Advancing the University of Tennessee, Knoxville Towards the Top 25

Rising to the Top 25 Realize UTK’s Potential to Serve the State as a Leading Public Research University Governor's Challenge Become a Top 25 public research university in a decade Opportunity Increase the quality and value of education Further develop our strengths in research Expand our contribution to economic growth and development Strengthen the University of Tennessee’s flagship campus for the benefit of all Tennesseans

Defining Top 25 Peer Universities and Performance Measures Broad-based Task Force to assess our current position relative to Top 25 public universities Group of 27 comparison universities Quantitative performance measures Metrics relating to infrastructure and faculty

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

Current Position – Undergraduate Education Relative Standing Compared to the Top 25 Group Metrics UTK Top 25 Target UTK vs. Target Group ACT Equivalent (75th/25th Percentile) 29/24 28.5/23.5 +.5/.5 Retention Rate (1st to 2nd Year) 84% 90% -6 pts 6-Year Graduation Rate 60% 75% -15 pts

Current Position Six-Year Graduation Rates UTK’s graduation rates are the lowest among all comparison schools. 95 UVA UCLA UC Berkeley UNC Graduation Rate (%) Penn State Michigan UMD - Wisconsin Illinois UC - Santa Barbara College Park Georgia Clemson Florida UC Davis Texas A&M UT - Austin Michigan State Pitt Washington Indiana Ohio State Purdue NC State Rutgers Iowa State Minnesota Auburn Rank #52, 59.8% 50 60 50 40 30 Rank 20 10 Source: Common Data Sets 2008-2009; U.S. News and World Report; 2008 Data Presented – Tracking Fall 2002 Cohort 6

Improvement Opportunity Six-Year Graduation Rates We need to improve more rapidly, as Minnesota and Ohio State have done. 75% Ohio State, +11 pts 73% 71% 69% Six-Year Graduation Rate (%) 67% Minnesota, +10 pts 65% 63% 61% +1 pt 59% 57% 55% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 7 Source: UTK Institutional Data; Common Data Sets

Current Position – Graduate Education Relative Standing Compared to the Top 25 Group Metrics Top 25 UTK vs. Target UTK Target Group Number of Ph.D. Degrees Awarded 277 486 -209 Number of Master’s and Professional Degrees Awarded 1,845 2,130 -285 8

Graduate Education Number of Ph.D.s Awarded (2008 to 2009) UTK awards fewer Ph.D.s than all but two schools. 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 Number of Ph.D.s Awarded 277 300 200 100 University 9 Source: Common Data Sets 2008-2009

Current Position – Research Relative Standing Compared to the Top 25 Group Metrics ($ Millions) Top 25 UTK vs. Target UTK Target Group Federal Research Expenditures $70 $182 -$112 Total Research Expenditures $165 $427 -$262

Current Position – Faculty Relative Standing Compared to the Top 25 Group Metrics Top 25 UTK Target UTK vs. Target Group Avg. Tenure-Line Faculty Salary Range $66.8 - $107.7 K $72.6 - $120.0 K -$5.8 - $12.3 K Faculty Awards 10 32 -22

Current Position – Financial Resources & Infrastructure Relative Standing Compared to the Top 25 Group Metrics Top 25 UTK vs. Target UTK Target Group Total Operating Expenditures/ Student $16,100 $24,300 -$8,200 Endowment/ Student $14,380 $38,400 -$24,020

Improvement Areas Successful Universities Case Studies Clemson and Minnesota advanced into US News Top 25 ranking in the past five years Common Characteristics Sustained commitment to improvement, with long-term goals Progress tracked along measurable performance dimensions Regular reports to stakeholders Diverse sources of funds

Moving From Analysis to Action Our Next Steps Communication to stakeholders Specific action plans, related investments and prioritization Potential sources of funds, including efficiency and effectiveness October 2010 Board Meeting Action Plan Financial Plan Progress Tracking and Reporting Approach

Ambitious Plan We need your help. The journey we take is more important than achieving the goal.