Task Force on Student Educational Capacity OPEN FORUM – November 18, 2010

1. enrollment.mst.edu Task Force on Student Educational Capacity OPEN FORUM – November 18, 2010 Founded 1870 | Rolla, Missouri

2. Task Force Charge • Assess whether the fall 2009 student population was at, below, or above the university’s capacity to provide each student with a quality education.

3. 2009-10 TASK FORCE MEMBERS • Venkat Allada – Vice Provost for Graduate Studies • SN Balakrishnan – Professor of Aerospace Engineering • Margaret Cline – Chief Information Officer • Caroline Fisher – Professor and Department Chair of Business and Information Technology • Samuel Frimpong – Robert H. Quenon Chair of Mining Engineering • Jay Goff – Vice Provost and Dean for Enrollment Management, Task Force Chair • Larry Gragg – Curators Teaching Professor of History and Department Chair • Leon Hall – Professor and Department Chair of Math and Director of Institute for Applied Mathematics • Carol Heddinghaus – Director of Budget Office • Thulasi Kumar – Director of Institutional Research • Rance Larsen – Director of Admission • F. Scott Miller – Associate Teaching Professor and Director of Advanced Materials Character • Rachel Morris – Enrollment Management Data and Technology Coordinator • Steve Raper – Associate Professor of Engineering Management • Stephanie Rostad – President of Student Council • Ted Ruth – Assistant Director of Physical Facilities • Debra Schatz – Assistant Director of Admissions for Transfer Students • Robert Schwartz – Vice Provost for Academic Affairs • Tina Sheppard – Director of Residential Life • Brad Starbuck – Enrollment Management Communications Specialist • Shannon Stites – Enrollment Management Administrative Assistant, Task Force Secretary • Laura Stoll – Registrar • Jennifer Thorpe – Assistant Registrar • Philip Whitefield – Professor and Department Chair of Chemistry • Henry Wiebe – Vice Provost for Global Learning • W. Kent Wray – Provost, Ex-Officio Member

4. Forum Agenda • Review Task Force charge and membership • Overview of Task Force reports: • General Observations • Capacity Definitions, Key Factors & Assessments • Sub-committee Findings • Chair Reports • Overall Conclusion & Recommendations • Open Discussion

5. Enrollment Update

6. Total Enrollment Fall 2000 - 201056% Enrollment Growth: 2,580 Additional Students

7. Enrollment Records • 1702 Graduate Students • 1610 Female Students • 960 International Students • 560 Under-Represented Minority Students

8. Fall 2010 Enrollment Stats TOTAL Enrollment 7,206 • Undergraduate students 5,504 • Graduate students 1,702 • New freshman class* 1,170 • New transfer class 388 • Average class size 28.6 • Average lab size 18.2 *Freshman Engineering Class Capped in June

9. Total Enrollment 2000-2010

10. Managing Capacity Fall 1981 Total Students: 7,480 On-campus: 7,039 Distance/EEC: 441 Undergraduate: 6,313 Freshmen: 1,488 Graduate: 1,167 Fall 2010 Total Students: 7,206 On-campus: 6,520 Distance/EEC: 686 Undergraduate: 5,504 Freshmen: 1,170 Graduate: 1,702 Fall 2000 Total Students: 4,626 On-campus: 4,393 Distance/EEC: 233 Undergraduate: 3,698 Freshmen: 696 Graduate: 928

11. 2010 ASEE Rankings 19th in Nation for Largest Undergraduate Engineering Enrollment 17th in Nation for Number of Engineering Degrees Granted to African-Americans 19th in Nation for Number of BS Engineering Degrees Granted

12. Students’ Home States Fall 2010 43 3 4 2 8 3 2 20 4 17 22 20 4 2 20 4 29 22 36 4 34 12 3 459 4 28 29 3 1 DC 41 4,901 128 12 20 12 18 19 56 54 Total Enrollment • 48 states & 51 nations • 70% Missouri residents • 10% minority students • 9% international students 5 7 7 16 25 125 8 6 24 1 Unofficial data until after 4th week census

13. Enrollment Diversity

14. Retention and Graduate Rates1988 - Present

15. Classroom Utilization, Fall 2010

16. Observations • Most S&T constituents recognize the university’s resources have been significantly stretched over the past decade by large growth in student enrollments and the mission-driven need to increase research levels. • These accomplishments were purposeful and a key focus of the university’s strategic plan.

17. Observations • The growth has established new institutional records for faculty scholarship, the transfer of new knowledge to industry, and the quality, success and diversity of the student body, while stabilizing the university’s budget. • During this same period, the state has reduced institutional funding and implemented tuition restraints.

18. Observations • The Task Force recognizes that quality instruction and course access issues are developing largely due to the lack of funding available for: • replacing departed faculty • expanding and maintaining academic facilities • growing compliance and need-based financial aid requirements • developing alternative instructional delivery methods

19. Defining Capacity • Educational capacity is a complex management issue and incorporates many variables for a residential research university. • Capacity ultimately is a planning and quality assurance concept. • Generally defined: • “Educational capacity is the university’s ability to receive, enroll, house, feed, and properly educate students in an appropriate time period.”

20. Key Factors in Determining Capacity • Quality Teaching and Learning • Enrollment and Research Growth • Teaching Loads & Instructional Faculty Numbers • Instructional and Laboratory Space • Student Financial Assistance Resources • Student and Campus Support Resources • Housing, Dining and Parking Volume

21. 2004 Capacity Assessment • Established set of short-term strategic enrollment goals and quality student profiles for both undergraduate and graduate populations • Objectives: • achieve optimum enrollments by filling excess capacity • focus on achieving quality learning outcomes • minimize the average costs per student

22. 2009 Capacity Assessment • Due to the 2004 enrollment goals being exceeded in fall 2009 (45% increase over 1999) and some departments struggling to meet instructional needs of larger enrollments and increased research levels, capacity must be assessed in terms of the sum of many crucial factors. • Capacity could not be based exclusively upon the percentage of occupied seats in classrooms, beds in residence halls or spaces in campus parking lots.

23. Capacity Assessments by Unit Leaders • The 2009-10 Task Force had to employ a myriad of definitions and datasets to determine capacity. • Due to the complexity of the issue, each department chair and unit director was asked to assess the capacity of their departments.

24. 2009-01 Capacity Sub-committees • Campus housing, dining and parking • Chair: Tina Sheppard • Student financial aid and scholarships • Chair: Rance Larsen • Campus and student support services • Chair: Margaret Cline • Faculty and academic instructional space • Chair: Larry Gragg

25. Campus housing, dining and parking Chair: Tina Sheppard

26. Housing, Dining, and Parking Committee • Patti Frisbee • Rachel Morris • Ted Ruth • Debbie Schatz • Tina Sheppard • Jay Goff

27. Available Residence Hall Beds

28. Housing Benchmarks & Data Points Housing occupancy • Capacity post renovation is 1773. This is above the highest occupancy seen by Residential Life. Fall occupancy counts • Because Organizational Housing (Greek Life and CCH) is not required to accept a minimum number of students, for the purposes of capacity we are reporting only residence hall numbers. First Week Fourth Week Fall 2009 1689 1643 Fall 2008 1724 1647 Convenient location • Based on walking distance, the subcommittee has determined current locations are convenient to residential students. All locations are no more than a 15 minute walk from the farthest extreme of campus

29. Housing Recommendations • Current residence hall housing needs are being met. • Additional beds are needed only as replacement for existing beds. • Current campus population cannot be supported without the 400 beds that will be lost when the Quad is taken off line. • How the beds are replaced (traditional residence hall beds or apartment units) is a question to be addressed by the Residential Life & Campus Master Plans.

30. Dining Benchmarks & Data Points Seating and Design Capacity • Thomas Jefferson design capacity - 366 • Rayl (Quad) design capacity - 307 • Havener design capacity - 456 Number of Diners • Lunch meals have the greatest participation numbers. Service (Convenient dining locations and quality of food) • Based on walking distance (Chart 1), current locations are convenient to diners. • Based on data from two surveys, most diners rate quality at or above average.

31. Campus Cafeteria Dining Capacity *includes all meals served at the Havener Food Court, Coyote Jacks Grill and Einstein’s Bagels

32. Chart 1 - Walking Distance to Dining

33. Dining Observations & Considerations • The campus’s overall dining capacity is about 1130 seats with about 1180 to 1340 patrons served per meal. • The Rayl Cafeteria’s physical infrastructure is in very poor condition and likely needs to be replaced before 2015. • Future students are more likely to be residential and more will be from low income families. • Havener capacity is exceeded Monday and Wednesdays, 11:50 a.m. – 12:20 p.m. during the common lunch hour. See Chart 2.

34. Chart 2 – Havener Lunch Usage

35. Dining Recommendations • Replacing Rayl cafeteria will be critical in the next three – five years. The current campus population cannot be supported without the 307 seats that will be lost when Rayl is taken off line. • Resist expanding the food court style dining options in the future as both low income and male students tend to prefer the traditional cafeteria all you care to eat dining option. • Should the academic free hour be removed, dining capacity concerns in Havener would be eliminated.

36. Parking Benchmarks & Data Points • Availability of parking in desired locations • Number of parking spaces available – 2330 • Number of parking spaces assigned

37. Parking Observations/Considerations • The dashboard usage reports indicate the campus’s overall parking capacity is about 2330 • Upon investigation by committee, we learned no data points existing to direct a recommendation to this task force.

38. Parking Recommendations • New Police Chief and Parking Committee investigate the parking issues and deliver data points on • Availability of parking in desired locations • Number of parking spaces available • Number of parking spaces assigned • Continue to develop parking spaces to replace any parking removed

39. Student financial aid and scholarships Chair: Rance Larsen

40. Scholarships and Financial Aid Sub Committee • Carol M. Heddinghaus – Director of Budget Plan • Bradley Keith Starbuck – Enrollment Management • Dr. Phil D. Whitefield – Professor, Chemistry • Dr. Stephen A. Raper - Assoc. Professor, Engineering Mgt. & Sys. Engr. • Dr. S. N. Balakrishnan - Professor, Mechanical & Aerospace Engr. • Rance E. Larsen - Director of Admission • Lynn K. Stichnote - Director, Student Financial Assistance • Cindy Barton, (Admissions Office)

41. 25% Increase Undergraduate Financial Aid Requests 2007-2010

42. Scholarships and Financial Aid Committee • With current enrollment goals and changes to the federal and state student assistance programs, the level of financial aid resources at Missouri S&T is at or above capacity to meet campus strategic plan goals.

43. “Capacity” in terms of financial assistance is difficult to define. • Given currently‐available G.O. & endowment funds, S&T is at an equilibrium point in its ability to attract desired number of students at preferred quality while meeting our land‐grant mission. • The subcommittee agreed, however, that being “at capacity” means S&T has no reserve capacity and is at risk of deterioration in student quality and/or decreased enrollments.

44. Benchmarks

45. Quality Benchmarks A. Students’ ability to pay the cost of attendance as indicated by average unmet need. Average unmet need 2009‐10: Graduate: $7,011 Undergraduate: $4,431 B. Ratio of SFA staff per student compared to other UM campuses 2009‐10: 1 staff per every 850 students. Projected increase in total number of Pell‐Grant eligible students per campus strategic plan. C. Percentage of gross need of undergraduate FAFSA filers that is met by institutional scholarships. 2009‐10: 48.5%

46. Quality Benchmarks (cont.) D. Percentage of institutional merit‐based aid that goes to meet unmet need. 43% ($4,700,172) AY2009-10 E. Total GO funds supporting institutional aid 2009‐10: $17M ($11.5 M undergrad, $5.5 M graduate) Conclusion changes to “above capacity” if these funds were reduced and not replaced by a non‐GO source. F. Availability of financial aid to attract high‐quality graduate students. See “Stipend X” Task Force Report

47. Campus and student support services Chair: Margaret Cline

48. STAFFING FOR CAMPUS AND STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES • Assessing the staffing and support resources based on agreed upon benchmarks proved to be difficult. • Each unit’s self-assessments indicated that most service areas are lightly staffed and struggling to balance the resources allocated.

49. Condensed Staffing Survey ScorecardTable 10

50. Faculty & academic instructional space Chair: Larry Gragg