Contents

4

II. Profile of the Environment • Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 7 9

III. Auburn University (AU) • Profile

-

Students

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

-

Research Extension

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 99

-

Finances

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT” Assessment) • Strategic Challenges and Implications

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

102 113 117

Messina & Graham

2

I. Overview of Strategy-Development Process

1.

SITUATION ASSESSMENT 2.

OPTION GENERATION 3.

OPTION EVALUATION 4.

STRATEGY SELECTION 5.

EXECUTION

•

Profiling the environment

•

Profiling Auburn - Main campus - AUM

•

Identifying strategic challenges and implications

•

Candidate strategic objectives and directions

•

Rationale for each option

•

Detailed assessment of each option

•

Comparison of options

•

Rationale

•

Full description, including goals and action initiatives

•

Implementation plan, responsibility assignments

•

Progress measures, review milestones

•

Adjustments and adaptation

Messina & Graham

4

II. Profile of the Environment

• Summary - Pervasive Trends - Forces Affecting Higher Education • Implications - For all universities - For AU (Illustrative)

Messina & Graham

6

PERVASIVE TRENDS

•

Globalization

•

Information Revolution

•

Natural-Resource Demands and Environmental Strain

•

Aging Populations and Increasing Minorities

Summary

FORCES AFFECTING HIGHER EDUCATION

•

Enrollment Growth

•

Affordability Challenge

•

Demands for Quality Improvement

•

Efficiency Imperative

•

Diverse Perspectives on the University in the Twenty First Century

Messina & Graham

7

AU Total Applications, Acceptances, and Enrollment – 2005

Chart 6 14,249 11,616 4,197 Applied Accepted Enrolled Note: 81.5 percent of applicants are accepted, with a 36 percent yield

Source: AU OIRA Messina & Graham

34

AU Competitor Rankings in USNWR – 2005-06

Chart 14 TOP PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES BEST UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING SCHOOLS BEST UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS PROGRAMS 2005 9 16 19 21 34

38

38 50 52 52 2006 8 13 21 21 30

39

39 39 52 54 Georgia Tech UFL UGA Texas A&M Clemson

Auburn

UTN U of A FL ST USC * Not listed among top 105 2005 6 14 31 57

67

67 102 102 2006 6 17 30 60

60

71 * * Georgia Tech Texas A&M UFL Clemson

Auburn

UTN U of A USC

Messina & Graham

2005 26 30 30 35 40 47 47

57

57 77 87 87 2006 29 29 29 35 42 42 42

51

60 73 83 83 UFL UGA Texas A&M Georgia Tech USC FL ST UTN

Auburn

U of A Clemson UAB UMS 49

Freshmen ACT Scores for Leading Competitors – 2005 25

th

to 75

th

Percentiles

GA Tech Number of National Merit Scholars 100 Chart 16 28-32 UGA Clemson FL ST USC UTN UAH GA Southern AU U of A 49 31 10 40 21 1 1 29 68 25-31 25-30 25-30 23-28 23-28 23-28 22-28 22-26 21-27 21-27 UMS 36 20-26

Source:

USNWR

, August 2006

; 20 25 30

National Merit Scholarship Corporation Annual Report, 2005 Messina & Graham

35 53

Measures of Auburn’s Value-Added

COLLEGIATE LEARNING ASSESSMENT (CLA) 2005 – 2006 AU’s OVERALL RESULT At Expected Level (on par with 60-75% of CLA-participating schools) SENIORS’ PERFORMANCE BY TASK (RELATIVE TO EXPECTED LEVEL) Analytic Writing Make an Argument Critique an Argument Performance Task Below Expected Level At Expected Level Below Expected Level At Expected Level

Chart 23

Source: AU OIRA Messina & Graham

67

Measures of Auburn’s Value-Added (Continued)

Chart 23

NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE) Academic Challenge Active, Collaborative Learning Student-Faculty Interaction Enriching Experiences Supportive Campus AU Scores – 2006* Freshmen 79.8

Seniors 82.5

75.7

77.1

75.3

88.7

87.7

76.4

70.1

88.5

Implied Improvements More Assigned Reading and Writing More Time Preparing for Class More Emphasis on Developing Higher-Order Cognitive Skills *Where 100 equals the average score of the top 10 percent of participating schools

Source: AU OIRA Messina & Graham

68

AU versus Median of SREB Non-Medical Peer Group On TheCenter’s Measures – 2005

AU In Relation to Median Values for Non-Medical School Members of SREB Peer Group SREB Median = 100 83 78 77 70 64 61 Total Research Total, Per Faculty* *Tenure and Tenure-Track

Source: TheCenter; AU OIRA

Federal Research Federal, Per Faculty*

Messina & Graham

Endowment Annual Giving 0 National Academy 90

AU versus Median of SREB Non-Medical Peer Group On TheCenter’s Measures – 2005 (Continued)

Chart 32 Research University Quality Indicators AU In Relation to Median Values for Non-Medical School Members of SREB Peer Group SREB Median = 100 68 67 67 60 59 46 Faculty Awards *Tenured

Source: TheCenter; AU OIRA

Doctorates Awarded Doctorates Per Faculty* Postdocs

Messina & Graham

Merit Scholars Merit Scholars Per 1000 91

Auburn’s Federal Research Funding as a Percentage Share of Total Federal R&D Dollars – Four-Year Average – 2000 to 2003

Chart 37 1.38% 0.89% 0.79% 0.50% AU’s Overall R&D Share (%) 0.19% $ Millions Overall R&D 39.8

All Engineering 15

Source: NSF; AU OIRA

Civil Eng.

2.5

Chem. Eng.

Messina & Graham

1.8

0.49% Mech. Eng.

2.2

Agricultural Science 9 98

State Appropriations as Share of Auburn’s Total Revenue FY 1996 - 2005

Chart 37 41.9% 34.4% 30.1%

Source: AU OIRA

1996 2001

Messina & Graham

2005 105

State Appropriations per FTE Student Auburn versus Competition – FY 2005

$10,062 $9,006 $8,281 $8,144 $7,281 $6,010 $5,622 $5,180 $4,502 Chart 38 GA Tech UGA

Source: SREB; AU OIRA

FL ST UFL UTN

Messina & Graham

U of A AU Clemson UMS 107

Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT” Assessment) Auburn University

STRENGTHS

• AU’s big-school, big-time sports, small-town campus near fast-growing Atlanta is attractive to many Alabama and Georgia students. AU draws the top share of Georgia students who leave their home state for a Southern Region Education Board public research university • AU has notable strengths in selected academic areas. AU’s Wireless Engineering program is a leader. The undergraduate Engineering and Business programs rank well in

USNWR’s

lists. Several of AU’s College of Architecture programs rank strongly in the Design Intelligence Survey • AU ranks well on USNWR’s retention value-added measure and on the National Survey of Student Engagement’s “supportive campus environment” measure • AU has research strengths in selected engineering and agri-science areas • AU has a track record of good financial management, and development has recently shown great progress with “It Begins at Auburn” • AU’s large alumni base expresses strong Auburn spirit – and AU has solid political support in Alabama

Messina & Graham

113

WEAKNESSES

• Academically, AU lags nearby states’ best universities in measures of incoming undergraduate quality. It also has a reputation for students who do not study hard and are consumed by athletics • AU’s undergraduate education likely does not prepare students as well as it could to enable them to compete in the twenty first century. On the Collegiate Learning Assessment, AU’s seniors achieve “at expected level,” like the students of a majority of other participating schools. The Spellings Commission and others regard “the expected” as no longer good enough. AU’s scores on National Survey of Student Engagement measures are Bs and Cs relative to the top ten percent of schools. AU’s six-year graduation rate is below that of its competitors as well as the national average for four-year schools • AU is not competitive on key measures in most research areas, and being located away from a major growth and research hub is problematic for research leadership • AU is under-resourced – for its array of programs and relative to competitors – owing to historically declining real state appropriations, comparatively low endowment and alumni giving, and limits on feasible tuition increases • AU’s cohesiveness as a community has been adversely affected over the last five years or so by several factors – including lack of consensus on vision and mission, a divided Board, presidential turnover, and frayed relations among the Board, administration, faculty, and other constituencies

Messina & Graham

114

OPPORTUNITIES

• Coalesce Board and faculty behind a new President and an agreed-upon vision • Market AU’s stronger undergraduate programs and the Honors College much more proactively to win more talented students • Build on AU’s past lead in value-added retention by enhancing undergraduate education quality for the current profile of AU students; experimenting with innovative approaches in program design, teaching, and learning; and using the results to market to prospective students • Focus research in a few areas of natural strength and relative advantage, and drive collaborations with nearby research powerhouses, taking advantage of telecommunications technologies • Rationalize program offerings to moderate expense growth and gain critical mass in areas of focus • Harness technology thoughtfully to improve quality while containing costs in selective distance-learning offerings, elements of undergraduate instruction, back office operations and extension • Continue to strengthen alumni and friends’ financial support of the University through “It Begins At Auburn” and intensified annual-fund campaigns, leveraging these communications opportunities to build greater awareness and understanding of Auburn, its accomplishments, and its aspirations

Messina & Graham

115

THREATS

• Demographic trends in high-school graduates are neutral for student enrollment, and the growing fraction of Hispanic students will present a new challenge for AU • AU’s dependence on Georgia for students paying out-of-state tuition is vulnerable to any flattening in Georgia’s high-school graduate numbers and to lesser-ranked Georgia colleges’ becoming more competitive with AU • AU could face increasing financial challenges if Alabama state appropriations do not keep pace with AU expense increases and if resultant tuition hikes meet market resistance • AU’s value proposition could erode if students, parents, or the state begin to emphasize the college years as a time for gaining competitive skills – unless AU can demonstrate stronger value-added • The U of A’s aggressive recruitment of high academic achievers could reduce AU’s share of strong in state students and damage AU’s reputation. It may also have the potential to discourage state appropriations to both universities if the schools are perceived as using public funds to compete for prestige • Technology developments in higher education create opportunities for fast-moving competitors, so AU must be constantly vigilant about remaining at the forefront of applying relevant techniques

Messina & Graham

116