Slide 1
APPENDIX A
BENCHMARKING AND SITUATION ANALYSIS
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction
A2
Ranking of Leading Public Institutions
A3
Rankings of Faculty and Program Quality
A6
Rankings of Faculty Quality
A11
Student-Faculty Ratios
A12
Graduate Students in Science, Engineering
A15
Benchmarking Research Buildings, Equipment
A16
Benchmarking Institutional Expenditures on Research Equipment
A17
Current Funds Revenue per FTE Student
A18
Average Federal R&D per Faculty FTE
A20
National Academy Members
A21
Rough Analysis, Faculty Mix by Rank
A22
NSF Grants
A23
Indirect Cost Rates
A25
NIH Grants
A30
Resources Dedicated to Development
A31
Slide 2
INTRODUCTION
This appendix contains selected benchmarking and situation analysis from the work
of the Research Commission.
These data provide context for specific recommendations in the report.
A more complete set of benchmarking analysis and materials is contained in a
separate package: Selected Benchmarking, A Working Document (March,
1998). Copies are available from the Office of Research.
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A2 -
Slide 3
LEADING INSTITUTIONS SUCCEED BROADLY (I)
Rankings of Publics on a Variety of Metrics
NRC
Humanities
UC Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
Virginia
UC Irvine
Texas Austin
Indiana
UNC Chapel Hill
UCSD
Wisconsin
NRC
Engineering
UC Berkeley
Michigan
Illinois Urbana
Texas Austin
UCSD
Purdue
Minnesota
Wisconsin
UNC Chapel Hill
Georgia Tech
Illinois Urbana
Washington
Ohio State
Minnesota
UC Davis
Arizona
Penn State
Colorado
Purdue
Georgia Tech
UCLA
Washington
Penn State
UC Davis
Indiana
Ohio State
UC Irvine
Colorado
Arizona
Virginia
Scholarship/
Grad Programs
AND
Federal R&D
Spending
Washington
UCSD
Michigan
Wisconsin
UCSF*
UCLA
Minnesota
Penn State
Colorado
Arizona
USNWR
Undergrad 1
Virginia
UC Berkeley
Michigan
UNC Chapel Hill
UCLA
William and Mary*
UCSD
Wisconsin
Georgia Tech
UC Davis
UC Berkeley
UCLA
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Michigan
Minnesota
Illinois Urbana
Texas Austin
Iowa*
Georgia*
UC Berkeley
UNC Chapel Hill
Pittsburgh*
Texas Austin
Illinois Urbana
Texas A&M*
Ohio State
UC Davis
Alabama BirmХham*
Georgia Tech
UC Irvine
Penn State
Illinois Urbana
UCSB*
Iowa*
Rutgers*
Minnesota
Washington
Texas - A&M*
SUNY - BingХton*
Indiana
Michigan State*
Colorado
Oregon*
Penn State
Maryland*
Virginia
Washington
Kansas*
Rutgers*
Funded
Research
AND
Undergraduate AND
Programs
USNWR
Education
Outreach/
Service
Notes:
1. Schools in bold represent one view of the top 10 publics
2. First 2 columns rank peer 20 only; others include all publics; schools not in peer 20 highlighted by *
1OSU ranks #22 among public undergrad programs
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A3 -
Slide 4
LEADING INSTITUTIONS SUCCEED BROADLY (II)
Rankings of Publics on a Variety of Metrics
NRC
SBS
Michigan
UC Berkeley
UCLA
Wisconsin
UCSD
Minnesota
UT Austin
Illinois Urbana
UNC Chapel Hill
Washington
UC Berkeley
UCLA
UT Austin
Illinois Urbana
UCSD
Michigan
Penn State
Washington
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Indiana
Virginia
Ohio State
Arizona
UC Irvine
Penn State
UC Davis
Purdue
Colorado
Georgia Tech
Purdue
Arizona
Ohio State
Indiana
UNC Chapel Hill
Colorado
UC Irvine
Virginia
Georgia Tech
UC Davis
Scholarship
NRC
MAPS
AND
NIH Research
at Med School
UCSF*
Washington
Michigan
UCSD
UNC Chapel Hill
Pittsburgh*
Alabama BirmХham*
UCLA
Minnesota
UT - Dallas*
USNWR
Business
UC Berkeley
Virginia
Michigan
UNC Chapel Hill
UCLA
UT Austin
Indiana
Ohio State
Purdue*
Maryland*
Michigan
Virginia
UC Berkeley
UCLA
UT Austin
Illinois Urbana
Minnesota
Iowa*
Georgia*
Washington
Colorado Denver*
Wisconsin
Iowa*
Maryland*
Indiana
Utah*
Virginia
UT - San Antonio*
Massachusetts*
Cincinnati*
Michigan State*
Minnesota
Penn State
Arizona
Georgia Tech
Florida*
Georgia*
Pittsburgh*
UC Davis
UC Irvine
Connecticut*
UNC Chapel Hill
Arizona
Wisconsin
Utah*
Indiana
UC Davis
Colorado
Tennessee*
Arizona State*
Funded
Research
AND
USNWR
Law*
Professional Education
Notes:
1. Schools in bold represent one view of the top 10 publics
2. First 2 columns rank peer 20 only; others include all publics; schools not in peer 20 highlighted by *
* OSU ranks #21 among public law schools
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A4 -
Slide 5
LEADING INSTITUTIONS SUCCEED BROADLY (III)
Rankings of Publics on a Variety of Metrics
USNWR
Freshman RetХn
Sports Illustrated
ТJock SchoolsУ
USNWR
GradХn Rate
Virginia
Michigan
UC Berkeley ^
UCLA^
UNC Chapel Hill ^
UC Irvine
UCSD^
Penn State^
Illinois Urbana
UC Davis^
Virginia
Michigan
UNC Chapel Hill
Penn State
Illinois Urbana
UC Berkeley ^
UCLA
UC Davis
UCSD^
Wisconsin
UCLA
Texas Austin
Florida*
Michigan
UNC Chapel Hill
Penn State
Nebraska*
Arizona
Ohio State
Virginia
Washington ^
Wisconsin^
Indiana
Georgia Tech
UT Austin^
Purdue
Minnesota
Ohio State
Colorado^
Arizona
Purdue
Georgia Tech
Indiana
UC Irvine^
Washington ^
Colorado
UT Austin
Ohio State
Arizona
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Tennessee*
Iowa*
UC Berkeley
Indiana
Alabama*
Georgia*
Michigan State*
Minnesota
Washington
. . . AND
Undergraduate
Programs
. . . AND
Undergraduate
Student Life
Notes:
1. Schools in bold represent one view of the top 10 publics
2. First 2 columns rank peer 20 only; 3rd includes all publics; schools not in peer 20 highlighted by *
^ Indicates no difference from program(s) above
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A5 -
Slide 6
RANKINGS OF FACULTY AND PROGRAM QUALITY
Ohio State
Area
Top
Quartile
Relative Rank Among 20 Peers
2nd
3rd
4th
Quartile
Quartile
Quartile
NRC ТQuality of FacultyУ:
#
Programs
38/39
Weighted
Rank
(
)
Ґ A&H
10/11
13
Ґ BioSci
7/7
19
Ґ Engineering
9/9
16
Ґ MAPS
6/6
13
Ґ SBS
6/6
13
Programs not ranked:
USNWR Program Rankings*:
EB
L
Ґ ProfХl
V
N PX
HS
Medicine, Primary Care
Ґ Health Sci.
Ґ Other
M
FA
Social Work, Architecture,
Drama/Theater
* Reflects most recent rankings. Includes only areas not included in NRC.
Source: NRC, USNWR, OSU RC analysis
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A6 -
Slide 7
MICHIGAN
Area
Top
Quartile
2nd
Quartile
3rd
Quartile
4th
Quartile
NRC:
#
Programs
Weighted
Rank
38/40
Ґ A&H
11/11
3
Ґ BioSci
8/8
6
Ґ Engineering
9/9
2
Ґ MAPS
5/6
6
Ґ SBS
5/6
1
USNWR:
Programs not ranked:
B L E
Ґ ProfХl
Ґ Med
Ґ Other
MD HS N PX
SW M CW
PH
A
FA
Film, Drama/Theater
Source: NRC, USNWR, OSU RC analysis
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A7 -
Slide 8
ILLINOIS-URBANA
Area
Top
Quartile
2nd
Quartile
3rd
Quartile
4th
Quartile
NRC:
#
Programs
Weighted
Rank
37/40
Ґ A&H
11/11
11
Ґ BioSci
7/8
9
Ґ Engineering
8/9
3
Ґ MAPS
5/6
4
Ґ SBS
6/6
8
USNWR:
Programs not ranked:
E
L
Ґ ProfХl
Ґ Med
Ґ Other
Public Health
FA M
DT
SW
Architecture
Source: NRC, USNWR, OSU RC analysis
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A8 -
Slide 9
VIRGINIA
Area
Top
Quartile
2nd
Quartile
3rd
Quartile
4th
Quartile
#
Programs
Weighted
Rank
29/40
NRC:
Ґ A&H
8/11
4
Ґ BioSci
5/8
16
Ґ Engineering
6/9
20
Ґ MAPS
5/6
18
Ґ SBS
5/6
12
USNWR:
L B
Programs not ranked:
E
Ґ ProfХl
N
Ґ Med
Ґ Other
CW
A
Drama/Theatre, Music
Source: NRC, USNWR, OSU RC analysis
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A9 -
Slide 10
UT - AUSTIN
Area
Top
Quartile
2nd
Quartile
3rd
Quartile
4th
Quartile
NRC:
#
Programs
Weighted
Rank
37/40
Ґ A&H
11/11
6
Ґ BioSci
7/8
10
Ґ Engineering
8/9
4
Ґ MAPS
5/6
3
Ґ SBS
6/6
7
USNWR:
B
E L
Ґ ProfХl
Ґ Med
Ґ Other
PX
DT A FA M F
N
SW
Source: NRC, USNWR, OSU RC analysis
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A10 -
Slide 11
RANKINGS OF FACULTY QUALITY
NRC Disciplines
Distribution of Academic Programs in NRC Rankings: Relative to 20 Peers
1st Quartile
Cal - Berkeley
Michigan
Wisconsin
UCLA
Washington
UCSD
Illinois Urbana
Texas - Austin
Minnesota
Virginia
Arizona
Cal - Irvine
Penn State
Colorado
Purdue
UNC Chapel Hill
Cal - Davis
Georgia Tech
Indiana U.
Ohio State
3/4/98
30
17
13
12
10
9
9
5
5
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
2nd Quartile
5
15
15
17
8
11
7
19
9
4
5
3
2
3
3
12
3
3
10
3
OSU Research Commission
3rd Quartile
0
2
4
5
10
8
14
11
16
8
4
6
12
8
6
11
10
3
10
14
4th Quartile
0
4
6
2
9
0
7
12
7
13
17
12
19
17
10
8
12
7
8
21
- A11 -
Slide 12
STUDENT-FACULTY RATIO: A SNAPSHOT, c. 1996
At the Undergraduate Level, OSUХs Is Highest
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
OSU
UCLA
UC
Bkly
UT
Austin
PSU
Purdue
Colorad
Arizona Wisco
o
Undergrads/FTE Faculty*
23.9
23.1
21.6
21.5
20.9
20.9
20.2
20.0
Grads/FTE Faculty **
6.0
9.5
7.3
6.1
3.2
3.3
3.5
5.2
U
Wash
UNC
UIUC Virginia
Michiga
n
19.6
19.4
18.7
18.0
17.5
16.7
6.1
5.6
6.0
5.0
8.1
6.6
* Undergrads per FTE Faculty in Arts and Sciences, Engineering, Business, Education, and Agriculture
** Graduate students per Total FTE Faculty
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A12 -
Slide 13
ADJUSTING OSU RATIOS FOR ERI REPLACEMENTS
Holding OthersХRatios Fixed, OSU Will Remain Among the Highest
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
OSU
UCLA
UC
Bkly
UT
Austin
PSU
Purdue
Colorad
Arizona Wisco U Wash
o
Undergrads/FTE Faculty*
21.9
23.1
21.6
21.5
20.9
20.9
20.2
20.0
19.6
Grads/FTE Faculty **
5.7
9.5
7.3
6.1
3.2
3.3
3.5
5.2
6.1
Michiga
n
UNC
UIUC Virginia
19.4
18.7
18.0
17.5
16.7
5.6
6.0
5.0
8.1
6.6
* Undergrads per FTE Faculty in Arts and Sciences, SBS, Engineering, Business, Education, and Agriculture
** Graduate students per Total FTE Faculty, excluding clinical
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A13 -
Slide 14
OSU STUDENT-FACULTY RATIO BY COLLEGE
1990-1995
College/Unit
STUDENT FTE PER FACULTY FTE
FY 91-92
FY 92-93
FY 93-94
29.12
28.63
27.85
17.18
17.52
17.00
24.19
25.82
24.88
29.53
28.41
28.00
31.71
31.77
31.42
35.48
33.66
31.82
FY 89-90
29.43
15.30
18.06
31.39
33.04
38.01
FY 90-91
29.97
17.35
19.00
31.73
31.82
38.69
Total Professional Colleges
Business
FAES
Education
Engineering (Excludes Airport)
Human Ecology
Social Work
Law (Excludes Law Library)
19.21
35.77
12.10
21.45
14.31
24.16
16.38
20.10
19.27
35.73
12.33
20.75
14.43
25.21
18.52
19.63
19.20
34.90
13.22
20.67
14.27
27.07
18.76
19.01
20.19
32.73
15.85
22.65
14.89
30.25
21.65
19.07
Total Health Sciences
Nursing
Pharmacy
Dentistry
Medicine
Optometry
Veterinary Medicine
5.39
9.32
12.08
7.31
3.88
20.39
7.63
5.22
10.29
12.42
7.04
3.76
19.74
6.87
5.12
11.91
12.70
6.76
3.64
18.04
6.93
Total for Academic Units
18.40
18.33
17.96
Total Arts & Sciences
Arts
Biological Sciences
Humanities
Mathematical and Physical Sci
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Note: Student FTE calculated in Profiles by dividing total credit hours by 45
Source: University Profiles
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
FY 94-95
27.89
16.23
25.59
27.37
32.63
32.51
FY 95-96
30.18
19.13
26.93
29.75
34.32
34.58
19.44
27.11
17.09
22.20
14.35
31.52
22.03
20.17
20.08
27.01
18.47
22.85
15.18
31.99
20.87
20.88
21.99
31.33
22.14
24.30
16.20
35.37
20.09
22.76
5.17
12.23
13.29
7.25
3.62
21.73
7.13
4.85
12.53
11.83
7.52
3.29
21.08
7.24
4.83
12.33
11.81
7.35
3.21
25.32
7.96
5.03
10.91
12.14
8.78
3.21
22.55
9.25
17.93
16.99
17.15
18.27
- A14 -
Slide 15
GRADUATE STUDENTS IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Mix, By Type and Source of Support
Appointments
Fellows and trainees
RAs
TAs
Other
Fellows, Trainees, & RAs
Sources of support
Federal
Institutional
Other outside
Self support
OSU
U Ariz
UCLA
UIUC
U Mich
U Minn
PSU
Texas
U Wash
Wisco
11%
33%
33%
23%
12%
35%
23%
30%
30%
18%
18%
34%
10%
44%
24%
22%
26%
25%
18%
31%
14%
41%
23%
23%
8%
44%
26%
22%
11%
33%
30%
25%
18%
38%
20%
25%
11%
39%
17%
34%
44%
47%
48%
54%
51%
55%
52%
45%
56%
50%
18%
54%
8%
20%
29%
36%
14%
21%
16%
34%
17%
33%
36%
43%
2%
19%
24%
38%
10%
28%
27%
44%
11%
18%
29%
42%
14%
16%
14%
58%
9%
18%
39%
30%
14%
16%
33%
29%
11%
28%
Observations:
Ґ OSU has a relatively high mix of students supported on TAs
Ґ OSU has a relatively low mix of students supported from federal sources
Ґ Based on this data source, OSU appears to support a relatively high
proportion of students using institutional funds (note: Graduate School is
checking this number to see if it has been overstated)
Source: NSF Institutional Profiles, FY1995; RC analysis
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A15 -
Slide 16
BENCHMARKING RESEARCH BULDINGS AND EQUIPMENT
A Rough Analysis, Using Estimated Book Values
INSTITUTION
Ohio State
Wisconsin
UCSD
Colorado
Penn State
Minnesota
Purdue
Indiana
UCLA
Michigan
UNC - Ch. Hill
Georgia Tech
Washington
UIUC
Iowa
UI-Chicago
Arizona
PSU-Hershey
UT Austin
UC Berkeley
UC Irvine
Average:
MTDC
Base*
Sponsored
Research
(M)
$98
$227
$107
$51
$138
$189
$63
$63
$148
$162
$76
$50
$111
$118
$98
$71
$149
$24
$98
$109
$39
Estimated
Book Value of
Research
Buildings
(M)
$73
$168
$96
$44
$109
$182
$56
$61
$148
$150
$88
$37
$129
$129
$122
$86
$166
$38
$148
$256
$117
Estimated
Book Value of
Research
Equipment
(M)
$24
$67
$27
$16
$54
$53
$24
$21
$52
$72
$21
$36
$39
$52
$29
$24
$76
$7
$49
$47
$11
Ratio:
MTDC/
BV Research
Buildings +
Equipment
1.01
0.97
0.87
0.86
0.85
0.81
0.78
0.77
0.74
0.73
0.70
0.68
0.66
0.65
0.64
0.64
0.62
0.54
0.50
0.36
0.30
0.70
Ratio:
MTDC/
BV Research
Building
Assets
1.34
1.35
1.11
1.18
1.27
1.04
1.11
1.04
1.00
1.08
0.87
1.33
0.86
0.91
0.80
0.82
0.90
0.63
0.67
0.43
0.33
0.96
Ratio:
MTDC/
BV Research
Equipment
Assets
4.08
3.40
3.92
3.14
2.56
3.57
2.60
2.98
2.86
2.23
3.70
1.40
2.86
2.27
3.32
2.88
1.96
3.60
2.00
2.33
3.40
2.91
OSU puts an annual volume of ~$100M of funded research through ~$100M of facilities
Average Peer 20 school puts $100M of research through $143M of facilities
Note: Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) will not tie directly with other funding data - some categories are excluded
Sources: COGR FY 1994-95 Facilities and Administrative Cost Database (shows most recent IDC rate - OSUХs was last set in 1992); RC analysis
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A16 -
Slide 17
BENCHMARKING INSTITUTIONAL EXPENDITURES
ON RESEARCH EQUIPMENT
Five-year Average, 1991-1995
Equipment as % of Equipment as % of
Total R&D
Federal R&D
Expenditures
Expenditures
% of Equipment
Expenditures
Supported by
Federal Sources
UIUC
Wisco
U Wash
PSU
Arizona
Texas
U Mich
U Minn
OSU
UCLA
7.9%
7.9%
7.1%
6.1%
5.4%
5.1%
4.2%
4.1%
3.9%
2.8%
14.8%
13.9%
9.4%
10.9%
10.6%
9.1%
7.1%
7.5%
7.9%
4.2%
54.5%
54.0%
74.6%
61.9%
58.2%
64.5%
59.5%
59.2%
50.9%
59.8%
Average
5.6%
9.7%
60.7%
Observations:
Ґ OSU investment in equipment appears modest, measured in relation to
research activity
Ґ OSU is leveraging federal sources less than peers in acquiring equipment
Source: NSF Institutional Profiles
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A17 -
Slide 18
Slide 19
Slide 20
AVERAGE FEDERAL R&D PER FACULTY FTE
FY 1995
PSU
U Wash
Wisco
Arizona
U Mich
UIUC
UT Austin
UCLA
OSU
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Note: Includes clinical faculty
Sources: NSF CASPAR database, AAUDE database, RPIA analysis, RC analysis
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A20 -
Slide 21
NATIONAL ACADEMY MEMBERS
OSU and Benchmarks
Institution
Cal - Berkeley
Washington
UCSD
UCLA
Wisconsin
Texas - Austin
Illinois Urbana
Michigan
Minnesota
UNC Chapel Hill
Colorado
Arizona
Penn State
Purdue
Cal - Davis
Cal - Irvine
Virginia
Georgia Tech
Indiana U.
Ohio State
Note: includes retired and emeritus faculty
3/4/98
National Academy/Institute Members
Sciences Engineering
Medicine
108
59
6
33
9
32
47
9
15
32
12
14
39
14
5
16
38
n/a
27
25
n/a
20
12
17
15
16
3
10
6
18
15
7
6
15
9
2
8
10
5
7
15
n/a
15
5
1
15
1
3
3
6
9
1
15
n/a
8
n/a
3
2
6
2
OSU Research Commission
Total
173
74
71
58
58
54
52
49
34
34
28
26
23
22
21
19
18
16
11
10
- A21 -
Slide 22
A ROUGH ANALYSIS OF FACULTY MIX BY RANK*
Rank
Professor
Assoc Professor
Asst Professor
Instructor, etc.
Mix
Age
OSU Mean ** OSU Mean **
35%
50%
53.4
53.8
36%
26%
46.8
45.9
28%
23%
38.7
39.2
1%
1%
n/a
n/a
Several possible interpretations, not mutually exclusive:
Ґ ERI program temporarily reduced number of full professors at OSU
Ґ OSU has more associate professors ТstalledУat that rank (not supported by
average age data, given standard deviations of peer mean of 2-3 years)
Ґ OSU has a younger, more junior faculty than peers, (supported by Asst Prof
mix) suggesting potential for growth as they come into the prime of their
careers
* Table shows un-weighted average faculty mix across all colleges; weighting by OSU faculty FTEs yields very similar results
** Schools comprising the mean: Arizona, Colorado-Boulder, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Penn State, Purdue, UT-Austin, UC
Berkeley, UCLA, UNC-Chapel Hill, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
Source: AAUDE database; RPIA analysis; RC analysis
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A22 -
Slide 23
NSF GRANTS AT OSU AND SELECTED BENCHMARKS
Value and Characteristics of Active NSF Awards
Total Value of
Number
Number of
Number of
Average
Median
Active NSF
of Active
Active Grants
Active Grants
Direct Cost of
Direct Cost
Grants ($K)
Grants
Valued > $5M
Valued > $1M
Grants <$1M
($K)
UIUC
300,399
355
5
20
157
149
Wisconsin
175,112
434
4
26
153
147
Michigan
162,740
436
4
20
135
128
Washington
147,067
401
1
19
166
152
Texas
98,877
288
2
9
144
132
Penn State
88,051
358
0
11
144
137
Ohio State
74,543
272
1
4
138
128
University
Observations:
Ґ Benchmarks have more active grants
Ґ Benchmarks have more large, center-type grants (actual # centers not
readily available)
Ґ Most benchmarks have higher average and median direct costs per
grant (after adjusting for overhead rates)
Note: Obligations include multiple-year commitments
Sources: NSF Institutional Profiles; RC analysis
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A23 -
Slide 24
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
GRA TUITION AND FEES
OSU Policy is Unusual Among Peers
University
Policy on GRA Tuition and Fees
UC Berkeley
Penn State
UT Austin
Michigan
Indiana
UIUC
Michigan State
Washington
Wisconsin
North Carolina
Ohio State
Not covered centrally - college approaches vary
Not covered centrally - college approaches vary
Not covered centrally - college approaches vary
Not covered centrally - college approaches vary
Not covered centrally - college approaches vary
Charged to sponsors as ТfringeУrate of 32% of stipend
Colleges accountable for 9 credits - most charge sponsors
Number of waivers capped, at the college or university level
Waived, as of 1997 (driven by factors other than strategic intent)
Waived
ТAuthorizedУ(waived), on projects with full indirect cost
These authorizations total ~$7M annually at OSU currently
Notes: 1. Benchmarks shown here are simply the ones for which we have this information
2. All universities in this sample waive out-of-state tuition premiums
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A28 -
Slide 29
BENCHMARKING INDIRECT COST RECOVERY
North Carolina
Geo. Tech. Res. Inst.
U. Washington
Colorado
Michigan
UC-Irvine
UCSD
UC-Berkeley
Purdue
Indiana
Georgia Tech
Maryland
Wisconsin
UCLA
PSU - Hershey
Ohio State
Texas-Austin
UIUC
Arizona
Minnesota
PSU - Univ. Pk.
0%
20%
40%
Total IDCR as % of rate
60%
80%
100%
Federal IDCR as % of rate
Source: COGR database
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A29 -
Slide 30
NIH GRANTS AT OSU AND BENCHMARKS
Average Size and Number of Grants, by Type
Average NIH Grant Size (Direct Cost Only), and Number of Grants, by Type of Grant ($K)
Grant
Type
OSU
Av $
#
127
130
347
7
67
30
211
9
1,379
1
360
3
112
4
246
3
591
1
931
1
306
3
83
8
R01
U01
R29
U10
P30
P01
R21
R37
P50
M01
N01
T32
Average of
These
Benchmarks
Av $
#
156
240
369
10
75
38
281
6
884
5
791
8
92
3
235
12
905
6
1,523
1
341
9
117
26
Michigan
Av $
#
164
364
661
10
70
55
182
9
593
9
506
12
80
4
194
12
699
12
2,991
1
401
7
127
49
UNC
Av $
#
153
275
278
14
67
35
210
3
720
6
860
13
119
3
186
22
678
8
1,812
1
458
13
98
41
Pitt
Av $
164
353
72
665
672
620
92
319
904
1,200
254
101
#
283
14
48
9
8
4
4
14
5
1
18
23
Wisco
Av $
#
147
323
151
8
70
36
273
7
1,370
4
711
9
110
1
185
14
347
5
1,104
1
296
6
152
29
Arizona
Av $
#
150
90
239
7
69
23
112
3
872
2
884
7
60
1
178
5
1,685
1
381
107
4
8
Indiana Med
Av $
#
160
103
531
5
104
28
244
3
1,076
1
1,166
4
346
1,115
2,034
256
119
4
2
1
5
8
Some observations:
Ґ Average size of an R01 grant at OSU is ~20% less than at other Medical Schools
Ґ Number of Type ТPУprogram grants at OSU lags peers significantly
Source: NIH
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A30 -
Slide 31
RESOURCES DEDICATED TO DEVELOPMENT
Big Ten Universities
Major
Gifts
15
12
3
9
0
0
3
16
4
3
0
University
Illinois
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio State
Penn State
Northwestern
Purdue
Indiana
Wisconsin
Michigan State
Iowa
Planned
Gifts
7
3
2
3
4
8
3
5
3
2
3
Corp./
Found'n
Gifts
4
3
2
3
3
4
3
2
4
3
1
Annual
Gifts
6
4
3
4
7
12
6
2
2
5
3
College/
Constituency
84
60
48
35
38
18
28
?
23
19
7
Other
Professionals
8
11
11
8
6
14
7
22
10
8
16
Total
Professionals
124
93
69
62
58
56
50
47
46
40
30
Recent
Annual
Gifts
116.6
145.8
131.6
124.0
82.8
101.0
76.2
109.7
164.3
50.2
60.1
Avg. Gifts
per
Prof'l (K)
$
940
$ 1,568
$ 1,907
$ 2,000
$ 1,428
$ 1,804
$ 1,524
$ 2,334
$ 3,572
$ 1,255
$ 2,003
Is OSU Investing at a Level Consistent With the Opportunity?
Source: OSU Development
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
- A31 -
Slide 32
#7 Penn State
RESOURCES DEDICATED TO DEVELOPMENT
Examples at the College Level
Development Staff in Engineering Schools
Development &
Department
Support
University
Professionals
Staff
Illinois
14
5
Michigan
8
6
Purdue
11
Ohio State*
1
0
* Ohio State will add 2 professional staff in Engineering in 1998
Development Staff in Medical Schools
Development
University
Professionals
Indiana U.
13
Minnesota
14.5
UT - Galveston
13
Michigan
10
Washington
7
Northwestern
7
Penn State - Hersey
4
Ohio State
5
Illinois - Chicago
6
Support
Staff
12
8
7
5.5
4
3
5
4
2
Note: Colleges and benchmarks represent data set available
Source: OSU Development
3/4/98
OSU Research Commission
Total
19
14
11
1
Total
25
22.5
20
15.5
11
10
9
9
8
- A32 -