UT TeleCampus Cost Study ( ) Darcy W. Hardy Rob Robinson Educause 2004

UT System 15 member institutions –Nine academic –Six health/medical Over 150,000 students Over 14,000 faculty 37% of all resident students who attend public universities attend a UT school

UT TeleCampus Mission The UT TeleCampus is a service-driven, central support system for online education initiatives among the fifteen universities and health science centers that comprise the U. T. System as they strive to meet the educational needs of Texas, the nation and the world.

TeleCampus Stats Over 20,000 enrollments to date 17 fully online programs (degree & certificate) Over 200 courses in TeleCampus catalog 116 courses offered in Fall 2004 Over 220 faculty and instructors served across System –Funded, supported, trained Course completion rates –85% (Undergraduate) –97% (Graduate)

TeleCampus Enrollment Growth

The TeleCampus Model Course Development –Development grants –Extensive faculty training (required) Collaboration –Most degree programs are inter- institutional (MBA) Central Support –Services –TeleCampus Information System (TIS)

The TeleCampus Model Faculty –Primarily full-time tenure or tenure-track –Adjuncts as necessary to scale Financial Arrangement –Tuition, fees, and State formula retained by host campus –Annual financial assessment back to the TeleCampus

Financial Impact of UTTC Direct financial support to campuses for course development (1999-present) - $5.1 M Revenue generated for campuses by TeleCampus courses (1999-present) - $21.8 M –Tuition, fees, formula funding from TeleCampus enrollments –Approximately 50% are “new” dollars –$6.8 Million in Fall 1999 through Summer 2004

The Cost Study Directed by Board of Regents in 2002 to examine costs of delivery through the TeleCampus model Presented first round of finding to Regents in March 2003 Second round of study in 2004, looking at 2003 data.

Study Methodology Meetings (Developing Co-Conspirators) –Office of Finance –Controller’s Office –Academic Affairs Eight courses identified for comparison –Single course per campus –Mix of graduate and undergraduate –Taught on-campus and online Common unit of comparison is one SCH

Problems With Survey Instrument delivered to Chief Business Officers on each academic campus Large variance in quality of responses Instrument not clearly defined Terms open to interpretation Varying degrees of “full disclosure” On to Plan B…..

Study Methodology Information for on-campus costs from the 2002 Annual Financial Report SCH numbers from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Statistical Report for 2002 Information for TeleCampus costs from the UT TeleCampus budget

Study Methodology Budget categories in study (Educational & General) –Academic Support –Student Services –Institutional Support Depreciation & Amortization –Study uses an allocated portion of costs –TotalOpExpE&G/(TotOpExpUniv-InvestPlant) –This factor is applied the total D&A amount to derive a cost applicable to instructional delivery.

Instructional Costs Instructional costs include faculty salary plus teaching assistant stipends (if any) Study assumes that instructional costs are equal for on-campus and online delivery for a specific course because both types of courses are taught in-load by faculty

Avg. On-Campus Costs/SCH

TeleCampus Costs/SCH

Delivery Costs Comparison 2002 Total Costs/SCH TeleCampus costs vs. campus “bricks & mortar” costs

Delivery Costs Comparison 2003 Total Costs/SCH TeleCampus costs vs. campus “bricks & mortar” costs

Summary of Study Average component cost of delivery on- campus (excluding UTB) –$129/SCH for 2002 –$123/SCH for 2003 TeleCampus cost of delivery –$91/SCH for 2002 –$88/SCH for 2003

Summary of Study Delivery costs through the TeleCampus are generally lower than the on-campus equivalent (second lowest for both years) As TeleCampus enrollments continue to grow, costs/SCH will decline over time at a faster rate than on-campus

Conclusions Online courses can be delivered at a comparable (or lower) unit cost than face to face…AND… Online courses can be offered with quality and outcomes that are comparable (or better than) face to face [Russell, et. al)

Conclusions/Cautions Extracting reasonable dollar amounts from budget line items can be tricky. Use only those applicable to delivery of instruction Depreciation & Amortization costs should be examined closely. Do not skip these very real costs. Not everyone will be happy with your results

Contact Us! Comments, suggestion, etc. are very welcome Rob Robinson Darcy Hardy