Concerns about UCSD’s out-of-date technology have spurred a proposed $5-per-unit quarterly technology fee that, if passed, would go into effect Fall Quarter 2010. The fee, capped at 16 units, would cost up to $80 per quarter for the maintenance of technology such as campus WiFi networks, computer labs and projectors.
The fee was proposed by Director of Academic Computing and Media Services Jeff Henry at the last A.S. Council meeting of Fall Quarter 2010.
Currently, the majority of campus technology is funded by a start-up grant that gave no room for the cost of future maintenance.
According to Henry, the fee would keep UCSD technology up-to-date and on par with improvements seen at other campuses. Improvements would include a better WiFi network, remote access to computer labs and higher resolution projectors.
“UCSD is falling behind,” Director of ACMS Christine Bagwell said. “Our instructional technology environment is not on par with even that offered at neighboring institutions, such as SDSU.”
Unlike many campuses, UCSD does not provide blanket WiFi access, as it experiences networking problems at some locations, such as the Tioga dorm building in Muir College, where free wireless access is not offered.
A.S. Associate Vice President of College Affairs Leonard Bobbit raised similar concerns about UCSD’s lagging technology services.
“UCSD does not have a technology fee, making it economically infeasible to keep up with all this new tech,” Bobbit said. “There is also no money to maintain technologies such as WebCT or even our WiFi system. UCSD is now in a situation where our current technology is outdated and falling apart.”
Bagwell said all undergraduates would benefit from improved technology.
“The fee covers items that affect every undergraduate student,” Bagwell said. “[Like], the wireless network in classrooms and places where students congregate has no funding source currently. I am a recent graduate myself and I can remember many times when I couldn’t connect to the wireless network in a lecture hall to view handouts on my instructor’s website because the network access point was overloaded.”
Bobbit said he is unsure of how much money is needed to close the technology gap, stating that the $5-per-unit fee may be an overestimate.
“The budget is based on what [Senior Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs’s office] believed they needed,” Bobbit said. “I can honestly tell you that the price is overinflated. By how much, I’m not sure. I’m not really sure how they came up with the idea that students need to pay per unit, or why it is being capped at 16 units, or why it is going to be so high. If I had to take a guess, they are doing it this way because ‘$5 per unit per quarter’ sounds a lot better than ‘$80 per quarter.”
But ACMS and the SVCAA drew up a budget stating otherwise. Based on the annual budget and the fees enacted at other UC schools, in order to maintain and improve UCSD technology, a $4 million annual budget with $1.1 million investment is necessary.
This fee proposal was drafted over the summer and submitted to council at the beginning of Fall Quarter.
Currently, a team of ACMS employees are working on incorporating feedback from A.S. Council into the proposal. Bobbit said the council believes the $5 rate is too high.
If the fee passes with Chancellor Marye Anne Fox’s approval, it will be UCSD’s first per-unit fee. Currently, student fees are charged per student or are calculated based on whether the student is full-time or part-time.
Though Bagwell said the fee was necessary to improve education quality, Bobbit said it is inflated and wasteful.
“Many of the proposed technologies are not even necessary — things such as universal laptop chargers in the library, remote access to computer labs, and higher resolution projectors — they would all make our lives easier but do we really need all of this if it means some students not receiving an education?” he said.
During Week Three, The final proposal will go to the Course Materials and Services Fee Committee, during Week Three. The committee will provide details to Fox, who will make the final decision.
