Case Study

64-ArticleText-126-1-10-20150622.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Case Study

37Barram — Case Study: Greenhill College

Case Study: Greenhill College

T H E C A S E S T U D Y

Provost Chad Logan ambled along the red bricked pathway leading to Centennial Hall, the 100-year-old orig- inal administration building of Greenhill College, estab- lished in 1909 by a group of protestant clergy and like- minded educators who wanted an alternative to the secular institutions of their day. The college had remained true to its historical roots as a faith-based, Christian, interdenomi- national institution. Chad entered, making his way directly to the Academic Affairs Office. Sue Grant, the department receptionist, was on the phone and shot him a warm smile and mouthed, “Good morning.” The red blinking light on his phone caught his eye as he entered his office. He reached over and punched in his code and listened to a pleasant voice telling him he had six new messages. The most recent was Emerson Wilson, longtime president of Greenhill, who wanted him to call as soon as he got in. Ten minutes later he was seated in the president’s office on the second floor. Chad still couldn’t decide if he liked Wilson. At one moment he could be warm and friendly, the next cold and unbending. The unpredictability of the man’s nature created stress among all those around him.

“Chad, you better pay more attention to the new stu-

dent enrollment projections for this fall,” Wilson said. “I saw Al Sanders this morning in the gym, and he tells me next fall’s new student numbers are projected to be down from this year. This is the first I have heard of it, and I’m not too happy about being kept out of the loop. I really don’t like hearing this news from the director of admis- sions.”

Chad felt that now-familiar pang of worry in his stomach. Unfortunately, Greenhill lacked the significant endowment, immediate name recognition, and the ster- ling academic reputation of its competition. Even though Greenhill had a rich history, the glaring lack of a big endowment and popular name recognition resulted in continual financial pressure. Greenhill was a tuition-driven institution. Eighty-five percent of the annual budget rev- enue came from student tuition dollars. Chad despised this dependence on student admissions. He believed it to be a stranglehold on the college’s ability to move forward.

Chad wasn’t frustrated with Al because he knew Wilson probably put him on the spot earlier that morn- ing in the gym. Wilson’s management style didn’t confine him to the office. He could be like a cat on the prowl. He loved the college and believed it was appropriate to ask any employee — at any time and place — about their job. In

A B S T R A C T : Greenhill College is an organizational decision-making case study involving the financial stabil- ity of a fictitious small, private, religious liberal arts college with an enrollment of more than 2,000 students. Traditional, small liberal arts colleges, long a staple of the American higher education scene, are facing unprecedented challenges for survival. Steadily rising tuition costs, stiff competition for students, and escalat- ing operational expenses represent just some of the pressures currently confronting Greenhill College. The college faces the immediate threat of an unbalanced budget, difficult decisions on financial and non-financial issues, and the need to manage possible morale issues. Finally, the administration must carefully address the potential of internal and external perceptions of the viability of Greenhill College.

diRk BaRRam George Fox University

[email protected]

part this could be good. Employees knew he cared. Yet it also could be stressful, and maybe inappropriate, such as in the gym. Al Sanders, overweight and not the world’s healthiest eater, certainly didn’t need to be badgered about admissions while he exercised. The poor guy had enough pressure in his life. That’s why he was in the gym in the first place. Rather than being visionary, Wilson was reactionary. He really wasn’t a fun guy to be around! He wasn’t the type of leader people would go to the wall for. At times Wilson just simply could not keep the bigger pic- ture in mind. Take the admissions situation. Al Sanders’ role was integral to a strong incoming freshmen class. So what did Wilson do? He cornered him in the weight room and asked him about admissions for next year. Why not take a different approach and just ask Al how he was doing and leave it at that? Al would have responded much better.

Wilson shifted his tall, rail thin frame uneasily in his leather swivel chair. His beak-like nose and thinning hair reminded Chad of that guy from the Wizard of Oz. What was his name?

“We are so tuition-driven, it isn’t funny. I’m counting on you to bring in the numbers.”

Chad knew the pressure Wilson felt from a demand- ing Board of Trustees. The present era in higher education was one of diminishing federal and state dollars, fierce competition for students from state schools, and an alarm- ing rise in private college tuitions, including Greenhill. As if this weren’t enough, the respected Chronicle of Higher Education had just come out with a report that said, “With the trend toward attending lower-cost alternatives, the business model of private colleges — higher prices for pre- mium products — is being tested. Affordability is the larg- est challenge going forward said the admissions director of one very selective small private college...” (Van De Werf, 2008, p. 5). The Chronicle predicted difficult days ahead for the small, private, liberal arts colleges.

“Emerson, the summer is always a waiting game; you know that,” said Chad.

“Yes, but what are you doing now to make sure we get the right numbers? Are you sure Al Sanders is the right guy for the job? He’s so laid back, it makes me nervous.”

Chad intensely disliked these kinds of conversations with Wilson. At the first sign of trouble, he wanted to fire someone and usually it was one of his people. He could be so impatient. Chad struggled with a president who at times seemed more to worry, than act in faith that God would provide. The dynamic of integrating one’s faith with his or her work was an oft-used phrase at Greenhill. This seemed like a good time to practice this, thought Chad.

“Emerson, Al is doing a good job for us. He’s thor-

ough, well organized, and on top of things.” The slightly balding college president arched his thin

eyebrows in doubt. “You better be right on this one Chad. Honestly, our

necks are on the chopping blocks.”

Greenhill’s Challenge Chad knew Greenhill was facing some real organiza-

tional challenges. He decided to sort things out, including developing a strategy of how to confront the issues, before his next meeting with Wilson. Undergraduate enrollment was projected to decrease seven percent from 1,689 in 2009-2010 to 1,571 in 2010-2011. At $26,180, annual tuition per student, a seven percent increase over the previ- ous year, that meant a decline in anticipated tuition rev- enues of $1.7 million. Room and board for the students living on campus was $8,320 for next year. This repre- sented a three percent increase over last year’s room and board rate of $8,070. With a decline of 118 students, that reduced room and board revenues by another $475,584.

The state’s demographic data on high school gradu- ates for the next seven years was sitting on Chad’s desk. Projections called for a decline in high school graduates from the previous year and continuing for the next six years. The previous year it had been four percent and next year it would be six percent. The third year it was project- ed to be eight percent. Enrollment could be a long-term challenge for Greenhill.

Graduate enrollment projected a two percent decline for next year. In 2009–2010, graduate programs had enrolled 700 graduate students. Projections for next year, even with the two new graduate programs slated to start this fall, forecasted an enrollment of 686 which was 14 fewer graduate students. This represented a $116,760 decline in graduate tuition.

Chad quickly added all three numbers. The total rev- enue shortfall was slightly more than $2 million in tuition and room and board revenue. To make matters worse, Greenhill had already announced to undergraduate stu- dents the seven percent undergraduate tuition increase. What would it look like if the college raised tuition again?

Chad knew the Greenhill College Board of Trustees had established a set of strategic assumptions for the administration to follow. These included a $500,000 contingency fund, a continued focus on undergraduate and graduate academic programs, evaluation of academic programs showing decline or stagnant growth, and a man- dated institutional balanced budget. There was also the auxiliary enterprise budget and other increases in the new budget. These included summer maintenance projects of

CBAR Spring 2011

$1,225,000, a $975,000 faculty and staff salary increase (unannounced), and $360,000 in new academic programs to name a few. The college administration had a lot to consider. Certainly the 2010-2011 fiscal year budget had to be balanced. Should the undergraduate tuition be raised a second time? What about a graduate program tuition increase? How about the $360,000 committed to new academic programs in 2010-2011? Might the $1,225,000 dedicated to summer maintenance projects be delayed? Should some academic programs and even faculty be elimi- nated? What about not following through on the as yet announced faculty and staff salary increases? None of these options were perfect. In fact each carried less-than-pleasant ramifications. Finally, Chad had to think about the inter- nal and external perceptions of Greenhill given this finan- cial crises. Might campus morale become an issue? Chad knew he had to take the lead on this and make some tough decisions. The very future of Greenhill College rested on these decisions.

Greenhill’s History Greenhill College had been founded in 1909 as a reli-

gious, liberal arts college. The college had 30 undergraduate majors, the top four being business, nursing, education, and biology. Not all of these 30 majors were growing. Undergraduate student enrollment was at 1,689 (2009- 2010). In the last ten years since 2000, the college had launched graduate programs in education, business, and psychology, which added more than 700 graduate students (2009-2010). Greenhill had 360 employees, 150 of whom are regular, full-time faculty (110 undergraduate and 40 graduate). Greenhill had an active student life program with more than 85 percent of the undergraduate students living in campus residence halls. Graduate students lived in town or nearby. The college contracted with a national food service for all on-campus student meals and catering for on-campus events. The college was accredited with the Northeast Association of Schools and Colleges. Greenhill was a member of the National College Athletic Association, Division Three, and offered a wide variety of men’s and women’s sports. The primary source of financial revenues came from student tuition dollars. Approximately 85 per- cent of revenue was tuition-generated. The remaining 15 percent came from restricted and unrestricted giving from donors and money generated from the college’s endow- ment. While Greenhill was private, students still were eli- gible for federal and state college loan programs. Greenhill had an academic scholarship program that awarded money to eligible students. Undergraduate tuition for the 2010- 2011 academic year was $26,180 and room and board as

$8,320. The typical financial aid package was more than $11,000 per student. Graduate tuition was $695 per semes- ter credit hour. The average graduate student was enrolled in six hours per semester or 12 hours per year. The annual budget of $56 million was well managed, and while it didn’t allow for all needs to be met it did satisfy most. The college currently had an endowment, which generated less than $1 million annually. During the previous two fiscal years, the endowment has lost 30 percent of its value.

Case Study Conclusion Chad believed that as a faith-based institution,

Greenhill had been called to be a good steward of its resources (Matthew 25:14-30). He wondered how this biblical mandate translated into subsequent organizational decisions he and others would be called upon to make. Stewardship of resources meant using financial resources wisely, but it also implied managing human resources, such as effectively utilizing faculty and staff. One could interpret this to mean addressing faculty performance issues. Was Greenhill putting the best faculty in the classroom? Related to this was also the tuition question. Students were facing increasing challenges of affordability. He knew of students who held several off-campus jobs just to make ends meet. Given the high cost of college, didn’t Greenhill have a responsibility to provide students with the best faculty pos- sible? Was this not a fundamental stewardship imperative? Yet perhaps the greatest struggle Chad faced was the bibli- cal principle to treat people fairly or as he would want to be treated (Matthew 7:12). “Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you” kept ringing in his ears. The question of faculty layoffs weighed heavily on Chad. The dilemma, maybe even the moral question, of laying off a longtime, loyal, decent but not excellent faculty member in order to provide students with a superior teacher in the classroom continually plagued Chad. This was not simply an economic dilemma, but also a spiritual mandate.

Chad also believed in the biblical principle that every man should be paid his due for a day’s work (Matthew 20:1-14). This led to the question of whether the unan- nounced faculty salary increase should be implemented. Christian colleges historically were behind most schools in terms of faculty salary levels. Greenhill needed to increase faculty salaries, yet Chad knew he could recapture some monies by not instituting the proposed increases. Would such action be inconsistent with the biblical principle of paying people a fair wage (Malachi 3:5)?

As provost, Chad knew Greenhill College absolutely needed to address organizational issues and direction. Yes, the immediate problem was the $2 million deficit, but

Barram — Case Study: Greenhill College

larger, more critical issues of organizational dynamics and even survival cast an invisible shadow over the quiet cam- pus. There was work to do, and Chad knew it would take the effort of a representative group of faculty, staff and administrators. He decided to appoint a blue ribbon strate- gy task force to address the issues facing Greenhill College. The biblical principle of counting the cost came to Chad’s mind (Luke 14: 28–30). The integration of this biblical principle with Greenhill’s budget management process would be an important first step for the task force.

T E A C H I N G C O N T E X T A N D R A T I O N A L E

This case study was specifically designed for and prod- uct tested in a senior-level organizational behavior course at a church-related, liberal arts university. The case study seemed to have particular appeal to senior business majors in part because of their familiarity with the organization (most had been enrolled for four years), and the issues such as tuition increases and facilities were of interest. The class was made up of accounting, finance, management, and marketing students. In this course, students learned the dynamic nature of organizations and that there are no clear cut-choices when it comes to budget, program, and human resource decisions within organizations. Robert Kreitner and Angelo Kinicki (2010) wrote that “organi- zational behavior deals with how people act and react in organizations of all kinds” (p. 5). For students in organiza- tional behavior, this case study sought to provide them the opportunity to respond to some of the difficult situations faced by organizations. Seeking to understand the impact of decision-making in an organization is one of the ulti- mate objectives of organizational behavior. This case study was designed to achieve this objective.

The case study required a significant use of class time. This called for a serious alteration of the syllabus as well as the instructor turning a good portion of the class over to the students. Initially there were questions. Would this even work? Would students take the case study seriously? Would they be accountable? How would the administra- tion respond to seniors delving into case study issues that no doubt mirrored their own institution? Even though the case study was fictitious, the similarities might have hit too close to home. Kenneth Eble (1979) said that teaching requires a “willingness to take risks,” and that “teaching is not a safe occupation, either for teacher or student” (p. 157). I take heart, if not courage, from these words.

Not only was the pedagogy risky, it also required a mindset that my teaching could improve. Weimer (1990)

suggests that faculty “continue to rely on the teaching methods they have always used – despite research docu- menting the need for students to learn actively” (p. xi). I have never tried using a lengthy case study in organization- al behavior before. Faculty must be open to taking risks in the classroom and be willing to move outside their com- fortable paradigms and look for creative and innovate ways to truly engage students, even if it is uncomfortable. The pedagogical change I was about to embark upon required both risk as well as a paradigm shift in my thinking. Utilizing this lengthy case study in class was a departure for me as a faculty member.

Would students be motivated to truly engage in the case study was another major question. Nigel Nicholson (2003) said the job of the manager in motivating employ- ees is to “create the circumstances in which their inher- ent motivation — the natural commitment and drive that most people have — is freed and channeled toward achievement goals” (p. 57). The same concept applies to the classroom. This case study, in which students were required to actually present a balanced budget by making some tough organizational decisions, was inherently moti- vating to students. They were given a significant amount of responsibility, authority, and autonomy to address the serious issues facing Greenhill College. Frederick Herzberg (2002) referred to this in the work world as job enrich- ment and vertical job loading where employees are moti- vated by intrinsic rewards (p. 1). A story that was integrat- ed with real-life management issues, at least in this case, proved to be good motivation for learning.

Another interesting result of this class is what I call the accountability factor. Could students be counted on to rise to the occasion and hold themselves accountable for their work since the teams have so much autonomy? Thomas Connellan (2003) said, “Be sure everyone understands the goal” when it comes to accountability (p. 57). Students in organizational behavior clearly knew they had to develop a balanced budget with the case study. They had to reduce the Greenhill institutional budget by more than $2 million. Connellan also said, “The message I get from people is, ‘Let me know what you want me to do, hold me account- able for getting results, and get out of the way’” (p. 77). This was precisely what happened in this class. I presented the challenge, told students they were accountable for bal- ancing Greenhill’s budget, and turned them loose. This was both freeing and frustrating for students, yet I saw them hold themselves accountable for their work product.

CBAR Spring 2011

S U G G E S T E D T E A C H I N G A P P R O A C H E S

A N D Q U E S T I O N S

The Greenhill College case study can be used in a number of business classes, including finance, accounting, business management, organizational behavior, and busi- ness ethics. There are no clear-cut choices in terms of bud- get, program, and people decisions. All will have impact on the organization. Seeking to minimize the impact and continuing to move the organization forward in a positive direction must be the ultimate objective.

This case has been classroom tested in a senior-level organizational behavior class of more than 35 undergradu- ate business and accounting majors. The class was divided into teams of six who were required to carefully read and analyze the case as if they were the administrators at Greenhill. The students were given a case study analysis guideline and were required to consult with and obtain signatures from at least three administrators at their own institution. At the end of the semester, each team made a major presentation as to their findings and ultimate deci- sions. This case was highly interactive with students vigor- ously debating the issues within and at times outside their teams.

Serious consideration should be given to how Greenhill College’s financial decision-making reflects the teachings of Scripture. A suggested teaching approach would be to include how the scriptural imperatives to treat people fairly, pay a fair wage, and to be good and faith- ful stewards of God-provided resources should impact the budget management process.

Learning Outcomes 1. Students should further develop their understanding

of systems thinking in their decision-making (Senge, 1990). The idea that organizational decisions are not made in isolation, but rather are interrelated is a crit- ical concept for students to learn in this case study.

2. Students will learn how financial and non-financial data impacts an organization’s decisions, and that it is critical to analyze and give appropriate weight to both.

3. Students will see the value and productivity of work- ing in teams and how each member has something to contribute.

4. Students will develop critical analysis and critical thinking skills and learn the value of using these to support a position.

Discussion Questions and Issues for Consideration 1. What are the critical issues and how would you effec-

tively address them?

2. How might Greenhill’s financial pressures impact organizational culture?

3. What might be some examples and ramifications of Greenhill making isolated rather than interrelated decisions in its attempt to solve the current crises? (systems thinking in organizations)

4. What might be some examples and ramifications of Greenhill making interrelated rather than isolated decisions in its attempt to solve the current crises? (systems thinking in organizations)

5. What might be the value of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Greenhill’s culture and morale?

6. How would you utilize critical thinking and analysis to address the financial and other pertinent issues facing Greenhill College?

7. How might Greenhill College’s leadership faithfully integrate the biblical principles of financial manage- ment and stewardship of God provided resources in its budgeting process and institutional decision making?

R E F E R E N C E S

Connellan, T.K. (2003). Bringing out the best in others. Austin: Brad Press.

Eble, K. E. (1976). The craft of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing.

Herzberg, F. (2002). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Cambridge: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2010). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin Publishing.

Nicholson, N. (2003). How to motivate your problem people. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.

Van De Werf, M. (2008). Financial uncertainty and the admissions class of 2008. Washington, D.C.: Chronicle Research Services.

Weiner, M. (1990). Improving college teaching. San Francisco: Josey- Bass.

Barram — Case Study: Greenhill College

42 CBAR Spring 2011

Revenues

Educational and general

Student tuition undergraduate

Student tuition graduate

Government grants

Private gifts and grants

Endowment income

Other revenues

Total educational and general revenues

Auxiliary enterprises

Total revenues

Expenditures

Educational and general

Academic instruction

Academic support

Student services

Student life

Intercollegiate athletics

Institutional support

Advancement

Contingency fund

Summer facilities projects

Auxiliary enterprises

Total expenditures

Excess (deficit) of revenues over expenditures

Appendix A: Statement of Current Fund Revenues and Expenditures

2009/2010 (ending June 30)

2010/2011 (ending June 30)

42,892,155

5,838,000

350,000

1,200,000

850,000

200,000

51,330,155

6,165,824

57,240,979

29,000,000

1,900,000

2,900,000

1,900,000

5,000,000

1,900,000

500,000

1,100,000

10,100,000

56,200,000

1,584,350

41,128,780

5,721,240

400,000

900,000

800,000

250,000

49,200, 020

6,840,000

56,040, 020

29,300,000

2,000,000

2,950,000

2,100,000

2,000,000

5,200,000

1,900,000

500,000

1,225,000

11,010,000

58,185,000

-2,144,980

43Barram — Case Study: Greenhill College

Academic Instruction

School of Liberal Arts

School of Business

School of Education

School of Science

Total

Academic Support

Library

Faculty professional growth

Academic administration

Graduation

Total

Student Services

Admissions UG

Orientation

Admissions GR

Student financial services

Registrar

Other/Admin/Assessment

Total

Student Life

Campus ministries

Dean of students

Associate dean

Orientation

Health and counseling center

Academic learning center

Security

Multicultural services

Career development center

Intramural athletics

Housing programs and services

Total

Appendix B: Greenhill College Summary of General Educational Expenses

2009/2010 (ending June 30)

2010/2011 (ending June 30)

12,192,000

5,210,000

5,361,000

6,237,000

29,000,000

1,100,000

396,000

332,000

72,000

1,900,000

1,000,000

12,000

400,000

832,000

600,000

56,000

2,900,000

125,000

316,000

168,000

78,000

256,000

192,000

278,000

77,000

197,000

186,000

27,000

1,900,000

12,200,000

5,320,000

5,443,000

6,337,000

29,300,000

1,150,000

406,000

362,000

82,000

2,000,000

1,200,000

17,000

425,000

582,000

670,000

56,000

2,950,000

155,000

326,000

188,000

98,000

276,000

202,000

298,000

97,000

207,000

206,000

47,000

2,100,000

Intercollegiate Athletics

Institutional Support

Executive management

General administration

External relations

Total

Advancement

Plant Operations

Plant administration

New construction

Building maintenance

Mechanical and electrical

Grounds

Custodial services

Utilities

Environmental /Safety

Total

Allocated across departments

Personnel Benefits

Social security

Retirement

Medical insurance

Worker’s compensation and insurance

Unemployment

Life & disability insurance

Tuition Remission

Total

Allocated across departments

Contingency Fund

Summer facilities projects

Auxiliary Enterprises

Total Educational and General Expenditures

2009/2010 (ending June 30)

2010/2011 (ending June 30)

1,900,000

2,380,000

1,800,000

820,000

5,000,000

1,900,000

510,000

175,000

910,000

780,000

495,000

853,000

975,000

2,000

4,700,000

1,350,000

1,250,000

2,300,000

175,000

5,000

127,000

1,600,000

6,807,000

500,000

1,100,000

10,100,000

56,200,000

2,000,000

2,480,000

1,900,000

820,000

5,200,000

1,900,000

520,000

225,000

940,000

795,000

515,000

870,000

995,000

2,000

4,862,000

1,400,000

1,300,000

2,500,000

195,000

4,000

130,000

1,700,000

7,229,000

500,000

1,225,000

11,010,000

58,185,000

44 CBAR Spring 2011

Housing

Revenues

Expenditures

Personnel Costs

Program costs

Total expenditures

Excess (deficit)

Food service

Revenues

Expenditures

Personnel costs

Program costs

Other costs

Total expenditures

Excess (deficit)

College bookstore

Revenues

Expenditures

Personnel costs

Program costs

Other costs

Total Expenditures

Excess (deficit)

Conferences

Revenues

Expenditures

Personnel costs

Program costs

Other costs

Total expenditures

Excess (deficit)

Total Auxiliary Enterprises

Revenues

Expenditures

Excess (deficit)

Appendix C: Auxiliary Enterprises

2009/2010 (ending June 30)

2010/2011 (ending June 30)

11,585,695

349,999

4,409,305

4,759,304

6,826,391

3,792,847

130,000

3,500,000

150,264

3,780,264

12,583

887,152

100,000

940,432

50,000

1,090,432

-203,280

289,000

225,000

20,000

470,000

-181,000

10,100,000

16,554, 695

10,100,000

6,454, 695

11,110,112

260,000

5,600,000

5,860,000

5,250,112

5,489,888

130,000

3,700,000

200,000

4,030,000

1,459,888

950,000

75,000

700,000

50,000

825,000

125,000

300,000

100,000

175,000

20,000

295,000

5,000

11,010,000

17,850,000

11,010,000

6,840,000

45Barram — Case Study: Greenhill College

Business

Nursing

Elementary Education

Psychology

Biology

Engineering

Art

Writing

Consumer Science

Accounting

Physical Education

Media Communications

Religion

Sociology

Chemistry

Mathematics

English

Computer Science

Athletic Training

Social Work

History

Spanish

Organizational Communication

Economics

International Studies

Music

Theatre

Philosophy

Total UG Enrollment

Appendix D: Undergraduate Majors as a Percentage of Undergraduate Enrollment

2009/20102010/2011

Number

225

195

135

102

101

1571

Majors 2007/20082008/2009

Percentage

13.321%

11.545%

7.993%

6.039%

5.980%

5.506%

4.204%

3.612%

3.493%

3.197%

0.030%

3.000%

3.079%

3.020%

2.842%

2.664%

1.480%

1.895%

1.717%

1.599%

1.539%

1.243%

0.829%

0.474%

0.355%

Number

215

188

130

1698

Percentage

13.633%

11.921%

8.244%

6.024%

5.390%

4.249%

3.614%

3.741%

3.488%

3.234%

3.297%

3.107%

2.410%

3.107%

3.044%

2.410%

1.966%

1.776%

1.205%

1.015%

0.571%

0.444%

0.317%

Number

210

100

120

1404

Percentage

14.957%

7.123%

8.547%

6.268%

5.556%

4.630%

3.989%

4.131%

3.561%

3.419%

3.205%

2.991%

2.493%

2.991%

3.490%

2.635%

2.137%

1.781%

1.923%

1.211%

1.353%

0.499%

0.570%

0.427%

0.356%

0.285%

Number

195

100

1293

Percentage

15.081%

6.961%

7.734%

5.027%

5.800%

5.259%

4.718%

5.027%

3.480%

3.016%

3.171%

3.094%

3.016%

2.475%

3.016%

3.635%

3.403%

2.243%

1.624%

2.088%

1.237%

1.392%

0.619%

0.387%

0.773%

0.309%

0.387%

46 CBAR Spring 2011

Business

Nursing

Elementary Education

Psychology

Biology

Engineering

Art

Writing

Consumer Science

Accounting

Physical Education

Media Communications

Religion

Sociology

Mathematics

English

Chemistry

Computer Science

Athletic Training

Social Work

History

Spanish

Organizational Communication

Economics

International Studies

Music

Theatre

Philosophy

Appendix E: Undergraduate Enrollment and Retention Data for the University and by Academic Department, Last Four Years

2009/20102010/2011

225

195

135

102

101

Majors 2007/20082008/2009

215

188

130

210

100

120

195

100

47Barram — Case Study: Greenhill College

Business

Nursing

Elementary Education

Psychology

Biology

Engineering

Art

Writing

Consumer Science

Accounting

Physical Education

Media Communications

Religion

Sociology

Mathematics

English

Chemistry

Computer Science

Athletic Training

Social Work

History

Spanish

Organizational Communication

Economics

International Studies

Music

Theatre

Philosophy

Total

Appendix F: Academic Department Full Time Equivalent Faculty

2009/20102010/2011

3.5

4.5

110

Majors 2007/20082008/2009

3.5

104

1.5

48 CBAR Spring 2011

Religion

Business

Nursing

Elementary Education

Psychology

Biology

Engineering

Art

Literature

Consumer Science

Accounting

Physical Education

Sociology

Mathematics

Writing

Chemistry

Computer Science

Athletic Training

Social Work

History

Spanish

Cinema and Media

Organizational Comm

Economics

International Studies

Music

Theatre

Philosophy

Appendix G : Academic Department Full Time Equivalent Faculty

Majors 5 year change %2010/2011

5600

3200

1700

1400

2888

2584

1150

2200

2088

1350

1227

703

2056

2210

1523

1822

449

1573

577

2400

837

748

1914

1160

200

1863

679

843

30%

58%

N/A

-59%

35%

18%

102%

29%

10%

67%

62%

-63%

25%

43%

37%

18%

-34%

65%

45%

24%

162%

38%

37%

-41%

45%

-9%

49Barram — Case Study: Greenhill College

Appendix H: Greenhill College Organizational Chart

Board of Trustees

President

VP Finance

Associate Director Finance

Director of Physical Plant

Institutional Technology

Human Resources

Security

Provost

Associate Provost

Faculty Development

College Deans

Athletics

Library

Registrar

Financial Aid

Admissions

Student Financial

VP Advancement

Development

University Relations

VP Student Life

Residence Life

Food Service

Campus Ministries

Health and Counseling

Academic Resource Center

Student Leadership

VP Communication

Public Relations

Marketing