following the money - the cost benefits of student support in distance education
DESCRIPTION
Centre for Distance Education lunchtime seminar - conducted by Ormond Simpson, CDE Visiting Fellow. This seminar shows that student support need not be a pure institutional cost in distance education. If properly designed and evaluated it can actually make a financial profit for the institution as well as enhance its reputation. Heath warning - this presentation contains some mathematics.... Audio of the seminar can be found here: www.cde.london.ac.uk. More information on Ormond's work can be found here: www.ormondsimpson.com.TRANSCRIPT
1
‘Following the money’ -the cost benefits of student
support in distance education
Ormond SimpsonVisiting Fellow CDE
Why invest in higher education?
1.Increased GDP and international competitiveness
2. Increased welfare of graduates (longer life, better health, higher pay, more society support such as volunteering) 2
3
Student numbers may double from 2012 to 262 million by 2025?
4
How much does it cost to produce successful graduate?
Production cost of a graduate?
5
Costs of distance education to UK government
- graduate production costs compared
Conventional
education
Open University
UoLIP(UK students)
Cost of a graduate to UK Govt.
£70,000 £20,000 £0?
Total income tax
paid by student during studies
£0 £20,000 £20,000
Net cost to Govt
£70,000 £0? - £20,000
6
Costs of distance education to students
Conventional UK
university degree
OU degree UoLIP(distance version)
Fees £27,000 £15,000 £4000
Loss of earnings whilst studying
£40,000 0 0
Total cost to student
£67,000 £15,000 £4000
7
Financial implications for students - returns on investment (RoI)
Full time students – increased income of £100,000 over lifetime (‘graduate premium’)
RoI = (100,000-67,000)/67,000 = 49% OU students – increased earnings by 15% after graduation (Woodley, Simpson 2000). Increased income ~ £60,000 RoI = (60,000-15,000)/15,000 = 300%
UoLIP students? – if increased income the same as OU students ~ £60,000 RoI = (60,000-4000)/4000 = 1400%
8
What is the resale value of your degree?
9
Sustainability (Roy et al 2007)
distance education
conventional education
distance education
conventional education
Energy use CO2 production
13% 18%
BUT...
87% 82%
10
82
39
61.5
15.722
5.3 2.5 0.5
146
0102030405060708090
100
Conventional institutions
Distance institutions
Conventional and distance graduation rates compared
The ‘distance education deficit’
11
For students, investing in distance higher education
is riskier than wildcat oil well drilling
Distance education - 80% chance of losing all investment
Wildcat drilling – 10% chance of losing all investment
Probability of suffering depression, unemployment and (women) partner violence, according to educational
experience (Bynner, 2002)
Probability of:
12
What happens to students who dropout? - effects of dropout on full-time students in the UK
dropouts
13
Implications of dropping out for students
Dropouts are likely to be:
in debt – with no increased earnings to pay it off
more likely to be unemployed so unable to pay off debt
more likely to suffer health problems esp. depression.
- which might affect up to 10% of the UK age cohort
14
Implications of student dropout for institutions
‘Willing to Pay’ Recruitment issues - Given risk will students or parents be willing to pay the investment?
‘Value for Money’ Will students (and parents) want better value for their money?
‘Inst. Income’ Dropout may reduce institutional income and government support
Case study - the Dutch Open University is threatened
with government cuts because of high dropout rates
Open Universiteit Nederland
15
Financial implications of student dropout for Governments
Inefficiency – grants to universities ‘wasted’?
Social expenditure – cost of increased unemployment & physical and mental ill-health
Losses - in income tax and GNP
Cost - £billions each year?
16
Student retention - ‘Why should we care?’ -implications of student dropout in UK
dropout students – financial losses and worse health
institutions – financial losses and possible recruitment problems
Government – financial losses in tax and GNP and increased health expenditure
- all amounting to several £billions a year
17
Making the financial case for institutional investment in retention
‘Return on Investment’ - investing in student retention?
1. Costs – mostly student support services (?)
2. Benefits to the institution:
- increased student fee income
- possible increased Government grant income
- savings on recruitment costs
1818
(i) Institutional retention activity - costs
Say an activity costing £P per student increases
student retention by n% amongst N students
Then the total cost of the project is £NP
Number of students retained by the project is (n/100)N So ‘Cost per student retained’
= £ NP/[(n/100)N]
= £100P/n
1919
Example 1: Cost-benefits of retention activities
Proactive pre-course phone contact in UKOU
Year Students in trial
Increase in retention experimental group over control (%
points)
2002 2866 3.9%
2003 1354 5.1%
2004 931 4.2%
2005 10,131 7.6%
Totals 5151 5.04%
2020
Example - Institutional retention activity - costs
Cost per student retained’ = £100P/n
Eg in UK OU an initial ‘proactive phone contact
- to 2000 new students,
- cost £10 per student (P) in staff time and
expenses
- increasing retention by 5% (n)
Cost per student retained = £100P/n = £(100 x
10)/5
= £200
2121
Example - Institutional retention activity - benefits (OU example pre-2012)
• Student fee income – neutral against costs
• Govt grant income to OU – about £1100 per student completing each year
• Savings on recruitment – recruitment cost per new student ~ £500
Perhaps £200 of that to replace students who’ve
dropped out (50% each year)
Total benefit ~ £1300 per student retained
22
Return on retention investment in UKOU of a proactive phone contact (pre 2012):
Cost of activity = £200 per student retained
Benefit of activity = £1300 per student retained
So net benefit ~ £1100 per student retained
Return on investment (1300-200)/200 = 550%
Net surplus if activity applied to 30,000 new students
~ £1.6m per year
23
In 2013 the UK Government will give nearly £1 billion to private HE providers
Who will have 90% dropout rates
24
London International Programmes
‘Motivational’ emails?
‘Proactive Motivational Support’ (PaMS)
25
‘Study Tips’ – Introduction
1 ‘Are you fixed or malleable’?
2 ‘What to expect from studying the LLB with the International Programme?’
3 ‘Motivating yourself to learn’
4 ‘Getting organised for study - a Funnel in your mailbox?’5 ‘Finding your best study methods’
6 ‘Finding time when getting behind’
7 ‘Getting organised - making lists’
8 ‘I’ve those ‘why-am-I-trying-to-study-blues…’
Motivational emails – sent to students every 2 weeks
26
9 ‘Survival Guide for You and Your Family’
10 ‘Managing your procrastinitus’
11 ‘Self-Discipline!’
12 ‘Learning to concentrate on learning’
13 ‘Are you a lucky student?’
14. ‘Study Anxiety Syndrome’
15 ‘Tactics In The Exam Wars’
16 ‘Don’t stop now!’
Full texts on www.ormondsimpson.com
‘Motivational emails’ - continued
27
Studentson 2012-13 Law module
Initial numbers
Entered at least 1
exam
Sat at least 1 exam
Passed at least 1
exam
Control group 1691 74.4% 66.0% 55.2%
Experimental group 1683 76.6% 68.3% 57.6%
Increase in retention in experimental group
+2.2% +2.3% +2.4%
Results of the motivational email project 2012-13
Average increase in retention 2.3% points(32 students)
28
Cost Benefits of the Proactive Motivational Email Support Project
Increase in income due to more students sitting and paying the exam fee
= 32 students x exam fee £232 = £7424
Increase in income due to more students carrying on to a second module
= 32 students x regn. fee £351 = £11,232
Total benefit = £18,656
Profit £(18,656 – 600)
= £600
= £18,056
~ 3000%Return on Investment
Cost of project (approx)
London University International Programme
Annual module income (from students)Registration fee = £FExam fee (paid by students completing module)= £E
Annual module expenditureFixed overhead for programme = £VExpenditure on students = £S per student
So if N students start in programme:Total income = £NFTotal expenditure = £(V+NS)
Surplus income (if any) = £[NF-(V+NS)] = £[N(F-S)-V]
London University International Programme
Surplus (if any) on project = nE+n(F-S) – NP
To be self supporting or make a profit nE+n(F-S) – NP > 0 or n(E+F-S) > NP
n/N > P/(E+F+S)The % increase in retention np = 100(n/N)
So for break-even or surplus
np > 100P/(E+F+S) (i)
ExampleSay E = £200, F = £800, S = £200
np > 100P/(200+800-200)
np > 0.125P (ii) 30
np per cent
increase in retention
£P retention
activity cost per student
np > 0.125PReturn greater
than cost
np < 0.125PReturn less than cost
Graph of np = 0.125P
London University International Programme
31
np per cent
increase in retention
£P retention
activity cost per student
np > 0.125PReturn greater
than cost
np < 0.125PReturn less than cost
London University International Programme
Example – if activity cost is £15 per student then any retention increase
above 1.9% is self-supporting
1.25%
32
33
Cost benefits of retention
If F = students fee per year, S = institutional expenditure per student, V = total institutional overhead then if the number of students in year 1 is N1 and in year 2 is N2
Income Year 1 = N1F – (N1S + V) Income Year 2 = N2F – (N2S + V)
Reduction in income due to student dropout between years
= N1F – (N1S + V) – [N2F – (N2S + V)] = (N1 – N2)(F – S)
Then if there is a retention activity costing £P per student it will cost N1P. If that increases retention by n students so that N2 becomes N1 + n then the reduction in income is now:
[N1 – (N2 + n)](F - S)
So the reduction is itself reduced making a saving of
(N1 – N2)(F – S) – {[N1 – (N2 + n)](F - S)} = n(F – S)
For the retention activity to be self-supporting n(F – S) > N1P
Or np > 100P/(F – S) where np is the per cent increase in retention
For example P = £10 F = £2500, S = £1000 then np > 100x10/(2500-1000) = 0.67%
So if a retention activity costing £10 per student produces an increase in retention of more than 0.67% it will be self-supporting
34
Funding learner support – increasing funding from students
$ Fund student support and teaching
Increases student
retention
1. Increased student fee
income
2. Students willing to pay
more?A positive funding triangle?
35
• Follow the Money - Money follows retention
• Not just retention but retrieval
• Outsource retention? – the Noel-Levitz Model
36www.noellevitz.com