Column: New funding would be better for students
Published Feb. 5, 2010
MU is discussing the prospect of moving to a funding model called Responsibility-Centered Management, a model that would benefit students.
In the status quo, tuition dollars move to a single pot and are then doled out to the various colleges and departments on campus. This model created a number of problems. I believe the largest two are as follows:
First, a large number of students are subsidizing the education of a smaller number of students.
Second, individual colleges and departments are not rewarded in proportion to their performance, which has contributed to the use of course fees to raise additional funds.
RCM calls for a model in which each unit, probably measured by college or department, operates independently from a financial standpoint. Basically, tuition dollars generated by the history department would stay with the history department or College of Arts and Science, depending on how specific MU decides to make each unit. By using credit hours as a measure, it ought to be easy enough to see which unit generates which dollars.
Although this would undoubtedly make the experience of some students more costly, students in less expensive programs would no longer be subsidizing the cost of students pursuing expensive degrees.
For instance, compared to a lot of arts and science students, who basically have lectures, it is probably more expensive to study engineering because it is a smaller school and requires sophisticated educational materials on a regular basis. It really isn't fair to force arts and science students to finance the education of engineering students. Granted, this is only a hypothetical situation, but hopefully it illustrates the point: Different colleges and departments have different costs and students ought to only be responsible for what they are studying.
Additionally, initiative and progress are not adequately rewarded.
For example, from a financial standpoint, it doesn't matter how much better the business school has become over the last few years, because they are not rewarded with a proportionally larger share of funding. In turn, this has contributed to a related problem: course fees. To continue using the business school as an example, look at the business school course fee: $34.60 per credit hour.
One of the primary reasons course fees exist is to make up for perceived deficits in funding. You don't feel like you're receiving enough money? It's OK, simply create your own course fee (it's not that easy, but the idea is the same). RCM essentially creates a system where each unit uses its own course fee, but students will no longer have to contribute to other units, as they do in the status quo.
RCM will probably have some disadvantages, the most obvious being faculty and staff in the individual colleges and departments would likely become more competitive when it comes to securing scant resources. We also might see less cross-departmental collaboration when it comes to course offerings and research.
Ultimately, the model would probably offer more advantages to students than disadvantages.
The most significant of these advantages comes from a sheer financial perspective. A great deal of students are studying disciplines that do not have a lot of overhead requirements. They don't need equipment or materials. If someone is in a program that requires these items, that person should have to pay the additional amount sufficient to keep the program solvent.
Unfortunately, due to politics between administrators and faculty, it is doubtful we will see much progress toward RCM in the near future unless students start taking an interest in the subject.
Start talking about it. Talk about how we could make it work at MU. It could lower your bill one of these days.