Course Offerings Analysis Summary
Strategic Check-up
Central Michigan University
Course Offering Management Overview
Years of analyzing scheduling issues on college and university campuses has led to an understanding that capacity issues
are frequently impacted by even more fundamental scheduling decisions. Decisions on what courses to offer and when
to offer them directly impact the allocation of valuable resources and are commonly the most critical challenges to
address when developing more efficient and effective schedules.
Course offering analysis begins with an assessment of the seats, and resulting sections, offered for each course in an
analysis. These offerings are compared with historical enrollments in both the last like term and a mathematical
calculation of historical trends based on several terms. Invariably, some courses have more seats/sections offered than
are indicated by historical enrollments and some have fewer than are indicated.
Disconnects between offerings and historical need are highlighted. Additionally, Enrollment Ratios (the ratio of
enrollments to seats offered) for each course are presented. This analysis creates an opportunity to ask challenging
questions of priority and emphasis. The answers to these questions should ultimately encourage consideration of
modest or sweeping changes in the mutual interest of the institution and its students.
Key Findings – (Undergrad Only)
1. Statistical Findings
a. Excess Seats – 16,359 (874 courses) or 18.65 percent of all seats offered (87,703 seats). This is the sum
of seats offered but not needed based on historical demand of all courses in the dataset.
b. Additional Seats Needed – 14,566 seats (713 courses) or 16.61 percent of all seats offered (87,703
seats). This is the sum of additional seats required to meet the historical demand. The additional seats
needed based on Fall 2013 offerings only are 5,135 seats (249 courses) or 5.85 percent.
2. Ratios
a. Overall Enrollment Ratio – 87.17 percent. This is overall average enrollment (27.51) divided by overall
average enrollment capacity (31.59) on courses offered in the selected term. The overall enrollment
ratio is an excellent indicator of how well your institution is filling the seats being offered in a given
term.
b. Balanced Course Ratio – 435 of 1,215 courses or 35.80 percent. The number of courses where the total
enrollment is between seventy and ninety-five percent of the total seats offered. Balanced courses
indicate that your institution is matching appropriate enrollment capacities with the actual enrollment
in the courses. Courses where the fill ratio is less than seventy percent can indicate inefficiencies while
courses with fill ratios higher than ninety-five percent can indicate that students who need the course
may be unable to take it.
c. Overloaded Course Ratio – 332 of 1,215 courses or 27.33 percent. The number of courses where the
total enrollment is over ninety-five percent of the total seats offered. Overloaded courses may indicate
potential course ‘bottlenecks’. For these courses, the enrollment is dangerously close to the total seats
offered. Overloaded courses should be reviewed for potential additional seats needed even if no
‘addition candidates’ are indicated.
3. Candidates for review
a. Reduction Candidates – 135 of 2,779 sections or 4.86 percent. Reduction candidates are sections that
could be removed from the schedule without negatively impacting student need based on historical
analysis.
b. Addition Candidates – 495 of 2,779 sections or 17.81 percent. Addition candidates are sections that
may need to be added to the schedule to better meet student historical need. Addition candidates are
based on historical offerings (not on actual student need from program requirements) so these should
be reviewed with courses with a high fill ratio to determine where bottlenecks may exist. The subset of
those offerings that were offered in Fall 2013 included 79 sections (2.84 percent).
c. Elimination Candidates – 89 of 2,779 sections or 3.20 percent. Courses that could be eliminated from
the schedule because the historical demand is extremely low (less than 10 students) and the fill ratio is
less than fifty percent. These candidates must be reviewed in light of graduation requirements to be
sure they are not compromised.
4. Metrics by level
Enrollment ratios vary based on the course level, and usually lower level courses have higher enrollment
ratios than upper level courses. Reviewing the enrollment ratios per level may provide insight into
changes that should be considered.
Level
Baseline
Sections
Offered
Baseline
Average
Enrollment
Baseline
Average
Capacity
Enrollment
Ratio
000 Level Total
100 Level Total
200 Level Total
300 Level Total
400 Level Total
Undergrad Total
500 Level Total
600 Level Total
700 Level Total
800 Level Total
Graduate Total
Grand Total
36
1,096
618
729
334
2,813
261
197
94
24
576
3,389
23.36
31.63
28.12
25.51
17.66
27.51
18.41
13.19
8.63
5.25
14.48
25.29
29.47
37.85
31.87
27.76
19.07
31.59
22.16
17.21
12.22
5.50
18.15
29.30
79.19%
83.66%
88.33%
91.89%
92.75%
87.17%
83.18%
76.61%
70.58%
95.45%
79.82%
86.40%
5. Metrics by number of sections offered, undergraduate only
Reviewing the average enrollment, average capacity, enrollment ratio, and balanced course ratio based
on the number of offerings or sections of each course can provide valuable data. Often, the enrollment
ratios on single offering courses may be lower than those with more than one offering. The degree
requirements for single offering courses may be considered to determine if an overabundance of choice
can lead to inefficiencies in overall offerings.
# of Offerings
(Sections)
Courses
Average
Enrollment
Average
Enrollment
Ratio
Percentage
Balanced
1
2
3 to 5
6 to 10
11+
Total
767
200
161
57
30
1,215
24.34
27.37
32.07
27.42
27.23
27.51
79.21%
82.29%
90.38%
98.83%
89.60%
87.17%
28.55%
47.00%
52.17%
40.35%
50.00%
35.80%
6. Metrics by enrollment ratio tier
The enrollment ratio is an excellent indicator of efficiency of section offerings. This chart indicates the
number of courses and the percentage of total offerings that fall into enrollment ratio bands. In this
case, more than fifty percent of offerings are under-enrolled and, therefore, under-utilized. Also, there
are a number of courses that are overloaded, and those offerings could have additional demand for
degree requirements that are not met in the schedule analyzed.
Enroll Ratio
Courses
Percentage
Average
Enrollment
Average
Capacity
0 Seats
1-19%
20-49%
50-69%
70-95%
96%+
Total
109
49
137
153
435
332
1,215
8.97%
4.03%
11.28%
12.59%
35.80%
27.33%
100.00%
18.27
1.68
12.32
23.84
30.01
32.55
27.51
0.00
17.41
35.85
39.08
34.84
32.35
31.59
Recommendations
1. Review data integrity and scheduling procedures to ensure data is not skewed. Historical analysis relies on the
census or actual enrollments along with the enrollment limits to determine demand and efficiency.
a. Review courses to determine if overall numbers of sections/seats were inflated to allow for required
scheduling practices
b. Review all courses to determine if the enrollment capacity on sections were manipulated to control
enrollment. Raising and lowering limits can sometimes impact the overall findings. Often, this is
reflected in courses that are overloaded. In some situations, the courses are overloaded by a certain
percentage legitimately, but when the fill ratios are higher than 150%, it is likely the result of adjusting
the course limits during the registration process.
2. Review reduction and elimination candidates.
a. Review findings in light of your knowledge and experience at CMU. Highlight sections and courses that
may need further scrutiny.
b. Consider attaching instructor rank data to the findings to determine the possibility of saving part-time
instructional expenses for potentially unneeded sections as a first step.
c. Consider reducing or eliminating unpopular courses for a particular term or in alternating terms to
better accommodate demand without compromising variety of choice.
d. Review elimination candidates with graduation requirements to make sure eliminating the courses does
not compromise a student’s ability to graduate.
3. Review addition candidates as well as other courses with overloaded fill ratios.
a. Review findings in light of your knowledge and experience at CMU. Highlight sections and courses that
may need further scrutiny.
b. Consider the incoming class to determine if additional sections are required in order to allow for
appropriate scheduling during orientation or block scheduling process.
4. Review reduction, addition, and elimination candidates for individual departments or subjects.
a. Certain departments may be able to review the candidates and shift resources to better meet student
demand and improve overall efficiency. By reviewing overall teaching load and credentials for teaching
certain courses, faculty may be shifted within a department’s offerings.
5. Consider implementation and use of the full Platinum Analytics product. In addition to reviewing historical
analysis on a consistent basis, Central Michigan University would also be able to capitalize on the patented
program analysis functionality allowing the institution to review the student-by-student demand for courses
based on degree plans and academic history. This product is pivotal in providing feedback on ‘bottleneck’
courses that may be impacting retention and graduation rates.
Next Steps
1. Review findings and determine potential action steps.
2. Review data especially as it relates to potential addition candidates for overloaded courses. Courses with over
one hundred percent enrollment ratios could point to issues in student access, and using Platinum findings in
combination should allow CMU to focus on impactful changes.
3. Determine any additional data that should be reviewed (example: part-time versus full time instruction).
4. Analyze course offerings analysis findings in conjunction with the capacity management findings to round out
the Strategic Checkup. Specifically, some reduction and elimination candidates may be meeting in prime-time,
‘bottleneck’ rooms.
APPENDIX
Historical Analysis - Methodology
Historical analysis, a portion of the Astra Platinum Analytics software, was performed on data provided by the institution
to produce the findings. Two types of historical analysis are included:
1. Historical Baseline - student demand assessment that relies on the historical enrollments in each course during
the last like term. Steps performed in Platinum Analytics - Historical Analysis:
a. Import section data from “last like” term (most recent term that is deemed to be similar to the
analysis term, e.g., Fall 2012 is the last like term for the analysis term of Fall 2013)
b. Summarize total actual enrollments and seats offered by course
2. Historical Trend – student demand assessment that relies on historical trends of enrollments in each course
during the multiple like terms. Steps performed in Platinum Analytics – Historical Trend Analysis:
a. Import section data from multiple “like” terms (recent terms that are deemed to be similar to the
analysis term, e.g., Fall 2008, Fall 2009, Fall 2010, Fall 2011 and Fall 2012 are like terms for the
analysis term of Fall 2013)
b. Summarize total, actual enrollments and seats offered by course/term
c. Calculate trend of enrollments and seats offered by course
Terms and Concepts
The following is a list of terms and definitions used throughout this study and the attached reports:
Term
Definition
Subject
Course subject as defined in the student information system.
Course
Course number as defined in the student information system.
Historical trend demand
Course demand calculated from mathematical trend of last like terms.
Baseline demand
Course demand based on actual enrollment in last like term.
Blended Historical demand
Average demand from historical analysis (baseline and historical trend).
Planned Seats
Number of seats offered for the analysis term.
Seats Offered
Number of course seats offered in the last like term (if planned seats for
analysis term are not yet available)
Difference
The difference between the planned seats and blended historical demand
(a negative number indicates undersupply. A positive number indicates
oversupply).
Baseline Average Max Enrollment
Average maximum enrollment per section for the last like term.
Baseline Average Enrollment
Average enrollment (census (if available) or actual) per section for the
baseline term.
Fill Ratio
Average census enrollment divided by the average max enrollment.
Section Capacity
Average max enrollment per section multiplied by the enrollment
capacity parameter (the default setting is to multiply the average
maximum enrollment by .95). Sections filled to 100 percent capacity may
not be sustainable, and it does not allow for peak enrollment as census or
actual enrollment may be slightly lower than enrollment during drop/add.
Average Section Size
If analysis term courses are planned, reports may use average section size
(total seats offered divided by sections offered) to determine capacity. If
no sections are offered, the baseline term average section size is used.
Sections Needed
Blended historical demand divided by the section capacity or average
section size.
Planned sections
Sections planned for analysis term.
Sections offered
Sections offered in the last like term (if planned sections for the analysis
term are not yet available).
Reduction Candidates
Sections that could potentially be removed from the schedule without
negatively impacting student need.
Addition Candidates
Sections that could potentially be added to the schedule to meet student
need.
Elimination Candidates
Courses that could potentially be eliminated from the schedule as long as
graduation requirements are not compromised.
Statistical Excess Seats
Seats offered for courses in excess of blended demand.
Statistical Additional Seats Needed
Blended demand for courses in excess of Seats offered.
Enrollment Ratio
Average enrollment divided by average course enrollment cap.
Balanced Course Ratio
Courses wherein blended demand is between 70 and 95 percent of seats
offered as a ratio of all courses.
Overloaded Course Ratio
Courses wherein blended demand is greater than 96 percent of seats
offered as a ratio of all courses.