Page 108 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 108 of 137 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
100
The variable that is associated with both Group 1 (Enrollment) as well as
Group 2 (Faculty) and Group 3 (Pay) is Group 4 (Student to faculty ratio). The student
to faculty ratio is directly correlated with faculty, enrollment and pay; as any of these
figures increases, so does the student to faculty ratio. Larger schools have
conceptually larger classes. Since costs are determined on dollars per FTES basis,
larger schools will spread costs over a larger number of students, resulting in
economies of scale. While larger schools pay their teachers more, these teachers
service more students than teachers at smaller schools. Conceptually, larger colleges
have larger classes. However, the affect of the student to faculty ratio is not correlated
with dollars per FTES. The data demonstrate that while larger colleges have higher
teacher pay, this additional cost is offset by a higher student to teacher faculty. The net
effect is the cancellation of higher teacher pay by the student to faculty ratio. This
affect is particularly strong if the student to faculty ratio includes PT teachers as
opposed to FT teachers. Students (enrollment) and faculty (teaching load) increase in
unison. However, the rate of student increase is marginally larger than faculty; as
colleges get larger, so do classes.
The data suggest that each added instructor adds a marginally increasing
number of students. For example, the 5th teacher added may increase enrollment by 30
students, however, the 6th teacher hired may increase enrollment by 31students.
Object Description
| Title | Finance in the California community college: Comparative analysis and benchmarking of instructional expenditures |
| Author | Karamian, Martin |
| Author email | martinsfsu@netzero.com; karamim@piercecollege.edu |
| Degree | Doctor of Education |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Education (Leadership) |
| School | Rossier School of Education |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-03-17 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-26 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Picus, Lawrence O. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Melguizo, Tatiana Vega, William |
| Abstract | The goals of this empirical study of community colleges are to 1) create a benchmark for per student instructional expenditures; and 2) account for variations in instructional expenditures among a peer group of community colleges in Southern California. The peer group sample included 22 single campus community college districts in the Los Angeles area. Using data for three fiscal years a refined mean benchmark value for instructional expenditures of $2,676.71 per full-time equivalent student (FTES) was estimated with a standard deviation of $326.54. Using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, 11 variables were correlated with instructional costs per FTES. The largest and only statistically significant determinant included the number of part-time instructors (-0.424). While other variables were correlated, none were statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval. The results from the sample suggest that larger colleges have lower instructional costs per FTES despite higher faculty pay. Expanding credit student enrollment within the funding growth limits set by the State, along with additional part-time instruction within the limits set by the State will likely result in lower instructional costs per FTES and an economy of scale effect. The effect of increased institutional size on quality of education was not assessed. |
| Keyword | finance; California; community college; comparative analysis; benchmarking; instructional expenditures; economics; higher education; spending; instruction; education; economy of scale |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Geographic subject (country) | USA |
| Coverage date | 1990/2010 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3775 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Karamian, Martin |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Karamian-4454 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume23/etd-Karamian-4454.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 108 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 100 The variable that is associated with both Group 1 (Enrollment) as well as Group 2 (Faculty) and Group 3 (Pay) is Group 4 (Student to faculty ratio). The student to faculty ratio is directly correlated with faculty, enrollment and pay; as any of these figures increases, so does the student to faculty ratio. Larger schools have conceptually larger classes. Since costs are determined on dollars per FTES basis, larger schools will spread costs over a larger number of students, resulting in economies of scale. While larger schools pay their teachers more, these teachers service more students than teachers at smaller schools. Conceptually, larger colleges have larger classes. However, the affect of the student to faculty ratio is not correlated with dollars per FTES. The data demonstrate that while larger colleges have higher teacher pay, this additional cost is offset by a higher student to teacher faculty. The net effect is the cancellation of higher teacher pay by the student to faculty ratio. This affect is particularly strong if the student to faculty ratio includes PT teachers as opposed to FT teachers. Students (enrollment) and faculty (teaching load) increase in unison. However, the rate of student increase is marginally larger than faculty; as colleges get larger, so do classes. The data suggest that each added instructor adds a marginally increasing number of students. For example, the 5th teacher added may increase enrollment by 30 students, however, the 6th teacher hired may increase enrollment by 31students. |
