UT Austin: Fall Traditional Rate Plan Tuition and Fee Proposal

Transcription

1 UT Austin: Fall 2014 Traditional Rate Plan Tuition and Fee Proposal I. Analysis of Undergraduate Tuition at the University of Texas Austin A. Access and Affordability Discuss factors that impact affordability at your institutions that may include total cost of attendance, total academic cost, net price, and financial aid packaging. If relevant, please provide any institutional affordability data that you find most relevant. It is a core priority at UT Austin that all academically competitive resident students from Texas have access to the substantial benefits of a UT Austin bachelor s degree. These benefits include becoming an educated citizen, preparing for a lifetime of learning and intellectual growth, and the well-documented economic benefits for individual graduates of UT in terms of employment and for the entire state of Texas in terms of human capital. Public higher education finance has changed in Texas, as it has nationally, over the past two decades, shifting more of the cost from the state (that is taxpayers) to the students and their families. This shift reflects a public policy trend, which conveys that the costs of high-quality education at a flagship university should be borne, in substantial part, by students. Tuition has become a source of tension between the need to generate revenue for supporting excellence at UT Austin and the competing goals of accessibility to the benefits of a UT Austin degree. This is especially the case at UT Austin since tuition was deregulated in We strive to achieve both goals: high quality education (which requires reliable revenue growth, including tuition) while being accessible to qualified Texas students from all socio-economic backgrounds. One of the most significant factors in accessibility is the affordability of a UT Austin education for a student and his or her family. Public discourse about affordability has focused almost exclusively on the listed tuition (including fees). However, many students pay less than the list price and in some cases far less. This is because Texas, as mirrored in policies nationwide, recognizes that financial aid is an essential component of providing accessibility at a cost that is affordable to families. Of greater relevance to families is the net tuition paid after financial aid. We define full-time students as those who take at least 12 semester credit hours as an undergraduate in both the fall and spring semesters. In , there were approximately 29,500 students who were classified as full-time residents by these criteria. Listed tuition is the average of the students flat rate tuition over the two long semesters (which includes mandatory fees). Net tuition represents the difference between listed tuition and all forms of merit-based and need-based financial aid. This includes federal, state, private, and institutional scholarships that could be based on merit, need or both. It also includes federal, state, and institutional need-based grants. Tuition exemptions, waivers, and any other third-party payment of tuition on behalf of the student are included as financial aid. Loans are not included as part of financial aid for purpose of determining net tuition. The figure on the next page shows the net tuition (after adjusting for inflation) paid by full-time resident undergraduates at UT Austin compared to listed tuition over eight years in 2012 dollars. While the list price increased more than the rate of inflation, the average net tuition remained virtually unchanged and was well-below listed tuition every year. In , average net tuition was 44% of the listed tuition. After adjusting for inflation, financial aid going to full-time students increased at an average annual rate of 6 percent. In , the total financial aid awarded to these students was $164 million. UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 1

2 Average Annual Tuition (constant 2012 $) $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Listed versus Net Tuition: Residents Net Tuition Listed Tuition Affordability is best assessed by the relationship between the net tuition paid and the income of the student s family (as measured by the adjusted gross income of the parents). A few data points illustrate the success UT Austin has had in providing access to UT Austin at an affordable price. Of the full-time resident undergraduates in , we observed the following relationship between adjusted gross income and net tuition: 24 percent of the students come from families with parental incomes less than $40,000. These students received financial aid that, on average, exceeded listed tuition by over $4,000. In other words, about one quarter of the resident undergraduate full-time students paid no tuition and received on average $4,000 toward the other costs such as room and board. Students from families with parental incomes between $40,000 and $60,000 paid an average of $164 of net tuition. Students from families with parental incomes between $60,000 and $80,000 paid an average of $3,950 in tuition after the receipt of financial aid. This level of net tuition represents approximately 40% of the list price. These data are shown in the figure below for five income groups in The relationship between income and net tuition reflects a tuition structure that is consistent with our goal of making a UT Austin education affordable for those students from families who have the greatest need. This analysis shows that, on average, Texas residents are paying less than half of the list price because of the strategic use of financial aid to make the education accessible to students from all socio-economic backgrounds. UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 2

3 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 -$2,000 -$4,000 -$6, Average Net Tuition: Residents Net Tuition A more comprehensive assessment of affordability and access is given by the relationship between the net tuition paid by families and their adjusted gross incomes. The ratio of net tuition to adjusted gross income is shown in the figure below for full-time resident undergraduates who reported their parent s adjusted gross income over the period from through The ratio is lowest for the families with the greatest need and peaks at a value of 0.07 for families with incomes between $80,000 and $110, Ratio of Net Tuition to Parent AGI Ratio of Net Tuition to Parent AGI $0 or less $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 $110 $120 $130 $140 $150 $160 $170 $180 $190 $200 $210 $220 $230 $240 $250 $260 $270 $280 $ Parent AGI (in thousands of constant 2012 dollars) UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 3

4 B. Student Success Outcomes and Chancellor s Framework Goals The Chancellor s Framework for Advancing Excellence heavily emphasized the importance of student success outcomes, specifically graduation rates, persistence, and degrees granted. Although important progress has been made over the past three years, the Chancellor s Framework requires each institution to enact plans to become top performers in four-year graduation rates among their respective peer groups and to strengthen the number of degrees conferred. In light of the most recently available national peer data provided below, please discuss progress in the student success goal of the Chancellor s Framework. UT Austin is fully committed to improving the four-year graduation rates for its undergraduate students. President Powers appointed Senior Vice Provost David Laude to mobilize the campus to develop programs that facilitate timely graduation for students in all colleges and schools. As these programs are implemented cohort by cohort, it will take several years before we observe the impacts of these efforts. Nevertheless, we have observed tangible progress compared with the last decade in terms of first year retention rates, which have an important impact on timely progress through the university. For example, the cohort of entering freshmen had a first-year retention rate of 91.0 percent with 6.0 percent of the students dropping out and 3.0 percent being dismissed. Comparable numbers for the cohort are 93.6 percent first-year retention rates with 4.4 percent dropping out and 2.0 percent being dismissed. Of course, an important element to successful navigation through the university is the preparation of incoming freshmen as they enter the university. The Top Ten Percent Law puts limits on the ability to identify students who are prepared for the rigors of university-level academic work at a flagship institution. While UT Austin aspires to levels of four-year graduation rates comparable to other public flagship universities, it is important to point out that many of those universities have very rigorous and selective admissions process, and many of them recruit undergraduate students nationally. The Department of Education reports that in 2012 UC Berkeley admitted 22% of their applicants, UCLA 27%, North Carolina-Chapel Hill 33%, and Michigan admitted 37%. During the same period, UT Austin admitted 47% of the applicants. UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 4

5 Table B: Student Success Outcomes National Peer Comparisons (Statistical Peers) Graduation Rates and Degrees Conferred Four Year Graduation Rate 2004 Cohort Four Year Graduation Rate Ranking 2004 Cohort Six Year Graduation Rate 2004 Cohort Total Number of Degrees Conferred Undergraduate (2 Year Change / ) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 75% 1 88% 1.1% University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 72% 2 90% 0.5% University of California-Berkeley 69% 3 91% 6.1% University of California-Los Angeles 68% 4 90% -2.0% University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 67% 5 84% 4.1% Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus 62% 6 85% -4.6% University of California-San Diego 57% 7 86% 11.4% University of Washington-Seattle Campus 54% 8 80% 1.7% The University of Texas at Austin 53% 9 80% -0.2% University of Wisconsin-Madison 50% 10 83% -2.1% Indiana University-Bloomington 50% 10 71% 7.9% Ohio State University-Main Campus 49% 12 78% 15.0% Michigan State University 48% 13 77% 0.0% University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 46% 14 70% 9.7% Purdue University-Main Campus 38% 15 69% 10.6% Source: Integrated Postsecondary Data Center (IPEDS), National Center for Education Statistics: C. Comparison of Total Academic Costs and Net Price among Texas Institutions Discuss the impact of your total academic cost and net average academic costs as compared to other Texas institutions (provided below). How does tuition charged at UT Austin in compare with other universities in Texas? Without comprehensive information on financial aid for each institution, it is not possible to compare levels of tuition net of all financial aid. We present the annual listed tuition and fees for resident students at five public universities in Texas in as reported by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The listed tuition at UT Austin is substantially below that of UT Dallas and is slightly less than tuition at the University of Houston. Tuition and fees at UT Austin are slightly higher than Texas Tech and is 8% higher than tuition at Texas A&M. Note that Texas A&M recently approved a 6% increase, which will essentially close the gap in tuition between the two Tier-1 public research universities in Texas. Texas Tech also reported their plan to increase tuition and fees by approximately 4% for the next academic year. UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 5

6 $14, Tuition and Fees: Residents $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 Tuition & Fees $4,000 $2,000 $0 UT-Dallas Houston UT-Austin TX Tech TX A&M The table below gives comparisons of need-based aid for a number of Texas universities and is instructive. Of course, these comparisons will depend on the numbers of students who qualify for need-based aid at the different universities and variations in the average net price will depend on the relative numbers of students of low economic means. It is worth pointing out that net tuition calculated with need-based grant aid alone gives an incomplete picture of the net tuition at UT Austin. In , grant aid accounted for only 57 percent of all financial aid provided to full-time resident undergraduates. UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 6

7 Table C: Average Net Academic Cost and Average Percent Discount, Full-Time Undergraduate Students AY Average in-state total academic cost 1 Full-time Students with Need-Based Grant Aid % receiving need-based grant aid Average need-based grant aid Average net academic cost All Full-time Students Average net academic cost 2 Average percent discount UT SYSTEM INSTITUTIONS Dallas $11, % $8,083 $3,454 $7, Austin $9, % $8,652 $1,138 $6, Arlington $9, % $6,970 $2,322 $5, San Antonio $8, % $6,115 $2,869 $5, Tyler $7, % $6,395 $827 $3, El Paso $7, % $7,103 $13 $2, Permian Basin $6, % $6,011 $697 $3, Pan American 3 $6, % $6,271 $0 $1, Brownsville $6, % $5,953 $305 $1, System Average $8, % $7,065 $1,718 $4, % NON-UT SYSTEM INSTITUTIONS Texas A&M University 4 $9, % $9,135 $0 $5, % Texas Tech University 5 $9, % $7,430 $2,024 $6, University of Houston 6 $9, % $7,266 $2,427 $5, University of North Texas 6 $9, % $7,075 $2,072 $5, Total academic cost represent the sum of all statutory tuition, designated tuition, and board-authorized tuition (where applicable), along with mandatory fees which now include college and course fees. Academic cost information is derived from actual fee bills for resident undergraduate students enrolled for 15 semester credit hours in the fall and spring semesters. Therefore, these figures represent costs for a total of 30 semester credit hours.2 The average net cost for all full-time students is derived by subtracting the total need-based grant aid from the total academic costs of all students and dividing by the total number of students.3 In , the average need-based grant was larger than the average academic cost at U. T. Pan American to help cover other student expenses, such as housing, transportation, and books and supplies. For this analysis, only grant funds used to cover academic costs were included for these institutions.4 Texas A&M cost data includes College Station and the Galveston campus. The Galveston campus has about 2,000 students (mostly undergraduates; 100 graduates)5 Texas Tech University data refers to AY figures as AY cost figures were not yet available online.6 University of Houston and University of North Texas cost figures refer to estimated AY figures as final figures were not yet available online. Source: Common Data Set, H ( , ); THECB IFRS data (fall 2011, spring 2012; fall 2012, spring 2013) UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 7

8 II. Tuition and Fee Policy Strategy When decisions are made in regard to increasing total cost of attendance, there are a number of factors that are considered. First, given your institutions current status on student success goals when compared to your peer institutions, what are your policy goals and strategic plan to become a leader in the top quintile of your peers in graduation rates and degrees granted? As you strive to meet those goals, there are four main source of funding that drive your ability to help reach these goals on your campus: (1) Tuition and fee income; (2) Legislative/State Appropriations (3) Philanthropy; and (4) Research Funding. Cost saving mechanisms and efficient resource utilization also inherently contribute to your financial success. A. Given your student success goals and the current financial status at your institution, please discuss your specific policy objectives and goals for your tuition and pricing strategy over the next 5 years. UT System does not require you to predict exact total academic cost requests for five years into the future. However, a discussion of overall strategy and approximate percentage increases may be helpful in providing a complete picture of current and future strategy and goal alignment. For example, given your ranking compared to your peers in total academic cost, net price, and state appropriations, what plans and goals do you have in place to improve your standing? Please consider both financial access implications. The listed tuition at UT Austin relative to the tuition charged at other flagship universities across the country is probably the more relevant comparison. These are the universities with which we must compete for the best faculty and students. As an example, high-ability students from Texas are actively recruited by these top-tier universities (who then pay out-of-state tuition to the admitting university). The table below shows that UT Austin ranks 14 th out of the 15 major public universities and has resident tuition that is 73% lower than that of Penn State, 52% lower than Berkeley, and 34% lower than Michigan Tuition and Fees for Full-Time Undergraduate Residents UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 8

9 Increasing UT Austin tuition from its current level to the median of our competitors, which would not be an unreasonable relative price given the quality of a UT Austin degree, would require an increase of over $3000 under the unrealistic assumption that our competitors do not change their tuition. Of course, this type of increase is not proposed at this time and it is unrealistic over a short planning period. However, unless this gap in revenue is narrowed over time, UT Austin will be at a huge competitive disadvantage in offering the highest-quality education compared with other public flagship research universities as the next section on funding per student demonstrates. Funding per Student at UT Austin The academic core budget at UT Austin is approximately $1.3 billion. If the long run inflation rate is 3%, the campus requires recurring increases of approximately $40 million per year simply to maintain our current level of quality and competitiveness with other public universities. Failure to address the cost-escalation tax, especially in the highly competitive labor markets for top faculty, will result in a gradual deterioration of the relative ranking of the university and hence the value of the degree to Texas residents. Start-up budgets for the labs for faculty in the STEM fields will become more expensive. Unless these additional costs are funded on a recurring basis, faculty recruiting in these fields will necessarily decline in quality and quantity. UT Austin competes in a national market for tenured and tenure-track faculty. Unless there is recurring revenue to support salaries, inflation-adjusted salaries will decrease and our best faculty will eventually be lured to other universities that are able to pay higher salaries. This erosion of relative salaries for full professors is already observed in most departments in Engineering and Natural Sciences. It is critical to understand how funding for the Texas flagship campus compares with its competitors. Resident tuition has been held flat since and revenue from state appropriations has declined. Moreover, the table below shows that in the recurring funding per student was the next to lowest among all of the public flagship universities. In , UNC Chapel Hill had the lowest average tuition of our peer group, which it does again for as noted above, but it also had the highest funding per student for , as noted below. Clearly, a policy decision was made in North Carolina to use taxpayer funds rather than tuition revenue to maintain a high level of funding per student. UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 9

10 Comparisons of Institutional Funding (includes AUF Funding at UT Austin) INSTITUTION State Appropriations + Tuition per FTE Student Rank University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill $30,991 1 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 27,575 2 University of California-Berkeley 26,003 3 University of California-Los Angeles 25,618 4 University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 25,057 5 Purdue University-Main Campus 23,359 6 University of Washington-Seattle Campus 23,178 7 University of California-San Diego 22,642 8 Ohio State University-Main Campus 22,319 9 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 21, Indiana University-Bloomington 21, Michigan State University 20, The University of Texas at Austin 19, University of Wisconsin-Madison 18, Source: Integrated Postsecondary Data Center (IPEDS), National Center for Education Statistics: B. In addition, how would increasing your ranking on specific funding and cost metrics relate to improvements in student success outcomes as compared to your peers in Texas and nationally? Please be specific in addressing persistence, graduation rates, and degrees granted. The total new funding from the tuition recommendation will depend on the exact composition of the classes during the subsequent two years. Based on historical enrollment patterns we estimate that, after the required 20% set-aside for financial aid (applied only to residents), the proposed increases for non-resident undergraduates will generate approximately $1.7M and the increases for resident undergraduates will generate $7.5M. The university will use the new funds to address the highest priorities of the student success initiatives listed below: (1) Expansion of course offerings in bottleneck courses: In order to improve our four-year graduation rate, it is imperative that students are able to get the courses they need to graduate. A number of courses are required for graduation but are over-subscribed because of budget cuts and shifts in course demands across colleges and majors. Students who are unable to take these courses early in their academic careers are delayed in their progress toward timely graduation. This is especially true in STEM fields where students are flocking as career-opportunities derived from technological advances are accelerating rapidly, especially in Texas. The College of Natural Sciences, for example, now has the largest number of students of any college and provides key prerequisite courses to other colleges including the Cockrell School of Engineering, McCombs School of UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 10

11 Business, and the School of Undergraduate Studies. Key bottleneck courses are found for majors in biological sciences, chemistry and computer sciences. Even disciplines that have not seen a sharp rise in majors, for example Physics and Mathematics, are recording record numbers of students who need their courses as part of degrees being awarded in the sciences, engineering, and business. There is a recurring deficit of approximately $6M for instructional budgets. (2) Expansion of academic advising and infrastructure: Academic advising plays a significant role in the ability of the university to improve our four-year graduation rate. The Final Report of the Task Force on Undergraduate Graduation Rates concluded that academic advising has been a catalyst for higher graduation rates and yet we have limited resources to provide enough advising staff to serve our current enrollment. At UT Austin, the organization and delivery of academic advising occurs in a decentralized satellite model, in which advising offices are housed within the academic units on campus (colleges, schools, departments). The average number of students per advisor is approximately 300 to 1; however, the actual number of students per advisor varies in each of the academic units. The university requires $1.5M additional resources for advising services. We also need to expand our information systems that support student advising and helps them stay on track to graduate in four years. This year we began the process of overhauling the interactive degree audit system (IDA 2.0). Under IDA 2.0 students can check to see which degree requirements have been satisfied, partially completed, or still need to be satisfied. The information is easier to access and more intuitive than in the old system. In addition, the new IDA 2.0 includes the Progress to Degree tool. We would like to continue this work to add a Time to Degree predictive modeling system to provide students and their advisers with a more detailed forecast for what is needed to complete their degree and insure the students have a roadmap how to successfully graduate in four years. We need to update our online advisor s toolkit system and integrate it with our other learning management systems to provide features that inform advisors when a student falls behind on their degree plan or gets into academic difficulty early in the semester. In addition, we are working on enhancing our Early Academic Warning System (EAWS) for the Blackboard learning management system. EAWS is an academic-based feedback system that aids student success in classes based on indicators of student engagement and performance. EAWS has been most helpful in large enrollment classes where individual feedback and student engagement tend to be more challenging. UT Austin is currently transitioning to a more robust and flexible learning management system, Canvas, which supports student success with features such as an integrated calendar, to-do lists, what if grades, and integration with Google Drive for streamlined collaboration. We need resources to integrate new technologies and tools into Canvas to support improved instruction and learning. Upgrading these technology systems will require $500K. (3) Expansion of college readiness and summer bridge programs: A key element of our enrollment and graduation management plan is insuring that the bottom quartile of incoming students receive the academic support they need when they enter their freshmen year. This begins before they arrive on campus and is part of our college readiness initiatives especially for our STEM students. The ALEKS math assessment and CNS College Readiness program is helping more students become prepared to take calculus in their first semester at UT. The College has expanded the online curriculum associated with these placement tests to permit students to study material and re-test. During the summer of 2013, students in any college that were registered for a math class in the fall of 2013 were directed to take the ALEKS math assessment test. Additional resources will allow us to expand our college readiness efforts for both STEM and writing using online assessments, learning modules, and social media tools that would help to diagnose academic readiness, provide resources to improve preparation for the UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 11

12 freshman curriculum, and motivate students to feel part of an academic community that is focused on success. Resources are also needed to update and enhance the Wayfinder website that helps freshmen students learn about different majors and careers. We require $500K in recurring funds for college readiness programs. This year we created a new Summer Bridge program, which provided $6,000 scholarships to 186 students who were identified as needing additional academic support and had significant financial need. The scholarships covered all costs for the students to take a math and writing course as well as academic workshops to get them ready for college and build a sense of community. Summer Bridge students had 100% pass rate for both courses, a higher passing rate than freshmen students in the fall of This program needs to be expanded to serve at least 200 additional students in the summer of 2014 and we also want to increase the number of STEM boot camps held during the summer that better prepares Natural Science majors for the rigors of their freshmen year. Resources are also needed to expand more traditional course offerings during the summer. This allows students to take critical courses at nonpeak times, which mitigates bottlenecks during the long semesters and reduces the time-to-degree. Expansion of summer programs requires $2M in additional funding. UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 12

13 III. One-Year Proposal Traditional Rate Plan A. Please complete the table below detailing your 1- Year request for increases to Total Academic Cost for Traditional Rate Plans. Total academic costs for a resident undergraduate student should reflect the weighted average of a student taking 15 SCH in Fall 2013 and Fall 2014 (Proposed). Total academic costs for undergraduate students should reflect the sum of all tuition and mandatory fee charges, including the value of average course fees if relevant. Please also verify and complete the attached excel file for proposed 1-Year increases to total academic costs for both graduate and undergraduate students at your institution (Attachment 1) Table 3A: Current and Proposed Increase to Total Academic Cost for Fall 2014: Resident Undergraduate Students Total Academic Cost for Resident Undergraduates Enrolled in 15 SCH Actual Fall 2013 Proposal Fall 2014 Increase Over Fall 2013 Statutory Tuition $ $ $0.00 Board-Designated Tuition $2, $2, $ Mandatory Fees $1, $1, $0.00 Average Course Fees $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Academic Cost $4, $5, $ Table 3B: Current and Proposed Increase to Total Academic Cost for Fall 2014: Non-Resident Undergraduate Students Total Academic Cost for Non- Resident Undergraduates Enrolled in 15 SCH Actual Fall 2013 Proposal Fall 2014 Increase Over Fall 2013 Statutory Tuition $6, $6, $ Board-Designated Tuition $9, $9, $ Mandatory Fees $1, $1, $0.00 Average Course Fees $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Academic Cost $16, $17, $ B. Please describe any new innovations in tuition and fee policies and pricing strategies that are included in this proposal, such as flat rate tuition, rebates, discounts, or guarantees. Discuss the impact they may have on student behavior and the role they may play in your one-year and multi-year tuition policy objectives and goals, especially related to timely graduation and student success. New Initiatives PACE: Path to Admission through Co-Enrollment (PACE) is the latest step in the evolution of a growing institutional partnership between UT Austin and Austin Community College (ACC). This program was designed to help some of Texas most qualified students reach their higher education goals and provide students with a clear path to college success by taking credit-courses at both UT Austin and ACC. Students will benefit academically from smaller, cohort-tailored classroom environments at ACC while simultaneously being exposed to student life and academic expectations of UT Austin. Academic advisers will work together to develop the students academic plans while top faculty members from both institutions will work to co-develop rigorous credit-bearing courses. PACE may also result in financial savings for UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 13

14 students. As co-enrolled students, participants will pay tuition to each institution for the credit hours in which they are enrolled. Ongoing Initiatives Flat Rate Tuition: The University of Texas implemented a policy of flat rate tuition for all undergraduates in the Fall 2005 semester and extended the policy to graduate students in Fall The move to flat rate was motivated partly to achieve transparency by reporting the total cost of education rather than charging separately for tuition, required fees, and other miscellaneous charges. For undergraduates, flat rate tuition also creates incentives to register for a full menu of courses (15 or more semester credit hours) rather than the all-too-common practice of taking 12 hours or less. The impact of flat rate tuition on course loads continues to improve. Discounting Summer Tuition: UT Austin has a tuition discount program in place for those who enroll in the summer: summer tuition is 15% less expensive than tuition during the long terms (fall and spring). Summer Enhancement Program: UT Austin has implemented the Summer Enhancement Program that expands, enriches, and improves summer course offerings. The colleges that participate by offering a more robust summer course offering are rewarded with financial incentives. These steps encourage students to take summer coursework potentially shortening time-to-degree. The summer program has bolstered the University s summer enrollment which prior to implementation had experienced steady decline. UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 14

15 C. Briefly describe plans to help offset any approved increases in total academic cost, especially the ability or capacity of your institution to mitigate increases by keeping net price relatively low. As required by law, $1.8 million of the increase in tuition generated will be set aside and awarded in the form of grants, scholarships, and on-campus work-study to students who demonstrate financial need for such awards, especially needy students with a higher probability of graduating in four years. Students who graduate in four years reduce their net price of attending UT Austin by preventing a fifth or sixth year of tuition payments. In addition, UT Austin has found that the less time it takes students to graduate, the lower the debt incurred while attending the university. UT Austin is also offering earned scholarships to students who participate in academic program support activities that are designed to help increase their persistence and accelerate their time-to-degree. In , for example, the University began the University Leadership Network (ULN) through which aid was disbursed on a monthly basis during the academic year to freshmen who, during the previous month, participated in such activities. UT Austin awarded $2.5 million in earned financial aid to 500 new ULN freshmen in In , it plans to award another $2.5 million to an additional 500 ULN freshmen, ULN sophomores who successfully completed 30 hours of coursework in will be employed as 10-hour per week on-campus interns and serve as peer advisors, counselors, and leaders. The ULN program is expected to grow through , when it will have approximately 2,000 undergraduates receiving as much as $10 million a year from earned scholarships and internships. Currently, this program is funded using $13 million in AUF funding allocated to the university by the regents to help boost its four-year graduation rate. In the future, it is likely that tuition set-asides will be required to help fund the program. UT Austin is also using tuition set-aside dollars to support internships and on-campus work-study positions to help students remain more engaged in the university s academic and social communities. Data shows that students who work on-campus while enrolled are more likely to persist, and therefore graduate, at higher rates. D. Briefly describe the impact of any proposed increases on your institution s ability to enhance or expand alternative educational delivery models such as online course delivery and/or complete programs of study delivered through non-traditional mechanisms. Recent and rapid technological advances in streaming video, social networks, online learning platforms, and analytics are fundamentally changing the way we interact with students, faculty colleagues, employers, the general public, and with information. The landscape of teaching and learning at UT Austin is also changing as we integrate these innovations into instruction, using technology to advance pedagogical practice. In particular, UT Austin increasingly uses technology-based instructional tools to improve student learning across all forms of face-to-face, blended, and online instruction. UT Austin strives to be a leading provider of high-quality education, for residential students on-campus and for students beyond the limits of our physical campus online, using technology-enhanced educational tools and systems that support and improve instruction and student success. UT Austin leaders and faculty innovators are piloting and scaling best practices (e.g. adaptive learning and learning analytics) and best in class technologies (e.g., Canvas learning management system and digital resources) via strategic on- and off-campus partnerships. UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 15

16 In order to move forward with these initiatives, we need to upgrade our infrastructure for producing and delivering high quality online and hybrid courses to students. We must invest in enhanced video production capabilities, which can be available to multiple colleges that are in the process of creating online and hybrid courses. We also need resources for the creation of learning tools for online learning modalities. Many of the proposals to enhance instructional methods require the integration of more technology in the classroom. To do that, we are in need of a dense wireless broadband infrastructure for campus to deliver the programming. This also requires a significant upgrade and expansion of classroom facilities and an increase in technical staff to maintain technology-based classrooms. UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 16

17 IV. Net Revenue Projections from Requested Increases A. Please estimate new net tuition revenue based on the requested increase in new net tuition for each student category group. Also estimate new net tuition revenue based on the CPI provided in the table below. Estimated new net tuition revenue increase is the difference in new net tuition revenue between FY14 and projected revenue for FY15 based on requests. Please do not factor in estimated enrollment growth. Use enrollment data for FY14. Net revenue increase includes increases for designated tuition, mandatory fees, and average college and course fees and excludes set-asides and statutory increases for non-resident students. Baseline revenue for FY 2014 used in both tables below is a full year projection based on revenue received through February 2014 and an estimate of Summer Graduate baseline amounts include Law, Pharmacy, and Professional Business students. Estimated FTE students represent a projection based on total semester credit hours for a full year. The sum of Undergraduate semester credit hours is divided by 30, Master's semester credit hours divided by 24, Special Professional, which includes Law and PharmD, semester credit hours divided by 28, and Doctoral semester credit hours divided by 18. Semester credit hours include state-funded, non-state-funded, and excess hours. Table 4A shows the new net revenue on the proposed tuition increase less the required set-aside for financial aid. Table 4B shows the new net revenue assuming an increase on all students based on the average CPI since The new net revenue is less the required set-asides for financial aid. TABLE 4A: Projected New Net Revenue per Estimated Student FTE FY 2015, Projected New Net Revenue Per Estimated Student FTE Baseline (Net Tuition Proposal FY 2015 Revenue from FY Projected Net Revenue based on 2014 Total Academic Year 1 Requested Increase Cost Rates) Actual Revenue Estimated Revenue TAC Requested Increase for Year 1 Estimated Student FTE Enrollment % Distribution Resident Undergraduate $361.5M $7.5M 2.6% 33, % Non-Resident Undergraduate $68.9M $1.7M 2.6% 3, % Resident Graduate $141.2M $0.0M 0.0% 5, % Non-Resident Graduate $39.1M $0.0M 0.0% 6, % TOTAL $610.7M $9.2M 0.0% 48, % TABLE 4B: Projected New Net Revenue Based on CPI Average per Estimated Student FTE FY 2015, Projected New Net Revenue Per Estimated Student FTE Baseline (Net Tuition Proposal FY 2015 Revenue from FY Projected Net Revenue based on 2014 Total Academic Year 1 Requested Increase Cost Rates) Actual Revenue Estimated Revenue TAC Requested Increase for Year 1 Estimated Student FTE Enrollment % Distribution Resident Undergraduate $361.5M $7.8M 2.7% 33, % Non-Resident Undergraduate $68.9M $1.8M 2.7% 3, % Resident Graduate $141.2M $3.1M 2.7% 5, % Non-Resident Graduate $39.1M $1.0M 2.7% 6, % TOTAL $610.7M $13.7M 2.7% 48, % UT Austin, April 16, 2014 Page 17

18 1 - Summary UT Austin Traditional Rate Plans Undergraduate Total Academic Cost Percent Increase Requested Over Prior Year Rates Total Academic Cost for Average Resident Undergraduates (15 SCH) Excel Tab # Fall 2013 Average Total Academic Cost for 15 SCH (Board Approved Estimates) NA $4,896 #2 Fall 2013 Average Total Academic Cost for 15 SCH (Actual) NA $4,899 #2 Fall 2014 Average Total Academic Cost for 15 SCH 2.6% $5,026 #3 Graduate Total Tuition and Fees Percent Increase Requested Over Prior Year Rates Total Tuition and Mandatory Fees for Average Resident Graduate (9 SCH) Excel Tab # Fall 2013 Average Tuition and Fees for 9 SCH (Board Approved Estimates) 0.0% $4,447 #5 Fall 2013 Average Tuition and Fees for 9 SCH (Actual) 0.0% $4,442 #5 Fall 2014 Estimated Average Tuition and Fees for 9 SCH 0.0% $4,442 #6 Please add any other additional information and data notes to Tab #4 Institutional Contacts for Tuition and Fee Data Questions: Mary E. Knight, Associate Vice President

19 2 UG Fall 2013 UT Austin Total Academic Costs for Undergraduate Students: Fall 2013 (Board Approved and Actual) Instructions: Please confirm the Board Approved Estimated Rates for Fall 2013 and enter actual total academic cost data for Fall 2013 in the two tables below. Actual cost data should be based on actual fee bill calculations reported to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board on the Integrated Financial Reporting System (IFRS) Board Approved Estimated Rates Fall 2013: Students Enrolled in 12 SCH and Above New Residents Total New Non Residents Total Academic Program of Study Academic Cost Cost Architecture $4,938 $17,352 Business $5,369 $18,580 Communication $4,832 $16,674 Education $4,839 $16,707 Engineering $5,107 $17,550 Fine Arts $5,005 $17,281 Geosciences $5,039 $17,609 Liberal Arts $4,673 $16,211 Natural Sciences $4,848 $16,729 Nursing $5,181 $18,227 Social Work $4,894 $17,028 Undergraduate Studies $4,908 $16,988 AVERAGE All Students $4,896 $16,877 Actual Rates Fall 2013: Students Enrolled in 12 SCH and Above New Residents Total New Non Residents Total Academic SCH Academic Cost Cost Architecture $4,938 $17,352 Business $5,369 $18,580 Communication $4,832 $16,674 Education $4,839 $16,707 Engineering $5,107 $17,550 Fine Arts $5,005 $17,281 Geosciences $5,039 $17,609 Liberal Arts $4,673 $16,211 Natural Sciences $4,848 $16,729 Nursing $5,181 $18,227 Social Work $4,894 $17,028 Undergraduate Studies $4,908 $16,988 AVERAGE All Students $4,899 $16,921

20 3 UG Fall 2014 UT Austin Proposed Total Academic Costs for Undergraduate Students: Fall 2014 Instructions: Please enter proposed estimated total academic cost data (statutory tuition, board designated tuition, mandatory fees, and average course fees) for Fall 2014 traditional rate plans for undergraduate students. Program of Study New Residents Total Academic Cost New Non Residents Total Academic Cost Architecture $5,066 $17,803 Business $5,509 $19,063 Communication $4,958 $17,108 Education $4,965 $17,141 Engineering $5,240 $18,006 Fine Arts $5,135 $17,730 Geosciences $5,170 $18,067 Liberal Arts $4,794 $16,632 Natural Sciences $4,974 $17,164 Nursing $5,316 $18,701 Social Work $5,021 $17,471 Undergraduate Studies $5,036 $17,430 AVERAGE All Students $5,026 $17,361

21 5- Grad Fall 2013 UT Austin Total Tuition and Fees for Graduate Students: Fall 2013 (Board Approved and Actual) Instructions: Please confirm the Board Approved Estimated Rates for Fall 2013 and enter actual total tuition and fee data for Fall 2013 in the two tables below. Actual cost data should be based on actual fee bill calculations reported to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board on the Integrated Financial Reporting System (IFRS) for graduate students enrolled in 9 SCH. Board Approved Estimated Rates Fall 2013: Students Enrolled in 9 SCH Board Approved Estimated Rates Fall 2013: Special Professional Programs New Residents Total New Non Residents New Residents Total New Non Residents Total Program of Study Academic Cost Total Academic Cost Program of Study Academic Cost Academic Cost Architecture $4,723 $8,737 Law (14 SCH) $15,795 $23,453 Business $3,934 $7,843 MPA (13 SCH) $10,590 $17,726 Communication $4,528 $8,524 MBA (15 SCH) $15,859 $23,257 Education $4,201 $8,169 Executive MBA (9 SCH) $10,082 $14,001 Engineering $4,782 $8,753 Evening MBA (9 SCH) $10,082 $13,746 Fine Arts $4,695 $8,703 International MBA (15 SCH) $13,840 $22,862 Geosciences $4,380 $8,483 PharmD (12+SCH) $7,915 $20,460 Information $4,915 $8,963 Liberal Arts $4,044 $8,016 Natural Sciences $4,175 $8,227 Nursing $4,741 $8,760 Pharmacy $4,555 $8,667 Public Affairs $4,463 $8,497 Social Work $4,685 $8,656 AVERAGE All Students $4,447 $8,542 AVERAGE All Students Actual Rates Fall 2013: Students Enrolled in 9 SCH and Above Actual Rates Fall 2013: Special Professional Programs Program of Study New Residents Total Academic Cost New Non Residents Total Academic Cost Program of Study New Residents Total Academic Cost New Non Residents Total Academic Cost Architecture $4,723 $8,737 Law (14 SCH) $15,795 $23,453 Business $3,934 $7,843 MPA (13 SCH) $10,590 $17,726 Communication $4,528 $8,524 MBA (15 SCH) $15,859 $23,257 Education $4,201 $8,169 Executive MBA (9 SCH) $10,082 $14,001 Engineering $4,782 $8,753 Evening MBA (9 SCH) $10,082 $13,746 Fine Arts $4,695 $8,703 International MBA (15 SCH) $13,840 $22,862 Geosciences $4,380 $8,483 PharmD (12+SCH) $7,915 $20,460 Information $4,915 $8,963 Liberal Arts $4,044 $8,016 Natural Sciences $4,175 $8,227 Nursing $4,741 $8,760 Pharmacy $4,555 $8,667 Public Affairs $4,463 $8,497 Social Work $4,685 $8,656 AVERAGE All Students $4,442 $8,558 AVERAGE All Students

22 6 - Grad Fall 2014 UT Austin Proposed Estimated Tuition and Fees for Graduate Students: Fall 2014 Instructions: Please complete the tables below with proposed estimated tuition and fee rates for graduate students enrolled in 9 SCH and enter actual total tuition and fee data for Fall 2014 in the two tables below for students enrolled in the traditional rate plan. New Residents Total New Non Residents New Residents Total New Non Residents Total Program of Study Academic Cost Total Academic Cost Program of Study Academic Cost Academic Cost Architecture $4,723 $8,737 Law (14 SCH) $15,795 $23,453 Business $3,934 $7,843 MPA (13 SCH) $10,590 $17,726 Communication $4,528 $8,524 MBA (15 SCH) $15,859 $23,257 Education $4,201 $8,169 Executive MBA (9 SCH) $10,082 $14,001 Engineering $4,782 $8,753 Evening MBA (9 SCH) $10,082 $13,746 Fine Arts $4,695 $8,703 International MBA (15 SCH) $13,840 $22,862 Geosciences $4,380 $8,483 PharmD (12+SCH) $7,915 $20,460 Information $4,915 $8,963 Liberal Arts $4,044 $8,016 Natural Sciences $4,175 $8,227 Nursing $4,741 $8,760 Pharmacy $4,555 $8,667 Public Affairs $4,463 $8,497 Social Work $4,685 $8,656 AVERAGE All Students $4,442 $8,558 AVERAGE All Students