{"content":[{"text":"B. Cost structures in higher education.","bbox":{"left":0.205981,"top":0.108936,"width":0.34250400000000003,"height":0.017763}},{"text":"Early on, public higher education was funded primarily by state \n appropriations with tuition in many cases providing much less revenue (e.g., \n California where there was no tuition for many years). \n In the latter quarter of the 20th century, state funding was reduced gradually \n in many states (or not increased) as costs increased. Tuition became a greater \n proportion of funding, and by now tuition and fee income exceeds that from state \n appropriations for many universities, including UM. \n The current funding model of public and private research universities \n supports the costs of research not supported by grants (including overhead beyond \n the approved indirect cost percentage) and graduate education costs (beyond \n tuition paid by graduate students) from undergraduate tuition and fees. \n Private universities are successfully lobbying for a greater share of public \n higher education funding, including state supported scholarships (e.g., access \n scholarships in Missouri that give greater amounts to students at private \n universities than public universities) and larger amounts of research grants. Mid-­‐ \n level private universities are struggling with higher costs of education through \n increased tuition and fees, but if their endowments for scholarships and other \n support are inadequate, they will struggle to maintain enrollments, leading them to \n lobby and push more strongly for increased state and federal support such as Pell \n grants and state scholarships. \n For-­‐profit universities are providing significant competition to traditional \n universities.","bbox":{"left":0.147157,"top":0.144391,"width":0.701717,"height":0.390793}},{"text":"C. Trends and opportunities for change.","bbox":{"left":0.205981,"top":0.552876,"width":0.35531599999999997,"height":0.017762999999999973}},{"text":"Year-­‐round educational opportunities are being demanded and are desirable \n for many students. In order to consider year-­‐round operations on a cost-­‐effective \n basis using our current level TT/NTT faculty (with increases if/when demand and \n enrollment increases), several changes should be considered:","bbox":{"left":0.147157,"top":0.58833,"width":0.700432,"height":0.07109699999999997}},{"text":"Changes to the retirement system rules for faculty to allow credit for any two \n of three semesters (fall, winter/spring, summer) to count as one 9-­‐month year \n credit rather than only allowing fall and spring semesters now. \n Changes to the general semester or quarter schedules to allow course \n delivery year-­‐round in variable terms, such as 2-­‐, 4-­‐, 6-­‐ or 8-­‐week terms (as we do in \n summer and inter-­‐sessions); increased weekend scheduling or other non-­‐traditional \n scheduling to better meet student and employer needs.","bbox":{"left":0.147157,"top":0.677118,"width":0.704923,"height":0.12442999999999993}},{"text":"Increase online course delivery, considering hybrid models with some face-­‐ \n to-­‐face contact. \n Explore collaborative efforts with the non-­‐academic sector, such as industry \n (ESI-­‐UMSL partnership).","bbox":{"left":0.147157,"top":0.819239,"width":0.693608,"height":0.07109699999999997}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}