(06-15-2017 01:43 PM)CliftonAve Wrote: (06-15-2017 01:26 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote: Just read that Wright State University is having a financial crisis due to recent overspending and the second year in a row of a 5% drop in the size of the incoming freshman class.
Also saw Bowling Green was VERY happy that their enrollment did not drop either this year or last.
For UC to have enrollment growing is bucking the statewide trend.
In addition to Wright State, Akron is having a steep decline in enrollment over a financial crisis as well. Kent, Cleveland State and Youngstown State have seen some growth the past couple of years as a result.
BearcatSeminole makes a very good point RE: retention. Many schools can get away with reporting growth overall, while actually having smaller input classes every year, it's just how you coordinate the data...they cannot falsify retention data, that stuff is clear as day.
I currently work at another public institution in the State of Ohio as an administration level staff member within their Division of Undergraduate Admission (I'm being purposely vague to ensure everything is communicated fairly here). The truth of the matter is that there are only three schools in Ohio who have increased the first-time, full-time Direct from High School freshmen classes in the past half decade or so (DHS for short from here on out). Those schools are Cincinnati, Ohio State, and Cleveland State. The others report an increase despite not truly increasing due to haven campuses (Kent, BGSU, OU, Miami U) or CCP programs (every single one of the state publics must participate and report without differentiation of status, so the numbers can be fuddled up big time depending on student participation).
Kent State is by far the biggest perpetrator of the "haven" campus model (outside of Ohio State, although for much different reasons). KSU has had increases in each of the past seven years due to their inordinate amount of branch campuses (7 at last count). The are fulfilling their enrollment goals by lumping their enrollment into one pool rather than by institution like Ohio State has done with their Lima, Mansfield, Marion, and Newark campuses. What that means is, they're adding low quality, high risk students to their branches and claiming a headcount increase for the flat funding BUT they hide their terrible retention in those specific campuses in order to increase the per-retention funding (their branches have retention around 60% whereas the Kent campus is right about 78% now and that's where the funding comes from). Basically, schools with models like this are being extremely predatory in offering an opportunity to unqualified students, then not reporting these students when they fail out...despite still taking their money and adding to their loan backload.
Cincinnati does not do this nearly as much, though with the expansion of the UC East/Clermont County Campus it does seem likely that they may try. Their retention is in what I would consider the "second teir" at the mid-80%'s, below the reported 90+% rates of Miami and Ohio State, but well above the mid to upper 70%'s reported by Toledo, BGSU, KSU, UA, and OU, and WAY above the municipal schools at the moment. They're in a good position, and as of the last report I received their student quality is up as well, sitting in the upper third of incoming college students nationwide, which is where they want to be.
The truth of the matter is that the funding model proposed by Governor Kasich is going to put all but the upper 4 institutions in the state into financial ruin very quickly unless contingencies are put in place simply because there are a finite number of high-retention students in the state (and that number is not growing). The other funding nightmare is College Credit Plus, which forces colleges to charge a cut rate for any high school or MIDDLE SCHOOL!? student who wants to take advantage of a college course, while putting that burden on the local school districts. The school districts are operating with a line item they had not planned for five years ago which sometimes runs into the millions of dollars in larger school districts, while the universities in the state have to charge less that their break-even per course hour, while still being expected to maintain the same student services and opportunities to these students. It's a nightmare that could use it's own there.
tl;dr Cincinnati is in a good position and are working on ways to manipulate the system to improve their financial standing in a flawed budget system developed by the states which tends to leave the students in the cold. Their student quality is up, their overall headcount is up, and by and large, they are gaining more interest with the upper performers due to OSU's push out of state and limitations on admission. There are many 75th-85th percentile students (26-30 ACT) who are being denied entry to OSU's main campus who are heading to the other highly reputed STEM institutions (Cincinnati and Toledo), which is a win for them, and UC will continue to build on that momentum by pushing further into the upper-echelon districts throughout the state (Olentangy, Bexley, Upper Arlington, Dublin, Hilliard, Worthington, Centerville, Oakwood, Western Cuyahoga more specifically Westlake/Brecksville/Broadview/Lakewood/Bay Village/Medina, Findlay, Ottawa Hills, Sylvania, Perrysburg and Anthony Wayne SDs).
As an aside, Wright State and Akron are in the worst position due to the concentration of public institutions in their respective areas already...I honestly wouldn't be shocked if one or both are not around in the current formation by the end of the 20's.