Central Washington University. Overview of RCM Models Preliminary Thoughts. Faculty Senate ADCO. Scenarios Considered.
Overview of RCM Models
Budgetary changes can quickly reflect student interests.
Budgetary change mechanisms can be assessed within Colleges.
Incentive to improve quality to attract students.Pros and Cons for All Models
Tendency to de-emphasize cooperation and collaboration.
Tendency to de-emphasize service activities.
Incentive to hire less established faculty teaching large enrollment courses.
Pressure to offer more courses (possibly outside of one’s expertise or at a lower standard).
Less discretionary money for meeting the common needs of all.
Share current revenue with colleges based on SCH and majors/minors. Reallocate entire FY 2013 budget based on FY 2012 actual SCH and majors/minors. Similar with subsequent years.
Large changes in budgetary allocation.
Compensates SCH production without considering the cost it takes to offer that SCH.
The unit sizes might result in unequal abilities to effectively compete for funding.
Problem for high cost programs.
Reflects one set of metrics (i.e. time to degree, retention are not included).
Share incremental revenue with colleges based on SCH and majors/minors.
Can make a lousy situation worse since it assume the current level of support is sufficient.
Can only acquire new resources if you can out-perform prior year. (Once again this forces units or departments to operate at a deficit.)
Review impacts of general education classes. Pull and pool general
General Education courses are also Service Courses. Will these components be differentiated?
What is the incentive for departments to participate in the General Education program?