Community Forum on
Re-Accreditation
April 7, 2006
Why Accreditation?
Accreditation…
• Allows the institution to assess itself against the
standards of the higher education community and its
own mission
• Looks at academic quality, student services, financial
condition, and administrative infrastructure
• Provides a platform for self-improvement
• Assures the public of quality
Page 2
Brandeis’ Last Accreditation: 1996
Chair: James Freedman
Areas to focus on for the next decade…
• A salary plan for faculty and staff
• Deferred maintenance, especially student housing
• An information technology infrastructure and
equipping classrooms
• A financial aid policy based on institutional resources
• Enhancing the financial resources of the University
Page 3
What Does NEASC Look At?
1. Mission and Purposes
6. Students
2. Planning and Evaluation
7. Library and Other
Information Resources
3. Organization and
Governance
4. The Academic Program
5. Faculty
8. Physical & Technological
Resources
9. Financial Resources
10. Public Disclosure
11. Integrity
Each of these has multiple standards and criteria.
Page 4
Organization, Roles and Responsibilities
• Executive Committee: Marty Krauss, Jean Eddy, Peter French
– Provide overall direction for the accreditation effort
– Serve as the primary liaison with NEASC
– Approve communications related to the accreditation effort
• Steering Committee: University Advisory Council
– Provide strategic oversight for the accreditation process
– Address accreditation issues that have university-wide policy
implications
– Provide feedback on self-study documents
• Standards Committees: Faculty and Staff
– 14 committees to address 11 standards
– Draft documents that tell a compelling story, supported by
evidence, with projections for the future
Page 5
Principles for the Accreditation Process
• Draw on existing faculty committees to organize the workload
• Optimize faculty effort by asking them to serve as reviewers and
co-chairs
• Ask staff to prepare draft documents
• Maintain frequent and thorough communications with the
Brandeis community
• Be candid
• Use this process as an opportunity to build a better Brandeis
• Set a high standard for all subsequent re-accreditations
University leadership is committed to making this a
valuable learning experience for the institution.
Page 6
Timeline and Key Milestones
 March 2005:
Kick-off meeting
 April 2006:
Community reviews draft self-study
• Summer ‘06:
Self-study submitted to NEASC
• November ‘06:
Accreditation Team visits campus
• Winter ‘07:
Receipt of NEASC Accreditation
Team evaluation
• Spring ‘07:
Re-accreditation by NEASC
Page 7
Planning: Overall Story
•
For past decade, Brandeis engaged in planning to strengthen
the institution and reduce its structural deficit (Blueprint for
Renewal, Equilibrium Report, Brandeis 2000).
•
New systems, policies, and a coordinated leadership team,
have expanded the University’s analytic capacity, coordination,
and efficacy.
•
The Integrated Plan is a framework for decision-making across
the University from 2006-2012.
•
It provides clear benchmarks to assess our progress,
achievements and gaps.
Page 8
Undergraduate Education:
Overall Story
•
Our continuing commitment to a broad and deep liberal arts
education that cultivates students’ rational, critical and creative
powers, causes them to confront and develop their values, and
hones their analytical, quantitative and communication skills
Many changes since 1995, for example:
• Increased interdisciplinarity
•
A diversified and globalized curriculum
•
More double majoring, new majors/minors
•
New experiential learning
•
New program collaborations with the professional schools
Sample Projection: Need to focus on learning outcomes in the majors
Page 9
Graduate Degrees: Overall Story
•
As a research university, our commitment to shaping the next
generation of scholars, researchers and teachers is unchanged.
We recognize that professional studies has a place within a
liberal arts university and support the growth of graduate
programs across the four schools.
Many changes since 1995, for example:
• Two new graduate professional schools, IBS and Rabb
• Shift in graduate programs from primarily doctoral focus to
more Master’s programs
• Growth in number and type (international, part-time) of
graduate students
• More competitive A&S doctoral stipends and increased support
from 4 yrs. to 5
Sample Projection: Need to focus on infrastructure and quality of
life for graduate students
Page 10
Assessment: Overall Story
• Brandeis has general learning outcomes for Arts and
Sciences, GSAS, and the professional schools.
• There is no one systematic approach for assessing student
learning.
• Each school, department, and program develops its own
learning outcomes and methods of evaluation.
• An assessment inventory was conducted in the summer of
2005 among chairs of 11 A&S departments/programs.
Sample Projection: Brandeis needs to do more to strengthen
its assessment activities; enhanced collection and sharing of
data can help.
Page 11
Faculty: Overall Story
•
A highly distinguished faculty of teachers, scholars, scientists,
artists, and researchers who pursue scholarly and creative
projects and foster the intellectual and professional growth and
development of undergraduates and graduate students
Many changes since 1995, for example:
• Growth in faculty, from 317 (10 yrs ago) to 342, especially
contract faculty
• Renewal of the research enterprise (part of Integrated Plan)
• New resources: Tomberg Fund, Norman Fund
• Increase in faculty salaries to benchmarks (part of the
Integrated Plan)
• Improvements in employment practices for contract faculty
Sample Projection: Need to continue to invest in faculty both
intellectually and financially
Page 12
Library and Technology: Overall Story
•
Our vision is to create an environment of people, technology,
information, and facilities to serve university learning and
research and to provide high-quality, accessible, reliable systems.
Some changes since 1995
• 10 yrs ago, 5 groups supported technology, with 3 different VPs
• New CIO position who reports to the EVP and Provost
• New merged organization, LTS, to provide seamless services
• Two new internal advisory committees with faculty, students and
staff
• Internet 2, state-of-art campus network, 80% of classrooms with
up-to-date technology and refresh schedule, WebCT/Vista
• Focus on the teaching, learning and scholarship mission
Sample Projection: A new library and technology strategic plan to
reduce redundancy and to include a library collections strategy
Page 13
Students: Overall Story
•
Over the past 10 yrs, the University has invested resources and
energy into making admissions more competitive and diverse and
enhancing students’ out-of-classroom experiences.
Many changes since 1995, for example:
• In 2000, new centralized office, Division of Students and
Enrollment created
• New enrollment management approach
• More selective undergraduate admissions
• Support mechanisms strengthened for academic success and
retention
• Quality of experiences improved in the residences, dining,
services and programs
• Assessment used for continuous improvement
Sample Projection: Quality targets such as 35% acceptance rate,
average SAT of 1380, 5-year graduation rate of 90%
Page 14
Admissions Graphs, Fall 1995 – Fall 2005
Applicant Pool
Admit Rate
(%)
8,000
7,344
7,000
6,650
6,000
5,516
5,526
5,000
4,321
4,000
5,680
6,044
6,080
5,768
5,831
4,539
Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall
95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
70.0%
65.0%
60.0%
55.0%
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
66%
55%
54%
57%
52%
48%
41%
42%
44%
40%
38%
Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall
95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
Page 15
Enrollment Graphs, Fall 1995 – Fall 2005
Matriculation Rate
34.0%
33.0%
32.0%
31.0%
30.0%
29.0%
28.0%
27.0%
26.0%
25.0%
33%
Fall First-Year Enrollment
33%
30%
29%
28%
28%
27%
26%
26%
33%
26%
Fall
95
Fall
96
Fall
97
Fall
98
Fall
99
Fall Fall
00 01
Fall
02
Fall
03
Fall
04
Fall
05
900
875
850
825
800
775
750
725
700
675
876
868
866
843
827
812
766
794
739
762
Fall
95
Fall
96
743
Fall
97
Fall
98
Fall
99
Fall
00
Fall
01
Fall
02
Fall
03
Fall
04
Page 16
Fall
05
Enrollment Graphs, Fall 1995 – Fall 2005
Undergraduate Enrollment
Average SATs
1,400
1,350
1,300
1,300
1,250
1,200
1,320 1,320 1,320 1,320
1,332 1,337
1,348 1,351
1,362
1,230
1,150
Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall
95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
3,300
3,250
3,200
3,150
3,100
3,050
3,000
2,950
2,900
2,850
2,800
3,267
3,200
3,147
3,098 3,085
2,983 2,994
3,063
3,036
3,118
3,015
Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall
95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
Page 17
NEASC Resource Perspective
Standard 2 — Planning & Evaluation
Standard 8 — Physical and Technological
Resources
Standard 9 — Financial Resources
Standard 11 — Integrity
Page 18
NEASC and the Integrated Plan
Four Elements of the Plan:
• Study Period and Planning Period
• Program Needs
• Resource Projections
• Choices
Page 19
University Priorities, FY 2006 – FY 2012
• Academic
• Students & Enrollment
• Resources
Page 20
University Priorities, FY 2006 – FY 2012
Academic Priorities
• Curricular Initiatives
• Graduate Education
• Library and Information Technology
• Faculty Salary Initiative
• Academic Facilities
Page 21
University Priorities, FY 2006 – FY 2012
Students & Enrollment Priorities
• Student Quality
• Student Facilities
• Student Services
Page 22
University Priorities, FY 2006 – FY 2012
Resource Goals
• Balanced Operating and Capital Budgets
• 5% Endowment Draw
• Faculty & Staff Salaries at Benchmark
• Phase II Capital Campaign Completed
• Full Funding for All New Initiatives
• Current and up to date Information Technology
• Improved Facilities Condition
• Growth of Reserves
Page 23
Resources Then, Now and Future
Comparison of Key Indicators, 1995, 2006 and 2012
Indicator
FY 1995 Actual
FY 2006
Projected
FY 2012
Projected
Operating Budget Result
$9 million deficit
Balanced
Balanced
Endowment Market Value
$195 million
$600 million
$900 million
Endowment Draw
9%
5%
5%
Competitive Financial Aid
45%
33%
37%
Faculty & Staff Salaries
Below Benchmark
Near Benchmark
At Benchmark
Capital Expenditures
$3 million
$40 million
$50 million
Facilities Condition
Poor
Fair
Good
Long Term Debt
$93 million
$152 million
$217 million
Reserves (Quasi
Endowment)
$10 million
$100 million
$163 million
Reserves to Debt
11%
66%
75%
Resources – Building Blocks
• Experienced and Collegial Leadership
• Talented Staff
• Clear Organization and Responsibility Structure
• Effective Information Systems
• Policies and Procedures
• Master Plans – University, Major Program Areas and
Assets
• Financial Planning Model and Integrated Plan
• Goals and Accountability
Page 25
Brandeis Web Pages
Integrated Plan
 Office of the President (www.brandeis.edu/president/integrated/)
NEASC
 Office of the Provost (www.brandeis.edu/neasc/)
Page 26