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 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. FTC 1st Year Retention

18. Transfer 1st Year Retention

22. Course Analysis: AY 16-18

23. 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.

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

25. 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.

26. 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.

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

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

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

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. Faculty Analysis: AY 16-18

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

34. 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.

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

36. 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.

37. 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.

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

39. 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.

40. 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.

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

42. 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

43. 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