2008 Woodie Awards
Sociology professor responds to Provost's program review
On the theory and practice of cannibalizing instruction
Noel Byrne, Guest Writer
Issue date: 12/7/05 Section: News
For most of the last thirteen years, the instructional heart of this university has been subjected to a process of cannibalization. This process has led to a decline in educational quality, diminished access to instructors by students, and a reduced level of effectiveness in attaining this university's core mission, the education of students.
The practice of cannibalizing instruction is graphically illustrated by the imbalance of the numbers of full-time equivalent students (FTES; one FTES constituted by fifteen units of registered coursework), and full-time equivalent faculty (FTEF; one FTEF constituted by fifteen units of instruction). An increase of FTES over FTEF results in a higher student-faculty ratio (SFR).
With respect to the university's budget from the State of California, an expansion of FTES and a contraction of FTEF permit budgetary resources, from the General Fund, or state budget, to be diverted from direct instruction to other purposes. An increase in student faculty ratio (SFR) reflects this process.
This point can be better grasped by recognizing that the university receives from the state general fund approximately $7500 for each FTES.
Accordingly, an increase of 100 FTES provides about three quarters of a million dollars in general fund monies to the university. If no added faculty accompany this increase in FTES , then the three quarters of a million dollars becomes available for matters other than direct instruction. SSU's SFR has been perennially higher than that of the CSU for every year but one since the 1992-1993 academic year. That gap has become particularly dramatic in recent years.
As revealed by data provided by the CSU Chancellor's office and presented in the Orlick Report, available on the website of the SSU Academic Senate, between 2001 and 2004, full-time equivalent students at Sonoma State increased by 366.8 FTES. At about $7500 per FTES, this brought to SSU an increased budget of about $2,750,000. During the same period, the number of full-time equivalent faculty decreased by 31.8 FTEF. If we ignore the circumstance that many of these faculty were full professors who were not replaced upon retirement, and simply assume that this reduction was entirely absorbed by a reduction of lecturers (at an estimate of about $45,000 in salary savings per instructor), then as an underestimate we conclude that the university achieved an added savings of $1,435,000 from a reduction in faculty. Together, these two changes --- and the increased SFR that necessarily results from such a process --- provide in excess of $4,000,000 each year to the university to be used for purposes other than the direct instruction of its students.
The practice of cannibalizing instruction is graphically illustrated by the imbalance of the numbers of full-time equivalent students (FTES; one FTES constituted by fifteen units of registered coursework), and full-time equivalent faculty (FTEF; one FTEF constituted by fifteen units of instruction). An increase of FTES over FTEF results in a higher student-faculty ratio (SFR).
With respect to the university's budget from the State of California, an expansion of FTES and a contraction of FTEF permit budgetary resources, from the General Fund, or state budget, to be diverted from direct instruction to other purposes. An increase in student faculty ratio (SFR) reflects this process.
This point can be better grasped by recognizing that the university receives from the state general fund approximately $7500 for each FTES.
Accordingly, an increase of 100 FTES provides about three quarters of a million dollars in general fund monies to the university. If no added faculty accompany this increase in FTES , then the three quarters of a million dollars becomes available for matters other than direct instruction. SSU's SFR has been perennially higher than that of the CSU for every year but one since the 1992-1993 academic year. That gap has become particularly dramatic in recent years.
As revealed by data provided by the CSU Chancellor's office and presented in the Orlick Report, available on the website of the SSU Academic Senate, between 2001 and 2004, full-time equivalent students at Sonoma State increased by 366.8 FTES. At about $7500 per FTES, this brought to SSU an increased budget of about $2,750,000. During the same period, the number of full-time equivalent faculty decreased by 31.8 FTEF. If we ignore the circumstance that many of these faculty were full professors who were not replaced upon retirement, and simply assume that this reduction was entirely absorbed by a reduction of lecturers (at an estimate of about $45,000 in salary savings per instructor), then as an underestimate we conclude that the university achieved an added savings of $1,435,000 from a reduction in faculty. Together, these two changes --- and the increased SFR that necessarily results from such a process --- provide in excess of $4,000,000 each year to the university to be used for purposes other than the direct instruction of its students.