UA 2014 Open Forum
David J. Cummins Vice President for Finance & Administra9on/Chief Financial Officer April, 2014 Agenda
•  UA’s FY 2013 Financial Position
•  UA Budget Issues
•  FY 2015 Budget Development Update
2 How Funds are Combined into the Audited
Financial Statements
Audited Financial Statements Elimina9ons and Reclassifica9ons Fund Accoun9ng Statements Unrestricted Restricted Unrestricted Current Funds Restricted Current Funds Loan funds Endowment Funds Plant Funds Agency Funds General Fund Sponsored Research Federal Perkins Loan Fund Permanent Endowments Current Capital Projects Student Organiza9ons Auxiliaries Restricted Scholarships Nursing Loan Fund Quasi Endowments Capital Assets Other Outside En99es Departmental Sales Other Restricted GiMs University Loan Funds Debt Reserves 3 Change in Net Assets (“Net Position”)
In millions Net assets have increased from
$424.8 million in 2009 to $493.4
million in 2013 ($68.6 million)
but have fallen from a peak of
$507.6 million in 2012.
$500 $400 Net assets represent the
difference between assets and
liabilities and over time are one
indicator of improving or eroding
financial health.
Unrestricted (Expendable)
$300 10% 18% 23% 22% 21% 10% 12% 12% 11% 13% 5% 5% 4% 73% 66% 60% 63% 62% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 5% 5% $200 $100 Restricted: Expendable
Restricted: Nonexpendable
Invested in capital assets
$0 Source: Audited Financial Statements
4 Senate Bill 6 Composite Score
•  SB 6 includes all funds, based on annual financial
statements.
•  The financial statement takes into account such factors
as investments in facilities, including State Capital
funds, changes in debt, unrealized market gains/losses
in investments, etc.
•  An appropriate increase in net assets over time is
necessary to maintain a satisfactory SB6 composite
score and demonstrate financial stability.
•  Composite Score is based on 3 ratios; a function of:
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
Expendable Net Assets - $158.2
Plant Debt - $407.9
Total Expenses - $506.7
Total Revenues - $492.6
Change in Net Assets – ($14.2)
(FY 13 amounts, in millions)
Source: Audited Financial Statements
5 Senate Bill 6 – Viability Ratio
Ra5o score In millions 5.0 Viability Ratio
The Viability Ratio measures
the availability of expendable
net assets to cover debt should
the University need to settle its
obligations as of the end of
fiscal year.
$500 4.0 $400 3.0 $300 Exp Net Assets/Plant Debt
30% of Composite Score
2.0 $200 Expendable Net Assets
Plant Debt
1.0 $100 Actual Viability Ratio
$0 0.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 6 Senate Bill 6 – Primary Reserve Ratio
Primary Reserve Ratio
The Primary Reserve Ratio
measures the financial
strength of the University by
indicating how long the
institution could function using
the expendable reserves
without relying on additional
net assets generated by
operations.
Ra5o score In millions 5.0 $500 4.0 $400 3.0 $300 Exp Net Assets/Op Expenses
50% of Composite Score
2.0 $200 Expendable Net Assets
Total Operating Expenses
1.0 $100 Actual Primary Reserve Ratio
$0 0.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 7 Senate Bill 6 – Net Income Ratio
Net Income Ratio
The Net Income Ratio measures
the University's profitability or
ability to operate within its
means. Continued gains or
losses measured by the ratio
will impact all the other
fundamental elements of
financial health over time.
Ra5o score In millions $550 5.0 $450 4.0 $350 3.0 $250 Change in Net Assets/Revenues
20% of Composite Score
2.0 $150 Changes in Net Assets
Total Revenues
1.0 $50 Actual Net Income Ratio
-­‐$50 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 0.0 8 Senate Bill 6 – Composite Score
The Composite Score is a
weighted summary score of all
three ratios. This is the primary
indicator of fiscal health.
5.0 4.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 5.0 is the maximum score.
3.6 3.2 2.8 3.0 2.5 The Senate Bill 6 Composite
Score decreased in FY 2012 and
FY 2013 after two years of
increases.
2.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Composite Score 2.0 3.3 3.6 3.2 2.8 Weighted Viability 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 Weighted Primary Reserve 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Weighted Net Income 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.2 9 Senate Bill 6 Takeaways
•  The Board has set a benchmark that the SB 6 Composite
Score be 2.5 or greater.
•  The Viability Ratio and Primary Reserve Ratio are normally
fairly stable.
–  GASB changes to pension liabilities may significantly impact
Expendable Net Assets and these ratios in FY 2015 financial
statement.
•  Net Income Ratio is much more volatile and will require
careful oversight over time.
–  Revenues falling, expenses rising is driving down this score
–  Reduce expenses, increase/diversify revenues
–  Revenues > Expenses by $5 million returns Composite Score
to 3.2
10 Other Independent Sources
•  Debt Burden
•  Moody’s
–  Debt Rating Agency
–  UA’s Rating: Moody’s A1 stable outlook
–  Fitch AA- stable outlook
•  What do they tell us – relative to other Ohio
institutions, industry benchmarks?
11 Debt Burden Ratio
$700 7.6% $600 6.1% 7.5% 8% 7% 5.8% 6% $400 5% $300 4% Ra5o % $500 In millions This ratio examines UA's
dependence on
borrowed funds as a
source of financing its
mission and the relative
cost of borrowing to
overall expenses. It
compares the level of
current debt service
with total expenses.
9% 8.3% 3% $200 2% Debt service includes
interest and principal
payments.
$100 1% $0 0% 2009 2010 (lower percentage is better)
Total debt service 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 2013 Total expenses Ra9o Source: Audited Financial Statements
12 Age of facilities ratio
$700 (lower number is better)
10.8 10.1 $600 12 10.6 10 $500 8 $400 6 $300 Ra5o (years) This ratio is important
because it provides a rough
sense of the age of the
facilities and the potential
need for considerable
future resources to be
invested in plant to cover
deferred maintenance.
10.5 In millions This ratio measures the
average age of total plant
facilities by measuring the
relationship of current
depreciation to total
depreciation.
11.2 4 $200 2 $100 $0 0 2009 2010 Deprecia9on expense 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 2013 Accumulated deprecia9on Ra9o Source: Audited Financial Statements
13 Days Cash on Hand Ratio
$700 Per Moody’s: similarrated Ohio universities
average 195 days.
156 $600 152 130 160 140 $500 In millions (higher number is better)
180 165 120 $400 100 $300 80 Days This ratio measures how
long, in days, UA could
meet operating
expenses without
receiving new income.
164 60 $200 40 $100 20 $0 0 2009 2010 Cash and investments 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Opera9ng expenses 2013 Days cash on hand Source: Audited Financial Statements
14 Financial Position Takeaways
•  Assets are falling – to the level of several years
ago – not a crisis, but a trend that cannot
continue
•  External standards echo this same conclusion
15 Transition to General Fund
•  Eroding State Support
•  General Fund History
•  FY 2015 Budget Development
16 How Funds are Combined into the Audited
Financial Statements
Audited Financial Statements Elimina9ons and Reclassifica9ons Fund Accoun9ng Statements Unrestricted Restricted Unrestricted Current Funds Restricted Current Funds Loan funds Endowment Funds Plant Funds Agency Funds General Fund Sponsored Research Federal Perkins Loan Fund Permanent Endowments Current Capital Projects Student Organiza9ons Auxiliaries Restricted Scholarships Nursing Loan Fund Quasi Endowments Capital Assets Other Outside En99es Departmental Sales Other Restricted GiMs University Loan Funds Debt Reserves 17 Putting Higher Ed Funding in Context - SHEEO
•  Nationally, enrollment-generated revenue per FTE, in real
terms*, fell 7% from FY 2002 to FY 2012. Over that same
period state support fell nearly 30%.
•  In Ohio, enrollment-generated revenue per FTE, in real
terms, fell 13% from FY 2002 to FY 2012. State support
fell over 40%.
•  Per SHEEO, Ohio is 46th in state support per FTE in FY
2012, support per FTE is 67% of the national average
(before adjustments).
•  At The University of Akron, net tuition and fees plus state
appropriations per FTE, in real terms, grew slightly 1%,
from FY 2002 to FY 2012. State support fell 38% over
that period.
* All numbers adjusted for the Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA)
18 Ohio Higher Education Funding –
The University of Akron
100.0% 73.3% 75.0% 50.0% 26.7% 25.0% 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 State Appropria9ons 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1995 1991 1987 0.0% Tui9on and Fees Since 1987, the burden of the cost of higher education has shifted from
the state to the student. Enrollment decline has at least temporarily
stopped the trend.
19 Budget Development Update
•  Items of Interest – 10 years of History
– 
– 
– 
– 
General Fund Revenues & Expenses
Continuing Obligations (CONOB)
GF Transfers
GF Support to Auxiliaries
•  Investment in the Campus
20 UA General Fund Sources of Revenue
% Change
Revenue Type ($ in millions)
Tuition & Fees
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
FY04-13
$ 127.0 $ 136.7 $ 144.1 $ 172.0 $ 182.3 $ 191.9 $ 209.7 $ 228.8 $ 235.8 $ 235.8
Other Student Fees
17.5
18.3
18.3
18.8
19.6
20.7
22.7
24.3
24.5
24.5
State Appropriations
85. 7%
40. 4%
91.4
89.4
87.9
85.2
90.3
98.3
103.8
104.7
90.6
91.0
-0. 4%
Gifts,Grants,Contracts,IDC
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.7
4.9
5.0
4.9
14. 4%
Inv Income and Other
1.9
3.0
5.0
7.5
6.5
6.2
4.2
3.3
3.9
2.2
18. 6%
Sales & Non-credit Tuition
9.7
9.6
11.5
11.3
12.8
12.9
14.2
15.4
15.5
14.3
47. 8%
$ 251. 6
$ 261. 2
$ 271. 2
$ 298. 9
$ 315. 8
$ 334. 3
$ 359. 2
$ 381. 2
$ 375. 2
$ 372. 7
48. 1%
Ak ron Tot al
•  Revenue has increased 48.1%, but peaked in FY 2011
•  Enrollment increased nearly 21%
•  CPI increased 27%
•  FY 2014 Revised Budget revenue is $364.6 million
•  On average, over 93% of each year’s revenue is related
to enrollment (Items 1-3)
•  State Appropriations in FY 13 is the same as FY 04, even
though enrollment has increased 30%
Source: Query of UA financial accoun3ng system data. 21 UA General Fund Revenues
FY 2004 2% FY 2013 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 24% 36% 50% 7% 63% 7% Tui9on & Fees Other Student Fees Tui9on & Fees Other Student Fees State Appropria9ons GiMs,Grants,Contracts,IDC State Appropria9ons GiMs,Grants,Contracts,IDC Inv Income and Other Sales & Non-­‐credit Tui9on Inv Income and Other Sales & Non-­‐credit Tui9on Dependence on Tui9on and Fees has grown drama9cally since FY 2004. 22 UA General Fund Expenses
Sum of Ex pens e ($ in millions )
2004
Academic
$
2005
113.1 $
2006
116.2 $
2007
122.9 $
2008
125.8 $
% c hange
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
FY04-13
137.0 $
146.1 $
150.7 $
157.3 $
163.8 $
165.6
46.5%
Academic Support
91.0
92.5
95.2
98.5
111.2
119.1
116.5
118.4
124.1
125.2
37.6%
Central Obligation
46.7
52.3
52.2
72.8
66.6
68.9
90.8
104.2
85.4
81.7
74.8%
$ 250. 8
$ 260. 9
$ 270. 4
$ 297. 2
$ 314. 8
$ 334. 1
$ 358. 0
$ 379. 8
$ 373. 3
$ 372. 6
48. 6%
Ak ron Tot al
•  Overall, expenses have grown by 48.6%
•  Academic Support expenses have increased at a lower rate
(37.6%) than have Academic expenses (46.5%)
•  Continuing Obligations has grown at the largest rate (74.8%)
•  Since FY 2008, expenses have increased $57.7 million
–  Compensation, including fringes has increased $35.9 million (19%)
–  Scholarships & Remissions has increased $19.6 million (71%)
Source: Query of UA financial accoun3ng system data. 23 UA General Fund Expenses
FY 2004 FY 2013 19% 22% 44% 45% 36% Academic 34% Academic Support Central Obliga9on Academic Academic Support Central Obliga9on There has been a slight shift in share of expenses from
Academic Support to CONOB over the past 10 years
24 Continuing Obligations Expenses
Akron General Fund Continuing Obligations (CONOB) ($ in millions)
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Net Transfers
$ 6.4
9.4
6.4
24.5
$ 10.1
6.7
6.5
28.9
$ 11.4
9.0
7.4
24.5
$ 12.7
7.7
9.0
43.4
$ 13.8
7.9
9.6
35.2
$ 18.1
8.7
9.9
32.3
$ 19.1
6.4
8.4
56.9
$ 20.7
6.4
9.2
67.9
$ 23.8
9.5
7.8
44.3
$ 26.3
8.4
8.2
38.8
Grand Total
$ 46.7 $ 52.3 $ 52.2 $ 72.8 $ 66.6 $ 68.9 $ 90.8 $ 104.2 $ 85.4 $ 81.7
Scholarship & Central Remissions
General I nstitutional
Utilities (Net)
% Change
From FY 04
311.5%
-­‐11.0%
28.6%
58.1%
74.8%
•  Continuing Obligations have grown at the largest rate of
any of the expense categories
•  The largest expenses in this group over the last few years
are related to two sub-categories:
–  Scholarships and tuition remissions (312%)
–  Transfers (58.1%) -- Payments out of central funds to
meet/address commitments
Source: Query of UA financial accoun3ng system data. 25 General Fund Transfers
Sum of Out (In)
Transfer Type
Tr-­‐In
Dept'l Carryover
Aux Support
Debt Svc
ERIP
Other
To Reserves
Plant Funds
Grand Total
• 
• 
• 
• 
General Fund Trans fers ($ in millions )
2004
$ (15.9)
19.9
10.0
7.1
-­‐
(0.3)
2.1
1.7
$ 24.5
2005
$ (31.8)
30.9
11.2
10.7
-­‐
0.1
4.1
3.8
$ 28.9
2006
$ (40.6)
36.1
11.5
11.1
-­‐
0.1
4.8
1.4
$ 24.5
2007
$ (45.2)
46.3
25.9
9.4
-­‐
0.7
0.5
5.7
$ 43.4
2008
$ (48.3)
49.8
27.8
5.5
-­‐
(0.7)
0.0
1.1
$ 35.2
2009
$ (53.8)
46.1
29.4
8.4
-­‐
1.0
0.0
1.2
$ 32.3
2010
$ (46.8)
63.0
30.7
6.7
-­‐
0.4
0.9
2.0
$ 56.9
2011
$ (63.1)
68.0
35.3
7.3
-­‐
0.5
18.5
1.4
$ 67.9
2012
$ (68.1)
56.9
34.4
8.8
5.1
0.8
3.6
2.8
$ 44.4
2013 % Change
$ (63.6) 300.0%
52.5 164.0%
35.7 259.0%
7.7
8.2%
5.1
(1.5) 402.1%
0.8
1.9
16.2%
$ 38.7
57.9%
Transfers-in are funds added to the account (primarily carry-over
balances)
Departmental CO are the year-end balances transferred into the
subsequent year.
Auxiliary support growth in FY 2007 represents change in
accounting to credit the General Fee to the General Fund
FY 2011 Reserves includes initial funding of Budget Stabilization
Fund, Group Insurance Contingency and Facility Fee for Student
Union and Wellness Center
Source: Query of UA financial accoun3ng system data. 26 General Fund Support to Auxiliaries
Auxiliary
Athl Facilities
Athletics
Less:General Service Fee (athl)
Net Support Athletics
2004
$ 0.4
0.7
-­‐
$ 1.0
2005
$ 0.4
0.9
-­‐
$ 1.3
St Union & Rec Ctr
Less: Facility Fee
Net Support SU & SWRC
8.2 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.8 8.9 8.7
(7.2) (8.0) (7.9) (8.2) (8.6) (9.0) (10.1) (10.6) (10.5) (10.0)
$ 1.0 $ 0.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.2 $ (0.0) $ (0.4) $ (1.6) $ (1.8) $ (1.6) $ (1.3)
EJ Thomas Hall
Parking
Residence Life & Housing
Quaker Square Inn
Total Transfer to Auxiliaries
Student Fees Transferred
0.7
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
$ 10.0
$ (7.2)
2.1
-­‐
0.6
-­‐
$ 35.7
$ (27.4)
197.8%
GF Support of Auxiliaries
$ 2.8 $ 3.2 $ 3.6 $ 4.8 $ 5.6 $ 6.1 $ 5.0 $ 7.6 $ 6.4 $ 8.3
202.5%
0.7
-­‐
0.6
-­‐
$ 11.2
$ (8.0)
2006
$ 0.4
1.2
-­‐
$ 1.6
0.7
-­‐
0.6
-­‐
$ 11.5
$ (7.9)
2007
$ 0.6
14.5
(12.9)
$ 2.1
1.8
0.0
0.6
-­‐
$ 25.9
$ (21.1)
2008
$ 0.9
15.1
(13.6)
$ 2.3
1.5
0.9
0.6
0.3
$ 27.8
$ (22.2)
2009
$ 0.6
16.9
(14.3)
$ 3.2
1.6
1.2
0.6
-­‐
$ 29.4
$ (23.3)
2010
$ 2.1
18.0
(15.6)
$ 4.5
1.7
0.0
0.3
-­‐
$ 30.7
$ (25.7)
2011
$ 3.8
19.3
(17.1)
$ 6.1
2.1
0.6
0.6
-­‐
$ 35.3
$ (27.7)
2012
$ 3.5
19.8
(17.5)
$ 5.8
2.0
(0.3)
0.6
-­‐
$ 34.4
$ (28.0)
2013 % Change
$ 3.5
843.4%
20.7 2970.2%
(17.4)
$ 6.9
554.5%
6.8%
38.9%
-­‐225.8%
259.0%
280.6%
•  Most General Fund support to Auxiliaries is from
designated student fees
•  FY 2007 begins change in accounting to credit the
General Fee to the General Fund
Source: Query of UA financial accoun3ng system data. 27 Athletics Support
•  Athletics budget is roughly $24 million
–  $17 million support from the University, including General
Services Fee
–  $7 million revenue generated by athletics
•  Nearly half of support to Athletics stays with the
University:
–  Roughly $7 million for Scholarship payments (Tuition, Room
& Board, Books)
–  $1.75 million on campus spending supporting facilities,
dining services, computer services, etc.
•  There are 450 student-athletes of which approximately
150 are on full scholarship
•  The remaining 300 student-athletes pay some portion of
their costs to attend the University
–  This current year that totals $4.2M
28 Investment in the Campus
2004
Academic
$ 1.3
Academic Support 2.4
Auxiliary
9.5
Athletics
1.0
Total
$ 14.2
2005
$ 1.3
2.3
9.1
0.9
$ 13.7
Annual Debt Service i n Millions
2006
2007
2008
2009
$ 1.3 $ 1.6 $ 1.1 $ 1.3
2.1 2.7 3.4 4.1
10.4 13.4 15.0 18.1
0.9 1.1 4.3 5.2
$ 14.6 $ 18.8 $ 23.8 $ 28.6
2010
$ 1.2
3.8
16.8
4.8
$ 26.6
2011
$ 1.4
4.5
19.9
5.7
$ 31.5
2012
$ 1.4
6.2
18.4
5.2
$ 31.2
2013
$ 1.2
6.2
20.1
5.2
$ 32.7
•  Auxiliary functions fund roughly 80% of the University’s
debt service – mainly residence halls, the Student Union
and recreation center, and parking – and is backed by
designated fees.
Source: Query of UA financial accoun3ng system data. 29 FY 2015 Budget Development Context
FY 14 Revised Budget balanced to 6% enrollment decline;
some reductions one-time, some still being phased in.
FY 2015 Starting Assumptions:
• 
Assume continued enrollment decline (4%) for FY 15
• 
Modest increase in State Share of Instruction based on FY 14
actual earnings
• 
Assume 2% tuition increase per State Biennial Budget cap
• 
Earmark funds for increased scholarships and/or reduction in
tuition for access programs (Summit College)
• 
Address other priorities such as high-demand academic
programs, salaries, marketing, non-discretionary items
30 FY 2015 E&G Budget Starting Point
FY-­‐15 $ millions Explana5on Base Adjustments: Tui9on Shorfall Restore 1-­‐9me Reduc9ons Subtotal -­‐  9.0 -­‐ 5.0 -­‐ 14.0 Assume 4% Enrollment Decline for FY 15 Achieving Dis9nc9on, Wayne College, Refinancing Addi9onal Assump9ons: Increase Scholarships/Access Other Necessary Adjustments Increase in State Support Subtotal -­‐  2.0 -­‐  4.4 + 1.5 -­‐ 4.9 Strategic Investments, Sal Adjustments, Doubful Accounts , Student Recruitment Total -­‐ 18.9 31 Balancing the FY 2015 Budget
Approach $ millions Explana5on Star5ng balance -­‐ 18.9 Assumes 4% Enrollment Decline Tui9on increase + 4.3 2% per State Tui9on Cap Reduc9ons/Realloca9ons +14.6 Balance Review Academic Administra9on, Vacancy Levels, Revenue Opportuni9es 0 32 FY 2015 Budget Balancing
•  Need to reduce/reallocate roughly $15 million based on
enrollment decline and strategic priorities
–  Review academic administration budgets
–  Consider approved vacant positions
•  Each unit given a FY 2015 Allocation
–  Roughly 6.5% reduction from Base
–  $9.1 million for Academic Units
–  $5.7 million for Academic Support Units
•  Also evaluate revenue opportunities
–  Differential Tuition
–  Chargebacks/Fees for specific services
•  Conversations ongoing with each unit
–  CFO and COO meeting with each college
–  CFO and EVP meeting with each VP unit
33 Budget Balancing Score Card
FY 15
Original
STARTING POINT ASSUMPTIONS
Tuition Shortfall
(9.0)
Restore 1-­‐time Reductions in FY 2014
Increase Scholarships/ Access
(5.0)
(2.0)
Other Adjustements
Negative Starting Point
Additions
FY 15 Starting Point
REVENUE INCREASES
2% Undergraduate Tuition Increase-­‐Net
2% Graduate Tuition Increase -­‐ Net
6% Law School Tuition Increase -­‐ Net
FY 15
UC B&F
Assumed 4% Enrollment Decline
Achieving Distinction, Wayne College Overhead, Interest on Debt
Strategic Investments, Student Doubtful Accounts, Student Recruitment
(4.4)
(20.4)
1.5
($18.9)
Comments
Increase in SSI above original FY 14 projection
$0.0 3.7 0.6 -­‐ SUBTOTAL 4.3 -­‐ CENTRAL OBLIGATIONS
SUBTOTAL -­‐ -­‐ ACADEMIC SUPPORT
SUBTOTAL 5.7 -­‐ ACADEMIC
SUBTOTAL
Total Adjustments
Balance
9.1 -­‐
19.1 -­‐
$0.2
$0.0
34 Budget Balancing Score Card
•  UC Budget & Finance Committee is reviewing:
–  Starting assumptions, regarding revenues and cost
increases
–  Proposed reductions of academic and support units
•  Reductions that would reduce revenue will not
be implemented
35 Moving Forward
•  UA Needs to be Entrepreneurial
–  Generate New Enrollments
–  Improve Retention
–  Increase Revenue per FTE
•  Policy Issues to Consider:
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
Treatment of Research Grants: What should they support?
Management of Graduate-level Fee Remissions
Space Utilization: Improve efficiency
Manage Retirements: Potential impact of pension reform
Identify Core Functions: Leverage assets
Diversify our Revenue Sources
•  Other Ideas?
36 Revenue Gained & Revenue Recoverable
2006 cohort # # % $ # lost $ if 80% of admiQed graduated graduated revenue direct admit (6-­‐y) (M) and 60% of pre-­‐
($10k/y majors for 4 to graduated: # 6-­‐y) addi5onal graduates: $ revenue (M)($10k/y for 2-­‐y) Direct 984 617 63% $31M 215 170: $3.4M Pre-­‐major 2,330 676 29% $34M 1,183 722: $14.4M 37 Questions?
38