April 12, 2002

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR AND PROVOST PAUL GRAY:

 

The Office of Planning and Analysis was recently asked by the College of Letters and Science to calculate student, full-time-equivalent conversion factors at the college and division level.  The purpose was to determine if their students were above or below the campus average FTE. 

 

Attached are the conversion factors by student level for each college based on 2000-2001 academic year data.  Also presented for comparative purposes are the budgeted 2002-2003 conversion factors for each of the UC campuses.

 

Definition of FTE Conversion Factors

 

For budgeting purposes, OP calculates the Fall/Spring General Campus Student FTE as follows:

 


Student Level


Headcount


x Conversion Factor


=  FTE


+ Summer FTE


=  Total FTE

Lower Division

7,646

.981

7,501

 

 

Upper Division

14,874

.960

14,279

 

 

Grad 1
(Masters / Doc)

5,891

1.000

5,891

 

 

Grad 2 (Advanced to Candidacy)

1,628

.890

1,449

 

 

Total

30,039

 

29,120

2,150

31,270

 

 

The conversion factors represent the ratio of the average student load (units) for the academic year divided by the expected student load (units) for a full-time student (15 units per semester for an undergraduate and 12 units for graduate students).  OP also caps a student’s FTE at 1.00.  This means that if an undergraduate is enrolled for 18 units, his/her FTE is 1.00, not 1.20 (18/15).

 

The State does not fund graduate students who have advanced to candidacy and have been enrolled for more than six semesters in the advanced-to-candidacy stage (referred to as Grad 2A students).  The State expects advanced-to-candidacy students to complete their dissertation/doctoral work within three years from the time they have advanced to candidacy.  Consequently, the conversion factor for Grad 2 students is based on advanced-to-candidacy students who have enrolled for six or fewer semesters in the advanced-to-candidacy stage (Grad 2), divided by the total number of students who have advanced to candidacy, including those who have enrolled for more than six semesters (Grad 2 + Grad 2A).  The formula is G2/(G2+G2A).

 

It should also be pointed out that OP uses a rolling two-year average in their calculation of the conversion factors.  In other words, the 2002-03 conversion factors are based on 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 data.

 

 

 

Results

 

Berkeley Schools and Colleges

 

At the lower division, the highest conversion factors were found in the College of Chemistry (.996) and the College of Engineering (.995), followed by the College of Letters and Science (.978).  

 

At the upper division, high conversion factors were observed for Optometry (1.00), Business (.978), and undeclared majors (.975), while lower conversion rates were observed for Environmental Design (.905).

 

Almost all graduate students (Grad 1) are taking full-time loads resulting in 1.00 conversion factors.  Exceptions were noted for graduate students in Physical Science (.996), SIMS (.975), Business (.957), Arts and Humanities (.949), Social Sciences (.945), Journalism (.912), and Education (.885).

 

At the Grad 2 level, the conversion factors were more dispersed ranging from .727 for Law, to 1.00 in Public Health and Public Policy.

 

UC Campuses

 

Berkeley does not appear to be an outlier on any of the conversion factors.  At the lower division, Irvine, San Diego and Santa Cruz have conversion factors of 1.00 compared to Berkeley’s .981.  Riverside (.916), Davis (.933), Los Angeles (.947) and Santa Barbara (.977) have lower conversion factors.

 

At the upper division level, the conversion factors range from .930 at Los Angeles to 1.00 at Santa Cruz.  Only Santa Cruz (1.00) and Irvine (.989) have higher conversion factors than Berkeley (.960).

 

At the Grad 1 level, all campuses have a 1.00 conversion factor.  At the Grad 2 level, the conversion factors range from .846 at Irvine, to .965 at San Diego.  Berkeley’s .890 is lower than most of the other UC campuses.

 

Increases in the conversion factors for UCLA should be observed in the coming years as UCLA increases the unit value of courses on their campus.

 

If you would like more detailed information or have any questions about this data, please contact the Office of Planning and Analysis.

 

                                                                                                Sincerely,

 

 

 

                                                                                                Dennis Hengstler

                                                                                                Executive Director

 

cc:           Vice Chancellor James A. Hyatt

               Vice Provost Christina Maslach

               Vice Provost William Webster

               Dean Peter Bickel

               Dean George Breslauer

               Dean John Dwyer

               Dean Harrison S. Fraker, Jr.

               Dean Clayton H. Heathcock

cc:           Dean Benjamin Hermalin

               Dean Ralph J. Hexter

               Dean Dennis M. Levi

               Dean Paul Licht

               Dean Kwong-Loi Shun

               Dean Richard Malkin

               Dean Mary Ann Mason

               Dean James Midgley

               Dean Michael Nacht

               Dean A. Richard Newton

               Dean P. David Pearson

               Dean Edward E. Penhoet

               Dean Hal R. Varian

               Dean Orville Schell                                                                

               Director of Academic Planning, Undergraduate Division, Alix Schwartz

               Coordinator of Analytical Studies, Pamela Brown

               Principal Policy Analyst, Alan Underwood

 

Attachment