Contents
Overview of Strategy-Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
II. Profile of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
7
9
I.
III. Auburn University (AU)
• Profile
- Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT” Assessment) . . . . .
• Strategic Challenges and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Messina & Graham
19
80
99
102
113
117
2
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
II. Profile of the Environment
• Summary
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
R&D
Engineering
39.8
15
$ Millions
Civil
Eng.
2.5
Chem.
Eng.
1.8
Source: NSF; AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
Mech.
Eng.
2.2
Agricultural
Science
9
98
State Appropriations as Share of Auburn’s Total Revenue
FY 1996 - 2005
Chart 37
41.9%
34.4%
30.1%
1996
2001
2005
Source: AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
105
State Appropriations per FTE Student
Auburn versus Competition – FY 2005
Chart 38
$10,062
$9,006
$8,281
$8,144
$7,281
$6,010
$5,622
$5,180
$4,502
GA Tech UGA
FL ST
UFL
UTN
U of A
AU
Clemson
UMS
Source: SREB; AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
107
Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
and Threats (“SWOT” Assessment)
Auburn University
STRENGTHS
• AU’s big-school, big-time sports, small-town campus near fast-growing Atlanta is attractive
to many Alabama and Georgia students. AU draws the top share of Georgia students who
leave their home state for a Southern Region Education Board public research university
• AU has notable strengths in selected academic areas. AU’s Wireless Engineering program is
a leader. The undergraduate Engineering and Business programs rank well in USNWR’s
lists. Several of AU’s College of Architecture programs rank strongly in the Design
Intelligence Survey
• AU ranks well on USNWR’s retention value-added measure and on the National Survey of
Student Engagement’s “supportive campus environment” measure
• AU has research strengths in selected engineering and agri-science areas
• AU has a track record of good financial management, and development has recently shown
great progress with “It Begins at Auburn”
• AU’s large alumni base expresses strong Auburn spirit – and AU has solid political support
in Alabama
113
Messina & Graham
WEAKNESSES
• Academically, AU lags nearby states’ best universities in measures of incoming
undergraduate quality. It also has a reputation for students who do not study hard and are
consumed by athletics
• AU’s undergraduate education likely does not prepare students as well as it could to enable
them to compete in the twenty-first century. On the Collegiate Learning Assessment, AU’s
seniors achieve “at expected level,” like the students of a majority of other participating
schools. The Spellings Commission and others regard “the expected” as no longer
good enough. AU’s scores on National Survey of Student Engagement measures are Bs
and Cs relative to the top ten percent of schools. AU’s six-year graduation rate is below that
of its competitors as well as the national average for four-year schools
• AU is not competitive on key measures in most research areas, and being located away
from a major growth and research hub is problematic for research leadership
• AU is under-resourced – for its array of programs and relative to competitors – owing to
historically declining real state appropriations, comparatively low endowment and alumni
giving, and limits on feasible tuition increases
• AU’s cohesiveness as a community has been adversely affected over the last five years or
so by several factors – including lack of consensus on vision and mission, a divided Board,
presidential turnover, and frayed relations among the Board, administration, faculty, and
other constituencies
Messina & Graham
114
OPPORTUNITIES
• Coalesce Board and faculty behind a new President and an agreed-upon vision
• Market AU’s stronger undergraduate programs and the Honors College much more
proactively to win more talented students
• Build on AU’s past lead in value-added retention by enhancing undergraduate education
quality for the current profile of AU students; experimenting with innovative approaches
in program design, teaching, and learning; and using the results to market to prospective
students
• Focus research in a few areas of natural strength and relative advantage, and drive
collaborations with nearby research powerhouses, taking advantage of telecommunications
technologies
• Rationalize program offerings to moderate expense growth and gain critical mass in areas
of focus
• Harness technology thoughtfully to improve quality while containing costs in
selective distance-learning offerings, elements of undergraduate instruction, backoffice operations and extension
• Continue to strengthen alumni and friends’ financial support of the University through “It
Begins At Auburn” and intensified annual-fund campaigns, leveraging these
communications opportunities to build greater awareness and understanding of Auburn, its
accomplishments, and its aspirations
115
Messina & Graham
THREATS
• Demographic trends in high-school graduates are neutral for student enrollment, and the
growing fraction of Hispanic students will present a new challenge for AU
• AU’s dependence on Georgia for students paying out-of-state tuition is vulnerable to any
flattening in Georgia’s high-school graduate numbers and to lesser-ranked Georgia colleges’
becoming more competitive with AU
• AU could face increasing financial challenges if Alabama state appropriations do not keep
pace with AU expense increases and if resultant tuition hikes meet market resistance
• AU’s value proposition could erode if students, parents, or the state begin to emphasize the
college years as a time for gaining competitive skills – unless AU can demonstrate stronger
value-added
• The U of A’s aggressive recruitment of high academic achievers could reduce AU’s share of
strong in-state students and damage AU’s reputation. It may also have the potential to
discourage state appropriations to both universities if the schools are perceived as using
public funds to compete for prestige
• Technology developments in higher education create opportunities for fast-moving
competitors, so AU must be constantly vigilant about remaining at the forefront of applying
relevant techniques
Messina & Graham
116