Alexi Shalom6/6/13MHC 250

A Free, Accessible, and Democratic Education at the City University

of New York

With the approval of yet another tuition hike at the City University of New

York (CUNY) to the tune of $1,500 over five years (Pérez-Peña, 2011), the question

of who CUNY is supposed to serve has risen to the forefront, now that increases

totaling $900 since the Spring 2011 semester have taken effect. These hikes will

culminate in the 2015-2016 school year, leaving undergraduate four-year college

tuition at $6,330 (Pérez-Peña, 2011), which, while noticeably lower than tuition at

many universities both public and private around the country, still remain a large

obstacle to working-class students who wish to attend college.

The continued increasing shift of the burden of funding CUNY from the

budgets of New York State and New York City to pockets of New York City students

marks a neoliberal trend beginning in the 1970’s with the gradual repeal of social

welfare reforms enacted in the period between 1930 and 1970. With this trend of

increased tuition we also see, in recent years, more and more youth who are both

unemployed and simultaneously not enrolled in school. As of 2012, 20% of New

Yorkers between the age of 18-24 were both unemployed and not enrolled in school

(Bischof, 2012), a statistic which should be attributed to both a lack of good jobs and

lack of access to affordable higher education. For these youths, many from

underprivileged backgrounds, a bachelor’s degree would make employment 20%

more probable (Hall, 2013) and a lifetime earnings total of a million dollars more

1

than if they only held a high school diploma (Fitzgerald, 2012). With many youth

unemployed and almost half of New Yorkers living in poverty or near-poverty

(Roberts, 2013), these potential students are stuck in a feedback loop where they

cannot afford to pay for college because they cannot get a (well-paying) job, and

they cannot get a (well-paying) job because they cannot afford to pay for college.

Of course, financial issues are not the only obstacle preventing working-class

students from attending CUNY. There is also the issue of admissions standards and

remedial education, which ended at senior colleges in 1999 with the end of open

admissions. These admissions standards, which force students who are not deemed

“college-ready” into community colleges, where they cannot receive bachelor’s

degrees and must pay for remedial classes without receiving college credit. This is

certainly a barrier to higher education for many youth in New York City.

Particularly among Black and Latino communities college readiness is incredibly

low, with only 13% of Black students and 15% of Latino students graduating

prepared for college (Shapiro, 2012). This signifies that over 85% of Black and

Latino students will be unable to attend senior colleges and will pay extra for

remedial classes which will not be accredited toward any degree, leading to the

massive CUNY drop-out rate of students in remedial programs of 73% (New York

Daily News, 2011). The question then should be posed of how to remove these

barriers, which disproportionately affect immigrants and communities of color in

New York City. One solution that has previously been offered to at least the financial

problems of students are student loans, which have subsequently left millions in

hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, after college, thus almost negating the

2

financial benefits of a college degree itself. It seems that the only answer for New

York City is to provide free, quality, higher education to all high school graduates

through the City University New York, facilitated by the repeal of the Stock Transfer

Tax Rebate and the restoration of remedial courses to four year institutions.

Additionally, it is important that such a victory be upheld and protected, once it is

gained, and thus the governance of CUNY must be shifted from a technocratic,

business-oriented Board of Trustees appointed by the Mayor and Governor, to a

democratically elected board of students, faculty, staff, and community members for

whom CUNY is supposed to work. While these suggestions may seem controversial,

they will be categorically addressed later in this paper.

A Brief History of Tuition and Admission Standards at the City University of

New York

The City University of New York was initially founded as the Free Academy in

1847 with the stated purpose of providing free higher education to the “children of

the whole people” (Gunderson, 2003). From its birth, the Free Academy, which

would later expand into the larger CUNY system, was driven by the will of the

people, having been initiated as a result of a popular referendum (Katz, 1976).

CUNY, while free for over 125 years, however, institutionalized restrictions on who

could attend, effectively limiting enrollment to White protestants from 1847-1882

by limiting admission to graduates of public school (to the exclusion of Catholic

schools), and then doing away with “open” admissions in 1927 by mandating a

minimum 72% high school average as a condition for admission. Admission

3

standards grew and grew, until in 1963, an 87% high school average was necessary

for admission to Brooklyn College. These admission standards in the 20th century

were largely to the exclusion of Black and Latino youth, whose total student

population was 1,500 in 1968, almost all exclusively enrolled via the SEEK

(remedial) program, although they made up 40-45% of the total public high school

system (Gunderson, 2003). In 1969, Black and Puerto Rican students rose up

against this injustice and initiated a student strike and occupation at City College,

demanding proportional racial representation in CUNY. Their actions led to the

policy of open admissions, that same year, which allowed any high school graduate

to attend CUNY, regardless of their grade point average, free of charge (Meyers,

1997). By 1976, CUNY’s population had gone from 5% minority students, to

majority-minority, and the number of students enrolled had quadrupled. In that

same year, tuition was imposed on students for the first time in the institution’s

history, when, President Ford refused to bail New York City out of the Fiscal Crisis of

1975, leading to deep cuts to city social services, and, subsequently the charging of

tuition. These fees, then led to a decrease, within one year, in enrollment by 70,000

students and the resumption of a majority White student body (Gunderson, 2003).

Tuition incrementally increased in the period after 1976, and, in 1999, the Board of

Trustees effectively did away with open admissions at CUNY by removing remedial

classes from CUNY’s Senior Colleges and instituting GPA and SAT score

requirements. These policies led to a decrease in Black enrollment by 4% overall

from 1999-2005, and at some campuses, upwards of a 9% decrease in African-

4

American enrollment (JBHE, 2007). And so, here CUNY now stands with tuition fees

upwards of $6000 a year and heavy academic requirements for entry.

Implementation of Open Admissions

An open admissions policy is crucial to ensuring the true accessibility of the

City University of New York to young New Yorkers, as well as ensuring proportional

racial representation, without the exclusion of certain groups, particularly Latinos

and African-Americans. The debate over open admissions, in general, comes down

to the question of the purpose of college: is it a social sorting institution or an

institution that serves to provide social mobility to people? If we determine the

later, then we must also question what there is truly to be gained from selective

admissions. In fact, “what a policy of selective admissions does—and with no

compelling educational reason—is to educate those students who have already

attained relatively high levels of cognitive and noncognitive development while

excluding precisely those high school graduates who would benefit most, with

respect to value added, from attending college” (Karabel, 1972). Therefore, if we

determine that CUNY, as was its original mission, must serve as an institution of

restitution to right the wrongs of the past and give social mobility and knowledge to

disadvantaged people, we must do away with all admissions requirements at the

City University for New York City residents, and restore remedial education to the

senior colleges.

Remedial classes should be divided into several tiers, which would allow for

an appropriate amount of credits to be accrued based on the context and level of

5

each class, thus addressing both the issues of potentially devalued degrees and of

those concerned that remediation will lead to a bloated population of students who

must remain in these institutions until they are sufficiently remediated (Table 4.).

On the first tier are those classes for which students will receive no credit. These

include basic reading and writing, basic arithmetic, and other basic skills below a

sixth grade level. Students will receive no college credit for these classes because

they do not consist of any new information since primary and secondary education.

Half credit will be assigned to the majority of remedial classes, which will be jointly

taken with standard college classes. For example, MATH 020 (Remedial) should be

taken jointly with MATH 100, which normally necessitates proficiency in solving

linear equations. Remedial students will take both classes concurrently, filling in

the gaps as they go, and receiving the normal 3 credits for their MATH 100 class,

while receiving 1.5 credits for their remedial MATH 050 course. These credits are

given because they directly contributed, as an auxiliary to the MATH 100 course,

and thus should be counted towards the degree. Finally, the last tier of remedial

classes will exist for classes with lab or discussion sections. Students who are

deemed remedial in these subjects will be mainstreamed into the larger lecture

class, but then also focused into a single discussion section, which will facilitate

extra academic assistance as needed. Students will receive the full 4 credits for

passing the lab course, which will ultimately count towards their degree.

The key to open admissions lies in the guarantee of a seat for every high

school graduate in New York City. The problem could be fairly posed of why it is the

duty of CUNY to rectify the issues of the public primary and secondary school

6

systems, diverting resources in order to tackle an issue which does not truly belong

to CUNY. It should remain clear, with regard to this issue, that remediation is a

transitional period which may be used until such time that the public school system

corrects the racial inequalities inherent in that institution. There exists precedence

for the CUNY system to attempt to rectify these racial inequalities in the period

between 1969 and 1999, while no such precedence exists in the public school

system. Therefore, remediation should exist only until such a point that the

secondary school system has shifted into such a place that people of color,

immigrants, and working-class people are not receiving lower quality educations

than their white or upper-class counterparts. Once this educational issue has been

solved remediation can be phased out, but until that point, CUNY must offer

remediation as a crucial part of open admissions in order to ensure access to

marginalized communities.

Additionally, given the new population that will inevitably enter CUNY as a

result of open admissions, it is important that the college focus resources towards

the expansion of language, ethnic studies, gender studies, and labor studies

departments at each campus. This curriculum is necessary for the college to remain

relevant to a newly formed base which will consist largely of English Language

Learners, immigrants, and people of color. In order to create a community of

understanding within CUNY, these classes must not only be offered, but part of the

General Education Requirements of CUNY, that all students learn about the

marginalized histories of people of color, women, and workers in the United States

so as to create a campus community which is built upon diversity within solidarity

7

rather than racial strife. This would ultimately mean the repeal of the new so-called

Pathways Initiative which abolishes pluralism and diversity requirements in favor

of a more STEM-oriented curriculum. However, a core curriculum would still be a

necessary requirement under open admissions, as it would be a barrier to the

micro-recreation of the restrictive admissions standards within the different

colleges (with some being of “higher” quality than others). To that end, a core

curriculum, which takes into account historically marginalized voices,

must eventually be decided upon jointly by students and faculty

Implementation of Free Tuition

Free Tuition at the City University of New York could become a very feasible

reality through a number of tax allocation plans. Of these, the most direct method to

raise money would be through the partial repeal of the Stock Transfer Tax Rebate by

the New York State Legislature and the Governor of New York. The Stock Transfer

Tax currently charges between $.01 and $.05 (depending on the price per share) of

all stocks that are sold within New York State. However, currently, there also exists

in place a 100% rebate of these funds after a claim is filed, leaving the State with no

tax revenue from the millions of stock transfers that occur each day in the New York

Stock Exchange (New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, 2010). The

general repeal of the Stock Transfer Tax Rebate would generate over $16 billion

dollars in tax revenue, and, if the rebate were lowered by just 20%, New York State

could generate $3.2 billion dollars. Comparatively, if the rebate were lowered by

33%, New York State could generate $5.3 billion dollars while charging a negligible

8

amount on stock transfers (Deutsch, 2009). The current total CUNY budget amounts

to about $2.8 billion including almost half of funding coming from the tuition of

students (City University of New York, 2012). If we assume, for the moment that the

CUNY population does not increase as a result of the elimination of tuition, and we

ignore the question of open admissions for a moment then the entirety of the CUNY

budget could be paid for by a reduction of the tax rebate by merely 20% over four

years (Table 1.), amounting to an average of $.006 per transaction, less than a penny.

If, however, we assume that the population doubles within four years, again

discounting open admissions (Table 2.), we can still see that the Stock Transfer Tax

Rebate would only need to be reduced by 45% in order to account for this double in

population and budget, which equates to an average of a $.0135 tax per transaction,

again just about a penny. Finally, addressing the issue of open admissions and

assuming similar increases in the rate of enrollment as those in 1969-1975, with the

enrolled population quadrupling (Table 3.), the Rebate would have to be lowered to

30% (a 70% cut) over four years, weighing in at an average of a $.02 per transaction

fee. Alternatively, other funding sources could be used by New York City to

supplement the Stock Transfer Tax, lowering the effective tax rate and the State’s

overall contribution to CUNY. These include $1.2 billion in savings (7.5% in

potential earnings of the Stock Transfer Tax), which could be obtained through New

York City’s demand for the end of subsidies for banks, the restoration of the

Millionaires’ Tax, and taxing hedge fund profits, among other current tax loopholes

(Kink, 2011). The question of whether businesses and brokerages, of course, would

flee New York City given such a tax is legitimate. However, it should be understood

9

that $.02 could hardly cause such a flight, and that, given the location of the New

York Stock Exchange, the biggest Stock Exchange in the world, in New York City, it

seems doubtful that brokerages will leave New York City any time soon.

Additionally, once enrollment bottlenecks after an initial surge of students who

graduated high school long ago and are only now able to access a college education

now that it is free, the costs will be much less, and the CUNY system will only be

primarily responsible for guaranteeing a seat for each of the some 52,000 students

who graduate every year from public high school, rather than the multitudes that

will enroll in the first five to ten years of free tuition. This will lead to lower costs

and a potential restoration of the formerly collected portion of the Tax Rebate after

the first few years of free tuition, along with funds becoming available for capital

investments within the university to increase quality of life and the quality of

education. However, it is incredibly important that the initial influx of funds be

sufficient enough to tackle this primary surge of formerly excluded students, which

was the problem of the 1969-1975 period, leading to the insolvency of the

institution due to lack of funds. Additionally, the implementation of free tuition via

the partial repeal of the Stock Transfer Tax Rebate will allow for approximately $1.4

billion dollars in State funds and $292 million dollars in city to be distributed to

other social projects in New York State and City, filling budget gaps left by previous

administrations. Finally, the end of tuition fees could act as an indirect stimulus for

students, leaving them with an average of $4200 dollars extra in their pockets at the

end of the four-year phase-out of tuition which could then serve to stimulate the

economy, given their high marginal propensity to spend, and create more jobs for

10

them to fill once these students have graduated from CUNY (City University of New

York, 2012).

Restructuring of CUNY Governance

The CUNY Board of Trustees, currently CUNY’s highest body of governance, is

made up of sixteen voting members, of which one is a student, elected by the

University Student Senate, ten are appointed by the Governor of New York, and the

rest are appointed by the Mayor of New York City. There is also one professor,

elected by the University Faculty Senate, who sits on the Board but does not hold

voting rights (City University of New York, 2008). These trustees are largely

business people with little to no immediate connection to the City University of New

York, and, as such, cannot be trusted to uphold free tuition and open admissions

should these gains be won. Therefore, the CUNY Board of Trustees must be

abolished by the New York State Legislature and the CUNY governance structure

should be reconvened as a democratic Board of Higher Education, comprised by a

third of students, elected by their peers, a third of faculty and staff, elected by their

co-workers, and a third of community members elected directly by residents of New

York City. A potential governance structure can be seen in Figure 1. These

constituencies, which consist of those directly affected by the CUNY system, can be

trusted to hold to interests of the most affected communities in making decisions

about the CUNY system, rather than making “smart” business decisions which

represent the will of a technocratic elite rather than the democratic will of the

people. Individual campuses must also eliminate the technocratic academic

11

governance system in order to protect the discretionary funding of third world,

labor, and gender studies from the mayor-appointed presidents of the CUNY college,

many of whom, including the President of Hunter College, Jennifer Raab, have no

prior educational experience whatsoever (Franck, 2001). Again, here, campus

bureaucracies should be slimmed down, redistributing funds to student services

and faculty/staff salaries, and top administrators should be replaced by councils of

faculty, staff, students, and community who may elect an executive from among

them to carry out the day-to-day executive functions of the college. This will allow

campuses to maintain autonomy from the potential political leanings and nepotism

of the mayor and the governor, and ensure and campus which works for those it is

meant to serve. In all cases of governance of the City University system, the

yardstick of decision-making to the extent affected must be used, rather than the

current system of making technocratic, “business-smart” decisions in an non-

transparent manner. An economistic perspective towards the governance of CUNY

i.e. governing CUNY as if it were a business leads to policies that are bad in the long

run for the people CUNY is supposed to protect, because this thinking rationalizes

policies such as tuition fees, general academic exclusion, highly-exclusive honors

programs, where honors is not a challenge but instead a prize that comes with

immediately tangible awards, and the exclusion (whether direct or indirect) of

“under-performing” racial and socioeconomic groups.

Addressing Potential Criticisms

12

Several potential criticism of this proposed plan can be anticipated, and so

they will be addressed categorically in this section. Primarily the argument about

free tuition and open admission at institutions of public higher education is one

between those who hold a fundamental belief in the role of the state in social

programs and those who hold that the state should have no involvement in the

average daily life of citizens, instead allowing the market to regulate the prices of

everything, including education. We will not attempt to enter this debate which is

more abstract and philosophical than it is material, but rather confront some major

concrete points of criticism of a free, democratic, and accessible CUNY.

First among arguments is to compare CUNY’s tuition to the rest of the

country’s universities, both public and private and conclude that CUNY students

should not be advocating for free tuition on the basis that CUNY provides one of the

cheapest educations in world. To counter this argument we must first understand

that access to education must be considered a right and not a privilege, much like

air, water, free speech, or the right to a trial. Education is the one force besides

nepotism which can propel people from lower socioeconomic statuses into higher

ones, and as such, must be considered the right to life, as an education can truly

mean the difference between employment and unemployment, which, in many cases

can mean the right to life. Now that we have established this equivalency, we should

take a look at the commodification of other so-called “rights”—water, for example,

in some packaging can cost upwards of ten dollars a bottle, while it is fairly

undisputable that access to clean water is a universal right without having to pay a

fee. If all water were commoditized, and the city provided it for a fee of one dollar a

13

bottle, would residents not be correct in advocating for free water, despite the fact

that they are getting a comparatively better deal than those who are willing to pay

ten dollars a bottle? Of course not, and so the same goes with education—just

because some people are paying exorbitant fees, does not mean others should be

satisfied with significantly lower, but still out of reach for some, fees for education.

The question of diminishing quality also comes into play with an increased

population with a lower set of skills coming into CUNY. However, this is simply a

falsehood, spread by those who wish, once again, for the purpose of higher

education to be social sorting rather than reparations, social mobility, and truly

educative purposes. In fact, previous issues with Open Admissions have almost

entirely come from poor implementation on the part of administrators and an

unwillingness to fund such projects from legislators. Additionally, such failures of

open admissions have been categorically overstated, where CUNY’s dropout rate

under open admissions stayed at 50%, similar to the national average.

Furthermore, in many institutions which have previously held a policy of open

admissions, it can be seen that there was no academic between upperclassmen

students enrolled as a result of open admission policies and their counterparts who

would have been accepted whether or not open admissions was in place (Harrison,

1979).

The issue of financial feasibility have also already been addressed, but it is

important to simply reiterate the number of possible tax plans that could fund free

tuition with open admission while not only having a neutral effect on the economy,

but also with the possibility that these policies could actually stimulate the economy

14

of New York State. Furthermore, it could fairly be said that as a result of such a

funding scheme, CUNY funding would be subject to the whim of the market.

However, when realizing that CUNY was free through both World Wars, the Great

Depression, and the Vietnam War, it seems unlikely that either high federal

spending or market downturns could affect aid to tuition—only manufactured crises

like the one in 1975 could complete that task.

Conclusion

In summary, in order to rectify the racial and socioeconomic problems of the

public secondary school system and society as a whole it is crucial that the New

York State Legislature repeal all tuition fees from the City University of New York

which can be implemented via the partial repeal of 20%-70% of the Stock Transfert

Tax Rebate. Additionally, an education at CUNY should be guaranteed to all

residents of New York City with a high school degree, and, in order to ensure these

students succeed, to implement a program of remediation, with tiers of remedial

classes which may lead to a credited degree. Finally, in order to protect these gains,

the appointed Board of Trustees must be replaced by a democratically elected Board

of Higher Education, which consists of students, faculty/staff, and community

members.

15

Bibliography

Ballard, Allen B. The Education of Black Folk: The Afro-American Struggle for Knowledge in White America. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1973.

Bischof, Jackie. “Youth Unemployment by the Numbers, From NYC to the U.S.” The Wall Street Journal 12 July. 2012. Web. 3 June 2013.

City University of New York. Office of Budget, Finance and Fiscal Policy. CUNY 2008-2012 Master Plan

City University of New York. Office of Budget, Finance and Fiscal Policy, CUNY 2013–2014 Budget Request

Crocco, Francesco. “Public Higher Education at CUNY” Qui Parle 20.1: 219-232.

“CUNY’s Black Students Are Once Again Under the Budget-Cutting Knife.” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 12 (1996): 24-25.

“CUNY dropout rates show public schools aren’t preparing kids.”New York Daily News. 26 November 2011. Web. 3 June 2013.

Deutsch, Ron. “Better Choice Budget Campaign Fact Sheet.” New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness. 2009. Web. 3 June 2013.

Farago, John M. and Weinman, Janice. “The Decline in CUNY Applications: Who and How Come.” Research in Higher Education 8.3 (1978): 193-203.

Fitzgerald, Jay “College degree is costly but it pays off over time.” The Boston Globe. 7 October 2012. Web. 3 June 2013.

Franck, Elizabeth. “Night of the Hunter: College in Chaos After Raab’s Hire.” New York Observer. 26 February 2001. Web. 3 June 2013

Gunderson, Christopher. "The Struggle for CUNY: A History of the CUNY Student Movement, 1969-1999." Diss. City University of New York, 2003.

Hall, Sarah Hofius. “College educated more likely to have job” The Scranton Times Tribune. 17 March 2013. Web. 3 June 2013.

Harrison, Benjamin T. and Rayburn, Wendell G. “Open Admissions Does Not Kill Colleges.” Peabody Journal of Education 56.2 (1979): 144-153

Healy, Timothy S. “The Case for Open Admissions: New Problems: New Hopes.” Change 5.6 (1973): 24-29.

16

Hing, Julianne. “The Student Aid Reform Victory is a Win for Students of Color.” Colorlines.com 26 March 2010. Web. 3 June 2013.

Karabel, Jerome. “Open Admissions: Towards Meritocracy or Democracy.” Change 4.4 (1972): 38-43.

Katz, Jeffrey M. “Letter from the Barricades: What Price CUNY?” Change 8.5 (1976): 45-47

Kink, Michael. Pay Back Time: $1.5 Billion Ways To Save Our City's Budget And Make the Big Banks Pay. Rep. On May 12 Coalition 2011.

Meyers, Bart. “In Defense of CUNY.” The Radical Teacher 53 (1998): 33-37

Meyers, Bart. “The CUNY Wars.” Social Text 51 (1997): 119-130.

Muñoz, Carolina B. “A Dream Deferred: Undocumented Students at CUNY” The Radical Teacher 84 (2009): 8-17.

“New Admissions Rules at the City University of New York Will Further Curtail Black Student Enrollment at CUNY’s Four Year Colleges.” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 57 (2007): 36-37.

Pérez-Peña, Richard. "Amid Protests by Students and Others, CUNY Trustees Vote to Raise Tuition." The New York Times., 28 Nov. 2011. Web. 3 June 2013.

Roberts, Sam. “City Report Shows More Were Near Poverty in 2011.” The New York Times. 21 April 2013. Web. 3 June 2013.

Shapiro, Julie. “Most Black and Latino Students Unprepared for College, Study Says.” DNAinfo New York. 24 October 2012. Web. 3 June 2012.

“Stock Transfer Tax.” The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. 29 November 2010. Web. 5 June 2013.

17

Tables and Figures

Table 1. If CUNY Population Remained the Same (No Open Admission)Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

STT Rebate 100% 95% 90% 85% 80%Tuition(millions)

$1,210.5 $943.8 $556.4 $156.35 $0

City Support(millions)

$291.7 $25 $0 $0 $0

Non-STT State Aid(millions)

$1,381.9 $1115.2 $727.8 $327.75 $0

STT Revenue(millions)

$0 $800 $1600 $2400 $3200

Total Aid(millions)

$2.821.1 $2.821.1 $2.821.1 $2.821.1 $2.821.1

(Figures from City University of New York, 2012 and Deutsch, 2009)

Table 2. If CUNY Population Doubled Within 4 Years (No Open Admissions)Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

STT Rebate 100% 88.75% 77.5% 66.25% 55%Tuition(millions)

$1,210.5 $943.8 $556.4 $156.35 $0

City Support(millions)

$291.7 $25 $0 $0 $0

Non-STT State Aid(millions)

$1,381.9 $1115.2 $727.8 $327.75 $0

STT Revenue(millions)

$0 $1800 $3600 $5400 $7200

Projected NecessaryTotal Aid(millions)

$2821.1 $3500 $4500 $5500 $6000

(Figures from City University of New York, 2012 and Deutsch, 2009)

Table 3. If CUNY Population Quadrupled Within 4 Years (Open Admissions)Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

STT Rebate 100% 80% 60% 40% 30%Tuition $1,210.5 $943.8 $556.4 $0 $0

18

(millions)City Support(millions)

$291.7 $25 $0 $0 $0

Non-STT State Aid(millions)

$1,381.9 $1115.2 $727.8 $0 $0

STT Revenue(millions)

$0 $3200 $6400 $9600 $11200

Projected NecessaryTotal Aid

$2.821.1 $5000 $7000 $9000 $11000

(Figures from City University of New York, 2012 and Deutsch, 2009)

Table 4No Credit Half Credit Full Credit

Classes taken in:-Basic arithmetic-Basic reading-Basic writing

Classes taken:-Jointly with a corresponding non-remedial class-

Classes taken:-With remedial discussion section

Figure 1

Hunter Governance

Council

BMCC Governance

Council

Brooklyn College

Governance Council

Other CampusesGovernance

Councils

Students Students

Students

StudentsFacultyCommun

ityFaculty

Community

Community

Community

Faculty Faculty

19