1 / 101

AUBURN UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC PLANNING SITUATION ASSESSMENT October 2006

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION. AUBURN UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC PLANNING SITUATION ASSESSMENT October 2006. Messina & Graham. Contents. I. Overview of Strategy-Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

isolde
Download Presentation

AUBURN UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC PLANNING SITUATION ASSESSMENT October 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AUBURN UNIVERSITYSTRATEGIC PLANNINGSITUATION ASSESSMENTOctober 2006 Messina & Graham

  2. Contents • I. Overview of Strategy-Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 • II. Profile of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 • • Summary Slides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 • • Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 • Auburn University (AU) • • Profile • Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 • Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 • Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 • Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 • • Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, • Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT” Assessment) . . . 113 • • Strategic Challenges and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Messina & Graham 2

  3. Contents (Continued) • IV. Auburn University Montgomery (AUM) • • Comparison of Auburn University and AUM . . . . . . . . . 125 • • Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 • • Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, • Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT” Assessment) . . . .151 • • Strategic Challenges and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 • V. Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159 • Appendices • • Auburn University Strategic Planning – Profile of the • Environment, July 2006 (separately bound) • • Ranking Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161 • • Selected Information Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164 Messina & Graham 3

  4. I. Overview of Strategy-Development Process 1. SITUATION ASSESSMENT 2. OPTION GENERATION 3. OPTION EVALUATION 4. STRATEGY SELECTION 5. EXECUTION • Candidate • strategic • objectives • and directions • Rationale for • each option • Detailed • assessment • of each option • Comparison of • options • Rationale • Full description, • including goals • and action • initiatives • Profiling the • environment • Profiling Auburn • - Main campus • - AUM • Identifying • strategic • challenges and • implications • Implementation • plan, responsibility • assignments • Progress measures, • review milestones • Adjustments and • adaptation Messina & Graham 4

  5. Key Elements of a Strategy • Special attributes and their sources • Differentiation that confers relative advantage • Consistent with vision and mission DISTINCTIVENESS • Choices about allocating scarce resources • Fact-based decision-making • Coherent set of initiatives RESOURCE COMMITMENTS • Implementation plans, responsibility assignments • Progress measures, review milestones • Adjustments and adaptation EXECUTION Messina & Graham 5

  6. II. Profile of the Environment • • Summary Slides • - Pervasive Trends • - Forces Affecting Higher Education • • Implications • - For all universities • - For AU (Illustrative) Messina & Graham 6

  7. Summary FORCES AFFECTING HIGHER EDUCATION PERVASIVE TRENDS • Enrollment Growth • Affordability Challenge • Demands for Quality • Improvement • Efficiency Imperative • Diverse Perspectives on the • University in the Twenty- • First Century • Globalization • Information Revolution • Natural-Resource Demands • and Environmental Strain • Aging Populations and • Increasing Minorities Messina & Graham 7

  8. Pervasive Trends • Transforming worldwide commerce and • employment • Generating global competition for knowledge work GLOBALIZATION • Information technology, telecommunications, • connectivity • Dramatic and ubiquitous impacts INFORMATION REVOLUTION • Demand increasing because of global economic • and population growth • Environment under strain NATURAL RESOURCES • Aging populations in developed countries • Rapid rise in U.S. minorities, especially • Hispanics DEMOGRAPHICS Messina & Graham 8

  9. Implications of Pervasive Trends for Universities • Ensuring competitiveness of graduates • Increasing students’ international awareness GLOBALIZATION • Multiple challenges and opportunities in • teaching and learning, research, extension, • and administration and operations INFORMATION REVOLUTION • Teaching and learning, research, extension and • operations opportunities • Examples: alternative energy sources, • conservation, agricultural technologies NATURAL RESOURCES • Enriching lifelong learning • Embracing greater diversity DEMOGRAPHICS Messina & Graham 9

  10. Implications of Higher-Education Trends for Universities • Focusing on enrollment objectives ENROLLMENT GROWTH • Ensuring diverse access AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGE • Innovating and experimenting with new curricula • and teaching approaches • Measuring performance in learning and teaching QUALITY IMPROVEMENT • Implementing proven business practices to • reduce cost growth EFFICIENCY IMPERATIVE • Re-examining vision and mission • Redesigning business model to adapt to • dramatic change 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY Messina & Graham 10

  11. Implications for Auburn University Pervasive Trends ILLUSTRATIVE TREND / IMPLICATIONS POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE • Raise performance expectations for students and • measure results • Develop new approaches to undergraduate education • Increase international course and language skills • offerings and requirements GLOBALIZATION • Competitiveness of • graduates • Students’ international • awareness INFORMATION REVOLUTION • Ensure implementation of technologies that enable • cost and quality improvements • Challenges and • opportunities across • the enterprise Messina & Graham 11

  12. Implications for Auburn University Pervasive Trends ILLUSTRATIVE TREND / IMPLICATIONS POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE • Advance teaching and research in alternative energy • sources, conservation, agricultural technologies • Promote energy-efficient building design and operations NATURAL RESOURCES • Opportunities across • the enterprise DEMOGRAPHICS • Explore distance learning for specific markets • (e.g., alumni, seniors) • Prepare for challenges resulting from growth in Hispanic • students • Enriching lifelong • learning • Embracing greater • diversity Messina & Graham 12

  13. Implications for Auburn University Forces Affecting Higher Education ILLUSTRATIVE TREND / IMPLICATIONS POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE ENROLLMENT GROWTH • Strengthen image of value to compensate for possible • reduction in applicant pool • Focusing on enrollment • objectives AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGE • Constrain expense growth through improving efficiency • and applying technology • Increase resources available for need-based aid • Ensuring diverse • access Messina & Graham 13

  14. Implications for Auburn University Forces Affecting Higher Education ILLUSTRATIVE POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE TREND / IMPLICATIONS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT • Raise performance expectations for students • Innovate and experiment with new teaching approaches, • including beyond the classroom • Focus on learning objectives and measure results • Developing innovative • teaching and learning • approaches • Measuring performance • in learning and • teaching Messina & Graham 14

  15. Implications for Auburn University Forces Affecting Higher Education ILLUSTRATIVE POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE TREND / IMPLICATIONS EFFICIENCY IMPERATIVE • Perform a comprehensive review of cost elements and • processes • Implement focused technology solutions that reduce or • contain costs • Examine approaches to help enable the faculty to become • more productive in their teaching and research activities • Implementing proven • business practices to • reduce cost growth Messina & Graham 15

  16. Implications for Auburn University Forces Affecting Higher Education ILLUSTRATIVE POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE TREND / IMPLICATIONS 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY • As a key building block for creating a twenty-first • century vision for Auburn, perform an assessment of • the University’s strengths and weaknesses, and profile • the opportunities and threats it faces (“SWOT” • assessment) • Re-examining vision and • mission • Redesigning business • model to adapt to • dramatic change Messina & Graham 16

  17. III. Auburn University* • Profile • Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT” Assessment) • Strategic Challenges and Implications *Acknowledgment: The Director and staff of Auburn’s Office of Institutional Research and Assessment were extremely helpful in compiling and critiquing selected data presented in this profile of Auburn, and in suggesting additional sources. Even so, the selection of data to be presented, all judgments expressed, and any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of Messina & Graham Messina & Graham 17

  18. Profile of Auburn University • Students • Research • Extension • Finances Messina & Graham 18

  19. 1. Students • Student demographics. AU’s demand outlook (in terms of projected numbers of high-school graduates) is relatively flat, and its current acceptance rate is above 80 percent. It may be challenging for Auburn to maintain enrollment levels while at the same time raising tuition and the target scores of entering freshmen • In-state competition. Reasons for strong students to choose in-state competitors likely include family allegiance, cost, and preferences for certain campus environments or programs • Out-of-state competition. Out-of-state students face a high financial penalty for attending AU. This is especially true for strong students from Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina who qualify for HOPE or similar merit scholarships • Value proposition (real and perceived quality of the institution and benefit of attending, relative to cost). Overall, AU’s value proposition is in the middle range of its regional peers. But several AU programs have compelling value propositions Messina & Graham 19

  20. 1. Students (Continued) • • Scope for selectivity. AU’s scope for greater student selectivity is limited because, given its large size in a relatively small state, it enrolls a higher fraction of its home state’s high-school graduates than competitors in Georgia and Florida enroll from theirs • • Value-added (impact of the undergraduate program on building students’ skills). AU’s current value-added performance evidences significant opportunity to improve. This observation applies to many peer institutions as well • • Distribution by areas of study. AU’s distribution of students by area of study is similar to that of Alabama’s leading universities overall and to that of a highly-regarded land-grant institution in another state, Texas A&M • • Tuition trends. Over the past decade, AU’s tuition increases have far exceeded inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) Messina & Graham 20

  21. STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS • The regional demand outlook for university attendance appears reasonably level over time. Alabama’s public high-school graduate numbers are projected to peak in 2007, and by 2015 to be five percent below their 2005 level. After their recent rapid growth, Georgia’s and Florida’s numbers of high-school graduates are projected to level off between 2010 and 2014, and then to begin growing again. (It is worth noting that there are significant variations among demographic projections). In total, Georgia produces approximately two times as many, and Florida more than four times as many, public high-school graduates as Alabama. Chart 1 Messina & Graham 21

  22. Public High-School Graduates 1995 - 2015 Chart 1 Alabama Number of Students 2015 - Down 5% from 2005 37,400 37,900 37,100 35,000 35,300 Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): Projections to 2015, Table 24 22 Messina & Graham

  23. Public High-School Graduates 1995 - 2015 (Continued) Chart 1 Alabama Georgia Number of Students 2015 – Up 10% from 2005 80,500 78,900 73,700 62,500 56,300 37,900 35,000 37,100 37,400 35,300 Source: NCES: Projections to 2015, Table 24 23 Messina & Graham

  24. Public High-School Graduates 1995 - 2015 (Continued) Chart 1 Alabama Florida 2015 – Up 10% from 2005 Number of Students 150,000 154,400 139,800 111,000 89,000 35,000 37,100 37,400 37,900 35,300 Source: NCES: Projections to 2015, Table 24 24 Messina & Graham

  25. • Hispanics, currently a very small portion of high-school populations in Alabama and Georgia, are projected to make up ten percent of Alabama’s and 26 percent of Georgia’s high-school graduates by 2018. Hispanics historically have attended and completed college at much lower rates than whites and African-Americans, potentially reducing the applicant pool unless this group can be integrated more successfully into higher education. Hispanic students are expected to account for over one-third of Florida’s public high-school graduates by 2018, equivalent to twice the number of African-American graduates. Chart 2 Messina & Graham 25

  26. Minority Shares of Public High-School Graduates Chart 2 Alabama 32% 30% 10% 1% 2002 2018 2002 2018 Note: AU 1.5% Hispanic enrollment in 2005 Source: SREB Fact Book on Higher Education, 2005; AU OIRA 26 Messina & Graham

  27. Minority Shares of Public High-School Graduates (Continued) Chart 2 Georgia Alabama 33% 32% 30% 27% 26% 10% 2% 1% 2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 African-American Hispanic African-American Hispanic Source: SREB Fact Book on Higher Education, 2005; AU OIRA 27 Messina & Graham

  28. Minority Shares of Public High-School Graduates (Continued) Chart 2 Alabama Florida 32% 36% 30% 20% 18% 17% 10% 1% 2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 African-American Hispanic African-American Hispanic Source: SREB Fact Book on Higher Education, 2005; AU OIRA 28 Messina & Graham

  29. • Over 40 percent of AU's out-of-state freshmen entering in fall 2006 were from Georgia, down slightly from 2005. Chart 3 - This high dependency on Georgia as AU’s main out-of-state market does not provide much opportunity for diversification in case of a policy or economic change that affects AU’s enrollments from that state - However, AU captures an impressive 31 percent of all Georgia students and 19 percent of all Florida students who leave their states to attend a public research university in the southern region. Chart 4 - Out-of-state freshmen score at levels slightly below those of Alabama residents on the ACT. The other states’ flagships will naturally tend to attract the strongest students from their own states. Chart 5 Messina & Graham 29

  30. AU Freshmen by State – 2006 Chart 3 100% = 4,077 Georgia 17% Florida 6% Tennessee 4% Alabama 61% Other 12% Source: AU OIRA 30 Messina & Graham

  31. AU Share of Freshmen Leaving Their Home State for an SREB Public Research University – 2005 Chart 4 31% 19% 14% Source: AU OIRA 31 Messina & Graham

  32. Equivalent ACT Scores of AU Freshmen – 2005 Chart 5 24.4 24.1 Source: AU OIRA 32 Messina & Graham

  33. • With an acceptance rate at above 80 percent, there is little room for Auburn to increase enrollment by admitting more liberally. Chart 6 • At 26 percent, AU’s yield on out-of-state acceptances is half of its in-state yield. Chart 7 Messina & Graham 33

  34. AU Total Applications, Acceptances, and Enrollment – 2005 Chart 6 Note: 81.5 percent of applicants are accepted, with a 36 percent yield Source: AU OIRA 34 Messina & Graham

  35. Yield Rate of AU Admitted Students In-State and Out-of-State – Average, 2002 - 2005 Chart 7 52% 26% Source: National Student Clearinghouse; AU Office of Admissions & Records 35 Messina & Graham

  36. IN-STATE COMPETITION University of Alabama (U of A), University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), Southern Union State Community College (SUSCC), University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), and Troy represent the main competition for Alabama students, together accounting for half of all AU admits who enrolled elsewhere. It is worth questioning whether prospective students who decided to attend much less academically strong schools were actually an appropriate admissions match for AU. If practicable, declining admission to the least-qualified candidates would lead to a lower acceptance rate, which would both present a stronger image of AU and result in a higher US News & World Report (USNWR) score, at minimal cost in numbers enrolling. Charts 8, 9 The three U of A schools, along with Samford and Birmingham Southern (BHAM S), enrolled 350 of the best-prepared AU admits in 2003, compared with 960 who chose Auburn. Reasons for strong students to select these competitors likely include family allegiance, cost, and campus-environment and program preferences Messina & Graham 36

  37. Top 10 Competitors for Alabama Students: Schools Attended by AU Admits Not Enrolling at Auburn – 2003 Chart 8 Best-Prepared AU Admits (ACT 27 and Above)* All AU Admits Percent Percent Number University of Alabama (U of A) University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Southern Union State Community College (SUSCC) University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) Troy University (Troy) University of South Alabama (USA) Birmingham Southern University (BHAM S) Samford University (Samford) University of North Alabama (UNA) Auburn University Montgomery (AUM) Combined Total (Ten Schools) Other Institutions 23 7 144 9 2 49 8 -- -- 6 3 56 5 -- -- 5 1 23 4 2 42 4 2 33 3 -- -- 3 -- -- 70 17 347 30 83 *In-State and Out-of-State Source: National Student Clearinghouse; AU Office of Admissions & Records 37 Messina & Graham

  38. Competition for Alabama Students: Schools Attended by AU Admits Not Enrolling at Auburn – 2006 Chart 9 Cost versus AU ($)3 Likely Reason (M&G Assessment)7 % Attend1 % Best ≥ 272 Avg. GPA5 ACT Range (25% - 75%)6 University type (USNWR Category)4 2003 Data AU -- -- U of A 23 7 UAB 9 2 SUSCC 8 -- UAH 6 3 TROY 5 -- USA 5 1 BHAM S 4 2 Samford 4 2 UNA 3 -- AUM 3 -- TOTAL 70 17 -- -2,400 NR NR -2,600 -3,800 -2,800 17,000 8,700 -4,000 -3,530 88th best*, more selective, large, public 88th best*, more selective, large, public Selective, large, public Community college More selective, mid-size, public Selective, mid-size, public Selective, mid-size, public More selective, small, private, Utd Methodist More selective, small, private, Baptist Selective, mid-size, public Less selective, mid-size, public 3.5 3.4 3.3 NA 3.4 NA NA 3.3 3.6 2.9 NA 21-27 21-27 20-26 NA 22-28 21 19-25 23-29 23-28 18-23 18-23 -- Loyalty, price Price Price, work Price Price Price Prefer small private Prefer small private Price Price Notes to this chart are on the next page Source: USNWR, August 2006; Messina & Graham 38 Messina & Graham

  39. Competition for Alabama Students Schools Attended by AU Admits Not Enrolling at Auburn – 2006 (Continued) Chart 9 Notes *Ranking versus all schools. For public schools both AU and U of A were rated 39th 1Percentage of AL resident admits to AU who instead attend each listed school 2Percentage of ACT 27 resident and out-of-state admits to AU who instead attend each listed school 3Cost equals the total of tuition, fees, room and board (NR denotes non-residential schools). Difference in dollars per year between AU’s full-pay tuition and living expenses and those of listed school. Negative number indicates school costs less than AU 4Type of institution based on USNWR categories 5Average of entering freshmen’s high-school GPAs 6Lower and upper quartiles of ACT scores of entering freshman class 7Messina & Graham judgment regarding why student might chose the listed school over an offer from AU 39 Messina & Graham

  40. • AU’s combined in-state, full-pay tuition, room and board are 18 – 30 percent more than those of public-university competitors. AU tuition is almost twice SUSCC’s. For the best-prepared students that AU would probably seek to capture, there is no survey evidence, but price would be a logical factor in some of their decisions to decline AU for a place at U of A or at the less academically-strong UAB, UAH, or USA. U of A, UAH, and UAB are on Princeton Review’s “Best-Value” list, while Auburn is not. Chart 10 Messina & Graham 40

  41. Cost of Attending for Alabama Students – 2005-06 Combined Tuition, Fees, Room and Board – Dollars Chart 10 13,000 7,500 10,700 10,500 5,400 5,700 9,200 4,900 4,800 5,500 5,300 4,800 4,300 2,700 AU U of A “Best-Value” UAH “Best- Value” Troy UAB “Best- Value” SUSCC Source: USNWR, August 2006; SUSCC website; Princeton Review 41 Messina & Graham

  42. • Using USNWR’s overall scores as a reasonable proxy for how students and their parents value universities, AU appears to represent a good value tradeoff for Alabama students compared to out-of-state flagships, even those that rank much higher academically. Similarly, AU seems to offer a better value proposition than the state’s premier private schools, which nevertheless attract well-prepared students. There may be an opportunity to further develop and position AU’s Honors College as a strong alternative to these small private schools. Chart 11 Messina & Graham 42

  43. Price/Value Map – Alabama Students’ Perspective 2005-06 Chart 11 Combined Tuition, Fees, Room and Board BHAM S ILLUSTRATIVE GA Tech USC Clemson UGA UFL Samford UTN AU Good value at various price points U of A UAH Troy Value, measured by USNWR scores* *USNWR score is based on a blend of peer assessment, retention/graduation rates, class size, faculty ratio, freshmen ACT scores, percent in top ten percent of high-school class, and alumni giving. See appendix for more detail 43 Messina & Graham Source: USNWR, August 2006

  44. OUT-OF-STATE COMPETITION University of Georgia (UGA) is the leading competitor for Auburn admits from out-of-state; otherwise, many universities each command small shares. The principal rivals are other states’ flagships.For the strongest AU admits who enroll out-of-state, UGA, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and the University of Florida (UFL) enroll the largest numbers; but in this best- student group as well, several institutions each account for small shares. Chart 12 Messina & Graham 44

  45. Top 10 Out-of-StateCompetitors – 2003 Chart 12 Best-Prepared AU Admits (ACT 27 and Above)* All AU Admits Percent Percent Number University of Georgia (UGA) Clemson University (Clemson) University of Tennessee (UTN) Georgia Institute of Technology (GA Tech) University of Florida (UFL) Florida State University (FL S) University of Mississippi (UMS) University of South Carolina (USC) Georgia Southern University (GA S) Kennesaw State University (KSU) Combined Total (Ten Schools) Other Schools 14 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 40 60 10 3 2 6 3 1 2 -- -- -- 27 73 209 65 41 124 62 21 46 -- -- -- 568 *In-State and Out-of-State Source: National Student Clearinghouse; AU Office of Admissions and Records 45 Messina & Graham

  46. • Out-of-state students, especially Georgia students who qualify for HOPE, and their families face a high financial penalty for attending AU. Chart 13.Financial considerations probably factor into the college choices of a segment of these students. AU ranks highest among competing schools on USNWR’s “Most-Debt” list. According to this source, 65 percent of AU graduates incur debt averaging $21,000. At the regional “Least-Debt” winner, UGA, 43 percent of graduates incur an average debt of $13,000 • A Georgia high-school graduate who is admitted to Georgia Tech or UGA may not choose AU over those schools unless attracted by a specific program with a strong reputation. In general, the implication is that it is difficult for AU to attract many top students from Georgia • A Georgia high-school graduate who is not admitted to UGA can choose either to attend an in-state school that ranks lower than AU or to pay a substantial premium to attend school out-of-state. To such students, UTN and U of A may appear to offer superior value compared to AU, family allegiances aside Messina & Graham 46

  47. Price/Value Map – Georgia Students’ Perspective – 2006 Chart 13 Combined Tuition, Fees, Room and Board ILLUSTRATIVE Clemson UFL AU Value plays out-of-state for those who don’t get into UGA or GA Tech U of A UTN Georgia schools for non-HOPE students UGA GA Tech GA Southern UGA HOPE Tech HOPE GA Southern HOPE Georgia schools for HOPE students Value USNWR Score Source: USNWR, August 2006 47 Messina & Graham

  48. VALUE PROPOSITION AU is in the middle range among its regional public-school competitors in the overall USNWR ranking. But AU’s undergraduate Engineering and Business programs advanced from 2005 to 2006 and are ranked as stronger than those of several competitors. Chart 14.The Architecture program is nationally competitive, and the Graduate School of Education and the Communications Disorders programs both rank well. Chart 15. There may be further scope to emphasize this program performance in marketing AU to students and parents who are attentive to quality and career value when choosing schools AU’s value proposition to a Georgia high-school student likely features big-time sports and a more personal touch than UGA, with possible draws for those interested in specific programs with strong reputations. Another potential positive is AU’s graduation rate over predicted performance, which was outstanding in 2005 and remains good in 2006. A potential negative is AU’s absence from Princeton Review’s “Best-Value” list. AU’s disappearance in 2006 from the list of schools where “students (almost) never study” should help attract stronger undergraduates. Chart 15 Messina & Graham 48

  49. AU Competitor Rankings in USNWR – 2005-06 Chart 14 BEST UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING SCHOOLS BEST UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS PROGRAMS TOP PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 9 8 Georgia Tech 16 13 UFL 19 21 UGA 21 21 Texas A&M 34 30 Clemson 38 39 Auburn 38 39 UTN 50 39 U of A 52 52 FL ST 52 54 USC 6 6 Georgia Tech 14 17 Texas A&M 31 30 UFL 57 60 Clemson 67 60 Auburn 67 71 UTN 102 * U of A 102 * USC 26 29 UFL 30 29 UGA 30 29 Texas A&M 35 35 Georgia Tech 40 42 USC 47 42 FL ST 47 42 UTN 57 51 Auburn 57 60 U of A 77 73 Clemson 87 83 UAB 87 83 UMS * Not listed among top 105 49 Messina & Graham

  50. Auburn’s Value Proposition Chart 15 • USNWR 2006 RANKINGS • Ranked 18th (4th in 2005) in nation for retention over predicted level (but 98th for absolute retention) • Ranked 88th among all schools and 39th among public schools • Graduate School of Education in top 100 in nation • Communication Disorders program in top 50 in nation • Faculty-Student ratio better than U of A, UGA, and much better than UFL and FL ST • “Faculty resources” – class size, faculty pay and caliber – rank significantly lower than for Georgia Tech, UGA, U of A, and UTN • DESIGN INTELLIGENCE 2006 RANKINGS • Architecture program 15th in nation (no regional competitor) • Interior Design 7th in nation (LSU 10th, no other regional competitor) • Industrial Design 3rd in South (after Georgia Tech) Source: USNWR; Design Intelligence 50 Messina & Graham

More Related