursing
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ANb PRIVATE iNttifittidisis OF HibrinEDUCATION ti? tOUNTS' OP LOtATIONCanfirtued
County InstitutionSAN DIEGOContinued
Private : San Diego College for WomenSan Luis Rey CollegeSt. Francis Seminary,University of Sari Diego, College th Men
SAN FRANCISCOPublic: City College of San Francisco
Hastings College of LawSan Francisco State CollegeUniversity of California, San FranciScb Medical
Center
County InstitutionLOS ANGELESContinued
Private : University of JudaismUniversity of Southern CaliforniaWhittier College
MARINPublic :Private:
College of MarinDominican College of San RafaelGolden Gate Baptist Theological SeminarySin Francisco Theological Seminary
MERCEDPtblic : Merced College
MONTEREYPublic : Hartnell Colleg..
Monterey Peninsula CollegePrivate: Monterey Institute of Foreign Studies
7T A TA
Public : Napa Junior CollegePzivate: raalle Union College
ORANGLPublic : Fullerton Junior College
Orange Coast CollegeOrange State CollegeSanta Ana College
private : Chapman CollegeSouthern California CollegeSt. Joseph College of Orange
PLACERPublic : Sierra College
RIVERSIDEPublic: College of the Desert
Mt. San Jacinto CollegePalo Verde CollegeRiverside City CollegeUniversity of California, Riverside
Private : La Sierra CollegeOur Lady of Riverside SeminaryRiverside Bnsines.=, firairre
SACRAMENTOPublic : American River Junior College
Sacramento City CollegeSacramento State College
Private : Heald's Business CollegeHeald Engineering College
SAN BERNARDINOPublic : Barstow junior College
Chaffey CollegeSan Bernardino Valley CollegeVictor Valley College
Private : Loma Linda UniversitySkadron College of BusinessUniversity of RedlandsUpland College
SAN DIEGOPublic : Grossmont College
Oceanside-Carlsbad CollegePalomar CollegeSan Diego City CollegeSan Diego State CollegeSouthwestern CollegeUniversity of California, San Diego
Private : California Western UniversityElectronic Technical InstituteImmaculate Heart SeminaryMercy Hospital School of NsingParadise Valley School of Nursing
Private : California Podiatry CollegeCogswell Polyteelinical CollegeGolden Gate CollegeGrace Ball Secretarial SchoolHeald's Business CollegeHeald Engineering CollegeMary's Help Hospital School of NursingMusic and Arts Institute of San Francisco
con krt Th-44472%-:
San Francisco College for WomenSan 7.7z:Inrisco Conservative Baptist Theological
San Francisco Conservatory e MusicSimpson Bible CollegeSt. Francis Memorial Hospital School of NursingSt. Joseph College of NursingSt. Luke's Hospital, School of NursingUniversity of San FranciscoZweegman School for Medical Secretaries
SAN JOAQUINPublic: San Joaquin Delta CollegePrivate : San Joaquin General Hospital School of Nursing
University of the Pacific
SAN LUIS OBISPOPublic : California State Polytechnic College
SAN MATEOPublic: College of Sar. MatesPrivate : College of Notre Dame
Menlo CollegeSt. Patrick's College
SANTA BARBARAPublic : (Allan) Hancock College
Santa Barbara City CollegeUniversity of Califorria, Santa Barbara
Private : Knapp College of Nu, *.ngOld Mission Theological SeminarySanta Barbara Business CollegeWestmont College
SANTA CLARAPublic: Foothill College
Gavilan CollegeSan Jose City CollegeSan Jose State College
Private Alma CollegeO'Connor Hospital School of NursingSan Jose Hospital School of NursingSanta Clara County HospitalSt. Joseph's CollegeStanford UniversityUniversity of Santa Clara
SANTA C.tUZPublic: Cabrillo CollegePrivate : Bethany Bible College
SHASTAPublic : Shasta College
73
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHEREDUCATION BY COUNTY OF LOCATIONContinued
County InstitutionSISKIYOU
Public : College of the Siskiyous
SOLANOPublic :
SONOMAPublic:
California Maritime AcademyVallejo Junior College
Santa Rosa Junior CollegeSonoma State College
STANISLAUSPublic : Modesto Junior College
Stanislaus State CollegePrivate: Valley Commercial College
i4
County InstitutionTULARE
Public : College of the SequoiasPorterville College
VENTURAPublic: Ventura CollegePrivate : California Lutheran College
St. John's College
YOLOPublic : University of California, Davis
YUBAPublic : Yuba College
AREAS REPRESENTED AT THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ONPHYSICAL FACILITIES, SEPTEMBER 15-16, 1964CAMPUS
REQUESTED
1. Kern County: Bakersfield, Delano, Wasco, Edwards Air Force Base2. East Sin' Fernando Valley: Sun land, Tujunga, Burbank, Glendale3. Riverside: Corona4. Ventura County5. North Sacra:I:auto Valley: Red Bluff, Mt. Shasta, Redding6. Kings County: Hanford7. Fresno8. San Mateo9. Central Valley: Les Baeos
10. Tulare County11. Madera Co linty
Contra Costa Cointy
PART:CAt'gri'S AT tHE MEETINGS OF fHE COMMITTEE ON PHYSICAL FACILITIES.SEPTEMBER 15 AND 16, 1964-LOS ANGELES AND SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO MEETING, SEPTEPABili
20. Arnold A. Hoffman
22. Don Hillman-
23. L. C. Thompson
10. Senator Richard Dolwig11. Assemblyman Carl Britschgi12. Aaser,blyman Le, J. Ryan
21. Daniel S. Carlton
13. James Tormey14. Wallace Benson15. Harry Bostwick, Jr
16. Oliver Germino, Chairman17. Senator Walter Stiern18. George Gelman.19. Col. Ray Vandiver
2. H. Richard Maguire
3. Senator Robert D. 1Villiams4. James Roes
1. Senator Virgil O'Sullivan
5. Senator Hugh Burrs6. Milo RowellZ. ko4.12.-Reltrg8. Sloan McCormick9. H. K. Hunter
Name
24, Senator George Miller25. Assemblyman Jerome Waldie
Centre' Valley Comm.LegislatureKern CoChief of Staff, Edwards A.F. Base
Mt. Shasta C of C
Redding C of C
Tulare Bd. of Supv.
Chairman, Bd. of Sup*.
LegislatureLegislature
'Op in N. git4c; IQ*UC in N. SEicfc; Valley
UC in Kings Co.UC in Kings Co.
ITC in Fresno Co.ITC in Fresno Co.UC in Fresno Co.UC in Fran Co.UC in Fresno Co.
SC in Sas Mateo Co.SC in San Mateo Co.SC in San Mateo Co.SC in San Mateo Co.SC in San Matz Co.SC in San Mateo Co.
UC in Merced Co.SC or UC in KernSC or UC in KernSC or UC in Kern
UC or SC in Siskiyou
UC or SC in Shasta
UC or SC in Tulare
UC in Madera Co.
SC in Contra CostaSC in Contra Coate
75
PARTICIPANTS AT THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PHYSICAL FACILITIES
SEPTEMBER 15 AND 16, 1964LOS ANGELES AND SAN FRANCISCOContinued
LOS ANGELO MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15
Name Orgauization or Area Remarks
1. Senator Walter Stiern2. Assemblyman Jack T. Casey3. Assemblyman John C. Williamson4. Theron L. McCuen, Superintendent5. Edward Simonsen, President6. Harry E. Blair, Superintendent7. Gene Wiener8. Jesse Stockton9. Wallace E. Schaeffer
13. Assemblyman Tom Waite14. Stephen Newton15. Louis Nowell16. Bruce Whitaker17. Paul Burkhard18. Assemblyman Howard Thelin19. Dallas Williams20. Benjamin Cook21. Richard R. Rogan22. J. Stanley Warburton23. George Benson24. John Stallings25. Robert Anderson26. James Bennett27. Ronald Brill
28. Senator R. J. Lagomarsino29. Assemblyman Burt Henson30. Mrs. Milton Teague31. Norman Nicholson
Legislature_LegislatureLegislatureKern Co. H.S. Dist.Kern Co. J.C. Dist.Kern Co. Bd. of Ed.Mayor, BakersfieldFormer Co. Supt. SchoolsWasco NewsMember, Kern Co. Bd. of Ed.Mayor, DelanoGept, ui iz;u6uir$, rapt. limn° u or U
Legislature..Funland-Tujungs C of CL.A. City CouncilmanBurbank 4Sun Valley C of CLegislatureMayor, BurbankPresident, Burbank C of CZsro. L.A. Citizens Comm. for S.C.ASSOC. Supt. L.A. SchoolsAssoc. of Ind. CollegesSuperintendent, Corona SchoolsAdm. Ofcr., Riverside Co.Asst. Supt. of SchoolsMgr., Corona C of C
LegislatureLegislatureChairman, Ventura Comm. for SCMember, Ventura Comm. for SC
SC or UC in KernSC or UC in KernSC or UC in KernUC or SC in KernUC or SC in KernSC in Kerngo ;rt KenSC in KernSC in KernSC in KernSC in Delano
I t.; in Delano
SC in E. San FernandoSC in E. San Fernando .SC in E. San FernandoSC in E. San FerumuditSC in E. San FernandoSC in E. San FernandoSC in E. San FernandoSC in E. San FernandoSC in E. San FernandoNeed for State support for JCNeed for new private collegesSC in RiversideSC in RiversideSC in RiversideSC in Riverside
SC in VenturaSC in VenturaSC in VenturaSC in Ventura
