To: Faculty Assembly

From: Academic Review Committee (ARC)

Date: September 24, 2003

Subject: Ramapo College — Winter Session 2003 Analysis

 

INTRODUCTION

President Smith and Provost Pfeiffer have expressed interest in reviewing winter session and determining whether it should be continued. On July 24, 2003, Kay Fowler, Faculty Assembly President requested the Academic Review Committee (ARC) to agenda an analysis of the winter session as early as possible and to submit a recommendation to the Faculty Assembly at the October meeting. Also, as part of the analysis, the unit councils should have an opportunity to discuss this and provide input to the ARC.

During August 2003, S. Klein, Chair of the ARC collected data and interviewed people regarding winter session in order to facilitate the ARC’s analysis. The findings are presented below.

 

HISTORY

A Ramapo College winter session was established in FY1995. The rationale for a winter session was the following:

The effect with and without a winter session on the Ramapo College Academic Calendar for AY 2003/2004 is as follows:

With Winter Session Without Winter Session

Fall Semester: 9/3 — 12/19 Fall Semester: 9/3 — 12/19

Winter Session: 1/6 — 1/29 (4 weeks) Winter Session: N/A

Spring Semester: 2/2 — 5/22 Spring Semester: 1/16 — 5/8

Graduation Date: 5/25 Graduation Date: 5/11

Summer Session: 6/1 Summer Session: 5/15

In essence, with a winter session, the spring semester start date and subsequent event dates are scheduled approximately two weeks later.

 

STATISTICAL INFORMATION

Babs Varano, Director Institutional Research, provided the following statistical information:

  1. Table 1: Trends in Winter Session Student Demographics
  2. Table 2: Trends in Winter Session Student Characteristics
  3. Table 3: Trends in Winter Session Student Characteristics (continued)
  4. Table 4: Trends in Winter Session Sections and Seats

The following data items were excerpted from the above tables:

  1. Student Population: There were 798 students enrolled in winter session 2003.

    2. Year # Students #Change %Change

    1. 674
    2. 798 124 18.4%
    3. 806 8 1.0%
    4. 864 58 7.2%
    5. 798 -66 -7.6%

    This represents an increase of 124 students (18.4%) between 1999 and 2003 and a decrease of 66 students (-7.6%) between 2002 and 2003.

  2. Residence Halls: Of the 798 students, 448 students (56.1%) lived off campus and 350 students (43.9%) lived on campus.
  3. Special Programs/Categories: Of the 798 students, 690 students (86.5%) had no special program and 108 students (13.5%) had a special program (e.g., EOF (45), Honor’s (6), Senior Citizen (1), Special Admit (47), Tuition Free (9))
  4. Matriculated/Non-Matriculated: Of the 798 students, 714 students (89.5%) were matriculated and 84 students (10.5%) were non-matriculated.
  5. Credits Attempted: Of the 798 students, 664 students (83.2%) attempted between 3 and 4 credits, 122 students (15.3%) attempted between 6 and 8 credits and 12 students (1.5%) attempted other.
  6. Class Rank: Of the 798 students, 204 students (25.6%) were juniors, and 367 students (46.0%) were seniors.
  7. GPA: Of the 798 students, 339 students (42.5%) had a GPA between 2.00 to 2.99, and 349 students (43.7%) had a GPA between 3.00 to 3.99.
  8. Number of Sections: There were 59 sections offered in the winter session. This represents an increase of 8 sections (15.7%) between 1999 and 2003 and a decrease of 5 sections (-7.8%) between 2002 and 2003.

After studying the tables, S. Klein requested the following additional information:
  1. Of the 59 sections offered in winter session 2003, 43 instructors taught the sections.
  2. Of the 59 sections offered in winter session 2003, 33 sections (56%) were taught by full-time faculty; 5 sections (8%) were taught by professional staff; 21 sections (36%) were taught by adjunct faculty.
  3. Of the 43 instructors, 22 instructors (51%) were full-time faculty, 4 instructors (9%) were professional staff; 17 instructors (40%) were adjunct faculty.
  4. Of the 798 students who took courses in winter session 2003, 297 students (37%) enrolled in summer session 2003. After looking at 6 years of data, a trend emerges that suggests winter session students enrolled in summer session the same year has decreased between 1998 and 2003 by 6 percentage points.

 

INTERVIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS

S. Klein interviewed several administrators regarding the winter session. A synopsis of their points of view and observations are included below. For completeness, the comments and concerns raised by faculty and presented by K. Fowler, Faculty Assembly Prtesident, to the faculty in her email dated May 27, 2003 are included below.

  1. The timing of graduation effects summer session start date (i.e., two weeks later than other schools). If the graduation date was moved back two weeks then the college could attract more non-Ramapo students in the summer session.
  2. There is too long a break, six weeks, between fall and spring semesters. Students have trouble readjusting to studying when they return. It is difficult for students to find jobs during the break. Hence they have a lot of free time; are bored, and want to get back to school.
  3. Ramapo students get out later in May than other college students. Therefore, other college students get a jump in the job market.
  4. There is no "down-time" for the college (e.g., Facilities, Student Affairs, CCIS et al) to do repairs and maintenance for the spring semester.
  5. All residences must remain open during winter session in order to accommodate those students who attend winter session.
  6. Overnight security must be provided in all residences during winter session.
  7. Athletics: The height of the basketball season is January/February. Student attendance at events is low in January because the college is not in regular session. The college must pay a meal allowance (NCAA rule) to student athletes because school is not in regular session in January.
  8. Study Abroad Programs: If the winter session was discontinued, there would be a strong negative effect on the winter Study Abroad Programs. The winter session is the most popular study abroad session. Approximately 100 students attended winter 2003 study abroad programs (England, Jamaica, and American West). Current planning is to double the enrollment from 100 to 200 students. Since many of our Ramapo students work in the summer, the winter session is their only opportunity to participate in study abroad programs. The winter session dates allow for discount pricing in airline fares and housing and availability of housing. One possible compromise solution would be to run the winter study abroad programs from 1/1-3 to 1/18-20 (15-17 days) and start the spring semester on 1/21 after Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
  9. The revenue from winter session 2003 was approximately $300,000. However, this figure does not include the additional expenses that are incurred in the winter session by the various administrative offices (e.g., Security, Student Affairs, Athletics, etc.).
  10. The winter session is not as profitable as originally thought.
  11. It is difficult to deliver a normal 16-week semester course in the abbreviated time span of four weeks.
  12. It forces the spring semester to start two weeks later and thereby pushes the due dates for spring grades, in-service, commencement date and summer session start dates two week later.
  13. It reduces the time span when grades are due.
  14. Faculty and students have no recovery time between winter session and spring semester
  15. Allowing the College to essentially close down for three weeks in January could represent environmental and financial savings.
  16. If winter session was to be eliminated, summer sessions could be redesigned and moved earlier and strengthened (e.g., add a May session and attract additional students from other colleges).
  17. A poll of the faculty, conducted by the K. Fowler, resulted in sixty (60) faculty responses. One-third of the faculty are in favor of continuing winter session, one-third are in favor of discontinuing winter session, and one-third wanted the subject studied further.

 

STUDENT OPINIONS

The following information was excerpted from a memorandum to Sharon Rubin from Steve Johnson dated May 27, 1997, titled Winter Session Study:

"We decided to use focus group methodology rather than a survey to gauge student opinion. OIRP staff led discussions with three groups of students to determine what they liked about Winter session, what they disliked, and what they thought might improve the session. The three groups were: (1) student leaders. (2) students who took Winter Session courses in 1996 but not in 1997, and (3) "better" students as identified by schools. An overall summary of comments is attached, as are comments from each of the focus group sessions.

Students expressed contradictory sentiments about what was best and worst about Winter Session. Some students learned more, some learned less. Some liked the "relaxed" atmosphere and streamlined courses, others experienced stress when trying to absorb information. Some felt Winter course-taking was cost-effective, others felt it was too costly. Some liked not having to stop and start from Fall to Spring, while others expressed a need to refresh themselves between semesters. Some expressed interest in one- or two-credit courses while others said these courses would not be attractive.

One benefit that was not contradicted was that Winter course-taking allowed students to reduce their Fall/Spring credit load somewhat. It also allowed some to catchup with courses to stay on time to degree.

Students felt there was a poorer course selection in Winter 1997. They also felt there were mostly lower level courses (this is important since over half of Winter Session students are Seniors).

Students felt that Winter Session could be better marketed. Faculty should promote Winter Session in their Fall courses. A table or more signs in the Student Center would also help. Having course syllabi available for inspection might help.

Most participants felt that more upper-level courses are needed, such as more senior seminars. Business, Accounting, and Information Processing courses were mentioned, and some suggested that every major should be represented with at least one course (preferably a required course for the major). These students wanted more say in what courses were offered, perhaps by adding questions to the Spring semester teacher evaluations.

Finally, some students felt that financial incentives might be needed. They suggested breaks on housing costs (e.g., free January housing), or lower per credit tuition for January courses.

I hope these findings are useful in the planning process."

 

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Based on information supplied by the Office of Budget & Fiscal Planning, net profit for FY02 winter session was $298.844. This represents an increase of $47,487 or 18.9% over FY01. This "net profit" does not include the following overhead cost items: 1) residence halls would be closed, 2) utility savings (lower thermostats), 3) savings on student workers’ payroll, 4) savings on security officers’ payroll for the dorms, 5) more time to perform maintenance on buildings and dorms, 6) reduction on overtime and materials for snow and ice removal, 7) utility savings (lower thermostats, lighting in classrooms turned off), 8) reduction in waste cleanup, and 9) no van scheduling resulting in savings in gas. It was also suggested that the winter session profit should be viewed in conjunction with the summer session profit.

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on interest expressed by President Smith and Provost Pfeiffer, in reviewing winter session and determining whether it should be continued, and a request by K. Fowler, President of the Faculty Assembly, the ARC collected data, interviewed individuals and produced this report. The ARC will draft its summary and conclusions after input from the unit councils and other interested parties.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The ARC wishes to acknowledge and thank the following individuals for sharing their time, comments, ideas and suggestions: 1) Victoria Bruni, VP Finance, 2) Babs Varano, Director Institutional Research, 3) Nancy Mackin, Dean of Students, 4) Eugene Marshall, Director Athletics, 5) Joe Dallon, Director Study Abroad Programs, 6) Robyn Perricelli, Coordinator Study Abroad Programs, 7) Maria Krupin, Office of Budget & Fiscal Planning, and 8) several faculty and staff.

A special thank you to Babs Varano and Maria Krupin for their time and effort in providing the above statistical and financial information.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen Klein, Chair Academic Review Committee

September 2003