Graduate Student Profile and Support: Status and Outlook

Joint Meeting of the Council of Chancellors and the Academic Council

March 5, 2008

Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor, UCSD

Bruce Schumm, Chair, CCGA

Beginning next fiscal year, the University will enter into one of the most challenging environments it has ever faced

Paradoxically, this may offer a unique opportunity for graduate studies beginning two to three years from now provided:

• We do careful planning now• We have the institutional memory needed to follow through on that planning

Main Contention & Take-Home Point

Where Are We Now?

Relative Size of Graduate Enterprise

Participation of Under-Represented Groups

International Students

Non-Resident Tuition

Funding Gap

GSAC Report and Recommendations (2006)

Broad View of UC’s Graduate Enterprise

We have data on graduate degrees for UC and its comparison institutions broken down into

Ph.D.

Masters

“First Professional” (M.D., J.D., etc.)

In following, have restricted comparison to public comparison institutions (Anne Arbor, Illinois, SUNY Buffalo, Virginia)

As college-age population boomed, UC fulfilled its Master-Plan obligations…

Where does our relative graduate “shortfall” lie?

Per

cen

t of

All

Deg

rees

th

at a

re B

ach

elor

s

UC

Public Comparison

UC’s Ph.D. production is almost commensurate…

Per

cen

t of

All

Deg

rees

(i

ncl

ud

ing

Bac

hel

or’s

) th

at

are

Ph

.D.

UC

Public Comparison

Where we lag is in Masters degrees…

Question: Should we be comfortable with this in view of CSU’s participation in Master’s-level education?

Per

cen

t of

All

Deg

rees

th

at a

re M

aste

rs

UC

Public Comparison

and in “first professional” degrees (M.D., J.D, D.V.M., etc).

N.B. There is a global trend towards doctoral-level professional education. UC’s stance is being evaluated by the Provost’s PDPE Committee

Per

cen

t of

All

Deg

rees

th

at

are

1st P

rofe

ssio

nal

UC

Public Comparison

But there’s another way to look at this…

Rather than comparing fractions of different degree types, we can compare # of grads per faculty member.

“Faculty” are ladder-rank FTE, filled (as opposed to allocated) positions.

The data that answer this question present a somewhat different picture (needs confirm-ation)

Enrollment per Faculty FTEA

cad

emic

Gra

du

ate

En

roll

men

t p

er F

acu

lty

FT

E UC

Public Comparison

Possible implications, if true?

Ignoring undergrads, UC is a massive, concentrated public graduate powerhouse.

On top of this, UC educates a huge number of undergraduates with a relative poor student/faculty ratio (does this hamper the faculty?)

Might this suggests that increasing the graduate fraction must be accompanied by FTE growth, i.e., improved S/F ratio?

Diversity

We particularly lag our competitors in the enrollment of African American studentsSource: Work Team on Graduate and Professional School Diversity

Student Profile: Actions Taken I

Work Team on Graduate and Professional School Diversity: September 2007

Establishes domestic URM’s and international students as separate categories

Makes recommendations; entering implement-ation phase

Professional school access separate watch-point for regents

Far from a solved problem, but one that is being systematically pursued.

International Participation

Don’t yet have data from comparison institutions (probably want to include privates here)

Fra

ctio

n o

f N

ew A

cad

emic

G

rad

uat

e S

tud

ents

th

at

are

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Gra

du

ate

Non

-Res

iden

t T

uit

ion

10,000

20,000

30,000

NRT

INT’L FRACTION

Student Profile: Actions Taken II

Memorial to Eliminate Non Resident Tuition for Academic Graduate Students

February 2006

“The Academic Senate of the University of California requests that the Regents of the

University of California structure and advocate a budget for the University that

eliminates non-resident tuition for academic graduate students.”

Approved by 83% of voting Academic Senate members.

The Funding Gap

2007 GRADUATE STUDENT SUPPORT SURVEY

Offers to Ph.D. admits, relative to top-choice non-UC offer:

Annual stipend $1000 less than competitors

Including cost of living, effective differential is $2000 per year

Latter figure unchanged from 2004

The GSAC Report Fall 2005: Academic Council requests committee to explore grad support and NRT

GSAC formed; submits report June 2006

Comprehensive analysis, with several clear recommendations

AY 2006-2007: Little discussion in Senate or administration; $20M for grad support in 2007-2008 not clearly connected to implementation.

Basis of current CCGA/UCPB activity

GSAC Goals

Increase graduate enrollment (assumed 18% grad enrollment increase by 2010-2011)

Close funding gap

Eliminate disincentive for enrolling inter-national academic graduate students (target 25% of enrollment)

Main GSAC Recommendations

Eliminate (or return to source) non-resident tuition for Ph.D. students

Freeze fees and NRT for all academic graduate students

Remove TA fee remission from USAP stream (to distinguish it from return-to-aid)

Increase USAP return-to-aid from 24% to 33%

GSAC Findings (Highlights)

Based on clearly-stated assumptions

$37M cost to eliminate NRT for Ph.D. students ($14M if NRT kept for first year)

Overall, recommendations would require

• $50M-$75M reallocation of existing resources

• $25M-$50M new money

Here and Now…

Two years have passed since the GSAC study

• Two years of data on trends; 2007 Grad Support Survey

• Additional $20M for graduate support

• Intensive system-wide academic planning exercise coming to fruition (next slide)

• Budget collapse (derailment of Compact)

GSAC Follow-On?

Academic Council has forwarded letter from CCGA/UCPB requesting follow-on committee to GSAC

Main focus would be implementation of GSAC recommendations, including reallocation strategies (campus involvement)

Would begin with reassessment along lines suggested in this presentation (see UCPB/CCGA letter)

Prima facie, a bad time to improve grad funding

However, if Compact is restored, more “new” money will come to University than otherwise.

It is easier to allocate new money that to redirect existing funds

An opportunity if plans are in place

We need to develop those plans now.

Timing…

Institutional Memory

Experience suggests that we need to worry about legacy…

If committee constituted, should be done in a way that promotes institutional continuity

• Direct contact with both administration and Senate

• Smaller ongoing group to oversee implementation (with representation from both Senate and Administration)

Per degree awarded, UC’s Ph.D. production appears typical; other grad categories lacking; per faculty FTE, academic enrollments on par.

Consensus to enhance grad numbers and quality backed by GSAC report.

Implementation (and update) of GSAC not yet addressed; Council has requested follow-on committee

Moment may be oddly propitious; but must ensure memory and follow-through

Summary

Background courtesy J. Pollock

BACK-UP SLIDES

(caveat emptor)