1 / 43

Academic Portfolio Review

This review aims to examine the flow of student demand, instructional activity compression, student outcomes, and contribution margin of all undergraduate and graduate programs. The goal is to become more efficient and effective, increasing student success, overall morale, and creating opportunities for growth.

bartona
Download Presentation

Academic Portfolio Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Academic Portfolio Review Faculty Senate Budget Committee April 2, 2019

  2. Purpose / Goals Review all undergraduate and graduate programs in order to: – Examine the flow of student demand/yield, instructional activity compression, student outcomes, and contribution margin; – Understand at a more granular level what the University is spending, and the return on investment from that spending; – Develop a new framework to set targets and determine appropriate lever(s) to utilize • Mix of faculty • Course and section offerings • Section size • Productivity

  3. Become more efficient and effective which in turn increases student success, overall morale, and creates opportunities to grow

  4. Academic Program Review • In this presentation, focused on: • AY 2016-2018 data • Yield = Admits to Enrolled • Retention compared to Strategic Plan • Course data • Faculty data • Additional data available to review: • SCH generation by program & AU • Enrolled – AY – Primary and Distributed • Degrees compared to MDHE standard • Graduation Rates compared to Strategic Plan • Time to degree

  5. Demand & Yield – UG FTC • Maximize – High # of Admits / High Yield • Business Admin • Studio Art – moved from Elevate Demand • Communications Studies • Political Science – moved from Elevate Demand • Dance • Music BA – moved from Elevate Demand • Music ED – moved from Elevate Demand • Performance BM • Biology BA - moved from Elevate Yield • Computer Science BS • Electrical & Computing Engineering BS • 6-Year Med

  6. Demand & Yield – UG FTC • Elevate Yield – High Demand, low Yield • Accounting – moved from Maximize • Architecture Studies • Chemistry BS – moved from Maximize • Criminal Justice & Criminology • English – moved from Maximize • Psychology • Theatre • Biology BS • Civil Engineering • Mechanical Engineering – moved from Maximize • Computer Science BA – moved from Maximize • Health Sciences

  7. Demand & Yield – UG FTC • Elevate Demand – Low Demand, High Yield • Art History BA – moved from Mission / Market • Chemistry BA - moved from Maximize • Film and Media Arts – {new program} • Languages & Literatures (Foreign Languages) • Environmental Studies • Geography BA and BS – moved from Mission / Market • Geology BA and BS • History – moved from Mission / Market • Liberal Arts • 6-Year Law Scholars – {new program} • Physics BS • Music Composition – moved from Mission / Market • Music Theory • Jazz Studies • Information Technology

  8. Demand & Yield – UG FTC • Mission / Market – Low Demand, Low Yield • Urban Planning & Design • Urban Studies – Moved from Elevate Demand • Economics • Environmental Sciences BS – Moved from Elevate Demand • Mathematics & Statistics BS & BA • Philosophy • Physics BA – moved from Elevate Demand • Sociology

  9. Demand & Yield – UG Transfer • Maximize – High # of Admits / High Yield • Business Administration • Communication Studies • Criminal Justice & Criminology • Economics • English • Environmental Science • History • Liberal Arts • Political Science • Psychology • Sociology • Mechanical Engineering • Computer Science BS • Information Technology • Dental Hygiene • Nursing

  10. Demand & Yield – UG Transfer • Elevate Yield – High Demand, low Yield • Accounting • Studio Art • Chemistry BS • Biology BA & BS • Civil Engineering • Computer Science BA • Electrical & Computing Engineering • Health Sciences

  11. Demand & Yield – UG Transfer • Elevate Demand – Low Demand, High Yield • Chemistry BA • Geology BA & BS • Philosophy • Physics BS • Theatre • Music Composition • Music Theory • Jazz Studies • Dance • Music • Music Education • Music Performance • Early Childhood Education

  12. Demand & Yield – UG Transfer • Mission / Market – Low Demand, Low Yield • Architecture Studies • Urban Planning & Design • Urban Studies • Art History • Film & Media Arts {new program} • Environmental Studies • Geography BA & BS • Mathematics & Statistics BA & BS • Physics BA • Elementary Education • Middle School Education • Secondary Education

  13. FTC 1st Year Retention

  14. Transfer 1st Year Retention

  15. Course Analysis: AY 16-18

  16. Total Sections (#) by Academic Unit3-year trend (AY16-18) Note: Data retrieved from UMKC Student Information System. Prior fill rate analysis adjusted fill rates based on ‘revised enrollment cap’ data collected from AU’s.

  17. Average Fill Rate – Undergraduate (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis)

  18. Average Fill Rate – Graduate (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis)

  19. Class Fill Rate (%) by Academic Unit & Career – 3-year average (AY16-18) UMKC Overall Avg. UG = 66.6% GR = 45.2% Professional schools excluded due to cohorted program structure and fixed enrollment caps. Note: Data retrieved from UMKC Student Information System. Prior fill rate analysis adjusted fill rates based on ‘revised enrollment cap’ data collected from AU’s.

  20. Average Section Size – Undergraduate (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis)

  21. Average Section Size – Graduate (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis)

  22. Average Section Size – Professional (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis)

  23. Section Size (# enrolled) by Academic Unit & Career – 3-year average (AY16-18) UMKC Overall Avg. UG = 21.2 GR = 10.6 PR = 23.6 Note: Data retrieved from UMKC Student Information System.

  24. SCH per Section (# SCH) by Academic Unit & Career – 3-year average (AY16-18) UMKC Overall Avg. UG = 61.0 GR = 29.6 PR = 63.0 Note: Data retrieved from UMKC Student Information System.

  25. Faculty Analysis: AY 16-18

  26. Total Faculty FTE and Student Credit Hours (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis)

  27. Total Faculty FTE and Student Credit Hours – 3-year trend (AY16-18) Note: Data retrieved from UMKC Student Information System and Human Resources Data System.

  28. Student Credit Hours per Student FTE (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis)

  29. SCH per Student FTE (# SCH) by Academic Unit – 3-year average (AY16-18) UMKC AVG = 31.4 Note: Data retrieved from UMKC Student Information System and Human Resources Data System.

  30. SCH per Faculty FTE (# SCH) by Academic Unit – 3-year trend (AY16-18) Note: Data retrieved from UMKC Student Information System and Human Resources Data System.

  31. Student/Faculty FTE Ratio (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis)

  32. Student/Faculty FTE Ratio(# Student FTE) by Academic Unit – 3-year average (AY16-18) UMKC AVG = 11.2 Note: Data retrieved from UMKC Student Information System and Human Resources Data System.

  33. Student/Faculty FTE Ratio (# Student FTE) by Academic Unit – 3-year trend (AY16-18) Note: Data retrieved from UMKC Student Information System and Human Resources Data System.

  34. Additional Data • Compiling and analyzing revenue and expenditure data • Combining the cost data with the productivity data • Providing recommendations to increase efficiencies

  35. Next Steps • Deans – Academic Unit • Identify programs that support growth and meet mission • Identify programs to be reconfigured or new investments to better capture demand (program mergers) • Strategize on methods to increase yield • Examine retention rates by program and identify the road blocks / obstacles for students • Major maps • Curriculum & Personnel Planning (as discussed in Dept. Chairs and Directors meeting) • Use Civatas courses

  36. Next Steps Continued • Department Chairs – Specific Programs • Review all course offerings – which courses should no longer be offered • Consolidation of sections / frequency of offerings • Demand for courses / cycle courses • Refer to January Dept. Chairs and Directors meeting • Use Civatas Courses

More Related