Sample Information and Methodology...and Digital Music Creation and Freshman Composition / Writing...
Transcript of Sample Information and Methodology...and Digital Music Creation and Freshman Composition / Writing...
Sample Information and Methodology
2
Methodology
3
Completed Interviews Total
(n=1001) CA
(n=501)
Western Region
(Excluding CA) (n=250)
Remaining U.S. (Excluding
Western Region) (n=250)
Undergraduate – Traditional Students (16-24 years) 500 250 125 125
Bachelor’s Degree Intenders/Enrolled 386 183 102 101
Associates Degree Intenders/Enrolled 114 67 23 24
Undergraduate – Adult Students (25+)/Advanced Degree Intenders
501 251 125 125
Bachelor’s Degree Intenders/Enrolled 147 79 41 27
Associates Degree Intenders/Enrolled 106 53 26 27
Advanced Degree Intenders 248 119 58 71
An online data collection methodology was employed to ensure and meet the stated objectives and criteria for this initiative:
Completed Interviews Total
(n=1001) CA
(n=501)
Western Region
(Excluding CA) (n=250)
Remaining U.S. (Excluding
Western Region) (n=250)
GPA: 3.5 and above 372 199 88 85
GPA: 2.6 – 3.4 629 302 162 165
As a point of reference, below is breakdown of high school GPA:
27% 39% 34%
Total (n=1001)
Not Likely Neutral Very Likely
• Online Interested Responders represent an opportunity to model future marketing efforts and
online course development
• Online Interested Responders are the 34% of those who indicated they would “very likely”
consider enrolling in a UC online course
E1. For each of the institutions listed below, how likely would you be to consider enrolling in online (UNDERGRADUATE INTENDERS/ENROLLED:)
college level courses that would transfer credits to an undergraduate degree? (ADVANCED DEGREE INTENDERS:) undergraduate courses that
you need to prepare for an advanced degree program?
10 point scale: 1=Not at all Likely, 10= Extremely Likely Base: Total Respondents
4
Target Audience: Individuals who would consider
enrolling in a UC online course
UC Online Possible Responders
(UC/Ps)
UC Online Interested Responders
(UC/Is)
UC Online Not Interested
Responders (UC/NIs)
5
BC
AB
60% of respondents intend to major in Professional
and Applied Sciences
Total Sample (A) UC/Interested (B) UC/Possible (C) UC/Not
Interested
Intended Major of Study
Professional and Applied Sciences 60% 61% 58% 59%
Business 19% 22% 19% 17%
Health Sciences 15% 16% 14% 13%
Journalism/Media 5% 6% C 5% 2%
Education 6% 4% 6% 10% A
Social Work 3% 1% 4% A 3%
Nursing 2% 1% 3% 4% A
Social Sciences 22% 28% BC 19% 20%
Psychology 11% 14% B 9% 10%
Political Science 3% 6% B 2% 3%
Natural and Formal Sciences 28% 28% 29% 26%
Life or Biological Sciences 11% 12% 11% 10%
Computer Sciences 11% 10% 13% 10%
Humanities 20% 20% 20% 19%
A2 What is your intended major or area of study? More than one major could be
selected
Base: Total Respondents
6
BC
AB
Segment Profiles
• Education cost is key to UC/Is and most work full or part-time while attending school
• Most were intending a bachelor or advanced degree.
• 2/3 of those in school were eligible for financial aid
(A)
UC/Interested (B) UC/Possible
(C) UC/Not
Interested
Education Level Goals
Associate Degree 29% 45% 26%
Bachelor Degree 34% 38% 28%
Advanced Degree 39% 36% 25%
Full-Time Student
(Current/Planned) 73% 71% 75%
Proportion of Undergraduate
Work Completed 54% B 49% 52%
Student Employment Status
Full-Time 26% C 23% 17%
Part-Time 39% 44% 47%
Impact of Cost on Education
Decisions
All/Most Decisions Cost Based 34% B 27% 27%
Important, But Not Only Factor 59% 67% A 64%
Minor Factor 8% 6% 9%
Educational Funding Sources
Self/Family 50% 46% 45%
Grant/Scholarship 37% 36% 38%
Loans 27% 28% 31%
Receive Financial Aid 69% 68% 72%
Questions S4, F2; F5-F7; See Appendix
7
BC
AB
Segment Profiles
(A) UC/Interested (B) UC/Possible
(C) UC/Not
Interested
College GPA 3.4 3.4 3.5
High School GPA 3.5 3.6 3.5
High School Class Rank
Top 10% 36% 36% 32%
Top 11-25% 34% 36% 29%
ACT Score 28 28 27
SAT Score (1600 Scale) 1230 1253 1232
SAT Score (2400 Scale) 1847 1823 1847
Number of AP/IB Courses 2.9 B 2.2 2.4
• UC/Is represent a significantly high percentage of CA residents
• Academic standing is similar among all three interest groups
(A) UC/Interested (B) UC/Possible
(C) UC/Not
Interested
Average Age (In Years) 28 BC 26 26
Location
California 73% BC 42% C 32%
Western Region 14% 28% A 34% A
Remaining U.S. 13% 30% A 34% A
Gender
Male 47% C 47% C 37%
Female 54% 53% 63% AB
Education Level Completed
(Median) College, Junior
College,
Sophomore
College,
Sophomore
Ethnicity
White/Caucasian 48% 67% A 70% A
African American 6% 5% 5%
Hispanic 17% BC 9% 8%
Asian 23% BC 16% 13%
Household Income $52,200 $54,000 $53,700
Questions S1-S3, F1, F3-F4, F9 See Appendix
8
Perceptions of UC
UC is a well regarded university
9 9
D2. How much you agree or disagree that online courses offered by each of the institutions below would enhance your academic
background because of the institution’s reputation? 10 point scale: 1=Completely Disagree,
10=Completely Agree Base: Total Respondents (“Don’t know” responses have been removed from the base)
• More than 50% of responders “agree” online courses from UC will enhance their academic
background
• Roughly 70% of responders recognize UC as a nationally known, research university
3%
2%
3%
3%
2%
29%
31%
23%
26%
29%
68%
67%
74%
71%
69%
Research University Reputation
Leading-edge Faculty
Nationally Known
Excellent Reputation for Quality Education
Academically Challenging School
Does Not Describe Neutral Describes
5% 42% 53% Enhances Academic Background
Disagree Neutral Agree
B1. Please indicate how well you think each statement describes the institution by using a scale of 1 to 10. 10 point scale: 1=Does Not
Describe at All, 10=Completely Describes
Base: Total Respondents (“Don’t know” responses have been removed from the base)
Note: Each respondent rated 7 institutions; all respondents were asked UC and Local/Community College, five other institutions were
randomly selected
91% 89%
78%
71% 71%
59%
50% 49%
42% 41%
35%
29%
23% 23% 22%
Harvard University
(n=310)
Stanford University
(n=452)
Duke University
(n=266)
University of California
(n=555)
University of Southern California (n=388)
University of Michigan
n=113)
University of Chicago
(n=173)
University of
Washington (n=87)
University of Texas,
Austin (n=70)
University of Virginia
(n=59)
SUNY, Stony Brook
University (n=127)
Local Community
or Junior College (n=271)
Capella University
(127)
DeVry University
(n=241)
University of Phoenix
(n=237)
71% describe UC as having an excellent reputation for
the quality of education provided
B1. Please indicate how well you think each statement describes the institution by using a scale of 1 to 10. 10 point scale: 1=Does Not
Describe at All, 10=Completely Describes
Base: Varies (“Don’t know” responses have been removed from the base)
10
Note: Each respondent rated 7 institutions; all respondents were asked UC and Local/Community College, five other institutions were
randomly selected
• Relative rankings similar to these were found for the various universities for perceptions of being academically challenging, nationally known, having leading-edge faculty, or for reputation as a research university.
11
Online Course Interest
25% of survey responders are “somewhat likely/very
likely” to enroll in an online course
23% 20% 32% 16% 9% Total
(n=1001)
Not Likely At All Somewhat Unlikely Maybe Somewhat Likely Very Likely
12 12
C1. How likely are you to enroll in an online course offered by an institution other than the college or university from which you plan to
receive/received your degree?
Base: Total Respondents
• An additional 32% of survey responders indicated “maybe” for whether they would enroll in an
online course offered by an institution other than the college or university from which they plan to
receive/received their degree
13
BC
AB
Survey participants are planning to enroll in courses at
different types of universities in order to complete their
degree
Institution Types Plan to Attend
100% Online 12%
Community/Junior College 27%
On Campus Courses 35%
On Campus and Online Courses 65%
In-State Public 64%
On Campus Courses 48%`
On Campus and Online Courses 52%
Out-of-State Public 10%
In-State Private 17%
Out-of-State Private 9%
A3 What types of college institutions you have attended to take credit-bearing courses? Base: 763
A5 For each of the college institutions you have attended, please indicate if you took classes online, on campus or both Base: Varies dependent on A3
A6 What types of colleges do you plan to attend to complete Base: 1001
A8 For each type of college you plan to attend to complete your degree, advanced
degree pre-requisites, please indicate if you will take classes online, on campus or both. Base: Varies dependent on A6
• 64% of responders are planning to attend an In-state public college/institution with 52% of those
expecting to take courses online
Overall, 96% interested in pre-requisite and
introductory courses (net)
Name of Courses Percent Interested
U.S. History 39%
Psychology 34%
Freshman Composition /
Writing 34%
Sociology 31%
Computer Science (e.g. Fundamental of Computing, Data
Structures and Programming)
29%
American Gov & Politics 29%
College level math (e.g. Pre-Calculus, Calculus, Differential
Equations, Linear Algebra)
27%
European or World History 26%
Modern Language (e.g. Spanish, French, German)
23%
Statistics 21%
Biology (e.g. General, Ecology, Evolutionary
Biology)
20%
Accounting 20%
Macro and Micro Economics 18%
Astronomy 14%
Chemistry (e.g. General, Organic, Physical)
14%
Physics 11%
D3a. Assuming you wanted to take an online course that would transfer credits to your undergraduate degree/prepare you for an
advanced degree program, which of these following kinds of courses would you be
interested in enrolling in?
Overall, 67% interested in elective courses (net)
Name of Courses Percent Interested
Humanities and Arts (e.g. American Cybercultures, Survey of
Dance: Cultures and Context, Acoustics
and Digital Music Creation and
Production, Art, Science and Technology)
43%
Social Sciences (e.g. Water Policy, African Diaspora,
Psychology of Aging, Agricultural
Economics, Silicon Valley
Entrepreneurialism)
36%
Sciences (e.g. History of the Universe,
Nanotechnology for Future Presidents,
the Chemistry of Food)
29%
Courses intended to count toward a degree are of
highest interest
14
27% 39% 34% Total
(n=1001)
Not Likely Neutral Very Likely
• When survey participants were asked whether they would consider enrolling in a UC online college
level course for credit or for prerequisites, 34% indicated a strong consideration to enroll at UC
E1. For each of the institutions listed below, how likely would you be to consider enrolling in online (UNDERGRADUATE INTENDERS/ENROLLED:)
college level courses that would transfer credits to an undergraduate degree? (ADVANCED DEGREE INTENDERS:) undergraduate courses that
you need to prepare for an advanced degree program?
10 point scale: 1=Not at all Likely, 10= Extremely Likely Base: Total Respondents
15
Online enrollment consideration appeared to be slightly
higher when UC was introduced as the institution
providing online course offerings
E2. Assume that the cost of a standard length course is (CA: $1400 , Outside CA: $1750) at University of California. How likely would you be to
consider enrolling in online college level courses for credit/undergraduate courses to prepare for an advanced degree? 10 point scale: 1=Not at
all Likely, 10= Extremely Likely Base: Total Respondents
16
Enrollment consideration for a UC online course
decreased slightly when price was introduced
Not Likely Neutal Very Likely
• Consideration for a UC online course decreased when price was introduced
• Only 26% would consider compared to 34% that would consider a UC online course if price
was not introduced
• CA residents were presented $1400 and Non-residents were presented $1750
38% 36% 26% Total
(n=1001)
27% 39% 34% Total
(n=1001)
Not Likely Neutral Very Likely
No Price Stated
$1400 or $1750 Price Revealed
32% 48% 20% Total (n=1001)
Fair Value Average Value Very Good Value
20% consider UC online courses a “very good value”
when the price is presented
17
E3. Do you consider [CA: $1400, Non-CA: $1750] for a standard length online course at University of California a good value? 10 point
scale: 1=Poor Value, 10= Excellent Value
Base: Total Respondents
• Almost 50% consider UC an “average value” when the price is presented
• CA residents were presented $1400 and Non-residents were presented $1750
44%
32%
23% 23% 20%
15% 15% 15% 12% 11% 10% 9% 9% 9% 9%
Harvard University
(n=335)
Stanford University
(n=502)
Duke University
(n=333)
University of Southern California (n=499)
University of California (n=1001)
University of Michigan (n=288)
University of Washington
(n=850)
University of Texas, Austin
(n=289)
University of Virginia (n=289)
University of Chicago (n=333)
SUNY, Stony Brook
University (n=286)
Local Community
or Junior College
(n=1001)
University of Phoenix (n=334)
Capella University
(n=335)
DeVry University
(n=332)
• Perceived value was slightly higher for Harvard and
Stanford at these prices.
21% 19% 33% 19% 8%
17% 33% 50%
18
Online enrollment consideration was higher for CA
residents
Not Likely Neutal Very Likely
UC and Price Not Introduced
UC Introduced and Price Not Introduced
UC and Price Introduced
31% 33% 36%
Not Likely Neutal Very Likely
Not Likely At All Somewhat Unlikely Maybe Somewhat Likely Very Likely
CA resident
E1. How likely would you be to consider enrolling in online college level courses for credit/undergraduate courses to prepare for an advanced degree? 10 point scale: 1=Not at all
Likely, 10= Extremely Likely E2. Assume that the cost of a standard length course is (CA: $1400 , Outside CA: $1750) at University of California. How likely would you be to
consider enrolling in online college level courses for credit/undergraduate courses to prepare for an advanced degree? 10 point scale: 1=Not at all Likely, 10= Extremely Likely
Base: Total RespondentsE4. Assume now that the cost of a standard length course is $1400 at University of
California. How likely would you be to consider enrolling in online college level courses for credit/undergraduate
courses to prepare for an advanced degree? 10 point scale: 1=Not at all Likely, 10= Extremely Likely Base: 500
• CA residents more interested when UC is revealed. Interest drops by about 1/3
when price is revealed.
E1. How likely would you be to consider enrolling in online college level courses for credit/undergraduate courses to prepare for an advanced
degree? 10 point scale: 1=Not at all Likely, 10= Extremely Likely
E2. Assume that the price of a standard length course is (CA: $1,400 , Outside CA: $1,750) at each of the institutions. How likely would you be
to consider enrolling in online college level courses for credit/undergraduate courses to prepare for an advanced degree? 10 point scale:
1=Not at all Likely, 10= Extremely Likely
E4. Assume now that the cost of a standard length course is $1400 at University of California. How likely would you be to consider enrolling in
online college level courses for credit/undergraduate courses to prepare for an advanced degree? 10 point scale: 1=Not at all Likely, 10=
Extremely Likely
Base: Total Respondents
19
• Enrollment interest among Non-residents is stable at the price of $1,750 and increases slightly
when the price is reduced to $1400
0
31%
17%
33%
33%
0
36%
50%
38%
45%
36%
42%
38%
46%
20%
17%
18%
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
Not Likely Neutral Very Likely
F
A
CA Residents
(n= 501)
Non-Residents
(n= 500)
$1,400
$1,400
$1,750
Enrollment consideration varies by region and price
20
UC Interested Respondents
Roughly 90% of UC/Is describe UC positively on key
institutional attributes
21 21
B1. Please indicate how well you think each statement describes UC by using a scale of 1 to 10. 10 point scale: 1=Does Not Describe at
All, 10=Completely Describes
Base: Total Respondents (Don’t know responses have been removed from the base)
• More than 50% of UC/Ps and UC/NIs describe UC positively
7%
3%
2%
10%
2%
1%
7%
2%
1%
7%
2%
1%
37%
42%
12%
24%
34%
10%
30%
42%
10%
32%
43%
13%
56%
55%
86%
66%
64%
89%
63%
56%
89%
61%
55%
86%
(C) UC/NI (n=154)
(B) UC/P (n=281)
(A) UC/I (n=306)
(C) UC/NI (n=190)
(B) UC/P (n=312)
(A) UC/I (n=320)
(C) UC/NI (n=167)
(B) UC/P (n=296)
(A) UC/I (n=317)
(C) UC/NI (n=161)
(B) UC/P (n=290)
(A) UC/I (n=313)
Does Not Describe Neutral Describes
Academically
Challenging
School
Excellent
Reputation for
Quality Education
Nationally Known
Research
University
Reputation
BC
AB
BC
AB
BC
AB
BC
AB
22
37% of UC/Is consider a UC online course a good value
at the base price
UC Online Interested Responders
(UC/Is)
UC Interested UC Possible
UC Not Interested
34%
39%
27%
32%
58%
37%
48%
37%
110 119 182
160
342
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Duke University
Harvard University
University of Southern California
Stanford University
University of California
% n
• Although roughly 90% of UC/Is described UC on institutional attributes, only 37% UC/Is consider
UC a good value at the price point provided
• CA residents were presented $1400 and Non-residents were presented $1750
E3. Do you consider [CA: $1,400, Non-CA: $1,750] for a standard length online course at each of the institutions a good value? 10 point
scale: 1=Poor Value, 10= Excellent Value Base: Non-California Residents Note: Each respondent rated 7 institutions; all respondents were asked UC and Local/Community College, five other institutions were randomly selected
Note: UC/I = 34% of total sample or 342 total. All were not presented the same list of universities – note the “n” in graph
22% 41% 37% (A) UC Online Interested (n=342)
23% 38% 39%
23
UC/Is value consideration of a UC online course varies
by region and price
*Small base
E3. Do you consider [CA: $1,400, Non-CA: $1,750] for a standard length online course at University of California a good value? 10 point
scale: 1=Poor Value, 10= Excellent Value
E5. Do you consider $1400 for a standard length online course at University of California a good value? 10 point scale: 1=Poor Value,
10= Excellent Value Base: Total Respondents
CA Residents - $1400
(n= 251)
21% 46% 33%
Non-residents - $1750
(n= 91*)
19% 36% 45%
Non-residents - $1400
(n= 91*)
Fair Value Average Very Good Value
• 39% of UC/Is in CA consider a UC online course a “very good value” at $1400
• More UC/Is who are not CA residents consider UC a “very good value” at $1400 vs. $1750
UC and Price Introduced
• Not all UC/I responders were presented the same six selected universities in addition to UC
• The segment, UC/Is, was further analyzed to identify other institutions that respondents also
would “very likely” consider individual online course enrollment when price is introduced
24
57% of UC/Is in CA are “very likely” to consider online
course enrollment when price is introduced
UC Online Interested Responders
(UC/Is)
UC Interested UC Possible
UC Not Interested
34%
39%
27%
41%
58%
50%
58%
57%
85 89
65
121
251
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Duke University
Harvard University
University of Southern California
Stanford University
University of California
% n
75% or 251 are CA
residents
E1. For each of the institutions listed below, how likely would you be to consider enrolling in online (UNDERGRADUATE INTENDERS/ENROLLED:) college level
courses that would transfer credits to an undergraduate degree? (ADVANCED DEGREE INTENDERS:) undergraduate courses that you need to prepare for an
advanced degree program? 10 point scale: 1=Not at all Likely, 10= Extremely LikelyE2. Assume that the price of a standard length course is (CA: $1,400 , Outside
CA: $1,750) at each of the institutions.
How likely would you be to consider enrolling in online college level courses for credit/undergraduate
courses to prepare for an advanced degree? 10 point scale: 1=Not at all Likely, 10= Extremely Likely Base: Varies
Note: UC/I = 34% of total sample or 342 total. California residents are 251. All were not presented the same list of universities-note the “n” in graph
UC Online Education Common Learning Environment (CoLE)
Principles.
12/19/2011 2
Innovation
Open Source Path
Re-Use of the Good
Accessible Solutions
Transfer of Assets
Sharing
Learn As We Go
Success of CoLE is more than technology
12/19/2011 3
Instructional Design
Learning Environment
Content
Decisions.
12/19/2011 4
Use UC as General Contractor
Combine insource (campuses or OP) and
outsource (vendors)
Leverage inter-university consortia
Bring OIPP requirements to influence next
generation learning environment in Sakai OAE
Use Moodle and Sakai platforms as rapid capacity
vehicles (Initial UCOE courses)
Direct development funds into paths that enable
Sakai and Moodle transitions
Open Academic Environment.
12/19/2011 5
Next generation – Modern / Open platform
- Permeable
- Social
- Personal
- Remixable
Single Integration Handshake
Consortium-based
- Sakai Foundation project
- Commercial vendors + HE Institutions
Strategy.
12/19/2011 6
Borrow. Buy. Build. Partner.
Strategy.
12/19/2011 7
[and leverage more...]
Harness talent.
— Instructional design
— Audio-visual & media design
— Programming
Build stronger communities of practice.
General
Contractor
Iterate.
12/19/2011 8
Targeted Hybrid
OAE
Loosely Integrated
OAE Portal
Winter 2012 Spring/Summer 2012 Fall 2012 (iteration 1)
OAE
CoLE
*
Milestones.
12/19/2011 9
Sept. 1 – Strategic Path Summit
Sept. 4 – Direction/Goal Set
Oct. 15 – Finalized PSA/Hosting agreement
Nov. 8 – Release CLE to internal team for configuration
Nov. 15 – First course start upload and design
Nov. 30 – OAE release to internal team for configuration
December– Choose video platform
January – Deliver first courses as loosely coupled (*content)
February – Analytics deep dive
March – Deliver Spring / Summer courses as hybrid
C C C C C
* March – May -- Scope Wave II courses
Challenges.
12/19/2011 10
Building the road and the bus while
driving
Single Sign-on with campus ID
Building staffing capacity
Building an online team – faculty + staff
Content
Working through campus mind-set
Preview.
12/19/2011 11
Under Construction
OAE Portal
UC Online Education DRAFT Business Planning Document
Mission Business Model Marketing Strategy Supply Chain Management Operating Infrastructure
We are nothing without mission.
11/28/11 3
UCOE’s three-part mission statement.
11/28/11 4
UCOE will innovate by delivering unparalleled lower-division undergraduate education online to UC and non-UC students for UC credit. In doing so, UCOE will serve three constituencies:
1) For UC Students, UCOE will enhance choice, alleviate overcrowding in high-demand classes, and improve student time to degree
2) For UC, UCOE will drive new revenue into academic departments and build capacity for online delivery
3) For Non-UC Students, UCOE will broaden access to high-quality education designed by world-class faculty
Innovate and serve.
Two pillars.
11/28/11 5
UC
CR
ED
IT
UC
FA
CU
LTY
UCOE
Important to note...
11/28/11 6
Without revenue from the third constituency,
the first two cannot be served.
UCOE will innovate by delivering unparalleled lower-division undergraduate education online to UC and non-UC students for UC credit. In doing so, UCOE will serve three constituencies:
1) For UC Students, UCOE will enhance choice, alleviate overcrowding in high-demand classes, and improve student time to degree
2) For UC, UCOE will drive new revenue into academic departments and build capacity for online delivery
3) For Non-UC Students, UCOE will broaden access to high-quality education designed by world-class faculty
Mission Business Model Marketing Strategy Supply Chain Management Operating Infrastructure
Generate new tuition, and drive it into academic departments. It’s that simple.
11/28/11 8
Our business model is straightforward.
1. Offer unique product.
2. Use it to bring in new tuition revenue.
3. Pay critical expenses like marketing and technology.
4. Send the rest to campuses.
11/28/11 9
Campuses
New Tuition
New Tuition
New Tuition
…and do it in the simplest, most transparent way possible.
Three key business-model parameters.
1. $6.9 million startup loan.
2. Small footprint at OP.
3. Variability is the manager’s enemy (keep it simple).
11/28/11 10
Four key principles.
1. Source everything outside UCOP.
2. Invest in institutional capacity wherever possible.
3. Take advantage of existing campus online resources.
4. Focus, focus, focus.
11/28/11 11
One revenue goal. Accumulate nothing at the center.
Where does UCOE business model leave UCOE? With nothing. That’s the point. Our goal is to run a breakeven business. A job well-done: Net Income = $0. Because that means we’ve sent every possible dime to campuses.
11/28/11 12
Simplified pro forma.
11/28/11 13
($ millions) FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17
Tuition $ - $ 5.4 $ 8.2 $ 9.9 $ 12.0 $ 14.5 Grant Funding 1.2 - - - - - Loan Proceeds 3.9 1.7 - 1.2 - -
Dollars In: 5.2 7.2 8.2 11.2 12.0 14.5 Marketing 2.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.8 Technology 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 Instructional Designers 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 Central OP Personnel 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 Student Services - 1.4 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.5 Loan Repayment - - - 1.4 1.4 1.4 Enrollment Compensation - 1.1 1.9 2.7 2.7 4.4 Course Author Royalty - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Course Development 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Dollars Out: 5.2 7.2 8.2 11.2 12.0 14.5
UCOE Net Income: $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
= “Academic Income”
Assumptions about simplified “best case” pro forma.
Off-campus student course enrollments grow from 3,700 to 8,000 and repay loan. No price discrimination: Off-campus students pay $1,400 tuition per 4-unit course. Off-campus student course enrollments garner $300 paid by UCOE to the academic department offering the course. During summer, all students are considered off-campus students no matter where they hail from. Because in summer, all students pay course-enrollment costs over and above any UC tuition they may already pay.
11/28/11 14
What happens when start-up costs are covered?
Because UCOE holds its expenses steady, it accumulates surplus revenue which can be: • distributed to academic departments by increasing
the $300 that it pays for enrolling students
AND/OR • accumulate net revenues and distribute them to
campuses according to some formula.
Either way UCOE Net Income = $0.
11/28/11 15
($ millions) FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17
Tuition $ - $ 5.4 $ 8.2 $ 9.9 $ 12.0 $ 14.5 Grant Funding 1.2 - - - - - Loan Proceeds 3.9 1.7 - 1.2 - -
Dollars In: 5.2 7.2 8.2 11.2 12.0 14.5 Marketing 2.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.8 Technology 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 Instructional Designers 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 Central OP Personnel 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 Student Services - 1.4 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.5 Loan Repayment - - - 1.4 1.4 1.4 Enrollment Compensation - 1.1 1.9 2.7 2.7 4.4 Course Author Royalty - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Course Development 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Dollars Out: 5.2 7.2 8.2 11.2 12.0 14.5
UCOE Net Income: $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Goal while loan is being repaid: Grow this line.
11/28/11 16
= “Academic Income”
Why put all upside initially into enrollment compensation?
Because it encapsulates the two most important behaviors we need from academic departments in order to succeed:
11/28/11 17
Enrollment Teaching …so we ought to pay for it.
$1,400
$1,400 Gross Tuition
$300 Instructor/ TA Cost
$1,100 UCOE
Overhead
UCCREDIT
UCFACULTY
UCOE
UCOE income statement: bird’s eye view.
11/28/11 18
All other UCOE expenses
“Enrollment compensation” expense
All Off-Campus Students Pay
Mission Business Model Marketing Strategy Supply Chain Management Operating Infrastructure
Start with what you know.
11/28/11 20
Zuckerberg did not build Facebook for Cornell.
Start at home.
Focus on a single market, with a single product. Gain experience Build capacity Generate buzz. Be prepared to pivot.
11/28/11 21
Several viable markets.
11/28/11 22
Academic Prep
Degree Completion
UC Online Master’s
Military
Internat’l. Gifted & Talented
Internat’l. Exchange
Corporate Continuing
Ed
Transfer
…which one to tackle first?
UC Students on Leave
Strategy out of the gate.
11/28/11 23
Market: California
Academic Prep
Message: “Improve your
chances of enrolling at a 4-
year college” (implied pathway)
Revenue: Non-UC Tuition
Channels: Wholesale vs.
Retail
Value Proposition:
It’s the Real Thing
Product: Lower-Division Undergraduate
Courses
UCCREDIT
UCFACULTY
UCOE
Capture mix of California wholesale and retail.
11/28/11 24
Market: California
Academic Prep
Message:“Improve your
chances” (implied pathway)
Revenue: Non-UC Tuition
Channels: Wholesale vs.
Retail
Value Proposition:
It’s the Real Thing
Product: Lower-Division Undergraduate
Courses
UC
STU
DEN
TS
UC
FAC
ULT
Y
UCOE
Retail: • High school students • Parents of high school
students Wholesale: • Professional School
Deans whose programs require prereqs
• K-12.com
Keep in mind we are different.
11/28/11 25
World Class Brand
Publ
ishi
ng
B
A/B
S D
egre
e C
redi
t
Floating University
Khan Academy
Low Perceived Quality
Phoenix
Pearson
Carnegie Mellon
Western Governors
G
radu
ate
Deg
rees
Kaplan
2Tor Embanet-Compass
Good Brand
Extensions CCCs Summer
Sessions
Stanford AI Course
Educ
atio
nal
Serv
ice
Prov
ider
U
nder
-gr
adua
te
Deg
rees
Bisk
The College Network
Academic Partnerships
Penn State Global Campus
DeVry Portland State
USC University of Florida WSU Northwestern
Eastern Kentucky
BU
GWU RIT
Ohio University Abilene
Christian
Kent State
UMUC
Cincinnati
CSU
UMass
UCST
UDENTS
UCFACULTY
UCOE
UCOE
Our product is competitively unique.
It’s the real thing! What makes it the real thing? …real UC courses. …for real UC credit. …taught by real UC faculty.
11/28/11 26
Experiment November 2011 ~ March 2012
• Run OIPP
• Collect valuable feedback from UCEC
• Learn how to develop courses
• Build capacity
Strategize January 2012 ~ June 2012 • Select market and the
curriculum to support it
• Tap full-service marketing partner
• Document out-of-the-gate recruitment strategy
• Build application website
Enroll April 2012 ~ September 2012
• Build wholesale relationships
• Generate and qualify leads
• Convert leads into enrollments
• Transact, onboard, remediate, retain
• Pivot
11/28/11 27
Understand the path.
Mission Business Model Marketing Strategy Supply Chain Management Operating Infrastructure
What does all this mean for participating faculty and departments?
11/28/11 29
Market: California
Academic Prep
Message:“Improve your
chances” (implied pathway)
Revenue: Non-UC Tuition
Channels: Wholesale vs.
Retail
Value Proposition:
It’s the Real Thing
Product: Lower-Division Undergraduate
Courses
UC
CR
EDIT
UC
FAC
ULT
YUCOE
Motivate the supply chain.
At its core, UCOE is a supply chain that incentivizes faculty and departments to: Develop courses. Put them in the Common Learning Environment (CoLE). Teach them to UC and non-UC students.
11/28/11 30
…but how do the faculty and departments get paid?
($ millions) FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17
Tuition $ - $ 5.4 $ 8.2 $ 9.9 $ 12.0 $ 14.5 Grant Funding 1.2 - - - - - Loan Proceeds 3.9 1.7 - 1.2 - -
Dollars In: 5.2 7.2 8.2 11.2 12.0 14.5 Marketing 2.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.8 Technology 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 Instructional Designers 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 Central OP Personnel 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 Student Services - 1.4 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.5 Loan Repayment - - - 1.4 1.4 1.4 Enrollment Compensation - 1.1 1.9 2.7 2.7 4.4 Course Author Royalty - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Course Development 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Dollars Out: 5.2 7.2 8.2 11.2 12.0 14.5
UCOE Net Income: $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Three ways.
11/28/11 31
= “Academic Income”
Up-close look at “Academic Income.”
11/28/11 32
UCOE Course Offered 4x per year Fall Winter Spring Summer
Year 1 (100 students per offering)
Academic Income
Enrollment Compensation $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 120,000
Course Author Royalty 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 8,000
Course Development 55,000 - - - 55,000
$ 87,000 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 $ 183,000
UCOE pays $300 per enrollment (regardless of UC vs. non-UC). UCOE pays $2,000 royalty every time the course is offered. UCOE pays $55,000 to develop the course with faculty.
= “Academic Income”
UCOE Course Offered 4x per year Fall Winter Spring Summer
Year 1 (100 students per offering)
Academic Income
Enrollment Compensation $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 120,000
Course Author Royalty 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 8,000
Course Development 55,000 - - - 55,000
$ 87,000 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 $ 183,000
There is no waiting.
11/28/11 33
Faculty and academic departments don’t have to wait for UCOE to repay its loan in order to benefit.
A single course. A single year.
$183,000.
See the potential.
11/28/11 34
A single course. A single year.
$613,000.
Scenario 1: $1,400 no matter what.
Year 1 (100 students per offering)
Year 2 (200 students per offering)
Year 3 (300 students per offering)
Year 4 (400 students per offering)
Year 5 (500 students per offering)
Academic Income
Enrollment Compensation $ 120,000 $ 240,000 $ 360,000 $ 480,000 $ 600,000
Course Author Royalty 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000
Course Development 55,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
$ 183,000 $ 253,000 $ 373,000 $ 493,000 $ 613,000
Why $300?
11/28/11 35
TA Ratio: 1 25% TA per 100 students 1 50% TA per 100 students 1 25% TA per 50 students
Enrollment: 100 200 300 100 200 300 100 200 300 Instr. of Record $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000
1st TA – Wages 3,000 3,000 3,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
1st TA – Fees 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
2nd TA – Wages -- 3,000 3,000 -- 6,000 6,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
2nd TA – Fees -- 5,000 5,000 -- 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
3rd TA – Wages -- -- 3,000 -- -- 6,000 -- 3,000 3,000
3rd TA – Fees -- -- 5,000 -- -- 5,000 -- 5,000 5,000
4th TA – Wages -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3,000 3,000
4th TA – Fees -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5,000 5,000
5th TA – Wages -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3,000
5th TA – Fees -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5,000
6th TA – Wages -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3,000
6th TA – Fees -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5,000
Instr. / TA Cost: $ 19,000 $ 27,000 $ 35,000 $ 22,000 $ 33,000 $ 44,000 $ 27,000 $ 43,000 $ 54,000
Cost per Enrollment: $ 190 $ 135 $ 117 $ 220 $ 165 $ 147 $ 270 $ 215 $ 180
It appears to work for the scenarios below… And…it’s
simple.
Understand the advantages.
11/28/11 36
UCOE courses retain distinctive UC character because the $300 enrollment compensation level lets departments afford: • Good student:faculty ratio, enabling
“high touch” interaction
• Ladder faculty who wish to act as instructors of record
• Smaller class sizes (e.g. 30) to be viable
11/28/11 37
Students’ home campus keeps: • State funds that support
instruction of in-state students • Supplemental tuition paid by non-
resident students • All campus fees
At EAP, UCDC, and UC Sacramento Center, students’ tuition and registration dollars go to the programs… …offsetting program costs and the cost of student instruction.
What about cross-campus instruction?
$1,000
$1,000 Gross Tuition
$300 Instructor/ TA Cost
$700 UCOE
Overhead
UCCREDIT
UCFACULTY
UCOE
When applied to UCOE, the model looks like this.
11/28/11 38
All other UCOE expenses
“Enrollment compensation” expense
Through intra-location transfer, UC Student Would Pay About
What’s wrong with this picture?
11/28/11 39
$1,000
$1,000Gross Tuition
$300Instructor/ TA Cost
$700UCOE
Overhead
UC
CR
EDIT
UC
FAC
ULT
Y
UCOE
All other UCOE expenses
“Enrollment compensation” expense
UC Student Would Pay
$1,400
$1,400Gross Tuition
$300Instructor/ TA Cost
$1,100UCOE
Overhead
UC
CR
EDIT
UC
FAC
ULT
YUCOE
All other UCOE expenses
“Enrollment compensation” expense
All Students Pay
UCOE still needs its $1,100 per enrollment for overhead. Every student that does not bring full freight ($1,400) to support UCOE costs means that UCOE has to impose internal quotas to keep the student mix financially viable. We’d rather not do this.
Issues UCOE is not addressing.
Faculty workload (this is a departmental decision guided by Senate policy). How the $300 enrollment compensation flows once it reaches a campus (although we prefer to deal with a small number of predictable budget offices on each campus). Decisions about instructor and/or incremental TA hiring – these rest entirely with the instructing department. UCOE simply pays the department the $300 per student course enrollment, which the department can spend as it sees fit.
11/28/11 40
How will UCOE ensure budget transparency?
Through a governing committee that acts in the way similar committees act for other systemwide instructional programs (EAP, Washington Center): Reviewing revenues and expenditures annually. Recommending the level at which per-course fees are set. Recommending the amount paid by UCOE to participating academic departments for each off-campus students it enrolls.
11/28/11 41
Mission Business Model Marketing Strategy Supply Chain Management Operating Infrastructure
Wrap the core with best-fit partners, from both inside and outside UC.
11/28/11 43
UCOE Inside.
11/28/11 44
…but surely it doesn’t have to be this complicated.
UC Promotion
Marketing
UC Recruitment
Enrollment Student Services
UC Placement
Placement
TA Onboarding
Remediation
24/7 Tech Support
Advising/Mentorship/Coaching
Academic Support
Orientation
“Shield” Registration
Financial Transacting
Direct Response
Qualification
Lead Generation
Market Segment Analysis
Wholesale Relationships
Application Website
Retention / Continuous Improvement Analytics
Value Proposition
Strategy/Positioning/Planning
Opportunity Analysis
Market Research
Branding/Messaging
Sub‐Contractor Management
Media Buys
Employer Development
4‐Year Transfer
2‐Year Transfer
Articulation Agreements
Internships
Alumni Engagement
Career Services
Course Scheduling
Organization of Instruc.
Course Development
UCOE Courses
CoLE
Streamline.
11/28/11 45
UC Promotion UC Recruitment UC Placement
Registrar
Tran
scrip
ting
TA Onboarding
Remediation
24/7 Tech Support
Advising/Mentorship/Coaching
Academic Support
Orientation
“Shield” Registration
Financial Transacting
Direct Response
Qualification
Lead Generation
Market Segment Analysis
Wholesale Relationships
Application Website
Retention / Continuous Improvement Analytics
Value Proposition
Strategy/Positioning/Planning
Opportunity Analysis
Market Research
Branding/Messaging
Sub‐Contractor Management
Media Buys
Employer Development
4‐Year Transfer
2‐Year Transfer
Articulation Agreements
Internships
Alumni Engagement
Career Services
Marketing Enrollment Student Services Placement
Kaplan
TBD Campus Partner UCOE
Course Scheduling
Organization of Instruc.
Course Development
UCOE Courses
CoLE
Campus PartnerCampus Partner
rSmart
CoLE is a stake in the ground.
CoLE provides the University with: Migration path.
Sandbox.
Single handshake.
More flexible option.
Modern platform.
— Personal — Permeable — Social
New engagement models.
11/28/11 46
Iterate to excellence. Start from where we are. Focus on our aspirations. Communicate them. Iterate in achievable steps. Bring partners along Find successes and build.
11/28/11 47
UCOE OIPP
Today:
Faculty Development Ed Technology Extension/SS
technology
catalog
methods
teaching & learning
revenue
Find the right partner.
Get the research from Kaplan. Talk to potential full-service marketing + student services providers (Blackboard, Embanet-Compass). Talk to potential marketing “subs” (Noel-Levitz, EMG, Target X, guerrilla SEO and social media experts, etc.).
11/28/11 48
UC Promotion UC Recruitment
TA Onboarding
Remediation
24/7 Tech Support
Advising/Mentorship/Coaching
Academic Support
Orientation
“Shield” Registration
Financial Transacting
Direct Response
Qualification
Lead Generation
Market Segment Analysis
Wholesale Relationships
Application Website
Retention / Continuous Improvement Analytics
Value Proposition
Strategy/Positioning/Planning
Opportunity Analysis
Market Research
Branding/Messaging
Sub‐Contractor Management
Media Buys
Marketing Enrollment Student Services
Meanwhile, get our internal house in order.
Creating the conditions where UCOE can • enroll and create transcripts for
students who participate for transferable credit in courses offered and managed by academic departments on 9 general campuses during summer and regular terms
• ensure academic quality and integrity of courses and instruction
11/28/11 49
UCOE Courses
Registrar
Tran
scrip
ting
Course Development
CoLE
Recommendation. 1) Courses designated by UCEP as systemwide courses using established Senate policy. 2) Courses given distinct label e.g.: UC | home_campus | Course_Number | Course_Title 3) Courses listed in single catalog:
• so UC and non-UC students can find out about them in a reliable and consistent manner that is not dependent on highly varied local campus practice
• so UC registrars and campus and departmental articulation officers have reliable and consistent information about the courses on other campuses that their students might take.
4) Course enrollment and student transcripting managed by a single entity for non-UC and cross-campus (UC) students.
11/28/11 50
In this guise, UCOE is most like a summer session. It:
• acts administratively to organize instruction for UC and non-matriculated students in courses created and offered by academic departments
• has a business / budget model that incentivizes departmental
participation
• focuses primarily on lower division and general education courses.
There are key differences too. UCOE: • works with academic departments on all nine general campuses
• works during summer and regular terms
• issues transcripts for courses as “systemwide courses”
• works exclusively with online courses •
11/28/11 51
Yes, there are alternatives… • UC students taking courses across campus could be
processed as simultaneous enrollments or as inter-campus visitors
• non-UC students could enroll concurrently in UCOE
courses through the University Extension at the campus where the course is offered
But their costs, including: • CoLE’s integration with 18 student information
systems (9 campus, 9 extension); • 9 x 9 integration of campus registrar systems • A user interface that forces students to navigate
wholly different course administrations are prohibitive and destroy UCOE’s viability.
11/28/11 52
Thank You