|
|
|
|
|
UC DAVIS: OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR; OFFICE OF THE PROVOST June 20, 2003 DEANS, DIRECTORS, DEPARTMENT CHAIRS, AND GRADUATE GROUP CHAIRS RE: UC Davis Policy on Nonresident Tuition Remission for Graduate Student Researchers Dear Colleagues: Over the past several months, the Joint Academic Senate/Administration Nonresident Tuition Remission Implementation Committee has discussed various models under which the campus might adopt a nonresident tuition remission policy for Graduate Student Researchers (GSRs). Members of the committee made numerous presentations to faculty groups and consulted broadly across the campus. Additional feedback was obtained via a web site established by the committee. The majority of groups and individuals who provided input, including the Representative Assembly of the Academic Senate, recognized that the campus needs some policy regarding remission of nonresident tuition from gifts, grants, and contracts in order to strengthen our efforts in research and graduate education. Based on this extensive consultation, the Joint Committee recommended that the nonresident tuition remission policy should be based on the Cost by Residency Model. Under this model, nonresident tuition for GSR's would be charged to the fund source that also pays the stipend to that individual. This model also received the endorsement of the Graduate Council. I have accepted the recommendation of the committee. Effective Fall Quarter 2004, nonresident students who are appointed as GSRs will receive nonresident tuition as a benefit of their appointment. Under this policy, it is expected that this benefit will be charged to the same fund source (gift, grant, or contract) that pays the GSR stipend. In preparation for implementation of this policy, faculty may include nonresident tuition remission as a budget item on any grant proposal submitted on or after July 1, 2003. This charge must be included on grant proposals submitted after October 1, 2003, when there is a reasonable expectation of hiring a nonresident graduate student on that grant. The Academic Senate committees and other groups raised a number of questions that must be addressed in order for the campus to fully implement this policy. Among the key questions is whether block grant funds can be substituted for grant funds to pay the nonresident tuition benefit. Proposed answers to many of the questions that were raised during the consultation are provided in the attached document developed by the committee. I want to emphasize that these answers are preliminary and are provided only as a guide at this time. I have asked Dean Gibeling to work with the Academic Senate committees, particularly the Graduate Council, Committee on Research, and Committee on Academic Planning and Budget Review, to develop a detailed set of procedures to implement this new policy. In addition, Dean Gibeling will solicit advice on how to utilize the $600,000 of new campus funds that I will allocate for graduate student support as a matching commitment to the nonresident tuition remission program. I recognize that implementation of a nonresident tuition remission policy represents a significant change for our campus. I appreciate the many contributions of faculty to research and graduate education, and I am committed to strengthening our investments in these two important areas. Best regards, Virginia S. Hinshaw Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Attachment Nonresident Tuition Remission Policy Questions and Preliminary Answers Broad campus consultation regarding the most appropriate model for a nonresident tuition remission (NRTR) policy generated a number of questions that need to be answered before the policy can be fully implemented. These questions will be referred to standing committees of the Academic Senate. However, the Joint Senate/Administration Implementation Committee recommended preliminary answers to several of the questions. These answers are provided here as a guide to assist faculty and programs in planning for implementation of the nonresident tuition remission policy. Which model will the new campus policy follow? Nonresident tuition will be provided as a benefit to all students who are appointed as Graduate Student Researchers and who owe nonresident tuition. The amount due will be charged the funding source that provides the student's stipend. This has been identified as the Cost by Residency Model in campus discussions. The cost will be the full amount of nonresident for Master's students and Ph.D. students not advanced to candidacy or 25% of that amount for Ph.D. students who are advanced to candidacy and are within the 3-year time limit on reduced nonresident tuition. Will the existing block grant funds be reduced under this new policy? No. One of the primary goals of the new policy is to increase the amount of graduate student support funding. Existing block grant funds will be maintained, and the Provost will provide a new allocation of $600,000 for graduate student support. How will the Provost's matching contribution ($600,000) be used to support graduate students? The Academic Senate committees will be asked to provide advice to the Dean of Graduate Studies on this matter. How is NRTR to be budgeted in a grant proposal? Nonresident tuition remission should be budgeted along with in-state fees as "Fee and Tuition Remission." When submitting a research grant proposal, each Principal Investigator will need to estimate the number of nonresident students he/she expects to support on a given grant. Normal agency and campus policies will apply to rebudgeting of NRTR costs on funded grants. Will NRTR be subject to indirect costs? Under current campus policy, if a granting agency pays the full federally-negotiated indirect cost rate, the costs of in-state fees and nonresident tuition are not subject to indirect costs. However, if an agency does not provide indirect cost recovery at the full rate, campus policy is that indirect costs are to be assessed on these items. Should we alter the policy that NRTR is subject to indirect costs when an agency does not pay the full indirect cost rate? The committee made no recommendation at this time. This matter requires further analysis of current policy and practice. Will the campus permit substitution NRTR from block grant funds or from any other sources in lieu of using funds from gifts, grants, and contracts? Yes, during the transition to the new NRTR procedures, block grant funds can be used to substitute for NRTR from the hiring fund source. The decision to make such a substitution rests with the individual graduate programs, since they control the use of their block grants. The transition period will be for 3 years beginning in Fall 2004. The Academic Senate committees will be asked for advice on whether this substitution should be permitted beyond the transition period. There are a number of fund sources that are used to hire GSRs that may not provide NRTR. These include work-study, state funds (19900), faculty start-up funds, Faculty Research Grants awarded by the Committee on Research, small grant awards that can't support NRTR and agencies that won't pay NRTR by policy. In some cases, it may be necessary to limit GSR appointments on such programs to resident students. Alternatively, substitution of NRTR from other fund sources may be permitted, either under the final policy or by exception. Additional consultation is needed on this topic in order to understand the magnitude of the problem. Some international GSRs receive nonresident tuition support from their home government but an inadequate stipend. Will it be necessary to provide NRTR from campus sources in these cases and forego the funds available from the home government? The final implementation procedures will allow substitution of funds from external agencies in such cases. What exceptions to the NRTR policy, if any, will be permitted? That is, will there be any option of not providing NRTR to GSRs? The Academic Senate committees will be asked for input on this matter. Will this policy affect all GSRs or only those who are appointed for the first time in Fall, 2004? All students who are appointed to GSR positions will receive the NRTR benefit effective Fall, 2004. What should be the trigger point for the NRTR benefit? The committee recommends that the NRTR benefit be triggered at 25% time appointment. This is the same as the trigger point for in-state fees, which simplifies administrative matters. This is also the minimum appointment level permitted on campus. Setting the trigger point at 25% means that a student appointed as a 25% TA and a 25% GSR will receive the nonresident tuition remission as a benefit of the GSR appointment. Finally, the committee felt that the 25% trigger would ensure that a student receives a consistent benefit if his/her appointment percentages change from quarter to quarter. Should we consider providing only a partial nonresident tuition benefit? The NRTR benefit should be for the full amount owed by the student for each quarter. Will both Master's and Ph.D. students appointed as GSRs receive the nonresident tuition benefit? The committee recommended that no distinction be made, especially since students often enter as Master's students before being formally admitted to the Ph.D. program. Should the benefit be available only for limited time since admission or advancement to candidacy? Should there be a "good academic progress" criterion? Students must be in good academic standing and within the normative time to degree for the program to receive the NRTR benefit. Should there be a cap on % nonresident students in a program (applies mainly to Average Cost Model)? The committee felt that this question was not relevant to the Cost by Residency Model, since there will be no redistribution of resources between programs. Should the NRTR benefit be limited to the first year for US citizens and permanent residents? Yes. How do we handle combined appointments (we should not double collect when funding sources for the stipend are split)? When a student is funded from multiple fund sources using a split GSR appointment, the NRTR charge should be split in the same proportion as the stipend payment. However, if the student is supported as a 25% GSR and 25% TA, the GSR appointment will provide the full nonresident tuition benefit. Can we and/or should we provide any NRTR benefit to TAs? The current policy discussion considered only to students hired on research appointments. Programs can continue to allocate block grant funds as nonresident tuition fellowships for TAs and other students. Do we need any rule that students should receive the NRTR benefit for the entire year so that students are not moved into and out of qualifying for the benefit on a quarterly basis? The committee did not believe that this would be a problem if the trigger point for the nonresident tuition benefit is set at 25% time appointment. The expectation is that students will receive the NRTR benefit in a consistent manner from quarter to quarter when they are appointed as GSRs. 03-074
 Office of the Chancellor | Contact Information | Current Issues | Speaking Out | Staff and Organization | Philosophy of Purpose | Principles of Community | Administrative Resources Modified: 12/14/2006 12:24:04 PM Comments: |
