DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AUBURN UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC PLANNING SITUATION ASSESSMENT October 2006 Messina & Graham Contents I. Overview of Strategy-Development Process .
Download ReportTranscript DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AUBURN UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC PLANNING SITUATION ASSESSMENT October 2006 Messina & Graham Contents I. Overview of Strategy-Development Process .
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AUBURN UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC PLANNING SITUATION ASSESSMENT October 2006 Messina & Graham Contents I. Overview of Strategy-Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 II. Profile of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 • Summary Slides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 • Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 III. Auburn University (AU) • Profile - Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 - Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 - Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 - Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 • Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT” Assessment) . . . 113 • Strategic Challenges and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Messina & Graham 2 Contents (Continued) IV. Auburn University Montgomery (AUM) • Comparison of Auburn University and AUM . . . . . . . . . 125 • Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 • Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT” Assessment) . . . .151 • Strategic Challenges and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 V. Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159 Appendices • Auburn University Strategic Planning – Profile of the Environment, July 2006 (separately bound) • Ranking Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161 • Selected Information Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164 Messina & Graham 3 I. Overview of Strategy-Development Process 1. SITUATION ASSESSMENT • Profiling the environment • Profiling Auburn - Main campus - AUM 2. OPTION GENERATION • Candidate strategic objectives and directions • Rationale for each option 3. OPTION EVALUATION • Detailed assessment of each option • Comparison of options • Identifying strategic challenges and implications 4. STRATEGY SELECTION • Rationale • Full description, including goals and action initiatives 5. EXECUTION • Implementation plan, responsibility assignments • Progress measures, review milestones • Adjustments and adaptation Messina & Graham 4 Key Elements of a Strategy • Special attributes and their sources DISTINCTIVENESS • Differentiation that confers relative advantage • Consistent with vision and mission • Choices about allocating scarce resources RESOURCE COMMITMENTS • Fact-based decision-making • Coherent set of initiatives • Implementation plans, responsibility assignments EXECUTION • Progress measures, review milestones • Adjustments and adaptation Messina & Graham 5 II. Profile of the Environment • Summary Slides - Pervasive Trends - Forces Affecting Higher Education • Implications - For all universities - For AU (Illustrative) Messina & Graham 6 Summary FORCES AFFECTING HIGHER EDUCATION PERVASIVE TRENDS • Globalization • Enrollment Growth • Information Revolution • Affordability Challenge • Natural-Resource Demands and Environmental Strain • Demands for Quality Improvement • Aging Populations and Increasing Minorities • Efficiency Imperative • Diverse Perspectives on the University in the TwentyFirst Century Messina & Graham 7 Pervasive Trends GLOBALIZATION INFORMATION REVOLUTION NATURAL RESOURCES DEMOGRAPHICS • Transforming worldwide commerce and employment • Generating global competition for knowledge work • Information technology, telecommunications, connectivity • Dramatic and ubiquitous impacts • Demand increasing because of global economic and population growth • Environment under strain • Aging populations in developed countries • Rapid rise in U.S. minorities, especially Hispanics Messina & Graham 8 Implications of Pervasive Trends for Universities GLOBALIZATION INFORMATION REVOLUTION NATURAL RESOURCES DEMOGRAPHICS • Ensuring competitiveness of graduates • Increasing students’ international awareness • Multiple challenges and opportunities in teaching and learning, research, extension, and administration and operations • Teaching and learning, research, extension and operations opportunities • Examples: alternative energy sources, conservation, agricultural technologies • Enriching lifelong learning • Embracing greater diversity Messina & Graham 9 Implications of Higher-Education Trends for Universities ENROLLMENT GROWTH AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT EFFICIENCY IMPERATIVE 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY • Focusing on enrollment objectives • Ensuring diverse access • Innovating and experimenting with new curricula and teaching approaches • Measuring performance in learning and teaching • Implementing proven business practices to reduce cost growth • Re-examining vision and mission • Redesigning business model to adapt to dramatic change Messina & Graham 10 Implications for Auburn University Pervasive Trends TREND / IMPLICATIONS GLOBALIZATION POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE • Raise performance expectations for students and measure results • Competitiveness of graduates • Develop new approaches to undergraduate education • Students’ international awareness • Increase international course and language skills offerings and requirements INFORMATION REVOLUTION • Challenges and opportunities across the enterprise • Ensure implementation of technologies that enable cost and quality improvements Messina & Graham 11 Implications for Auburn University Pervasive Trends TREND / IMPLICATIONS POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE NATURAL RESOURCES • Advance teaching and research in alternative energy sources, conservation, agricultural technologies • Opportunities across the enterprise • Promote energy-efficient building design and operations DEMOGRAPHICS • Enriching lifelong learning • Embracing greater diversity • Explore distance learning for specific markets (e.g., alumni, seniors) • Prepare for challenges resulting from growth in Hispanic students Messina & Graham 12 Implications for Auburn University Forces Affecting Higher Education TREND / IMPLICATIONS ENROLLMENT GROWTH • Focusing on enrollment objectives POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE • Strengthen image of value to compensate for possible reduction in applicant pool AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGE • Constrain expense growth through improving efficiency and applying technology • Ensuring diverse access • Increase resources available for need-based aid Messina & Graham 13 Implications for Auburn University Forces Affecting Higher Education TREND / IMPLICATIONS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT • Developing innovative teaching and learning approaches • Measuring performance in learning and teaching POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE • Raise performance expectations for students • Innovate and experiment with new teaching approaches, including beyond the classroom • Focus on learning objectives and measure results Messina & Graham 14 Implications for Auburn University Forces Affecting Higher Education TREND / IMPLICATIONS POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE EFFICIENCY IMPERATIVE • Perform a comprehensive review of cost elements and processes • Implementing proven business practices to reduce cost growth • Implement focused technology solutions that reduce or contain costs • Examine approaches to help enable the faculty to become more productive in their teaching and research activities Messina & Graham 15 Implications for Auburn University Forces Affecting Higher Education TREND / IMPLICATIONS 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY • Re-examining vision and mission • Redesigning business model to adapt to dramatic change POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE • As a key building block for creating a twenty-first century vision for Auburn, perform an assessment of the University’s strengths and weaknesses, and profile the opportunities and threats it faces (“SWOT” assessment) Messina & Graham 16 III. Auburn University * • Profile • Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT” Assessment) • Strategic Challenges and Implications *Acknowledgment: The Director and staff of Auburn’s Office of Institutional Research and Assessment were extremely helpful in compiling and critiquing selected data presented in this profile of Auburn, and in suggesting additional sources. Even so, the selection of data to be presented, all judgments expressed, and any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of Messina & Graham Messina & Graham 17 Profile of Auburn University 1. Students 2. Research 3. Extension 4. Finances Messina & Graham 18 1. Students • Student demographics. AU’s demand outlook (in terms of projected numbers of high-school graduates) is relatively flat, and its current acceptance rate is above 80 percent. It may be challenging for Auburn to maintain enrollment levels while at the same time raising tuition and the target scores of entering freshmen • In-state competition. Reasons for strong students to choose in-state competitors likely include family allegiance, cost, and preferences for certain campus environments or programs • Out-of-state competition. Out-of-state students face a high financial penalty for attending AU. This is especially true for strong students from Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina who qualify for HOPE or similar merit scholarships • Value proposition (real and perceived quality of the institution and benefit of attending, relative to cost). Overall, AU’s value proposition is in the middle range of its regional peers. But several AU programs have compelling value propositions Messina & Graham 19 1. Students (Continued) • Scope for selectivity. AU’s scope for greater student selectivity is limited because, given its large size in a relatively small state, it enrolls a higher fraction of its home state’s high-school graduates than competitors in Georgia and Florida enroll from theirs • Value-added (impact of the undergraduate program on building students’ skills). AU’s current value-added performance evidences significant opportunity to improve. This observation applies to many peer institutions as well • Distribution by areas of study. AU’s distribution of students by area of study is similar to that of Alabama’s leading universities overall and to that of a highlyregarded land-grant institution in another state, Texas A&M • Tuition trends. Over the past decade, AU’s tuition increases have far exceeded inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) Messina & Graham 20 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS • The regional demand outlook for university attendance appears reasonably level over time. Alabama’s public high-school graduate numbers are projected to peak in 2007, and by 2015 to be five percent below their 2005 level. After their recent rapid growth, Georgia’s and Florida’s numbers of high-school graduates are projected to level off between 2010 and 2014, and then to begin growing again. (It is worth noting that there are significant variations among demographic projections). In total, Georgia produces approximately two times as many, and Florida more than four times as many, public high-school graduates as Alabama. Chart 1 Messina & Graham 21 Public High-School Graduates 1995 - 2015 Chart 1 Alabama Number of Students 35,000 1995 37,100 37,400 2000 2005 37,900 35,300 2010 2015 Down 5% from 2005 2015 Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): Projections to 2015, Table 24 Messina & Graham 22 Public High-School Graduates 1995 - 2015 (Continued) Chart 1 Alabama Georgia Number of Students 2015 – Up 10% from 2005 56,300 35,000 37,100 37,400 37,900 35,300 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1995 73,700 78,900 80,500 2005 2010 2015 62,500 2000 Source: NCES: Projections to 2015, Table 24 Messina & Graham 23 Public High-School Graduates 1995 - 2015 (Continued) Chart 1 Alabama 2015 – Up 10% from 2005 Florida Number of Students 150,000 154,400 2010 2015 139,800 111,000 89,000 35,000 1995 37,100 2000 37,400 37,900 35,300 2005 2010 2015 1995 2000 2005 Source: NCES: Projections to 2015, Table 24 Messina & Graham 24 • Hispanics, currently a very small portion of high-school populations in Alabama and Georgia, are projected to make up ten percent of Alabama’s and 26 percent of Georgia’s high-school graduates by 2018. Hispanics historically have attended and completed college at much lower rates than whites and African-Americans, potentially reducing the applicant pool unless this group can be integrated more successfully into higher education. Hispanic students are expected to account for over one-third of Florida’s public high-school graduates by 2018, equivalent to twice the number of African-American graduates. Chart 2 Messina & Graham 25 Minority Shares of Public High-School Graduates Chart 2 Alabama 32% 30% 10% 1% 2002 2018 2002 African-American 2018 Hispanic Note: AU 1.5% Hispanic enrollment in 2005 Source: SREB Fact Book on Higher Education, 2005; AU OIRA Messina & Graham 26 Minority Shares of Public High-School Graduates (Continued) Chart 2 Georgia Alabama 33% 32% 30% 27% 26% 10% 2% 1% 2002 2018 AfricanAmerican 2002 2018 2002 Hispanic 2018 AfricanAmerican 2002 2018 Hispanic Source: SREB Fact Book on Higher Education, 2005; AU OIRA Messina & Graham 27 Minority Shares of Public High-School Graduates (Continued) Chart 2 Alabama Florida 32% 36% 30% 20% 18% 17% 10% 1% 2002 2018 AfricanAmerican 2002 2018 2002 Hispanic 2018 AfricanAmerican 2002 2018 Hispanic Source: SREB Fact Book on Higher Education, 2005; AU OIRA Messina & Graham 28 • Over 40 percent of AU's out-of-state freshmen entering in fall 2006 were from Georgia, down slightly from 2005. Chart 3 - This high dependency on Georgia as AU’s main out-of-state market does not provide much opportunity for diversification in case of a policy or economic change that affects AU’s enrollments from that state - However, AU captures an impressive 31 percent of all Georgia students and 19 percent of all Florida students who leave their states to attend a public research university in the southern region. Chart 4 - Out-of-state freshmen score at levels slightly below those of Alabama residents on the ACT. The other states’ flagships will naturally tend to attract the strongest students from their own states. Chart 5 Messina & Graham 29 AU Freshmen by State – 2006 Chart 3 100% = 4,077 Georgia 17% Florida 6% Tennessee 4% Alabama 61% Other 12% Source: AU OIRA Messina & Graham 30 AU Share of Freshmen Leaving Their Home State for an SREB Public Research University – 2005 Chart 4 31% 19% 14% Georgia Florida Tennessee Source: AU OIRA Messina & Graham 31 Equivalent ACT Scores of AU Freshmen – 2005 Chart 5 24.4 24.1 In-State Out-of-State Source: AU OIRA Messina & Graham 32 • With an acceptance rate at above 80 percent, there is little room for Auburn to increase enrollment by admitting more liberally. Chart 6 • At 26 percent, AU’s yield on out-of-state acceptances is half of its in-state yield. Chart 7 Messina & Graham 33 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 Yield Rate of AU Admitted Students In-State and Out-of-State – Average, 2002 - 2005 Chart 7 52% 26% Out-of-state Alabama Source: National Student Clearinghouse; AU Office of Admissions & Records Messina & Graham 35 IN-STATE COMPETITION University of Alabama (U of A), University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), Southern Union State Community College (SUSCC), University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), and Troy represent the main competition for Alabama students, together accounting for half of all AU admits who enrolled elsewhere. It is worth questioning whether prospective students who decided to attend much less academically strong schools were actually an appropriate admissions match for AU. If practicable, declining admission to the least-qualified candidates would lead to a lower acceptance rate, which would both present a stronger image of AU and result in a higher US News & World Report (USNWR) score, at minimal cost in numbers enrolling. Charts 8, 9 The three U of A schools, along with Samford and Birmingham Southern (BHAM S), enrolled 350 of the best-prepared AU admits in 2003, compared with 960 who chose Auburn. Reasons for strong students to select these competitors likely include family allegiance, cost, and campus-environment and program preferences Messina & Graham 36 Top 10 Competitors for Alabama Students: Schools Attended by AU Admits Not Enrolling at Auburn – 2003 All AU Admits Percent University of Alabama (U of A) Best-Prepared AU Admits (ACT 27 and Above)* Percent Number 23 7 144 University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) 9 2 49 Southern Union State Community College (SUSCC) 8 -- -- University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) 6 3 56 Troy University (Troy) 5 -- -- University of South Alabama (USA) 5 1 23 Birmingham Southern University (BHAM S) 4 2 42 Samford University (Samford) 4 2 33 University of North Alabama (UNA) 3 -- -- Auburn University Montgomery (AUM) 3 -- -- Combined Total (Ten Schools) 70 17 347 Other Institutions 30 83 *In-State and Out-of-State Source: National Student Clearinghouse; AU Office of Admissions & Records Messina & Graham Chart 8 37 Competition for Alabama Students: Schools Attended by AU Admits Not Enrolling at Auburn – 2006 Chart 9 % % Best Attend1 ≥ 272 2003 Data Cost versus AU ($)3 University type (USNWR Category)4 Likely Reason (M&G Avg. ACT Range GPA5 (25% - 75%)6 Assessment)7 AU -- -- -- 88th best*, more selective, large, public 3.5 21-27 -- U of A 23 7 -2,400 88th best*, more selective, large, public 3.4 21-27 Loyalty, price UAB 9 2 NR Selective, large, public 3.3 20-26 Price SUSCC 8 -- NR Community college NA NA Price, work UAH 6 3 -2,600 More selective, mid-size, public 3.4 22-28 Price TROY 5 -- -3,800 Selective, mid-size, public NA 21 Price USA 5 1 -2,800 Selective, mid-size, public NA 19-25 Price BHAM S 4 2 17,000 More selective, small, private, Utd Methodist 3.3 23-29 Prefer small private Samford 4 2 8,700 More selective, small, private, Baptist 3.6 23-28 Prefer small private UNA 3 -- -4,000 Selective, mid-size, public 2.9 18-23 Price AUM 3 -- -3,530 Less selective, mid-size, public NA 18-23 Price TOTAL 70 17 Notes to this chart are on the next page Source: USNWR, August 2006; Messina & Graham Messina & Graham 38 Competition for Alabama Students Schools Attended by AU Admits Not Enrolling at Auburn – 2006 (Continued) Notes Chart 9 *Ranking versus all schools. For public schools both AU and U of A were rated 39 th 1Percentage of AL resident admits to AU who instead attend each listed school 2Percentage of ACT 27 resident and out-of-state admits to AU who instead attend each listed school 3Cost equals the total of tuition, fees, room and board (NR denotes non-residential schools). Difference in dollars per year between AU’s full-pay tuition and living expenses and those of listed school. Negative number indicates school costs less than AU 4Type of institution based on USNWR categories 5Average 6Lower of entering freshmen’s high-school GPAs and upper quartiles of ACT scores of entering freshman class 7Messina & Graham judgment regarding why student might chose the listed school over an offer from AU Messina & Graham 39 • AU’s combined in-state, full-pay tuition, room and board are 18 – 30 percent more than those of public-university competitors. AU tuition is almost twice SUSCC’s. For the best-prepared students that AU would probably seek to capture, there is no survey evidence, but price would be a logical factor in some of their decisions to decline AU for a place at U of A or at the less academically-strong UAB, UAH, or USA. U of A, UAH, and UAB are on Princeton Review’s “Best-Value” list, while Auburn is not. Chart 10 Messina & Graham 40 Cost of Attending for Alabama Students – 2005-06 Combined Tuition, Fees, Room and Board – Dollars Chart 10 13,000 7,500 10,700 10,500 5,400 5,700 9,200 Room and Board 4,900 Tuition and Fees 5,500 4,800 5,300 4,800 4,300 AU U of A “BestValue” UAH “BestValue” Troy 2,700 UAB “BestValue” SUSCC Source: USNWR, August 2006; SUSCC website; Princeton Review Messina & Graham 41 • Using USNWR’s overall scores as a reasonable proxy for how students and their parents value universities, AU appears to represent a good value tradeoff for Alabama students compared to out-of-state flagships, even those that rank much higher academically. Similarly, AU seems to offer a better value proposition than the state’s premier private schools, which nevertheless attract well-prepared students. There may be an opportunity to further develop and position AU’s Honors College as a strong alternative to these small private schools. Chart 11 Messina & Graham 42 Price/Value Map – Alabama Students’ Perspective 2005-06 Chart 11 Combined Tuition, Fees, Room and Board $35,000 BHAM S $30,000 USC Clemson $25,000 GA Tech UGA UFL Samford $20,000 UTN $15,000 Good value at various price points AU U of A $10,000 Troy UAH $5,000 $0 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Value, measured by USNWR scores* Note: Scores for Troy, Birmingham Southern, Samford and UAH, not ranked among top national universities in USNWR, were assigned using judgment based on other USNWR scores, graduation rate, ACT score and student-faculty ratio *USNWR score is based on a blend of peer assessment, retention/graduation rates, class size, faculty ratio, freshmen ACT scores, percent in top ten percent of high-school class, and alumni giving. See appendix for more detail Messina & Graham Source: USNWR, August 2006 43 OUT-OF-STATE COMPETITION University of Georgia (UGA) is the leading competitor for Auburn admits from out-of-state; otherwise, many universities each command small shares. The principal rivals are other states’ flagships. For the strongest AU admits who enroll out-of-state, UGA, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and the University of Florida (UFL) enroll the largest numbers; but in this beststudent group as well, several institutions each account for small shares. Chart 12 Messina & Graham 44 Top 10 Out-of-State Competitors – 2003 All AU Admits Percent Best-Prepared AU Admits (ACT 27 and Above)* Percent Number University of Georgia (UGA) 14 10 209 Clemson University (Clemson) 4 3 65 University of Tennessee (UTN) 3 2 41 Georgia Institute of Technology (GA Tech) 3 6 124 University of Florida (UFL) 3 3 62 Florida State University (FL S) 3 1 21 University of Mississippi (UMS) 3 2 46 University of South Carolina (USC) 3 -- -- Georgia Southern University (GA S) 2 -- -- Kennesaw State University (KSU) 2 -- -- Combined Total (Ten Schools) 40 27 568 Other Schools 60 73 Chart 12 *In-State and Out-of-State Source: National Student Clearinghouse; AU Office of Admissions and Records Messina & Graham 45 • Out-of-state students, especially Georgia students who qualify for HOPE, and their families face a high financial penalty for attending AU. Chart 13. Financial considerations probably factor into the college choices of a segment of these students. AU ranks highest among competing schools on USNWR’s “Most-Debt” list. According to this source, 65 percent of AU graduates incur debt averaging $21,000. At the regional “Least-Debt” winner, UGA, 43 percent of graduates incur an average debt of $13,000 • A Georgia high-school graduate who is admitted to Georgia Tech or UGA may not choose AU over those schools unless attracted by a specific program with a strong reputation. In general, the implication is that it is difficult for AU to attract many top students from Georgia • A Georgia high-school graduate who is not admitted to UGA can choose either to attend an in-state school that ranks lower than AU or to pay a substantial premium to attend school out-of-state. To such students, UTN and U of A may appear to offer superior value compared to AU, family allegiances aside Messina & Graham 46 Price/Value Map – Georgia Students’ Perspective – 2006 Chart 13 Combined Tuition, Fees, Room and Board $30,000 Clemson $25,000 UFL AU Value plays out-of-state for those who don’t get into UGA or GA Tech U of A $20,000 UTN $15,000 UGA GA Southern $10,000 $5,000 GA Tech UGA HOPE GA Southern HOPE Georgia schools for non-HOPE students Tech HOPE Georgia schools for HOPE students $0 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Value USNWR Score Source: USNWR, August 2006 Messina & Graham 47 VALUE PROPOSITION AU is in the middle range among its regional public-school competitors in the overall USNWR ranking. But AU’s undergraduate Engineering and Business programs advanced from 2005 to 2006 and are ranked as stronger than those of several competitors. Chart 14. The Architecture program is nationally competitive, and the Graduate School of Education and the Communications Disorders programs both rank well. Chart 15. There may be further scope to emphasize this program performance in marketing AU to students and parents who are attentive to quality and career value when choosing schools AU’s value proposition to a Georgia high-school student likely features big-time sports and a more personal touch than UGA, with possible draws for those interested in specific programs with strong reputations. Another potential positive is AU’s graduation rate over predicted performance, which was outstanding in 2005 and remains good in 2006. A potential negative is AU’s absence from Princeton Review’s “Best-Value” list. AU’s disappearance in 2006 from the list of schools where “students (almost) never study” should help attract stronger undergraduates. Chart 15 Messina & Graham 48 AU Competitor Rankings in USNWR – 2005-06 Chart 14 TOP PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES 2005 2006 BEST UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING SCHOOLS 2005 2006 BEST UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS PROGRAMS 2005 2006 9 8 Georgia Tech 6 6 Georgia Tech 26 29 UFL 16 13 UFL 14 17 Texas A&M 30 29 UGA 19 21 UGA 31 30 UFL 30 29 Texas A&M 21 21 Texas A&M 57 60 Clemson 35 35 Georgia Tech 34 30 Clemson 67 60 Auburn 40 42 USC 38 39 Auburn 67 71 UTN 47 42 FL ST 38 39 UTN 102 * U of A 47 42 UTN 50 39 U of A 102 * USC 57 51 Auburn 52 52 FL ST 57 60 U of A 52 54 USC 77 73 Clemson 87 83 UAB 87 83 UMS * Not listed among top 105 Messina & Graham 49 Auburn’s Value Proposition Chart 15 USNWR 2006 RANKINGS • Ranked 18th (4th in 2005) in nation for retention over predicted level (but 98th for absolute retention) • Ranked 88th among all schools and 39th among public schools • Graduate School of Education in top 100 in nation • Communication Disorders program in top 50 in nation • Faculty-Student ratio better than U of A, UGA, and much better than UFL and FL ST • “Faculty resources” – class size, faculty pay and caliber – rank significantly lower than for Georgia Tech, UGA, U of A, and UTN DESIGN INTELLIGENCE 2006 RANKINGS • Architecture program 15th in nation (no regional competitor) • Interior Design 7th in nation (LSU 10th, no other regional competitor) • Industrial Design 3rd in South (after Georgia Tech) Source: USNWR; Design Intelligence Messina & Graham 50 Auburn’s Value Proposition (Continued) Chart 15 PRINCETON REVIEW LISTS LIST AU RANK 2005 2006 REPRESENTATIVE COMPETITORS RANKED ON LIST Best-Value College (“Fabulous Education at Reasonable Price”) NOT LISTED NOT LISTED “Town-Gown Relations are Great” #9 #11 Samford, Clemson, Texas A&M “Students Pack the Stadiums” #11 #13 UGA, UFL, UNC, UTN, UT Austin U of A, Clemson “Their Students (Almost) Never Study” #10 NOT LISTED “Best College Library” #14 #15 U of A, UAB, UAH, Clemson, University of South Carolina, FL ST, GA Tech UGA, UFL, UMS, UT Austin Source: Princeton Review Messina & Graham 51 • AU’s ACT scores in 2005 were no longer the highest among Alabama public schools, as they had been in 2004. U of A’s scores matched those at AU, and UAH’s scores were higher. AU’s scores are closer to those of lesser-ranked Georgia Southern and GSU than to Georgia’s flagships, UGA and Georgia Tech. AU’s number of National Merit Scholars is lower than that at regional competitors including UFL and Georgia Tech. Chart 16 Messina & Graham 52 Freshmen ACT Scores for Leading Competitors – 2005 25th to 75th Percentiles Number of National Merit Scholars Chart 16 GA Tech 100 UFL 230 UGA 49 25-30 Clemson 31 25-30 FL ST 10 USC 40 UTN 21 UAH 1 GA Southern 1 28-32 25-31 23-28 23-28 23-28 22-28 22-26 AU 29 21-27 U of A 68 21-27 UMS 36 20-26 20 25 30 Source: USNWR, August 2006; National Merit Scholarship Corporation Annual Report, 2005 Messina & Graham 35 53 SCOPE FOR SELECTIVITY AU has limited scope for greater selectivity, because its enrollment is large in relation to the total number of Alabama’s high-school graduates – a far higher share than the flagships in Georgia, Texas, and Florida educate, for example. Charts 17, 18 • With two relatively large flagship institutions in a comparatively small state, as a matter of arithmetic AU cannot hope to attain the elite undergraduate status of a Texas A&M or Georgia Tech. AU and U of A enroll numbers equal to 18 percent of Alabama’s highschool graduates, while UT and Texas A&M enroll numbers equivalent to only six percent of the Texas class. Other things equal, the Texas flagships can be three times as selective as AU. The picture for Florida’s flagships is very similar to Georgia’s: their combined share of high-school graduates is ten percent, but also one institution is clearly academically stronger than the other, able to draw the better students and rank much higher Messina & Graham 54 Scope for Selectivity Freshmen as Percent of State’s High-School Graduates – 2005 Chart 17 Alabama Georgia 18.4% 9.5% 9.9% 8.9% 6.3% 3.6% Auburn U of A 35* 24* Both Flagships GA Tech UGA 66* 50* Both Flagships *Percent From Top 10% of High-School Class Source: USNWR; NCES Messina & Graham 55 Scope for Selectivity Freshmen as Percent of State’s High-School Graduates – 2005 Chart 18 Texas Florida 10.1% 2.8% 3% UT Austin Texas A&M 66* 49* 5.8% 5.5% Both Flagships U FL FL ST 85* 26* 4.6% Both Flagships *Percent From Top 10% of High-School Class Source: USNWR; NCES Messina & Graham 56 • Reportedly, 35 percent of AU students are from the top ten percent of their high-school class. Because Alabama is a small state with two relatively equal flagships, this level is almost inevitably lower than the 50 to 66 percent achieved by the Georgia and Texas flagship schools, not to mention the University of Florida’s 85 percent. To reach UGA’s level of 50 percent of students coming from the top ten percent of their high-school class, Auburn would have to capture about half of all Alabama high-school graduates who finish in the top ten percent, which would be exceedingly difficult • But South Carolina shows more similarity to Alabama: it is a small state with two top national, public universities. Clemson's share of its state’s high-school graduates is similar to Auburn’s, and USC’s share is actually higher than U of A’s. Yet despite this “market share of talent” challenge, Clemson ranks considerably higher academically than Auburn, gaining much higher marks for selectivity. It appears Clemson has achieved this by working to position USC as the clear second in the state, enabling Clemson to attract the stronger applicant pool. Chart 19. Auburn’s particular challenge is that it is viewed as equivalent to U of A academically, diluting both Alabama universities’ selectivity Messina & Graham 57 Scope for Selectivity Freshmen as Percent of State’s High-School Graduates – 2005 Chart 19 South Carolina 21% 12% 9% Percent From Top 10% of High-School Class Clemson USC 66 49 Both Flagships Source: USNWR; NCES Messina & Graham 58 • Another perspective on this limited scope for selectivity is that if AU aspired to reach Clemson’s ACT scores, (i.e., to move the ACT lower-quartile point up to 24), it would have to replace 900 low-scoring freshmen in its current class profile with new students scoring 24 or higher. But the pool of higher-scorers is finite (absent any marked improvement in Alabama’s quite weak high-school performance), and AU competes with other institutions to recruit from this pool. Adding 900 higher-scorers would require increasing AU’s share of all such Alabama students from 25 percent to 37 percent, largely at the expense of U of A, UAB, UAH, Samford, Birmingham Southern, and Troy. While there probably are incremental opportunities to gain some market share, a goal of 50 percent share gain in a rather mature “market” seems unrealistic. (Note: The foregoing analysis is based on data reported in 2005. In the August 2006 USNWR report, Clemson has moved its lower-quartile ACT bar one point higher and AU’s has decreased by one point, making catch-up that much harder). Chart 20 Messina & Graham 59 Alabama ACT Scores Distribution - 2005 Chart 20 Shares of Those with ACT of 24 and Over* 100% AU 25% 57% Other 27% Troy 3% 20% 20% BHAM S 4% 23% 23% UAH 6% Samford 6% Number of Students 32,122 20 or below 21 - 23 24 and over 18,263 6,467 7,392 *2004 U of A 21% UAB 8% 7,400 target students for improving freshmen scores at AU Source: ACT; USNWR Messina & Graham 60 • The State of Alabama receives a D- grade from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education on the measure of “High-School Student Preparation to Succeed in College.” Relative to other states, a smaller fraction of Alabama high-school students perform well on the ACT and Advanced-Placement tests. Chart 21. This makes it more difficult for Auburn to be as selective as universities in many other states Messina & Graham 61 Alabama High-School Student Preparation Chart 21 ACT Performance Percentage of Students Scoring in the Top 20% Nationally 2005 Advanced Placement Performance Percentage of Students Scoring 3 or Higher On At Least One AP Exam 2005 20% 14.4% 14.1% 5.3% Alabama Alabama Nation Nation Source: Measuring Up, 2006; Advanced Placement Report to the Nation, 2006 Messina & Graham 62 • AU’s 25 percent share of the state’s National Merit Scholars, while much lower than that of rival U of A’s, is similar to UGA’s share of Georgia’s National Merit Scholars. Increasing the number of in-state National Merit Scholars at AU would largely have to occur at the expense of U of A, since Alabama’s other schools enroll only 16 percent of the total. Chart 22. National Merit Scholar finalists are those high-school students who score highest in their states on the Preliminary SAT test in junior year and whose school record does not disqualify them.1 This designation may not be a necessary and / or sufficient marker for a university that is intent on targeting a desirable group of academic stars. Moreover, the National Merit Scholar designation does not reflect any of the non-academic strengths – such as participation or excellence in athletics, arts, student leadership, community service and so on – that leading universities typically seek to recruit to their student body. Recruiting more National Merit Scholars would have no impact on AU’s position in the leading rankings 1 Only six percent of these top-scoring semi-finalists are disqualified, so the screening of in-school performance does not provide universities with much evidence of academic excellence. Messina & Graham 63 Competitor Shares of National Merit Scholars - 2005 Chart 22 Alabama (116 Students in total) Auburn 29 Georgia (208 Students in total)* 1% Emory 56 25% 27% 59% Samford 9 Other 3 48% 8% 8% 24% U of A 68 UAB, BHAM S, UAH, Other 10 GA Tech 100 UGA 49 * Georgia colleges import a net 19 Scholars above the 189 state winners Source: National Merit Scholarship Corporation Annual Report, 2005 Messina & Graham 64 VALUE-ADDED Input measures such as admission yields, ACT scores, USNWR rankings, and tuition do not indicate how well the university educates its undergraduates – its “value-added.” In terms of the competition among peer schools to enroll students, that neglect of value-added is currently appropriate, since prospective students, parents and high-school counselors have limited access to (or understanding of) comparisons of value-added. The informed student prospect will consult USNWR and Princeton Review and form a subjective impression from a campus visit and conversations with friends, but that is the extent of his or her information about a university • Still, as suggested in Chapter II, “Profile of the Environment,” value-added is a natural way for Auburn to consider responding to many of the external forces at work. These possible responses include raising performance expectations for students, developing new approaches to undergraduate education, strengthening AU’s value image, and focusing on learning objectives and measuring results Messina & Graham 65 • AU has been among the fairly early adopters of the two main assessments of value-added that have received widespread national support and a degree of validation: the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). CLA results so far show that AU is roughly at parity with most other participating schools but behind the best schools in terms of developing desirable skills in its undergraduates. Relative to the top 10 percent of participating schools nationally, Auburn earns a B or C grade on its educational approaches, as broadly measured by the NSSE. Chart 23 Messina & Graham 66 Measures of Auburn’s Value-Added Chart 23 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 Source: AU OIRA Messina & Graham 67 Measures of Auburn’s Value-Added (Continued) Chart 23 NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE) AU Scores – 2006* Freshmen Seniors Academic Challenge 79.8 82.5 Active, Collaborative Learning 75.7 87.7 Student-Faculty Interaction 77.1 76.4 Enriching Experiences 75.3 70.1 Supportive Campus 88.7 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 • A gross measure of a university’s educational effectiveness, cited by the Spellings Commission among others, is its students’ six-year graduation rate. Against this measure, AU has performed well relative to graduation rates predicted from the ACT scores of entering students. Even so, it must be considered a disappointing result that only 62 percent of the 1999 entering class had obtained their AU degrees by 2005. This level is below that of most of AU’s research university competitors and below the figure for U.S. four-year schools overall. Chart 24 Messina & Graham 69 Six-Year Graduation Rate AU versus Selected Competitors Chart 24 Percent of 1999 Entering Class Receiving Bachelor's Degree 79 76 75 74 66 National Average = 66% 65 UFL GA Clemson UGA Tech FL ST Source: USNWR, 2006; Spellings Commission final report 63 USC U of A Messina & Graham 62 57 56 AU UTN UMS 70 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY AREA OF STUDY Auburn’s current distribution of undergraduates by college or school generally reflects that of the state’s top four universities taken together (AU, U of A, UAH, and UAB). Liberal Arts is the most popular field of study, followed by Business, Engineering, and Science / Math. The traditional land-grant studies account for about 40 percent of the undergraduates. Chart 25. This pattern is consistent with AU’s long-established breadth of studies as well as its position as a relatively large university in a relatively small state Messina & Graham 71 Distribution of Undergraduates by School State of Alabama 2005 AU, U of A, UAH, UAB Auburn 2005 100% = 19,250 100% = 48,554 Human/Social Science 6% Education 7% Other 11% Chart 25 Liberal Arts 25% Nursing 3% Agriculture 5% Liberal Arts 24% Architecture 7% Human/Social Science 9% Science/ Math 13% Science/Math 10% Business 22% Engineering 16% Business 19% Engineering 15% Education 8% Traditional Land Grant Studies Source: AU OIRA; U of A system Messina & Graham Source: AU OIRA 72 For comparison, even Texas A&M, in the huge state of Texas (where specialization would be relatively unconstrained by numbers of potential students), has not specialized in technology schools. Only 19 percent of A&M’s undergraduates are in Engineering, fairly comparable to Auburn’s 15 percent. Taken together, A&M’s traditional land-grant studies – Engineering, Agriculture, Science, Veterinary Medicine, and Architecture Colleges – account for 48 percent of all its undergraduates. The same schools account for 40 percent of Auburn’s enrollment (and Auburn does not offer undergraduates Veterinary Medicine). Twenty-nine percent of A&M’s undergraduates are in Liberal Arts or General Studies, compared with 24 percent of Auburn’s in Liberal Arts. Chart 26 Messina & Graham 73 Distribution of Undergraduates by School Chart 26 Texas A&M - 2004 Traditional Land Grant Studies 100% = 35,700 Architecture 4% Science 5% Veterinary Medicine 5% Geosciences 1% Business 11% Agriculture 15% Liberal Arts 18% Engineering 19% Source: Texas A&M Fact Book Education 11% Messina & Graham General Education Studies 11% 74 Auburn’s leading shares of the top four’s students are in Architecture and Agriculture – where AU has the only programs – followed by Science / Math, Education, Liberal Arts, Engineering and Business. The only two schools that have a somewhat lower share than AU’s overall share of top four universities’ students are Human Sciences and Nursing. Chart 27 Messina & Graham 75 AU Shares of Alabama Undergraduates by School Chart 27 Percent of AU, U of A, UAH and UAB Enrolled 2005* 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Architect. Agriculture Science/ Math 100% = 1,263 887 4,883 Education 3,538 Liberal Arts 11,996 Engineering Business 7,604 10,488 Nursing Human / Social Science 2,283 4,534 *2003 for UAH and 2004 for UAB Source: AU OIRA; U of A system Messina & Graham 76 With respect to AU’s distribution of graduate students by field of concentration, Education has the largest share, followed by Engineering. Chart 28 Messina & Graham 77 Distribution of Graduate Students by School Chart 28 Auburn - 2005 100% = 3,169 Architecture 4% Agriculture 7% Education 23% Other 8% Science/Math 9% Engineering 21% Liberal Arts 13% Business 15% Source: AU OIRA Messina & Graham 78 TUITION TRENDS Over a decade, AU’s tuition increases have consistently far exceeded inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) • Between 1995-1996 and 2005-2006, AU’s tuition increased at a compound annual rate of 8.9 percent, 3.5 times the rate of inflation as measured by CPI, and also twice the rate of public four-year colleges in general • During this period, AU’s tuition level moved from being much lower than that of the average public four-year college to about the same • Out-of-state tuition has generally been maintained at 2.8 times the in-state level, very slightly less than the average ratio of SREB peers • Over time, tuition increases at public universities have been larger during periods when state funding has been less, a trend also reflected at Auburn • “We currently operate under a model in which educational expenditures at colleges and universities across the country are rising by about 4.5 to 5 percent annually.” (University System of Maryland Chancellor William Kirwan) Continuing increases in net tuition that are in excess of CPI carry the risks of eventually creating resistance and reducing enrollment, and – if not somewhat attenuated by financial aid to students who need it – of diminishing diversity in the student body Messina & Graham 79 2. Research Although AU’s research funding has increased considerably in dollar terms during the past five years, it has not kept pace with funding increases at other universities. This result reflects a much more competitive research environment, in which success depends in part on the availability of supplementary resources to cover the costs generated by the research enterprise in excess of the funding it provides. AU’s research funding is well below the Southern Region Education Board (SREB) median • Total federal research expenditures are projected to be at best flat or, more likely, to decline over the next five years, driven by the latest budget outlook for large federal deficits into the indefinite future. Chart 29 - This deficit forecast in turn derives largely from a combination of tax cuts, entitlement growth for seniors, and defense / security spending increases since September 2001 - At the same time, R&D does not appear to have the strong political constituency required to command a growing share of the squeezed discretionary budget Messina & Graham 80 2. Research (Continued) - Accordingly, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) forecasts a 10 percent real drop in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a modest increase in National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) funding (with a caveat that projected increases often do not translate into reality), and a decrease in all other non-defense R&D Messina & Graham 81 Projected Nondefense R&D FY 2006 - 2011 Chart 29 Source: AAAS Analysis Projected Effects of President’s FY 2007 Budget on Nondefense R&D Messina & Graham 82 • Alabama’s #10 rank among states for federal R&D dollars is well ahead of its population (#23) and gross-state-product (#25) rankings, driven by massive DoD and NASA intramural spending - The state’s academic R&D ranking (#23) is in line with its population. Federallyfunded academic R&D ranks #20, but industry R&D lags at #32 - In Alabama, life sciences account for 69 percent of all academic R&D dollars. In the U.S., life sciences account for 59 percent of all academic R&D dollars. The difference presumably reflects UAB’s funding • Research is becoming much more competitive, with lower success rates projected for applications for NIH grants (down to 19 percent in 2007 from a recent high of 30 percent). Chart 30. Scale matters – the larger research institutions generally have higher success rates Messina & Graham 83 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Project Grant (RPG) Success Rate Chart 30 Source: NIH Agency Budget Justification for FY 2007 Messina & Graham 84 • Research is costly - In general, as evaluated by several sources including the Huron Consulting Group, university research-related costs are consistently somewhat greater than the associated revenues, even including indirect-cost reimbursement by the federal government - The trend is toward higher costs, driven by increased compliance requirements and an increasingly cross-disciplinary research process - Additionally, state and other funders typically reimburse at lower indirect-cost rates than the federal government - Despite the costly nature of performing research, it creates many benefits beyond the university. For example, research dollars spent generate economic activity that multiplies the effect, and technology transfer can create value-added intellectual property and new companies that produce jobs and wealth Messina & Graham 85 • Research is becoming more cross-disciplinary - Many research frontiers today occur at the intersection of two or more fields - Collaborative research partnerships (government / universities / business) are increasing, even though industrial funding has declined somewhat in recent years - Technology transfer is getting more attention. Alabama’s rank for patents issued (35th) is lower than its population or gross-state-product ranks - There is a rise of R&D-based economic hubs, such as the Research Triangle, with a few advantaged locations accounting for a disproportionately large share of R&Drelated jobs and funding. In this regard, Auburn is not currently in a strong position, though it is close enough for faculty collaboration with research universities in Atlanta and, for life sciences, Birmingham Messina & Graham 86 • While the amount of research spending at AU has grown considerably in absolute dollars over the last five years or so, the University's relative position (rank) – 90th among public universities in federal research dollars and 72 nd in total research dollars – has declined, moving down from 66th in both measures between 1998 and 2003. Chart 31 Messina & Graham 87 Auburn Federal Research Dollars and Rank Chart 31 $ Millions 45.4 40.1 42.4 31.5 27.7 Rank 1998 (Public Universities) #66 Source: TheCenter; AU OIRA 27.1 1999 2000 #88 #83 2001 2002 2003 #82 #84 #90 Messina & Graham 88 • AU’s federal research is at 64 percent of the SREB non-medical school median on a dollar basis, and even slightly lower when viewed on a per-faculty basis. Chart 32. In comparisons on all other measurements, AU is also below the SREB median • Total research comparisons are somewhat more favorable, but even in the best light, AU’s research funding and other performance measures are well below the SREB median. Chart 32 Messina & Graham 89 AU versus Median of SREB Non-Medical Peer Group On TheCenter’s Measures – 2005 Chart 32 Research University Quality Indicators AU In Relation to Median Values for Non-Medical School Members of SREB Peer Group SREB Median = 100 83 78 77 70 64 61 0 Total Research Total, Per Faculty* *Tenure and Tenure-Track Source: TheCenter; AU OIRA Federal Research Federal, Per Faculty* Messina & Graham Endowment Annual Giving 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 67 68 67 60 59 46 *Tenured Faculty Awards Doctorates Awarded Source: TheCenter; AU OIRA Doctorates Per Faculty* Postdocs Messina & Graham Merit Scholars Merit Scholars Per 1000 91 • Comparisons with selected public research universities highlight the challenges for Auburn in advancing its position. As TheCenter has observed, research growth involves a competition for top talent, and over time the resulting dynamics produce a widening gap between the strongest participants and the others. Large regional research institutions such as Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, and UGA perform two to four times as much federally funded research as AU, have between ten and 30 National Academy members on their faculty, and award two to three times as many Ph.D.s. Their endowment assets range from two to 16 times the size of Auburn’s. Charts 33, 34, 35, and 36 Messina & Graham 92 Federal Research Expenditures AU versus Selected Institutions – 2003 Chart 33 $ Millions 204 177 94 63 45 26 GA Tech Texas A&M UGA Clemson AU U of A Source: TheCenter, 2005 Messina & Graham 93 National Academy Members AU versus Selected Institutions – 2004 Chart 34 30 20 10 GA Tech Texas A&M UGA 1 0 0 Clemson AU U of A Note: Includes National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine Source: TheCenter, 2005 Messina & Graham 94 Ph.D.s Awarded AU versus Selected Institutions – 2004 Chart 35 515 404 311 161 158 113 GA Tech Texas A&M UGA Clemson AU U of A Source: TheCenter, 2005 Messina & Graham 95 Endowment Assets AU versus Selected Institutions – 2003 Chart 36 $ Millions 4,623 1,118 475 392 GA Tech Texas A&M UGA 265 269 Clemson AU U of A Source: TheCenter, 2005 Messina & Graham 96 • Even while performing at multiples of Auburn’s scale in their research enterprises, impressive regional institutions like Georgia Tech and Texas A&M are not among the national research leaders as measured by TheCenter. Texas A&M is ranked among the top 25 American Research Universities on only three of TheCenter’s nine measures, and among the next 25 universities on another three measures. Georgia Tech is ranked among the top 26-50 American Research Universities on seven of TheCenter’s nine measures; UGA on only two • AU is somewhat more dependent on state research funds than many other institutions • In a few research areas – including several engineering fields and agricultural sciences – AU has much higher shares of federal R&D funding than its overall share across all fields combined. Chart 37 - AU’s funding share in these selected areas is several times its overall share - Such funding levels can form the basis for building a nationally competitive position in carefully selected areas of concentration Messina & Graham 97 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 (%) 0.49% 0.19% Overall All Civil Eng. R&D Engineering $ Millions 39.8 15 2.5 Chem. Eng. 1.8 Source: NSF; AU OIRA Messina & Graham Mech. Eng. 2.2 Agricultural Science 9 98 3. Extension Alabama Cooperative Extension System (ACES) OVERVIEW Auburn and Alabama A&M, together with Tuskegee University, cooperate under the ACES to provide a wide variety of extension services to Alabamians through county offices across the state The Extension System’s mission is “to deliver research-based educational programs that enable people to improve their quality of life and economic well-being” PROGRAM AREAS AND STAFF Extension has six overarching program areas: • 4-H and Youth Development • Agriculture • Forestry and Natural Resources Source: Annual Report and Highlights on ACES website; AU OIRA Messina & Graham 99 • Urban Affairs and New Non-traditional Programs • Family and Individual Well-Being • Community and Economic Development Recent initiatives include Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts, insect-pest management, outreach to the Hispanic / Latino population, nutrition education to food-stamp recipients, training for food safety at school, and a waste-oil pilot for poultry farming. Many ACES initiatives cut across several of the program areas AU has 429 full-time and 146 part-time employees dedicated to ACES. The full-time staff represents about ten percent of Auburn’s total number of employees. Almost all ACES employees at Auburn are non-faculty, categorized as “other professional,” secretarial / clerical, or technical FINANCES Total 2005 revenue for ACES was $49.1 million. This represented a decrease of some $2.6 million from 2004 Source: Annual Report and Highlights on ACES website; AU OIRA; AU Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2005 Messina & Graham 100 The leading sources of ACES operating revenues are federal appropriations, grants, and contracts that totaled about $14.8 million in 2005, down 21 percent from 2004 State appropriations (not accounted for as operating revenues) were $28.8 million, an increase of six percent over 2004 Total expenses were $46 million, resulting in a margin of $3 million “increase in net assets” for 2005 ACES unrestricted net assets were $9.9 million at September 30, 2005 Source: Annual Report and Highlights on ACES website; AU OIRA; AU Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2005 Messina & Graham 101