A Data-Centered Approach to Managing
Instructional Costs and Enhancing
Faculty Productivity
Michael F. Middaugh
Assistant Vice President for Institutional. Research
and Planning
University of Delaware
National Director
Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and
Productivity
The Delaware Study
• Over the past decade has grown and matured from small
beginnings into a major data-sharing consortium of
close to 400 colleges and universities that have elected
to participate since its inception.
• It is the tool of choice for benchmarking data on faculty
teaching loads, instructional costs, and externally funded
research and service activity, all at the academic
discipline level of analysis.
The Delaware Study
• Begun in 1992 with initial participant pool of 15
research universities, 16 doctoral universities, and 65
comprehensive and baccalaureate institution.
• Today, the participant pool in any given year embraces
50+ research universities, 30+ doctoral universities, 60+
comprehensive institutions, and 30+ baccalaureate
colleges. (Note that the Delaware Study continues to
employ the 1995 Carnegie Institutional Taxonomy).
The Delaware Study
• The evolution of the Delaware Study was financially
supported by TIAA/CREF in 1995, and by two major
grants from the Fund for Improvement of Post
Secondary Education (FIPSE) in 1996-99 and 2001-04.
• The core activity supported by these grants has been the
Delaware Study Advisory Committee which designed
the instrumentation, data definitions, collection
methodology, and calculation conventions.
The Delaware Study
• The seminal question that drives the Delaware Study is
“Who is teaching what to whom, and at what cost?”
This question can be answered satisfactorily only by
looking at data at the academic discipline level of
analysis.
• The Data Collection Form from the teaching load/cost
portion of the Delaware Study underscores this
emphasis.
The Delaware Study
• Among Delaware Study benchmarks that are generated
annually from Part A of the Data Collection Form are:
- Lower division and upper division student credit hours and
organized class sections taught per FTE faculty (for each
faculty category)
- Total undergraduate student credit hours and organized
class sections taught per FTE faculty
- Total graduate student credit hours and organized class
sections taught per FTE faculty
- FTE students taught per FTE faculty
The Delaware Study
• Among Delaware Study benchmarks that are generated
annually from Part B of the Data Collection Form are:
- Direct instructional expense per student credit hour
taught
- Direct instructional expense per FTE student taught
- Personnel costs as a percentage of direct instructional
expense
- Separately budgeted research and service expenditures
per FTE tenured and tenure track faculty
The Delaware Study
• National benchmarks are produced for each discipline
for which a minimum of 5 institutions submit data.
Benchmarks are arrayed
- By Carnegie Institution Type
- By highest Degree Offered
- By Relative Emphasis on Undergraduate versus
Graduate Instruction
The Delaware Study
• In addition to receiving the National Benchmark
Reports, participating institutions may request peer
group analyses that mirror the format of the national
reports, but contain data only from specified peers
(institutional identities masked).
• Participating institutions have access to the Delaware
Study secure server, containing the data set from which
national benchmarks are generated, and are welcome to
develop their own customized analyses.
Using Delaware Study Data
at the Institutional Level
• From its inception, the Delaware Study has had as its
primary function that of being a management tool for
provosts, deans, and department chairs to assess the
relative position of their academic departments and
programs vis-à-vis those at appropriate comparator
institutions.
• The Delaware Study is not intended to be used as a tool
to reward or penalize programs, but rather to focus on
strategies for program improvement.
My Provost chooses to focus on tenured/tenure track
faculty when examining data from the Delaware Study
• Direct instructional costs are 85% to 90% on average
driven by faculty salaries.
• Tenured and tenure track faculty are “fixed costs.” They
are essentially with us until retirement.
• Tenured and tenure track faculty are the most visible of
faculty categories.
• What is the return on investment?
• We provide the Provost with data from multiple
years of the Delaware Study, looking at the
University indicators as a percentage of the national
benchmark for research universities.
• The Provost receives a single sheet for each
academic department, with graphs reflecting the
following indicators: Undergraduate Fall
SCRH/FTE Faculty, Total Fall SCRH/FTE Faculty;
Total AY SCRH/FTE Faculty (All); Fall Class
Sections/FTE Faculty; Direct Cost/SCRH; External
Funds/FTE faculty
Science Department
Undergraduate S tudent Credit Hours
Taught per FTE T/TT Faculty
Total S tudent Credit Hours Taught per FTE
T/TT Faculty
300
250
200
UD
150
Nat'l
100
50
0
1994
1996
1997
1998
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Total Class S ections Taught per
FTE T/TT Faculty
Nat 'l
1996
1997
1998
1996
1997
1998
1999
Total S tudent Credit Hours Taught per FTE
Faculty (All Categories)
UD
1994
Nat'l
1994
1999
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
UD
1999
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
UD
Nat 'l
1994
Direct Instructional Expenditures per
S tudent Credit Hour
1996
1997
1998
1999
S eparately Budgeted Research and S ervice
Expenditures per FTE T/TT Faculty
$250
$120,000
$200
$100,000
$150
UD
$100
Nat 'l
$80,000
UD
$60,000
Nat 'l
$40,000
$50
$20,000
$0
$0
1994
1996
1997
1998
1999
FY95
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
Teaching Load Data
Undergraduate Student Credit Hours
Taught per FTE T/TT Faculty
Total Student Credit Hours Taught per FTE
T/TT Faculty
300
250
200
UD
150
Nat'l
100
50
0
1994
1996
1997
1998
1999
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
UD
Nat'l
1994
1996
1997
1998
1999
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
250
200
150
100
More Teaching Data…
50
0
1994
1996
1997
1998
1994
1999
Total Class Sections Taught per
FTE T/TT Faculty
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Nat'l
1996
1997
1998
1999
1997
1998
1999
Total Student Credit Hours Taught per FTE
Faculty (All Categories)
UD
1994
1996
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
UD
Nat'l
1994
1996
1997
1998
1999
Cost and Scholarly Productivity Data…
Direct Instructional Expenditures per
Student Credit Hour
Separately Budgeted Research and Service
Expenditures per FTE T/TT Faculty
$250
$120,000
$200
$100,000
$150
UD
Nat'l
$100
$80,000
UD
$60,000
Nat'l
$40,000
$50
$20,000
$0
$0
1994
1996
1997
1998
1999
FY95 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00
Using Delaware Study Data
at the National Level
• Over the past several years, Delaware Study data have
been used for policy discussions at the national level to
describe how much faculty teach, and what constitutes
the major factors contributing to the magnitude of
instructional expenditures.
• A brief review of the findings is instructive.
How Much Do Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
Really Teach?
• In my book, Understanding Faculty Productivity:
Standards and Benchmarks for Colleges and
Universities (Jossey-Bass, 2001), I looked at four cycles
of Delaware Study data to examine the validity of
criticism that tenured and tenure-track faculty do little
teaching and focus largely on their own specialized
research interests.
• I looked at 24 disciplines typically found at most four
year colleges and universities.
Disciplines Under Analysis
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Communications
Computer & Info. Sciences
Education
Engineering
Foreign Languages and Lit.
English
Biological Sciences
Mathematics
Philosophy
Chemistry
Geology
Physics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Psychology
Anthropology
Economics
Geography
History
Political Science
Sociology
Visual and Performing Arts
Nursing
Business Administration
Accounting
Financial Management
How Much Do Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
Really Teach?
• Benchmark (refined mean ) data for each of the
disciplines from the four cycles were arrayed and an
average (i.e. “mean of the means”) was calculated.
• For example, the proportion of all undergraduate student
credit hours that were taught by tenured and tenure track
faculty was examined for each discipline, and a mean
was calculated that reflected the average proportion
across the 24 disciplines.
How Much Do Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
Really Teach?
• It is important to look at faculty teaching activity in this
way. If one simply looked at the proportion of all
undergraduate credit hours taught by tenured and tenure
track faculty at an institution, large volume departments
such as English, Foreign Languages, and Mathematics –
all of which frequently make extensive use of graduate
teaching assistants – would exert undue influence on the
overall proportion.
• But students take courses in multiple disciplines, and the
focus should be on the likelihood that they will
encounter tenured and tenure track faculty across those
disciplines, hence the averaging of Delaware Study
benchmarks.
How Much Do Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
Really Teach?
• On average, across the disciplines, one of every two
lower division undergraduate student credit hours at
research and doctoral universities are taught by tenured
and tenure track faculty. The proportion is two of every
three lower division credit hours at comprehensive
institutions, and three of four lower division credit hours
at baccalaureate institutions.
• On average, across the disciplines, nearly two of every
three undergraduate student credit hours at research and
doctoral universities are taught by tenured and tenure
track faculty, with the proportion being three in four at
comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions.
What constitutes the major factors contributing to
the magnitude of instructional expenditures?
• Delaware Study data were the basis for the recent
National Center for Education Statistics Research and
Development Report (NCES 2003-161), A Study of
Higher Education Instructional Expenditures: The
Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity
(Middaugh et al, 2003).
• The report is part of the NCES response to a
Congressional mandate for an analysis of higher
education costs.
Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures
• Focuses solely on the issue of direct instructional
expenditures.
• Examines factors associated with the magnitude of
direct instructional expenditures at 4-year colleges and
universities in the United States.
• As will become clear, factors associated with
instructional expenditures are very different from those
associated with tuition rates, as identified in earlier
NCES Studies.
• Cost and price are not interchangeable constructs, and
a strong statistical relationship between them has not
been found.
Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures
• Multiple data cycles of the Delaware Study of
Instructional Costs and Productivity.
• Delaware Study was started in 1992, and has matured
into a data sharing consortium embracing over 300
participant colleges and universities.
• Focus of data collection activity includes detailed
information on teaching loads by faculty category,
instructional costs, and externally funded scholarship.
• All analysis is done at the level of the academic
discipline.
Limitations of the Study
• Participation in Delaware Study is voluntary, and is
restricted to 4-year, Title IV-eligible institutions only.
The issue of non-response bias must be addressed.
• Because the population for this study is self-selecting, it
is not a random sample. Descriptive statistics are
applied to the data to describe expenditure patterns, but
cannot be inferentially generalized to a larger
population. The descriptive information is nonetheless
valuable.
• The data reflect direct instructional expense only, and
does not constitute a full cost model.
Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures
• Study focuses primarily on data from 1998, 2000, and
2001 Delaware Study data collection cycles.
• Direct instructional cost per student credit hour taught is
focal dependent variable. Patterns of dispersion and
differences in cost across disciplines are examined
against factors such as Carnegie institution type, highest
degree offered in the discipline, relative emphasis on
undergraduate versus graduate instruction, etc.
• Also examined is relationship of cost to factors such as
department size, tenure rate, teaching volume, personnel
intensiveness of cost, etc.
Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures
• The key finding from analysis of multiple years of
Delaware Study data is that most of the variance in
instructional cost across institutions, as measured by
direct expense per student credit hour taught, is
associated with the disciplinary mix within an
institution.
• While an institution’s Carnegie classification is
associated with some of the variation in direct
instructional expense, it accounts for less of the cost
differential across institutions than the disciplinary mix
factor.
Direct Expense per Student Credit Hour Taught:
Institution Type Within Discipline, 2001
400
379
342
350
316
Research
Doctoral
Comprehensive
Baccalaureate
300
264
Dollars
250
242
233
202
200
181
171
147
140
150
132
138
131
124
116 112
106 100
100
50
0
Chemistry
English
Foreign Languages
Mechanical
Engineering
Sociology
Direct Expense per Student Credit Hour Taught:
Discipline Within Institution Type, 2001
400
Chemistry
English
Foreign Languages
Mechanical Engineering
Sociology
379
342
350
316
300
264
Dollars
250
242
233
202
200
181
171
150
140
140
124
147
132
131
106
112
138
100
100
50
0
Research
Doctoral
Comprehensive
Baccalaureate
Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures
• Overarching question: In describing the cost of
instruction in higher education institutions, which is the
more important factor – the designation as research,
doctoral, comprehensive, or baccalaureate, or the
configuration of disciplines that comprise that
institution?
• Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) is a statistical tool
that provides the capability to disaggregate total
variance in cost by institution, and by discipline within
the institution. HLM helps to explore and describe the
dispersion of instructional costs across institutions, and
to identify those factors associated with the dispersion.
Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures
• The hierarchical linear model constructed in this study
demonstrates that most of the variance in cost is at the
discipline level within an institution, ranging from 76.0
percent in the 1998 data collection cycle to 82.6 percent
in the 2000 cycle.
• When Carnegie institutional classification is taken into
account in the hierarchical linear model, the dispersion
in cost across institutions decreased, and the relative
variance due to disciplines within an institution ranges
from 81.0 to 88.0 percent.
Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures
• These findings underscore that the disciplines that
comprise a college or university curriculum – not its
Carnegie designation – are associated with the
dispersion of costs among institutions.
• This further highlights the distinction between cost and
price. Stated plainly, price is a constant for all
undergraduates at most institutions. Chemistry and
engineering students pay the same tuition rate as English
and sociology majors. However, the cost of delivering
instruction in those disciplines varies widely.
Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures
• The study also focused on those factors that impact
direct instructional expenditures within a discipline.
• In The Economics of American Universities, Paul
Brinkman suggested that the behavior of marginal and
average costs can be associated with four dimensions:
size (i.e., quantity of activity or output), scope of
services offered, level of instruction, and discipline.
• The analyses in this study determined that 60 to 75
percent of the variation in cost within a discipline or
group of disciplines is associated with specific cost
factors consistent with those identified by Brinkman.
Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures
• Volume of teaching activity, as measured by total
student credit hours taught, is a major factor. Cost
decreases as volume increases.
• Department size, as measured in terms of total number
of faculty, is a consistent cost indicator. The larger the
department, the higher the cost.
• The proportion of faculty holding tenure is a cost factor.
The higher the proportion of tenured faculty, the higher
the cost.
Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures
• The presence of graduate instruction in a discipline
increases costs, although the measured effect of this
variable on direct instructional expense in this study is
smaller than teaching volume, department size, and
faculty tenure rate.
• The extent to which expense is associated with
personnel costs, as opposed to equipment costs, has less
impact on total direct instructional expenditures within a
discipline than do teaching volume, department size, and
tenure rate.
Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures - Conclusions
• Earlier studies found no clear relationship between the
cost of delivering a college education and the price
charged for that education.
• Tuition rates were found to be influenced by the level of
state appropriations at public institutions, and by market
competition, endowment returns, and internal budget
constraints at private institutions.
• Instructional expenditures are associated with entirely
different factors – the disciplinary mix at an institution,
and within the discipline, teaching volume, department
size, tenure rates, etc.
• Cost and prices are not interchangeable constructs.
The Delaware Study – Next Steps
• As useful as Delaware Study teaching load/cost
benchmarks are, they do not address the non-classroom
dimensions of faculty activity in an institution and its
academic programs.
• It is possible that quantitative productivity and cost
indicators for a given program/discipline may differ
significantly from other institutional, peer, and national
benchmarks for wholly justifiable reasons of quality that
can be reflected in what faculty do outside of the
classroom.
• However, this cannot be determined unless measurable,
proxy indicators of quality are collected.
The Delaware Study – Next Steps
• In Fall of 2001, the University of Delaware was awarded
a second three-year FIPSE grant.
• This grant underwrites the cost of developing data
collection instruments and protocols for assessing outof-classroom facets of faculty activity.
• Once again, the grant is supporting an Advisory
Committee charged with responsibility for refining and
enhancing data collection instrumentation, data
definitions, and study methodology.
Measures of Out-of-Classroom Faculty Activity:
The Data Collection Instrument
Resources
Middaugh, M.F. Understanding Faculty Productivity: Standards and
Benchmarks for Colleges and Universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
2001.
Middaugh, M.F., Graham, R., Shahid, A. National Study of Higher Education
Instructional Expenditures: The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and
Productivity (NCES 2003-161) Washington DC: US Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003.
Middaugh, M.F. “Managing Instructional Costs and Enhancing Faculty
Productivity,” in Journal for Higher Education Strategists, Vol. 1, Number
3, Fall 2003.
Delaware Study (Teaching Loads/Cost): http://www.udel.edu/ir/cost
Delaware Study (Out of Classroom Faculty Activity): www.udel.edu/ir/fipse