Address to
the Board of Control on December 10, 2010
Chair Richardson and
members of the board; distinguished audience
Today I would like to
apprise you of the Senate’s accomplishments to date, to present you with some
insights into proposals that are under discussion and to briefly comment on
tuition revenues.
We have had many presentations
to date in the Senate and, as you may be aware, now arrange for addresses by
those who won our teaching and research awards.
The teaching award winner’s presentations provided insight into aspects
of teaching vs research and awareness of the status
of lecturers at Tech. Our research award
winners dealt with aspects of the origins of the universe; these are as wide a
range of topics that one can imagine. We
were also visited by members of the executive team, VP of Research Reed,
enrollment and benefits representatives and perhaps for the first time an
address by leaders of our Graduate Student Government. Our Provost has outlined his vision for the
University’s Academic Mission and he is afforded the opportunity to speak at
all Senate meetings, if he wishes. We
also heard about the initiative promoted by our Assistant Provost Christa Walck regarding the Academic Quality Improvement Program
and, I believe, the Senate is fully supportive of this initiative as it
pertains to increasing gender diversity of Faculty and Students. I will comment on certain aspects of this
later in this presentation.
Regarding proposals,
we have addressed issues regarding parking (which I believe is mostly solved) and
approved proposal 2-11 pertaining to Academic Renewal which the administration
approved with slight editorial comments.
At our most recent meeting two days ago, proposals 3-11 and 4-11 were
also approved and, one of these proposals, 3-11, will result in a faster rate
by which proposals of a certain nature can be addressed and this will eliminate
the need for full Senate review of several other pending proposals. Therefore, with this accomplishment, the
Senate has achieved the objective of working harder to evaluate proposals which
as I mentioned to you in my address on September 30th was an area of
concern.
Proposals 5-11 on Redefining
Departmental Governance and 6-11 pertaining to establishing University-wide
procedures to search for, hire and evaluate the
performance of Departmental Chairs or school Deans are of particular note. You may be aware that proposal 16-92 on
departmental governance approved by the Board of Control on the 18 March 1994
allowed for the creation of individual charters for all departments and
schools. Remember that 16-92 means the 16th
proposal discussed during the year 1992 and therefore the length of time for that
Board of Control approval should be indicative of the importance ascribed to
this proposal. During the intervening
years, this proposal 16-92 together with other refinements adopted subsequently, has resulted in unique and slightly different
ways of the various departments conducting their affairs. One consequence of this is that departments
have invested a tremendous quantity of time into constructing charters which range
in length from 2 – 60 pages. This disagrees
with the idea that there should be only one Michigan Technological University
working in unison guided by the Strategic Plan formulated, embraced and
enunciated by President Mroz. Provost Seel has
declared that these charters should not contain material which can be
universally defined. The Senate has been
guided by this statement in our deliberations and we have incorporated all of
the changes suggested by Provost Seel in deriving
these proposals. We have also included
aspects which we believe would lead to more constructive and productive working
environments and I would be happy to say more about these if there is interest
later.
This next slide
depicts several proposals which will benefit from approval of Proposal 3-11 as
I mentioned previously. I also believe
that Proposal h-11, a proposal to modify and rename the “Senior Rule” policy,
which was sent to the Senate for consideration by our Dean of Graduate Studies,
Jackie Huntoon, is particularly important since it
allows our undergraduates to complete a Master’s program in five years. I have no doubt that members of the Board are
aware of the difficulties we have in recruiting students for all of our
programs but in particular with the graduate program. I think providing our present undergraduate
student body with the opportunity to complete either a Masters or Doctorate
degree is an excellent idea.
This next slide
depicts our tuition revenues. It is
important to understand how these numbers were derived. As you cannot see there are various columns
featuring departments, credit hours, students, total credits, tuition, fees and
total revenue. The next slide
depicts how the Senate office compiled the data by going to Tech’s Schedule of
Classes and simply selecting the Fall 2010 semester
and then downloading the enrollment data for each department. If one chooses
Chemical Engineering, the next slide shows
how one can see the numbers of students enrolled in each section. We next had to
assume one fee for all the students and thus we chose the value of $372.50 per
credit hour which is the fee for resident undergraduates. The total sum of this at $31.4 million is
less than the tuition and fees one would project to be obtained in FY2008-09
for that reason and presumably if we had the actual breakdown of the different
category of students and if we did this for the fall, spring and summer terms, we
would have had a more accurate compilation of the financial data. But achieving accuracy in these scores was not
the purpose of this exercise. The next slide shows
how this sort of information could be useful since it illustrates the financial
contribution of various departments to the university. This also relates directly and accurately to
student credit hours for the Fall 2010 semester. The high quantity of revenue that some
departments have illustrates the fact that our engineering programs are heavily
dependent on subjects such as math, chemistry, physics, business and biology,
known as feeder courses. The data also
highlights the importance of our general education requirements as indicated by
the quantity for University Wide courses.
I believe that this kind of information may prove useful as the
University tries to examine ways to achieve gender diversity of students since one
way to accomplish this is to enhance already large existing programs that these
groups may find attractive. Interestingly
enough the next slide
depicts the revenue earned by the different colleges perhaps showing a
transition in the way one could perceive Michigan Tech.
The next series of
slides features data obtained from Michigan
Tech Annual Financial Reports and was prepared in part by the Senate’s Finance
Committee. It contains data that the
Board of Control is aware of since I believe you approved all the budgets. From 2005 to 2010
we have an almost doubling in our total tuition and fee revenue from $54.6 to
$97.1 million dollars representing a cumulative change of 77.80% as indicated. In order to accomplish this, the University
provides Scholarships allowances and those data are also illustrated. This is as a result of increases in the tuition
fees charged as shown in the bottom half of the slide.
The
data from 2001
to 2010 are illustrated in the next slide.
The column titled “Tuition” is obtained by subtracting the second, i.e.,
the quantity of money provided as a discount, to the stated tuition rate listed
in the first column. Actual student
financial support decreased and has more recently increased. The cost of Instructions has increased
slightly and state appropriations have decreased. An explanation for these changes for 2009 to
2010 was provided in our Financial Report as shown.
This
situation as reflected in the breakdown of our student body over the years is
shown on this slide
where we see steady increases in the in-state resident student population over
the years 2006-2010. There is a decrease
in the non-resident student numbers from 2007-2010 and this is probably
reflective of the increases in the tuition costs over this period coupled with
the recession. The next slide depicts
the increases in Scholarship Allowances (remember this is the value by which
our actual tuition costs are reduced) and the student financial support from 2005 to 2010. The total quantity of this change over this
period represents an increase in financial assistance of some 86.81%. However on the last row we see that “Student
financial support as a percent of tuition and fee revenue” has increased only
slightly. I believe that most of these
scholarships extend to non-resident students which makes Tech more competitive compared
to institutions in their states. Given
the reduction in the numbers of these students recently, the question as to if
we are pricing ourselves out of this market has been raised by the Senate
Finance Committee, and I have by presenting this information to you, delivered
their message. It is worth mentioning
that in order to achieve student gender equity, existing
perceptions within the state of Michigan Tech might be very difficult to
overcome. Perhaps only by thinking of the
student body well beyond the borders of the state of Michigan might we be able
to accomplish this objective.
Finally,
I would like to conclude with a few remarks regarding the impact these tuition
rates would have on the people of the state of Michigan. As you are no doubt aware, the charge given
by the people of Michigan to this institution in 1885 was to and I quote
“provide the inhabitants of this state with the means of acquiring a thorough
knowledge of the mineral industry in its various phases, and of the application
of science to industry, as exemplified by the various engineering courses
offered at technological institutions, and seek to promote the welfare of the
industries of the state, insofar as the funds provided shall permit and the
board of control shall deem advisable.”
I do not think that anyone could argue that Michigan Tech did not deliver
adequately and comprehensively on this charge.
The question is can Tech continue to provide a mechanism by which the
children of the people of this state would have an opportunity to realize their
potential and the American dream in the process! We know that tuition costs have increased to
compensate for the decrease in state appropriations. However, it is also important to realize what
the benefits of a university education are to the people within a state. The people of a state invest in their children
by paying taxes so that when these children receive an education and hopefully
a good paying job, they contribute to the state’s economy. This vision can only be fully realized if the
children who receive an education at Michigan Tech live and work within the
state of Michigan. We all know that this
is sometimes difficult to achieve and therefore educating people from outside
the state who may end up in the state of Michigan might achieve a balance. Therefore the idea that we should only afford
an education to the children of the state of Michigan is as relevant today as
the idea of the 1885 reference to the “knowledge of the mineral industry in its
various phases” is in 2010. To use a
word often used by President Mroz, Michigan Tech has “transformed”
beyond its original charge.
In
conclusion, it is my contention that it is important to recruit more students
from outside the state of Michigan in that it will allow us to keep in-state
tuition revenues at a level affordable for the people of Michigan. Desirable goals regarding diversity and gender
equity may also be achieved.
Thanks
for listening.