Multi&YearPlanforProfessional+Degree+Supplemental+Tuition...

Irvine/Public Health/Master of Public Health Established Program

Established PDST

of 17

Multi-‐Year Plan for Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition Levels 2015-‐16 through 2017-‐18

August 1, 2014

Due August 29, 2014 for January 2015 Regents’ Approval

I. PROJECTED PROFESSIONAL DEGREE SUPPLEMENTAL TUITION Specify your projected Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition for each of the next three years. Please refer to the planning assumptions for further details about fee increase rates. This form should be completed for all new or continuing professional degree programs seeking to charge Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition for the first time, as well as for programs charging Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition IF AND ONLY IF they want to increase the 2015-‐16 PDST to an amount greater than that proposed in 2012-‐13 for implementation in 2013-‐14. For these programs, this entire Multi-‐Year Plan form must be completed.

Actual Proposed2014-‐15 2013-‐14 2015-‐16 2016-‐17 2017-‐18 2015-‐16 2016-‐17 2017-‐18

Prof. Degr. Suppl . Tuition (CA res ident)

$5,613 $5,613 $6,823 $6,823 $7,180 22% 0% 5%

Prof. Degr. Suppl . Tuition (Nonres ident)

$5,613 $5,613 $6,823 $6,823 $7,180 22% 0% 5%

Mandatory Systemwide Fees (CA res ident)*

$12,192 $12,804 $13,446 $14,118 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%

Health Insurance** $3,074 $3,535 $3,889 $4,277 15% 10% 10%Campus-‐based Fees*** $770 $770 $770 $770 0% 0% 0%Nonres ident Suppl . Tuition $12,245 $12,245 $12,245 $12,245 0% 0% 0%Other (expla in below) $0 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0%Total Fees (CA resident) $21,649 $23,932 $24,928 $26,345 11% 4% 6%Total Fees (Nonresident) $33,894 $36,177 $37,173 $38,590 7% 3% 4%

New Proposed Fee Levels Increases/Decreases

* Mandatory systemwide charges include Tuition and Student Services Fee. **Include disability insurance fee for medicine and dentistry. The 2015-‐16 GSHIP fees are not known at this time. For UCI PDST planning purposes only, it is assumed the GSHIP rate will increase by 15% in 2015-‐16 and by 10% thereafter for the next two years. *** Include Course Materials and Services Fees but not health kits.

For existing programs charging PDSTs, the 2013-‐14 proposed fee levels are provided in the attached fee table. Additional comments, including explanation of any notable changes in 2015-‐16 from the 2013-‐14 fees originally submitted in 2012-‐13: The UC Irvine Program in Public Health achieved full accreditation by the Council on Education for Public Health in 2012. In 2013, we joined the Association of Schools and Programs in Public Health (ASPPH). With these accomplishments, we compete to recruit MPH students from the same international pool of applicants as our sister campuses at UC Berkeley and UCLA. We propose to align


Established PDST

of 17

our PDST with the quality of education and professional development offered by the UC Irvine MPH program. The proposed alignment will take place in 2015-‐16. We did not increase fees from 2011-‐12 to 2013-‐14 while we awaited the results of our application for accreditation, and our fees have been lower than the other UC schools by as much as 30% since we began admitting students to the MPH. The proposed increase takes into account the significant achievements and rise in operating costs in our program that have taken place since our last proposal submission in July 2012. The increase in PDST will help us accommodate our planned expansion of the student population and program services, maintain and improve the quality of education that we provide, and maintain the rigorous academic and professional standards needed to sustain accreditation status.

II. PROGRAM GOALS AND EXPENDITURE PLANS Please explain why Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition increases are necessary. What goals are you trying to meet and what problems are you trying to solve with these increases? What are the consequences if proposed Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition levels are not approved? What will be the educational benefits for students given the new Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition revenue? Increases in the PDST are necessary to maintain the high quality of the accredited Master of Public Health (MPH) program and services provided to our MPH students, to meet the requirements of discipline-‐specific accreditation standards, and to attract the best qualified applicants to our program. The quality of our program depends on the variety of services we offer our professional students, especially in terms of career development. We would like to offer career counseling that is specific to the field of public health, as do the UC schools of public health at Berkeley and Los Angeles. Currently we encourage our students to use the campus Career Center, but we feel that our students would benefit from more focused career advising provided by staff who are very familiar with the job market and career options for public health. A dedicated career counselor would help our program establish better relationships with local employers and plan presentations on career development by alumni and public health workers to increase the MPH students' knowledge of how to present and market their credentials. We currently run a bi-‐weekly graduate seminar program to expose students to current public health issues and potential employers, and to provide networking opportunities. We need funds to attract nationally prominent speakers to expose students to a wider variety of career possibilities. We also must expand our curriculum to meet student demands and to address current trends in public health. We plan to add additional emphasis areas to the MPH degree to provide more choices to our students and advance our strategic plan to go from an accredited Program to a School of Public Health. Feedback from prospective employers and our MPH alumni consistently emphasizes the demand for additional courses in statistical analysis, specialized statistical software use, and skill-‐based classes such as GIS. Trends in placement of our MPH students after graduation indicate an increase in jobs in the data analysis and health care consulting fields. Consequently, we plan to offer MPH emphases in Health Informatics and Global Health. Our survey of current MPH students has revealed great interest


Established PDST

of 17

in courses on emerging public health issues such as health policy and administration, mental health, and nutrition, which would require funding to attract expert lecturers and practitioners in the public and private sectors. We also need to expand our library collection and web-‐based resources to ensure that our students have the necessary public health publications for coursework and professional activities. We also provide funding for certain software packages in a computer lab that is conveniently located for public health graduate students. Individual licenses for statistical software can be expensive for students to purchase on their own, so we assist students by providing access through our program. The maintenance of our accreditation is key to the success of our students. Graduates of accredited programs have better prospects for fellowships, internships, and jobs. Obtaining a degree from a CEPH-‐accredited program is required for many federal government positions in public health. The accreditation status requires rigorous maintenance of criteria, including periodical monitoring surveys, development of new academic and professional initiatives, and expansion of our network of community partners. These activities are expensive and we rely on the PDST to fund the monitoring and satisfaction of the criteria. In April of 2013, we were invited to join the newly formed Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH). The ASPPH is the national organization representing deans, faculty, and students of CEPH-‐ accredited schools and programs of public health. Its mission is to strengthen and promote the education, research, service, and practice activities of its member schools and programs. It serves students of its member schools in particular by providing members-‐only prestigious fieldwork opportunities, guidance in admissions and career exploration, and advocacy for funding of public health research and training programs that fund graduate student education. Our accreditation status and our membership in the Association of Schools and Programs in Public Health ($35,000 annual membership fee) provide several excellent opportunities for our students and the graduates of our program. Students and alumni are eligible for several unique fellowship and internship opportunities at prestigious agencies and institutions. They are also eligible to take the certification examination for public health. Increasing the PDST at this time will facilitate our ability to maintain our accreditation status, continue our membership in ASPPH, and make critical advances toward our strategic plan for a School of Public Health at UC Irvine. We need to do more program implementation regarding workforce development as required by accreditation and the professional needs of our alumni and community partners. Currently we have limited activities targeted at working professionals. In response, we are developing our “LIFT^Public Health” workforce development program, an online certificate program focused on educating current public health workers about the changes to the healthcare system. We need additional funds to implement the curriculum and administer the program. We also need additional resources to improve the diversity, quality, and yield of MPH students. We can increase the diversity of our pool by attending more diversity-‐oriented recruitment fairs and increasing communication with our target populations. We will need to regularly expand our recruitment efforts to include more of these events until enrollment peaks in the targeted populations. We are currently exploring the use of the Graduate Records Examination (GRE) Search Service to target high quality


Established PDST

of 17

students electronically. Greater diversity in the cohorts will expose the students to a wider variety of perspectives and lead to improved classroom discussion. To increase the quality and yield of our applicant pool we joined the School of Public Health Application Service (SOPHAS), which is a national, centralized public health application service for CEPH-‐accredited schools and programs. The use of SOPHAS is a benefit of the ASPPH membership. Prior to joining SOPHAS, we would receive feedback from many applicants that they did not apply to UC Irvine because they became aware of our program too late in the application process. We also received questions about our lack of participation in SOPHAS, as applicants were accustomed to using the service to apply to our competitor schools. Using SOPHAS increases the visibility of our program on a national scale and reduces time and effort for applicants by streamlining the application process through a centralized, online service with dedicated customer support. We need to increase the PDST in order to support our participation in this service for our applicants and to improve the quality of students that enroll in our MPH program. Increasing financial aid to students is a crucial part of our recruitment strategy in terms of yield. The use of SOPHAS brought an increase in the quality of our pool, but in order to be successful in recruiting these students in a very competitive market for degree programs, we have had to increase initial recruitment incentives and guarantee academic student employment positions. The PDST is important in helping to fund these opportunities for MPH students. Reader positions in particular are funded wholly by the PDST, and each position pays up to $1,349 per quarter to the student. Student employment positions provide a unique learning opportunity for our students in teaching them job skills such as leadership, time management, and organization. The PDST helps us fund other forms of student aid as well. We use the PDST to fund travel fellowships for students to attend professional conferences for the purposes of networking and presenting their research. The number of students who wish to participate has increased as our population grows and students understand the value of attendance for their career prospects and/or furthering their education. By increasing the PDST, we could also increase merit funding by guaranteeing funds for the summer months when students struggle because loan money is not available. Non-‐approval of our proposal to increase the UC Irvine MPH PDST means that we will not be able to maintain and continue the high quality of our program while growing the student population. The maintenance of our accreditation status and membership in ASPPH are essential for the reputation of the degrees earned by our students. Without the further development of the skill-‐based aspect of our curriculum, students will not learn as much as they should to be truly competitive in today's job market. Networking opportunities will decrease without increased funding for events and seminars. Without the proposed additional staff support, the quality of our service to applicants will decline and the development of new services will have to be postponed or scaled back tremendously. Increases in financial aid to students will not be possible, or will need to be reduced drastically, which will jeopardize the yield from our admissions process and affects program affordability for students.


Established PDST

of 17

Please indicate how you intend to use the revenue generated by the Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition increase. Change in expense:

Incremental 2015-‐16 PDST

revenue


revenue


revenue

Total

Instructional and Program Support Staff $1,880 $1,995 $2,116 $5,992 UCRP Contributions $18 $33 $38 $89

Program Accreditation Expenses $0 $123 $126 $249 Program Advancement and development $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000

Honors and Awards Program $0 $1,200 $0 $1,200 Benefits Costs $988 $667 $700 $2,355

Recruitment and Marketing $0 $77 $0 $77 Practicum Program Expenses $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000

Community extension and development $0 $0 $0 $0 Improving the Student-‐Faculty Ratio $0 $0 $0 $0

Libraries and Publications $0 $373 $500 $873 Workshops, seminars and other Events $0 $0 $0 $0

Memberships and Dues $29,750 $0 $0 $29,750 Instructional software and hardware ($1,000) $1,000 $1,000 $1,000

Providing Additional Student Financial Aid $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 Other Non-‐salary Cost Increases $1,150 $231 $64 $1,445

Facil ities Maintenance and Upgrades ($500) $0 $1,081 $581 33%-‐-‐Grad Div. Witholding for Student Financial Aid $15,684 $4,503 $8,509 $28,695

Other Incidentals ( i .e.: revenue adjustments) ($444) $443 $1,650 $1,649

Total projected change in revenue $47,526 $13,646 $25,784 $86,956 Additional Comments: In order to precisely estimate the revenue, we list only the net fee-‐paying enrollments, which accounts for the reduction in fees caused by fee waiver programs, part-‐time enrollment and filing fee petitions for graduating students. Our program allows part-‐time enrollment to accommodate working professionals. Enrollment also drops at the end of the year as second-‐year students finish classroom-‐based requirements and move into fieldwork.


Established PDST

of 17

Please indicate how you used total actual Professional Degree Fee revenue in 2012-‐13.

Total 2012-‐13 PDF revenue

Instructional and Program Support Staff $73,545 UCRP Contributions (Supplemental) $220

Program Accreditation Expenses $535 Program Advancement and development $350

Honors and Awards Program $484 Benefits Costs $14,342

Recruitment and Marketing $1,371 Practicum Program Expenses $458

Community extension and development $64 Improving the Student-‐Faculty Ratio $622

Libraries and Publications $84 Workshops, seminars and other Events $1,054

Memberships and Dues $160 Instructional software and hardware $0

Providing Additional Student Financial Aid $1,035 Other Non-‐salary Cost Increases $0

Facil ities Maintenance and Upgrades $321 33%-‐-‐Grad Div. Witholding for Student Financial Aid $46,616

Other Incidentals ( i .e.: revenue adjustments) $0

Total Projected use of Revenue $141,261

Please describe cost-‐cutting and/or fundraising efforts related to this program undertaken to avoid Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition increases even greater than proposed. Please be as specific as possible. We have advocated for expanded academic student employment opportunities for our MPH students, and we have been successful. In 2013-‐2014, we secured a one-‐time increase in instructional support funds from the Provost’s Office that increased opportunities for Teaching Assistant positions for our students -‐ a prestigious and much-‐needed source of student aid. We have also collaborated with the Graduate Division to take advantage of a federal work-‐study program for some of our academic student employees. Lowering the amount of money we spend on wages for academic student employees through federal work-‐study allows us to employ more students. Annually, we re-‐assess our instructional software needs to target only those programs that most closely correspond to the skills our students need to be competitive in the job market. However, as we add more courses, and students, our need for software licenses will increase.


Established PDST

of 17

The Program in Public Health is still in the early stages of development in terms of alumni and donor participation in fundraising. We are currently investing in recruiting a Development Officer to enhance our fundraising activities. In the past five years, we focused on achieving program accreditation to boost the reputation and visibility of the program. Now that we have achieved accreditation, we can re-‐double our efforts on fundraising initiatives. We now have two focuses for our fundraising efforts: our Global Health program and scholarships for MPH students. Many of our MPH students are interested in participating in research or internships in developing countries, and we are attempting to promote our global health program to potential donors to raise funds to defray the costs of global health activities for the students. We are also looking to raise funds for scholarships to support students who are interested in local internships and public service projects as well.

This year we applied for and were awarded $2500 in funds from the Graduate Division to support our plans for innovative recruitment efforts, which we used to fund a yield event for graduate students. Unfortunately, it is unknown whether this support for program activities will be available in future years. To cut down on travel costs and reach an international pool of applicants, we plan to explore online recruiting methods by attending virtual graduate school fairs sponsored by ASPPH. If your program proposes uneven increases (e.g., increases that are notably larger in some years than in others), please explain why. At the time of the last submitted PDST proposal, the organization now known as ASPPH was only open to institutions with School-‐level accreditation. We were not anticipating being able to join during the period covered by the proposal and thus we did not plan for the membership dues in our proposed revenue use. When the organization decided to expand membership to accredited Programs in 2013, we joined because we felt that the benefits to students were crucial to their academic and professional development. We need funds to support this significant expense, and thus an increase is proposed for the 2015-‐16 year. Please provide degrees for which Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition will be assessed and expected enrollment by degree.

Degree 2014-‐15 2015-‐16 2016-‐17 2017-‐18

Master of Public Health 36 38 40 45

Total 36 38 40 45

Enrollment

*Note: The enrollment in the above table is based on headcount versus fee-‐paying enrollment.

III. MARKET COMPARISONS: TOTAL CHARGES


Established PDST

of 17

Please provide the total student tuition and fee charges of comparison institutions. Select a minimum of 3 and up to 12 institutions, including, where possible, a minimum of 3 public institutions. If a program does not have a large number of comparators, or does not have any public comparators, please provide what institutions the program does consider comparators even if that is a small number only or includes only private institutions. A comparison of total cost of degree may be more meaningful, for example, for programs whose comparator programs vary in length. If this applies to your program, you may provide total cost of degree figures in addition to annual first-‐year comparison institutions’ amounts shown below. Please attach the cost of degree template provided by Budget and Capital Resources; if you have any questions about how to calculate the total cost of degree, please contact [email protected]. DO NOT CONTACT OTHER INSTITUTIONS DIRECTLY FOR THIS INFORMATION. USE ONLY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION. Refer to the best practices document for additional information.

2014-‐15 2015-‐16 % Increase

Residents

Harvard University (private) $43,358 $44,658 3%

Yale University (private) $40,917 $42,553 4%

Washington University in St. Louis (private) $33,662 $35,345 5%

University of Michigan (public) $25,154 $25,908 3%

University of Pittsburgh (public) $25,060 $25,812 3%

University of Il l inois -‐ Chicago (public) $18,988 $19,557 3%

University of Washington (public) $17,703 $18,234 3%

Public Average $21,726 $22,378 3%

UC Irvine MPH Program $21,649 $23,932 11%

Nonresidents

Harvard University (private) $43,358 $44,658 3%

University of Michigan (public) $41,476 $42,720 3%

Yale University (private) $40,917 $42,553 4%

University of Pittsburgh (public) $40,590 $41,808 3%

University of Washington (public) $34,827 $35,872 3%

Washington University in St. Louis (private) $33,662 $34,672 3%

University of Il l inois -‐ Chicago (public) $30,986 $31,915 3%

Public Average $36,970 $38,079 3%

UC Irvine MPH Program $33,894 $36,177 7% Source(s): Websites of various institutions.


Established PDST

of 17

Why were these institutions chosen as comparators? Include specific reasons why they are considered peers – for example, competition for the same students and faculty, admitted student pools of similar quality, similar student-‐faculty ratios, the program’s ranking is what this program would like to achieve, etc. What other characteristics do they have in common? If you have included aspirational programs, explain why your program aspires to be comparable to these programs and how it expects to do so within 5 years. Be specific. We selected these institutions because of the similarity in the content of MPH curricula, prospective student populations, and faculty expertise and distinction. These institutions feature in previous reports, and maintaining the comparison will give us crucial information on regional and national trends. How were the projected tuition and fee increases for your comparison institutions determined? We investigated trends in fee increases from previous years’ data and estimated the projected increases. Please comment on how your program’s costs compare with those of the comparison institutions (public and/or private) with which you compete for students. In general, our program’s resident and non-‐resident tuition charges are lower than our private comparison institutions for 2014-‐15. Our fees for 2015-‐16 are within 7% of the average for public universities even with the increase proposed. Within California, our program’s costs are competitive in comparison to private institutions. However, it is difficult for us to compete with the lower fees of other public institutions outside California with different funding structures and academic priorities.

IV. ENROLLMENT TRENDS AND DIVERSITY STRATEGY Note: UCOP will provide campuses with data from the Corporate Student System that should be used to complete the table below for your program. Please note that, as used here, established programs consist of programs that seek to charge PDST for the first time in 2015-‐16 and have enrolled students prior to 2014-‐15; new programs are those that seek to charge PDST for the first time in 2015-‐16 and anticipate enrolling students for the first time in 2015-‐16. For established programs, provide data for academic years 2011-‐12 to 2015-‐16, as well as comparable figures for your comparison public and private institutions in the columns shown; do not provide an estimate for 2014-‐15. For new programs, provide an estimate for 2014-‐15 as well as 2013-‐14 data for comparison institutions using the same public and private comparators as indicated earlier.


Established PDST

of 17

2011-‐12 2012-‐13 2013-‐14 2014-‐15 2015-‐16 Publics Privates

Ethnicity

Underrepresented

African American 0% 0% 6% 5% 3% 7% 5%

Chicano/Latino 4% 4% 18% 16% 15% 4% 5%

American Indian 4% 4% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Subtotal Underrepresented 8% 8% 26% 21% 18% 12% 10%

Asian/East Indian 32% 36% 47% 24% 26% 13% 14%

White 24% 36% 15% 42% 43% 53% 40%

Other/ Unknown 28% 12% 6% 2% 2% 7% 5%

International 8% 8% 6% 11% 11% 15% 32%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 101%

Socioeconomic

% Pell recipients 0% 42% 35% 30% 30% N/A N/A

Comparison (2013-‐14)

Sources: UC ethnicity, socioeconomic status: UC Corporate data. Ethnicity and Pell data for 2014-‐15 was taken from departmental admissions application databases because corporate data was not available at the time of submission. Comparison institutions: Data was taken from the 2013 annual report of the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, of which UC Irvine Public Health is a member. Data includes all graduate students as opposed to UCI data which is for MPH students only. All comparison institutions were used except Washington University in St. Louis, which was not included because it is not a school of public health and only schools are included in this particular data set. Totals may not equal 100% due to averaging and rounding. Data for Pell recipients for comparison institutions was not available.

For established programs, how does your program compare with other programs in terms of racial and ethnic diversity, with particular attention to U.S. domestic underrepresented minorities? For new programs, how do you anticipate your program will compare with other programs in terms of racial and ethnic diversity, with particular attention to U.S. domestic underrepresented minorities? The data show that our program’s racial and ethnic diversity for U.S. domestic underrepresented minorities is greater than that of our comparator institutions. Our program draws heavily from the Southern California population, which is naturally diverse. The difference in the number of international students between us and our comparators has to do with the high non-‐resident tuition in California public institutions. For established programs, please comment on the trend in enrollment of underrepresented groups in your program over the past five years. We have not experienced any major deficiency in student diversity. From 2012-‐13 to 2013-‐14, the number of enrolled underrepresented students increased 18% due to our targeted recruitment efforts. Annual enrollment numbers can vary dramatically for underrepresented groups because of our small cohort sizes. However, we continue to plan for improvements. Though our recruitment incentives are


Established PDST

of 17

directed towards merit, we hope that academically meritorious underrepresented students who are offered this incentive will be more likely to come here. We also continue to focus our recruitment efforts on events attended by underrepresented students. What is your strategy for increasing the enrollment of U.S. domestic students from underrepresented groups (African American, Chicano/Latino, American Indian), U.S. domestic students from all minority groups, and, if any, for international students in your program? What indicators of success do you monitor? Our strategy for increasing the enrollment of students from underrepresented groups is to focus on diversity in our recruitment plans. For our fall 2014 recruitment strategy, our plan is to represent our program at regional fairs that attract a broad, naturally diverse audience, such as the California Diversity Forums. From time to time we also promote our program or send out literature to local universities or student organizations with diverse populations. We monitor our success by comparing the makeup of each year’s applicant pool and yield by racial/ethnic groups to the previous year(s) so that we can adjust our recruitment process to target specific groups to increase diversity. For the recruitment of international students who often cannot visit our campus prior to choosing a program, we plan to add more content to our website about the student experience, attend virtual recruitment fairs, and create webinars that can be watched live or as a recording. For established programs, please comment on the trend in enrollment of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (i.e., students who received Pell Grants as undergraduates). In Fall 2011, there were no students who received Pell grants as an undergraduate. We attribute this dramatic decrease in part to a smaller than anticipated incoming cohort. The class size was smaller due to last minute attrition that reduced the cohort size from 15 to 11 students. Some of the students did decide not to attend due to financial issues, and in 2012 we prevented this from happening again by offering academic student employment positions and recruitment incentives to reduce the cost of attendance. In 2012-‐13, our number of students with Pell grants as undergrads rose to 42% because of our successful efforts to diverse our student body. Given current enrollment trends, we expect the number of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds to go down slightly and stabilize at around 30% through 2017-‐18.

V. FINANCIAL AID STRATEGY AND PROGRAM AFFORDABILITY What are your financial aid / affordability goals for your program? How do you measure your success in meeting them? Our primary goal in offering financial aid continues to be to recruit and provide highly qualified and eligible students a mechanism of support to make their education more affordable. We have need-‐based financial aid distributed by the Office of Financial Aid and departmental aid in the form of recruitment incentives, employment positions, and support for public health-‐related activities. We


Established PDST

of 17

measure our success in part by monitoring rates of persistence and graduation from the program. We now have data on the debt level for our first set of graduates through exit surveys and the corporate data system, and we will continue to monitor trends in this data with future graduates. How will your financial aid strategies (e.g., eligibility criteria, packaging policy) help achieve these goals? We continue to base eligibility for need-‐based aid on need assessments from the Office of Financial Aid. For the incoming students, we are able to give additional recruitment incentives on the basis of merit using block funding from the Graduate Division. We use the PDST to provide travel fellowships and stipends to needy students to support them in off-‐campus public health-‐related activities. We offer need-‐based work study awards for a select number of students who will be employed as Readers in collaboration with the UCI Graduate Division. Please describe any programs available to students in your program to promote public service or provide services to underserved populations, such as targeted scholarships, fellowships, summer or academic-‐year internships, and Loan Repayment Assistance Plans. The Program in Public Health at UC Irvine has excellent practicum courses at the undergraduate level (PH-‐195W – 8 units) and at the graduate level (PH-‐295 – 8 units). Many of the placement sites, such as Latino Health Access and Healthy Smiles of Orange County, serve local underserved populations. The minimum practicum time commitment at a public health agency off campus for undergraduate students is 100 hours and 240 hours for graduate students. We award modest travel fellowships and summer stipends to graduate students to support their professional and public service work. We have also partnered with the Orange County Health Care Agency to provide service opportunities for graduate students through the SIPHERS (Students at Irvine Public Health Emergency Response and Surveillance) student group and an ongoing project to eradicate hunger in Orange County. Please describe your marketing and outreach plan to prospective students to explain your financial aid programs. Our program brochure explains how 33% of the Professional Degree Fee is used for return to aid. Our MPH website also has a section on possible sources of financial aid for students including grants, loans, and assistantships, and these options are discussed with students at our recruitment events. We also offer students guaranteed student employment positions in offer letters that are sent to students before the Statement of Intent to Register (SIR) deadline. Note: UCOP will provide you with figures from the Corporate Student System that should be used to complete the table below. If possible, provide comparable figures for your comparison public and private institutions in the rows shown.


Established PDST

of 17

Graduating Class 2006-‐07 2007-‐08 2008-‐09 2009-‐10 2010-‐11 2011-‐12 2012-‐13

Cumulative Debt N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 20,960 $ 30,876 $ 43,852

Percent with Debt N/A N/A N/A N/A 56% 92% 55% For established programs, please comment on the trend in the indebtedness of students in your program. What impact do you expect your proposed Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition levels and financial aid plan to have on this trend? Although the level of indebtedness has increased annually, the numbers do not reflect the students from the cohorts that first enrolled in 2012 and 2013. We expect that their levels of indebtedness will be moderately lower because of financial assistance from academic student employment positions. We expect that levels of indebtedness will not increase significantly from this point on even with fee increases if we can continue to assist our students with academic student employment positions and step up fundraising efforts. Note: UCOP will provide you with figures from the Corporate Student System that should be used to complete a portion of the table below. However, each program is responsible for providing its own estimate of the median (or average, or typical) starting salary for its graduates. If possible, provide comparable figures for your comparison public and private institutions in the rows shown. UCOP will also provide you with a formula for you to use to calculate the last column.

2011-‐12 Average Debt at Graduation

Graduates with Debt

Median Salary at Graduation

Est. Debt Payment as % of Median Salary

This program $ 30,876 55% $40,000 11%

Public comparisons $ % $ #VALUE!

Private comparisons $ % $ #VALUE!

Sources: UC: Corporate data and an alumni survey of graduates within the last year administered by the UCI Public Health Graduate Office. Comparison institutions: For comparison institutions, information on the average debt at graduation and percent of graduates with debt was not

available.

Please describe your program’s perspective on the manageability of student loan debt for your graduates in light of their typical salaries, the availability of Loan Repayment Assistance Programs, loan repayment plans, and/or any other relevant factors. The median salary based on our survey of students who graduated within the last academic year was $40,000. However, the number of respondents to the survey was very low, so we also gathered data on salary ranges from explorehealthcareers.org, which is vetted by ASPPH. The database shows the following salary ranges for the various areas of public health:

• Behavioral Science/Health Education $33,000-‐86,625 • Biostatistics $33,000-‐63,000 • Epidemiology $38,175-‐136,237


Established PDST

of 17

• Health Services Administration $37,050-‐161,400 • Public Health Practice and Program Management $33,000-‐63,000 • Biomedical and Laboratory Practice $31,500-‐78,750 • Environmental Health Sciences $44,550-‐143,700 • Global Health $31,500-‐86,625 • Maternal and Child Health $33,000-‐63,000

The debt level is manageable at 11% of the median salary. We have several students who proceed to complete further education in the health professions immediately after attaining the MPH, which plays a large part in determining their salaries when they eventually enter the workforce. According to UCOP data, our 2012-‐13 debt level is on par with that of MPH students at UCLA, the other UC school with public health programs in our geographic region. Do graduates of your program who pursue public interest careers (as defined by your discipline) typically earn substantially less upon graduation than other students? If so, what steps does your program take to ensure that these careers are viable in light of students’ debt at graduation? Public Health is quintessentially and by definition, a public interest career trajectory. We define this trajectory specifically as graduates working for governmental agencies at the city, county, state, national, or international jurisdictions; not-‐for-‐profit organizations; and community advocacy groups and foundations established to serve the public interest. Our students are inclined to seek public interest careers and we encourage them to do so. We ensure that our students are exposed to government agencies and non-‐profits through their required fieldwork and our seminar series for networking. However, we have noticed an upward trend in students seeking positions in private companies not necessarily because of potential earnings, but because the public sector has been so severely affected by federal and state budget cuts.

VI. STUDENT AND FACULTY CONSULTATION The Regents’ Policy on Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition requires each plan to include information about the views of the program’s student body and faculty on the proposed increase, which may be obtained in a variety of ways. Campuses are expected to have consulted with students and faculty. At the program level, consultation should include information on (a) proposed new or increased (over proposed 13-‐14 level) PDSTs for 2015-‐16 and three-‐year plans for any proposed increases thereafter, (b) uses of PDST revenue, (c) PDST levels/increases in the context of total charges, (d) issues of affordability and financial aid, (e) opportunities and support to pursue lower-‐paying public interest careers, (f) selection of comparator institutions, (g) diversity, and (h) outcomes for graduates of the program (e.g., career placement of graduates, average earnings, indebtedness levels).


Established PDST

of 17

Consultation with students How did you consult with students about the PDST levels proposed for 2015-‐16? Check all that apply.

Scheduled town-‐hall style meetings with students in the program to discuss the plan and solicit feedback

Convened focus groups of students in the program to discuss the plan and solicited feedback Described the plan to students in the program via email, solicited their feedback, and reviewed the comments received

Other (please describe): Text We plan to solicit feedback on the plan from MPH students when they return to school in late September 2014. Attach the feedback written by students during the opportunities for consultation checked above and any proposal changes as a result of this feedback. Also attach a summary of feedback written by designated student leaders in the program. Examples of appropriate leadership include the relevant program or school student association leadership, if one exists, and the campus graduate student association or equivalent. In addition to consultation with program students and faculty, please confirm that this long-‐form template has been provided to the program graduate student organization, if applicable, and the campus graduate student organization. Each program is also encouraged to engage campus graduate student organization leadership (i.e., your GSA president) in the program’s student consultation opportunities. The program should provide each with an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposals. Full comments or a summary of those comments must be provided by the program. Our Chair plans to request a meeting in person with Sonali Madireddi, AGS President, in late July or early August.

Plan shared with AGS President Sonali Madireddi on July 25, 2014 . Campus graduate student organization (i.e., your campus’ GSA president)

Comments or feedback was provided. (Comments TBD)

Comments or feedback was not provided. Nature of feedback or full comments:

When the students return from the summer break in late September, we will request individual feedback from the leaders of the Graduate section of the Public Health Association, our student organization.

If applicable, plan shared with on . Program graduate student organization (i.e., your program council or department GSA)


Established PDST

of 17

Comments or feedback was provided.

Comments or feedback was not provided. Nature of feedback or full comments:

Consultation with faculty How did you consult with faculty about the PDST levels proposed for 2015-‐16? Check all that apply.

Scheduled town-‐hall style meetings of faculty to discuss the plan and solicit feedback Convened focus groups of faculty in the program to discuss the plan and solicit feedback Described the plan to faculty in the program via email, solicited their feedback, and reviewed the comments received

Other (please describe): Text We plan to solicit feedback on the plan from faculty when they return to school in late September 2014. Attach the feedback written by faculty during the opportunities for consultation checked above and any proposal changes as a result of this feedback. Also attach a summary of feedback written by designated faculty leaders in the program. Examples of appropriate leadership include other appropriate faculty and affiliated faculty leadership (e.g., faculty executive committee or other faculty leadership). Please confirm that this long-‐form template was provided to the campus Graduate Dean and Approved by the Chancellor. We plan to submit this proposal to the Graduate Dean for comments in late July or early August.

Plan shared with Dean Frances Leslie on July 25, 2014 . Graduate Dean

Plan endorsed by on .

Chancellor1

VII. OTHER Please describe any other factors that may be relevant to your three-‐year plan (such as additional measures relating to your program’s affordability, etc.).

VIII. SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR PROGRAMS PROPOSING TO CHARGE PROFESSIONAL DEGREE SUPPLEMENTAL TUITION FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 2013-‐14

1 Per the Policy on Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition section 7(B), found at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/policies/3103.html


Established PDST

of 17

Please describe the program for which you propose charging Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition, including: What unit/department houses the program? Is the program new or already offered? If new, has the program already been approved by the campus and CCGA? (CCGA approval should have been secured by May 30, 2014 and systemwide approval should have been secured by July 30, 2014. Should there be a new professional degree program under review completed soon thereafter, please contact Hilary Baxter ([email protected]) to determine whether a later approval will be acceptable. N/A PDST shall not be charged by programs awarding a Doctor of Philosophy degree or a Master’s degree on a path to a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Generally, the determination of whether a program is a professional degree program eligible for PDST should be determined on a program-‐by-‐program basis. However, the Office of the President may use some combination of the following characteristics when determining the appropriateness of charging a PDST for the first time: (a) Program may require accreditation or may need to meet licensure requirements that will justify additional instructional needs for which PDST is required; (b) Job prospects for graduates of professional degree programs are very specific and targeted, often requiring licensure or certification to practice in the job market; and (c) Program content is characterized by acquisition of an identifiable cluster of skills that is not predominantly theory-‐ or research-‐focused. Please describe the rationale for charging Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition for this program, including: Why is it appropriate for this program to charge Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition? In what ways is the program “professional” rather than “academic” or “self-‐supporting”? Do students have elevated earning potential after earning a degree in this discipline? N/A

Multi&YearPlanforProfessional+Degree+Supplemental+Tuition...

Documents

Transcript of Multi&YearPlanforProfessional+Degree+Supplemental+Tuition...