The Ware College House Virtual U. Competition:

Introducing Virtual U. to Penn Undergraduates

 

During Spring 2001 semester, the Institute for Research on Higher Education (IRHE) introduced Virtual U. (VU) to Penn undergraduates by setting up a competition to see who could run the best simulated university.  We focused on Ware College House, one of twelve residential colleges at Penn, where J. Douglas Toma, senior fellow at IRHE, is faculty fellow.  Patricia Louison, the graduate assistant assigned to the VU project at IRHE, worked directly with the students participating, introducing the game and making herself available to answer technical and practical questions.

 

Ten teams of Ware students participated in the competition, working in groups of two or three.  Our strategy was to attract interest and participation through disseminating information about VU and the contest broadly, appealing to the competitive instincts of the students, and offering them attractive prizes for winning or coming in second place.  First prize was travel vouchers from USAirways and second prize was a gift certificate to a local restaurant.  A recent survey at Ware indicated that these are types of prizes preferred by students.

 

The students worked with VU on computers in the Ware College House lab using CDs borrowed from IRHE.  We provided the students with a scenario generated from running two years of VU with variables set to approximate the University of Pennsylvania as closely as possible.  Teams then chose a set of initiatives to accomplish over a seven-year period, playing the game accordingly.  For instance, they might choose as an overall goal to grow the enrollment of their institution by 15 percent over a five-year period without compromising its academic ranking.  Teams had approximately two weeks to build their model.  (Appendix A outlines the rules and guidelines for the contest.)

 

We invited the two best teams, as judged by Doug and Patricia, to make presentations on their simulations.  We framed the presentations as reports to a “board of trustees” highlighting evidence of what the respective teams did to accomplish the goals that they set for themselves (and that the trustees set for them during the course of the game).  Each presentation took approximately 45 minutes.  Ware College House donated food and drinks for the meeting.

 

The winning team of Patrick Hanberry and Finlay Mungall, both freshmen at the Wharton School, demonstrated truly remarkable mastery of VU, advancing several initiatives at “Ware University,” most of them focused on creating a better experience for students.  These included: achieving an actual tuition increase rate of zero percent by year nine; enhancing faculty and student diversity; improving student, faculty, and alumni morale; lowering class size; and increasing spending on student life.  The team had no “needs work” items from the trustees by year nine, fixing each one, year by year, as they came up.  The one sacrifice they made in the interest of these initiatives was in athletic performance, which declined somewhat.  (See Appendix B for a summary of the moves made by the winning team and Appendix C for a comparison of their outcomes over nine years to an average nine-year run.)

 

The second place team, comprised on three graduate assistants at Ware (two of whom were Rhodes Scholars), performed impressively, but did not match (or even approach) the winning team either in outcomes generated or in their presentation.

 

The project proved to be a successful pilot.  Several students engaged with the game to some degree – and a small number spent considerable time with it.  The potential exists to engage the entire Penn student community in a similar competition.

Appendix A

 

Competition Rules and Guidelines

 

VIRTUAL U COMPETITION RULES

 

Final Presentations:  MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2001, 7-9 p.m.

 

Logistics

 

You will need to form a team of at least two people, though three is the optimum size.  The Virtual U software package has been loaded onto the computers next to Bodine Lounge.   However, you will need to obtain the CD-ROM from the computer consultant on duty.  There will be a shortcut on the desktop in the shape of a “V.”  Use this to begin the program.  Choose to “load a saved game” and pick “University of Pennsylvania” from the menu.

 

Guidelines

 

You have inherited an institutional setting – one which approximates the University of Pennsylvania as closely as possible.  The initiative or initiatives that you undertake at your virtual university are wholly up to you.  For instance, you might choose as a goal to grow the enrollment of your institution by 15 percent over a five-year period, without compromising its high ranking.  What matters is how realistically you define the goals that you set and approach the problems you encounter – and then how skillfully you report these in your case, discuss them in your accompanying commentary, and provide evidence to support your decisions via the technical appendices.

 

Feel free to play around with the simulation as much as possible.  It is recommended that you use the saved game as a starting point for each trial run.  Once you are comfortable with the game and how it works, begin playing and remember to save often.  (Note:  Do not save as “University of Pennsylvania” unless you want to overwrite the original game).  Be sure that you run their game for at least seven years.  Keep a journal of all key actions, decisions, and strategies.

 

Save your finished product for your presentation to our panel of experts.  You will have 15 minutes to report on what you did and why you did it.  Some elements you may wish to include are:

 

·         The setting and key factors

·         What precipitated the need for a decision or set of decisions

·         The options available to you as a decision maker

·         What you decided to do

·         The immediate and lasting impact of these decisions

 

Complexity is important.  You will want to introduce as many variables into the simulated case to approximate reality as much as possible.

 

GO TO IT AND HAVE FUN!

 

As with any software package there are some minor imperfections.  To correct them, go to: http://www.virtual-u.org and download the available patch.  For tutorials and the on-line product manual, visit: http://www.virtual-u.org/documentation/manual.html.  If you are having difficulty reading the manual on the screen, try changing the font size of your browser.

 

If you have any further questions, contact Patricia Louison.  You may also set up appointments Monday through Thursday, 7 – 10 p.m.  in this manner.

Appendix B

 

Ware University, 9-Year Run Decisions

Patrick Hanberry and Finlay Mungall

 

Year 1 (2003-2004):

Goals: Endowment Smoothing, Real Tuition Growth Rate, Faculty Diversity, Student Diversity, Selectivity, Yield Rate, Institutional Prestige, Alumni Giving, Faculty Incentives, and Long Term Faculty Research.

 

·         Implemented 3 Year Endowment Smoothing

·         Budgeted Real Tuition Target Growth Rate as a Priority 3,1% growth target.

·         Set “New Blood,” “Minority,” and “Female” as high priorities hiring.

·         Offered Early Retirement to poorly teaching and poorly researching faculty.

·         Offered increased financial aid and admission preference to minority students.

·         Budgeted 2% Restricted target growth rate for alumni affairs office.

·         Highly linked faculty promotion to high caliber teaching and research.

·         Budgeted 1.5% increases in both faculty and staff salaries.

·         Began attempts to improve and invigorate beleaguered athletics department!

 

Year 2 (2004-2005):

Goals: Real Tuition Growth Rate, Faculty Diversity, Alumni Giving, Institutional Prestige, and “Scholarship Broadly Defined” & Student Morale Assaults!

 

·         Budgeted Real Tuition Target Growth Rate as a Priority 3, 0.8% growth target.

·         Continued faculty hiring policies & offered early retirement to poor faculty.

·         Continued 2% Restricted target growth rate for alumni affairs.

·         Assaults occur on campus!  Student moral plummets 20%+!

·         Major initiative to increase student morale by increasing time faculty spent out of class with students, increasing student life budget 1.5%, increase number of undergraduate accommodated in on-campus housing.

·         Downgraded faculty time spent on public service to compensate for additional time spent with students.

·         Increased amount of alumni gifts spent on current use to pay for budget increases; downgraded amount of gifts spent on the endowment.

 

Year 3 (2005-2006):

Goals: Real Tuition Growth Rate, Faculty Diversity, Alumni Giving, Degrees Conferred, “Scholarship Broadly Defined,” and Student Morale.

 

·         Budgeted Real Tuition Target Growth Rate as a Priority 3, 0.6% growth target.

·         Continued faculty hiring policies & offering of early retirement options.

·         Continued 2% Restricted target growth rate for alumni affairs.

·         Forced to decrease amount of time faculty spent on research to increase time spent teaching to decrease average time to degree.

·         Worked to decrease class size by hiring more faculty to poor departments.

·         Continued aggressive work towards student morale – minimal results.

 

Year 4 (2006-2007):

Goals: Real Tuition Growth Rate, Faculty Diversity, Alumni Giving, and Student Morale.

 

·         Budgeted Real Tuition Target Growth Rate as a Priority 3, 0.5% growth target.

·         Continued faculty hiring policies & offering of early retirement options.

·         Continued 2% Restricted target growth rate for alumni affairs.

·         Increased teaching load of faculty; increased faculty salaries to compensate.

·         Aggressive campaign to increase student morale shows small results.

 

Year 5 (2007-2008):

Goals: Real Tuition Growth Rate, Faculty Diversity, Student Diversity, and Student Morale.

 

·         Budgeted Real Tuition Target Growth Rate as a Priority 3, 0.4% growth target.

·         Continued faculty hiring policies & offering of early retirement options.

·         Downgraded alumni affairs to 1.5%, Priority 3 growth target rate.

·         Continued aggressive selection of minority students & financial aid.

·         Increased faculty time with students spent out of class almost to maximum.

·         Increased budget for office of student life.  Still marginal results.

 

Year 6 (2008-2009):

Goals: Real Tuition Growth Rate, Faculty Diversity, Student Diversity, and Student Morale.

 

·         Budgeted Real Tuition Target Growth Rate as a Priority 3, 0.3% growth target.

·         Continued faculty hiring policies & offering of early retirement options.

·         Downgraded alumni affairs to 1.0%, Priority 3 growth target rate.

·         Continued aggressive selection of minority students & financial aid.

·         Not afford to increase time spent out of class, increased student life budget.

 

Year 7 (2009-2010):

Goals: Real Tuition Growth Rate, Faculty Diversity, and Student Morale.

 

·         Budgeted Real Tuition Target Growth Rate as a Priority 3, 0.2% growth target.

·         Continued faculty hiring policies & offering of early retirement options.

·         Downgraded alumni affairs to 1.0%, Priority 2 growth target rate.

·         Continued aggressive selection of minority students & financial aid.

·         Student morale still un-recovered from assaults, increased student life budget.

·         Attempts to resuscitate athletics team still in progress – fingers in dam.

 

Year 8 (2010-2011):

Goals: Real Tuition Growth Rate, Faculty Diversity, and Student Morale.

 

·         Budgeted Real Tuition Target Growth Rate as a Priority 3, 0.1% growth target.

·         Continued faculty hiring policies & offering of early retirement options.

·         Continued alumni affairs 1.0%, Priority 2 growth target.

·         Continued aggressive selection of minority students & financial aid.

·         Increased student life budget to maximum possible.  Almost recovered.

 

Year 9 (2011-2012) [Final Year]:

Goals: Student Morale.

 

·         Real Tuition Actual Growth Rate of 0%!!

·         Continued faculty hiring policies and offering of early retirement options.

·         Slightly increased alumni affairs budget to ensure continued funding.

·         Continued aggressive selection of minority students & financial aid.

·         At long last, student morale very slowly on the rise.

·         Gave up on athletics team!

 

 

Appendix C

 

Ware University 9-Year Comparison with Average Run

 

Patrick Hanberry and Finlay Mungall

 

 

	Performance Indicator	Patrick/Finlay Team	Avg. 9 Year Run
1	Real Tuition Growth Rate	0%	4.9%
2	Real Tuition Range (y3-y9)	$18,360 – $18,360	$17,908 – $23,878
3	Ending Trustee Evaluation	73	50
4	End “Score”	279	50
5	End “Rank”	11 of 12	Below all rankings
6	End Trustee “Needs Work” Items	0 Items	4 Items
7	Minority Male Students	20.0%	3.0%
8	Minority Female Students	10.0%	5.0%
9	Minority Male Faculty	7.0%	3.0%
10	Minority Female Faculty	11.0%	6.0%
11	Student Diversity Chg. 1y-9y	32.4%	(43.1%)
12	Faculty Diversity Chg. 1y-9y	34.8%	1.0%
13	Fac. Div. Index Min. by dept.	26	5
14	Student Morale	50.0%	41.0%
15	Student Morale Chg. 1y-9y	(9.4%)	(18.2%)
16	Faculty Morale	60.0%	50.0%
17	Faculty Morale Chg. 1y-9y	15.9%	6.6%
18	Staff Morale Chg. 1y-9y	3.0%	(32.0%)
19	Alumni Morale	49.0%	38.0%
20	Alumni who donated last 5y	38.6%	26.2%
21	Undergraduate Admit Rate	16.0%	18.0%
22	Undergraduate Yield	65.0%	64.0%
23	Average Class Size	17 Students	32 Students
24	Student Life Spend/Student	$23	$17
25	Students living in res. halls	72.0%	61.0%
26	End Neg. Budget Items	0	3
27	Endowment Surplus % expen.	40.7%	40.7%
28	Smoothed Surplus % expen.	40.3%	40.7%
29	Endowment Payout Rel. Rate	17.9%	(81.6%)
30	Athletic Performance	Very Poor	Poor

 

 

Using Virtual U. in Graduate Level Teaching at Penn:

Case Studies in Higher Education Management (Spring, 2001)

 

Virtual U. (VU) provided to be a popular and valuable addition to the course on case studies in higher education management, taught in Spring 2001 by J. Douglas Toma, a visiting faculty member in higher education management at the Penn Graduate School of Education.  The course typically enrolls a mix of master’s and doctoral students.  It centers on the need to assess various (and often conflicting) options, as well as make hard decisions to resolve difficult situations at a variety of higher education institution types and in several different areas of administration: student affairs, admissions, external relations, governance, finance, labor relations and personnel, and academic affairs. 

 

As the course project, students, working in small teams, developed cases centering on organizational change at a virtual university or college of their own creation.  Patricia Louison, the graduate assistant assigned to the course, introduced VU to the class with a presentation early in the semester and was available to answer technical and practical questions throughout their semester.

 

Students presented their work to the class on April 25 and May 2, 2001. 

 

The assignment from the course syllabus follows:

 

Virtual U. Case and Commentary

 

Working in teams of two or three, your assignment is to use Virtual U. to simulate a case centering on organizational change at the virtual college or university you construct, which you will then write up as both case and commentary (with technical appendices) and present to the class.

 

The institutional setting that you choose, conditions that you inherit, and initiative or initiatives that you undertake are wholly up to you.  What matters is how realistically you define the goals that you set and approach the problems you encounter – and then how skillfully you report these in your case, discuss them in your accompanying commentary, and provide evidence to support your decisions via the technical appendices.

 

A challenge in writing the case is t