UC Budget Conference 2007: Table Topic Discussion
Academic Budgeting/Enrollment Planning/Health Sciences
Facilitators: Carol Copperud and Bonnie McKellar
This group developed many questions to be considered as the campuses and UCOP move
forward with enrollment planning for 2020 and the expansion of health sciences
enrollments for the first time in many years.
How will increases in health sciences enrollments be handled? UCOP will be looking to
campuses for information, starting with what the state currently provides for health
sciences enrollments. Historically, this has been based on a student/faculty ratio of 8:1.
Both Davis and Berkeley are looking to increase their health sciences enrollments.
Costing of Public Health activities is difficult since there are six major disciplines
spanning from disciplines needing wet-labs to disciplines that focus more on social
sciences.
At the same time, campuses are working on the next long-range academic plan for 2020.
How would health sciences fit into enrollment planning? In this planning process, UCOP
will take a different role. During the last enrollment planning process, UCOP provided
the guiding vision, but this time, it is looking to the campuses to answer questions that
will guide planning: split between ug and grad enrollments and the increase of health
sciences. Provost Hume believes that campuses should be making strategic plans, but
should not assume that funding will be provided. Campuses need plans in case resources
become available. Will campuses ‘hear’ that funds will not necessarily be allocated by
UCOP?
The funding mechanism will need to be examined. Will student/faculty ratios still be
used? It seems that the state is moving away from that methodology, e.g. the Prime
program was not funded using a ratio. Support funding was calculated by dividing
general funds by enrollments.
Professional fees can provide the difference between MCOI funding and actual costs, or
would a self-supporting model work instead of the use of professional degree fees? Selfsupporting used to be tied to part-time, but now that model seems to be breaking down.
We must be careful to not have state-funded faculty FTE decreases. As we look at
enrollment planning, we should include an examination of self-supporting programs.
Will the MCOI increase? UCOP has not made a request for more in either FY08 or
FY09. They have resisted differentiating between graduate and undergraduate MCOI
levels, out of the fear that the UG level will decrease while the current level would be
maintained for graduate FTE.
Should allocations be weighted for types of students, grad vs. undergrad, as well as
different areas: general campus, health sciences, medical programs. We will have
pressure from the state to increase (or at least not decrease) undergraduate enrollments
because the perception is a decrease would also decrease diversity. At the same time,
there is a need to increase graduate enrollments.
Another cause of concern is the push by CSU to add graduate programs such as the EdD.
Will this cause a re-examination of the California master plan for higher education? It
would detract from the teaching emphasis of the CSUs. At the same time, there are
opportunities that might make sense, e.g. nursing faculty since CSU has the infrastructure
in place to develop a nursing PhD. Of concern is the movement toward ‘doctorate
lights,’ those degrees that are somewhere between the masters and the doctorate. The
public may start questioning why it should pay for a UC doctorate when it could get a
much less expensive version of an advanced degree.
Are campuses seeing where graduate growth is likely to occur? Many in the group could
not answer since campus planning offices are the lead in enrollment planning. The
assumption is that new fields of study such as nanotechnology, etc. will be areas of
growth. When units submit their plans for graduate enrollment growth, UCOP will sum
the totals proposed in each discipline to determine if the sciences are the prime growth
area, or if the arts, humanities, and social sciences are also growing.
Carol and Bonnie asked the campuses to provide feedback on areas that could or should
be changed or ideas for more efficiencies within the academic planning and budgeting
area. They are seeking input from the campuses and believe that the restructuring efforts
at UCOP will be implemented and successful. People suggested that UCOP make data
more available, e.g. reports submitted to OP by the campuses. The IR database has been
provided to IR directors on campuses and that is an important first step. Bonnie warned
that the campuses are very different and that data must be viewed with those differences
in mind. Also, UCOP has seen one of its roles as protecting the campuses from the
outside world, by providing consistent system wide data derived with the same
methodology. Should that role continue?