Academic Portfolio Review Faculty Senate Budget Committee April 2, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FTC 1st Year Retention

Transfer 1st Year Retention

Course Analysis: AY 16-18

Total Sections (#) by Academic Unit 3-year trend (AY16-18) Total # of Sections Offered (selected courses for efficiency analysis) by Academic Unit and AY – Current Data, without RPK comparison available. 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.

Average Fill Rate – Undergraduate (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis) Fill Rate UNDERGRADUATE by Academic Unit – 3 year average – RPK.

Average Fill Rate – Graduate (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis) Fill Rate GRADUATE by Academic Unit – 3 year average – RPK. NOTE: RPK did not analyze fill rates for Professional Schools.

Class Fill Rate (%) by Academic Unit & Career – 3-year average (AY16-18) UMKC Overall Avg. UG = 66.6% GR = 45.2% Fill Rate by Academic Unit and Academic Career – 3 year average – Current Data. All of the Academic Careers are on this one slide, vs. RPK providing different slides by career. 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.

Average Section Size – Undergraduate (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis) Average Section Size UNDERGRADUATE by Academic Unit – 3 year average – RPK.

Average Section Size – Graduate (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis) Average Section Size GRADUATE by Academic Unit – 3 year average – RPK.

Average Section Size – Professional (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis) Average Section Size PROFESSIONAL by Academic Unit – 3 year average – RPK.

Section Size (# enrolled) by Academic Unit & Career – 3-year average (AY16-18) UMKC Overall Avg. UG = 21.2 GR = 10.6 PR = 23.6 Average Section Size by Academic Unit and Academic Career – 3 year average – Current Data. All of the Academic Careers are on this one slide, vs. RPK providing different slides by career. Note: Data retrieved from UMKC Student Information System.

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 Additional detail with SCH per Section by Academic Unit and Academic Career – Current Data, RPK did not provide a comparable slide for these figures. Note: Data retrieved from UMKC Student Information System.

Faculty Analysis: AY 16-18

Total Faculty FTE and Student Credit Hours (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis) Total Faculty FTE and SCH by AY – RPK.

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

Student Credit Hours per Student FTE (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis) SCH per Student FTE by Academic Unit – 3 year average – RPK.

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

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

Student/Faculty FTE Ratio (from 2014-16 RPK Analysis) Student/Faculty FTE Ratio by Academic Unit – 3 year average – RPK.

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

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

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

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

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