Eliminate the Lower Divisions : UC and CSU students should spend their first two years getting an AA at community college. It would save money for students and taxpayers.

Two years ago Richard Moore, then president of Santa Monica College, proposed a ballot initiative that would eliminate all freshman/sophomore courses from the University of California and California State University, thereby requiring roughly 100,000 students to start their college careers at one of California’s 107 two-year community colleges.

Today the Moore proposal makes even more sense than it did two years ago, especially in view of a recent study that said UC and CSU should cut back on research and graduate-degree programs. The study by David W. Breneman of Harvard, an expert on higher-education finance, concluded that, faced with budget troubles, California ought to shift resources to pay for the huge increases in undergraduates we can expect in the next few years.

A number of us who oppose Breneman’s conclusions are reviving the Moore proposal as a matter for current debate by forming our own advocacy group, Californians for Community College Equity. We intend to lobby for it and put it on the ballot if possible. Let’s look at what it would give Californians:

* Better quality juniors and seniors in the UC/CSU systems .

Today students who transfer to state universities from community colleges outperform students who enter UC and CSU as freshmen, as indicated by grade-point averages and other measures. This superiority in transfer performance may be due to higher homework requirements at two-year colleges. Or it may be due to the fact that transferring students are more mature when they show up at universities. Whatever the reason is, it’s clear the Moore proposal will improve the quality of upper division work at UC/CSU, along with removing the need for current hysteria about college admissions and SAT scores. Let them all in, let them all compete, let the best transfer--what’s wrong with that?

* A decrease in the need for taxpayer support.

Community college instruction costs are quite low: $2,000 per year of state tax support for each full-time student, as opposed to roughly $12,000 for UC and $6,000 for CSU. If our 100,000 UC/CSU students take their lower-division courses at community colleges, the savings for taxpayers will be more than half a billion dollars a year: $200 million for 20,000 UC students, $320 million for 80,000 CSU students. While some of the money saved should be used to reduce taxes, most of it should be earmarked for tuition reduction--maybe a 20% across-the-board cut for all students in state colleges and universities.

* Lower total tuition costs for students .

A UC student starting as a freshman can expect to pay roughly $16,000 in tuition and fees to earn a baccalaureate degree; a CSU student, roughly $8,000. If these students take their freshman and sophomore courses at community colleges, where tuition is only $375 a year, their overall cost is almost cut in half: $8,650 for the UC student, $4,650 for the CSU student. This would let students put off sinking into the student loan swamp until they reached a point where financial assistance truly made career sense, as in post-baccalaureate professional school training. The economist Lester Thurow, incidentally, has commented on the crippling effect of undergraduate student debt upon graduate school enrollments.

* A better chance for “late bloomers.”

Persistence and motivation are essential educational virtues, more than performance upon fill-the-bubble tests. As parents and grandparents, haven’t we all seen feckless 18-year-olds gradually evolve into mature, responsible adults at 23 or more? And doesn’t it make sense for immature young people to start their careers at community colleges, setting their sights higher as they mature year by year? Doesn’t it make sense for all high school graduates to earn an associate in arts degree first , as opposed to dropping out a year before graduation from UC or CSU? The Moore proposal may neglect the interests of a few precocious 18-year-olds, but the vast majority of California high school graduates will benefit from it, along with California’s recovering economy.

* A better partnership between regional business and regional post-secondary education .

California college students are not a pack of irresponsible loafers. The average CSU student works 30 hours a week at an outside job, in the process paying a substantial amount in state and federal income taxes. What non-Californians don’t understand is that California higher education is actually a network of regional post-secondary educational systems in which UC branches and CSUs are each flanked by a number of “feeder” community colleges, thereby permitting students to work and go to school close to where they live.

Regional business supports the system by giving students entry-level jobs. The colleges support regional business by producing a supply of highly capable graduates, most of whom stay in the region as productive citizens. Elementary schools, high schools, vocational schools, community colleges, CSU and UC--they all form part of a system that works far more smoothly than most of us realize.

The Moore proposal should be taken seriously, even by educators who want to protect their academic turf. Apart from reducing costs and making tuition increases unnecessary, it will improve the overall quality of California education, and it most certainly will improve higher-education opportunities for the vast majority of California high school graduates. It is a better agenda item for Gov. Pete Wilson than divisive matters such as merit pay.