Academic Affairs
Vision
Bowling Green State University aspires to be a premier learning
community, and a national model, for developing individuals
and shaping the future through learning, discovery,
collaboration and personal growth
Strengths
Weaknesses
Good Quality Programs
Facilities
Diversity of Programs
TT Faculty Resources
Engagement/Outreach
Academic Support
Committed Faculty
External Funding
Capacity to Grow
Enrollment
Extending reach of
BGSU programs
2015 Effect
Opportunities
Decreasing State
Support
Declining number of
traditional age
students
Overall Cost of
Education
Threats
Total Full-Time (FT) Faculty
Total FT Faculty
(TT+NTT)
A&S
BA
EDHD
HHS
MA
TECH
Bowling Green
Campus Total
Firelands
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
498
89
142
30
55
46
503
83
129
29
55
44
455
77
128
28
53
39
453
78
125
28
52
39
473
74
139
29
52
39
860
843
49
780
52
775
48
806
51
Total Student Credit Hours (SCH)
SCH Total (Fall
and Spring)
A&S
BA
EDHD
HHS
MA
TECH
Bowling Green
Campus Subtotal
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
279,855
57,092
84,772
17,786
15,294
19,136
268,933
51,176
81,792
16,749
15,463
18,818
256,047
47,565
76,310
17,734
16,381
17,873
267,782
44,463
77,129
17,707
15,593
17,749
265,358
44,072
75,734
18,777
15,543
16,743
473,935
452,931
431,910
440,423
436,227
SCH per FT faculty
SCH Total/FT Faculty
(TT and NTT)
2007-2008
A&S
BA
EDHD
HHS
MA
TECH
Bowling Green
Campus Subtotal
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
562.0
641.5
597.0
592.9
278.1
416.0
534.7
616.6
634.0
577.6
281.1
427.7
562.7
617.7
596.2
633.4
309.1
458.3
591.1
570.0
617.0
632.4
299.9
455.1
561.0
595.6
544.8
647.5
298.9
429.3
551.1
537.3
553.7
568.3
541.2
Percent of FT TTF to FT Faculty
Percent of TTF to
TTF+NTTF
A&S
BA
EDHD
HHS
MA
TECH
Bowling Green
Campus Total
Firelands
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
64.26%
66.29%
75.35%
96.67%
87.27%
45.65%
61.83%
67.47%
73.64%
86.21%
87.27%
40.91%
63.30%
68.83%
70.31%
85.71%
84.91%
48.72%
57.84%
67.95%
68.80%
85.71%
88.46%
43.59%
57.29%
66.22%
69.78%
89.66%
88.46%
46.15%
67.91%
65.60%
48.98%
66.54%
50.00%
62.97%
50.00%
62.90%
56.86%
NSICP Trends
FTE Student per TT Faculty/FTE Student per NTT Faculty
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
A&S
12.7/24.5
11.7/23.0
11.6/20.0
13.7/24.4
BA
16.4/26.5
18.4/26.1
16.9/24.6
17.2/28.1
EDHD
14.2/17.8
14.2/19.1
14.2/15.9
15.3/17.0
HHS
11.6/5.4
12.8/5.5
14.6/12.1
15.4/14.8
MA
10.0/12.0
10.0/7.0
10.0/9.0
10.0/14.0
TECH
BGSU
11.0/14.0
13.0/22.1
8.0/14.0
13.1/20.4
9.0/15.0
13.1/19.2
12.0/15.0
14.5/22.9
NSCIP Peer Comparisons*
% of Average Peer
# of Departments:
% of TTF to Total
Faculty
# of Departments:
FTE Students/TTF
# of Departments:
FTE Students/NTTF
> 110%
14
11
5
90% to 110%
11
6
5
< 90%
9
17
24
Total
34
34
34
* Based upon Fall 2009 data
General Observations
We are good……….
But is good, good enough?
Vision
Bowling Green State University aspires to be a premier learning
community, and a national model, for developing individuals
and shaping the future through learning, discovery,
collaboration and personal growth
Focus
Invest strategically in Faculty +
Invest strategically in Academic Programs +
Invest strategically in Facilities and Technology +
= High Quality Academic Programs and Enhanced
Student Success
Budgetary Policy Changes from Prior Year
• Open faculty lines return centrally
– strategic reallocation between Colleges
– held central for subsequent focused investment
• Plans are required for optimal use of Colleges/Units
Reserves
• Using data to inform budgetary decisions
– Peer, Productivity, Enrollment Trends, Outcomes
Necessary…….
• Protect core academic foundation (i.e.,
Accreditation, etc.)
• Ensure financial sustainability
• Adequate and appropriate facilities
…………But not sufficient to
improve quality
Budget Priorities
Quality
– Strategically invest in faculty
– Academic programming
– Recruit and Retain Students
Efficiency and Effectiveness
– Administrative Infrastructure
Budget Priorities: Quality
Strategically Invest in Faculty
– Overall, increase the percent of TT Faculty
– Balance productivity of faculty
– Where appropriate, enhance operating budgets
– Development funds to support teaching/research
Budget Priorities: Quality
• Academic programming
– Refocus current programming
• General Education Renewal
• Support “high impact” programming (retention, quality, and/or
recruitment)
• Reallocate resources from “limited impact” programming or low
demand programs
– Create new academic programming that:
• Supports the enhancement of the academic profile of traditional
student body
• And/or increases overall enrollment
Budget Priorities: Quality
• Recruit and Retain Students
– Enhance academic profile of traditional students
– Increase overall enrollment of new students
• International (UG and Grad)
• Distance Learning (UG and Grad)
• Transfer (2+2, etc.)
– Increase retention and 6 year graduation rate
• Advising,
Long-term Goal: 22,500 to 25,000 HC enrollment
Budget Priorities:
Efficiencies and Effectiveness
• Administrative Infrastructure
–
–
–
–
Rethink - Quality
Realign - Focus
Reduce – reallocation of resources
For Example,
• Centralize vs. Decentralize
– Advising, International programs, Learning communities,
Faculty development, Support services
• Missing Infrastructure
– Assessment, Research support, Decision Support, Curriculum
Management
Budget Priorities
Quality
– Strategically invest in faculty
– Academic programming
– Recruit and Retain Students
Efficiency and Effectiveness
– Administrative Infrastructure
• Establishing the financial foundation for the
future
– Grow quality of academic programming
– Increase profile and number of UG and Graduate
students
– Increase external research funding