The Cost of Undergraduate Education at
the University of California -
Improved Calculation
by Charles Schwartz, Professor Emeritus, UC Berkeley, December 15, 2007
The previous calculation, dated
September 2005, is posted on my web
site
http://ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/UndergradCost.html
.
The unique characteristic of the method used is that it disaggregates
the cost of undergraduate education from other core missions of the
University - specifically faculty research and graduate programs - all
of which have traditionally been tied together in the I&R budget.
The present paper improves on that earlier calculation in
several ways
beyond using more recent accounting reports. The Faculty Time-Use
Survey is studied more closely and provides a quantitative correction
for the contribution of faculty research work to instruction.
Consideration is also given to the cost of Capital Assets that
contribute to undergraduate education. Several smaller points in the
analysis are improved as well. The overall result is just about
the same as before:
The
current level of mandatory fees for resident
undergraduate students is very close to 100% of the University’s actual
expenditure for undergraduate education, averaged per student.
Introduction
This method of calculating the cost of
undergraduate education – as a specific portion of the big bundle of
costs based upon the traditional I&R Budget (for Instruction and
Research) - continues to be quite controversial. The basic idea
is to use the official Faculty Time-Use Study to effect an
activity-based costing analysis upon the extensive accounting records
published by the University.
In carrying out this analysis I rely on the
principles that it should be rational and objective and based upon the
best available quantitative information. I invite my critics to
respond in kind.
The previous calculation started with the data
on Expenditures of Current Funds for 2003-04 and then went through 5
Steps. The current improvement uses the latest accounting
data, for 2006-07, with additional details explored at several
steps. In addition, we explore more closely the information
contained in the official Faculty Time-Use Study: this is now called
Step 0. We also address the question of Capital Assets and how they may
contribute to the cost of undergraduate education: that is treated in a
new Step 6.
Step
0 – The Faculty Time-Use Data
The most sensitive, and most controversial,
part of my calculation is the use of the data on how faculty spend
their work time. So let’s explore the “University of California Faculty
Time-Use Study, Report for 1983-84 Academic Year” in some detail.
Page 3. Highlights of the Study Findings
Regular faculty members (100% I&R
FTEs) spent an average of 61.3 hours a week on University-related
activities of all kinds. This total includes:
26.0 hours on instructional activities;
23.2 hours on research/creative activities;
6.6 hours on university service;
5.5 hours on professional activities/public service.
Based upon this summary data, I previously
said that (26.0 + 6.6/3)/61.3 = 46% of faculty work time was devoted to
Instruction – guessing that one-third of the university service
(committee work) was assignable to instructional programs.
Further data, found in Tables 3 and 4 (on pages 38 and 39 of the
report), show that faculty instructional time (counting both “regularly
scheduled course instruction” and “independent/special study
supervision”) was evenly divided between undergraduate and graduate
courses. This led me to the conclusion that 23% of faculty work
time should be allocated to undergraduate instruction.
We shall now revise that result by noting
further relevant data provided in the Time-Use report. At the
conclusion of the Highlights section, on page 4, we find the following
statement.
“Of the time spent on non-instructional
activities during the 1983-84 academic year, an average of 7.3 hours a
week also contributed to instructional activities.”
The details of this additional data are given in Table 5, on page 41,
and we shall study this now.
First, it is reported that of the 23.2 average
weekly hours that faculty spent on Research/Creative activities, 5.8
hours of that time also contributed to Instruction. How shall we
treat this 5.8 hours per week? We cannot simply add this into the
Instructional time reported above, since that would violate the total
hours of work time reported by the faculty members. As the discussion
of this Table 5 data (see page 42) makes clear, the first reporting of
time spent is according to the primary activity of the faculty member.
Therefore, the proper way to handle this 5.8 hours is to say that
something less than half of this time may be subtracted out of the
Research total and added to the Instruction total. We conclude
that something less than 2.9 hours per week should be added to the 26.0
hours per week of Instruction time.
Next we should ask how this extra 2.9 hours
should be divided between undergraduate and graduate instruction.
There is no specific data in the report that can be used to
answer this question. I believe that the overwhelming portion of this
2.9 hours pertains to graduate instruction rather than to undergraduate
instruction; this is based upon the fact that for graduate students who
are advancing toward their PhD degrees (the majority of our graduate
students) there is full intermixing of their “instruction” (in seminar
and research courses) and the research work of their faculty
supervisors. I conclude that it will be generous to allot 1.0
hours per week of faculty research time as contributing to
undergraduate instruction.
What is of the greatest significance about
this consideration is that we have now resolved one of the recurrent
complaints about my whole methodology: the claim that faculty research
at the university must make uniquely valuable, and usually
unquantifiable, contributions to the education of undergraduate
students. This matter is now quantified in the most authoritative
way: namely, based upon the survey responses of the faculty members
themselves.
Let us now continue to study the other new
data in Table 5. We are told that of the 6.6 hours per week reported as
University Service, 0.7 hours also contributes to Instruction. That is
a surprisingly small portion: note that I had previously estimated that
2.2 hours of that 6.6 hours should be credited to Instruction. How
could I have been so wrong? Looking back at the long list of
activities which the survey presented to faculty members as activities
to be counted as part of Instructional activities (see page 32 of the
report), we find: “informal or committee discussions regarding
teaching, curriculum, etc.” So, the time that faculty spend in
committees (university service) related to instruction is already
specified to be counted as Instruction time. My estimate of 6.6/3
= 2.2 hours was an error, which I must now correct. I should drop that
2.2 hours and add at most half of 0.7 hours per week to Instructional
activities. Assigning half of that to undergraduate instruction, as
done previously, I conclude that 0.2 hours per week should be
substituted for the previous contribution of University Service to the
average faculty undergraduate Instructional work time.
Finally, in Table 5 we also see that of the
5.5 hours per week of Professional Activities/Public Service 0.9 hours
are also attributable to Instruction. I believe that by far most
of this, also, relates to graduate students rather than undergraduates;
so I will allow that at most another 0.2 hours per week may be added to
average faculty undergraduate Instruction work time.
This leads us to the conclusion of Step 0:
Average faculty work time at undergraduate instruction (upper limit):
26.0/2 + 1.0 + 0.2 + 0.2 = 14.4 hours per week = 23% of 61.3 hours per
week. We are back at the same number we had before; but now it is much
more reliable.
There is also the correction for sabbatical
leaves, mentioned in the earlier paper, which gives a 10% reduction to 21% as our final answer.
Another question about the reliability of the
data from that Faculty Time-Use Study is its age: that data was
gathered over 20 years ago. Have things changed since then?
In the earlier paper I quoted data from UC’s
official reports on Faculty Instructional Activities (FIA) which showed
that the relevant number of primary classes taught per regular rank
faculty had not changed over the period 1991-2000. For undergraduate
classes it was constant at 2.5 quarter classes per year; for graduate
classes the number grew from 2.0 to 2.4 quarter classes per year. The
newest report in that FIA series, issued February 2007 and available at
http://www.ucop.edu/planning/facultyinstructionalactivities2007.pdf
,
shows that same data extended to 2005, where the numbers are 2.6
classes for undergraduates and 2.5 for graduate classes. I consider
that a strong validation for continuing to use the original
survey numbers.
Of course, primary classes (lectures and
seminars) are not the only ones counted in the overall faculty teaching
load: there are independent study classes as well and these are most
heavily weighted toward graduate courses rather than undergraduate
ones. The original faculty time-use survey counted hours spent on those
along with hours spent on primary classes: the result was 50% of
faculty class time spent on undergraduate classes and 50% on graduate
classes.
In this latest FIA report there is
considerable attention given to a new method of counting faculty
teaching activities. It is called the TIE methodology and its purpose
is to find a way to count those independent study courses along with
the primary classes. The main effect of this innovation is to
give the faculty more “credit” for the large amount of time they spend
working with graduate students in independent study. If you want
to follow that new methodology, then it gives a new answer to the
question of how faculty teaching effort is divided, on average, between
undergraduate and graduate education. From Tables 14 and 15 of
that FIA report, for teaching by regular rank faculty in 2004-05, the
effective count of classes per faculty FTE comes out to be 3.3 for
undergraduate courses and 5.5 for graduate courses. This answer
is quite different from the 50-50 split; it would lead to a
considerably lower outcome in our cost calculation for undergraduate
education, changing that pivotal 21% figure to 16%. However, I
shall stay with the original methodology that is based upon faculty
time-use rather than course counting.
Now we proceed by steps through the latest
accounting data in the UC Campus Financial Schedules (CFS) for 2006-07.
Step
1 – Get the Relevant Part of Instructional Expenditures
We proceed first as in the earlier
calculation, taking accounting data from the Campus Financial Schedules
(CFS) for 2006-07, which may be found at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/finreports/index.php?file=/06-07/finschd.html
. The total expenditure for Instruction is $3,570 million (from CFS
schedule 12-F). From this we take out the expenditures
for: University Extension ($205 million) and Summer School ($54
million); Health professions ($1,325 million); professional schools of
Business management and Law ($209 million). Those programs are removed
because they are not involved with undergraduate education. (One
can quibble that Business schools do
provide some undergraduate courses; but I would then point out that
there are other smaller professional schools that are almost
exclusively for graduate students, yet I have not subtracted them out.)
The reader should have a look at Table 1,
below, which is a copy of part of one page from the Campus Financial
Schedules. This is the detailed spending record for Instruction
at UCLA and one can see how the various components mentioned above are
presented. I merely sum this data for all of the campuses and the
systemwide administration.
Now I shall do something new: Remove all
expenditures of Restricted funds – as those may be seen in Table
1. Those are monies provided by external parties (endowments,
gifts, etc.) for specified purposes and so they represent no cost to
the University’s operating budget. This amounts to another subtraction
of $121 million.
The result of Step 1, the Adjusted Expenditure for
Instruction, is $1,656 million.
Table 1. UC Campus Financial
Schedules
Schedule 4-B Los Angeles Campus
Current Funds Expenditures by Uniform
Classification
Category 2006-07
INSTRUCTION
|
Total
|
Unrestricted
|
Unrestricted
|
Restricted
|
|
|
General *
|
Designated
|
|
GENERAL ACADEMIC
|
$ ,000
|
$ ,000
|
$ ,000
|
$ ,000
|
Architecture and environmental
design
|
3,500
|
3,133
|
296
|
71
|
Area Studies
|
3,810
|
2,506
|
202
|
1,102
|
Biological sciences
|
15,257
|
11,045
|
2,923
|
1,289
|
Business and management
|
51,430
|
14,971
|
32,442
|
4,017
|
Communications
|
2,220
|
1,849
|
294
|
77
|
Computer and information sciences
|
10
|
-
|
10
|
-
|
Education
|
21,131
|
9,130
|
10,963
|
1,038
|
Engineering
|
36,826
|
31,681
|
2,810
|
2,335
|
Fine and applied arts
|
34,599
|
29,238
|
3,215
|
2,146
|
Foreign languages
|
19,288
|
16,462
|
845
|
1,981
|
Health professions:
|
|
|
|
|
Dentistry
|
34,135
|
12,227
|
19,158
|
2,750
|
Medicine
|
436,018
|
66,485
|
325,038
|
44,495
|
Nursing
|
8,370
|
6,100
|
1,607
|
671
|
Other
|
6,220
|
855
|
639
|
4,726
|
Public health
|
14,630
|
7,712
|
2,765
|
4,153
|
Interdisciplinary studies
|
3,314
|
2,816
|
325
|
173
|
Law
|
24,884
|
15,070
|
7,490
|
2,324
|
Letters
|
32,758
|
26,922
|
3,451
|
2,385
|
Library science
|
2,246
|
1,985
|
163
|
98
|
Mathematics
|
15,918
|
12,880
|
2,541
|
497
|
Military sciences
|
275
|
210
|
36
|
29
|
Physical education
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Physical sciences
|
41,535
|
31,165
|
7,687
|
1,683
|
Psychology
|
13,583
|
10,513
|
2,465
|
605
|
Social sciences
|
58,895
|
48,718
|
7,272
|
2,905
|
Social welfare - pubic policy
|
10,294
|
7,055
|
97
|
3,142
|
Compensated absences accruals
|
1,317
|
(7)
|
1,185
|
139
|
Total
|
892,471
|
370,721
|
435,919
|
85,831
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUMMER SESSION
|
16,797
|
3,735
|
13,042
|
20
|
UNIVERSITY EXTENSION
|
43,619
|
-
|
42,599
|
1,020
|
EDUCATIONAL FEE EXPENSE PRORATION
|
-
|
(81,199)
|
81,199
|
-
|
Subtotal
|
952,887
|
293,257
|
572,759
|
86,871
|
|
|
|
|
|
ELIMINATED CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
|
(7,284)
|
(652)
|
(5,857)
|
(775)
|
Total
Instruction
|
945,603
|
292,605
|
566,902
|
86,096
|
*General funds are state appropriations; Designated funds are other UC
revenues.
Restricted funds are those whose use is specified by the external donor.
Step 2 – Get the Undergraduate Part of That
We first have to identify the portion of that
result from Step 1 that pays for Lecturers and Graduate Student
Instructors.
As of October 2006 there were 1724 FTE
lecturers employed in General Campus sector of UC. Their pay scales
cover a wide range with a midpoint (for the academic year) at $73,000.
An alternative data source (Cal Profiles, for the Berkeley Campus)
gives information on Non-Recurrent Faculty: the average payments were
$60,000
per FTE in 2006-07.
Using the latter figure we get a total expense
of $103 million. What fraction of their teaching is for undergrad
rather than grad classes? Look at the latest FIA report and we
see that 81% of classes (T+I+E) taught by lecturers are undergrad
rather than grad classes. That gives a total undergraduate expenditure
for Lecturers of $83 million.
Now we turn to Graduate Student Instructors.
The 2005-06 report of graduate student financial support ( http://www.ucop.edu/sas/sfs/docs/gradsupport_0506_td_allacad.pdf
) shows:
Expenditures for TA earnings = $127 million, removing the professional
schools. (The Governor’s budget says $102 million for TAs in the
General Campus sector; but I’ll stay with the former number.) I can
find no direct data for how this work is divided between graduate and
undergraduate classes; however, the FIA report shows data on student
credit hours and this allows me to estimate that about 87% of GSI work
is for undergraduate education. This gives a net cost of $110 million.
Total expense for Lecturers and Graduate
Student Instruction = $230 million of which $193 million is allocated
to undergraduate education.
From Step 1 we had adjusted expenditure for
Instruction = $1,656 million; and from Step 0 we take 21% of the
regular faculty component as assignable to undergraduate education.
Result of Step 2:
Direct Cost of Undergraduate
Instruction = 193 + 0.21*(1656 – 230) = $492 million.
Note. I believe the largest uncertainly here concerns the allocation of
non-academic staff salaries in the I&R budget to undergraduate
education. I know of no data on this (something analogous to the
Faculty Time-Use Study would be required.) I have simply followed the
idea that the non-academic staff here are provided to assist the
faculty in the academic departments in whatever they do and therefore I
have applied the same 21% factor.
Step
3 – Add in Academic Support
We proceed as before with the Academic Support
category of expenditures, first removing all those portions (called
“Ancillary Support”) that are part of the research and medical services
activities of the University. This leaves us with: Libraries
($225 million); Museums, Computer Support, etc. ($97 million); Academic
Administration minus its portion in the professional schools (247
– 57 = $190 million). Restricted funds have been subtracted out here as
well. The same formula will be used as before to get the portion
of this allotted to undergraduate education:
½ (225 + 97) + ¼(190) = $209 million
Step
4 – Overhead and Enrollment
Overhead, calculated as before, using new data from CFS schedule 12-F:
[Institutional Support (883) + Operation and Maintenance of Plant
(480)]/
[Total (15,905)– Medical Centers (4,185) – Student Financial Aid (407)]
= 12.0%
Number of undergraduate students = 167,000 FTE
Unit cost of Instruction = $MM(492+209)*1.12/167,000 = $4,701 per
student
Step
5 – Add in Student Services
As before, Student Services = $MM(504-120)*1.12/214,000 = $2,010 per
student
Total Expenditure for
Undergraduate Education (2006-07) = $6,711 per student.
Step
6 – Capital Assets
The previous calculation of University
cost is based entirely upon the expenditures of current funds (annual
operating costs) and we now want to allot an additional cost associated
with the University’s capital assets. According to the University’s
Annual Financial Report 2006-07, capital assets are depreciated or
amortized over their estimated lifetimes (see page 46) and the amounts
for the last fiscal year are given (from page 71) in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Capital Assets Depreciation
and Amortization (D&A)
Type
of Asset
|
D&A
for 2006-07 (in $ millions)
|
Infrastructure
|
15
|
Buildings and improvements
|
537
|
Equipment
|
411
|
Libraries and collections
|
86
|
Total D&A
|
1,049
|
It turns out that a significant portion
(mostly for Equipment) of this D&A cost is already included in the
Expenditures of Current Funds. If you look at Table 1., there is
an entry at the bottom called “Eliminated Capital Expenditures,” which
is an amount to be subtracted from the total expenditure. (The logic
for doing this is to avoid double counting of this expense, as
explained in the UC Accounting Manual, Section P-415-3.) The data I
have used in Steps 1-5 are taken before this subtraction, so that
portion of the D&A cost is already included. According to Schedule
12-F of CFS the total of such depreciation cost is $488 million for
that
year. From other data in the Annual Report (page 89) and CFS, I
find another $97 million of D&A that is allotted to the Medical
Centers. This leaves us with a remainder of $464 million in
depreciation expense (mostly in buildings); and we now ask how much of
this may be assigned to undergraduate education.
To estimate that I find some data from the
Berkeley Campus’ Cal Profiles web site which shows assignable square
feet on this campus dedicated as follows:
Instruction
|
7%
|
|
Housing/Food
|
21%
|
Meeting/Study
|
15%
|
|
Research
|
14%
|
Offices & Support
|
25%
|
|
Other
|
18%
|
Let me estimate what portion of those may be attributed to
undergraduate education:
Undergraduate students constitute about ¾ of all UC students; so
I will take ¾ of the Instruction component. Of the Offices
and Support component I shall take ¼, as generally done above
for faculty and departmental staff. For the Meeting & Study
component, I shall take something in between these two fractions, say
½. This gives me an overall estimate that perhaps 20% of all building assets
may be allocated to undergraduate education.
So if I take 20% of that $464 million, it
comes out to $93 million in annual depreciation attributable to
undergraduate education. That amounts to about $600 per student
for this year.
Questions: How much of that depreciation relates to buildings
that were paid for by gifts or other restricted funds? Shouldn’t that
portion be disallowed as a cost? If we focus on state financed
buildings, then another question arises: Isn’t non-resident tuition
supposed to be a charge that makes up for the past cost of capital
investments in UC paid for by California taxpayers? UC’s income
from nonresident tuition amounts to $250 million per year.
Surely, it would be wrong to charge twice for the same product.
We need better data and analysis here; but at
least we have a plausible upper limit on this additional cost for
undergraduate education, coming from Capital Assets: it is at most $600 per student per
year. So, the final cost to UC for undergraduate
education (2006-07) is between $6,711 and $7,311 per student.
Compare
Student Fees to UC Cost for this Year
Mandatory student fees for resident undergraduates for 2007-08,
averaged over campuses = $7,446. Increase expenditures by 6% for
2007-08: $7114 to $7750.
Undergraduate students are now being
charged 96% to 105% of the actual cost of their education.