Faculty Senate Discussion

RCM Impacts 2012

Filed under RCM Impacts 2012 by salvers@ufl.edu on March 13, 2012 | 2 Comments

The effects of RCM continue to be of concern to many faculty, and comments are invited to help identify unanticipated issues and problems. A difficult but important distinction is that RCM is a UF budgeting model designed to create incentives for growth, distinct from the budget cuts enacted by the state government. Both issues are equally important but have different sources, despite having combined effects in the experience of many faculty. When possible, comments on the 2012-13 Budget are invited as a separate discussion topic, while comments specific to the operation and effects of RCM are invited here.

All comments on this site are reviewed by the Faculty Senate Policy Council on Budget, and RCM impacts are one of their continuing priorities.

To post a comment, scroll down to the bottom of the page to “Add a Comment” and click on “You must be logged in to post a comment”.

Please note that comments are invited here as a fact-finding process, and that debate of issues that might come before the Senate are reserved for public meetings. Accordingly, independent statements are encouraged, but not replies to other comments. Since comments are routed through the Faculty Senate office, there may be a brief delay before your comment is posted.

Scott Nygren
Chair, Faculty Senate

2 Responses to “RCM Impacts 2012”

  1. I have several concerns about how RCM is implemented. I do not believe that RCM is intrinsically a bad idea, however the present implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

    1. The RCM formulae depend only on teaching numbers. This is a suitable method for dividing money between colleges for a “teaching only” University. We claim to be a research university. Research is an important part of our mission, however the Colleges are being encouraged to optimize their budgets with no account taken of their output in scholarship. I realize incorporating scholarship is hard to do, but even research income (easy to quantify) is not part of the formula.

    2. The “coefficients” that reflect college-by-college costs of teaching were worked out several years ago and have been (at least temporarily) frozen. This means that any college which at that time was inefficient can improve their income. Colleges which were already efficient have much more trouble improving their efficiency. Surely the coefficients should be based not on how much it cost to teach a few years ago, but how much it SHOULD cost to teach a particular subject. I realize that requires judgment, but we do believe we should be led by people with judgment, not a computer.

    3. RCM implies that the colleges are responsible for their future budgets. However, if there are decisions taken at a higher level that affect SCH production, the colleges should not be held responsible. For instance, the change in AP credit regulations hit some colleges more than others. Very low-level (cheap to teach) courses are no longer in high demand. That changes the average dollars-per-course costs of teaching. This is not taken into account by the system.

  2. neta@ufl.edu says:

    I would like to ask the budget committee to examine how are double majors undergraduates are recorded in the RCM erra, and how are both majors considered in regards to allocations to both program the students who are double majoring are enrolled in. It is my understanding that only one major is recorded.

    It true, than this error should be corrected so that both programs that the double majoring student(s) are enrolled in should receive their share of the allocations.

    Thank you for taking up this issue. It is an important issue to my colleagues at the College of Fine Arts, because many of our BA students are double majoring.

    Most sincerely,

    Neta Pulvermacher
    Assistant Professor
    School of Theatre and Dance
    neta@ufl.edu

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.