To: Faculty Senate Executive Board
September 9, 2011
From: Ann Keniston on behalf of the Academic Standards Committee
Re: Chancellor’s Low-Yield Program Proposal
This memo compiles several concerns and suggestions agreed upon by the Academic Standards
Committee in e-mail correspondence and an in-person meeting. While I have written it up, this document has been reviewed and approved by all the continuing members charged with responding to the Chancellor’s proposal.
We have responded in two ways. We have included our comments on aspects of the existing proposal within the proposal itself. We have also raised other concerns and issues. Here is a list of those concerns:
Cost Savings . The underlying goal of this document seems to be to achieve cost savings by eliminating inefficient programs. We suggest that this goal be made explicit: that is, eliminating a program must lead to cost savings. We suggest that these savings be laid out in any proposal to eliminate a program and, further, that the University develop a reasonable criterion for cost savings. For example, if the savings involved in eliminating a doctoral program were minimal, the elimination should be reconsidered, especially given the less-easily-quantified benefits of retaining the program (recruiting more students to UNR, raising the research and general profile of the University, etc.). Considering cost savings would also avoid eliminating programs that bring in substantial research dollars to the University through outside grants but have relatively few majors.
Evaluation of Research Productivity. UNR achieved its recent ranking as among the best 500 universities in the world (RGJ, 9/5/11) not only due to its number of graduates but to its scholarly and creative accomplishments, publications, and research, which are all key aspects of
UNR’s mission. We suggest that departmental research, publication, external funding, and intellectual productivity be considered as well as teaching productivity in the determination of what constitutes a low-yield program. Including a metric for evaluating research would allow this document more accurately to reflect UNR’s role as a research as well as teaching institution.
Procedure for Review and Appeal of Low-Yield Programs. We suggest that the proposal spell out in detail the procedure by which exemptions would be determined. For example, who would make that determination? What kinds of petition and appeal processes would be put into place?
What kinds of assurances would faculty receive about reassignment vs. termination? How long would faculty and staff in such programs be allowed or expected to remain in their programs?
How would programs slated for elimination ensure that existing majors be allowed to complete their degrees?
Below are our comments on the proposal itself.

Section 5. Low-Yield Degree Programs
1.
Academic programs that are at least 10 years old shall be designated as low-yield if the number of degrees granted is below the following levels:
General Comment on Determining a Low-Yield Program
1.
Because UNR is substantially smaller than all the peer institutions cited in the
Chancellor’s Table 1, we suggest that the minimum number of degrees conferred annually be reduced in a way proportionate to the size of UNR and/or the relative size of its departments. (See Appendix A for a list of comparative student enrollments at these institutions.)
2.
To reduce the risk of single-year aberrations, we suggest that the term for degree conferral be raised from one or three to five years. Doing so will also allow increases in enrollment to be more accurately tracked.
3.
We suggest that the criteria be changed to consider total student FTE rather than the number of majors. Doing so will take into consideration several kinds of teaching vital in the university, including the teaching of service courses (of benefit to those in other majors), of courses in the Core Curriculum, and of interdisciplinary courses that may not be “credited” to a single department.
4.
We suggest that the size of each unit be considered in determining low-yield programs to more accurately reflect efficiencies. That is, a unit with a smaller faculty would logically instruct and graduate fewer students than a larger unit. We suggest that the formula for determining low-yield programs involve the ratio of graduating numbers in all relevant programs together (BS+MS+PhD) to the number of full-time faculty (See
Appendix B for suggestions about how to calculate low-yield programs in ways that take into consideration unit size.) a.
Associate degree programs must award at least ten degrees in the most recently reported year or at least twenty degrees total in the last three consecutive years, including the most recently reported year; Comment: we suggest to add: “for an average size of faculty of ten, provided that no other degree program is run concurrently at the same unit by the same faculty members. b.
Baccalaureate degree programs must award at least ten degrees in the most recently reported year or at least twenty degrees in the last three consecutive years, including the most recently reported year; Comment: we suggest to add: “for an average size of faculty of ten, provided that no other degree program is run concurrently at the same unit by the same faculty members. c.
Master’s degree programs must award at least three degrees in the most recently reported year or at least five degrees in the last three consecutive years, including the most recently reported year; Comment: we suggest to add: “for an average size of faculty of ten, provided that no other degree program is run concurrently at the same unit by the same faculty members.

d.
Doctoral degree programs must award at least three degrees in the most recently reported year or at least five degrees in the last three consecutive years, including the most recently reported year Comment: we suggest to add: “for an average size of faculty of ten, provided that no other degree program is run concurrently at the same unit by the same faculty members..
5.
A report to the Board of Regents Academic, Research and Student Affairs Committee on all designated low-yield programs shall be made biennially. Low-yield programs will automatically be eliminated after two years on the list unless designated as exempt from the low-yield program list. Comment: we suggest a slowdown. Low-yield programs will be given a notice for potential elimination within two years unless the program is (a) on the exempt list of the low-yield critera; or (b) on the track of improvement in graduation statistics, that is, either with increased graduates or decreased faculty size.
General comment on exemptions: We suggest that the document clarify the process by which programs can petition the President for exemptions. (See general comment above about procedures for review.)
6.
If a low-yield academic program is deemed essential to the central educational or research mission of the institution, the President may recommend that the Board of Regents
Academic, Research and Student Affairs Committee designate the program as exempt from the low-yield program list.
Comment: We suggest that this document clarify the criteria to be used to determine whether a program is “essential to the central educational or research mission of the university.” The
State Constitution’s land grant university mission statement is part of the formula, but it should be evaluated and clarified where necessary. For example, it might be argued that certain departments are essential to the University’s goal of providing a liberal arts education or that having a range of course offerings helps strengthen the University as a whole. (See separate comments on evaluating research as well as degree production for all departments and programs.)
7.
If a low-yield academic program meets a demonstrated workforce or service need of the state or the geographical region served by the institution, the President may recommend that the Board of Regents Academic, Research and Student Affairs Committee designate the program as exempt from the low-yield program list.
Comment: We suggest that this language also be clarified. Small programs that lead to good jobs for Nevadans might be made exempt, as might programs that (through their research as well as teaching) benefit State and other industries.
8.
If a low-yield academic program demonstrates an increase in student demand through a pattern of increasing enrollment of majors, the President may recommend that the Board of Regents Academic, Research and Student Affairs Committee designate the program as exempt from the low-yield program list for a period of two years to allow time for data to support its removal from the list of low-yield programs.

Comment: We suggest that the evaluation period be increased from two to five years to more accurately assess long-term enrollment patterns. Doing so would allow programs to develop strategies to deal with the inherent difficulties in maintaining, to sya nothing of increasing, enrollment once word has gotten out that they may be slated for elimination (see “Program
Reviews Can Produce ‘Death Spirals’ or Happy Endings,” Chronicle of Higher Education,
9/4/11).
Appendix A: Enrollment at Peer Institutions
Institution Total Enrollment Undergrad Grad Postgrad/professional Percentage of UNR
Enrollment
14,431
24,884
3,248
4,726 622
100%
172%
UNR (2010)
U of Alabama
17,679
30,322
(2010)
U of Arizona (2009) 39,013
53,755 U of Colorado (3 campuses, 2008)
U of Colorado
Boulder (2010)
29,952
30,592
24,806
8,421
5,146
221%
304%
169%
159% U of Kentucky
(2010)
U of Louisiana (3 campuses, 2010)
U of Louis.
Lafayette (2010)
U. of Maryland
College Park (2010)
U of Nebraska (4 campuses, 2010)
U of Neb, Lincoln
(2010)
28,037
82,915
16,763
37,641
49,897
12,974
19,906
15,306
26,922
19,383
8,231
1,457
10,719
4591
U of North Carolina
(total, 2008))
UNC, Chapel Hill
(2010)
183,000+
29,390 18,579 10,811
Appendix B: Suggested Metrics for Determining Graduation Rates in Majors that Consider Unit
Size
1.
First counter-proposal for the metrics given in Section 5.
Programs
Chancellor’s current proposal:
Low-Yield Degree
469%
95%
213%
282%
73%
1035+%
166%

The current proposal use simple, individual threshold values for BS, MS, and PhD graduates usually taught by the same faculty members. The BS/BA, MS and PhD graduates do not add together in the total educational output of a unit or program.
Last-year minimum
BS/BA MS PhD
10 3 3
BS/BA
20/3
Three-year average
MS
5/3
PhD
5/3
Counter-proposal:
Use cumulative designation of threshold values instead of individual values in order to conglomerate the measures of faculty output for parallel programs in BS/BA, MS, and PhD at an academic unit.
Cumulative last-year minimum
(BS/BA)/10 + MS/3 + PhD/3 >= 1
Justification:
Cumulative three-year average
3(BS/BA)/20 + 3MS/5 + 3PhD/5 >= 1
This would be a just and true metrics for a unit engaged in parallel programs. It would keep a synergetic connection between BS, MS, and PhD intact even if one of the three becomes lower for a time period while the others run stronger. It would not allow eroding the components oneby-one when the grand total is running strong.
For example, according to the Chancellor’s current proposal, a program is above the critical threshold in the following three cases:
BS/BA MS
10 0
PhD
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
It is not clear if eliminating the MS, the PhD, or the BS/BA degree program but keeping the unit intact for the remaining program(s) would make any benefit to the university.
However, a program would be marked for elimination in the following, high-output case, which should be kept, since 90% of the BS/BA, and 67% and 67% of the MS and PhD goals are also met at the same time:
BS/BA
9
0
9
MS
2
PhD
2
The counter-proposed, new metrics measures the activity much better:
(Chancellor’s) (Counter-proposed)
BS/BA MS PhD outcome Cumulative metric outcome
10
0
0
3
0
0 keep keep
1
1 keep keep
0
2
3
2 keep eliminate
1
3.55 keep keep

It may also be argued that a small program output from a small number of faculties in a unit should be more acceptable than a small program output from a unit with many faculty members.
We counter-propose a per-faculty metric for a program with a Number of Faculty (NF) as follows:
Cumulative last-year minimum
[(BS/BA)/10 + MS/3 + PhD/3]/NF >= 1/10
Cumulative three-year average
[3(BS/BA)/20 + 3MS/5 + 3PhD/5]/NF >= 1/10
In the above metrics, we assumed that the threshold values in the Chancellor’s current proposal were relevant to an average-sized program with 10 faculty members, i.e., for NR=10. Thus, a larger-sized unit will have to yield more graduates and vice versa.
2.
Second counter-proposal with an even more justifiable metrics to be used as threshold for marking a program for automatic elimination.
We propose to measure the productivity of a program in terms of effectiveness and efficiency in dollar amounts, linked to student’s number taught in all BS, MS and PhD programs through paid tuition. This metrics is a true measure of the cost of a unit or program to the university:
Cost to university (CTU) = (State support) - (Tuition paid by BS/BA+MS+PhD students) –
(F&A Soft money generated) – (endowment dividend of the unit) – (donation to the unit) –
(other program income from service and/or education)
The CTU can be evaluated biennially for each academic unit and a threshold value for acceptable CTU can be adopted for the university.
Justification:
The CTU per program or unit is a better metrics for efficiency than the number of graduates.
Such a net cost can automatically include the value of the service courses provided by some departments with low graduation numbers. The CTU correctly reflects the size of the faculty, and includes the total contribution of the faculty to the university. a.
Graduation yield output does not measure the total academic output of an educational unit. CTU that includes income from research, service, and reputation is a better measure.
Regular, tenured university faculty is supposed to (a) teach, (b) conduct creative scholarship, and
(c) provide professional service to the state and society. The regular split for components (a), (b) and (c) is 40%, 40% and 20%, respectively. Counting only the graduating numbers is a measure on a part of the useful faculty output, namely, only on 40% of the total.

It is not prudent to judge a unit by sampling only 40% of its useful output to the state. Producing graduates is not the entire mission of a land-grant university. The other, 60%-part of activities, involving scholarship and service, is value in proportion to the state and the university. These activities eventually translate into program income in the form of research funds, endowment, donation, etc.
Consider also that some of the program’s graduates may move to other states, leaving only their tuition fees in the coffers of the state. However, their academic unit stays, and so stays the reputation, as well as the impact on the state in education of the work force in a broad sense and in scholarly accomplishments. These all have to be measured and the CTU closely does it. b.
Low yield programs may be essential to the well-being of a land-grant university with a variety of low- and large-yield programs.
Small programs may be of importance without regarding their sizes and proportions to the whole. Consider mining engineering as an example. The healthiest industry in Nevada’s history has been mining. Mining companies need our graduates and our service in workforce training as well as in research and technology development. But Nevada mines do not need graduates in as large a number as Nevada schools need teachers. On the other hand, the CTU in our department is low, due to large research funds and other program incomes. c.
Statistics of identifying yield may be fast changing and can be faulty or misleading.
Consider Mining Engineering as an example, and use only the graduates with BS. There are 22 graduates with BS in the 5-year interval between years 2006 through 2010. However, sliding the
5-year interval by just one year to 2007 through 2011, the total graduates with BS is 28. This is a
25% increase, bringing the per year average to 5.6 BS/year, and the 5-year per full-time faculty
(of only 2.5) average to 28/2.5=11.2 BS/faculty. The per faculty member BS average is better than many UNR programs in good standing that are well above the proposed threshold for elimination.
3.
Third counter-proposal to combine the metrics in the 1 st and 2 nd counter-proposals in such a way that (1) the cumulative graduation metric per faculty member is used as a threshold for marking up a program for elimination; and (2) the CTU metric is used to grant possible exempt status from elimination.
Justification:
The cumulative graduation output metrics per faculty member is a justifiable measure for being in the average flock of the university.
A program may be exempt from the threshold value. A waiver from the policy can be justified based on other factors, amongst them the CTU which is a comprehensive metrics for the total output and efficiency when related to the good, average CTU of the University.