I hope that each of you had a restful break. We are continuing to see a great deal of movement both on campus and in the system so I thought that it would be useful to update you on a few items: applications, budgets, UNC Tomorrow and the branding study.
Applications
We have seen a major surge in freshman applications for the entering class of 2008. As of last Friday we were within 100 applications of our total for the class of 2007! We should surpass last year’s total before the end of this week. January and February tend to be heavy months for applications and there is no indication that the trend in applications is subsiding. If current trends continue we will be making a number of key decisions over the next two months regarding how to manage the size and quality of the class. However, because the application processes we are using are new to WCU, we are not sure of our yield rate, attrition rate, or how the distribution of students who choose to attend will be affected; we do not have a history from which to judge. We are, for example, using a non-refundable deposit this year. In prior years the deposit was refundable until June 1. It was anticipated that non-refundable deposits would produce a more reliable estimate of the fall class than refundable deposits, but we do not have any evidence yet on which to make decisions. Therefore, we will continue to review the situation.
There is one change in the situation of which I need to make you aware. After my last Chancellor’s Update, the Provost and the vice chancellors conducted a more detailed budget analysis for 2008-2009. Based on their analyses, they requested that I agree to increase the size of the freshman class moderately. I have agreed that the class should be increased by 100 students from 1375 to 1475. This will allow several of our support programs to make their budgets rather than face the possibility of budget cuts. You may recall that support programs such as food service, housing, athletics, recreation, and the like do not receive state or tuition funding. Likewise, distance education students do not pay normal university fees, so only resident credit enrollments in Cullowhee, Cherokee, or Asheville, generate funding to support these important aspects of a student’s university experience.
In addition to staving off cuts in non-academic budgets, enrollment at the levels being suggested should be expected to create additional academic funding for new faculty positions and for academic base budgets. You should be aware, however, that because of the shifts in enrollment from resident credit to distance education, and because of low retention rates, we are currently “over-funded” with regard to the credit hour model (as it affects academic programs and administrative departments). Therefore, while some of this funding would be available next academic year, the majority of funding will become available in the 2009-2010 academic year.
Given the number of freshman applications that are being received, this increase in class size should not make a material difference in the quality of the class. As of now, it appears that we can increase the quality of the class while enrolling this number of students. Please also understand that increasing quality is a marathon not a sprint. Each year we will work on increasing the academic preparation of our entering students.
I want to again thank each academic department that is helping with recruiting. Not only will you see the benefits in enrollments in your program, but you are contributing to the overall quality of the student body. Generally, the better the student the more likely he or she is to enroll because of early relationships with faculty members.
Academic Departmental Budgets
Some of you may recall how universities in North Carolina are budgeted, but others of you are new to the university and may not be aware. North Carolina uses a “fund accounting model” in its budgeting process. In other words, the University is not given a “check book” from which it can pay for academic programs, housing, or athletics, etc. Each of these areas is in a separate “fund” or account. Money that can be used to fund base budgets in academic departments cannot be used to fund, say, athletics. They are separate by state design. Likewise, there is a difference between funding for EPA-faculty, EPA-non-faculty, and SPA employees. EPA employee raises are much more under the control of the University while SPA raises are much more directly controlled by the legislature. Differences in university control also are why, for example, we were able this year to use campus-initiated tuition to increase faculty salaries but not to increase EPA-non-faculty or SPA salaries. Whenever there is a funding change in one area of the University these types of questions come up. Please understand that in North Carolina base funding for housing, student activities, or athletics does not impact the amount of money an academic department has in its operating budget.
There are two issues that are affecting academic department base budgets: 1) reevaluating the adequacy of departmental budgets; and 2) shifts in patterns of enrollment over the last several years.
This year, Kyle Carter and the deans are working through a process of analyzing the distribution of money within academic affairs departments. This is a follow-up on President Bowles’ PACE initiative but it also has very significant strategic importance. As we move forward, President Bowles has asked that we address three issues: 1) improve institutional quality; 2) grow enrollment; and 3) serve the region. The review of budgets is designed to assure that there is alignment between these goals and the funding available to support any given program.
Very importantly, the academic budget review also will assure that as we implement the QEP across departments there are funds available. Because the QEP is now official policy of the campus and of SACS, we must assure that we can both allocate new funding and reallocate existing funding to support its implementation.
The second issue involves the shift in enrollment from resident credit to distance education. All of the growth in the University over the last year has been in distance education. There clearly is great demand for distance education. Additionally, a number of programs that were traditionally offered as resident credit have been shifted to distance education. This has contributed to the stagnation of resident credit enrollment. If your department offers little or no distance education, then this enrollment trend will have had impact on the funding you have available.
We know that one of the keys to academic quality enhancement is the ability to support all academic programs at a reasonable level and to support those that are most directly involved in achieving the University’s strategic direction at a higher level. Therefore, this year we are focusing a great deal of attention on improving resident credit enrollment at both the undergraduate and graduate levels while continuing to expand distance education. In North Carolina, most new funding, and nearly all funding that affects academic departmental base budgets, is based on enrollment growth. In resident credit instruction, this means that we need to increase the number and quality of admitted students; improve retention; and work to assure that classes in which students are enrolled are both high quality and engaging.
After Kyle and the deans complete the review of departmental budgets there should be additional monies saved as well as new enrollment-based funding that can be allocated next year. Whether or not your department receives additional funding next year will depend on many factors including the relative cost of running your department; departmental enrollment trends; engagement activities; and any departmental costs for implementing the QEP.
UNC Tomorrow
The UNC Tomorrow Commission and the various scholars’ councils have finished their work. The final report was approved by the Commission and it will now be reviewed and probably adopted by the Board of Governors. http://www.nctomorrow.org/content.php/reports_documents/commission/Final_Report.pdf Erskine has asked each institution to spend the next semester focusing its strategic plan on implementing the various aspects of the commission’s report. This report will now set the direction for the system as a whole and for each individual campus. It is important to realize that the report will become the basis for institutional mission, funding, and assessment of institutional performance. I cannot over-emphasize the importance of this report for the future of WCU.
Because of the importance of our response to the report, I will be meeting regularly with a steering committee composed of Kyle Carter, Dianne Lynch, Carol Burton, Dan Ostergaard, Ray Barclay, Sam Miller, and Chuck Wooten. This committee will work closely with the Strategic Planning Committee, the deans, Faculty Senate, University Advisory Council, and other constituencies to develop a detailed plan with measurable outcomes that can be approved by the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors.
It is going to be very important for every person on the campus who wishes to have input into the process to do so. Therefore, drafts of materials will be regularly posted on the Web. Please review them and provide any input. Additionally, I will call an all-campus leadership retreat in April to go over the draft of the plan to assure that we receive maximum input since this will be such an important undertaking.
Based on everything that we know now, WCU is very well positioned to respond to the UNC Tomorrow study. Adoption of the QEP and the Boyer Model were critical. Likewise, WCU’s long tradition of engagement with the region will play out very well as will our continuing discussions around AASCU’s “Stewards of Place” model. Much of the ground work we have laid is directly in line with the outcomes of the UNC Tomorrow findings. Of that fact, you should be very proud.
Branding
Briefly, Stamats has been analyzing comparable data on other institutions with which we compete. Additionally, they requested that we provide them with the names of four institutions which are taking a somewhat similar approach to education that we are taking at Western. Based on Ray Barclay’s analyses that blended a variety of qualitative and quantitative institutional factors, we suggested that they examine several universities with which Western is not usually compared: the University of Denver, Marquette University, the University of Louisville, and James Madison University. All of these institutions have strong academic reputations and all are very actively involved in engaged education and outreach. Obviously, there are significant differences among these institutions, but they provide a somewhat different sounding board for developing our brand and they all are nationally known for their engaged teaching and scholarship.
Stamats has provided their first report regarding how potential students and their parents see WCU and how our image compares to our most critical competitors. There are interesting patterns in these data. They suggest some areas where we already have advantages and some areas where we need to inform prospective students about our programs and capacities. Stamats can help us with developing a strategy to deal with these issues. Because Stamats will be sampling faculty, staff, alumni, and others we are not sharing the report at this time to minimize response bias.
This has been a long update, but many things are in progress. My next update will address some of the most important lessons that we can learn from our SACS visit and from my service on the Commission on Colleges. Again, I hope that you return to work ready to meet the challenges of the semester!