A New Graduate School Model

Graduate Executive Council (GEC)Deans of the Colleges

Dr. Ali A. Houshmand, ProvostMay 5, 2008

ENROLLMENT TREND

Current State of Affairs

• Overall graduate enrollments have dropped over the last 6 years

• Why?

• Four critical reasons

Reason # 1

• PRECIPITOUSLY HIGH TUITION RATE AT THE GRADUATE LEVEL

• Current per-credit MA tuition rate is $590 PLUS fees

• Highest rate in the state

Reason #2

• CHALLENGES FROM VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS

• Other institutions now able to deliver flexible, innovative, convenient, and cost efficient program offerings

• Prospective students have more choices and other colleges and universities are delivering what students need, when needed

• Easier graduate student intake process

Reason # 3

• NO VISIBILITY OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN THE REGION

• Minimal marketing over the last several years – mostly through individual programs and their web pages

• No Rowan ‘brand’, no consistency in marketing• 2006 Aslanian Report commissioned by the

Graduate School noted the need for more aggressive marketing of graduate programs

Reason # 4

• DECREASED STATE FUNDING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION TUITION

• The State has reduced funding to Rowan from 70% to 30%

• Graduate fees are significantly high $114.75 per credit

• Total cost of 1 graduate course at MA level: $2114.25

• Total cost of 1 graduate course at Ed.D level: $2384.25

We are moving from a State-supported university to a State-located university

Timeline• November 2007 GEC charged by the Deans and Provost

Houshmand to restructure the Graduate School and maintain academic integrity of all programs

• November 2007-February 2008

Studied 25 diverse graduate schools across the United States, including NJ “sister” institutions

Reviewed the current Council of Graduate School guidelines for graduate education

• February 2008 GEC releases first draft to Provost and Dean of the Graduate School for feedback

• March 2008 GEC releases public draft to Provost, Deans, and Chairs (from College Deans)

• May 2008 GEC, Deans, and Provost hold first open forum on graduate education to begin the conversation

GEC Charge

• Encourage development of innovative graduate programs

• Provide flexible and convenient modes of program offerings and delivery as determined by the academic programs and Colleges

• Maintain the critical operations of the Graduate School with the current level of support staff

• Create an administrative/managerial position for directing the Graduate School that reports to the Provost Office

• Redesign the Graduate Executive Council

A Proactive Approach

1.) INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS• COGS with core courses that combine

requirements with flexibility of course selection• Executive degrees (MBA, Engineering

Management)• 3 + 1 or 4 +1 Bachelor’s/Master’s degrees• Interdisciplinary degree combinations across

departments and/or Colleges

New Modes of Program Delivery

2.) THINKING DIFFERENTLY• Online• Offline• Hybrid• Satellite Campus• Weekend College• Accelerated• Conduct market-analysis to determine needs for existing and

potential graduate offerings

PROGRAMS DETERMINE THE MODES OF DELIVERY BEST SUITED FOR

THEIR FIELD OF STUDY

Graduate School Operations

• Create an Assistant Provost/Director of the Graduate School position to manage the operations

• Assistant Provost/Director of the Graduate School reports directly to the Provost

• Maintain current operations of the Graduate School with current level of support staff

Proposed Structure of Graduate School

Graduate Executive Council

• Expanded to 9 members 2 from College of Education

1 from all other Colleges 1 from Faculty Senate 1 from Graduate School, ex-officio• Defined duties Formulate policies for graduate education

Represent graduate education for each College Address cross-campus graduate school issues• GEC members elected by the College faculty AND be

approved by the Dean of that College

THE FINANCIAL MODEL

HOW

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL ACHIEVES

GROWTH AND SUSTAINABILITY IN THE

YEARS AHEAD

Revenue Sharing Goals

• Increase academic standards and maintain accreditation requirements (43% College/Dept)

– Additional research support– Additional faculty development resources– Additional/funded graduate assistantships

• Generate marketing/promotion funds (27%)

• Incentives to encourage graduate program creativity and growth (43% College/Dept, 5% Provost)

• Graduate education financial independence (to GF: 100% basis, 100% fees, 15% growth, plus incremental instruction costs)

Revenue Sharing Attributes

• All revenue-sharing funds are carry-forward

• Academic college and department operating budgets will not be reduced based on revenue-sharing funds

• Each academic unit (in cooperation with the AFT) will determine the instruction rate for participating faculty

Faculty Lines

• The allocation of faculty lines to departments, colleges, and programs is beyond the scope of the Graduate Executive Council

• With that said, there is a clear commitment to invest in the academics of the university– Maintain current allocation of FT faculty to teach

graduate courses (and most likely increase)– Maintain and invest in appropriate accreditations– Become a more comprehensive university– Provide more resources to support academic

development

Please sign here

• The proposed model was developed to address our current needs… it is not a “binding contract”

• As needs change, revisions are likely– We can expect to go through this exercise again– We will have the opportunity to address unforeseen

issues with future models

• In all cases, there is a commitment to increase the investments in academics at the graduate level

TYPES OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS

(as defined by funding source)

• PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMS – More classes running to capacity, majority of students pay tuition– Increase academic development by sharing tuition revenues(e.g., MBA, Masters in Engineering Management, MA in Public

Relations, and MA in Special Education)

• TRADITIONAL PROGRAMS – Individualized instruction and/or non-tuition paying students

(e.g., graduate assistants)– Maintain current investment (commitment)– Increase academic development by… (a new and important

initiative for the incoming Associate Provost for Research)(e.g., MS Engineering and MM Music)

Who Determines the Type of Program?

• Departments and Colleges decide• Programs/COGS may reclassify

themselves as they see fit• The decision to classify is an ACADEMIC

decision

Practical Implication of Program Classification (as of today)

Costs

• Traditional Programs– No risks – No additional costs

• Professional Programs– No risks– No additional costs

Benefits

• Traditional Programs– Will not contribute

additional resources to the academic units

• Professional Programs– For each new tuition $1

received:– 10¢ more to hire GA– 27¢ more to advertising– 43¢ more to academics

Once the Traditional Revenue Model is developed, a program can redefine itself at that time.

Jumpstart Revenue SharingRollout Phase

• 100% of existing support from University– Graduate Assistants (GA), Grad school salaries, Instruction support

• Professional programs will share the incremental tuition-revenues from growth (no profit sharing on basis):– Department 33%

• Departments pay instruction costs for additional sections (at agreed-upon rate)

– Dean 10%• Faculty research/development, Support new programs/initiatives

– Promotion/Marketing 27%– Graduate School 10%

• Each college earns additional GA positions

– Provost 5%• Supports new programs/initiatives

– General Fund 15%

Sustain Revenue Sharing Self-Funded Phase

• Continuation of (and most likely growth in) faculty lines teaching graduate courses

• However, graduate education will no longer require the same level of support from the General Funds– Department (from the 33%)

• Pay ALL graduate instruction (at agreed-upon rate –not in-load salaries)

– Promotion/Marketing/Staffing (from the 27%)• Pay graduate school staff salaries

– Graduate School (from the 10%)• Pay ALL GA costs

Example (MBA Program)

AYTuition

RevenueIncremental

Revenue MBA share COB share Total InstructionAdded College

Academic funds

07 $ 637,200            

08 $ 700,920 $ 63,720 $ 21,028 $ 6,372 $ 27,400   $ 27,400

09 $ 771,012 $ 133,812 $ 44,158 $ 13,381 $ 57,539   $ 57,539

10 $ 848,113 $ 210,913 $ 69,601 $ 21,091 $ 90,693   $ 90,693

11 $ 932,925 $ 295,725 $ 97,589 $ 29,572 $ 127,162 $ 36,000 $ 91,162

12 $ 1,026,217 $ 389,017 $ 128,376 $ 38,902 $ 167,277 $ 36,000 $ 131,277

13 $ 1,128,839 $ 491,639 $ 162,241 $ 49,164 $ 211,405 $ 36,000 $ 175,405

14 $ 1,241,723 $ 604,523 $ 199,492 $ 60,452 $ 259,945 $ 36,000 $ 223,945

15 $ 1,365,895 $ 728,695 $ 240,469 $ 72,869 $ 313,339 $ 136,000 $ 177,339

16 $ 1,502,484 $ 865,284 $ 285,544 $ 86,528 $ 372,072 $ 188,000 $ 184,072

17 $ 1,652,733 $ 1,015,533 $ 335,126 $ 101,553 $ 436,679 $ 188,000 $ 248,679

18 $ 1,818,006 $ 1,180,806 $ 389,666 $ 118,081 $ 507,747 $ 188,000 $ 319,747

19 $ 1,999,807 $ 1,362,607 $ 449,660 $ 136,261 $ 585,921 $ 188,000 $ 397,921

20 $ 2,199,787 $ 1,562,587 $ 515,654 $ 156,259 $ 671,913 $ 188,000 $ 483,913

21 $ 2,419,766 $ 1,782,566 $ 588,247 $ 178,257 $ 766,503 $ 224,000 $ 542,503

22 $ 2,661,743 $ 2,024,543 $ 668,099 $ 202,454 $ 870,553 $ 224,000 $ 646,553

10% yr/yr growth$4K instruction$590 tuition

Rol

l-out

Pha

seS

elf-

fund

ed P

hase