Program Review 2008 (Appendix O)

FTES

FTEF

SFR

In 2002-2005, the SFR for the CSULA English Department was

o the third highest in the CSU (when compared with that of other CSU English Departments),

o more than 12% higher than the systemwide average, and

o greater than 1 standard deviation from the rest of the CSU.

In 2002-2005, the difference between the ranks assigned to CSULA’s FTES total and FTEF total was greater than 1 (i.e. a significant difference in the two ranks, which should be equal), a difference exceeded only by Bakersfield and San Luis Obispo.

In 2003 (the last year of reliable APDB data in this category), the SFR related to graduate classes in English at CSULA was

o the highest in the CSU,

o nearly double the systemwide average, and

o nearly 3 standard deviations from the rest of the CSU

In 2002-2005, the average class size for all CSULA English classes was

o the seventh highest in the CSU, and

o more than 6% higher than the systemwide average.

In 2003 (the last year of reliable APDB data in this category), the average class size for graduate CSULA English classes was

o one of the highest in the CSU,

o nearly 20% higher than the systemwide average

The following analysis makes use of public data available from the CSU APDB data reporting system. Table 1 lists English Department FTES by campus and year for the last four years. The final column provides the average for the period 2002-2005.

Table 2 lists English Department FTEF by campus and year for the last four years. The final column lists the average for the period 2002-2005.

Table 3 lists SFR by campus and year for the last four years. The final column provides an average for 2002-2005 calculated by dividing the total of FTES for 2002-2005 by the total of FTEF for 2002-2005.

Over the last four years, the CSULA English Department has the third highest SFR in the system, surpassed only by the Bakersfield and San Luis Obispo campuses. Figure 1 shows the SFR for all English Departments in the system.

Over the last four years, the English Department SFR has exceeded the systemwide average SFR for English departments by over 12%. The significantly higher than average SFR suggests a mismatch between FTES and FTEF relative to one another. Table 4 lists the rank of each English Department’s FTES and FTEF totals when compared to other campuses in the system. The campus with the highest FTES total is ranked 1, the campus with the second highest total is ranked 2, and so on. The same ranking scheme is used for FTEF. The difference shown in the final column suggests mismatches between FTES and FTEF.

In a perfectly balanced system, the difference for each campus would be zero. As it is, the differences point to significantly imbalances. The difference between the FTES and FTEF ranks for sixteen of the twenty-three campuses is one or zero. For seven campuses the difference is greater than one. The FTES rank for Bakersfield and San Luis Obispo is three less than the FTEF rank for those campuses, suggesting a significant mismatch between FTES and FTEF. That mismatch is further illustrated by the high SFR for both campuses—Bakersfield and San Luis Obispo being the only English departments in the CSU with higher SFRs than Los Angeles over the past four years. The FTES rank for Fullerton, Los Angeles, and Sonoma is two less than the FTEF rank for those campuses, also suggesting a considerable mismatch between FTES and FTEF.

 

Campus	Rank of Department’s FTES in CSU	Rank of Department’s FTEF in CSU	Difference Between FTES Rank and FTEF Rank
BAK	13	16	-3
CHI	12	12	0
CI	21	20	1
CLX	23	23	0
DH	14	14	0
EBY	15	13	2
FRE	10	6	4
FUL	7	9	-2
HUM	19	18	1
LA	9	11	-2
LB	4	3	1
MA	22	22	0
NOR	2	2	0
POM	8	7	1
SAC	3	4	-1
SB	6	5	1
SD	16	15	1
SF	1	1	0
SJ	11	10	1
SLO	5	8	-3
SM	20	21	-1
SON	17	19	-2
STA	18	17	1

SFR related to graduate classes shows a similar mismatch between FTES and FTEF. The 2004 and 2005 APDB data related to graduate classes appears to be in error for the Los Angeles campus (it appears that some upper division classes were reported as graduate classes, greatly inflating the graduate FTES and FTEF and reducing that reported for upper division English classes). However, data from 2003, the last year of reliable data for graduate FTES, shows that SFR related to graduate classes is significantly higher at CSULA. Table 5 lists the graduate FTES, FTEF, and SFR from 2003.

The SFR for graduate level classes at CSULA is nearly twice the system average, and except for the Sonoma campus is nearly 50% greater than any other campus in the system.

APDB also reports average class size for departments and for instructional level (graduate, upper division, lower division and all). Most interesting are the average class sizes for all classes and the average class sizes for graduate classes. Table 6 lists the average class sizes for all English classes for each campus in the CSU over the past four years.

 

Campus	2002	2003	2004	2005	Average
BAK	24.7	22.5	26.3	21.8	23.8
CHI	24.8	24.7	27	26	25.6
CI	17.7	21.4	20	20.1	19.8
CLX	23.9	27.5	20.8	21	23.3
DH	24.6	24.6	25.6	26.7	25.4
EBY	20.9	22.3	24.4	21.4	22.3
FRE	20.9	21.7	22.5	22.1	21.8
FUL	25.9	26.9	27	26.8	26.7
HUM	20.1	20.2	19.9	18.6	19.7
LA	25.2	25.7	25.8	24.6	25.3
LB	23.1	24.5	24.5	23.1	23.8
MA	21.2	26.6	23.7	22.4	23.5
NOR	23.2	22.8	22.7	23.5	23.1
POM	22.5	21.1	22.8	22.4	22.2
SAC	22.7	22.7	23.3	23.1	23.0
SB	23	23.7	25.9	24.3	24.2
SD	30.2	34.5	35.5	32.9	33.3
SF	21.6	22.3	22.2	21.8	22.0
SJ	22.7	22.6	23.7	24.3	23.3
SLO	26.3	27.9	28.7	25.6	27.1
SM	29	36.9	34	29.8	32.4
SON	21.8	24.9	24.5	23.3	23.6
STA	20.9	21.3	21.6	19.7	20.9
ALL	23.2	23.8	24.5	23.6	23.8

CSULA has the seventh highest average class size in English in the CSU and since the late 1990s the CSULA average has always been higher than the systemwide average, as much as 9% higher and 6% higher on average. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the average class size for a CSULA English class and the average class size for an English class in the CSU system.

When only graduate classes are considered, CSULA has one of the highest average class sizes in the CSU. Table 7 lists average class sizes for graduate classes in English at each campus in the CSU over the past four years. (While the FTES and FTEF totals for graduate classes at CSULA in 2004 and 2005 are suspect, the average class size figures seem in line with both prior years and with other campuses.)

 

Campus	2002	2003	2004	2005
BAK	11.7	12.7	16.5	15.5
CHI	10.4	11.6	11.2	10.8
DH	13.8	11.8	14.7	11.7
EBY	15.5	17.6	17.1	16.9
FRE	10	11.6	11.1	11.5
FUL	12.7	11.5	13.7	14.4
HUM	17.3	12.9	8.0	8.1
LA	12.6	16.5	17.7	16.7
LB	11.4	14.5	15.4	14.3
NOR	15.2	15.9	14.9	16.2
POM	10.3	12.7	15.8	14
SAC	14.5	15.5	13.5	12.8
SB	14.7	13.4	14.6	12.7
SD	14.1	17.4	15.4	13.4
SF	13.1	13.4	15.1	14.5
SJ	14.9	13.9	14.2	13.2
SLO	12.5	10	12.4	11.8
SM	16.5	24.5	14	15.3
SON	10.8	24.7	17	14.5
STA	9.8	9.7	9.7	10.3
ALL	13.2	13.9	14.6	13.7

Over the past two years CSULA has the highest average class size for graduate courses in English in the entire system. At about 17 per class, the CSULA average is over 20% higher than the CSU average for graduate classes in English. Figure 3 shows the relationship between the average class size for a CSULA graduate English class and the average class size for an English graduate class in the CSU system.