DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
STRATEGIC PLANNING
SITUATION ASSESSMENT
October 2006
Messina & Graham
Contents
I.
Overview of Strategy-Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. Profile of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
• Summary Slides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
• Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
III. 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
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
I. Overview of Strategy-Development Process
1.
SITUATION
ASSESSMENT
• Profiling the
environment
• Profiling Auburn
- Main campus
- AUM
2.
OPTION
GENERATION
• Candidate
strategic
objectives
and directions
• Rationale for
each option
3.
OPTION
EVALUATION
• Detailed
assessment
of each option
• Comparison of
options
• Identifying
strategic
challenges and
implications
4.
STRATEGY
SELECTION
• Rationale
• Full description,
including goals
and action
initiatives
5.
EXECUTION
• Implementation
plan, responsibility
assignments
• Progress measures,
review milestones
• Adjustments and
adaptation
Messina & Graham
4
Key Elements of a Strategy
• Special attributes and their sources
DISTINCTIVENESS
• Differentiation that confers relative advantage
• Consistent with vision and mission
• Choices about allocating scarce resources
RESOURCE
COMMITMENTS
• Fact-based decision-making
• Coherent set of initiatives
• Implementation plans, responsibility assignments
EXECUTION
• Progress measures, review milestones
• Adjustments and adaptation
Messina & Graham
5
II. Profile of the Environment
• Summary Slides
- Pervasive Trends
- Forces Affecting Higher Education
• Implications
- For all universities
- For AU (Illustrative)
Messina & Graham
6
Summary
FORCES AFFECTING
HIGHER EDUCATION
PERVASIVE TRENDS
• Globalization
• Enrollment Growth
• Information Revolution
• Affordability Challenge
• Natural-Resource Demands
and Environmental Strain
• Demands for Quality
Improvement
• Aging Populations and
Increasing Minorities
• Efficiency Imperative
• Diverse Perspectives on the
University in the TwentyFirst Century
Messina & Graham
7
Pervasive Trends
GLOBALIZATION
INFORMATION
REVOLUTION
NATURAL
RESOURCES
DEMOGRAPHICS
• Transforming worldwide commerce and
employment
• Generating global competition for knowledge work
• Information technology, telecommunications,
connectivity
• Dramatic and ubiquitous impacts
• Demand increasing because of global economic
and population growth
• Environment under strain
• Aging populations in developed countries
• Rapid rise in U.S. minorities, especially
Hispanics
Messina & Graham
8
Implications of Pervasive Trends for Universities
GLOBALIZATION
INFORMATION
REVOLUTION
NATURAL
RESOURCES
DEMOGRAPHICS
• Ensuring competitiveness of graduates
• Increasing students’ international awareness
• Multiple challenges and opportunities in
teaching and learning, research, extension,
and administration and operations
• Teaching and learning, research, extension and
operations opportunities
• Examples: alternative energy sources,
conservation, agricultural technologies
• Enriching lifelong learning
• Embracing greater diversity
Messina & Graham
9
Implications of Higher-Education
Trends for Universities
ENROLLMENT
GROWTH
AFFORDABILITY
CHALLENGE
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
EFFICIENCY
IMPERATIVE
21ST
CENTURY
UNIVERSITY
• Focusing on enrollment objectives
• Ensuring diverse access
• Innovating and experimenting with new curricula
and teaching approaches
• Measuring performance in learning and teaching
• Implementing proven business practices to
reduce cost growth
• Re-examining vision and mission
• Redesigning business model to adapt to
dramatic change
Messina & Graham
10
Implications for Auburn University
Pervasive Trends
TREND / IMPLICATIONS
GLOBALIZATION
POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE
• Raise performance expectations for students and
measure results
• Competitiveness of
graduates
• Develop new approaches to undergraduate education
• Students’ international
awareness
• Increase international course and language skills
offerings and requirements
INFORMATION
REVOLUTION
• Challenges and
opportunities across
the enterprise
• Ensure implementation of technologies that enable
cost and quality improvements
Messina & Graham
11
Implications for Auburn University
Pervasive Trends
TREND / IMPLICATIONS
POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE
NATURAL
RESOURCES
• Advance teaching and research in alternative energy
sources, conservation, agricultural technologies
• Opportunities across
the enterprise
• Promote energy-efficient building design and operations
DEMOGRAPHICS
• Enriching lifelong
learning
• Embracing greater
diversity
• Explore distance learning for specific markets
(e.g., alumni, seniors)
• Prepare for challenges resulting from growth in Hispanic
students
Messina & Graham
12
Implications for Auburn University
Forces Affecting Higher Education
TREND / IMPLICATIONS
ENROLLMENT
GROWTH
• Focusing on enrollment
objectives
POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE
• Strengthen image of value to compensate for possible
reduction in applicant pool
AFFORDABILITY
CHALLENGE
• Constrain expense growth through improving efficiency
and applying technology
• Ensuring diverse
access
• Increase resources available for need-based aid
Messina & Graham
13
Implications for Auburn University
Forces Affecting Higher Education
TREND / IMPLICATIONS
QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT
• Developing innovative
teaching and learning
approaches
• Measuring performance
in learning and
teaching
POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE
• Raise performance expectations for students
• Innovate and experiment with new teaching approaches,
including beyond the classroom
• Focus on learning objectives and measure results
Messina & Graham
14
Implications for Auburn University
Forces Affecting Higher Education
TREND / IMPLICATIONS
POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE
EFFICIENCY
IMPERATIVE
• Perform a comprehensive review of cost elements and
processes
• Implementing proven
business practices to
reduce cost growth
• 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
Messina & Graham
15
Implications for Auburn University
Forces Affecting Higher Education
TREND / IMPLICATIONS
21ST CENTURY
UNIVERSITY
• Re-examining vision and
mission
• Redesigning business
model to adapt to
dramatic change
POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE
• 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)
Messina & Graham
16
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
Profile of Auburn University
1. Students
2. Research
3. Extension
4. Finances
Messina & Graham
18
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
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 highlyregarded 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
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
Public High-School Graduates 1995 - 2015
Chart 1
Alabama
Number of Students
35,000
1995
37,100
37,400
2000
2005
37,900
35,300
2010
2015 Down 5%
from 2005
2015
Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): Projections to 2015, Table 24
Messina & Graham
22
Public High-School Graduates 1995 - 2015 (Continued)
Chart 1
Alabama
Georgia
Number of Students
2015 – Up 10%
from 2005
56,300
35,000
37,100
37,400
37,900
35,300
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
1995
73,700
78,900
80,500
2005
2010
2015
62,500
2000
Source: NCES: Projections to 2015, Table 24
Messina & Graham
23
Public High-School Graduates 1995 - 2015 (Continued)
Chart 1
Alabama
2015 – Up 10%
from 2005
Florida
Number of Students
150,000
154,400
2010
2015
139,800
111,000
89,000
35,000
1995
37,100
2000
37,400
37,900
35,300
2005
2010
2015
1995
2000
2005
Source: NCES: Projections to 2015, Table 24
Messina & Graham
24
• 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
Minority Shares of Public High-School Graduates
Chart 2
Alabama
32%
30%
10%
1%
2002
2018
2002
African-American
2018
Hispanic
Note: AU 1.5% Hispanic enrollment in 2005
Source: SREB Fact Book on Higher Education, 2005; AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
26
Minority Shares of Public High-School Graduates (Continued)
Chart 2
Georgia
Alabama
33%
32%
30%
27%
26%
10%
2%
1%
2002
2018
AfricanAmerican
2002
2018
2002
Hispanic
2018
AfricanAmerican
2002
2018
Hispanic
Source: SREB Fact Book on Higher Education, 2005; AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
27
Minority Shares of Public High-School Graduates (Continued)
Chart 2
Alabama
Florida
32%
36%
30%
20%
18%
17%
10%
1%
2002
2018
AfricanAmerican
2002
2018
2002
Hispanic
2018
AfricanAmerican
2002
2018
Hispanic
Source: SREB Fact Book on Higher Education, 2005; AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
28
• 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
AU Freshmen by State – 2006
Chart 3
100% = 4,077
Georgia
17%
Florida
6%
Tennessee
4%
Alabama
61%
Other
12%
Source: AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
30
AU Share of Freshmen Leaving Their Home State
for an SREB Public Research University – 2005
Chart 4
31%
19%
14%
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee
Source: AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
31
Equivalent ACT Scores of AU Freshmen – 2005
Chart 5
24.4
24.1
In-State
Out-of-State
Source: AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
32
• 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
AU Total Applications, Acceptances, and Enrollment – 2005
Chart 6
14,249
11,616
4,197
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Note: 81.5 percent of applicants are accepted, with a 36 percent yield
Source: AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
34
Yield Rate of AU Admitted Students
In-State and Out-of-State – Average, 2002 - 2005
Chart 7
52%
26%
Out-of-state
Alabama
Source: National Student Clearinghouse; AU Office of Admissions & Records
Messina & Graham
35
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
Top 10 Competitors for Alabama Students:
Schools Attended by AU Admits Not Enrolling at Auburn – 2003
All AU Admits
Percent
University of Alabama (U of A)
Best-Prepared AU Admits
(ACT 27 and Above)*
Percent
Number
23
7
144
University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)
9
2
49
Southern Union State Community College
(SUSCC)
8
--
--
University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH)
6
3
56
Troy University (Troy)
5
--
--
University of South Alabama (USA)
5
1
23
Birmingham Southern University (BHAM S)
4
2
42
Samford University (Samford)
4
2
33
University of North Alabama (UNA)
3
--
--
Auburn University Montgomery (AUM)
3
--
--
Combined Total (Ten Schools)
70
17
347
Other Institutions
30
83
*In-State and Out-of-State
Source: National Student Clearinghouse; AU Office of Admissions & Records
Messina & Graham
Chart 8
37
Competition for Alabama Students:
Schools Attended by AU Admits Not Enrolling at Auburn – 2006
Chart 9
%
% Best
Attend1 ≥ 272
2003 Data
Cost
versus
AU ($)3
University type (USNWR Category)4
Likely Reason
(M&G
Avg. ACT Range
GPA5 (25% - 75%)6 Assessment)7
AU
--
--
--
88th best*, more selective, large, public
3.5
21-27
--
U of A
23
7
-2,400
88th best*, more selective, large, public
3.4
21-27
Loyalty, price
UAB
9
2
NR
Selective, large, public
3.3
20-26
Price
SUSCC
8
--
NR
Community college
NA
NA
Price, work
UAH
6
3
-2,600
More selective, mid-size, public
3.4
22-28
Price
TROY
5
--
-3,800
Selective, mid-size, public
NA
21
Price
USA
5
1
-2,800
Selective, mid-size, public
NA
19-25
Price
BHAM S
4
2
17,000
More selective, small, private, Utd Methodist
3.3
23-29
Prefer small private
Samford
4
2
8,700
More selective, small, private, Baptist
3.6
23-28
Prefer small private
UNA
3
--
-4,000
Selective, mid-size, public
2.9
18-23
Price
AUM
3
--
-3,530
Less selective, mid-size, public
NA
18-23
Price
TOTAL
70
17
Notes to this chart are on the next page
Source: USNWR, August 2006; Messina & Graham
Messina & Graham
38
Competition for Alabama Students
Schools Attended by AU Admits Not Enrolling at Auburn – 2006 (Continued)
Notes
Chart 9
*Ranking versus all schools. For public schools both AU and U of A were rated 39 th
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
6Lower
of entering freshmen’s high-school GPAs
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
Messina & Graham
39
• 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
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
Room and
Board
4,900
Tuition and
Fees
5,500
4,800
5,300
4,800
4,300
AU
U of A
“BestValue”
UAH
“BestValue”
Troy
2,700
UAB
“BestValue”
SUSCC
Source: USNWR, August 2006; SUSCC website; Princeton Review
Messina & Graham
41
• 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
Price/Value Map – Alabama Students’ Perspective 2005-06
Chart 11
Combined Tuition, Fees, Room and Board
$35,000
BHAM S
$30,000
USC
Clemson
$25,000
GA Tech
UGA
UFL
Samford
$20,000
UTN
$15,000
Good value at various
price points
AU
U of A
$10,000
Troy UAH
$5,000
$0
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Value, measured by USNWR scores*
Note: Scores for Troy, Birmingham Southern, Samford and UAH, not ranked among top national universities in USNWR, were assigned
using judgment based on other USNWR scores, graduation rate, ACT score and student-faculty ratio
*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
Messina & Graham
Source: USNWR, August 2006
43
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 beststudent group as well, several institutions each account for small shares. Chart 12
Messina & Graham
44
Top 10 Out-of-State Competitors – 2003
All AU Admits
Percent
Best-Prepared AU Admits
(ACT 27 and Above)*
Percent
Number
University of Georgia (UGA)
14
10
209
Clemson University (Clemson)
4
3
65
University of Tennessee (UTN)
3
2
41
Georgia Institute of Technology (GA Tech)
3
6
124
University of Florida (UFL)
3
3
62
Florida State University (FL S)
3
1
21
University of Mississippi (UMS)
3
2
46
University of South Carolina (USC)
3
--
--
Georgia Southern University (GA S)
2
--
--
Kennesaw State University (KSU)
2
--
--
Combined Total (Ten Schools)
40
27
568
Other Schools
60
73
Chart 12
*In-State and Out-of-State
Source: National Student Clearinghouse; AU Office of Admissions and Records
Messina & Graham
45
• 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
Price/Value Map – Georgia Students’ Perspective – 2006
Chart 13
Combined Tuition, Fees, Room and Board
$30,000
Clemson
$25,000
UFL
AU
Value plays out-of-state for
those who don’t get into
UGA or GA Tech
U of A
$20,000
UTN
$15,000
UGA
GA Southern
$10,000
$5,000
GA Tech
UGA
HOPE
GA Southern
HOPE
Georgia schools for
non-HOPE students
Tech
HOPE
Georgia
schools for
HOPE students
$0
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Value USNWR Score
Source: USNWR, August 2006
Messina & Graham
47
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
AU Competitor Rankings in USNWR – 2005-06
Chart 14
TOP PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
2005
2006
BEST UNDERGRADUATE
ENGINEERING SCHOOLS
2005
2006
BEST UNDERGRADUATE
BUSINESS PROGRAMS
2005
2006
9
8
Georgia Tech
6
6
Georgia Tech
26
29
UFL
16
13
UFL
14
17
Texas A&M
30
29
UGA
19
21
UGA
31
30
UFL
30
29
Texas A&M
21
21
Texas A&M
57
60
Clemson
35
35
Georgia Tech
34
30
Clemson
67
60
Auburn
40
42
USC
38
39
Auburn
67
71
UTN
47
42
FL ST
38
39
UTN
102
*
U of A
47
42
UTN
50
39
U of A
102
*
USC
57
51
Auburn
52
52
FL ST
57
60
U of A
52
54
USC
77
73
Clemson
87
83
UAB
87
83
UMS
* Not listed among top 105
Messina & Graham
49
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
Messina & Graham
50
Auburn’s Value Proposition (Continued)
Chart 15
PRINCETON REVIEW LISTS
LIST
AU RANK
2005
2006
REPRESENTATIVE COMPETITORS
RANKED ON LIST
Best-Value College (“Fabulous
Education at Reasonable Price”)
NOT LISTED
NOT LISTED
“Town-Gown Relations are Great”
#9
#11
Samford, Clemson, Texas A&M
“Students Pack the Stadiums”
#11
#13
UGA, UFL, UNC, UTN, UT Austin
U of A, Clemson
“Their Students (Almost) Never Study”
#10
NOT LISTED
“Best College Library”
#14
#15
U of A, UAB, UAH, Clemson,
University of South Carolina,
FL ST, GA Tech
UGA, UFL, UMS, UT Austin
Source: Princeton Review
Messina & Graham
51
• AU’s ACT scores in 2005 were no longer the highest among Alabama public schools, as
they had been in 2004. U of A’s scores matched those at AU, and UAH’s scores were
higher. AU’s scores are closer to those of lesser-ranked Georgia Southern and GSU than
to Georgia’s flagships, UGA and Georgia Tech. AU’s number of National Merit Scholars is
lower than that at regional competitors including UFL and Georgia Tech. Chart 16
Messina & Graham
52
Freshmen ACT Scores for Leading Competitors – 2005
25th to 75th Percentiles
Number of National
Merit Scholars
Chart 16
GA Tech
100
UFL
230
UGA
49
25-30
Clemson
31
25-30
FL ST
10
USC
40
UTN
21
UAH
1
GA Southern
1
28-32
25-31
23-28
23-28
23-28
22-28
22-26
AU
29
21-27
U of A
68
21-27
UMS
36
20-26
20
25
30
Source: USNWR, August 2006; National Merit Scholarship Corporation Annual Report, 2005
Messina & Graham
35
53
SCOPE FOR SELECTIVITY
AU has limited scope for greater selectivity, because its enrollment is large in relation to the
total number of Alabama’s high-school graduates – a far higher share than the flagships in
Georgia, Texas, and Florida educate, for example. Charts 17, 18
• With two relatively large flagship institutions in a comparatively small state, as a matter of
arithmetic AU cannot hope to attain the elite undergraduate status of a Texas A&M or
Georgia Tech. AU and U of A enroll numbers equal to 18 percent of Alabama’s highschool graduates, while UT and Texas A&M enroll numbers equivalent to only six percent
of the Texas class. Other things equal, the Texas flagships can be three times as selective
as AU. The picture for Florida’s flagships is very similar to Georgia’s: their combined
share of high-school graduates is ten percent, but also one institution is clearly
academically stronger than the other, able to draw the better students and rank much
higher
Messina & Graham
54
Scope for Selectivity
Freshmen as Percent of State’s High-School Graduates – 2005
Chart 17
Alabama
Georgia
18.4%
9.5%
9.9%
8.9%
6.3%
3.6%
Auburn
U of A
35*
24*
Both Flagships
GA Tech
UGA
66*
50*
Both Flagships
*Percent From Top 10% of High-School Class
Source: USNWR; NCES
Messina & Graham
55
Scope for Selectivity
Freshmen as Percent of State’s High-School Graduates – 2005
Chart 18
Texas
Florida
10.1%
2.8%
3%
UT Austin
Texas A&M
66*
49*
5.8%
5.5%
Both Flagships
U FL
FL ST
85*
26*
4.6%
Both Flagships
*Percent From Top 10% of High-School Class
Source: USNWR; NCES
Messina & Graham
56
• Reportedly, 35 percent of AU students are from the top ten percent of their high-school
class. Because Alabama is a small state with two relatively equal flagships, this level is
almost inevitably lower than the 50 to 66 percent achieved by the Georgia and Texas
flagship schools, not to mention the University of Florida’s 85 percent. To reach UGA’s
level of 50 percent of students coming from the top ten percent of their high-school class,
Auburn would have to capture about half of all Alabama high-school graduates who finish
in the top ten percent, which would be exceedingly difficult
• But South Carolina shows more similarity to Alabama: it is a small state with two top
national, public universities. Clemson's share of its state’s high-school graduates is similar
to Auburn’s, and USC’s share is actually higher than U of A’s. Yet despite this “market
share of talent” challenge, Clemson ranks considerably higher academically than Auburn,
gaining much higher marks for selectivity. It appears Clemson has achieved this by
working to position USC as the clear second in the state, enabling Clemson to attract the
stronger applicant pool. Chart 19. Auburn’s particular challenge is that it is viewed as
equivalent to U of A academically, diluting both Alabama universities’ selectivity
Messina & Graham
57
Scope for Selectivity
Freshmen as Percent of State’s High-School Graduates – 2005
Chart 19
South Carolina
21%
12%
9%
Percent From Top 10%
of High-School Class
Clemson
USC
66
49
Both Flagships
Source: USNWR; NCES
Messina & Graham
58
• Another perspective on this limited scope for selectivity is that if AU aspired to reach
Clemson’s ACT scores, (i.e., to move the ACT lower-quartile point up to 24), it would
have to replace 900 low-scoring freshmen in its current class profile with new students
scoring 24 or higher. But the pool of higher-scorers is finite (absent any marked
improvement in Alabama’s quite weak high-school performance), and AU competes with
other institutions to recruit from this pool. Adding 900 higher-scorers would require
increasing AU’s share of all such Alabama students from 25 percent to 37 percent, largely
at the expense of U of A, UAB, UAH, Samford, Birmingham Southern, and Troy. While
there probably are incremental opportunities to gain some market share, a goal of 50
percent share gain in a rather mature “market” seems unrealistic. (Note: The foregoing
analysis is based on data reported in 2005. In the August 2006 USNWR report, Clemson
has moved its lower-quartile ACT bar one point higher and AU’s has decreased by one
point, making catch-up that much harder). Chart 20
Messina & Graham
59
Alabama ACT Scores Distribution - 2005
Chart 20
Shares of Those with ACT of
24 and Over*
100%
AU
25%
57%
Other
27%
Troy
3%
20%
20%
BHAM S
4%
23%
23%
UAH 6%
Samford
6%
Number of
Students 32,122
20 or below
21 - 23
24 and over
18,263
6,467
7,392
*2004
U of A
21%
UAB
8%
7,400 target students for improving freshmen
scores at AU
Source: ACT; USNWR
Messina & Graham
60
• The State of Alabama receives a D- grade from the National Center for Public Policy and
Higher Education on the measure of “High-School Student Preparation to Succeed in
College.” Relative to other states, a smaller fraction of Alabama high-school students
perform well on the ACT and Advanced-Placement tests. Chart 21. This makes it more
difficult for Auburn to be as selective as universities in many other states
Messina & Graham
61
Alabama High-School Student Preparation
Chart 21
ACT Performance
Percentage of Students
Scoring in the Top 20%
Nationally 2005
Advanced Placement Performance
Percentage of Students Scoring 3 or
Higher On At Least One AP Exam
2005
20%
14.4%
14.1%
5.3%
Alabama
Alabama
Nation
Nation
Source: Measuring Up, 2006; Advanced Placement Report to the Nation, 2006
Messina & Graham
62
• AU’s 25 percent share of the state’s National Merit Scholars, while much lower than that of
rival U of A’s, is similar to UGA’s share of Georgia’s National Merit Scholars. Increasing the
number of in-state National Merit Scholars at AU would largely have to occur at the expense
of U of A, since Alabama’s other schools enroll only 16 percent of the total. Chart 22.
National Merit Scholar finalists are those high-school students who score highest in their
states on the Preliminary SAT test in junior year and whose school record does not disqualify
them.1 This designation may not be a necessary and / or sufficient marker for a university
that is intent on targeting a desirable group of academic stars. Moreover, the National Merit
Scholar designation does not reflect any of the non-academic strengths – such as
participation or excellence in athletics, arts, student leadership, community service and so on
– that leading universities typically seek to recruit to their student body. Recruiting more
National Merit Scholars would have no impact on AU’s position in the leading rankings
1 Only
six percent of these top-scoring semi-finalists are disqualified, so the screening of in-school performance does not provide universities with much evidence
of academic excellence.
Messina & Graham
63
Competitor Shares of National Merit Scholars - 2005
Chart 22
Alabama (116 Students in total)
Auburn
29
Georgia (208 Students in total)*
1%
Emory
56
25%
27%
59%
Samford
9
Other
3
48%
8%
8%
24%
U of A 68
UAB, BHAM S,
UAH, Other
10
GA Tech
100
UGA
49
* Georgia colleges import a net 19 Scholars above the 189 state winners
Source: National Merit Scholarship Corporation Annual Report, 2005
Messina & Graham
64
VALUE-ADDED
Input measures such as admission yields, ACT scores, USNWR rankings, and tuition do not
indicate how well the university educates its undergraduates – its “value-added.” In terms of
the competition among peer schools to enroll students, that neglect of value-added is currently
appropriate, since prospective students, parents and high-school counselors have limited
access to (or understanding of) comparisons of value-added. The informed student prospect
will consult USNWR and Princeton Review and form a subjective impression from a campus
visit and conversations with friends, but that is the extent of his or her information about a
university
• Still, as suggested in Chapter II, “Profile of the Environment,” value-added is a natural way
for Auburn to consider responding to many of the external forces at work. These possible
responses include raising performance expectations for students, developing new
approaches to undergraduate education, strengthening AU’s value image, and focusing on
learning objectives and measuring results
Messina & Graham
65
• AU has been among the fairly early adopters of the two main assessments of value-added
that have received widespread national support and a degree of validation: the Collegiate
Learning Assessment (CLA) and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). CLA
results so far show that AU is roughly at parity with most other participating schools but
behind the best schools in terms of developing desirable skills in its undergraduates.
Relative to the top 10 percent of participating schools nationally, Auburn earns a B or C
grade on its educational approaches, as broadly measured by the NSSE. Chart 23
Messina & Graham
66
Measures of Auburn’s Value-Added
Chart 23
COLLEGIATE LEARNING ASSESSMENT (CLA) 2005 – 2006
AU’s OVERALL
RESULT
At Expected Level (on par with 60-75% of
CLA-participating schools)
SENIORS’ PERFORMANCE
BY TASK (RELATIVE TO
EXPECTED LEVEL)
Analytic Writing
Make an Argument
Critique an Argument
Performance Task
Below Expected Level
At Expected Level
Below Expected Level
At Expected Level
Source: AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
67
Measures of Auburn’s Value-Added (Continued)
Chart 23
NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE)
AU Scores – 2006*
Freshmen
Seniors
Academic Challenge
79.8
82.5
Active, Collaborative Learning
75.7
87.7
Student-Faculty Interaction
77.1
76.4
Enriching Experiences
75.3
70.1
Supportive Campus
88.7
88.5
Implied Improvements
More Assigned Reading and Writing
More Time Preparing for Class
More Emphasis on Developing Higher-Order Cognitive Skills
*Where 100 equals the average score of the top 10 percent of participating schools
Source: AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
68
• A gross measure of a university’s educational effectiveness, cited by the Spellings
Commission among others, is its students’ six-year graduation rate. Against this measure,
AU has performed well relative to graduation rates predicted from the ACT scores of
entering students. Even so, it must be considered a disappointing result that only 62
percent of the 1999 entering class had obtained their AU degrees by 2005. This level is
below that of most of AU’s research university competitors and below the figure for U.S.
four-year schools overall. Chart 24
Messina & Graham
69
Six-Year Graduation Rate
AU versus Selected Competitors
Chart 24
Percent of 1999 Entering Class Receiving
Bachelor's Degree
79
76
75
74
66
National
Average = 66%
65
UFL
GA Clemson UGA
Tech
FL ST
Source: USNWR, 2006; Spellings Commission final report
63
USC U of A
Messina & Graham
62
57
56
AU
UTN
UMS
70
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY AREA OF STUDY
Auburn’s current distribution of undergraduates by college or school generally reflects that of
the state’s top four universities taken together (AU, U of A, UAH, and UAB). Liberal Arts is
the most popular field of study, followed by Business, Engineering, and Science / Math. The
traditional land-grant studies account for about 40 percent of the undergraduates. Chart 25.
This pattern is consistent with AU’s long-established breadth of studies as well as its
position as a relatively large university in a relatively small state
Messina & Graham
71
Distribution of Undergraduates by School
State of Alabama 2005
AU, U of A, UAH, UAB
Auburn 2005
100% = 19,250
100% = 48,554
Human/Social
Science
6%
Education
7%
Other
11%
Chart 25
Liberal
Arts 25%
Nursing
3%
Agriculture
5%
Liberal
Arts 24%
Architecture
7%
Human/Social
Science
9%
Science/
Math
13%
Science/Math
10%
Business
22%
Engineering
16%
Business
19%
Engineering
15%
Education
8%
Traditional Land Grant Studies
Source: AU OIRA; U of A system
Messina & Graham
Source: AU OIRA
72
For comparison, even Texas A&M, in the huge state of Texas (where specialization would be
relatively unconstrained by numbers of potential students), has not specialized in technology
schools. Only 19 percent of A&M’s undergraduates are in Engineering, fairly comparable to
Auburn’s 15 percent. Taken together, A&M’s traditional land-grant studies – Engineering,
Agriculture, Science, Veterinary Medicine, and Architecture Colleges – account for 48 percent of
all its undergraduates. The same schools account for 40 percent of Auburn’s enrollment (and
Auburn does not offer undergraduates Veterinary Medicine). Twenty-nine percent of A&M’s
undergraduates are in Liberal Arts or General Studies, compared with 24 percent of Auburn’s in
Liberal Arts. Chart 26
Messina & Graham
73
Distribution of Undergraduates by School
Chart 26
Texas A&M - 2004
Traditional Land
Grant Studies
100% = 35,700
Architecture
4%
Science
5%
Veterinary
Medicine
5%
Geosciences
1%
Business
11%
Agriculture
15%
Liberal Arts
18%
Engineering
19%
Source: Texas A&M Fact Book
Education
11%
Messina & Graham
General
Education
Studies
11%
74
Auburn’s leading shares of the top four’s students are in Architecture and Agriculture –
where AU has the only programs – followed by Science / Math, Education, Liberal Arts,
Engineering and Business. The only two schools that have a somewhat lower share than
AU’s overall share of top four universities’ students are Human Sciences and Nursing.
Chart 27
Messina & Graham
75
AU Shares of Alabama Undergraduates by School
Chart 27
Percent of AU, U of A, UAH and UAB Enrolled 2005*
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Architect. Agriculture Science/
Math
100% =
1,263
887
4,883
Education
3,538
Liberal
Arts
11,996
Engineering Business
7,604
10,488
Nursing Human / Social
Science
2,283
4,534
*2003 for UAH and 2004 for UAB
Source: AU OIRA; U of A system
Messina & Graham
76
With respect to AU’s distribution of graduate students by field of concentration, Education
has the largest share, followed by Engineering. Chart 28
Messina & Graham
77
Distribution of Graduate Students by School
Chart 28
Auburn - 2005
100% = 3,169
Architecture
4%
Agriculture
7%
Education
23%
Other
8%
Science/Math
9%
Engineering
21%
Liberal Arts
13%
Business
15%
Source: AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
78
TUITION TRENDS
Over a decade, AU’s tuition increases have consistently far exceeded inflation as measured by
the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
• Between 1995-1996 and 2005-2006, AU’s tuition increased at a compound annual rate of 8.9
percent, 3.5 times the rate of inflation as measured by CPI, and also twice the rate of
public four-year colleges in general
• During this period, AU’s tuition level moved from being much lower than that of the average
public four-year college to about the same
• Out-of-state tuition has generally been maintained at 2.8 times the in-state level, very
slightly less than the average ratio of SREB peers
• Over time, tuition increases at public universities have been larger during periods when
state funding has been less, a trend also reflected at Auburn
• “We currently operate under a model in which educational expenditures at colleges and
universities across the country are rising by about 4.5 to 5 percent annually.”
(University System of Maryland Chancellor William Kirwan)
Continuing increases in net tuition that are in excess of CPI carry the risks of eventually
creating resistance and reducing enrollment, and – if not somewhat attenuated by financial
aid to students who need it – of diminishing diversity in the student body
Messina & Graham
79
2. Research
Although AU’s research funding has increased considerably in dollar terms during the past five
years, it has not kept pace with funding increases at other universities. This result reflects a
much more competitive research environment, in which success depends in part on the
availability of supplementary resources to cover the costs generated by the research enterprise
in excess of the funding it provides. AU’s research funding is well below the Southern Region
Education Board (SREB) median
• Total federal research expenditures are projected to be at best flat or, more likely, to
decline over the next five years, driven by the latest budget outlook for large federal deficits
into the indefinite future. Chart 29
- This deficit forecast in turn derives largely from a combination of tax cuts, entitlement
growth for seniors, and defense / security spending increases since September 2001
- At the same time, R&D does not appear to have the strong political constituency
required to command a growing share of the squeezed discretionary budget
Messina & Graham
80
2. Research (Continued)
- Accordingly, the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) forecasts a 10 percent real drop in funding for the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), a modest increase in National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of
Energy (DOE), and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) funding (with
a caveat that projected increases often do not translate into reality), and a decrease in
all other non-defense R&D
Messina & Graham
81
Projected Nondefense R&D FY 2006 - 2011
Chart 29
Source: AAAS Analysis Projected Effects of President’s FY 2007 Budget on Nondefense R&D
Messina & Graham
82
• Alabama’s #10 rank among states for federal R&D dollars is well ahead of its
population (#23) and gross-state-product (#25) rankings, driven by massive DoD and
NASA intramural spending
- The state’s academic R&D ranking (#23) is in line with its population. Federallyfunded academic R&D ranks #20, but industry R&D lags at #32
- In Alabama, life sciences account for 69 percent of all academic R&D dollars. In the
U.S., life sciences account for 59 percent of all academic R&D dollars. The
difference presumably reflects UAB’s funding
• Research is becoming much more competitive, with lower success rates projected for
applications for NIH grants (down to 19 percent in 2007 from a recent high of 30
percent). Chart 30. Scale matters – the larger research institutions generally have
higher success rates
Messina & Graham
83
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Research Project Grant (RPG) Success Rate
Chart 30
Source: NIH Agency Budget Justification for FY 2007
Messina & Graham
84
• Research is costly
- In general, as evaluated by several sources including the Huron Consulting Group,
university research-related costs are consistently somewhat greater than the
associated revenues, even including indirect-cost reimbursement by the federal
government
- The trend is toward higher costs, driven by increased compliance requirements
and an increasingly cross-disciplinary research process
- Additionally, state and other funders typically reimburse at lower indirect-cost rates
than the federal government
- Despite the costly nature of performing research, it creates many benefits beyond
the university. For example, research dollars spent generate economic activity that
multiplies the effect, and technology transfer can create value-added intellectual
property and new companies that produce jobs and wealth
Messina & Graham
85
• Research is becoming more cross-disciplinary
- Many research frontiers today occur at the intersection of two or more fields
- Collaborative research partnerships (government / universities / business) are
increasing, even though industrial funding has declined somewhat in recent years
- Technology transfer is getting more attention. Alabama’s rank for patents issued
(35th) is lower than its population or gross-state-product ranks
- There is a rise of R&D-based economic hubs, such as the Research Triangle, with a
few advantaged locations accounting for a disproportionately large share of R&Drelated jobs and funding. In this regard, Auburn is not currently in a strong position,
though it is close enough for faculty collaboration with research universities in
Atlanta and, for life sciences, Birmingham
Messina & Graham
86
• While the amount of research spending at AU has grown considerably in absolute dollars
over the last five years or so, the University's relative position (rank) – 90th among public
universities in federal research dollars and 72 nd in total research dollars – has declined,
moving down from 66th in both measures between 1998 and 2003. Chart 31
Messina & Graham
87
Auburn Federal Research Dollars and Rank
Chart 31
$ Millions
45.4
40.1
42.4
31.5
27.7
Rank
1998
(Public
Universities) #66
Source: TheCenter; AU OIRA
27.1
1999
2000
#88
#83
2001
2002
2003
#82
#84
#90
Messina & Graham
88
• AU’s federal research is at 64 percent of the SREB non-medical school median on a
dollar basis, and even slightly lower when viewed on a per-faculty basis. Chart 32. In
comparisons on all other measurements, AU is also below the SREB median
• Total research comparisons are somewhat more favorable, but even in the best light, AU’s
research funding and other performance measures are well below the SREB median.
Chart 32
Messina & Graham
89
AU versus Median of SREB Non-Medical Peer Group
On TheCenter’s Measures – 2005
Chart 32
Research University Quality Indicators
AU In Relation to Median Values
for Non-Medical School Members of SREB Peer Group
SREB
Median = 100
83
78
77
70
64
61
0
Total
Research
Total, Per
Faculty*
*Tenure and Tenure-Track
Source: TheCenter; AU OIRA
Federal
Research
Federal, Per
Faculty*
Messina & Graham
Endowment
Annual
Giving
National
Academy
90
AU versus Median of SREB Non-Medical Peer Group
On TheCenter’s Measures – 2005 (Continued)
Chart 32
Research University Quality Indicators
AU In Relation to Median Values
for Non-Medical School Members of SREB Peer Group
SREB
Median = 100
67
68
67
60
59
46
*Tenured
Faculty
Awards
Doctorates
Awarded
Source: TheCenter; AU OIRA
Doctorates
Per Faculty*
Postdocs
Messina & Graham
Merit
Scholars
Merit Scholars
Per 1000
91
• Comparisons with selected public research universities highlight the challenges for Auburn
in advancing its position. As TheCenter has observed, research growth involves a
competition for top talent, and over time the resulting dynamics produce a widening gap
between the strongest participants and the others. Large regional research institutions
such as Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, and UGA perform two to four times as much federally
funded research as AU, have between ten and 30 National Academy members on their
faculty, and award two to three times as many Ph.D.s. Their endowment assets range from
two to 16 times the size of Auburn’s. Charts 33, 34, 35, and 36
Messina & Graham
92
Federal Research Expenditures
AU versus Selected Institutions – 2003
Chart 33
$ Millions
204
177
94
63
45
26
GA
Tech
Texas
A&M
UGA
Clemson
AU
U of A
Source: TheCenter, 2005
Messina & Graham
93
National Academy Members
AU versus Selected Institutions – 2004
Chart 34
30
20
10
GA Tech
Texas
A&M
UGA
1
0
0
Clemson
AU
U of A
Note: Includes National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine
Source: TheCenter, 2005
Messina & Graham
94
Ph.D.s Awarded
AU versus Selected Institutions – 2004
Chart 35
515
404
311
161
158
113
GA Tech
Texas
A&M
UGA
Clemson
AU
U of A
Source: TheCenter, 2005
Messina & Graham
95
Endowment Assets
AU versus Selected Institutions – 2003
Chart 36
$ Millions
4,623
1,118
475
392
GA Tech
Texas
A&M
UGA
265
269
Clemson
AU
U of A
Source: TheCenter, 2005
Messina & Graham
96
• Even while performing at multiples of Auburn’s scale in their research enterprises,
impressive regional institutions like Georgia Tech and Texas A&M are not among the
national research leaders as measured by TheCenter. Texas A&M is ranked among the
top 25 American Research Universities on only three of TheCenter’s nine measures, and
among the next 25 universities on another three measures. Georgia Tech is ranked among
the top 26-50 American Research Universities on seven of TheCenter’s nine measures;
UGA on only two
• AU is somewhat more dependent on state research funds than many other institutions
• In a few research areas – including several engineering fields and agricultural sciences –
AU has much higher shares of federal R&D funding than its overall share across all fields
combined. Chart 37
- AU’s funding share in these selected areas is several times its overall share
- Such funding levels can form the basis for building a nationally competitive position in
carefully selected areas of concentration
Messina & Graham
97
Auburn’s Federal Research Funding as a Percentage Share of
Total Federal R&D Dollars – Four-Year Average – 2000 to 2003
Chart 37
1.38%
0.89%
0.79%
0.50%
AU’s
Overall
R&D Share
(%)
0.49%
0.19%
Overall
All
Civil Eng.
R&D
Engineering
$ Millions
39.8
15
2.5
Chem.
Eng.
1.8
Source: NSF; AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
Mech.
Eng.
2.2
Agricultural
Science
9
98
3. Extension
Alabama Cooperative Extension System (ACES)
OVERVIEW
Auburn and Alabama A&M, together with Tuskegee University, cooperate under the ACES to
provide a wide variety of extension services to Alabamians through county offices across the
state
The Extension System’s mission is “to deliver research-based educational programs that
enable people to improve their quality of life and economic well-being”
PROGRAM AREAS AND STAFF
Extension has six overarching program areas:
• 4-H and Youth Development
• Agriculture
• Forestry and Natural Resources
Source: Annual Report and Highlights on ACES website; AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
99
• Urban Affairs and New Non-traditional Programs
• Family and Individual Well-Being
• Community and Economic Development
Recent initiatives include Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts, insect-pest management,
outreach to the Hispanic / Latino population, nutrition education to food-stamp recipients,
training for food safety at school, and a waste-oil pilot for poultry farming. Many ACES
initiatives cut across several of the program areas
AU has 429 full-time and 146 part-time employees dedicated to ACES. The full-time staff
represents about ten percent of Auburn’s total number of employees. Almost all ACES
employees at Auburn are non-faculty, categorized as “other professional,” secretarial / clerical,
or technical
FINANCES
Total 2005 revenue for ACES was $49.1 million. This represented a decrease of some $2.6
million from 2004
Source: Annual Report and Highlights on ACES website; AU OIRA; AU Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2005
Messina & Graham
100
The leading sources of ACES operating revenues are federal appropriations, grants, and
contracts that totaled about $14.8 million in 2005, down 21 percent from 2004
State appropriations (not accounted for as operating revenues) were $28.8 million, an
increase of six percent over 2004
Total expenses were $46 million, resulting in a margin of $3 million “increase in net assets” for
2005
ACES unrestricted net assets were $9.9 million at September 30, 2005
Source: Annual Report and Highlights on ACES website; AU OIRA; AU Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2005
Messina & Graham
101