Real Cost Per Student

Common Core Performance Indicator

The ratio of total education and general expenditures (including fringe benefits but excluding research, public service, scholarships, depreciation and auxiliary expenditures) to full-time equivalent (FTE) students compared to peer institutions.

Performance Improvement Goal

How does current real cost of educating a student in Connecticut’s Community Colleges compare to peer institutions?

Data Analysis

While cost per student is intended to assess operating efficiency, this measure often reflects other influences, including differences in regional cost of living and FTE enrollments, as well as specific one-time or continuing costs such as those related to unique educational programs and major new facilities.

In addition, the formula itself assumes that all costs are directly attributable to credit FTE students. In fact, non-credit and grant costs included in the calculation are not a direct cost of providing credit FTE instruction, and actually represent a desirable expansion of activities and resources available to the colleges. As a result of these factors, it is difficult to draw conclusions relative to peers with any assurance of validity; however, the Connecticut Community College cost per student appears to be in line with expectations, even given these differences.

As the “Real Price” measure indicates (Goal 3), Connecticut’s median household income (MHI) is roughly 15% higher than the “average” MHI of states included in the peer group. This higher MHI is reflected in the salary and other costs that Connecticut higher education institutions pay and accounts for much of the differential in cost per student compared with peers.

Further analysis of the data by expenditure function provides some interesting information. The Connecticut Community Colleges spent 27% more per FTE on instruction and academic support, 45% more on student services, 17% more on operation and maintenance of physical plant, and 24% less on institutional support. This partially reflects the fact that some administrative costs at the Connecticut Community Colleges are centralized, most notably the system data center, and thus not included in college IPEDS data.

It may also suggest that administrative operations are somewhat leaner in Connecticut (given the differences in cost of living and MHI), and that, in addition to the higher cost of living, Connecticut is devoting more of its resources to those activities which directly impact students and the college facilities within which students learn. It may also reflect the fact that we have a larger component of non-credit instruction which is included in the cost numbers but not the enrollment numbers.

Source: IPEDS Data and Banner Data Extracts