BALTIMORE, JULY 26 -- The University of Maryland Board of Regents objected today to a new state blueprint for colleges and universities, contending that parts of the proposal by Maryland Higher Education Secretary Shaila Aery overstep her authority.

The regents voted this morning to oppose key facets of Aery's blueprint, including an overhaul of the way teachers are trained and new state guidelines on what college freshmen and sophomores should be expected to know.

The board and campus presidents also criticized what would be a dramatic change in the way the state decides how much money each campus deserves.

The wide-ranging, 52-point plan unveiled last month would eliminate undergraduate education majors and require a five-year curriculum for all prospective teachers. It also proposes changes in college prices, the evaluation of professors, and the availability of various courses around the state.

Specifically, the regents reasoned that it was inappropriate for Aery to recommend a uniform teacher-training method and statewide academic standards for diverse students and schools.

The regents also balked at Aery's proposals to change how subsidies are allotted. Traditionally, a school's state aid has been determined by its enrollment and the budget of comparable schools nationwide. Aery is suggesting the subsidy be based, instead, on a school's academic scope -- a basis that regents said could give the commission too much latitude.

In addition to registering specific complaints, the regents' vote signifies a new and potentially fractious relationship between the boards that have been working for two years to strengthen higher education in Maryland.

Until now, there has been little interaction between the regents, who govern the 11 campuses of the University of Maryland system, and the Maryland Higher Education Commission. The commission, led by Aery, is supposed to set broad policies for the university system, two-year community colleges, private colleges, and trade schools.

But the university's new chancellor, Donald N. Langenberg, who started work July 1, decided that the regents and campus presidents should express their opinions about Aery's ideas. The commission is holding a quick series of hearings this summer before voting on the plan in September, but has not specifically sought the regents' advice.

At a meeting here today, the regents sought to play down any appearance of divisiveness with the commission. "We wish to be as direct and to the point as we can without being inflammatory," said the board's chairman, George V. McGowan.

But McGowan, Langenberg and several presidents said they believed that Aery had stepped onto their turf, especially in recommending specific curriculum changes. "It is the institutions and the regents {that} are charged with authority for academic matters," Langenberg said.

Regents and top university administrators also complained about the commission's speed and its timing. Noting that many faculty members are away for the summer, David Sparks, vice chancellor for academic affairs, said, "To push these strategies when there is no faculty participation, is, we think, quite unfortunate."

Aery was out of town today and could not be reached for comment.