UMC LOOKING TO REVERSE ON-CAMPUS ENROLLMENT DECLINE

Chancellor Mary Holz-Clause began her duties nearly 18 months ago, Vice-Chancellor John Hoffman joined the University on July 30 and the University of Minnesota System President Eric Kaler will step down in July 2019. Hoffman hopes the new administration’s perspective and emphasis on UMC’s key points will help break a few myths about UMC, begin to reverse the on-campus enrollment trend and perhaps even provide an increase in state funding for the campus.
While not everyone believes in the myth, enough so that a false perception can result. The interesting part about present-day myths is that they are often created for one of two reasons, either to explain something someone doesn’t understand with what they believe is the most likely cause or because of the way facts laid before them lead them to a false conclusion. UMC has big myths they need to shatter that fall under each category.
The first myth has to do with the centralized power aspect of the University of Minnesota System. For many things, from capital improvements to contracts to accounts payable different aspects that a university normally undertakes are shared between UMC and the system offices in the Twin Cities. Undoubtedly a byproduct of a small university benefitting from using the expertise of a larger staff within the system rather than having to hire their own staff to fill roles needed less often. That knowledge of those areas along with the slogan – small campus, big degree – and the diploma that says the University of Minnesota rather than the University of Minnesota Crookston has probably distorted the image of how heavily the University of Minnesota System controls the UMC campus.
There are probably many different examples out there that have led to the perception that UMC must go through the system for everything and take only what the system offers them. Make no mistake, as in any higher education system, a certain power does lie in the system offices that the individual campuses must answer to and get certain permissions from. Those perceptions that have been created about the extent to which UMC answers to the system have undoubtedly led to the myth that online students tuition doesn’t fully come back to the UMC campus.
That is false, UMC gets all the tuition money from online students that are enrolled just as they do for the on-campus students says John Hoffman, “the truth is we receive tuition dollars every bit as much from our online students, overall tuition works out to about one-third of our budget.”
The truth is UMC currently brings in just over $2 million dollars more for the campus in tuition dollars than they did in 2011 when on-campus enrollment was 1,122. And tuition revenue is nearly even to what it was in 2014 when UMC had its highest enrollment at 1,876.
Where it may hurt UMC is having a lower on-campus enrollment is in auxiliary fees such as housing and student service fees. Below is a look the enrollment numbers over a variety of years and the amount of revenue the current student service rate would generate with that enrollment. If UMC were able to get back to their 2011 on-campus enrollment of 1,122, they could expect to make an additional $171,902.72 for the 16 areas that utilize the fee for all or part of their budget. The graph below shows the loss of total fees since 2011.