A New Graduate School
Model
Graduate Executive Council (GEC)
Deans of the Colleges
Dr. Ali A. Houshmand, Provost
May 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
Provost
Academic Deans
Graduate
Program
Advisors
Associate Provost for
Research
Graduate
Executive
Council
Assistant Provost/
Graduate School
Director
Graduate
School Staff
CPCE Dean
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 carryforward
• 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
Once the Traditional
Revenue Model is
developed, a program
can redefine itself at
that time.
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
Jumpstart Revenue Sharing
Rollout Phase
• 100% of existing support from University
– Graduate Assistants (GA), Grad school salaries, Instruction support
• Professional programs will share the incremental tuitionrevenues 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
10% yr/yr growth
$4K instruction
$590 tuition
Tuition
Revenue
Incremental
Revenue
MBA share
COB share
Total
Instruction
Added 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
Roll-out Phase
AY
Self-funded Phase
Example (MBA Program)