Framework for Excellence
Presentation to the Faculty Senate
December 2, 2010
Vision
“We aspire to be among the very best public
research universities in the country. We aspire,
specifically, to match the excellence of the public
universities that are members of the prestigious
Association of American Universities (AAU).”
2
Selected Numerical Goals in the Framework for Excellence
 Increase faculty compensation at all ranks to the
average of our national peers; eventually
increase to average of peers in the Northeast
 Increase the size of the tenure-stream faculty to
1,200 by 2020
 Double federal research awards (up from $80
million in 2008)
 Increase post-doctoral appointments by 50% (up
from 178 in 2008)
 Increase doctorates awarded to 375/year (30%
increase from 2007-2008)
3
Goals (continued)
 Increase full-time undergraduate enrollment to
22,500 by 2020 (up from approx. 20,800 in
2009)
 Maintain number of in-state undergraduate
students at approx. 16,000
 Increase number of out-of-state undergraduate
students to 6,500 (+2,500)
 Increase the number of graduate students in
Ph.D. programs to boost doctorates awarded by
30%
4
Three Final Goals
 Double the university’s Annual Fund
 Double the university’s endowment
 Improve funding we receive from state
government
5
Faculty Input into the Framework
 First draft shared with Faculty Senate Rules
Committee and with the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc
Committee on Strategic Oversight
 Key consultation expected to take place as units
develop their strategic plans: “This document
is not a detailed action plan but anticipates
that all campus units will develop their own
plans, in whatever format may be
appropriate for them, to meet the high-level
targets contained here.”
6
What Will We Have to Do to Match the Excellence
of the Public Universities that are Members of the
AAU?
7
Characteristics of the Last Eight Public Universities to be
Admitted to the AAU
 Federal Research Expenditures (2007, in millions)
Georgia Tech
$260,230
UC Davis
$256,994
TAMU
$228,363
UCI
$169,912
Buffalo
$148,989
Rutgers
$125,364
UCSB
$111,848
Stony Brook
$111,241
UMASS
$71,974
Source for this and following slides: “2009 Top American
Research Universities Report,” Center for Measuring
University Performance
8
National Academy Members (2008)
UCSB
UCI
Rutgers
UCD
GT
TAMU
SB
UMASS
Buffalo
52
35
35
32
28
22
10
9
6
9
Faculty Awards (2008)
UCI
Rutgers
UCD
TAMU
UMASS
Buffalo
GT
UCSB
SB
25
21
17
17
14
12
11
8
7
10
Doctorates Awarded (2008)
TAMU
UCD
GT
Rutgers
SB
Buffalo
UCI
UCSB
UMASS
594
500
467
431
408
373
370
346
291
11
Postdoctoral Appointments (2008)
UCD
Buffalo
UCI
TAMU
Rutgers
UMASS
UCSB
SB
670
316
287
255
185
178
162
114
12
Other Useful Comparisons
 Enrollment (UG/Grad)
TAMU
38,809/9,893
Rutgers
29,095/8,271
UCD
24,626/6,621
UCI
22,226/4,916
UMASS
20,873/6,143
UCSB
19,796/3,054
Buffalo
19,368/9,513
SB
16,384/8,297
GT
13,515/6,776
Source: IPEDS, Fall 2009 Enrollment
13
% Classes Enrolling 50 or More (2009)
UCD
25%
GT
24%
SB
23%
TAMU
22%
UCI
20%
Buffalo
20%
Rutgers
19%
UCSB
18%
UMASS
18%
Source for this and following slides: U.S. News and
World Report, “2010 Best Colleges: the
Rankings”
14
Student/Faculty Ratio (2009)
GT
UCI
SB
TAMU
UMASS
UCSB
Buffalo
UCD
Rutgers
20/1
19/1
19/1
18/1
18/1
17/1
16/1
16/1
14/1
15
USNWR Ranking









GT
UCD
UCSB
UCI
TAMU
Rutgers
SB
UMass
Buffalo
35
39
39
41
63
64
99
99
Not ranked in top 100
16
Final Thoughts
 Many, many more important programmatic goals
are presented in the Framework (government
relations, diversity, student affairs, etc.)
 Current public university members of the AAU
are not going to pause to allow us to catch up
 Conversely, AAU public universities have suffered
differently during the recession, and this may
give us a boost in approaching their numbers
 Three versions of the Framework (Narrative,
Executive Summary, Vision/Mission/Goals) are
on the web (A-Z index under “Framework” or
“Strategic Plan”)
17