December 2, 2004 Faculty Senate Presentation

458 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
458
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

December 2, 2004 Faculty Senate Presentation

  1. 1. A Strategic Look at Enrollment A Presentation to the Baruch Faculty Senate December 2, 2004
  2. 2. Strategic Importance of Enrollment Management <ul><li>Budgetary impact </li></ul><ul><li>Student preparation </li></ul><ul><li>Progress to graduation </li></ul><ul><li>Course scheduling demands </li></ul><ul><li>Impact of curricular changes </li></ul>
  3. 3. Links to Budget <ul><li>Base budget minimally tied to enrollment through adjunct allocation </li></ul><ul><li>Budget supplemented in a major way through tuition revenue in excess of target </li></ul>
  4. 4. Adjunct Budget Allocation <ul><li>ISM used to determine target faculty size (Fall and Spring 2002-03 enrollments) </li></ul><ul><li>Number of actual faculty subtracted to determine target faculty size </li></ul><ul><li>Difference in number of faculty converted to dollars </li></ul><ul><li>Amount added to base budget as adjunct allocation </li></ul>
  5. 5. Determination of Excess Tuition <ul><li>Based on actual collections (Fall, Spring, Summer) </li></ul><ul><li>Originally a weighted average </li></ul><ul><li>Changed by capping increases/decreases </li></ul><ul><li>Now adjusted as needed to cover shortfalls </li></ul>
  6. 7. Strategic Tradeoffs <ul><li>Mix between undergrads and grads </li></ul><ul><li>Mix between freshmen and transfers </li></ul><ul><li>Changing admission standards </li></ul><ul><li>Curricular adjustments </li></ul>
  7. 8. Revenue Impact of Mix Changes <ul><li>Revenue in $000s per 100 students </li></ul><ul><li>UG $400 (74.7% Full Time) </li></ul><ul><li>Grad $463 (28.6% FT) </li></ul><ul><li>Nondegree $250 </li></ul><ul><li>MBA Premium $182 (29.2% FT) </li></ul><ul><li>Proportion Full Time </li></ul><ul><li>Freshmen 98.5% and Transfers 72.8% </li></ul>
  8. 9. Admissions Criteria <ul><li>Freshman Index: </li></ul><ul><li>CAA, SAT, Units </li></ul><ul><li>SAT and CAA on sliding scale </li></ul><ul><li>Need 3 units of both math and english </li></ul><ul><li>Transfer Criteria </li></ul><ul><li>CUNY/SUNY AA/AS: 2.25 but 2.50 (ZSB) </li></ul><ul><li>All others: 2.50 but 2.75 (ZSB) </li></ul>
  9. 10. Transfer Student Sources <ul><li>CUNY 2-year schools 45.5% (BMCC, LGA, KCC, QCC > 90%) </li></ul><ul><li>CUNY senior colleges 17.8% (Hunter, NYC Tech, John Jay, City, Brooklyn) </li></ul><ul><li>Non-CUNY schools 36.7% (Nassau CC, Foreign schools, Westchester CC, SUNY) </li></ul>
  10. 11. Transfer Student GPA From CC To Senior College (AA or AS) <ul><li>Baruch 3.15 to 2.61 </li></ul><ul><li>Brooklyn 2.85 to 2.53 </li></ul><ul><li>City 2.84 to 2.53 </li></ul><ul><li>Hunter 2.95 to 2.66 </li></ul><ul><li>Queens 2.88 to 2.63 </li></ul><ul><li>York 2.75 to 2.61 </li></ul><ul><li>Lehman 2.77 to 2.71 </li></ul>
  11. 12. Elimination of Remediation and Increase in Admission Criteria <ul><li>Extensive analysis of demographic impact </li></ul><ul><li>Expected short term decline </li></ul><ul><li>To be offset by increase in number of transfer students </li></ul><ul><li>Recovery stronger than anticipated </li></ul>
  12. 14. Issues Faced in 2000 <ul><li>Concern with AACSB accreditation </li></ul><ul><li>Too many students, too few faculty </li></ul><ul><li>Large waiting lists, delaying graduation </li></ul><ul><li>FT to PT faculty ratios not meeting standards </li></ul><ul><li>Large numbers of substitute faculty </li></ul>
  13. 15. Strategic Changes Implemented <ul><li>Seek MBA Tuition Increase to compete for FT faculty </li></ul><ul><li>Reduce transfers, increase freshmen </li></ul><ul><li>Reduce overall enrollment </li></ul><ul><li>Increase grad relative to undergrad </li></ul><ul><li>Increase SPA and WSAS majors </li></ul>
  14. 16. Positive Changes Resulted <ul><li>Significant numbers of new faculty hired </li></ul><ul><li>Waiting lists decreased in size </li></ul><ul><li>Graduation rates increased </li></ul><ul><li>Both the number of freshmen admitted and the quality of students increased substantially </li></ul>
  15. 19. Unintended Consequences <ul><li>Revenue targets rose despite enrollment decline </li></ul><ul><li>MBA demand weakened in general </li></ul><ul><li>9/11, SARS, and increased INS scrutiny impacted international enrollment </li></ul><ul><li>CUNY tuition hike in Fall 2003 had disproportionate impact on nonresidents and graduate students </li></ul>
  16. 21. Effects of Internal Changes <ul><li>Pre-Business Core </li></ul><ul><li>GPA Requirements for Majors </li></ul><ul><li>Tier III Minors </li></ul>
  17. 22. Future Challenges <ul><li>State budgetary concerns </li></ul><ul><li>Control of admissions criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Student demographics </li></ul><ul><li>Managing adjunct budget allocation </li></ul><ul><li>Scheduling and planning </li></ul>

×