A bill that could have expanded access to doctoral programs at SDSU failed in the state’s higher education committee on April 21.

Assembly Bill 2693, submitted earlier this year by Assemblymember David Alvarez, would have allowed California State University schools to award doctoral degrees without the approval of the University of California system.

The bill’s text was entirely amended in the higher education committee, effectively killing its original intent.

Navreen Randhawa, a legislative aide to Alvarez, said the committee didn’t want to rush such a big policy change, especially as they approach the end of the legislative cycle. 

The committee had also received a letter of opposition from the CSU Chancellor’s Office, urging them to vote against the bill.

This letter argued that AB 2693 didn’t take into account “the operational, financial and administrative impacts on institutions and the state,” warranting further evaluation and conversation.

Luciano Demasi, a professor of aerospace engineering at SDSU and proponent of the bill, was surprised that CSU would take this stance.

He said he believes CSU is acting against the interests of its own students, especially underrepresented populations who attend CSU schools because of lower costs compared to UCs.

Demasi explained that expanding doctoral programs could bring additional funding and equipment to the engineering department through grants received by doctoral students, benefiting undergraduate students as well.

“[Undergraduate students] get better training, better general education, motivation and access to resources that they would not have had without the Ph.D. program,” Demasi said. 

Asfaw Beyene, a professor of mechanical engineering, said he was not completely surprised by the CSU letter of opposition.

Because the CSU chancellor had already rejected doctoral proposals last year, Beyene was only disappointed that the system’s leadership had taken a position opposing the bill.  

“Why is our own chancellor, who knows and sees our growth over the last few decades, why isn’t she supporting us?” Beyene said.

The professor had also just received a guidance document from CSU, outlining how to design doctoral proposals that UC is more likely to approve.

The document urges CSUs to demonstrate audience and structural distinctions, including targeting older students and providing online courses.

The proposed CSU programs can only be called “applied and professional doctoral programs,” not Ph.D.s. 

“The idea is to diminish the work that we are doing,” Beyene said. “The Ph.D. program cannot be called Ph.D. It has to be inferior to UC. That’s why I am totally opposed to it.”

The guidance document also states CSU doctoral programs need to stay away from theoretical research and remain “applied, workforce-focused.”

Beyene said this separation of theory and application doesn’t make sense, especially in engineering, where the two support each other. 

The way Beyene sees it, this document is meant to limit doctoral proposals and dissuade CSUs from submitting them, and he said the UC review process is designed to gatekeep Ph.D. programs.

“So it’s not a review process,” Beyene said. “It’s a process to arrest [the proposal], kill it, delay it, whatever.”

Although AB 2693 failed in the higher education committee, another bill authored by Alvarez was passed on to the next committee for review. 

This bill would expand access to bachelor’s programs at community colleges where there are demonstrable workforce needs.

“Assemblymember Alvarez is very interested in just expanding higher education opportunities for all,” Randhawa said. “Especially place-bound students and students who are from underrepresented communities.”

She is unsure if Alvarez will submit a new bill to expand doctoral programs in the next legislative cycle.

Demasi and Beyene, however, remain committed to fighting for an engineering doctoral program at SDSU and said they aren’t giving up.