Representative Robert Bums, Co- Chairman
Senator Russell Bowers, Co- Chairman
Some University and
K- 12 Perspectives
Principles to be used in any incentive plan
+ Each unkersity has developed and the Board of Regents has approved a
merit compensation plan that recognizes teaching, research, and
professional service. Any teaching incentive dollars should be above and
beyond the merit funds appropriated by the state for all state employees
and thus reinforce the instructional aspects of the carefully designed
reward systems already in place.
+ Any teaching incentive funds must recognize quality and quantity so as not
to encourage decreasing quality as one increases quantity.
+ Teaching incentives should be distributed to units who increase
instructional productivity, which would then distribute these funds to
individuals in a manner to maximize effectiveness in rewarding increased
instructional productivity.
+ Any teaching formula should recognize assigned & independent studp as
well as assigned classroom teaching. Independent study reflects effort in
supervising students who sign up for one- on- one study with an individual
faculty member; evfdence is that this Ps the most powerful learning
experience for our students and needs to be encouraged, not discouraged.
+ Incentive systems are most effective when the recipients of the incentives
are involved in the development of the system and are invested in its
success. Therefore, the legislature should ask the Board of Regents to
work with the faculty and administration of the univers9ties to develop the
detailed mechanisms for distribution of incentives.
+ The Board of Regents and the universities should continue their efforts to
enhance the quality and success of the educational programs and to
collect data on the outcomes of these efforts.
I. State of Arizona
Az. Rankings and Nat'l Comparisons 22- 23
% of Total Az. General Fund Appropriations 20
$ Appropriated from Arizona General Fund 21
11. University of Arizona
New Realities Paper
For Work Issues
See
I. State of Arizona
" Note on Teaching Workload of 24- 27
fill- time Post- secondary Fmlty"
" Teaching Workload of full- time Teachers 28- 31
( K- 12)
11. University of Arizona
University Report Card
UA Undergraduate Education
( Hurwitz) Goals Report ( 1997)
items 4,6,7
Fall Sections Taught by Permanent
Faculty, 1993- 1997
I. State of Arizona
A. Arizona Board of Regents:
1997 University Report Card
B. General Fund Appropriations
for Education
D. Notes on Faculty Work,
Universities and K- 12
The Arizona
Board of Regents
University Report Card
To the citizens of Arizona:
On behalf of the members of the Arizona Board of Regents, I am
proud to present the first Report Card for Arizona's Universities.
Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University and the
University of Arizona provide vital instructional and research
resources for our state. This report is intended to portray how the
universities ate performing as they seek to seme the citizens of
Arizona. It is a dynamic accountability report, and we anticipate
adding and revising indicators of performance in future editions.
Please take a few minutes to review this first edition report and
let us know your thoughts, suggestions, and concerns so that we
may ensure that fidme editions best serve your needs. Feel
free to contact Tony Seese- Bieda
( Assistant ~ xecutiieD irector
for Public Affairs) at ( 602)
229- 2527 or Kurt Davis ( Chair
of the Public Awareness
Committee) at ( 602) 874- 5542
with any recommendations you
may have. We look forward to
an on- going dialogue with the
community about the progress
and performance of our
universities.
- John Manger, President
Arizona Board of Regents I
Contents
Purpose and Explanation of Grading System ................ 1
Connection with System Strategic Plan ......................... 2
Evaluation of Institutional Performance
Category 1: Undergraduate Education.. ................. 3
Category 2: Quality of Instruction. ....................... 7
Category 3: Excellence and Innovation. ................ 9
Category 4: Utilization of Resources. ................. . ll
Scope, Size, and Characteristics of Institutions ........... 13
ASU. ..................................................................... I4
NAU. ................................................................... .15
UA ........................................................................ 16
Arizona Board of Regents
George H. Amos, III, Tucson
Eddie Basha, Chandler
Rudy Campbell, Tempe
Arthur Chapa, Tucson
Kurt R. Davis, Cave Creek
Judy Gignac, Sierra Vista
John F. Munger, Tucson
Jonathan Schrnitt, University of Arizona
Donald Ulkch, Paradise Valley
&- Officio Members :
u Fife Syrnington, Governor
Lisa Graham- Keegan, Superintendent of Public Instruction
Council of Presidents
Frank H. Besnette, Executive Director, ABOR
Lattie Coor, President, Arizona State University
Clara M. Lovett, President, Northern Arizona University
Manuel T. Pacheco, President, University of Arizona
p" e ,
5 . g 0-
jggo ? GiE f8d m
s ' a Q r ~ 4 - gt) g07 $ 43 p; 8 !
Qa* g :. egguet. gi ! is
sas.- ggY 0 a m z
sg. Ec%.*#
" c a." w ~ - G g: && j
I C $ Sf. 3 8
8 E 0 2.8
%$ g~. o,
0 q Q g % i !
b 8 m ; g z 4
ga$ oca,'; l
' g 0 VJ4- 0 .-, 0800ed y - F g a gFI : ~ ~ . C g 9,. b : g Y
W- Z a; sajP
- 8= 3 g3*.- 5p rFn - m8Co9 d. a 9w,
o-: g. g*$ J .2- .' gsgoso o. s'= ad g
".? .2b. 3o - a0,
8 : S ~ Q2, 8 . B . e 30. m5 3s. 5 83. f
" t e . ! $ $ s g
Z9R'ia - a0
+ O'E* e
. g g 4 P : : rd *'$ 3~
LVJ , gt zep2aB. g39 ,
. B gzO d5Q. pag ..% s z - ~ oa y~ y s m a
( d & aea0 0
,* a*-
.* A 8. c C, a E',. gB'sg
g b 0 3 g . 1 3 8
. g. g,~ g gb&
. c; rag* " g%
'- 3a; g- a . C
- g% 8 0 333 $ 8 . 0 - a f 9: s.@ p0
7 g g g g v g $ j
~ Q N * * 233. s- s8 8
Arizona Board of RegentsEJniversity System Strategic Plan
The Arizona Board of Regents has established the following seven strategic directions for improving the quality of the
Arizona university system: 1) Improve unde~ graduated ucation, 2) Strengthen graduate education, 3) Develop
research and encourage economic development, 4) provide access to Arizona's universinies, 5) Capitalize on new
technologies, 6) Strengthen relationships with constituent groups, and 7) Improve efficiency.
Here is how the Report Card indicators align with the strategic dipections:
Improving undergraduate education Page Assuring access to public higher education page
* Access by undergraduates to core faculty. .. - 6 * Development of distance education programs .... 10
* Satisfaction with academic advising. ...... . 3 * Success of transfer students ................. .6
* Student retention and graduation rates ...... 3
* Success of university alumni ............. .5 Capitalizing on new technologies
Ability to progress in academic programs .. .4 * Students served by online courses and other
* Success of upper division transfer students ... 6 alternative page modes of delivery. ............ 10
Strengthening graduate education
* Success of alumni ..................... . 5
* Student involvement in research projects .... 14- 16
Percent of graduates going on to
pro fessionaVgraduate school .............. 5 * Nationallyr ecognized programs ........... 14- 1 6
Enhancing research and economic development
* Patents, licenses, and inventions .......... .9
* Grants and contracF ................... .9
* Economic impact on local communities .... 14- 16
* Contributions to economic development .... 14- 16
Strengthening relationships with governmental, educational,
and constituent groups ( The entire Report Card is an
indicator for this strategic direction.)
Improving Efficiency
* Privatization efforts ........................ 11
* Teaching load ............................ 11
* Proportion of state funds used for instruction. ... 12
* Administrative efficiency ................... 12
--. -------.-,--
) ---,--- 2 -..'-
-, q, 7 r, ilo, ncSi ( jnjv, II ( . . & rsitjeS; _,-_ _ _? o - c <>,- L , , ,, J $ 99 I .. 7 , ~. epdrg J ,._ rI' ,. , r _ . - r- 7 . ; card .- , ,,, - ' - - I
One- Year Persistence &
Six- Y ear Graduation Rates
Evaluation of Institutional Performance
Category 1: Impro* the @ ty and effectiveness of
undergraduate hcaQon, continued
- ,-
Persistence Graduation
Baseline Current
Rates at which students stay in school and graduate: The universities strive to
support the academic success of their students. They assess the effectiveness of that
support by tracking how many freshmen return for their sophomore year, and how
many graduate at the baccalaureate level within six years. The most recent data
indicate that a slightly higher percentage of freshmen are continuing their studies into
their sophomore year ( from 72.2% in 1992 to 73.4% in 1995), and that a slightly
higher percentage are graduating within a six- year time frame (£ i- om 46.9% for
students entering in 1987 to 47.4% for students entering in 1990).
Rating: Superior Satisfactory (/ Needs Improvement
Satisfaction of students with academic advising: Academic advisers guide students
in the timing and selection of course work that leads to the completion of their
degrees. The most recent data indicate that 67.3% of students surveyed in 1994- 95
reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with the advising they received. Two of
the three universities repeated the survey in 1995- 96, with a satisfaction level similar
to that in the previous year.
Rating: Superior d(-) Sa tisfactory Needs Improvement
Percentage of Employers Rating Grads
as Good/ Very Good or Excellent
n
High Percentage
Low Percentage
Evaluation of Institutional Performance
Category 1 : Improving the quality and
effectiveness of undergraduate education, mnhilued
Success of Alumni: Arizona employers or employers who interview on campus are
surveyed re arding their satisfaction with or evaluation of h n a University System
graduates. W substantial majority of employers rate graduates as satisfactory or better
( mss the universities, the percentages ranged from 73% rated very good or excellent
to 92% rated good or excellent).
Rating: Supen~ r& +) satisfactory Needs hnprovement
Percentage of Graduates Planning on Percentage of graduates go@ on tor duatdpmfessional schooIs: In surveys of graduates or upperdivision students, .9% 0 of mipondents in 1994 reported that they
Cradumfessional School, 1994 mtended to go to graduate or ~ mfessionaslc hool. At the two universities that have
subsequentl conducted addihonal surveys, this percentage has either r& ed stable
62. W0 or increasedslightlY.
Rating: superior &,- I satisfactory Needs Improvement Fbhg:
37.1%
C] Plan to Attend
DO ~ oPlatn to ~ ttend
Percentage of Top Arizona High School
Graduates Attending Arizona Universities
100% :
D
Evaluation of I~ titutionaPl erformance
Categoy 2: Demonstrating the quality of
hbnt~ honc, o ntinued
Top Arizona high school scholars attending Arizona universities: Strong
instructional programs enable the universities to attract top student scholars ( as
defined by the top 5% of high school graduating class) from Arizona. Many of these
students have the opportunity to attend a variety of higher education institutions
throughout the country, but have chosen to matriculate at an Arizona university.
Based on the most recent data, the percentage of these top students who attend
Arizona's universities has increased from 77.5% in 1993 to 79.9% in 1994.
Rating: d(-) Su perior Satisfactory Needs Improvement
* New National Merit Scholars entering Arizona universities each year: Strength of
instructional programs enables the universities to attract top student scholars from
throughout the United States. The most recent data available indicate that in 1995,
100 new National Merit Scholars entered one of Arizona's public universities. ( 6,500
National Merit Scholarship Award winners are selected annually on the basis of test
scores and information applicants provide about abililites, accomplishments, and
goals). This number has been increasing slightly over time.
Rating: 4~-) Superior Satisfactory Needs Improvement
Total Research Grant & Contract Expenditures
$ 60
$ 522.7M
Evaluation of Institutional Performance
Catego7 3: Defnonstrating excellence &
innovabon
i New patents and licenses: Every year the universities receive documentation for
new patents, apply for additional patents, grant licenses for using technological
breakthroughs, and make disclosures of new inventioils. These documents are the
culmination of intensive research by faculty and students at Arizona's universities.
The average number of patents and licenses in a year ( using a three year average)
has increased from 26 for the period from M93 to N95 to 32 for the period from
N94 to N96.
Rating: J[-)~ u~ erior Satisfactory Needs Improvement
Research grant a d contract expenditures: Research at the universities expands
the body of knowledge. It also provides opportunities for students and others to
participate in leading edge studies and projects which are often linked to the
expansion of local economic activities . The universities track the level of external
research funding on a yearly basis. The most recent data show that research
expenditures have increased by nearly 20% from $ 418.2 million in N 95 to $ 522.7
million in FY 96.
Rating: t/ Superior Satisfactory Needs Improvement
Evaluation of Institutional Performance
Technology- Delivered Courses Gttegory 3: Dc? rnonSmthge ~~ eflenC& e
innovation, continued
Number of Student Registrations
6 Use of new technology to deliver instruction: Technology provides new
dimensions for classroom instruction as well as service to a broader community
than may be served by traditional, campus- based modes of delivery. The most
recent data indicate that in Fall 1994, there were 6,919 student registrations in
courses that were provided via electronic delivery modes, increasing to 7,080 by
Fall 1995.
Rating : superior d(-) sa tisfactory Needs Improvement
Progress toward implementing on- line academic programs: Representatives
fkom the three universities began in the summer of 1996 to develop a workplan for
technology- delivered education. The 26- step plan covering two- and- a- half years
encompasses all phases of the project fiom design through prototype
implementation and evaluation. The workplan scheduled four steps for
completion in 1996. All four were completed.
0 Rating: Superior Satisfactory (/ Needs Improvement
I I Fall 1994
I 1 Fall 1995
Student Credit Hours per
Full- Time Faculty Member
Evaluation of Institutional Performance
Category 4: Improving the utihation of
@ Privatization of university functions: In concert with Arizona state government's
priority to provide goods and services through the private sector, Arizona's
universities have systematically shifted in- house, auxiliary services and functions to
private vendors when feasible and financially practical. The most recent information
available indicate$ that at least 28 separate and distinct auxiliary functions are
performed in whole or in part by private vendors at all three universities.
Rating: Superior Satisfactory &+) Needs Improvement
8 Participation of faculty in instructional activities: Ranked and full- time faculty are
the primary teaching resource of the universities. Undergraduate instruction is a high-priority,
as identified in the Board of Regents and universities' strategic plans. The
universities track faculty contact with students in classrooms to ensure that this
priority is being addressed. Faculty classroom contact with students has remained
constant at 220.7 student credit hours ( the credit hours of each course multiplied by
the number of students enrolled) per fulltime faculty member. Although contact
hours remained constant. the hours sDent on instruction- related activities have
increased. *
Rating: Superior 4 Satisfactory Needs Improvement
* The Board of Regents charged the universities with the development of a workplan to
thoroughly review this issue. Emphasis will be placed on faculty time devoted to
undergraduate education.
Percentage of Expenditures
Used for Instruciion
Administrative Costs
As a Percentage of Total Ekpenditures
Evaluation of Institutional Performance
Category 4: Improving the utilization of
reOUrCeS continued
o Proportion of state operating budget used for educational activities: Providing
quality instruction and strong instructional resources is the highest priority for
Arizona's university system. The universities track the proportion of state operating
resources, including general fund appropriations and tuition and fees, that is used for
these purposes. The most recent data available indicate that the use of resources for
instruction and student- related expenditures represents the largest category of
expenditures. The percentage of expenditures used for instruction and student-related
expenditures was 66.0% in FY94, increasing to 67.7% in W95.
Rating: Superior t/ Satisfactory Needs Improvement
Efficient use of resources for primary institutional functions: The foremost
missions of the universities are to instruct students, conduct research and provide
public service. The universities track the proportion of their resources earmarked for
these core functions, and the proportion that is used for administrative purposes. The
most recent data available indicate that administrative costs as a percentage of total
expenditure declined from 8.5% in FY89 to 8.1 % in FY95.
Rating: Superior (/ satisfactory Needs Improvement
-- - - 1, - . - - - Arizona '-- s-- ~ nivtksitie~ 99: 9-- 7 Rep- or- t -- C -- .- a - rd
-. . , - - , I -. .-----,
, 2 '
L I_ - i__-__ -.. , --
& ope, size and character of the UniVemitie ( continued)
+ With the opening of the ASU East campus, ASU is now enrolling a record number of students at its
three cquses
46 Student satisfaction with the MU educational experience reached 93% in 1996, the highest level
since the survey was initiated three years ago.
P
-- I + Students persisted toward graduation at higher rates for all undergraduate student levels.
+ Minority enrollment reached 18.2%, establishing a new hgh for the 14th year in a row.
+ MU provides Arizona a competitive workforce, granting over 9,000 bachelor, masters, and doctoral
degrees in 19%, 45% of all state university degrees granted.
+ Faculty continued to receive grants and contracts at a strong pace. Grants increased by 150% in the
past ten years.
+ A § U9s Extended Education program delivered educational seminars, woikshops, and classes to over
105,000 registrants across the state.
- O MU employee teams received six Governor's Spirit of Excellence Awards in 1996 in recognition of
innovation and outstanding achievement in the woikplace.
--
, . Arizona Universities: , _ $ - L . 7 99 7 t? eportcard
scope, size and character of the universities ( continued)
I
# NAU received continued hding for its Research Experiences from the National Science Foundation for Undergraduates
program which provides research experience for first generation students.
# NAU's School of Hotel and Restaurant Management received one of only two prestigious Gold Awards in recognition of its
excellence for a comprehensive national and international emphasis in its education and training program.
# NAU faculty continue to receive national rewards and be recognized by organizations such as the Fulbright Scholar Program,
P
Q) Cottrell College Science Award Program, and the Geological Society of America.
# A team of student workers received one of the Governor's Spirit of Excellence Awards in 1996.
# Freshman student retention increased by 4.3% fiom 69.0% to 73.3% in 1996.
# NAU's partnerships with community colleges and K- 12 continued ta provide students in Arizona's rural communities with
quality education by adding IITV classes to MCC in Bullhead City, PCC in Tucson, Window Rock Unified School District, and
St. Michael's School.
# The Learning Channel premiered Elementary Spanish and Geonauts courses produced by NAU which offer educational
opportunities for viewers in homes as well as schools.
# NAU assisted the Arizona Legislature to establish AZNET a two way interactive TV system that allows individuals from rural
Arizona to speak to the Legislature without traveling to Phoenix.
# Students receiving national recognition and scholarships awards include an NAU- Yuma student receiving one of only ten
$ 1,000 scholarships awarded by the U. S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and an NAU student selected as one of the 55
members of the fust class of Morris K. Udall Scholars.
%~ igheErd ucation i f
ARIZONA UNIMERS SWEM WANKINGS:
US New World Report, All PubElc Universities, 1996
SHOWS ACADEMIC REPUTAmON VS.
Academic Expenditure
Reputation per Student
A
The Condition of Education 1997, Supplemental Note for Indicator 43
Note on teaching workload of full- time postsecondary faculty
The 1988 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty ( NSOPF) was a survey of faculty who had at least some instructional duties ( such as
teaching one or more courses) in for- credit, higher education courses during the fall 1987 term.
Unlike NSOPF- 88, which was limited to faculty whose regular assignments included instruction, the faculty universe for NSOPF- 93 was
expanded to include anyone who was designated as faculty, whether or not their responsibilities included instruction, as well as other
( nonfaculty) personnel with instructional responsibilities.
The analyses for this indicator include all those who had any instructional duties in the fall of 1987 and 1992. Therefore, it includes those
faculty whose principal activity that semester was research, technical, clinical, service, or administration, as long as the faculty member taught
at least one class for credit. In fact, in fall 199215 percent of all faculty who taught at least one class for credit had a principal activity other
than teaching.
The analysis for the indicators using NSOPF categorizes institutions of higher education into five types, as shown below. Remaining
institutions, such as religious or specialized institutions, were included in the totals but are not shown separately.
Types of institutions
Research miversify: Institution among the 100 leading universities that receives federal research funds. Each of these universities awards
substantial numbers of doctorates across many fields.
Doctoral miversify: Institution that offers a full range of baccalaureate programs and Ph. D. degrees in at least three disciplines. but tends to be
less focused on research and receives fewer federal research dollars than the research universities.
Comprehensive institution: Institution that offers liberal arts and professional programs. The master's degree is the highest degree offered.
Liberal arts htibxrioon: Institution that is m e r and generally more selective than comprehensive colleges and universities. A liberal arts
institution primarily offers bachelor's degrees, although some offer master's degrees.
2- year institution: Institution that offers certificate or degree programs through the Associate of Arts level. Two- year institutions, with few
exceptions, offer no bachelor's degrees, although some offer master's degrees.
Time allocation
NSOPF survey respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of total working hours they spent on each of the activities below:
Teaching: Includes teaching; grading papers; preparing courses; developing new curricula; advising or supervising students: or working with
student organizations or intramural sports.
Research/ sclaolhrsh@: Includes conducting research; reviewing or preparing articles or books; attending or preparing for professional meetings
or conferences; reviewing proposals; seeking outside funding: giving performances or exhibitions in the fme or applied arts; or giving
speeches.
Professional grow&: @ eludes taking courses or pursuing an advanced degree or other professional development activities to remain current in
their field of practice.
A& ninisrration: Performing - ve actides.
Outside consulting orfreelance work: Conducting outside consulting or other employment.
Senticdother: Includes providing legal or d c a l service or psychological counseling to clients or patients; providing paid or unpaid
community or public service, or service to professional societieslassociations; or participating in other activities or work not listed above.
Classroom and student contact hours
Classroom hours: The number of hours per week faculty members spent teaching.
Student contact hours: The sum of the number of hours per week faculty members spent teaching over all classes, multiplied by the number of
students in each class.
Chss size: The total number of student contact hours divided by the mean number of classroom hours faculty spent per week.
Research Production
Listed below are the specific types of research produced by faculty and the corresponding categories used to discuss these activities in Indicator
59.
ArticlesICreative works
m Articles published in refereed professional or trade journals
Articles published in nomefereed professional or crade journals
Creative works published in juried media
Creative works published in nonjuried media or in- house newsletters
Books
Chapters in edited volumes
Textbooks
Other books
Monographs
Presentations/ exhibitions
Presentations at conferences, workshops, etc.
Exhibitions or performuces in the fine or applied arts
Other published reviews of books, articles, or creative works
a Research or technical reports disseminated internally or to clients
Patents or copyrights
Computer software products
0 SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Profiles qfFancl0 in HigherEducatiop1 ImtiWns,
1988.
The Condition of Eductlrion 1997, Indicator 43, Chart 1
---. ... -. -- - - w. . . , . . . . . , - . , . ~ . . . --
Percentage of time full- time postsecondary faculty spent on various activities
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 1988 and 1993.
Tlae Condition ofEdztcatioa 199- 7, Iizdi cator 43, Clmiz 2 - . , - . - - -- - . .7
Percentage of time full- time postsecondary faculty spent on various activities
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 1988 and 1993.
The Copldition of Education 1997, hdicutor 42
Teaching workload of full- time teachers
Ongoing debates about teach' s& Pies, professional s t w , a Put i~ stnacriomtbh e spark interest in the mmto f time teachers spend
wocking, the number of classes they teach per day, and rhe number of stdents in each chss. A teacher's work day does not end when classes
are over. They are like& to spend midihhal time outside @ school hours on work- related activibies.
While fhu- time public school teachers were required to be at school 33 hours per week on average in the
1993- 94 school year, they reported working 45 hours per week. Private school teachers were required to be at
school an average of 34 hours per week, but reported working 47 hours per week.
Pnblic and private full- time teachers reported spending extra hours ( 12 and 13 hours, respectively) bepare and
after school and on weekends; of these extra hours, about one- fourth were spent in activities involving
students,
In the 1993- 94 school year, public school teachers' classes were larger than those of their private schd
counterparts ( 23 students compared to 20 students per class).
a In the 1993- 94 school year, less experienced teachers ( those with less than 4 years of teaching experience)
worked more total hours per week than did more experienced teachers ( those with 4 or more years of teaching
experience).
1Chart 1: A e ho - time te h
teachina exrmience: School vear 1993- 94: activities involvine: stndents
Ch 2: v ehoursfull- time
& aching eqerience: School vear 1993- 94: other related activities
Average hours fill- time teachers spent per week at school and in school- related activities, class s i z ~
and classes taught per day, by control and level of school and years of teaching experience: School
year 1993- 1994
Average hours spent before
and after school and on weekends ...................................
Control and level Average Average hours Activities Other Average Av
of school and hours worked required involving related class bar
. t. e. a. c. h.. e. r. . c. h. a.. r. a. c. t. e.. r. i. s. t. i.. c. s. ............... p. e. r.. . w. e. a.. k. ....... a. t. . s.. c. h. o. o. l.. ....... T. o. t. a. l.. .... s.. t. u. d. e.. n. t. s.\.. l.\. . a. c. t. i.. v. i. t. i. e.. s \ l\ size taught :
Pablic 45.2 33.2 la. 1 3.3 8.7
Level of school
Elementary 44.0 33.0 11.0 1.7 9.2 22.7
Secondary 46.5 33.3 13.2 5.0 8.2 23 - 2
Years of teaching experience
Less than 4 years 48.3 34.4 14.0 4.2 9.8 23.2
4 years or more 44.8 33.0 11.8 3.2 8.6 23 - 2
Private 47.1 34.2 12.9 3.6 9.3
Level of school
Elementary 45.8 34.4 11.4 2.3 9.1 20.0
Secondary 49.1 34.0 15.2 5.7 9.5 19.5
Years of teaching experience
Less than 4 years 48.6 35.1 13.5 4.0 9.6 18.6
4 years or more 46.8 34.0 12.8 3.6 9.2 19.8 ..................................................................................................................
1/ " Activities involving students" includes coaching, tutoring, going on field trips, and transporting students. " Other related activities" inchrdes
preparing for class, grading papers, holding parent/ teacher conferences, and attending meetings.
2 Since elementary teachers do not tend to teach separate classes, only 8 percent of the teachers who responded to this question were
elementary teachers, while 92 percent were secondary teachers.
NOTE: bcludes a small number of teachers whose schools did not respond to the questionnaire, Details may not add to totals due to
rounding.
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Srn~ 1? Survey. 1993- 94 ( Teacher
Questionnaire).
The Condition of Education 1997, S u p p h t a l Tabk 42- 4
Table 42- 4: Average hours per week full- time teachers spent at school and in school- related
Q activities, class size, and classes taught per day, by state: School year 1993- 94
Average hours spent before
and after school and on weekends ...................................................
Average Average hours Activities Other
hours worked required involving related
. S. t. a. t. e. ................................. p.. e. r. . w. e.. e. k. ........... a. t. . s. c.. h. o. o. l. ................ T. o. t. a.. l. ............ s. t. u. d.. e. n. t. s. . activities
Alabama 43.3 32.5 10.8 3.2 7.6
California 45.6 31.8 13.8 3.3 10.5
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Kississippi
Missouri
I) Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
The Condition of Education 1997, Indicator 42, Chart 42- 1
- . . . . - -.,
Average hours full- time teachers spent per week before and after school and on weekends, by control and level of school and years of
teaching experience: School year 1993- 94
PubBitz
Levelof shoo!
Elemerrby
Secondary
Years a% Mqh 1r- q
exp IWM me
L0. w than 4 weare
Private
Csvel'sr% shoaC
Elemenkry
Secondary
Yea w sf t~ achm
sxp err@ n c! l
Less than 4 ymrs
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993- 94 ( Teacher Questionnaire).
The Coradition of Education 1997, Iidicator 42, Chan 42- 2
Average hours full- time teachers spent per week before and after school and on weekends, by control and level of school and years of
teaching experience: School year 1993- 94
Btxmndary
W s & h h @
& X~ S&@ W@
h s Wan 4y~ wca
4 yebln or man
Lessi than 4 yea5
4 or more
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993- 94 ( Teacher Questionnaire).
11. The University of Arizona
A. New Realities Paper ( SPBAC) pages 33- 49
B. Undergraduate Education pages 50- 61
( Hunvitz) Goals Report ( 1997)
C. Fall Sections Taught by pages 62- 63
Permanent Faculty, 1993- 1997
D. Recent Accompli pages 33- 49
Open Letter to University of Arizona Faculty and Staff
From: The Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committe
Re: New Realities Facing The University of Arizona
Abstract
Although we have made great progress in the last twenty years, The
University of Arizona faces serious problems in public confidence,
internal direction, and finances. These problems are not unique to The
University of Arizona, but are symptomatic of national changes and
trends. Higher education everywhere is facing increased competition for
students. The public is demanding greater accountability as well as more
teaching, improved responsiveness, and reduced costs. Technology is
changing the way we work and the expectations others have of us.
Federal funding and support for higher education in general is
decreasing. Real state funding per student has decreased and the political
climate is neutral- to- hostile to real increases in budgets. Parents and
students have resisted significant tuition increases. As a result, the UA
has neither the central reserves nor the flexibility to address further
economic downturns. The University actively and visibly must improve
accountability, quality, and efficiency in order to regain confidence from
all quarters. If not, the University will suffer increasing external control
and lose the ability to maintain and refine its vision of a university.
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to iden* signals of change in the
environment surrounding The University of Arizona, to communicate
these signs widely, to examine the implications of these early warnings,
and to encourage dialogue on campus to help develop recommendations
for future actions. Anticipating the future can put us in the driver's seat of
change rather than letting change run over us.
The University of Arizona has come a long way in the last three
decades, offering high quality education to undergraduate and graduate
students while providing society with si@ cant advances in, and
applications of, knowledge. Numerous university programs are of world
renown. It has taken many years of hard work by faculty, appointed
personnel, staff, and administrators to position the University as it is
today leading the State and the nation as the next century approaches.
At the same time, several years of reduced public support for higher
education has led to staff cuts, program reductions, erosion of the capital
equipment base, and reduced and deferred maintenance of buildings and
classrooms. Sometimes it seems as if the University is being attacked
from all sides. For the past seven years operations have continued in a
state of semi- crisis -- even when both the University's State budget and
tuition increase. Like many members of the University community, the
members of the Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee
( SPBAC) find these developments perplexing and disturbing. As a result,
the Committee decided to study the internal and external situation in
depth. Through this document, SPBAC members would like to share with
the University community what the Committee has learned in order to
engage in a dialogue about how the University can move successfully into
the future.
New Realities in Higher Education
The University of Arizona faces serious problems. The budgetary
constraints are real -- there is $ 30- 40 million less for basic programs and
support than there was ten years ago. Further, this is only an indicator
of more profound threats in the immediate future. Solving these
problems requires a major response by the entire University community.
A failure to respond will leave the University community vulnerable to
externally imposed solutions.
A. National Problems and Issues:
What The University of Arizona faces is not just a University of
Arizona problem. Nationally, competition for students is increasing. The
proportion of high school graduates who go on to traditional higher
education is flattening. There is a glut of graduates from certain
graduate programs. Some private colleges are decreasing tuition rates to
attract students. Private companies, such as Motorola, are developing
their own degree granting postsecondary programs. AT& T recently
contracted with the University of Phoenix to provide in- house training.
Since increasingly more University of Arizona students are older and
work while attending school, jobs that provide education, work- related
experience, and higher wages folded into one financial aid package are
certain to be attractive to many students.
Distance learning provides new sources of competition. Other
universities and colleges and private firms increasingly have been
offering courses and degree programs without regard to state
boundaries. New methods of instruction within traditional education
also are changing the competitive environment. Students today expect
high levels of technical support and creative use of technology in
instruction. Having such capabilities is an increasing competitive
advantage.
Nationally, public confidence in higher education specifically, and in
public institutions generally, has declined sigtufican tly, especially since
1990 ( see attachment 1). Twenty years of increased international
competition and restructuring in the private sector have created
expectations about and methods for improving business processes and
cutting costs. The public now believes that these practices should be
applied to education as they are being applied forcefully to, for example,
health care. A recent national study of state legislators showed that 86%
thought universities should focus more attention on undergraduate
education. Only 30% believed more attention should be devoted to basic
research. Nearly two- thirds of the legisla tors thought faculty should
teach more courses. States are eliminating traditional funding formulae
and are moving more towards productivity and accountability funding.
Reflecting these changes, declining legislative support for higher
- education is a national phenomenon ( see attachment 2).
B. Impact on the U of A:
Throughout this century, the universities in Arizona have had
something dose to an exclusive franchise with respect to in- state
students seeking higher education. Students had few in- state
alternatives. It was assumed that The University of Arizona would
continue to attract and enroll the number of students that are presently
enrolling ( see attachment 3 for a description of the enrollment model and
the revised enrollment projections). The recent growth of alternative
forms of higher education and enrollments below projections ( even as the
numbers of high school graduates increases) make it clear that this
franchise now is in jeopardy.
1. New Forms of Competition: Today the State is creating such
alternatives as ASU East and West and the new Arizona
International Campus ( AIC). The governors of 21 western states,
including Arizona, are developing a virtual university and the
Arizona Governor has appointed a group to facilitate the
development of this concept. These are political realities.
There are University of Arizona employees who currently are
enrolled in courses and degree programs from NAU and other
institutions, even though similar programs are also offered on this
campus. Dartmouth College and Troy State University are offering
degree programs and courses for credit in Tucson. Columbia
University recently announced its plans to begin offering courses at
the Biosphere facility. USC is offering programs at Hughes
Aircraft, an audience that used to belong to The University of
Arizona. Even without all of these alternatives, the ability of The
University of Arizona to rely on growth in the number of students
to provide increased State and tuition dollars soon will be
limited by the enrollment cap of 35,000 students.
2. Changing Needs of Students: The students that come to the
UA often want more flexible schedules, and they and their future
employers want more practical and effective preparation for work.
The present variety of courses, majors, and requirements makes
changes in major difficult for students and increases the
University's cost of sys tem- naviga tion advising that serves
primarily to guide students through requirements and procedures.
Students and faculty alike find it confusing and frustrating.
3. New Technologies: With some exceptions, the UA is just
beginning to exploit opportunities to use technology and different
teaching methodologies to improve the quality, efficiency, and
competitiveness of instructional programs. Successful models exist
for disciplines as diverse as chemistry, humanities, mathematics,
and engineering.
C. Continuing Budget Problems:
The number of FTE students at The University of Arizona has
increased from 27,340 in 1986 to 31,370 in 1995. Attachment 4 shows that
per student, State and Federal appropriations and tuition have increased
during this period, but the purchasing power of the dollar has declined. In
addition, in 1980, the legislature stopped funding University capital
facilities and gave the universities the authority to sell bonds-- and the
need to pay them off. The expense associated with this capital funding
responsibility has risen gradually to over $ 30 million per year. Overall,
real dollars per F'TE student have declined by about $ 750 since 1986. This
figure multiplied by 31,370 students results in a loss of almost $ 23.5
million each year.
Concurrent with this loss of purchasing power, the University has
been making major investments in information technology. Without
considering capital costs, the cost for staffing and maintaining this
technology comes to more than $ 10 million per year. Additional millions
are spent each year to fulfill new federal and State mandates, such as
those related to the Americans with Disabilities Act and federal and State
health and environmental regulations. These costs exacerbate the
purchasing power lost per FTE student described in the previous
paragraph. Thus, the total University available revenue shortfall is
between $ 30 and $ 40 million annually. There is no reason to believe that
this downward trend is going to change.
The University has tried to meet this shortfall by deferring an average
of $ 8- 9 million per year ( over $ 90 million cumulatively) in maintenance of
the University's buildings and infrastructure. Other ways of meeting the
shortfall have included using indirect cost revenues from research grants,
giving up central reserves, cutting staff, capping travel funds, cutting the
number of periodicals and books in the library, and eliminating and
consolidating programs. The result is that the UA has no reserves and
very little flexibility. This cannot continue.
1. Increasing Revenue: Some of the decline in the state budget in
real terms has been offset by increases in tuition and indirect cost
recovery. The SPBAC questions whether this will continue to be
possible.
The University of Arizona receives 3- 4 times as much tuition
revenue per student from out- of- state students as from in- state
students. Partly due to political pressure and partly for other
reasons, the number of out- of- state students at the University has
begun to decline. The proportion of high school graduates that go
on to college is declining ( see attachment 5). Even though Arizona is
a low tuition state, students and parents are increasingly resistant
to tuition increases that are greater than inflation. Part of any
tuition increase is set aside for scholarships, and is not a net
addition to revenue. Such set asides are important to attract the
rapidly rising proportion of Arizona high school graduates who are
minorities with traditionally lower family incomes and lower
college attendance rates.
The University could try to raise more indirect cost recovery
( ICR) funds by increasing success in obtaining research grants.
Since the UA was not heavily invested in defense or Department of
Energy funded research, it was not seriously hurt by the post- Cold
War declines in R& D funding in these two areas. The University,
however, has been enormously fortunate to do as well as it has in
the face of federal funding cutbacks. Just maintaining the present
level of research funding will be a success. Furthermore, although
the ICR rate was increasing until three years ago, the actual
recovery of indirect costs as a percentage of total grants and
contracts has been declining. Marginal real increases in ICR
beyond current levels are the most that can be expected.
2. Administrative Costs: Cutting administrative and support costs
further is another possible way of saving money. The most reliable
study to date was undertaken by the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee in July 1994. The study concluded that the UA had lower
administrative and support costs than ASU and NAU, but might
have somewhat higher costs than its peers ( see attachment 6).
Recent budget cuts have affected administration and support
units more than academic units, and the number of executive level
administrators has declined. But these declines have been offset by
increased expenditures to meet legal mandates and to fund
informaEonte~ ho10gyG~ enerally, people are working hard at
what is required, but often are hampered by ineffective, redundant,
and costly internal and external procedures and requirements. The
continuous improvement and business process reengineering
efforts have helped reduce costs and increase effectiveness, but
these sometimes require investments ( e. g., for information
technology to replace obsolete sys terns). These programs should
pay off over time, but they are unlikely to provide big savings in the
short term. Many savings accrue to departments in ways that
haven't been easily recoverable for reallocation to fund the
investments. A Faculty Senate committee is reviewing the support
cost issue. In addition, SPBAC plans to examine administration and
support costs thoroughly.
3. Construction Costs: Since The University of Arizona pays for the
bonds, cutting back on construction also has been proposed as a
way to save money. In the short term, this has had no effect since
current payments are for facilities already built or under
construction. In the longer term, the current space shortage is
estimated to be approximately 1.4 million net assignable square feet
( NASF), based on national standards. Classroom space is near
standard ( quantity, not quality) and marginally will exceed
standard when the Integrated Instructional Facility is complete.
The major components of the shortfall are offices and laboratories.
Each category is about 0.5 million NASF short. In some cases,
because of safety and other issues, existing buildings will have to be
replaced or upgraded. Without providing the quantity and quality
of space required, The University of Arizona cannot plan to expand
or even maintain the current level of research. This, in turn,
threatens indirect cost recovery revenues and the quality of
programs.
4. Prospects for increased State funding: The University of
Arizona's historical response to funding problems has been to
request increased funding from the legislature. Obviously, every
effort must be made to address the legislature constructively.
However, as attachment 7 shows, Arizona has more students and
fewer workers to support them than does the average state.
Arizona has fewer private postsecondary institutions than the
average state. The level of disposable personal income to support
higher education in Arizona is among the lowest in the country.
Thus, even if it wanted to, the legislature could not fund education
at average national levels. Given the tax reductions the State has
enacted and continues to enact, substantial real cuts in the
University's base funding can be expected when the economy next
slows down. Considering the legislative enthusiasm for ideas such
as vouchers for students, educational funding may be provided in
ways that facilitate students moving away from the traditional
state universities.
Conclusions and Implications
The University of Arizona is facing a continuing series of shifts that
will affect the University for the indefinite future. Although gradual,
these changes are reinforcing each other. They have now become critical.
P * Competition for students thought of as our exclusive franchise is
increasing; unless the University learns how to meet this competition, we
may not be able to attract sufficient students necessary to reach our
enrollment targets upon which the University's tuition revenue and state
0 budget are based.
Public confidence in higher education has waned and the public is
demanding greater accountability while questioning our commitment to
education.
The public expects the University to teach more, improve quality,
rn and reduce costs.
Gross federal funding for education and research is decreasing,
with some shifts of research funding among disciplines.
* Real state funding per student has decreased and the political
' 0
climate is neutral- to- hos tile to real increases in budgets.
Resistance to further tuition increases, espeaally those above
inflation, is growing.
As a result, the UA has neither the central reserves nor the flexibihty to
address the next economic downturn. Even moderate increases in
funding would not allow The University of Arizona to achieve its vision.
Only serious internal planning, priority setting, reallocation, and
management, based on a University- wide dialogue, can do that.
Furthermore, the issues of confidence, accountability, and improved
quality and efficiency must be addressed. This will affect State funding
and tuition increase issues, not to mention the issues relating to increased
competition for students. If these issues are not addressed, The
University of Arizona will suffer increasing external control and lose the
ability to refine and maintain its vision of a university.
A. Internal Restructuring:
The University community has tended to idenhfy recent, recurring
budget crises with cutting budgets and eliminating programs. The SPBAC
believes that the focus should be on restructuring. This does not mean
that cuts will not be required. However, many essential changes must
involve improvements in service, consolidation and reorganization, and
enhanced efficiencies well beyond those already achieved.
So far the University has addressed these issues by engaging in
activities such as the following. These efforts must continue and be
expanded.
Consolidating courses when similar courses are offered in
mu1 tiple departments.
Consolidating duplicative degree programs to release faculty
time for instruction.
Encouraging faculty teaching outside their traditional
departments ( e. g., in general education courses).
Cutting low demand degree programs that are unjustifiable.
Continuing to implement our total quality management ( CORe)
and business process reengineering efforts to reduce costs and
improve services.
Simphfymg the degree program curricula for our degrees and
making degrees less specialized.
B. Questions We Must Answer:
The faculty and the entire University community must start addressing
the above issues in new ways. There must be increased inter- college and
inter- department cooperation, activity and resource management, and
flexibility in thinking. The internal budgeting and continual re- budgeting
issue, not just the extemal budget issue, must be addressed. The
Committee seeks answers to the following types of questions:
How can The University of Arizona develop clarity about who it
is, what it realistically can do, and what its priorities are?
How can The University of Arizona deade what program areas
to emphasize given limited resources and increased competition for
students?
How can The University of Arizona determine what the
competitive advantages ought to be?
How can the University community focus energies and resources
on those programs and activities that will increase quality and
respond to external needs and changes?
How can The University of Arizona use consolidation, attrition,
and incentives for voluntary movement of resources and effort to
areas of higher need?
How can The University of Arizona build flexibility and resilience
into procedures, budgets, and organizational structure?
How can The University of Arizona handle short- and long- term
shifts in student course and major demand quickly and effectively?
How can The University of Arizona become a more engaging
place for students?
Next Steps
Now is the time to broaden the discussion of the University's future
course to include the entire campus community. The members of SPBAC
are asking you to consider these questions and present your colleagues,
SPBAC, the Faculty Senate, the Staff Advisory Council, Associated
Students of the University of Arizona, and the administration with
proposals about what can be done to transform, not just incrementally
tinker with, the University and that respond to the issues it faces. 4/ 96
New Realities - Attachmnt 1
Public Trust and Accountability in Higher Education
Public trust in public institutions of all types has declined in the last decade: demands for accountability are increasing in all public areas. The
chart bclow shows the decline in those reporting a great deal of confidence in higher education since 1973 ( Gallup Poll Data). Higher tvlucation
declined from 44% to 27% with an especially dramatic drop since 1989.
Reported Confidence in Higher Education
Percent of Respondents Reporting ' a great deal of confidence'
M I D P a - M U J + @ - M W
r - r - P P m c D c D c D r D m a m
? ! ? ! ? ! 2 2 ? 2 ? ! ? ! ' 2 2 ? ! 2
Year
I) This is part of a larger trend that affects many public institutions. Similar numbers in other fields illustrate that this erosion of public confidence
is not confined to higher education.
Reoorted Confidence in Selected Institutions
. -
i - uc- u- ' Medicine e
3 The Press ~ ~ ~ r 1 Executive Branch of Fed. Govt. I - - d ! ~ o n e r e s s ~ m 1 8 % i l l - T a ~
While some institutions may be affected less by these significant declines in the level of public trust, they create additional pressure for
) transparency and accountability, sometimes for micromanagement, in the management of public universities.
The University of Arizona, Decision & Planning Support 4130196
New K~' illitw- s Attil~ hr~ xn2t
Declining State Appropriated Dollars per Student Nationally
I The problcm of state governments being unwilling to fund higher education at the samc level as in the past is a national one. The graph below
shows national data retlecting the decline in both real and current dollars per student that has taken place since 1990. I
State Appropriations Per FTE Enrollment, 1980- 92
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992
The same trends are seen in state appropriations as a proportion of total state revenues. The heavy solid line in the two graphs below show the
national average which has been trending steadily downward for the last 15 years. The southwest appears to be lucky because it receives the
highest proportion of state appropriations of any region. This is misleading. This region also has unusually high numbers and growth rates of
) be student age population and is more heavily dependent on public education ( compared to private) than the below average regions.
State Appropriations as a Percentage I
I ir
Regions Above the National
Average
15
Southeast
Southwest
11 1 Rocky Mountains
of' State Revenues by Region, 1980- 92
1
Regians Belov the National
Average I
50 States - - - - Far West
Great Lakes ''' M id east
New England
t Source: Graphs from American Council on Education, Research Brief, Vol. 5, No. 5, p 7,9
The University of h n a , Decision & Planning Support 4/ 30/ 96
I
New Kc; rlitics - Attachment 3
DAPS IiACTS
ARIZONA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
55,000 More Students by 2010? Where are they?
In 1989, the Board of Regents contracted a consultant, Carol Frances
and Associates ( CFA), to develop a dynamic computer model to
estimate total demand for higher education in Arizona The model
projects demand for community college and university enrollment,
including demand from out- of- state students. Based on the initial
version of the model, CFA estimated that total demand for university
programs ( undergraduate and graduate) in the year 2010 would be
150,000, or about 55,000 more students than were enrolled at the
three universities in 1990. Four years into the projection, many
observers are wondering when the impact of increased enrollment
demand is going to be felt by Arizona's universities.
Update
ABOR staff formcd a technical advisory committee to test and update
the Arizona Enrollment Demand Model as new data become available
( e. g., updates to economic, demographic, and enrollment variables).
Preliminary results from the most recent update to the model indicate
that the projection of a 55,000 increase by 2010 may be too high. Data
collected during the last four years demonstrate that the initial version
of the model over- estimated college enrollment rates among some
population subgroups, and over- weighted the influence of economic
conditions on enrollment. The updated model projects total enrollment
in 2010 at 136,000, or about 14,000 fewer students than the original
projection. Using 1994 as the new base year, the total increase over
the next 16 years is projected to be 35,000 students.
Original Updated
Projection Projection*
* Preliminary, unofficial update to CFA model.
Implications for UA
DAPS staff recently projected that new resident undergraduates
entering UA will increase by about 150 a year for the next 5- 10 years.
A common response to this projection is, " How can the UA
projections be so low when state- wide demand is supposed to increase
so dramatically?" In fact, the projected annual increase of 150 new
resident undergraduates is consistent with the updated projection for
Arizona if you consider that in any given year the number of entering
freshmen and transfers at UA represents only a fraction of the total
number of students enrolled at the three universities.
To illustrate, the following chart shows that after accounting for
graduate, non- resident, and continuing students. the increased
enrollment attributable to new resident undergraduates ( freshmen
and transfers) is only 7,000 out of the total 35,000 student
increase projected for 2010. Assuming UA continues to attract its
current share ( 3 1%) of new in- state students. our increase in
freshmen and transfers would total 2,170 by 2010. Dividing
2,170 by 16, the number of years between 1994 and 2010,
results in an average annual increase of 136 new resident
undergraduates for UA:
Stat e- Wde Projected Increase in Enrollment
Total Increase by 2010 = 35,000
Undergraduate
2Q- -. 0- 0- 0-
Residents
8,000
5,000 Residents = 7.000
Potential UA share of new resident u n d e t g e
31% d7, W0= 2,170
Annual Inorease = 2,170 t 16 years 136 peryear
Managing Growth
The projected UA share of increased enrollment is labeled
" potential" because UA is committed to an enrollment cap of
35,000. There are currently several initiatives designed to help
manage enrollment growth:
a plan to reduce the percent non- resident in UA
undergraduate enrollment
establishment of the New Campus in Pima County
expansion of eveninglweekend, video campus, and other
programs across the state
changes in freshman and transfer admission requirements
An understanding of the composition and timing of projected
enrollment growth is critical to ensuring that the various
enrollment management initiatives do not conflict
- - -- -- - -- -
The University of Arizona
Decision and Planning Sup-
John Wilson, Director
Administration Bldg., Room 116
P. O. Box 210066
Tucson, AZ 85721- 0066
tel. ( 520) 621- 7807
Ncw Kealitizs - Attachment 4
Revenue per Student Available to the University
How can the University have less tinancial resources per student when state and fcderal appropriations and tuition have ken increasing each
year;! The problem is that nominal funding increases from these sources have not kept up with increased enrollment and inflation. The resulting
decllne in real dollars per student is obscured by rising nominal state and federal funding.
- - -- -- -
C u r r r n t v s . C n n s t a n t ~ ~ u e s
permstudent
FY 1986 - FY 1995
u $ 11,399 3 w1.000
u
3
$ o. ooa
W t
t so00
P
UI
f $ 3000
C $ 7,890
0
CI
g- r. 000
FY FY FY FY . FY FY FY FY FY FY
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Fiseal Year
I + Current Revenue Dollars per FTE Student
+ Constant Revenue Dollars per FTE Student. 1986= 100 ( HEPI) I
Source: Annual Financial and FTE Reports, HEPI. Decision & Planning Support
I) Note: Includes State & Federal Appropriations, Tuitions. & Other Revenues ( excluding Other Auxiliary & Restrided); Less Academic Lkbt Service. Waivers, &
Financial Aid Setaside from Tuitions
8 Between 1986 and 1995, the number of students at the University of Arimna increased from 27,342 to 31,371 full- time equivalent
( FTE) students.
8 After adjustments for debt service, waivers and fmaacial aid setaside, nominal revenue per student increased over this period from
$ 8,410 to $ 1 1,399.
m 8 This apparent increase was more than offset by inflation, however, in 1986 dollars, the revenue per student actually declined from
$ 8,410 to $ 7,890, a funding decrease of $ 520 per student. In 1996 dollars, this is a drop of $ 751 per student.
8 $ 75 1 times 3 1,371 students creates a funding reduction of over $ 23.5 million in the current period compared to the 1986 level.
Our budgets appear to be going up, but the real financial resources available to meet the instructional needs of each student have declined.
? he University of Arizona, Decision & Planning Support 4/ 4/ 96
[ Graph originally developed by The University of Arizona Budget Office.]
Participation in Higher Education
Has the rate of participation in higher education pcak~ duTl' he pcrcent of 18- 24 year- olds enrolled in institutions of higher ducation has hovered
aroun~ d3 4% for the last three years, but more time is rieed~ xtio determine if the rate has reached a stable plateau.
Endhent Rates ad1824 Y81~~ 4Xidns M t u kaf Hi+
Education - Annual US. Gensup Bmeau ST 1% 7- 1994
For the University of Mmna, the ratio of new resident freshmen to the number of Arizona high school graduates is a good estimate of
participation rates because about 95% of resident freshmen enter the university directly after graduation from high school.
Ratio dUAN ew Regide n- Ft lm AZ HS. G radua-
The downward trend in enrollment rates is partly explained by lower eligibility rates for underrepresented minority high school graduates.
Based on the most recent eligibility study conducted in Arizona ( 1989, ABOR) only about 35% of underrepresented minorities graduating from
Arizona high schools meet the minimumeligibility requirements for admission to the university, compared to 50% eligibility among
non- minority high school graduates. If eligibility rates of minority students do not increase, enrollment rates are likely to continue to decline as
8 minority populations increase.
The University of Arimna, Dscision and Planning Support, Student Research Office 4/ 25/ 96
Yew Realities - Attachnwnt 6
Administrative and Support Costs
# The University of Arizona has been criticized both internally and externally for administrative " bloat", the number of
administrators. and for a business-&$- usual attitude while other public and private institutions have ken rorced to cut back.
The issue is real even though some of the ' facts' are not.
Definitions of administrative costs vary from the Auditor General's derinition, which included much research activity, to the
more conventional ones used by the Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee
( JLBC). Similarly, there are multiple definitions of " administrator".
One of the most careful studies of administrative costs was done by the LBC in July 1994. This report showed that the UA
had relatively lower administrative costs than ASU and NAU. This difference was large enough on early drafts that the
JLBC staff had the Budget Office redo parts of the study. The result was the same. The study also included a peer
comparison in which the UA seemed to have higher administrative costs. The peer comparison, however, ignored size of
institutions. Since the UA has both a College of Medicine and a College of Agriculture, its overhead costs are higher than
smaller and simpler institutions. When this is taken into account, the UA fell in the middle of the peer group. When these
data were sent selectively to the press, John Lee of the JLBC publicly disavowed the incorrect interpretations of this data
set.
The recent Auditor General's report used such an unusual definition of administration, including much research activity for
instance, that it doesn't permit comparison over time or with other institutions. Many of the report's conclusions are
unobjectionable, however, and the report needs to be taken seriously as an indicator of how the public, government
officials, and legislators see the UA.
To address the lack of consistent measures, the UA is developing a more rigorous system for measuring administrative and
support costs and for defining administrators that will be comparable to national norms. This proposal has been reviewed
by the Faculty Senate Committee on Administrative Costs and has been sent to the president's cabinet for approval.
The University has been attempting to address the issue of administrative and support costs for several years. In the major
budget reallocations of recent years, non- academic units generally have taken larger cuts than academic units. Some of this
has been offset by increased allocations for information technology and for federal and state mandates such as the
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Continuous Organizational Renewal ( CORe) and, more recently, business process reengineering programs have
reduced or can reduce costs and improve service. For instance, major successes have been achieved in reducing utility costs
through efforts that have been largely self funding. Generally, the easy gains have been made and future gains will be
gradual or save future costs. Because such gains often require up front investments, such as replacing an obsolete
administrative system, substantial immediate savings are now rare.
The University of Arizona. Decision and Planning Suppcnt 4/ 29/ 96
New Realities - Attachnrnt 7
Funding of Public Education in Arizona
A Comparison to National Averages and Rankings
@ The demographics and ecorlomics oT the state of Arizona combine to guarantee that expenditures per student will bc below national averages at
all levels. Thc table below shows some of the data behind this conclusion.
-------.
Item I Measure . ( ~ . s t I ~ z j l ~ ' , ] Rank
I
Resident Population Increase est. : I-% I ~ LTUSC 19W2aa - 1 ~ ~ ~ --- --
; l~ irthK ate il~ e1ro GfJ moole 1 16.31 18.211 SI I-- I I - d L . .
I 65 Yrars Old and Older il% of - p pulatlon. ' 93
jW~ ducationaDle mand !
f--
1: School Enrollment. K- 8 11% inmewe ' 90 to ' 93 1 1 4 1 1 1 - I
/[ school Enrollment, 9- 12 in~~ 0e- ase ' 93 A - 1 _ _ 2 !
f ) K- 12 Public Expenditures/- ta d$/ capita ' 93 I
" D ~ oo~ ut rate L% of population
; College Enrollment : I% of 18- 24 pop. ~ n 90- 91 1- n . - - , A ---
il~ olleeeE nroll.. Pub. 4-~ earI n s ~ : I% of 18- 24 roo. ~ n ' 90- 91 : I 17.1 11 18.01 - 5 1 ' il - I, . L - - - - - -
: Enrollment in Publlc lnst~ tut~ ons : I% of total FTF. Students ~-~~ 1 --
i1Undermduate Enrollment !/ per IOOO oooulation ' 90- 91 73.1 11 95.31 a1
L$ nrollment, 4 year publics r 1 population 9 9 1 1 31.211 3 4 4 26jl
1.
instructional exp., Pub. doctoral wl Med. ; IPer FIT Student ! I $ 7.79911 $ 5.90dl 33dl
The University of Arizona, Decision & Planning Suppcit 4196
?
1 B 1
f 1.
Source: S- cal Abstract of the Uruted States and State Higher Education Profiles
Seventh Edihon, FY 1991, U. S. Department of Educahon, NCES
) Results: - We have some of the highest population growth rates and birth rates in the country.
-- This gives rise to high and growing rates of young people of school and college age.
-- We have a slightly higher percentage of those 65 and older.
This means we have more students and fewer workers to support them. -- At the Cyear college level we have a somewhat higher than average percentage of the population actually going to college. -- We have a higher than average dependence on public education at the Cyear level.
This means dilution of the higher education money available over more students. -- On the income side we have low labor force participation rates ( proportion of the workforce age population known to be working).
-- They receive below average incomes per person and per family.
This means less income available to finance education, K- 12 as well as higher education.
Labor and Personal Income j
-
Labor Force Parhc~ patton, Male f
Labor Force Partic~ pattonF, emale f
Production Workers Pay, Manuf. j
- D isposable Personal Income I
Rate ~ n ' 93 il- 71$(-
Rate ~ n ' 93 ! 1 5 7 . 9 1 ( m
~ v g~. o urly~ arrungIsn ' 93 ~~~~~
Dollars ~ n ' 93 ] m$' 5,9241Ej
UA Undergraduate Education
( Hurwitz) Goals Re- p ort
May 1997
Contents:
Introduction
Rwular Facultv Teaching
10 New Undewraduate Initiatives
Outcome Measures
Outcome # 1
Outcome # 2
Proclres. on Soecific Goals:
Item # 1 Class Availability
Item # 2 Advising
Item # 3 Classrooms
Item # 4 Lower Division
Item # 5 train in^
Item # 6 Facultv Members
Item # 7 Research Exoericncc
UA Undewraduate Goals Report Card
Introduction
The University of Arizona continues to make substantial progress toward the undergraduate goals adopted in the summer of 1994. The seven
goals established for the U of A have a total of 36 measures. Of these, the University has already met or continues to make progress for 34. We
are confident that the strategies developed to meet our few remaining goals will keep us on target for meeting all measures by 1998.
Pursuit of these goals has resulted in major improvements in the quality of undergraduate education at the U of A. Required courses are more
readily available in a timely fashion, substantially more students are taught at the lower division by regular faculty, all freshmen have access to
senior faculty in small courses through the freshman colloquia, large numbers of classrooms dedicated to undergraduate instruction have been
renovated and fitted with modem technology, the use of GTA teaching has been reduced in the lower division, and professional advising is
greatly improved. And, a new, comprehensive core curriculum has been adopted and will be implemented for all students.
a Regular Faculty Teaching
For the second year in a row, there were significant increases in teaching by regular faculty at the lower division at the University of Arizona.
In fact, the proportion of lower division student credit hours taught by regular faculty has increased more than ten percent in each of the last
two years ( see graph Goal 4. la). Similar consistent increases have been achieved in lower division non- proficiency courses - the proportion
taught by faculty has also increased about ten percent in each of the last two years ( see graph Goal 4. lb). The proportion of these credit hours
taught by GTAs has fallen by 26% since the Fall of 1994. And, the percent of students with two or more courses per semester taught by
regular faculty has increased to 87%- nearly a 20% increase from the Fall 1994 figure. ( see graph Goal 4.2) These gains have resulted from a
University- wide effort, in all Colleges, to revise curriculum, to change teaching assignments, and to upgrade courses. In the general education
area alone, more than 40 new courses have been designed and taught by regular faculty. The greatly expanded freshman colloquium series has
resulted in the circumstance that any freshman may take as many low enrollment courses with senior faculty as they choose. Given current
trends, it is likely that the university will achieve the goals for these measures one year early.
New Undergraduate Initiatives
) Several major new initiatives designed to affect the quality of the undergraduate experience were launched by the University this past year.
Other projects, initiated to pursue advance in the measurable goals for undergraduate education project continued to be stressed, such that the
University has in place many newly created initiatives to enhance the quality of undergraduate education Included in new initiatives are:
1. University- wide General Education Program
This past spring, the Faculty voted to adopt a nav general cviucation program This new cumculum moves the University away from the
college hastxi general education programs to one University- wide curriculum that meets the educational needs of all undergraduates. The
structure focuses on proficiency in cornpsilion and mathematics: a second language: and rigorous foundations in science, culture and
humanities. and social science. Each course offered is subject to strict quality guidelines about substance. active learning and the use of
technology. The aims of the new core curriculum include: A) Streamlining the ~ Urricul~ mB): Providing all students with essential foundational
I, materials: C) Reducing the number of small, highly specialized courses in general education: D) Involving faculty from all colleges in teaching
in the general education propram
2. The Freshman Year Center
The Freshman Year Center was created and housed in Bear Down Gym The center is devoted to the support of freshmen as they make the
transition from the high school environment to the university. The aim is to provide " one- stop- shopping" for any advising issue confronting
freshmen.
Services i~ iclude:
1. Academic advising for freshmen
2. Freshman Mandatory Meetings- Fall: Academic Information: Spring: Career Development
3. Major exploration for all university students
4. First Year Study Center ( open evenings)
5. Mentoring Program
6. First- Year Programs
7. Courses- in- Common
8. Finish- in- Four!
9. University Partners
' 3. University Partners Advising Program This program was developed to assist those provisionally admitted freshmen who enter with conditional aptitude and academic deficiencies.
Beginning this fall, all such students will be admitted to the University College as " Exploratory Students" with a pre- major area of interest
identified by the student. Each student will be assigned a specially trained faculty advisor. These students will have an opportunity to receive
that extra guidance and advice & om a member of the faculty with whom they have a close relationship.
4. UAIPima Community College Joint Education Plan
m The UAPCC Transfer Coordinating Committee has prepared an educational plan for their common student body. This individualized plan is
modeled after the plan adopted last year for freshmen and includes:
a an academic plan for every major in Pima and U of A course numbers:
b. a career development plan:
c. a calendar plan for transferring ( dates for advising, for admission application,
for orientation enrollment); a calendar plan for graduation ( dates for priority advising, for graduation application, and senior
degree check filing).
5. Faculty Training in New Technologies
The U of A launched a major Faculty Development program that provides basic training in instructional technologies, teaching methods and
evaluation procedures for groups of faculty. Groups that complete the program return to their units with computer equipment and instructional
tools necessary to stimulate cumcular change. To date, over 400 faculty have been involved in the faculty development program.
6. University Distinguished Professors ( 3rd year)
Modeled after the Regents Professorships, these professorships recognize faculty who have made outstanding contributions over a sustained
period of time to undergraduate education at the University. Faculty may be nominated by peers and students for this prestigious recognition.
Eight faculty member now hold this title.
7. Classroom Renovations ( 3rd year)
The University will initiate the third phase of the renovation project this summer. A set of criteria for renovation was developed for
undergraduate classrooms ( frequency of use, needed repairs, suitability for modemhation, etc.) and the University dedicated $ 10 million of
reallocated funds to a five- year program of modernization. Renovations for this past year have included rooms in Harvill, Social Sciences, and
Music. The renovated classrooms are upgraded with respect to technology, acoustics, comfort, accessibility, sight- lines, etc.
D 8. Classroom Technology Project ( 3'* year)
Similar to the renovation project, all undergraduate classroom with heavy use have been surveyed for technology and audio- visual needs.
Each is provided with up- to- date equipment to establish a sophisticated learning environment. The University dedicated $ 1.2 million of
reallocated funds for this purpose.
9. Finish in Four! ( 2nd year)
I) -
A program designed to ensurc that students have the opprtumty to graduate in four years if they so desire. Students slgn up during their
freshman orientation. Each year approximately h( M) freshmen sign up.
10. First Year Colloquia ( 3rd year) m
The collocpia have become extremely ppular with students atid parents alike. Now in its third year, this program affords students at1
opportunity to take a small class taught by a senior faculty member. Over 140 colloquia were offered this past year.
Outcome Measures
0
By their nature, student outcome measures are the result of many influences, including student academic preparation and background, as well
as the impact of the University environment. Moreover, the curricular changes that we have recently implemented will take some time to affect
student outcomes. Consequently, the outcome measures established in the Undergraduate Education Coals Report are more difficult to change,
particularly in the short run.
Although the current levels of our outcomes show mixed progress toward the goals, we have made significant longer term progress in Outcome
1, as shown by the graph of student graduation rates. For freshmen, rates have increased since 1981 ( from 42% to 5 1%) while lower division
@ transfer students show a 32% increase ( 38% to 50%).
Outcome # I:
OUTCOME * 1 Student Persistence a ~ gdra duation rates vill improve ever time.
B Strategies
Implement Items 1 - 7.
Measures
hem + & maha Yea arrant Yar God Yer haline lsaiura Oarant lsaure
1.1 The peroentqe of 6- n returning 1992 1995 1998 78%
br their second yea
1.2 ' rhe peroentage of fulltime tahmn 1987 1990 1998 49 %
graduaii in riryeap
' 1.3 The peroentage of fulltime lowr- diuirion 1988 1991 1998 51 % - for students graduating in dw ye=
1.4 The permtage of fulltime upperdiinion 1989 1992 1998 60%
m f e r students graduating in bur yeas
Outcome # 2:
u
OUTCOME * 2
Strategies
Implement Items 1 - 7.
Measures
hem #
The average length of ti me and number of academic credits required to complete academic deg rees
will remain steady and perhaps be reduced over time.
keline Yea arrent Yea God Yea Baseline Rmasure arreat IsaFure God Rmasure
21 average time taten by students entering 1 992- 93 1 995- 96 1 998- 99 4.9 years 5.0 years 4.4 years
2.2 & uerege, nurrber of credits earned by 1993- 94 1995- 96 1998- 99 139 units 141 units 1 36 units
b d y r e a t e degree recipients entering
as freshmen in program requiring 1 20- 1 37
unit% ' 2.3 & wage nnber of uedits eaned by 1 993- 94 1 995- 96 1 998- 99 1 49 units 152 units 145 units
bxdaaeae degree recipients entering
a trasfers in program requiring 120 - 1 3 7
units.
2.4 Perantage of seniors with mre tha 1994 1996 1999 4.1 48;' 4.1 % 2.3%
' 180 eaned uedit hours. edudiig tmsferable hours from out- of- state institutions a d N i n a
p r d e institutions.
25 Peraentage of senion mith mre tha 1994 1996 1999 2.3%* 2.4% 1.7%
180 eanod aedit hours, e d u d i i t r m s M e
hours from out- of- stae institutions. Prima
pri\ ate institutions. a d Qimpna amunity
* Revised to be consistent with ASU methodology
Progress on Specific Goals:
ITEM # 1 -- CLASS AVAILABILITY
Progress
All deparunents serving large numbers of undergraduates participate in assisting students at registration.
I, Students are taking advantage of Class Availability being available on the Internet. This service allows students to make inquiries about
closed, canceled and opened classes, the number of seats available in the classes, the meeting time and place and the instructor on a
ITEM * 1 CLASS AVAl LAB1 LlTY Students w i l l be able to obtain classes necessary for meeting their general education and major
requirements when they. need them.
Measures
Item + Bareline Yea Current Yea God Yea Weline kaure Cklrrent Reaure God R
l. la Adlability of generd education
murses through- out registration period MI. 1993 HI. 1996 MI, 1997 gaes in dl Study LLez gaes in dl Study & ea Lbnitor a d e
m milable throughout has inaeased or held adlability in !
registration steady education thr*
Chiwrsity
l. lb Adability of profidencios MI, 1993 HI. 1 998 M 1 997 Conposition. lznguages Adlability rednod Hdntzin regul
B, basic mhemaics ae rWle in mrrpositior
offpled ouery semster rnathemtics;
offerings of la
cQu1ses
1.10 S p a in profidendes relative to W1 1994 Fdl, 1998 Fdl 1997 Conposition - 93% Conposition - 101% Conposition -
projected number of students erpecting Mathematics - 121% Rathemias - 10096 Mathematics -
to register Foreign Laguqes - 70% Foreign Laguqes - 93% Foreign Largu
1.2a Student reports of course dability
D in the mjor
1.2b Student reports of course adability
in generd education
1.3 Reraent of frbshmn uho p l w into
hglish 101,102.103. ind 109
a d car get the dass they plam into
ITEM # 2 -- ADVISING
Progress
1 993- 94 199697 W1997
1 993- 94 199697 fall. 1997
FrJl lW fall. 1996 F9a. 1997
8 Finish in Four!, a framework for completing a degree in four years, Courses in Common, an opportunity to share three courses with
20 other freshman during first semester at UA, and Freshman Year Center, a center which mentors and advises all undeclared
freshman have contributed to our progress
8 Academic program reports laying out in table form the requirements for each major to students in 1993- 95 and subsequent Catalogs
in all colleges are electronically available.
8 A new on- line catalog allows students to receive just the information applicable to them
Strategies
8 SIS 2000 Projects on On- line Admissions Application, Registration, Financial Services and Transfer Evaluation are under design and
will support the development and delivery of curriculum and services to students in support of their progress toward their degrees.
8 New University- wide general education program approved by Faculty Senate with full implementation by Fall ' 98 will simplify degree
requirements.
8 Focus on developing materials supporting faculty advisors and advising, to reduce the need for longterm training.
ITEM * 2 ADVISING
Pleasures
Students will receive adequate advising for their program and career needs.
hem + meline You Current Yea
2.1 Percent of students vith educationd M 1993 Spring. 1997
( aAemclcareer) plm by end of
f eshm yea
0 2.2 Percent of entering freshmen asdgrted Fdl. 1993 grmg. 1997
to rar led faculty ? dwisorlmentor
2.3 Perant of students satisfied mth Fdl. 1993 * ring. 1987
ajuiing
2.4a Mlability of mademio progrm HI. 1993 Fdl, 1996
reports
2.4b bitability of ' eutonrated progrm Fdl, 19M Spring. 1897
reports: smith dl1 update undorgrad-uates
on their frjlfillmnt of degree
requirements
I)
2 . 4 ~ E ectronic axems to progress
reports Fan. 198Q MI, 1898
Fa1 1966 some Mars 100% of Freshma in dl
mlleges
Fa1 1 696 some majors 100% in dl majors
Fa1 1 worts adable for 100% RePC
B Par~ d tirgioring of students in 19 93 or stud
students in 1093- 95 later catdogs
c d o g
ITEM # 3 -- CLASSROOMS
Progress
0 8 A first year teaching building intended to integrate classrooms, advising services, and library resources, and employing multi- media
and high- technology instructional aids is planned.
8 The second phase of the plan to upgrade basic classroom equipment across campus and to support the delivery and use of more
sophisticated technology was completed in 1996- 97.
8 The second phase of the renovation of instructional space will be completed before the beginning of the fall semester.
Strategies
B 8 Continue to invest University resources to make available the facilities required.
8 Support the University Teaching Center's development of training programs for faculty members in new teaching technologies and
changing pedagogical techniques.
8 The second phase of the renovation of instructional space will be completed before the beginning of the fall semester and the third
phase is in design.
a
ITEH * 3 CLASSROOMS
Measures
Classrooms will be adequately equipped to deliver instruction Using modern instructional techno
Item # - line Yea laurent Yea Goal Yea Baseline k a m e Current hasure Goal hia; u
3. la The nuder of dxisroom avdlable
for multi- media
3. lb The number of dissroom equipped
9 for cmputer- based innruetion
1 990 Spring. 1997 2000 38 1 76 185
1 994 Spring. 1997 2000 46
3.2 lhe perantage of undergraduate 1994 Spring. 1997 1998 54% 64% 100%
students mt~ eh am their omo arrQuter
3.3a Student a s sto the notmi Fd1, 1993 Spring. 1997 19# 20- 3096 75% 100%
3.3b W t y offias mth access to the
nemr l
Fall, 1993 Spring, 1997 1999
3.4 The nuher of faxllty trrined in new Fdl. 1 993 Spring, 1997 1 998 190 030 ! iOO
tedng toohnologier
3.5 The creation of rn intonrsdion m m n s 1Bs5 spring. 1 997 19aB + / + I. ccc
with student stations
+ Idea Canahad: ++ Wgn Stago; w OmpIetion
ITEM # 4 -- LOWER DIVISION
Progress
All colleges submitted explicit proposals for increasing ranked faculty at lower division and each department and college is monitored.
A proposal to modify lower division curriculum to meet the foundational educational needs of undergraduates was passed by the
faculty.
The factors that negatively impact the presence of faculty in lower division are Wing identifed, such as, for example, adding classes
late in the regismtion cycle,
The percent of lower division student credit hours taught by regular faculty has significantly improved from fall, 1994 ( from 53% to
65%). as has the percent of above proficiency lower division student credit hours ( from 63% to 76%) and the percent of full- time
lower- division students with two or more courses per semester ( from 73% to 87%).
Strategies
The number of students required to meet minimum enrollment was raised at lower division, upper division, and graduate levels, a
change which shifted resources to lower division.
Identify factors, including incentives, that affect the presence of faculty members in the lower division and redirect faculty resources
accordingly.
Support the University- wide faculty General Education Committee in monitoring course availability, faculty teaching, the content of
- - -- . - . . - .- -
0
I fE M 64 LOWER UblYlSiDl The number of lower- di? irj~ ionP ;[) UrSeS taught by ranked faculty will i w r m e .
hem P l B a F ~ p hY~ e a Current Tea ltDd Tea EtasAb~ k asms* Current kt- e God Lk- e 0
4la Rsrmt of low- rlision student aedit horn
-- taught by regula Wty MI, 1 Q# M1Qm M l m 8 80% 66% 6796
-- taught by other thm T& Fall, 1 QQ2 MlQm Fdl, lQM 7& Fa6 8096
-- taught by T& Q Fall, 1 sQ2 WlQQ8 Wllasa 24% 22% 20%
4lb Percent a9 a#, v8- proflaisney lorirer- Wan
0 student aedit hours
- taught by regular Wty MI, 1 9# HI, 1- k4iras8 70% 7@% #%
-- taught by other than T& MI, 1983 MI988 Fall1988 B3% a% go%
-- taught by Tea MI, 1983 Wlaa6 F- 611998 17% 14% 10%
42 Parmnt of M- time louner- dhrisbn students
B
nith tmn or more mesfsemester
- taught by regula Wty H l i W M 1Qm M, 1989 82% 87% #%
-- taught by anal & geed kulty Fall lQ# WlQm WlQW W% 8336 QR6
43a Permt of freshmen patidpatikg in Frerhma
Ooll9lquia might by raked hity ML 1 Q# MI988 MI698 E% 20% ga%
D 43b hdmr of heshrtm CnNoquia offered 1994 1- 97 1mQ7 30 144 125
GRAPHS TO ILLUSTRATE GOAL 4:
Goal 4. h
Percent of Lower- Division SCH Taught by
Regular Faculty
70--.
€€!
-'
55 -. S so-.
: I: -,
3 --.
25 "
20 -.
7
53
Baseline Fall Fall Fall GOAL
1993 1994 1995 1996 19%
god 4. Ib
Permst of Lower- Diam " A b o v ~ P rSCsH~
T= J@~ YR@ F= QW
B= liaeFU Fall Fall 19W
1993 1994 1995 1996 Goal
Goai 4.2
hmt of FuU- Tim! L e ~ ~ iStnsBmats w ith Two
or More C a d m t e r Taught by Regdm Faculty
I BaseUmFall Fall Fall
1993 1994 1995 1- 15 19W
The University of Arizona
GRADUATlcDN RATE8
ewer Division Transfers 5- Y
0.' k
F irst- Tirile F u l I- Titme Freshmen 6- Y ear Rate
%
Lsnwr Division Transfers $- Year Rate
I I t I t 1
I , I I I
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Tear ak Entering Cohort
ITEM # § -- TRAINING
Progress
ep Career Services continues to offer services using new technology.
@ The University Learning Center continues to provide significant on- campus employment opportunities for students as peer advisors
and tutors which emphasize core employability strategies for any career: communication and listening skills, presentation skills, team
management, conflict resolution, report writing.
Strategies
I, 8 Support college efforts to create apprenticeships and organize university service to support internships.
IP All freshman have career advising session.
ITEM " 5 TMBBYllHG Graduates are properly trained and educated to compete in their chosen fields.
hl L- I of sztkWion of & imna emplayw 1 QQGYr3 1 QY697 HI, 1 QN ErPeIlent - 24% Emllent - 13% Wntah
mith recant grduateri 6ood - 8846 Good - 52%
S2a Percant af reaant grdules reparting Sprhrg. 1 $ Q[ S Eprmg. 1887 MI, 1@ 9 88 846 rn t h l they ae natisfied or wry zatkfied
mth their educationd e@ enoe
h2b Rrosnt of r m n t graduates reportiny Spring, 1996 Zpring, 1897 M, 18219 8394
adequate or better t h a adequme
prepmien far longtm career gods
I) h3 P l u i h r of students riaho haw weer- 1 eS,% M M, 19BP W, 1@ 38 31% 70%
related w r l elperienca during their
undergarduate career
* Smey taben emry other yex
Progress
Number of depamnents offering capstone experience has increased.
-
I) Concentrate on three points in the undergraduate experience: ( 1) the fht year. ( 2) early experiences in a major, ( 3) capstone experience
in major.
Increase faculty participation in lower division classes.
ITEM ' 6 FACULTY MEMBERS Increaseinstudent contact with ranked faculty during the many aspects
of the student's educational experience.
Measures
hem # kekae Yea * rent Yea God Yea k e l h e Lkilsure anent kamur Gad Lkarrure
& la Want of students reporting that they 19M- 05 199697 1887- 98 7# 6 82% Wntdn
0 discussed ~ ourrewbr or mignmnts
vith a faculty merrber outside of dm
a few times or mre per semester
Rlb PCIrcent of students repoitbtg that they 1 9W95 188897 1ggS
kn~ won e or m eM t ym embers
wII enough to ah Lr a letter of
remmndation
82 Rercsnt of M- time lower- dibisii students ~ tmn ar m e wurrosis- w
-- twght by regula taadty Fdl, 1993 M, 1990 Fdl. 1909
-- twght by find degeed W l t y Fdl. 1983 M. 1886 Fdl. 1889
83 Percent of depatmpnts reparting a I QM- 95 188697 1997- 98
capstme expmienco
ITEM # 7 -- RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
Progress
D The University continues to maintain and strengthen its outstanding research departments, with the consequence that undergraduates
may partake of our rich and varied research enviro~ lent
Strategies
Departments will increase opportunities for honors credit.
a Deans and depamnent heads will provide incentives, support, and recognition to faculty members who offer undergraduates
I)
oppommities to participate in research.
C
ITEM - 7 RESEARCH EXPERIEHCE Undergraduates will be more completely integrated
into research- related activities.
Measures
hem + theline Yea llarelrt Tea Ciod Tea Ifaselhe leamue - rent leasure God leaure
8 7.13 brcentage of graduatii neni*~ aha 199590
have patidpatd in a reseaoh
eperiencs
7. lb Percentage of graduating senion 188590 2000 46%'' 4048** 7916
dm hare participated in a Eepstone
I)
ewena,
7.2a Percenme of deparrments oMng a 1 OW95 % ring. 1887 1 997- 88 4696
- stone e m r i m
7. Zb Perantage of depaprmnts offering a 1 gW95 wring. 1 997 1897- 98 100%
resen& eperienw
@ Note: " revised 8( 97 fmm 32.7 to 46
* dedine rwt statiatidly rignibcmt
UA Undergraduate Goals Report Card ~ pfile~) f
The freeware Adobe Agobat Re* is required to view or print . pdf files.
Back to
Back to University of Arizona gublic R e c e
Back to University of Arizona YA lnfo
Fall Sections Taught By Permanent Faculty at U. of Arizona
1993- 1 997
Decison and Planning Support
1995
658
2,314
28.4%
973
1,646 --
59.1%
713
873
81.7%
1994
453
2,276
19.9%
922
1,648
1993
551
2,205
25.0%
751
1,304
Type Instructor
Lower Division
Permanent Faculty
Total Lower Divison Sections
% of Division by Perm. Faculty
Upper Division
1996
740
2,238
33.1%
944
1,618
666
832
80.0%
-
% of Division by Perm. Faculty 55.9%
Permanent Faculty
Total Upper Divison Sections --
Graduate Division
Permanent Faculty
Total Graduate Divison Sections
% of Division by Perm. Faculty
2,344
1997 ( TIP)
760
1,079
-
Change
38%
44%
836
995
84.0%
2,350
781
1,019
76.6% --
734
2,156 2,573
Total
I 1 Permanent Faculty
- 12%
2,138 20%
PROPORTION OF ALL TEACHING BY PERMANENT FACULTY: AT LOWER DIVISION
UPPER DIVISION, AND GRADUATE LEVELS, 1993- 1 997
% of All Sections, LD
-% of All Sections, UD
-% of All Sections, GRAD
C The University of Arizona: Accomplishments
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA:
Accomplishments
When the Men's Basketball team won the 1997 NCAA National Championship, and the Woman's Softball
0 Team won the 1997 National Championship a few months later, people used words like " surprising,"
" tenacious," " confident," and " incredible drive" to describe the athletes. But you'll discover amazing
things in the rest of the University too. There is a spirit, a drive, and a cohesiveness that permeates the
student body, the faculty, and the community. Here are some things that may surprise you.
I)
University Medicai Center is one of America's best hospitals in heart and cancer care, according the
U. S. News and World Report. They ranked UMC 18th in cardiology, 29th in cancer and 38th in
urology among 7000 hospitals.
Q She's a genius -- officially. On June 17, 1977, Professor Nancy A. Moran lvas named as one of 23
recipients of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation " genius" awards of $ 250,000.
She is a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology.
In terms of academic reputation, U. S. News and World Report ranked The University of Arizona
16th among ail public universities.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has ranked the UA 14th among public universities in its ability
to attract National Merit Scholars, and 29th among all universities.
The National Science Foundation has named the University of Arizona one of the ten universities
that do the best job in integrating research and education.
NICMOS, the new " eyeglasses" that allow the Hubble Space Telescope to look farther back in time
than man has ever seen before was developed and produced at The University of Arizona.
Q UA has top- rated undergraduate programs. Among departments highly ranked by U. S. News and
World Report are Management Information Systems ( 3), Nursing ( 6), Pharmacy ( 7), and the I
undergraduate business program ( 20).
,
The Anthropology Department ranks 5th, Philosophy ranks 1 lth, Linguistics 12th. and Geography I
and Regional Development ranks 19th in the National Research Council's ranking of all I
universities. I
Other graduate programs are also highly ranked by U. S. News and World Report. Analytical
Chemistry ranked 3rd, Geosciences and Creative Writing ranked 9th the Tectonics program
ranked 4th Sociology ranked 10th. The Hydrogeology program ranked 1st in the nation! The
College of Law ranked 16th in terms of reputation, and 10th of 178 schools in Trial Advocacy.
The Department of Mathematics received the Hesburgh Award for faculty development to enhance
undergraduate teaching, ranking it among the top five in the nation.
1
The University of Arizm Accomplishments hnpII~~~. opi.~ edUmottopidtopcI1 at~
I
1
I I I I
I In 1995, Computer World magazine ranked the UA 5th in the nation among business schools with
accredited MBA programs with computer technology specialization.
P 1 The National Science Foundation's most recent research rankings place the UA I I th among ail I
public universities. I
The National Research Council reviewed 29 UA graduate programs last year. Of the UA programs
ranked, one in three was in the top twenty- five in faculty quality, and one in four was in the top I
twenty- five in teaching effectiveness. Twenty- seven of twenty- nine programs had improved since
' the previous review. I
\
I
During the past four years, honors students at the University have won national and international
scholarships including 14 Goldwaters, six Tnunans, one Marshall, one Javits, one Churchill, three
Fulbrights, one Udall, two Luce, and two Rhodes scholarships. I
With 3,400 students, the UA Honors Program is the second largest program in the National
Collegiate Honors Council.
The world's most powerful telescope mirror is being cast underneath the east side of the football
stadium.
The UA overall athletic program was ranked 6th in the nation in the 1995- 1996 Sears Director's
Cup Starrdings.
The University ranks among the top ten in the nation in terms of industrial support ( businesses that
give grants or contracts to the UA), according to the NSF.
Five UA physicians have been named " The Country's Best Heart Doctors" by Good Housekeeping
in 1996.
The University Medical Center has been ranked among the nation's best hospitals for cancer and
rheumatology treatment by U. S. News and World Report.
In light of these accomplishments, it is not surprising that The College Choice report said, " The I
University of Arizona is one of the nation's most distinguished Universities, pybjic or private, and
its stature grows year by year." I
