University Objectives

Achieving Excellence Barbara Bichelmeyer, Robert Marley, Kristin Sobolik, Marcy Graham and Mun Choi

University Objectives
High levels of extramural research Large number of National Academy members Large number of prestigious programs Large number of faculty awards High SAT scores High graduation rates Low acceptance rates Large endowment High levels of engagement High tuition revenue High rankings

Questions to Consider Today
When UM students graduate, what do we want them to become and to know? When UM faculty and staff are recruited, what qualities will we seek? When UM faculty and staff are promoted, what accomplishments will we emphasize? When UM is evaluated in 2020 and 2025, what will we be known for? What are the disciplined approaches and investments needed to meet our objectives? Where do we stand and where do we want to be?

Institutions that MU selected as Peers Chronicle of Higher Education, 2012
Georgia Inst of Tech U of California, Santa Barbara Indiana U, Bloomington U of Colorado, Boulder Iowa State U U of Florida Michigan State U U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Ohio State U U of Iowa Penn State, U Park U of Kansas Purdue U, West Lafayette U of Maryland, College Park Rutgers U, New Brunswick U of Michigan, Ann Arbor SUNY, Stony Brook U of Minnesota-Twin Cities Texas A&M U, College Station U of Nebraska, Lincoln U at Buffalo U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill U of Arizona U of Oregon U of California, Berkeley U of Pittsburgh main campus U of California, Davis U of Texas, Austin U of California, Irvine U of Virginia U of California, Los Angeles U of Washington U of California, San Diego U of Wisconsin, Madison

Institutions that selected MU as a Peer Chronicle of Higher Education, 2012
Brigham Young U U of Georgia Florida State U U of Hawaii-Manoa George Mason U U of Kansas Iowa State U U of Louisville Kansas State U U of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan State U U of Nebraska, Lincoln Montana State U, Bozeman U of New Mexico, Albuquerque Ohio U, Athens U of Oklahoma, Norman Oklahoma State U, Stillwater U of Phoenix, Kansas City Rutgers U, New Brunswick U of Pittsburgh main campus Southeast Missouri State U U of Texas, Dallas SUNY, Stony Brook U of Utah Texas Tech U U of Virginia U of Alabama, Birmingham U of Washington U of Arizona U of Wisconsin, Madison U of Arkansas, Fayetteville Virginia Tech U of Colorado, Boulder Washington State U

Georgia Inst of Tech U of California, Santa Barbara Indiana U, Bloomington U of Colorado, Boulder Iowa State U U of Florida Michigan State U U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Ohio State U U of Iowa Penn State, U Park U of Kansas Purdue U, West Lafayette U of Maryland, College Park Rutgers U, New Brunswick U of Michigan, Ann Arbor SUNY, Stony Brook U of Minnesota-Twin Cities Texas A&M U, College Station U of Nebraska, Lincoln U at Buffalo U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill U of Arizona U of Oregon U of California, Berkeley U of Pittsburgh main campus U of California, Davis U of Texas, Austin U of California, Irvine U of Virginia U of California, Los Angeles U of Washington U of California, San Diego U of Wisconsin, Madison

UMKC Peers Chronicle of Higher Education, 2012
UMKC Selected Peers Institution that Selected UMKC as Peer Cleveland State U Boise State U East Tennessee State U CUNY John Jay C of Criminal Justice George Mason U East Carolina U Georgia State U Indiana State U Indiana U-Purdue U, Indianapolis Marshall U Temple U Northern Arizona U U at Buffalo Rowan U U of Akron main campus Rutgers U, Newark U of Alabama, Birmingham Southeast Missouri State U U of Arkansas, Little Rock Southern Illinois U, Carbondale U of Cincinnati main campus Texas State U, San Marcos U of Houston main campus U of Illinois, Chicago U of Louisville U of Massachusetts, Boston U of Memphis U of North Dakota U of Nevada, Reno U of Phoenix, Kansas City U of Pittsburgh main campus U of South Alabama U of St. Thomas U of South Florida U of Wisconsin, Milwaukee U of Toledo main campus Wichita State U Virginia Commonwealth U Wayne State U Wright State U, Dayton

UMKC Peers Chronicle of Higher Education, 2012

US News & World Report Rankings
Ranking Percentage 15.0% 7.5% 4.5% 18.0% 4.0% Institution National Rank Peer Score HS Counselors Average freshman retention rate - 4-yr. Average 6-year grad rate Classes with under 20 students Classes with 50 or more students S&T – 2010 128 2.5 N/A 87% 62% 36% 13% S&T-2017 164 2.6 3.5 84% 65% 27% Northeastern -2010 80 2.9 91% 70% 56% 8.0% Northeastern 39 3.2 4.3 96% 7.0% UMass 106 69% 17.0% UMass 74 3.3 3.9 90% 78% 50% Univ at Buffalo -2010 121 32% 24.0% Univ at Buffalo 99 3.0 88% 74% 21.0%

Ranking Percentage 3.00% 1.00% 1.25% 8.13% Institution National Rank Full-time faculty with Highest Degree in Field Student-faculty ratio Percent of faculty who are full-time Accep-tance rate Average SAT/ACT score S&T- 2010 128 88% 15:1 93% 92% 24-30 S&T-2017 164 91% 19:1 90% 25-31 Northeastern -2010 80 35% Northeastern 39 95% 14:1 28% UMass 106 18:1 64% UMass 74 96% 58% Univ at Buffalo -2010 121 16:1 87% 52% Univ at Buffalo 99 100% 13:1 60%

Ranking Percentage 3.13% 5.00% 7.50% 7.00% 10.00% Institution National Rank Freshmen in top 10 percent of HS class Average alumni giving rate - 2 year average Graduation Performance Rank Faculty Compensation Rank Financial Resources Rank S&T- 2010 128 39% 20% 218 93 161 S&T-2017 164 44% 15% 255 110 200 Northeastern -2010 80 49% 10% 81 100 102 Northeastern 39 70% 12% 84 71 UMass 106 25% 148 UMass 74 32% 9% 24 112 Univ at Buffalo -2010 121 43 98 88 Univ at Buffalo 99 30% 53 103

Our Objective “To become a premier land-grant institution dedicated to the creation and sharing of knowledge to advance the health, cultural, economic and social interests of the people of Missouri, the nation, and the world”

Our Objective New Missouri Compact for Research Excellence to:
Increase extramural research Increase high-quality publications Increase citations Recruit National Academy members Increase faculty awards & recognition Increase curated exhibits & juried performances Boost national rankings

Our Objective New Missouri Compact for Student Success to:
Increase academic quality & diversity Increase affordability Enhance learning experiences Increase professional development Increase graduation rates Boost career outcomes Reduce debt at graduation

Our Objective New Missouri Compact for Community Engagement & Economic Development to: Increase K-12 outreach to improve educational opportunities and reduce disparities Increase meaningful engagement in the areas of health, cultural, economic and social issues with local, state and global communities

Questions to Consider Today
When UM students graduate, what do we want them to become and to know? When UM faculty and staff are recruited, what qualities will we seek? When UM faculty and staff are promoted, what accomplishments will we emphasize? When UM is evaluated in 2020 and 2025, what will we be known for? What are the disciplined approaches and investments needed to meet our objectives? Where do we stand and where do we want to be?

… but gold runs through all our veins!
Excelsior We wear many stripes … … but gold runs through all our veins! - Robert Marley

College (Un)bound Jeff Selingo, Higher Education Reporter
More has been the guiding principle at many universities More dorms & More recreational facilities More majors & More certificates More centers & More research thrusts More students & More tuition We need a more disciplined approach We have to be disciplined about choosing activities that are central to our land grant mission (teaching, research & engagement)

Ranking Percentage 15.0% 7.5% 4.5% 18.0% 4.0% Institution National Rank Peer Score HS Counselors Average freshman retention rate - 4-yr. Average 6-year grad rate Classes with under 20 students Classes with 50 or more students UMKC – 2010 186 2.5 N/A 71% 44% 53% 9.0% UMKC -2017 210 3.2 72% 51% 55% 11.0% Northeastern -2010 80 2.9 91% 70% 56% 8.0% Northeastern 39 4.3 96% 84% 65% 7.0% UMass 106 69% 36% 17.0% UMass 74 3.3 3.9 90% 78% 50% Univ at Buffalo -2010 121 87% 32% 24.0% Univ at Buffalo 99 3.0 3.5 88% 74% 21.0%

Ranking Percentage 3.00% 1.00% 1.25% 8.13% Institution National Rank Full-time faculty with Highest Degree in Field Student-faculty ratio Percent of faculty who are full-time Accep-tance rate Average SAT/ACT score UMKC 186 76% 12:1 82% 73% 21-27 UMKC -2017 210 14:1 83% 63% 21-28 Northeastern -2010 80 88% 15:1 Northeastern 39 95% 90% 28% UMass 106 93% 18:1 64% UMass 74 96% 58% Univ at Buffalo -2010 121 92% 16:1 87% 52% Univ at Buffalo 99 100% 13:1 60%

Ranking Percentage 3.13% 5.00% 7.50% 7.00% 10.00% Institution National Rank Freshmen in top 10 percent of HS class Average alumni giving rate - 2 year average Graduation Performance Rank Faculty Compensation Rank Financial Resources Rank UMKC 186 31% 7% 254 178 146 UMKC -2017 210 32% 6% 276 244 171 Northeastern -2010 80 49% 10% 81 100 102 Northeastern 39 70% 12% 84 71 UMass 106 25% 148 110 UMass 74 9% 24 112 Univ at Buffalo -2010 121 43 98 88 Univ at Buffalo 99 30% 53 103

Ranking Percentage 15.0% 7.5% 4.5% 18.0% 4.0% Institution National Rank Peer Score HS Counselors Average freshman retention rate - 4-yr. Average 6-year grad rate Classes with under 20 students Classes with 50 or more students UMSL 209 2.4 N/A 72% 44% 46% 8% UMSL 220 3.2 77% 53% 51% 6% Northeastern -2010 80 2.9 91% 70% 56% 8.0% Northeastern 39 4.3 96% 84% 65% 7.0% UMass 106 69% 36% 17.0% UMass 74 3.3 3.9 90% 78% 50% Univ at Buffalo -2010 121 87% 32% 24.0% Univ at Buffalo 99 3.0 3.5 88% 74% 21.0%

Ranking Percentage 3.00% 1.00% 1.25% 8.13% Institution National Rank Full-time faculty with Highest Degree in Field Student-faculty ratio Percent of faculty who are full-time Accep-tance rate Average SAT/ACT score UMSL 209 76% 16:1 78% 58% 20-26 UMSL 220 75% 17:1 74% 21-27 Northeastern -2010 80 88% 15:1 63% Northeastern 39 95% 14:1 90% 28% UMass 106 93% 18:1 64% UMass 74 96% Univ at Buffalo -2010 121 92% 87% 52% Univ at Buffalo 99 100% 13:1 60%

Ranking Percentage 3.13% 5.00% 7.50% 7.00% 10.00% Institution National Rank Freshmen in top 10 percent of HS class Average alumni giving rate - 2 year average Graduation Performance Rank Faculty Compensation Rank Financial Resources Rank UMSL 209 22% 8% 218 229 216 UMSL 220 29% 5% 292 244 230 Northeastern -2010 80 49% 10% 81 100 102 Northeastern 39 70% 12% 84 71 UMass 106 25% 148 110 UMass 74 32% 9% 24 112 Univ at Buffalo -2010 121 43 98 88 Univ at Buffalo 99 30% 53 103

University Objectives
Financial Investments or Financial Impact High levels of extramural research Significant Large number of National Academy members Large number of prestigious programs Large number of faculty awards High SAT scores High graduation rates Low acceptance rates High levels of community engagement Large endowment High net tuition revenues (in context of quantity and quality) High rankings

University Objectives

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "University Objectives"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

University Objectives

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "University Objectives"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback