Framework for Excellence

Presentation to the Faculty Senate

December 2, 2010

2

Vision

“We aspire to be among the very best public research universities in the country. We aspire, specifically, to match the excellence of the public universities that are members of the prestigious Association of American Universities (AAU).”

3

Selected Numerical Goals in the Framework for Excellence

Increase faculty compensation at all ranks to the average of our national peers; eventually increase to average of peers in the Northeast

Increase the size of the tenure-stream faculty to 1,200 by 2020

Double federal research awards (up from $80 million in 2008)

Increase post-doctoral appointments by 50% (up from 178 in 2008)

Increase doctorates awarded to 375/year (30% increase from 2007-2008)

4

Goals (continued)

Increase full-time undergraduate enrollment to 22,500 by 2020 (up from approx. 20,800 in 2009)

Maintain number of in-state undergraduate students at approx. 16,000

Increase number of out-of-state undergraduate students to 6,500 (+2,500)

Increase the number of graduate students in Ph.D. programs to boost doctorates awarded by 30%

5

Three Final Goals

Double the university’s Annual Fund Double the university’s endowment Improve funding we receive from state

government

6

Faculty Input into the Framework

First draft shared with Faculty Senate Rules Committee and with the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Oversight

Key consultation expected to take place as units develop their strategic plans: “This document is not a detailed action plan but anticipates that all campus units will develop their own plans, in whatever format may be appropriate for them, to meet the high-level targets contained here.”

7

What Will We Have to Do to Match the Excellence of the Public Universities that are Members of the

AAU?

8

Characteristics of the Last Eight Public Universities to be Admitted to the AAU

Federal Research Expenditures (2007, in millions)

Georgia Tech $260,230UC Davis $256,994TAMU $228,363UCI $169,912Buffalo $148,989Rutgers $125,364UCSB $111,848Stony Brook $111,241UMASS $71,974Source for this and following slides: “2009 Top American

Research Universities Report,” Center for Measuring University Performance

9

National Academy Members (2008)

UCSB 52UCI 35Rutgers 35UCD 32GT 28TAMU 22SB 10UMASS 9Buffalo 6

10

Faculty Awards (2008)

UCI 25Rutgers 21UCD 17TAMU 17UMASS 14Buffalo 12GT 11UCSB 8SB 7

11

Doctorates Awarded (2008)

TAMU 594UCD 500GT 467Rutgers 431SB 408Buffalo 373UCI 370UCSB 346UMASS 291

12

Postdoctoral Appointments (2008)

UCD 670Buffalo 316UCI 287TAMU 255Rutgers 185UMASS 178 UCSB 162SB 114

13

Other Useful Comparisons Enrollment (UG/Grad)TAMU 38,809/9,893Rutgers 29,095/8,271UCD 24,626/6,621UCI 22,226/4,916UMASS20,873/6,143UCSB 19,796/3,054Buffalo 19,368/9,513SB 16,384/8,297GT 13,515/6,776Source: IPEDS, Fall 2009 Enrollment

14

% Classes Enrolling 50 or More (2009)

UCD 25%GT 24%SB 23%TAMU 22%UCI 20%Buffalo 20%Rutgers 19%UCSB 18%UMASS 18%Source for this and following slides: U.S. News and

World Report, “2010 Best Colleges: the Rankings”

15

Student/Faculty Ratio (2009)

GT 20/1UCI 19/1SB 19/1TAMU 18/1UMASS 18/1UCSB 17/1Buffalo 16/1UCD 16/1Rutgers 14/1

16

USNWR Ranking

GT 35 UCD 39 UCSB 39 UCI 41 TAMU63 Rutgers 64 SB 99 UMass 99 Buffalo Not ranked in top 100

17

Final Thoughts

Many, many more important programmatic goals are presented in the Framework (government relations, diversity, student affairs, etc.)

Current public university members of the AAU are not going to pause to allow us to catch up

Conversely, AAU public universities have suffered differently during the recession, and this may give us a boost in approaching their numbers

Three versions of the Framework (Narrative, Executive Summary, Vision/Mission/Goals) are on the web (A-Z index under “Framework” or “Strategic Plan”)