1. Framework for Excellence Presentation to the Faculty Senate December 2, 2010

2. 2 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).”

3. 3 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)

4. 4 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%

5. 5 Three Final Goals  Double the university’s Annual Fund  Double the university’s endowment  Improve funding we receive from state government

6. 6 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.”

7. 7 What Will We Have to Do to Match the Excellence of the Public Universities that are Members of the AAU?

8. 8 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

9. 9 National Academy Members (2008) UCSB52 UCI35 Rutgers35 UCD32 GT28 TAMU22 SB10 UMASS 9 Buffalo 6

10. 10 Faculty Awards (2008) UCI 25 Rutgers 21 UCD 17 TAMU 17 UMASS 14 Buffalo 12 GT 11 UCSB 8 SB 7

11. 11 Doctorates Awarded (2008) TAMU 594 UCD 500 GT 467 Rutgers 431 SB 408 Buffalo 373 UCI 370 UCSB 346 UMASS 291

12. 12 Postdoctoral Appointments (2008) UCD 670 Buffalo 316 UCI 287 TAMU 255 Rutgers 185 UMASS 178 UCSB 162 SB 114

13. 13 Other Useful Comparisons  Enrollment (UG/Grad) TAMU38,809/9,893 Rutgers29,095/8,271 UCD24,626/6,621 UCI22,226/4,916 UMASS20,873/6,143 UCSB19,796/3,054 Buffalo19,368/9,513 SB16,384/8,297 GT13,515/6,776 Source: IPEDS, Fall 2009 Enrollment

14. 14 % 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”

15. 15 Student/Faculty Ratio (2009) GT 20/1 UCI 19/1 SB 19/1 TAMU 18/1 UMASS 18/1 UCSB 17/1 Buffalo 16/1 UCD 16/1 Rutgers 14/1

16. 16 USNWR Ranking  GT35  UCD39  UCSB39  UCI41  TAMU63  Rutgers64  SB99  UMass99  BuffaloNot ranked in top 100

17. 17 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”)