Where Are Your
Heavyweights?
Identifying Unrealized Formula
Funding Opportunities Through
Semester Credit Hour Analysis
Presentation to TAIR
By Kristi D. Fisher
The University of Texas at Austin
March 4, 2009
1
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
What and why?
David Prior’s work at TAMU – where to look
Employing UT’s B.I. tools
What the cube shows us
Next steps
2
What and Why
We are:
• Analyzing student level, course level and discipline
combinations by our institution relative to formula matrix
weighting factors
Because:
• More funding mechanisms are being shifted to formulas
• Understanding cost study and funding formulas key to
maximizing state funding
• In tough financial times we need to squeeze out every last
drop… not just analyze the big-ticket items
3
Project Background
• Project IQ Course Enrollments (CE) Cube Developed
in 2005 Provided SCH by Discipline, etc.
• David Prior’s (Texas A&M) Formula Funding Analysis
• Created Tables to Hold “Rules” and “Weights”
• Modified CE Cube to include Funding Area, Funding
Level, Weighted SCH, and Formula Funding Amount
• Prototyped for Executive Leadership in May 2008
• Presented completed cube in December 2008
4
David Prior’s Analysis:
Formula Funding Factors
• Factor One: Combinations of course/student levels
producing SCH
• Factor Two: Weight assigned to the resulting SCH
level for the funding area
• Factor Three: Tenure/Tenure-track teaching
supplement – percent of UG SCH (***going away)
5
THECB Funding Level Rules
Course Level
Student Level
Funding Level
Lower Division
All Levels
Lower Division
Upper Division
Lower Classmen
Lower Division
Upper Division
Upper Classmen & Above
Upper Division
Masters
Lower Classmen
Lower Division
Masters
Upper Classmen*
Upper Division*
Masters
Post-Bac. & All Graduate
Masters
Doctoral
Lower Classmen
Lower Division
Doctoral
Upper Classmen
Upper Division
Doctoral
Post-Bacc., Master, & Prof.
Masters
Doctoral
Doctoral
Doctoral
* Exception: Seniors with more than 108 hours enrolled in masters-level course
generate masters level funding.
6
THECB Weights Matrix (08-09)
7
Prior’s Key Data to Investigate
• Number and $ of upper division students taking lower
division courses
• Number and $ of graduate students taking undergraduate
courses
• Number and $ of PhD students taking masters courses
• Funding area weight relative to SCH production trends
• Funding area WSCH and $ “difference” trends from year to
year
• Number WSCH and $ unrealized due to credit hour caps
• Number WSCH and $ unrealized due to repeatability limits
• Percent undergraduate SCH production taught by
Tenured/Tenure-Track faculty
8
UT Rules Table
9
UT Weights Table
10
How Project IQ Works
The products of IQ are “cubes” and reports.
11
Business Intelligence Tools
• Transactional Systems: ADABAS/Natural
• ETL tools: IBM Data Stage; Treehouse tRelational /
DPS
• RDBMS: Oracle 9i/10g, SQL-Server
• O/S: Sun Solaris RAC, IBM Z/OS, Windows 2003
• BI tools: Cognos Powerplay 7.4, Impromptu 7.4,
Cognos 8.2/8.3 (new)
• Named User Accounts: 1,250
12
IQ Data Integrity
Legacy
Systems
(original)
Legacy
Systems
(revised)
Four – way data validation:
1. Mainframe to Mainframe
2. Mainframe to Oracle
3. Oracle to Cubes
4. Cubes to Mainframe
COGNOS
ORACLE
(warehouse)
Course
Cube
Student
Cube
Faculty
Cube
Enrollment
Report
13
Formula Funding Cube
14
Measures
•
•
•
•
•
•
SCH
Weighted SCH
Enrollment (Seats Taken)
Number Unique Sections
Average End Class Grade
Formula Funding Amount
15
Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Offering College / Department
Year / Semester
Funding Level
Funding Area
Funding Status
Course Level
Student Level
Student Major College / Department
Tenure Status
Primary Instructor Rank
Semester Group
16
Can Answer Questions Like…
• What is the recent trend in weighted SCH production
by (major/offering) College?
• What is the trend in formula funding amounts
generated by College?
• How has the overall SCH production varied by
funding area and level since 2005?
17
And…
• How many SCH and $ are generated, by student level
and course level?
• What are the funding area WSCH and $ change
trends from year to year
• How many WSCH and $ were unrealized due to
repeatability limits?
• What percent of undergraduate SCH production was
taught by Tenured/Tenure-Track faculty?
18
Disclaimers
• Limitations:
–
–
–
–
–
Fiscal Year vs. Base Period Year
108 hour rule for seniors in masters courses
Doctoral students over the 99 hour limit
Some funding area mismatches w/ THECB area
Data will not match SCH provided by THECB
• Completed cube is 95% validated; not yet moved to
production; not yet used campus-wide
19
DEMO
20
What is the recent trend in weighted SCH
by college?
21
What is the trend in funding amount?
22
How has SCH by funding area and level
changed?
23
How many SCH and $ are generated by
student and course level?
24
What are the funding area WSCH and $
change trends from year to year?
25
How many WSCH and $ unrealized due to
repeatability limits?
26
What percent of undergraduate SCH
production was taught by TT faculty?
27
Initial Results 07-08 Pilot Data
• $417k+ in lost funds due to excess hours
• $468k+ in lost funds due to repeatability rules
• Graduate students in undergraduate courses
28
Questions?
Kristi D. Fisher
University of Texas at Austin
Office of Information Management and Analysis
kfisher@austin.utexas.edu
(512)471-3833
29