Differential Tuition
Goal:
The goal of the College of Engineering at TAMU is to provide the best education available to its students at the lowest possible cost. Specifically we strive to be ranked in the top 5 among all public engineering programs in the country.
Measures:
We are currently ranked 9th among all public engineering programs, and second in workforce preparation. We have the largest student run career fair in the nation which reflects the quality and reputation of our graduates.
Issue:
To maintain and improve our standing will require significant resources beyond what we receive
from the University, State and other sources. Engineering and other professional educational programs are significantly more expensive to operate than other programs due to the cost of equipment, facilities, and top faculty. It is critical that we achieve resource parity with our competition.
What is Differential Tuition?
An additional $400 tuition (not a fee) per regular semester (Fall and Spring) to all engineering UG students starting Fall 2011; $5.76M directly to the College of Engineering per year.
Possible Uses and Value Added Benefits of Differential Tuition:
- Improved facilities, laboratories – up to date education
- Faculty salaries and support – retention of faculty; smaller classes; improved S/F ratios
- Educational enrichments (e.g. Institute for Engineering Innovation) – improved marketability of graduates
- Targeted Scholarships—improved diversity enhances education and marketability of graduates
- Students will have strong input as to uses—money goes directly to College except for a mandated 20% set aside for scholarships. These funds will be earmarked for engineering student scholarships.
Schedule and Requested Engineering Student Support:
All Professional programs (Architecture, Engineering, Vet Medicine, Business) have been invited to submit proposals to the Board of Regents. Strong student support is required to secure approval; this is needed in writing from all our engineering student organizations by February 15.
Consequences If Not Approved:
- Larger class sizes; fewer faculty, TA’s and advisors
- Loss of top faculty to other higher ranked institutions as salaries lag
- Static program due to inadequate resources; leads to diminished program quality, rankings and value of degree
- Diminished marketability of graduates
- Engineering will diminish in importance at TAMU in relation to other programs who have Differential Tuition
Other Resources
President Loftin Presentation (4/4/11): http://provost.tamu.edu/councils-task-forces/tuition-policy/documents/FY2011%20Designated%20Tuition%20Hearing%20FINAL.pdf
SEC Letter of Support: http://sec.tamu.edu/upload/documents/Aaron%20J%20Roney%20-%20Differential%20Tuition%20Letter%20of%20Support.pdf
SEC Report: http://sec.tamu.edu/upload/documents/Aaron%20J%20Roney%20-%20Differential%20Tuition%20Report.pdf
http://sec.tamu.edu/upload/documents/LCOE%20Differential%20Tuition-11_08_10.pdf
http://sec.tamu.edu/resources/DiffTuitionMain.pdf
http://sec.tamu.edu/resources/Differential_Tuition_Presentation.pdf
FAQ:
1. How the other colleges who have implemented differential tuition actually spent their money versus how they promised to spend it.
Differential Tuition in the Mays Business School started in Fall 2008; their proposal called for funding additional faculty, scholarships and financial aid, classrooms and facilities, and program enhancements. They have a student committee composed of student leaders from their professional organizations and student council members; meetings are held once a month with the College Deans to determine priorities. Students’ highest priority was to hire faculty (mostly non Tenure Track Clinical faculty) to achieve a reduction in upper division class sizes. The target has now been reached and student feedback is positive. The second student priority was to increase faculty salaries, and some of the funds have been applied to this end. Students are now asking for a focus on lower division classes, and plans are underway for enhancements that include an oral and written communications lab, more study abroad opportunities, and a freshman learning community.
2. If the promise of lower faculty to student ratios is a realistic promise given the recent decision to fire most of or all of the lectures in several departments in the college.
It is not true that the college fired most or all of its lecturers. As of fall 2010 the COE had 402 tenure track faculty members and 81 non-tenure track faculty members. Due to budget reductions the college lost 50.01 faculty FTEs. Twenty-three (23) were vacant tenure track positions and the remaining 27.01 positions included known retirements and resignations of tenure track faculty and a reduction of 11.61 non-tenure track positions. Eight (8) lecturers were not renewed for FY 12. This amounts to 10% of the entire non-tenure track faculty positions. Departments showed budget reductions in a variety of categories i.e. giving up retired/resigned faculty positions, non-tenured track positions (includes lecturers), staff positions, graduate assistants, and operating budgets. Each department made their decisions to fit their budget and goals. Later, the college gained some salary savings from the University Voluntary Separation Program (VSP) and preliminary indications are that 4 FTE out of 8 FTE positions lost are expected to be hired back. All things considered the COE lost a significant 31.01 faculty FTEs.
3. The current proposed breakdown for how the money would be spent, versus the somewhat vague consequences for how the money would not be spent if not approved and "potential benefits" for if approved.
The list of uses are some suggestions and possible uses. I am not clear what is meant by how the money would not be spent if not approved.
4. How much more money top faculty would receive with and without the program? How much many of the top faculty are currently funded through grants or endowed chairs? How many of these top faculty would teach undergraduates?
Faculty members who do not have administrative appointments are paid nine months from the academic budget for each fiscal year. Typically, faculty members support their summer three months through their research grants or teaching summer classes. Approximately 25% of our faculty hold endowed positions (i.e. career development professorships, professorships, and chairs). Endowed position holders receive a discretionary fund from interest earned on the endowed principle to be used for their teaching and research activities. In addition to summer salary (if they chose to receive) chair holders are allowed to receive $1,500/month as stipend and professorship holders are allowed to receive $750/month as a stipend. Not all endowed professors/chairs receive a stipend. Many elect to use all of those funds to promote their research and teaching.
Funds from research grants are used to support hardware for experiments, software, salaries for graduate and undergraduate research assistants, and travel to professional meetings. Indirect cost on these projects is used to pay for project administration and facilities. Average research expenditure (direct cost only) per faculty in FY 10 was $153K.
Revenues from differential tuition will not be used to give across the board raises to faculty members. A small portion of the differential tuition revenues will be used to retain the very best of our faculty members who are being highly recruited by peer institutions. In the last two months the college lost three outstanding faculty members (of which 2 were female faculty members) to other schools. On average, COE faculty salaries are approximately 10% lower than our peer institutions. Our salary increases have not kept up with the market and failure to address salary situations for highly productive faculty will result in even greater loss of the very best faculty we have.
Most of the COE faculty members teach undergraduate courses. In academic year 2009 (9/1/08-8/31/09) the COE taught 844 undergraduate course sections. Full professors taught 27% (228), associate professors taught 23%, assistant professors taught 28%, and non-tenure track faculty members taught 22%. In the same year, the COE taught 417 graduate course sections of which full professors taught 41% (171), associate professors taught 24%, assistant professors taught 29%, and non-tenure track faculty taught 6%.
5. Why Georgia Tech can keep its tuition at the second lowest on the list and yet be ranked #2?
Tuition is only one part of the funding required to maintain and enhance an engineering program. Georgia Tech is heavily funded by the State since it is the only engineering school in Georgia, and its focus is primarily on engineering. For example 45% of tenure/tenure track faculty reside in engineering. They do not have significant competition internally nor externally for scarce state dollars, whereas Texas has many state supported engineering programs in competition. In addition Georgia uses lottery funds to pay tuition to all students who keep an average of B or better. Another key reason and difference with TAMU is that their undergraduate program is about 35% out-of-state. GT has very few scholarships for out-of-state students so most of these students pay full out-of-state tuition. The out-of-state tuition at GT is about 26K so this is a major source of funding for them.
6. Who is ranked #1 in workforce preparation and why?
Penn State is ranked number one. This is a survey of company recruiters and is based on their experience and perception of academics, communications and leadership preparation of students at the various institutions where they recruit.
7. How student input for use of the proposed money would be collected and whether or not the students have any type of veto power for use of the money?
We anticipate forming a student committee to recommend uses of the funds; one function of the committee would be to collect student opinion. The committee will be advisory to the Dean of Engineering.
8. Whether or not the 20% allotted to the scholarships only goes to engineering students or if it goes to all students?
The Differential Tuition Guidelines from the University Tuition Policy Advisory Council mandate a 20% set aside for scholarships to be administered by the Office of Student Financial Aid. The expenditure of the funds will be in the college in which the funds are collected.
9. If there is a cap on increasing differential tuition once approved, or if it can be increased at any time.
Any future increase would have to go through the same approval process as this one.
10. How a proposed Institute for Engineering Innovation or other specialized "educational enrichments" would directly benefit undergraduate students.
Several possibilities are as follows:
A. Funds from differential tuition could be used to support programs that enhance likelihood of student success in engineering, especially in the first 2 years. For example, funds could be used to support programs similar to Supplemental Instruction (SI) (which is being used at Texas A&M and many other institutions in the country) or Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL), which is being used in at least 15 chemistry programs around the country. Undergraduate peers would be hired and trained to lead and facilitate small groups of students working on problems associated with a course. The team of students would work together to solve the problems, as opposed to the normal paradigm of observing someone work the problems for them. Data indicates learning and course grades are enhanced by students doing the problems in teams with peer help versus just trying to follow what they have heard in a lecture or a typical faculty or TA lead tutorial . SI is not currently being used to support first-year courses in mathematics, physics, and chemistry (CHEM 107), which are the most challenging first-year courses for engineering students. Some portion of the funds from differential tuition could be used to support SI-like programs for these first-year courses as well as sophomore mathematics and sophomore engineering courses (e.g., circuits, statics & dynamics, material & energy balances, etc.) that are taken by a large numbers of engineering students.
B. An Engineering Excellence Program could be created with some of the funds from differential tuition. The Program would solicit proposals from individual engineering faculty members and groups of faculty members to improve engineering programs. A council composed mostly of students (but also some faculty members, if students agreed) would review the proposals and select projects for funding. A similar program has been run for engineering at the University of Colorado in connection with its Integrated Teaching & Learning (ITL) Laboratory. The Engineering Excellence Program could fund proposals to extend implementation of experiential learning initiatives as called for in the College of Engineering’s Strategic Plan. A student-supported, student-reviewed grant program was one of the examples cited in the Strategic Plan to continue to improve engineering education for students.
C. Engineering graduates need to be able to support their case that they have developed outstanding abilities with respect to outcomes highly valued in the workplace, e.g., capacity for creating innovative products and processes; critical thinking; lifelong learning; teamwork; evaluate potential projects for their environmental, societal, and culture implications; etc. At present, the ability to assess student abilities with respect to these outcomes and develop them across the four-year engineering curricula are limited, not just at Texas A&M, but across the nation. Funds from differential tuition could be used to support implementation of these assessment and development programs. Students could use results from these programs to strengthen their resumes, as well as implement individual development programs.
D. Support faculty development for engineering faculty to increase their capacity to create programs and curricula that foster student development success. These programs should be based on solid research on learning and engineering education, but faculty members need time and space to help them develop an understanding of the research and abilities to apply the research to their contexts.
E. Create an Institute for Engineering Innovation as called for in the College Strategic Plan. The Institute could coordinate the above initiatives as well as other initiatives.
11. Where student organizations can submit their written comments on the proposed differential tuition.
Please provide comments to Dr. Howze, J-Howze@tamu.edu.
12. The approximate allocation of tuition to each department within the college.
Annual allocations will depend on academic enhancement priorities. Some of the funds will be used for overall engineering educational enhancements, and some allocated to departments for disciplinary enhancements.