Increased Differentiation: “Panacea, Pandora’s Box, or Red Herring?”

CUPA Conference, Hamilton

June, 2011

Ken Snowdon

This presentation has ‘notes’ attached. Please view in“Print Preview” - “Notes Pages”

Panacea, Pandora’s Box, or Red Herring?

Panacea cure-all, magic potion

Pandora’s Box “opening Pandora's box means to create

evil that cannot be undone” (Wikipedia) “Red Herring”

deflects attention from the real issue

Overview

Differentiation – just the facts Panacea, Pandora’s Box, or Red

Herring? What’s the real problem(s)

Costs and cost drivers Concluding Comments

Differentiation – Just the Facts

California – PSE ‘snapshot’System Number of Institutions

University of California 10

California State University 23

California Community Colleges 112

Other Public Colleges and Universities 2

WASC-Accredited Non-public 4-Year Institutions 109

WASC-Accredited Non-public 2-Year Institutions 11

State-Approved Institutions 180

Institutions Exempt from State Approval 27

Data Generated on Friday, May 27, 2011 at 7:33:37 AM

California – Enrolment

California – Enrolment FTE

Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment For 2008 Aggregated by Higher Education System Student Level Classification

Higher Education System Student Level ClassificationFTE Students % Grad University of California Undergraduate 168,079 University of California Graduate 51,060 23%

219,139

California State University Undergraduate 310,855 California State University Graduate 56,062 15%

366,917

California Community Colleges Undergraduate 741,622 1,327,679

California Master Plan California's Master Plan for Higher Education

is a compact between the State of California and its public higher education institutions. The Master Plan provides that all California residents in the top one-eighth (12.5%) or top one-third (33%) of the statewide high school graduating class who apply on time be offered admission to some campus within the UC or CSU system, respectively, although not necessarily at the campus or in the major of first choice.

http://www.cpec.ca.gov/SecondPages/FAQ.asp#middle_column (June 1, 2011)

“California dreaming”…?

UC CS CCCEnrolmentTotal FTE 219,139 366,917 741,622 Undergraduate FTE 168,079 310,855 U/G as % Total 77% 85%

U/G Graduation Rate 79% 46% 52%

Annual Transfer from CCC# 13,153 35,707

% of UG total 8% 11%

Est. total % 15-18% 20-24%

Tuition 9,310$ 4,890$ 780$ State Support 12,000$ 8,000$ 4,000$ State & Tuition 21,310$ 12,890$ 4,780$

Proportion of EducationCost borne by a student 30% 26% 10%

Implied Full Cost 31,033$ 18,808$ 7,800$

California indicatorStudent to Faculty Ratio

Full-time-equivalent students per full-time-equivalent faculty at public, 4-year, degree-granting institutions, Fall 2009. 16.7:1

Things that make you go hmm…

Pandora’s Box

Mandated differentiation is not the same as competitive differentiation (what is the role of government?)

Into the ‘weeds’… Setting criteria and adjudication for differentiation Micromanaging incentives/disincentives … a recipe for

gamesmanship and unintended consequences Politics has trumped some differentiation initiatives in the

past… “There is a high probability that the general public and

prospective students will view teaching-only institutions as less prestigious and desirable than current institutions with established reputations.” (OUSA)

Would it result in more differentiation than at present?

Red Herring(s)?

Credit transfer On-line / Distance Education Differentiation (more) Accountability Internationalization Faculty compensation …”perks control” & get rid of

consultants!

Expanded mandates Increased access Increased research

Innovation agenda Regional catalyst for economic development Expectations – international economic development

Limited resources $ to recognize research costs / faculty time $ to recognize cost increase pressures Government $ focused on growth/access

"A problem clearly stated is a problem half solved."

      – Chinese fortune cookie (California Postsecondary Education Commission)

“Though the rapid expansion in graduate education and research infrastructure has been positive froman innovation and productivity perspective, the research and graduate education funding incentives available to all Ontario universities have had the unintended negative consequence of straining resources for undergraduate teaching across theprovince.”

Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA), The Differentiation Debate: Submission to the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, August 2010, p.15

Students are connecting the dots…

Cost studies – findings

Differences in methodologies total costs, instruction costs, faculty time Units of student activity

Similarities in relative costs at the discipline level

Acknowledgement that cost studies provide ‘gross estimates’….

the funding mechanism is (usually) block grant.

Ontario’s – program costs

It cannot be over-emphasized that the formula isdesigned to produce a reasonably equitable over-alldistribution of basic university income. It is notintended as a pattern for spending (emphasis added). TheFormula Weights do not reflect the very important differencesin costs among the various subjects within a givenprogram or among course years. These differences areaveraged out in the weighting process and notsignificant for the relatively simple income producingformula proposed.

Committee on University Affairs, A Formula for Operating Grants to ProvinciallyAssisted Universities in Ontario, Report to the Ministry of University Affairs,November, 1966.

Cost studies – findings

Middaugh’s Delaware project “80% of “instructional” cost differences

among institutions is due to discipline ‘mix’”

“…it is possible to examine a research university and a baccalaureate college, each focused on the social sciences and humanities, and find no difference in overall unit instructional costs ….”

Middaugh’s – findings Service departments (e.g., English and mathematics)

are among those with the lowest instructional costs, and

their costs are comparable with those in the social sciences.

Instructional costs in the physical sciences are in the next highest level and are comparable to those in education, business, and art.

Costs are highest in engineering and nursing.

Middaugh, et.al., p.18

Costs and cost drivers

Faculty time

Salary differentials by discipline Program norms

Student to faculty ratio

Allocation of Faculty Time

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Teaching

Research

Service

Administration

Other

Canada United Kingdom United States

Changing Academic Profession Survey, 2007, Canada n=~1000

Allocation of Faculty Time

Changing Academic Profession Survey, 2007, Canada n=~1000

Cost Studies - Key Cost Driver- Faculty Compensation by Discipline

90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120% 125% 130%

Agric & Biological Sc.

Education

Engineering & Appl. Sc.

Fine Arts

Health Professions

Humanities

Math & Physical Sc.

Social Sciences

All Subjects

Full Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Lecturer All Ranks Combined

Source: Statistics Canada, as reported in the CAUT Almanac 2010-2011, Table 2.7

Further Research

Determining to what extent the discipline salary differential explains differences in institutional cost comparisons by region, and/or by type of institution;

Exploring the concept of discipline teaching norms and, using appropriate data, determine if there are differences in teaching norms in Canada; and

Determining an estimate of how much faculty time, and resource, is devoted to sponsored research where faculty time is not reimbursed by the sponsor.

Concluding Comments

The “system” would benefit from better data, analysis, and “evidence”

Differentiation is neither a panacea nor Pandora’s Box

The real problem is funding expanded mandates properly…

Understanding costs and cost drivers helps frame funding discussions

Keep it simple… focus on quality

Questions

Discussion

Source Information1. Graduation RatesUniversity of California and California State, California Postsecondary Education Commission Graduation Rates for Students Starting College in 2001 The data presented below are from a longitudinal report collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) in 2007. Only colleges and universities that reported this data in this year are included. Some schools, such as University of California Merced and California State University Channel Islands, are too new. The report follows a group of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students that started college in 2001, labeled below as the Cohort. The Completions columns indicate how many of the original cohort received their bachelor's degree in 4 years, 5 years, and 6 years. California Community Colleges, California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, Focus on Results, Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges, March 20102. State Cost estimates http://www.cpec.ca.gov/SecondPages/FAQ.asp#middle_column, (retrieved June 1, 2011)3. Fees by sectorCalifornia Postsecondary Education Commission, Affordability of Higher Education: California and Other States, Report 11-01, February 20114. Cost studies & formulas – specific referenceMiddaugh, M.F., Graham, R., Shahid, A., A Study of Higher Education Instructional Expenditures: The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, Research and Development Report, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2003-161, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences 5. Allocation of Faculty TimeSource: Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE), The Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007: International, Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives, Report of the International Conference on the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2009, RIHE International Seminar Reports, Number 13, September 2009, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.