Tuition by the Credit Hour Discussion -- Excerpted from the

Draft Outline: Tuition by the Credit Hour White Paper (JWW 1/21/09)

I. Explain current funding structure

A. Regular school year

1. Base funding

a. Formula (what determines money among per student)

b. Number of students and timing (based on prior year or fall census of enrolled students)

c. Division of funds among the campuses

d. What is covered by this base funding (e.g. not IT, but libraries)

2. Special cases

a. Full-time v. part-time

b. Resident v. non-resident

c. Graduate/professional school

d. NCSSM and UNCS Arts?

e. “Focused growth” campuses

f. Anything else?

B. Summer school

1. History of current system

2. Current system:

a. Receipt-based?

b. Any supplementation?

c. By the credit hour

d. Resident/non-resident/graduate/professional?

e. How are on-line courses handled in this context?

3. Data on patterns of enrollment

C. Joint programs (e.g. EC State/UNC CH Pharmacy or others where blended attendance)

1. What programs

2. What system for funding and student payments?

D. Other programs that are out of the ordinary

1. E.g. overseas programs? Is tuition paid directly there?

2. Certificate programs if “live” delivery?

E. Distance education and on-line programs

1. Distance education courses (students in residential status but also taking courses by distance)

a. Campus policies

i. Courses at student’s own campus but online: are there caps on # of courses, costs?

ii. Courses at other campus and on-line (are there caps on #? Practices re costs/fees?)

b. Data re on-line course patterns (courses, what students, sending/receiving campuses)

2. Distance education programs (full program on-line)

a. Funding system with regard to programs offered to in-state residents

b. Funding system with regard to programs offered more generally (not just in-state)

II. Reasons for re-examining the current system (not pro and con for particular changes, but rather why doing it now, what is the driver for raising the questions now?)

III. Research on what other places have been doing (clarity/accuracy/important; perhaps use matrix?) (I would like to help here; I thought the data from 2005-06 was not well-explained, accurate, complete)

IV. Criteria for what a sound system would look like

A. Educationally sound (define more fully)

1. Encourage exploration and high aspirations by students who want to learn all they can

2. Don’t penalize certain majors (particularly sciences)

3. Don’t undercut the core liberal arts education concept by balkanizing education

4. Budget decisions are currently made programmatically; would new system change that?

B. Fair (define more fully)

1. Don’t disadvantage students from high schools with few AP/IB advance college credits

2. Don’t disadvantage non-residential adult learners who take a course at a time

3. Develop fair strategy regarding offsets/added costs if not taking all courses at single campus

C. Administratively feasible and efficient

1. Budget and financial tracking: foster accountability without burdensome bureaucracy

2. Student aid: avoid added bureaucratic hassles due to add drop/payment systems

3. Registration: how will student add/drop work with billing and enrollment decisions?

4. Legislature: will change in system during a time of financial difficulties result in funding of only a certain number of hours? What kind of triage decisions will have to be made then?

D. Transparent and understandable

1. Don’t make it harder to maintain clear benchmarks on tuition

2. Don’t make it harder to maintain predictable tuition

E. Uniform across all campuses?

1. Is that a goal? Why?

2. How is it to be achieved given differential campus-based tuition and missions?

F. Facilitate enrollment by part-time students?

1. Particularly adults not enrolled in residential programs

2. Can part-time program costing be addressed on its own terms?

G. Revenue neutral (explain; as to whom?)

H. Incentives for sound and cost-efficient educational program development

I. Incentives for effective deployment of resources/educational opportunities

1. Develop common strategy as to whether students at one campus pay surcharge to take some limited number of courses at other campuses?

V. Options (with pros and cons) (probably no more than three options?)

A. GA Proposal (I’ve never been clear on the contours here)

B. Alternative (TBA)

C. Current System: Block Tuition

EXCERPT relating to Tuition by the Credit Hour

Minutes of UNC Chapel Hill Faculty Council Meeting (12/12/08)

Provost’s Remarks

Provost Bernadette Gray-Little reported on several senior administrator searches:
•    The search for Director of the Renaissance Computing Institute is close to identifying a list of candidates to be invited to campus for interviews.
•    The search for Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences has not yet reached the point of narrowing candidates down to an interview list.
•    The search for Dean of the School of Nursing expects to identify finalists in January.
•    Dean Jose-Marie Griffiths has decided not to seek reappointment as Dean of the School of Information and Library Science. The search committee will be chaired by Dean John Stamm and will begin work in January.

On the budget front, the Provost reported that General Administration has asked that each institution submit scenarios in anticipation of reductions in state appropriations of three percent, five percent, and seven percent. All academic and support units have been asked to report how they would respond to state funds reductions of these magnitudes.

Provost Gray-Little spoke at length about the drive originating in General Administration to move to a system-wide method of computing tuition charges by credit hour. This discussion began about ten years ago, she said, and seems to have arisen from discussions on issues surrounding the growth of on-line course offerings and transfer of recognition of credits for such instruction among the sixteen campuses. Currently, tuition at Carolina is set at fixed rates for full-time in-state and out-of-state students without regard to the number of credit hours taken. Students enrolled on half-time status pay a lower rate, but it is not strictly proportional to credit hours taken. General Administration has wanted for several years to move to the credit hour model for three principal reasons: (1) greater transparency in accounting for tuition charges; (2) a stronger relationship between course load and tuition charges, and (3) facilitation of tuition charges for distance education work. The Provost said that Carolina has been vocal in opposing the credit-hour model for the last four or five years. We think it is inconsistent with the culture of this institution, she said, and would act as a disincentive to students who would otherwise explore courses not required for the degree they are seeking. She said that General Administration has accommodated all of the objections Carolina has advanced except those based on our educational philosophy.

The Provost said that the on-going controversy about the credit-hour tuition model is now at a critical juncture due to the impending implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System. The time has come to decide whether to design the software to administer the current system of computing tuition or to move to the credit-hour model. Once that decision is made, implementation would be a year or two into the future. The Provost said that Assoc. Provost Elmira Mangum is now visiting each school to gather information for determining the appropriate credit-hour tuition charge for that unit. This will be a difficult task, she said, because the goal will be to set figures that are revenue-neutral.

Prof. Gregory Copenhaver (Biology) asked what overall financial impact the credit-hour model will have, and whether there are ways to forestall disincentives for double majors and undergraduate research. The Provost replied that the average course load for undergraduates is 14.7 credit hours per semester. Every effort will be made to ensure that the new model generates the same amount of tuition revenue as the current plan, i.e., that it will be revenue-neutral. She said that it would be very difficult if not impossible to address advantages or disadvantages from the vantage point of any particular student.

In response to a question from Prof. Joy Renner (Allied Health Sciences) the Provost said that the current system for tuition surcharges in certain circumstances would continue unchanged.

Prof. Judith Wegner (Law), Chair of the UNC Faculty Assembly, reported that the Faculty Assembly plans to consider a resolution at its January meeting expressing concern about the credit-hour model and urging further study. The Provost replied that Carolina has made the case against the plan repeatedly without success. It is not possible, she said, to program the ERP software to implement both systems. Prof. Wegner said that rumor has it that Carolina is on board with the new plan. The Provost replied that any such rumor is false.

Prof. Douglas Kelly (Statistics & Operations Research), seconded by Prof. Jean DeSaix (Biology) moved that the rules be suspended to the end that the Council might entertain a resolution on the subject of tuition computation methods. The motion was adopted unanimously.

Prof. Kelly, seconded by Prof. DeSaix, moved adoption of the following resolution

Resolution 2008-5. On Tuition Computation Methods

Resolved, that it is the unanimous sentiment of the Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that the block method of computing tuition is preferable to the proposed credit-hour system.

The resolution was adopted without dissent.

Chancellor Thorp said that he strongly supports the resolution, but that a decision to implement the credit-hour model is inexorable. “We have no choice,” he said.

Moving to another topic, Prof. Templeton asked whether the faculty will have input on budget reduction decisions. The Provost replied that the University Priorities and Budget Advisory Committee will be consulted, and that faculty should also have input at the school and department level. She welcomed suggestions about the overall approach to this matter.

COMPOSITE DISCUSSION – Tuition by the Credit Hour

J. Wegner and others

____________________________________________________________

I'm really curious about the data (always good to have info) about whose

students are taking courses where... so I can see on the ground what the

dilemmas are. Let's see if I "get it" from what you've said below:

(a) you want a uniform approach within the overall 16-campus system so that

it's easier to have cross-enrollment... right? Even if the tuition levels are

different on the different campuses? Because that means that at least you're

dealing with the same base units of measurement?

(b) you're worried about part-time adult learners and think that it will be

better for them to have per-credit hour calculations because they're taking

courses on a course-by-course basis rather than being in a "part-time student"

status?

15 units as the base?

(d) you've got some data models out there and some data that looks at what's

happening in terms of what/where students are enrolling for individual courses

but that's not something that can be shared? I'm not sure which specific

campuses have run what scenarios here so am still in the dark about what the

on-the-ground realities here might be... I always try to get at data so I can

understand... so if there is such and it's possible to share I'd welcome it.

(e) you've raised whether campuses would be willing to give up a portion of

their tuition revenues on a pro-rata basis to allow students taking on-line

courses elsewhere to do that without being charged more? (I raised the

outline of what I wrote to you earlier today to see if it would fly around

here and didn't get a response yet but I think it's a fair proposal so wanted

to probe on that point... )

(f) I see that the issues of the funding model and who gets to report the

credit hours are important... and I've read the funding model documents on the

GA website... but somehow it seems to me that the whole question of funding

strategies re distance education are distinctive... have been pretty tuned in

to distance education developments generally but maybe I need to try to track

down more info about strategies there.

I won't keep you longer tonight. For what it's worth, I'm not sharing

anything you send to me with anyone else here... I just am trying to

understand and prepare for upcoming meetings. I felt, too, that when the BOG

educational planning committee has met to touch on distance ed issues (at

least when I've been able to sit in on those meetings) there hasn't been a

very clear understanding of the whole costs/character of e-learning there...

so I imagine trying to think through not only the nature of the issues but

also how to explain them is worth the practice.

I'm so glad you are still around here rather than in Greensboro and look

forward to seeing you soon.

Best--Judith

-----Original Message-----

From: Jeff Davies [mailto:jrd@northcarolina.edu]

Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 2:22 PM

To: Judith Wegner; rnelson

Subject: Re: Prepping for Faculty Assembly Budget Committee: Student Credit

Hour/Tuition Issues

Judith,

I completely understand that you are not trying to give me a hard time and are

that you are concerned about the issues which I admire.

Respectfully, I think your argument conveys exactly what isn't working in our

system. Arranging compensation on an individual basis course by course is

exactly what we do now that has discouraged the collaborations that we hope

for and doesn't allow us to realize the potential from sharing courses among

campuses. This is time consuming and messy and both the campuses and the

students end up not knowing what the rules are because they change constantly.

For instance at some campuses, if a student takes 15 hours, twelve on campus

and three distance ed - on the same campus, the student pays full-time regular

term tuition plus three hours of distance ed. At other campuses, this is not

true. This gets exacerbated when the distance ed course is delivered by

another campus.

If a student from CH is taking twelve hours on the Chapel Hill campus and

three hours elsewhere, why would CH want to send tuition elsewhere when this

reduces its receipts and CH is providing the student with a full load of

instruction? This gets complicated further by the fact that we need to

determine which campus gets to report the student credit hours delivered and

which campus gets to put the student on the funding model for state support. I

really welcome this discussion with the faculty assembly and hope that you can

help me convey the complexities.

I really wish I knew the answer to this.

Erskine and I had ten students in for dinner last night and this discussion

came up. Recognizing the argument about exploration is both important and

unresolved, the students were under some wrong impressions

- the principal one being that twelve hours would in the future cost what 12

hours costs now when the revenue neutral level of credit hours is actually

more like 16 or 17. When they learned that the adult learner taking a part-

time load is often paying disproportionately more under the FTE model, they

became deeply concerned that we were discouraging education for those that

were really trying hard to get an education and facing difficult

circumstances. At the end of the meeting, the students were knowledgeable,

concerned, and divided on their perspectives - just as we are.

Again, I don't know the answer to this but welcome the conversation. I'm not

invested in converting if it's the wrong thing to do, but like 13 of the

provosts, don't want to miss out on the opportunities that we have now and

want to recognize that we are not providing instruction the same way that we

did in the 70's when the FTE system worked effectively - before on-line

learning and the potential for collaboration existed.

Thanks.

Jeff

Judith Wegner wrote:

> Hi, Rob. Just left you a message about preparing for the Faculty

> Assembly budget committee meeting for next week. I've been talking

> with folks here on campus to get a fuller understanding of the ins and

> outs of proposals to change how tuition is charged and thinking

> further about what Jeff Davies said in the meeting we had a couple of

> weeks ago.

> Here's what I've been wondering:

> 1. Is there written background material that goes with the recent

> discussions with CAOs, etc.? If so, could we circulate it to the

> budget committee in advance so we can do our homework? For

> example, do we have data on how many students from the various

> campuses are taking courses at other campuses (I assume these

> are mostly distance education courses)? Do we have information

> on the "trade balance" in effect (who takes what where and what

> the net in/out flow is)? Do we know what the charges are for

> particular distance education courses as matters currently

> stand, and how those compare between the institutions that are

> providing them?

> 2. I don't have the written proposals that have been discussed

> previously, and know from what you and Jeff said that there are

> further details being developed now. I may be missing something,

> but here's what would make sense to me, based on the description

> of the problem that Jeff offered when we met and what you said

> at prior Faculty Assembly Budget Committee discussions. If it's

> really an issue of how compensation for courses works, I would

> imagine something like this:

> 1. Student at NCSU takes distance ed course at ECU.

> 2. NCSU student doesn't have to pay extra to ECU but instead,

> ECU tells NCSU what the cost for the course is and NCSU

> transfers funds accordingly to ECU to cover the course

> (since the NCSU student has already paid tuition on a FTE

> student basis to NCSU, I assume).

> 3. You wouldn't have to do this student-by-student when they

> enroll, but could instead have some aggregate number of

> students from the sending school and the receiving school

> and then transfer the net funds whichever way the balance

> played out.

> 4. If you did it this way, there'd be no need to shift to a

> system in which all campuses would have to move to a per

> credit hour system in calculating tuition, but would

> simply deal with the two key issues that I understood from

> Jeff and your earlier comments (namely, fairness to

> students and fair compensation to the providers of

> distance education courses). It would also seem to me that

> this kind of charge-back system would work for other kinds

> of situations (for example if an A&T student takes a

> course at Greensboro or whatever).

> 3. If you did it this way you'd get several benefits (these are the

> things I've been worrying about in terms of a wholesale change

> from student FTE tuition charge model to a student credit hour

> model):

> 1. Avoid having to calculate student financial aid on a

> projected credit hour basis then take back tuition money

> if they don't enroll or maintain the requisite number of

> hours (now, as long as they're a full-time equivalent

> student and take at least 12 hours I believe they're able

> to get tuition funding and we don't try to take it back)

> 2. Keep from deterring students from taking more units at a

> time when we need them to try to take enough credits to

> graduate in a timely way (if it costs more to take 15

> units than 12 units then they may take fewer units and

> graduate more slowly)

> 3. Be fairer to students since if they're paying for full

> tuition at their home school and the distance education

> course is in lieu of a course they'd take at their home

> school they shouldn't have to pay more for the distance

> education course.

> 4. Simplify deliberations on tuition levels (harder and more

> confusing to debate $ per credit hour I believe)

> 5. Allow the distance education provider to recoup costs in a

> timely way from one of the system institutions (rather

> than having to tie distance ed courses to the baseline

> campus tuition level . since it's not clear to me that

> distance ed courses really cost at the same level as

> in-person courses. could be more, could be less. but since

> the different campuses already have differentiated

> tuition, a student credit-hour system would seem to me to

> be strangely complicated. for example, if both NCSU and

> ECU offer on-line basic physics, but NCSU has higher base

> campus tuition than ECU, would a student at NCCU who is

> choosing between a comparable course at NCSU and ECU going

> to make that choice based on which one is cheaper? If

> instead the institution where the student is going pays

> the rate for the distance ed course that's applicable, it

> reduces this shopping phenomenon for the student).

> I hope you and Jeff both understand that I'm not trying to give you a

> hard time, just trying to understand why the proposal that has been

> discussed to date seems to take on more than is needed to address what

> I think y'all said was the actual problem. As you know, our delegation

> has some concerns about this, in part based on our prior experience

> with changes in summer school tuition structure and its subsequent

> implications, and in part based on our concern not to make taking more

> courses more expensive (we have something like 14.8 credit hours per

> semester as a pattern among our students and don't want to create

> incentives to take fewer courses since we are glad students want to

> learn more).

> I've downloaded everything I can find on the GA website that might

> bear on this issue but wanted to set out these thoughts for you in

> advance in hopes doing so would help us both think how to structure

> the budget committee meeting.

> Thanks very much, Rob. and thanks to you too, Jeff.

> Best-Judith Wegner

Jeffrey R. Davies,

Chief of Staff

The University of North Carolina General Administration P.O. Box 2688 Chapel

Hill, NC 27515-2688

Phone: (919) 962-1591

Fax: (919) 843-6843

Letter from UNC-CH Student Body President JJ Raynor to Erskine Bowles

Thank you for meeting with us last semester. We enjoyed the opportunity to share our views with you on the switch to a per credit hour tuition model. Per your request, we have committed our thoughts to paper. We hope that the following observations will influence your thinking on a switch to per credit hour tuition for UNC-Chapel Hill. We believe that switching to a per credit hour tuition model will harm Carolina’s academic mission and threaten Carolina’s core values of access and service to the state of North Carolina. Among the unintended but serious consequences of such a switch are:

· Per credit hour tuition disadvantages students from already disadvantaged high schools. Many students start at Carolina with large amounts of academic credit by examination from AP/IB courses. Disproportionately, students with the most AP/IB credits matriculate from wealthy or advantaged high schools. Starting out with large amounts of AP/IB credit allows these students to take fewer courses at Carolina. Under a per credit hour tuition model, this would also allow these students to pay for fewer courses. As a result, students whose high schools were fortunate to offer a broad array of AP/IB classes will have an additional advantage over students from poorer high schools when it comes time to pay their tuition. The resulting regressive system is antithetical to Carolina’s core mission to promote educational access for all citizens of North Carolina.

· Per credit hour tuition raises the cost of the academic majors North Carolina’s economy needs the most. Not all majors require the same number of credit hours. Liberal arts majors, with few prerequisite courses, typically require 9 to 10 courses, or 27 to 30 credit hours, to complete the major. Science and professional majors, in addition to a large number of prerequisite courses, typically require 12 to 15 courses, or 36 to 45 credit hours, to complete the major. Additionally, the per semester credit load for a science major tends to be higher than a liberal arts major because of laboratory requirements. For each lab or undergraduate research practicum a student takes one additional credit hour is added to her semester. As a result, both the total cost of the major and the total cost of the degree will be higher for students graduating in the sciences. Increasing the cost of science and professional majors will make North Carolina less competitive in producing the very majors her economy needs.

· Per credit hour tuition threatens the viability of an intensive liberal arts curriculum. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s curriculum is founded on the liberal arts view that familiarity with and academic curiosity about a wide range of disciplines promotes the interdisciplinary problem solving that our students need to be successful in our changing world. In 2006, UNC-Chapel Hill introduced a new curriculum to encourage students to take more exploratory classes before settling on their concentration. The switch to per credit hour tuition threatens this interdisciplinary focus. Rather than pay a penalty for exploration, students may confine themselves to courses needed to graduate and substitute credits by exam for academic growth.

· Per credit hour tuition will reduce participation in UNC-Chapel Hill’s special one credit courses designed to promote unique academic experiences. UNC-Chapel Hill hosts a number of programs that provide students with one hour of academic credit in exchange for their participation in a uniquely rewarding academic experience. These programs include the Modes of Inquiry program which trains students to participate in undergraduate research, the UNC-Chapel Hill Orchestra, the Great Decisions program which focuses on foreign policy, and the CSTART program which allow seniors to design and teach their own courses. These courses are designed to help students enrich their time at Chapel Hill. For many of these programs, the provision of academic credit was intended as an incentive or reward for participation. Under a per credit hour tuition model, students would be discouraged from participating in these programs to the detriment of their academic experience and development at UNC-Chapel Hill.

· Per credit hour tuition jeopardizes the UNC system’s move towards greater tuition predictability. Students and their families recognize the great academic value North Carolina’s state supported university system provides. However, for many families, meeting the cost of attendance at Carolina in a flagging economy requires careful financial planning. In implementing a percentage cap on in-state tuition increases the UNC system took a bold step towards providing students and their families with the predictability they need to plan for the cost of their education. A per credit hour tuition model threatens this financial predictability. Under a per credit hour tuition model, students will not know the final cost of their semester until after the final drop add date. Some students, particularly those who must pick up a course at the last minute in order to graduate, may find themselves scrambling to cover the unanticipated cost.

· Per credit hour tuition adds a layer of complexity to the tuition process that will create challenges for the University and for students and their families. Determining a typical student’s final tuition bill for a given semester will involve no fewer than three departments – the University Cashier, the Registrar, and the Office of Scholarships and Financial Aid. At a time when hiring additional staff positions to support the change to per credit hour tuition is unlikely, these three departments will see their work load increase dramatically as they try to navigate mid-semester refunds and charges. Given the complexity of administering financial aid alongside a per credit hour model, there will be mistakes, paperwork will be lost, scholarship checks delayed, and credit loads miscalculated. The penalties for students when mistakes are made are high. Students whose bills are not paid in full are dropped from their classes and may be disqualified from student housing. A move to a per credit hour tuition model increases the probability that students and their families will be confronted with these difficulties because of the complexity of the billing system and the increased communication among the three offices.

Some of these consequences are unavoidable with a shift to a per credit hour tuition model. Many, however, can be mitigated by introducing a cap on the number of credit hours the university bills student for. Below the cap, students would be charged tuition by the credit hour; above the cap, students would pay a simple block amount. This cap would eliminate the disincentives for taking courses once a student has surpassed the credit cap.

Where the cap is placed is critical. At UNC-Chapel Hill, a cap on the number of credits billed would be most effective when set at 12 hours. To complete a degree in four years and to be qualified as a full time student for federal and insurance purposes, a student must take 12 credit hours a semester. Many students who come in with AP/IB credit can graduate in four years by taking just 12 hours a semester. Setting the cap higher than 12 hours would thus disadvantage students whose high schools did not equip them with significant amounts of AP/IB credit. If the cap is set at 12 hours, however, it removes the disincentive to explore academically by taking additional classes and removes the disadvantage an unmitigated switch to a per credit hour model would have on students from disadvantaged high schools.

The decision to switch the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to a per credit hour tuition model is not one that should be taken lightly. The switch risks serious consequences that will impede UNC-Chapel Hill’s academic mission and impair the services it provides the state through promoting educational access and economic growth. Some, but not all, of these consequences can be avoided by creating a credit cap on billing if the system switches to a per credit hour model. If the UNC system decides that it must switch the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to a per credit hour tuition model, we strongly urge you to consider a billing cap set at 12 hours or lower.

Excerpts from May 2008 Faculty Assembly Minutes

Tuition by the Credit Hour.

Mabe said that the Finance Division at General Administration (GA) is now taking the lead on this matter. For background, there are two models: one for on-campus (live) courses, and another (based on credit hour) for those taking on-line courses. There is block tuition for residents (12 hours base, but as many more as may be desired). On some campuses, if you hit the 12 hour base, and then take an on-line course, enrollment may be allowed without more cost, but on others there may be an additional cost for distance-based courses (and that may be the case for those from other campuses). Some campuses are considering having certain majors available on-line (students would take general education at one site, but then their students might take a major at another campus on-line). This approach may be useful for particularly expensive majors. Almost everyone things there should be a move either in the block approach or tuition by the credit hour. There is a sense that GA is really going to pursue this matter now. The earliest implementation will be a few years away. They’ve discovered through their inter-institutional work that there’s a lot of involvement that is required with advisers, registrars, and so forth. If they hit a road block, they might back up, but they’re now moving ahead. Someone from NCSU has done a white paper that outlines all the things that need to be done in order to work this out.

Jim Martin (NCSU) asked whether there’s now been a decision to proceed with per credit hour system? He thinks there is a need to resolve on-line costs. But a per credit hour system isn’t the only solution. Mabe said that CAOs had voted two years ago with consent of all but one to support the change. Mabe said that they are going to move ahead. Those in GA think they don’t know enough yet about how feasible this approach ultimately be. He thinks that once such systems are implemented they return to some sort of balance. Judith Wegner (UNCCH) said that there was considerable concern on this front two years ago and that there were significant faculty concerns about how such a system might disadvantage poorer students or skew choices of courses and majors. She said that the methodology used by GA in purportedly identifying national norms on tuition systems at that time was flawed. She said that there had not been adequate input from faculty members. Mabe acknowledged possible disagreements. He said that there might be better financial breaks for students in the new approach.

Sharon Jacques (WCU) said that the “per credit hour” proposal seems to be a way to raise the tuition without making such hikes visible. Mabe said the goal would be to be revenue neutral. Jacques asked how fees would be addressed. Mabe said it may depend. Different campuses do this in different ways.

Jim Martin (NCSU) asked whether there was any assurance that pedagogy and quality would trump business decisions. Mabe said that the availability of on-line offerings and the system “quality control council” would provide assurances in this regard. The question is what is in the best interest of the student. The goal is to incentivize so that students can take advantage of opportunities.

Gary Jones (WCU) said that if there is information on quality oversight of on-line offerings could that information be made available to faculty members. Mabe said that President Bowles had directed Mabe to assure quality. Mabe told provosts to assure quality. Each provost identified someone from their campus to be part of the on-line quality council. Jimmy Reeves (UNCW) is the Faculty Assembly’s representative to this group. The quality council thinks that they will be able to address this matter by fall. There’s a need to assure the world out there that we’re paying attention to quality. In the UNC Online website, there are references to SACS and so forth. If the quality control council comes up with something it will be circulated for comment. Jones stressed that we must not lose the “quality of the brand” for UNC programs. Mabe said that it’s a moving target, the council is learning from each other, and so forth. Ken Wilson (ECU) said that the logical place to assure quality is in the department where the course is being offered. At ECU in his department, they’ve implemented a peer review process. Mabe said that he agreed with that view. Mabe’s field is philosophy and knows he cannot judge other fields. He thinks, however, that peers can review things and provide a basis for judging quality.

Jim Martin (NCSU) said that his concern about quality isn’t just about on-line matters. He doesn’t assume that on-line means low quality. One of his concerns is that payment by the credit hour disadvantages their best students. Mabe said that there’s no indication that practices using one approach is better than the other. Martin said he’d like to see the data.

Linda Callahan (NCAT) said that she’d like more history and information on the basis for the effort to move away from block tuition. Mabe said that the legislature funds on-line offerings by the credit hour. If on-line education is something that UNC wants to do, we need to make it possible for students to have incentives to take offerings elsewhere on-line. Block tuition incents students to take courses on campus, and they want to give incentives to take courses at other schools on line. He thinks that having on-line majors is desirable. Everything that supports high-quality majors is desirable.

Andy Koch (ASU) asked Mabe whether he really meant to say that GA intended to push for only some campuses to provide majors in physics or philosophy, and so that other campuses would have their students be served there. Mabe mentioned radiology. Koch said let’s get back to core disciplines in the liberal arts. Are you intending to farm those out too? Mabe said that there’s a German consortium because there are insufficient German majors on each campus. Mabe said that the existing system is not subject to generalization. Settings in which such an arrangement makes sense would be for high-cost majors or when faculty come together to suggest collaborations. Jim Martin (NCSU) asked Mabe about high-cost programs. Mabe said that typically high-cost programs involve high-cost equipment, labs, and intensive work that is not susceptible to on-line delivery. Mabe said that GA wants to figure out ways to do these things by moving students around (noting ECSU and UNCCH pharmacy program). Mabe concluded this segment by saying he wished that Vice President for Finance Rob Nelson had been presenting today. He said he would take the Assembly’s views back to Rob Nelson and others.

Funding model review.

Mabe said that there’s a task group working on the topic of funding formulas (linked to nature of academic field and level of programs). Chief of State Jeff Davies is chairing it. It’s common to do such a review periodically. For example, the last time a review was done, nursing was recognized as more expensive and was moved up in the funding formula to the same level as engineering. National data supported this move. Data for the UNC System showed that nursing cost more than engineering. The process is slowing down a bit and won’t be ready for the current legislative session. If the group has any recommendations, they’ll be vetted through various channels. Mabe said he thought the current formula is good and has carried the system through difficult times. That’s not the case in other states. This model includes costs beyond instructional costs (UNC’s covers libraries and so forth). UNC’s base funding is now included in the continuation budget. He thinks it’s best not to mess with something that functioning.

A delegate from UNCC said that many faculty on their campus feel that they’re being funded at a very low level and are going to be expected to add substantial numbers of students without needed resources.

Mabe said that the current model is based on student credit hours by level and discipline. It may be helpful to have a presentation on this at some point. GA uses data drawn from the teaching load protocol developed by the University of Delaware. He thinks there are different costs for engineering v. philosophy, and there are differences between doctoral level v. bachelors. The real question may be at what level and mix of degree programs exist on given campuses. If you’re in a high-cost discipline you have to love this formula. No one ever says that there are enough resources. Another delegate asked whether the details of the formula , disciplines, levels, etc. exist somewhere. Isn’t there a spreadsheet somewhere? Mabe said that the funding is by campus, and they sum the numbers. He said that a full-blown presentation might be wise.

Trish Casey (NCSA) asked how the funding formula worked for a campus with a high-school component. Mabe said that first professional schools are funded differently (not based on per credit hour). The School of the Arts is on a different funding formula. Why? Because it just is! The consultants in 1967 or so just held out the first professional programs. Any medical-related program is very, very expensive. They thought that including such fields in the overall formula would just distort the data for undergraduate programs. Mabe said that for campuses offering on-line courses to high school students, funding comes from the Department of Public Instruction and is not always received in a timely way. UNCG recently reported that they’ve just (May 1) received funding for spring term. But the funding approach includes the university formula.

Mark Spauling (UNCW) asked about projections for budget cuts. Mabe said that VP for Finance Rob Nelson thinks that the Governor may recommend a ¾% cut, but often the legislature doubles or triples that. There have been changing projections. We’re likely to experience funding cuts. When there are cuts, that money is used as a way to fund other things in election years. They also expect enrollment growth funding.

Brenda Killingsworth (ECU) asked about last year’s experience with holding on to unfilled positions. Mabe said that the legislature may try to reclaim positions open for more than 6 months. GA’s Finance Division is trying to suggest strategies to the campuses. Positions that have been open for more than a year may be particularly vulnerable. Chancellors have met and will do what they can to reduce such exposure. The General Assembly gets data on this kind of thing. If there is a percentage cut then campuses may allocate cuts as they choose.

Ken Wilson (ECU) asked about a Heritage Foundation report that purportedly says were’ not teaching students or helping generate funds. It’s a poorly done study. They have averaged student graduation rates across the whole system. GA is developing talking points for Erskine Bowles and hope to have that by this coming Monday. A professor from OSU (Vetter) is the one who did the analysis. Mabe said that it’s very poor work and GA will be able to show the flaws. On the other hand, UNC is quite well funded (among the top handful in the country). What the report purports to do is to show that we’re well-funded and that we have poor graduation rates. NC has an anomaly. Here in NC, public university graduation rates are higher than private universities (and this study blends them both).

Tuition by the Credit Hour Discussion -- Excerpted from the

DRAFT Minutes of the UNC Faculty Assembly: May 2, 2008

Presentation by Associate Vice President Alan Mabe.

Tuition by the Credit Hour.