1 / 120

Task Force on Student Educational Capacity Meeting 1 - Kick-Off Nov. 16, 2009

Task Force on Student Educational Capacity Meeting 1 - Kick-Off Nov. 16, 2009. Founded 1870 | Rolla, Missouri. SEM at Missouri S&T 2001-2009. RECORD GROWTH. DECLINING INTEREST. “Succeeding while Swimming Against the Tide”. Rolla, Missouri “The Middle of Everywhere”. What is Missouri S&T?.

ruby-small
Download Presentation

Task Force on Student Educational Capacity Meeting 1 - Kick-Off Nov. 16, 2009

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. Task Force on Student Educational Capacity Meeting 1 - Kick-Off Nov. 16, 2009 Founded 1870 | Rolla, Missouri

  2. SEM at Missouri S&T 2001-2009 RECORD GROWTH DECLINING INTEREST “Succeeding while Swimming Against the Tide”

  3. Rolla, Missouri“The Middle of Everywhere”

  4. What is Missouri S&T? • A Top 50 Technological Research University • 7100 students: 5400 Undergrad, 1700 Graduate • 90% majoring in Engineering, Science, Comp. Sci. • Ave. Student ACT/SAT: upper 10% in nation • +80% of Freshmen from upper 20% of HS class • 20% Out of State Enrollment • 95% 5 Year Average Placement Rate • Ave. Starting Salary in 20010: +$57,500

  5. Miners’ Fall 2009 StatsBreaking National Trends • TOTAL Enrollment6,800 • Undergraduate Students 5,200 • Graduate Students 1,600 • New Freshman Class 1,135 • New Transfer Class 330

  6. How Will S&T Prepare for the Future?

  7. Upcoming Challenges • If we maintain current record market shares, we could decline 2% to 5% in new students each year after 2010. • If we continue to increase research, we will need more graduate students and better GA packages. • To maintain or grow quality, diversity and revenue levels the quantity of students will be key.

  8. Key Issues to Addressas identified by Recruitment, Retention & EDT Committees • Managing of the “tipping” US student markets • Lack of Appropriate Classroom Space • Need to Centralize Students Services • Need for Diversity in Student Housing Options • “One Card” service & security option with Campus IDs • Increasing Family Participation • Need for more unrestricted and need-based scholarships

  9. Task Force on Student Educational Capacity at Missouri S&T • Charge:  To collect and review all pertinent data to assess whether the current student population is at, below, or above the university’s capacity to provide each student with a quality education. • Objective: To use this planning exercise to determine the relevant and reliable indicators for the university’s capacity issues and to provide reasonable benchmarks to assess the institution’s ongoing capacity position. • Outcomes: Findings and recommendations by the task force should be summarized and presented to the Provost and Strategic Planning Committee no later than Monday, March 15, 2010.

  10. Task Force on Student Educational Capacity at Missouri S&T • Monday, January 11, 2010 3-4:30 p.m.Benchmarks for Quality Education & Sub Committee Assignments • Monday, January 25, 2010 3-4:30 p.m.Subcommittee Meetings • Monday, February 8, 2010 3-4:30 p.m.Subcommittee Meetings • Monday, February 22, 2010 3-4:30 p.m.Subcommittee Findings & Recommendations • Monday, March 1, 2010 3-4:30 p.m.Review & Discuss 1st Draft Findings and Recommendations • Monday, March 8, 2010 3-4:30 p.m.Final Review Findings & Recommendations • Monday, March 15, 2010 Committee Report due to Provost Wray • Monday, November 16, 2009 3-4:30 p.m. Silver & Gold RoomKick-off Meeting: Review Charge & Objectives, Schedule and Institutional Aspirations • Monday, November 30, 2009 3-4:30 p.m. Turner RoomInstitutional Capacity Factors • Monday, December 7, 2009 3-4:30 p.m. Silver & Gold RoomBusiness Intelligence Factors and External Forces

  11. UM System Mission Serve as a land-grant university and Missouri's only public research and doctoral-level institution-- is to discover, disseminate, preserve and apply knowledge. The university facilitates lifelong-learning by its students and Missouri's citizens; fosters innovation to support economic development; and advances the health, cultural and social interests of the people of Missouri, the nation and the world.

  12. Mission, Vision and Values Mission Missouri University of Science and Technology integrates education and research to create and convey knowledge to solve problems for our State and the technological world. Vision Missouri University of Science and Technology will be recognized as one of the top five technological research universities in the nation. Values • Tradition:We are a diverse scholarly community of hard-working problem-solvers who draw inspiration, strength, and pride from our history, our students’ success, and our entrepreneurial spirit. • Interdisciplinary Collaboration:We value the entire realm of human knowledge and seek to transcend conventional boundaries in the pursuit of our goals. • Inclusiveness:We encourage and depend upon mutual recognition and respect and the voluntary cooperative efforts of our diverse constituents to sustain a strong and cohesive scholarly community. • Excellence:We embrace academic integrity, exceptional results, and constant improvement in teaching, research, service, and economic development activities.

  13. Organizational Chart

  14. What Does the Public Think? 2007 National Center for Higher Education and Public Policy Study found: • 87% believe higher education improves job prospects • 67% believe higher education is worth the investment • 78% believe students have to borrow too much to attend • 62% believe many qualified and motivated students don’t get the opportunity to attend • 86% believe those who really want a college education can obtain one if they’re willing to make sacrifices • 71% believe students at two-year community colleges can learn as much as during their 1st two years at a four-year college or university • 76% of high school student parents are worried about how to pay for their children’s higher education • 52% agree “colleges are like a business” and care more about the bottom line than educational values • 44% say waste and mismanagement are “very important” factors in driving up costs (an additional 37% say they are “somewhat important” factors in cost)

  15. What Does the Public Think? 2007 National Center for Higher Education and Public Policy Study found (continued): • 48% believe their state’s public college and university systems need to be fundamentally overhauled • 56% say colleges could spend a lot less and still maintain excellence • 68% believe community colleges should be used to hold down college costs • 67% believe college facilities should be used nights and weekends and more Internet courses should be used to increase efficiency • 30% support reducing the number of courses required for a degree so people can graduate in fewer than four years • 31% support consolidating programs even though students may need to travel further to study in their chosen field Source: Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at Higher Education Today, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2007.

  16. Optimizing S&T’s Operational Capacity2004 Findings • What is the total faculty’s teaching load? • How many classrooms and seats does the campus have available? • How many science/engineering labs are available? • How many residence hall beds are available for paying students? • How many parking spaces are reserved for students? • What is the per meal dining capacity?

  17. Enrollment Goal Setting: Factors and Benchmarks Institutional Aspirations Institutional Capacity External Forces Business Intelligence Benchmarks for Quality Education

  18. Student-to-Faculty Ratio of Technological Research UniversitiesSource: Institutional Common Data Set NOTE: Missouri S&T’s Fall 2009 Student-to-Faculty Ratio: 15.5 : 1

  19. Strategic Enrollment Management Plan 2007-2011 Increase Success of Students • Retention Rates • Graduation Rates Increase College Going Rate & Access • Access & Affordability • Pipeline of College Ready Students • Strategic Partnerships • Outreach/Education • Scholarships Expanding Current Markets & Capturing New Markets • Out-of-state students • Transfer Students • Female Students • Underrepresented Minority Students • International Students • Graduate Students • Nontraditional Students

  20. An IDEAL Missouri S&T freshman class(as defined by the 2004 Capacity Task Force) 990 to 1030 students with the following profile: Academic Preparedness: 27 average ACT score (upper 10% in nation) 90% having completed the full Missouri college-prep curriculum 50% from the upper 20% of high school class Geography: 70% in-state 25% out-of-state 5% international Gender: 30% female 70% male Ethnicity:13% under-represented minority students Majors: 70% Engineering (all programs) 5% Liberal Arts (psychology, history, English, technical communication, philosophy) 8% Business, Information Technology and Economics 9% Natural Sciences and Mathematics (biology, chemistry, physics) 8% Computer Science Success Rate:90% first to second year retention rate 80% return for third year 65-70% graduate in six years

  21. Preferred Graduate Profile(per the 2008-09 department graduate survey) 1550 to 1600 graduate students with the following profile: Student Distribution: 350 to 385 (35%) Masters non-thesis 760 to 800 (65%) Masters thesis 400 to 425 Ph.D. Location: 70% MS On-campus 30% MS Distance/On-line 55% Ph.D. On-Campus 45% Ph.D. Distance/On-line Undergraduate Program Pipeline: 25% Missouri S&T Graduates 25% Selected MO & US Universities 50% International Universities Gender: 30% female 70% male Ethnicity:13% under-represented minority students Majors: 74% Engineering (all programs) 1% Liberal Arts (technical communication) 6% Business, Information Technology and Economics 13% Natural Sciences and Mathematics (biology, chemistry, physics) 7% Computer Science

  22. Preferred Undergraduate Schools • Alfred University, • Arkansas, • Beijing Institute of Technology, • Beijing University, • Big 10 & Big 12 universities • California Institute of Technology, • Carnegie Mellon, • Catholica Universidad in Peru, • Central Missouri State, • Clemson Colorado School of Mines • Cooper Union • Delhi University • Drury University • Georgia Tech • Grinnell College • Harding University • Harvey Mudd • Illinois Institute of Technology • Indian Institute of Technology • Indian Statistical Institute • Institute Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia • Iowa State • Kansas State • Kin Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia • Mackay School of Mines • Michigan Tech • Missouri State • University Nebraska-Lincoln • University of Arkansas • University of Aachen • University of Alaska Fairbanks • University of Arkansas • University of California-Berkeley • University of California-Davis • University of Columbo-Sri Lanka • University of Illinois • University of Mines and Technology in Ghana • University of Missouri-Kansas City • University of Missouri-St. Louis • University of Olm-Germany • University of Science & Technology of China • University of Texas-Austin • University of Tulsa • University of Utah • University Wisconsin-Madison • USC • USMA • Virginia State University and Polytechnic • Virginia Tech • Missouri Western State • Worchester Polytechnic Institute • MIT • University of Missouri - Columbia • Montana Tech • Northern Illinois • NW Missouri State • Ohio State • Old Dominion • Osmania University • PAC 10 • Penn State • Purdue • Queens University, • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute • Rose Hullman • Rutgers University Simpson College • South Dakota School of Mines, • Southeast Missouri State • Southern Illinois University-Carbondale • Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville • Southwest Baptists University • Stanford • Stevens Institute of Technology • Texas A&M • Truman State • Tsing Tsinghua University

  23. Institutional Aspirations • Enrollment Growth/Decline/Stabilization • Net Revenue Needs • Student Diversity Profile (program/demographics) • Desired Academic Profile • Desired Academic Program Distribution • Scholarships/Stipends/Discount Rates • Competitors and Comparators for Benchmarking

  24. Institutional Capacity • Faculty Instructional Load • Faculty Availability • Degree Demand Analysis • Course Demand Analysis • Classroom and Lab Space Utilization • Online/Hybrid Availability and Utilization • Student Housing Availability and Utilization • Parking Availability and Utilization • Dining Availability and Utilization

  25. External Forces • Boards of Curators & Trustees • Community • Business & Industry (employer demand by degree) • Educational Consumers (student and sponsor demand) • State Budget, Tuition-Increase Limitations

  26. Business Intelligence • Enrollment Trend Data • Enrollment Projections • Demographic Trends • Competitors’ Trends • Economic Trends

  27. Benchmarks for Quality Education • Faculty make-up and distribution • Class sizes and types (on-campus vs. distance) • Campus housing • Campus dining / Food service • Campus parking

  28. Institutional Aspirations 1. Enrollment Growth/Decline/Stabilization

  29. Increase Enrollment and Manage the Academic Portfolio: • Missouri S&T will increase its enrollment by improving access, expanding diversity, increasing retention, expanding extended learning activities, controlling tuition, and providing more endowed scholarships. • Missouri S&T will balance the academic portfolio and the student experience by increasing market share in areas such as life sciences and biotechnology, energy, business and management, communication, the liberal arts, and education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

  30. Goal 2.1: Status Update Grow overall enrollment to 6,550 by 2012 with diversity that reflects the State of Missouri and the global environment in which we compete. Increase the overall graduate enrollment to 1,750. 2011 GOALS ACHIEVED IN FALL 2009. New targets to be established by Strategic Planning Committee in Spring 2010

  31. 2001-2009 Enrollment Change • 41% Increase in Undergraduates (1507) • 41% Increase in Female Students (+435) • 73% Increase in Graduate Students (+682) • 91% Increase in Minority Students (+342) • 40% Increase in Non-Engineering Majors • Since 2005, 60% of Growth due to Increased Retention Rates • 87% to 88% Retention Rate Achieved and Sustained • 62% Graduation Rate Achieved. 65% possible by 2010 • Lower discount rate from +38% to 27% • Generated over $21 M in additional gross revenues

  32. Total Enrollment by Academic GroupingFall 1999 & Fall 2009

  33. Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty, Student Headcount, and Student Credit Hours TaughtFall 1999, Fall 2005-2009

  34. Total Enrollment: Fall 2000 – Fall 200947% Enrollment Growth: 2,189 Additional Students

  35. Total Enrollment Fall 2000 – Fall 2009 47% Total Enrollment Growth: 2000: 4,626 2009: 6,815 41% Undergraduate Growth: 1,507 Additional Students 73% Graduate Growth: 682 Additional Students

  36. Campus and Distance/Online Enrollments Fall 2000 – Fall 2009 40% Growth of Campus Enrollment: 1761 Additional Students 184% Growth of Distance Enrollment: 428 Additional Students

  37. Strategic Plan GOAL 2.1: Grow overall enrollment to 6,550 by 2011-12 with diversity that reflects the State of Missouri and the global environment in which we compete.

  38. Since 2004, 60% of Growth due to Retention Increase Student RetentionStatus in Fall Semester After One Year Graduation Rates 20002005 General Student Body: 52% 64%

  39. Freshman Retention and Graduation Rates

  40. Incoming New Freshman Class

  41. Incoming New Transfer Students

  42. Incoming New Graduate Students

  43. Institutional Aspirations 2. Net Revenue Needs

  44. FY11 Budget Impacts • $2.9 million needed for a 3% increase in S&W and E&E • At least 10% of the additional tuition and fees will need to be directed toward need-based student grants and loans (approximately $300,000). • In FY11, S&T needs to generate an additional $700,000 to replace need-based financial aid lost by the elimination of the federal ACG and SMART grants.

  45. Total Budget FY 2010$185,235,897

  46. Total Budget FY 2010$185,235,897

  47. FY 2009 Net General Operating Fee Revenue (On-Campus Students ONLY)

  48. FY 2009 Net General Operating Fee Revenue (On-Campus Students ONLY)

  49. % State Support vs % Student Fees

More Related