- Implementation Committee
- Participation in Decision Making
- Budget 101
- Budget 101 - Voice Over
- Budget 102
- Budget 102 - Voice Over
MIRA Concerns Vs Reality
MIRA will fix UND’s budget challenges.
MIRA does not print money or tell us what to do with our resources. MIRA will show how we have invested our resources and if those investments are aligned with the goals of our university. In other words, it identifies how much money is UND bringing in and how much and where are those dollars are being spent. Without alignment of resources and goals, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make progress toward those goals. MIRA does not dictate change; it is a tool for informing decisions and interpreting plans and results.
MIRA does not incentivize collaboration.
Incentivizing collaboration is not listed above as one of the main outcomes; there is nothing specific in the model that incentivizes collaboration. It is true that everyone benefits from the undergraduate tuition pool and the state appropriation pool growing. If collaboration causes growth in enrollment, everyone benefits. If collaboration helps keep costs lower and enriches the curriculum by engaging subject matter experts, everyone benefits. There was no incentive for collaboration in the incremental model, and we believe collaboration still happened. Why? Because it was the right thing to do. What is different in MIRA is transparency. The allocation of tuition dollars can be more easily tracked and tied to outcomes.
The College is missing out on significant revenue as a result of instructing graduate students from programs in other colleges given that graduate tuition is allocated 100% to the college of record under MIRA.
When reviewing spring 2016, summer 2016, and fall 2017 student credit hours (SCH), the net equivalent of 567 SCH or 0.76% (567 of 74,136) student credit hours of instruction are outside of the college of record for graduate students. The net equivalent takes into account offsetting college instruction and record student credit hours.
How to read the following chart:
The vertical axis is the College that did the graduate instruction and the horizontal axis is the College where the graduate student is earning their degree. Aerospace (JDO) and Engineering (SEM) instructed 161 student credit hours for students earning an Arts & Sciences (A&S) graduate degree. In total, 123 student credit hours were instructed by A&S, BPA, EHD, and JDO for LAW students.
The difference (0.76%) does not materially impact the allocation to warrant the additional programming needed to change the model statement. The MIRA team will continue to monitor in conjunction with the Deans. There are many ways that collaboration can be promoted and incentivized rather than just monetary. We suggest that colleges work together to create such models.
The College is missing out on significant college of record and college of instruction student credit hours by using 4th week (end of June for summer) student data instead of end of term student data.
For any one term in FY16 (fall 2016, spring 2016, or summer 2016), there is less than a 0.82% change in any college's percentage of college of record student credit hours (CRC‐SCH) when comparing 4th week (end of June) CRC‐SCH percentages to the end of term CRCSCH percentages. When aggregating CRI‐SCH percentages for the year, the change is 0.76% or less in comparing 4th week (end of June) to end of term CRC‐SCH.
For any one term in FY16, there is less than a 0.55% change in any college's percentage of college of instruction student credit hours (CRI‐SCH) when comparing 4th week (end of June) CRI‐SCH percentages to the end of term CRI‐SCH percentages. When aggregating CRI‐SCH percentages for the year, the change is 0.37% or less in comparing 4th week/end of June to end of term CRI‐SCH.
There is no material difference between the 4th week and end of term student data. The change as well as the additional wait for SCH data is too detrimental and confusing for the use of the end of term data.
The College is missing out on significant revenue as double majors are not considered in the MIRA model.
Of the 11,297 undergraduate students enrolled as of 4th week in Fall 2016, 1,121 students, less than 10% of students, declared double majors. Of those double majors, the net equivalent of 169 students or approximately 1.5% had a second major outside of the college of the primary major. The net equivalent was calculated to account for a student with a primary major in A&S and a second major in BPA that would be offset by a student with a primary BPA major and a second major in A&S.
How to read the chart below:
The College of primary major is the vertical axis and the College of secondary major is the horizontal axis. In total, Arts & Sciences (A&S) had 72 net equivalent students that they would have shared in the 40% record allocation because Aerospace (JDO), Nursing & Professional Disciplines (NUR), Engineering (SEM) and Health & Sciences (SMHS) were the primary major and A&S was the secondary major.
The college of record allocation is 40% of the undergraduate tuition pool and the 1.5% is not material to impact the allocation. The MIRA team in conjunction with the Deans will continue to monitor this percentage for materiality.