Academic Affairs

Vision Bowling Green State University aspires to be a premier learning community, and a national model, for developing individuals and shaping the future through learning, discovery, collaboration and personal growth

Good Quality Programs Diversity of Programs Engagement/Outreach Committed Faculty Facilities TT Faculty Resources Academic Support External Funding Capacity to Grow Enrollment Extending reach of BGSU programs 2015 Effect Decreasing State Support Declining number of traditional age students Overall Cost of Education StrengthsWeaknesses OpportunitiesThreats

Total Full-Time (FT) Faculty Total FT Faculty (TT+NTT)Fall 2007Fall 2008Fall 2009Fall 2010Fall 2011 A&S BA EDHD HHS MA TECH Bowling Green Campus Total Firelands

Total Student Credit Hours (SCH) SCH Total (Fall and Spring) A&S 279,855268,933256,047267,782265,358 BA 57,09251,17647,56544,46344,072 EDHD 84,77281,79276,31077,12975,734 HHS 17,78616,74917,73417,70718,777 MA 15,29415,46316,38115,59315,543 TECH 19,13618,81817,87317,74916,743 Bowling Green Campus Subtotal 473,935452,931431,910440,423436,227

SCH per FT faculty SCH Total/FT Faculty (TT and NTT) A&S BA EDHD HHS MA TECH Bowling Green Campus Subtotal

Percent of FT TTF to FT Faculty Percent of TTF to TTF+NTTFFall 2007Fall 2008Fall 2009Fall 2010Fall 2011 A&S 64.26%61.83%63.30%57.84%57.29% BA 66.29%67.47%68.83%67.95%66.22% EDHD 75.35%73.64%70.31%68.80%69.78% HHS 96.67%86.21%85.71% 89.66% MA 87.27% 84.91%88.46% TECH 45.65%40.91%48.72%43.59%46.15% Bowling Green Campus Total 67.91%65.60%66.54%62.97%62.90% Firelands 48.98%50.00% 56.86%

NSICP Trends FTE Student per TT Faculty/FTE Student per NTT Faculty Fall 2006Fall 2007Fall 2008Fall 2009 A&S12.7/ / / /24.4 BA16.4/ / / /28.1 EDHD14.2/ / / /17.0 HHS11.6/ / / /14.8 MA10.0/ / / /14.0 TECH11.0/ / / /15.0 BGSU13.0/ / / /22.9

NSCIP Peer Comparisons* % of Average Peer# of Departments: % of TTF to Total Faculty # of Departments: FTE Students/TTF # of Departments: FTE Students/NTTF > 110% % to 110%1165 < 90%91724 Total34 * Based upon Fall 2009 data

General Observations We are good………. But is good, good enough?

Vision Bowling Green State University aspires to be a premier learning community, and a national model, for developing individuals and shaping the future through learning, discovery, collaboration and personal growth

Focus Invest strategically in Faculty + Invest strategically in Academic Programs + Invest strategically in Facilities and Technology + = High Quality Academic Programs and Enhanced Student Success

Budgetary Policy Changes from Prior Year Open faculty lines return centrally – strategic reallocation between Colleges – held central for subsequent focused investment Plans are required for optimal use of Colleges/Units Reserves Using data to inform budgetary decisions – Peer, Productivity, Enrollment Trends, Outcomes

Necessary……. Protect core academic foundation (i.e., Accreditation, etc.) Ensure financial sustainability Adequate and appropriate facilities …………But not sufficient to improve quality

Budget Priorities Quality – Strategically invest in faculty – Academic programming – Recruit and Retain Students Efficiency and Effectiveness – Administrative Infrastructure

Budget Priorities: Quality Strategically Invest in Faculty – Overall, increase the percent of TT Faculty – Balance productivity of faculty – Where appropriate, enhance operating budgets – Development funds to support teaching/research

Budget Priorities: Quality Academic programming – Refocus current programming General Education Renewal Support “high impact” programming (retention, quality, and/or recruitment) Reallocate resources from “limited impact” programming or low demand programs – Create new academic programming that: Supports the enhancement of the academic profile of traditional student body And/or increases overall enrollment

Budget Priorities: Quality Recruit and Retain Students – Enhance academic profile of traditional students – Increase overall enrollment of new students International (UG and Grad) Distance Learning (UG and Grad) Transfer (2+2, etc.) – Increase retention and 6 year graduation rate Advising, Long-term Goal: 22,500 to 25,000 HC enrollment

Budget Priorities: Efficiencies and Effectiveness Administrative Infrastructure – Rethink - Quality – Realign - Focus – Reduce – reallocation of resources – For Example, Centralize vs. Decentralize – Advising, International programs, Learning communities, Faculty development, Support services Missing Infrastructure – Assessment, Research support, Decision Support, Curriculum Management

Budget Priorities Quality – Strategically invest in faculty – Academic programming – Recruit and Retain Students Efficiency and Effectiveness – Administrative Infrastructure

Establishing the financial foundation for the future – Grow quality of academic programming – Increase profile and number of UG and Graduate students – Increase external research funding