Transcript Assessment Report - Missouri University of Science and

enrollment.mst.edu
Task Force on Student Educational Capacity
OPEN FORUM – November 18, 2010
Founded 1870 | Rolla, Missouri
Task Force Charge
 Assess whether the fall 2009 student
population was at, below, or above
the university’s capacity to provide
each student with a quality
education.
2009-10 TASK FORCE MEMBERS

Venkat Allada – Vice Provost for Graduate Studies


SN Balakrishnan – Professor of Aerospace
Engineering
Rachel Morris – Enrollment Management Data and
Technology Coordinator


Margaret Cline – Chief Information Officer
Steve Raper – Associate Professor of Engineering
Management

Caroline Fisher – Professor and Department Chair of 
Business and Information Technology

Stephanie Rostad – President of Student Council
Ted Ruth – Assistant Director of Physical Facilities

Samuel Frimpong – Robert H. Quenon Chair of
Mining Engineering

Debra Schatz – Assistant Director of Admissions for
Transfer Students

Jay Goff – Vice Provost and Dean for Enrollment
Management, Task Force Chair

Robert Schwartz – Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

Tina Sheppard – Director of Residential Life

Larry Gragg – Curators Teaching Professor of History

and Department Chair

Leon Hall – Professor and Department Chair of
Math and Director of Institute for Applied
Mathematics

Carol Heddinghaus – Director of Budget Office

Thulasi Kumar – Director of Institutional Research

Rance Larsen – Director of Admission

F. Scott Miller – Associate Teaching Professor and
Director of Advanced Materials Character
Brad Starbuck – Enrollment Management
Communications Specialist

Shannon Stites – Enrollment Management
Administrative Assistant, Task Force Secretary

Laura Stoll – Registrar

Jennifer Thorpe – Assistant Registrar

Philip Whitefield – Professor and Department Chair
of Chemistry

Henry Wiebe – Vice Provost for Global Learning

W. Kent Wray – Provost, Ex-Officio Member
Forum Agenda
 Review Task Force charge and membership
 Overview of Task Force reports:
– General Observations
– Capacity Definitions, Key Factors & Assessments
 Sub-committee Findings
– Chair Reports
 Overall Conclusion & Recommendations
 Open Discussion
Enrollment Update
Total Enrollment Fall 2000 - 2010
56% Enrollment Growth: 2,580 Additional Students
7500
7206
7000
6815
6371
6500
6167
6000
5858
5602
5500
5459
5407
2003
2004
5240
4883
5000
4626
4500
4000
3500
3000
2000
2001
2002
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Enrollment Records
 1702
Graduate Students
 1610
Female Students
 960
International Students
 560
Under-Represented Minority Students
Fall 2010 Enrollment Stats
TOTAL Enrollment
7,206
 Undergraduate students
5,504
 Graduate students
1,702
 New freshman class*
1,170
 New transfer class
388
 Average class size
28.6
 Average lab size
18.2
*Freshman Engineering Class Capped in June
Total Enrollment 2000-2010
56% Total Enrollment Growth: 2000: 4,626, 2010: 7,206
49% Undergraduate Growth: 1706 on-campus, 100 distance
83% Graduate Growth: 421 on-campus, 353 distance
1414
1343
1289
1287
1391
1127
4000
928
5000
1370
1702
1610
6000
1459
7000
2005
2006
2007
2008
5205
2004
4912
2003
4753
4515
2002
4313
2001
4120
3849
2000
4089
3756
2000
3698
3000
5504
Graduate
1000
0
2009
2010
Undergraduate
Managing Capacity
Fall 2000
Fall 1981
Fall 2010
Total Students:
7,480
Total Students:
4,626
Total Students:
7,206
On-campus:
7,039
On-campus:
4,393
On-campus:
6,520
Distance/EEC:
441
Distance/EEC:
233
Distance/EEC:
686
Undergraduate: 6,313
Undergraduate: 3,698
Undergraduate: 5,504
Freshmen:
1,488
Freshmen:
696
Freshmen:
1,170
Graduate:
1,167
Graduate:
928
Graduate:
1,702
2010 ASEE Rankings
19th in Nation for Largest Undergraduate Engineering Enrollment
17th in Nation for Number of Engineering Degrees Granted to African-Americans
19th in Nation for Number of BS Engineering Degrees Granted
3%
13%
Engineering
3%
Business & IST
5%
Arts & Social Sciences
76%
Science & Computing
Non-Degree &
Undecided
Students’ Home States
Fall 2010
43
3
4
2
8
3
20
4
20
29
36
4
34
459
28
29
128
12
3
4,901
56
5
DC
20
7
125
6
16
1
12
54
7
4
12
18
19
4
22
3
41
17
4
22
20
2
2
Total Enrollment
25
 48 states & 51 nations
8
24
 70% Missouri residents
1
 10% minority students
 9% international students
Unofficial data until after 4th week census
Enrollment Diversity
1700
1610
1500
1326
1248
Headcount
1300
1100
1050
1097
1209
1391
1419
1485
1224
1133
900
700
500
377
414
456
508
483
03
04
542
600
641
655
07
08
719
716
09
10
300
00
01
02
05
06
Fall Semester
Female
Total Minorities, Non-Caucasian US Citizens
Retention and Graduate Rates
1988 - Present
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Entering Fall
1st to 2nd Yr
2nd to 3rd Yr
6 Yr Graduation
Classroom Utilization, Fall 2010
0 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80
Total Rooms Available:
Class Time
10
24
29
4
81+
8
Total Rooms Used
Mon - Wed - Fri
0 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 81+
0 - 30
Percentage
Mon - Wed - Fri
31 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 81+
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM
3
12
19
3
6
30%
50%
66%
75%
75%
9:00 AM - 10:00 AM
5
23
25
3
8
50%
96%
86%
75%
100%
10:00 AM - 11:00 AM
9
16
29
4
8
90%
67%
100% 100% 100%
11:00 AM - 12:00 PM
7
17
28
4
8
70%
71%
97%
100% 100%
12:00 PM - 1:00 PM
0
1
3
2
3
0%
4%
10%
50%
38%
1:00 PM - 2:00 PM
3
18
26
3
8
30%
75%
90%
75%
100%
2:00 PM - 3:00 PM
3
18
24
4
8
30%
75%
83%
100% 100%
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM
2
17
13
2
4
20%
71%
45%
50%
50%
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM
0
11
9
2
6
0%
46%
31%
50%
75%
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
0
7
5
3
5
0%
29%
17%
75%
63%
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
2
12
6
2
7
20%
50%
21%
50%
88%
7:00 PM - 8:00 PM
1
11
8
2
4
10%
46%
28%
50%
50%
8:00 PM - 9:00 PM
1
6
5
2
1
10%
25%
17%
50%
13%
Functional Capacity*
Mon - Wed - Fri
0 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 81+
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Observations
I.
Most S&T constituents recognize the university’s
resources have been significantly stretched over
the past decade by large growth in student
enrollments and the mission-driven need to
increase research levels.
II. These accomplishments were purposeful and a
key focus of the university’s strategic plan.
Observations
III. The growth has established new institutional
records for faculty scholarship, the transfer of
new knowledge to industry, and the quality,
success and diversity of the student body, while
stabilizing the university’s budget.
IV. During this same period, the state has reduced
institutional funding and implemented tuition
restraints.
Observations
IV. The Task Force recognizes that quality instruction
and course access issues are developing largely
due to the lack of funding available for:
1. replacing departed faculty
2. expanding and maintaining academic facilities
3. growing compliance and need-based financial
aid requirements
4. developing alternative instructional delivery
methods
Defining Capacity
 Educational capacity is a complex management
issue and incorporates many variables for a
residential research university.
 Capacity ultimately is a planning and quality
assurance concept.
 Generally defined:
– “Educational capacity is the university’s ability to
receive, enroll, house, feed, and properly educate
students in an appropriate time period.”
Key Factors in Determining Capacity
 Quality Teaching and Learning
 Enrollment and Research Growth
 Teaching Loads & Instructional Faculty Numbers
 Instructional and Laboratory Space
 Student Financial Assistance Resources
 Student and Campus Support Resources
 Housing, Dining and Parking Volume
2004 Capacity Assessment
 Established set of short-term strategic enrollment
goals and quality student profiles for both
undergraduate and graduate populations
 Objectives:
1. achieve optimum enrollments by filling excess
capacity
2. focus on achieving quality learning outcomes
3. minimize the average costs per student
2009 Capacity Assessment
 Due to the 2004 enrollment goals being exceeded in
fall 2009 (45% increase over 1999) and some
departments struggling to meet instructional needs
of larger enrollments and increased research levels,
capacity must be assessed in terms of the sum of
many crucial factors.
 Capacity could not be based exclusively upon the
percentage of occupied seats in classrooms, beds in
residence halls or spaces in campus parking lots.
Capacity Assessments by Unit Leaders
 The 2009-10 Task Force had to employ a myriad of
definitions and datasets to determine capacity.
 Due to the complexity of the issue, each department
chair and unit director was asked to assess the
capacity of their departments.
2009-01 Capacity Sub-committees
1. Campus housing, dining and parking
–
Chair: Tina Sheppard
2. Student financial aid and scholarships
–
Chair: Rance Larsen
3. Campus and student support services
–
Chair: Margaret Cline
4. Faculty and academic instructional space
–
Chair: Larry Gragg
Campus housing, dining and parking
Chair: Tina Sheppard
Housing, Dining, and Parking Committee






Patti Frisbee
Rachel Morris
Ted Ruth
Debbie Schatz
Tina Sheppard
Jay Goff
Available Residence Hall Beds
Total Beds
Available
Fall
Semester
Housing
Contracts –
4th week
2000
2004
2009
2010
2011
1,229
1,229
1,449
1,449
1,773
1,046
1,409
1,643
1,711
N/A
Housing Benchmarks & Data Points
Housing occupancy

Capacity post renovation is 1773. This is above the highest occupancy seen by
Residential Life.
Fall occupancy counts

Because Organizational Housing (Greek Life and CCH) is not required to accept
a minimum number of students, for the purposes of capacity we are reporting
only residence hall numbers.
First Week
Fourth Week
Fall 2009
1689
1643
Fall 2008
1724
1647
Convenient location

Based on walking distance, the subcommittee has determined current
locations are convenient to residential students. All locations are no more than
a 15 minute walk from the farthest extreme of campus
Housing Recommendations
1. Current residence hall housing needs are being met.
2. Additional beds are needed only as replacement for
existing beds.
3. Current campus population cannot be supported
without the 400 beds that will be lost when the Quad
is taken off line.
4. How the beds are replaced (traditional residence hall
beds or apartment units) is a question to be
addressed by the Residential Life & Campus Master
Plans.
Dining Benchmarks & Data Points
Seating and Design Capacity



Thomas Jefferson design capacity - 366
Rayl (Quad) design capacity - 307
Havener design capacity - 456
Number of Diners

Lunch meals have the greatest participation numbers.
Service (Convenient dining locations and quality of food)


Based on walking distance (Chart 1), current locations are convenient to
diners.
Based on data from two surveys, most diners rate quality at or above average.
Campus Cafeteria Dining Capacity
S&T CAFETERIA DINING
CENTERS
Seating and
Design Capacity
October 2009 Total
Meals Served per Week
THOMASJEFFERSON
RAYL
(QUAD)
HAVENER
CENTER
366
307
456
15,741
9,697
37,459*
*includes all meals served at the
Havener Food Court, Coyote Jacks
Chart 1 - Walking Distance to Dining
Dining Observations & Considerations

The campus’s overall dining capacity is about 1130 seats
with about 1180 to 1340 patrons served per meal.

The Rayl Cafeteria’s physical infrastructure is in very poor
condition and likely needs to be replaced before 2015.

Future students are more likely to be residential and more
will be from low income families.

Havener capacity is exceeded Monday and Wednesdays,
11:50 a.m. – 12:20 p.m. during the common lunch hour.
See Chart 2.
Chart 2 – Havener Lunch Usage
Dining Recommendations
1.
Replacing Rayl cafeteria will be critical in the next three –
five years. The current campus population cannot be
supported without the 307 seats that will be lost when
Rayl is taken off line.
2.
Resist expanding the food court style dining options in the
future as both low income and male students tend to
prefer the traditional cafeteria all you care to eat dining
option.
3.
Should the academic free hour be removed, dining capacity
concerns in Havener would be eliminated.
Parking Benchmarks & Data Points

Availability of parking in desired locations

Number of parking spaces available – 2330

Number of parking spaces assigned
Parking Observations/Considerations

The dashboard usage reports indicate the
campus’s overall parking capacity is about 2330

Upon investigation by committee, we learned no
data points existing to direct a recommendation
to this task force.
Parking Recommendations

New Police Chief and Parking Committee
investigate the parking issues and deliver data
points on
-

Availability of parking in desired locations
Number of parking spaces available
Number of parking spaces assigned
Continue to develop parking spaces to replace any
parking removed
Student financial aid and scholarships
Chair: Rance Larsen
Scholarships and Financial Aid Sub Committee
 Carol M. Heddinghaus – Director of Budget Plan
 Bradley Keith Starbuck – Enrollment Management
 Dr. Phil D. Whitefield – Professor, Chemistry
 Dr. Stephen A. Raper - Assoc. Professor, Engineering Mgt. & Sys. Engr.
 Dr. S. N. Balakrishnan - Professor, Mechanical & Aerospace Engr.
 Rance E. Larsen - Director of Admission
 Lynn K. Stichnote - Director, Student Financial Assistance
 Cindy Barton, (Admissions Office)
25% Increase Undergraduate Financial Aid
Requests 2007-2010
FAFSA
Submissions
To S&T
2007
2008
2009
2010
2,551
2,647
2,817
3,192
Scholarships and Financial Aid Committee
 With current enrollment goals and changes to
the federal and state student assistance
programs, the level of financial aid resources
at Missouri S&T is at or above capacity to
meet campus strategic plan goals.
“Capacity” in terms of financial assistance
is difficult to define.
 Given currently‐available G.O. & endowment funds,
S&T is at an equilibrium point in its ability to attract
desired number of students at preferred quality
while meeting our land‐grant mission.
 The subcommittee agreed, however, that being “at
capacity” means S&T has no reserve capacity and is
at risk of deterioration in student quality and/or
decreased enrollments.
Benchmarks
Quality Benchmarks
A. Students’ ability to pay the cost of attendance as indicated by
average unmet need.
Average unmet need 2009‐10: Graduate: $7,011 Undergraduate: $4,431
B. Ratio of SFA staff per student compared to other UM campuses
2009‐10: 1 staff per every 850 students. Projected increase in total number
of Pell‐Grant eligible students per campus strategic plan.
C. Percentage of gross need of undergraduate FAFSA filers
that is met by institutional scholarships.
2009‐10: 48.5%
Quality Benchmarks (cont.)
D. Percentage of institutional merit‐based aid that goes to
meet unmet need.
43% ($4,700,172) AY2009-10
E. Total GO funds supporting institutional aid
2009‐10: $17M ($11.5 M undergrad, $5.5 M graduate)
Conclusion changes to “above capacity” if these funds were reduced
and not replaced by a non‐GO source.
F. Availability of financial aid to attract high‐quality
graduate students.
See “Stipend X” Task Force Report
Campus and student support services
Chair: Margaret Cline
STAFFING FOR CAMPUS AND STUDENT
SUPPORT SERVICES
 Assessing the staffing and support
resources based on agreed upon
benchmarks proved to be difficult.
 Each unit’s self-assessments indicated
that most service areas are lightly staffed
and struggling to balance the resources
allocated.
Condensed Staffing Survey Scorecard
Table 10
ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT
Admissions
Athletics
Career Opportunities Center
Counseling
Disability Support Services
Community Standards and Student Conduct
Leadership and Cultural Programs
Residential Life
Student Health Services
Student Life
Testing Center
Student Diversity Programs
Registrar
Student Financial Assistance
Writing Center
Office of Graduate Studies
Freshman Engineering Program
News Student Programs/Orientation
Pre-College Programs
Information Technology
Undergraduate Advising
# OF UNIT FUNCTIONS REPORTED
AT EACH CAPACITY LEVEL
BELOW
AT
ABOVE
CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
1
2
2
3
2
X
1
X
X
1
3
6
1
1
2
5
1
4
4
X
1
1
4
1
X
1
2
3
6
4
6
2
1
1
Faculty & academic instructional space
Chair: Larry Gragg
Critical Warning Signs
 Chairs’ Perceptions:
• “It is likely the learning experience already is
more impersonal than it was a decade ago.”
• The enrollment burden “is very
demoralizing for faculty with serious
research ambitions.”
Building Comparison of Rooms and Seats
Net Gain/Loss (1982-2009) Table 7
Campus Total Classrooms Available
Campus Total Seats Available
GAIN/LOSS
GAIN/LOSS
2009
20032009
1982
2003
19822003
84
82
-2
75
-7
551
4,093
-263
3,805 4,356
Overall Committee Recommendation
The entire campus, not just the
academic departments, must
engage in a serious dialog in an
effort to shape our recruitment and
retention efforts.
Findings & Recommendations
Collective Findings of
Subcommittees and Data Reviews
Task Force Conclusion
 “ …the university was very close to
exceeding its overall capacity to
provide all enrolled students with a
quality education in the fall 2009
semester.”
Recommendations
1.
Establish an overall on‐campus enrollment level until additional faculty,
staff and classroom/lab facilities can be added. Consider limiting new
student class sizes and raising academic fees to cover the existing
operational costs. Approved – Freshman Engineering Capped in June
2010 - Added to tactical plan goal 2.1 new UG 2015 targets & keep
current graduate student targets based on 1750 total and 2009
department chair preferred student profile.
2.
Establish a maximum student‐to‐faculty ratio and student credit hour
average per faculty member for departments to maintain quality
instruction and research levels consistent with a top‐five TRU. Use the
metric to prioritize future faculty hiring. Approved - Add to tactical
plan goal 5.1 . Suggested 2009 department ratios to be reviewed by
August 2011.
3.
Eliminate the Academic Free Hour (12:00‐1:00 MWF). It adds classroom
and lab periods and decreases the lunch dining delays at the Havener
Center on Mondays and Wednesdays. Not a strategic issue – Not
approved. STUCO has requested this change NOT be made.
Recommendations
4. Develop plans for additional general-use classrooms that
includes at least four 65‐seat CLC distance education
classrooms , two +150‐seat auditoriums and a +350 seat
space that can be configured for testing and smaller classes.
Approved - Added to tactical goal 5.4 – Specific space needs
will be considered in the development of Schenk Hall
Renovation-Addition
5. Provide appropriate staffing in the Student Financial
Assistance office to manage large increases in student aid
requests and the more complex compliance standards.
Approved August 2010 – Search for two positions underway
Recommendations
6. Develop fundraising goals and execution plans for
need‐based student financial aid and graduate
assistantships. Approved - Added to tactical goal 4.1
7. Review the current student quality profiles to assess the
strategic value achieved in relation to the institutional
scholarship expense. The graduate/undergraduate ratio
should also be considered to completed by September
2011. Approved - Added to tactical plan goal 2.1
8. Develop a plan for the replacement of the Quadrangle
Complex and Rayl cafeteria facilities by 2014. Approved Added to tactical plan goal 5.4
Recommendations
8. Revisit the quality benchmarking and operational capacity
of other student support units on a regular basis.
Recognized – Ongoing in Strategic Planning Process
9. Establish more online and blended e‐learning options at
the undergraduate level. Include both lower level service
and upper level major courses. Approved - added to
tactical plan goal 2.2
10. University Police should establish a tracking system for
parking space and permit availability. Addressed
September 2010
OPEN DISCUSSION