Despite the University's request for a 12.7 percent increase in state appropriations in 1990-91, Gov. Robert P. Casey's budget proposal would increase the University's overall funding only 2.8 percent.

If the General Assembly approves the budget without changes, tuition could rise more than the already proposed 6 percent for 1990-91.

University President Bryce Jordan, who is out of town this week, said in a prepared statement that the governor's budget does not fulfill the University's needs.

"We are anticipating that what is proposed for Penn State will create some difficulties for us," Jordan's statement read.

However, the proposed increase for the University is consistent with the remainder of the $22.4 billion budget, which increased only 2.3 percent, said Helen Wise, a member of Casey's staff and member of the University Board of Trustees.

Last year, the University received a 9.2 percent increase in state appropriations -- the largest in more than a decade -- after Casey proposed a 7 percent hike. In 1985-1986, the last year for which national figures are available, Pennsylvania ranked 47 out of 50 states in appropriations per student for public universities.

"The Governor and the General Assembly took an initial step to reverse that trend last year and we must do all we can to continue in that direction," Jordan's statement said.

Last year was the first in a six-year effort by Penn State, the University of Pittsburgh and Temple University -- all state-related institutions -- to increase state funding.

The budget is likely to change during hearings in the General Assembly in late February and early March, Wise said.

"It's like a base from which things spring forward," said Rep. Ruth Rudy, D-Centre.

Jordan is scheduled to travel to Harrisburg during the last week of February to campaign for funds for the University. Traditionally, he and other university presidents in the state lobby for additional money. If funding is not re-directed, Penn State usually hikes it tuition.

"I hope it (the budget) changes a lot," said Mike McGinnis, a staff member of Sen. J. Doyle Corman's, R-Bellefonte. "I'm a little disappointed."

But money will be tight and it is too early to tell if the University will receive an increase approaching its request, he said.

"It's an election year. (Casey's) hurting for money. He doesn't want to ask for a tax increase," McGinnis said.

As he did last year, Casey proposed a Tuition Challenge Grant to offer more aid to state-owned and state-related universities which keep their tuition increases as low as possible. The offer would give the University an additional $100 per student in state funds if the tuition increase for in-state undergraduates is kept to $100 or less.

In the proposed University budget approved by the trustees in September, a 6 percent tuition increase was assumed for 1990-91. In-state undergraduate tuition would rise about $225 under the proposal.

Last year, the General Assembly changed the governor's dollar-based challenge and gave additional funding to universities that held their tuition increases below 4 percent for in-state undergraduates.

The General Assembly may again change the tuition challenge to a percentage basis, said Rep. Lynn Herman, R-Centre.

Rudy said she hoped it would.

"That, of course, gave more leeway to Penn State. . . . I'm hoping to see something similar happen this year," she said.

But, Wise said, the General Assembly did not change only the basis for the grants, but also the way the funds were awarded. Instead of the money being distributed on a per-student basis, it was pooled and divided equally among state universities, she said.

"That made money for Pitt and Temple and cost money for Penn State," she said. Penn State has more students than either the University of Pittsburgh or Temple University and therefore gained less per student, she explained.

Penn State received about $3.3 million in additional funding from the tuition challenge last year. Although the tuition for in-state undergraduates increased only 4 percent, tuition for out-of-state, graduate and medical students -- who are not included in the challenge -- increased 9 percent.

The University has increased tuition by an average of 10 percent for 22 consecutive years.

Casey proposed cuts in a number of University programs including about an 8 percent decrease for agricultural research, McGinnis said. Those reductions will get a lot of attention, he said.

"In his budget presentation (yesterday) he said agriculture is Pennsylvania's number one industry and yet he cut agriculture research at Penn State, the state's single land-grant institution," Herman said.

Gregory Silver, assistant to the dean of the College of Agriculture, said the cut was unexpected.

Last year, the state appropriation increased by almost 20 percent, he said.

"We certainly would be disappointed if that would not continue," Silver said.

Funding for biotechnology at the University was eliminated in Casey's budget and funding for psychological education was cut by just over 8 percent, McGinnis said.

Officials at the University's Biotechnology Institute were not available for comment yesterday.

The largest increases in the University's appropriations came in the educational and general budget, which funds most instructional activity and the Pennsylvania College of Technology at Williamsport. Both received a 4.5 percent hike, McGinnis said.