AUBURN UNIVERSITYSTRATEGIC PLANNING
SITUATION ASSESSMENT
October 2006
Messina & Graham
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
Contents
Messina & Graham
I. Overview of Strategy-Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. Profile of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 • Summary Slides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 • Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
III. Auburn University (AU) • Profile
- Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19- Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80- Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99- Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
102 • Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT” Assessment) . . . 113 • Strategic Challenges and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
2
Contents (Continued)
Messina & Graham
IV. Auburn University Montgomery (AUM) • Comparison of Auburn University and AUM . . . . . . . . . 125
• Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
• Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT”
Assessment) . . . .151 • Strategic Challenges and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
V. Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159
Appendices • Auburn University Strategic Planning – Profile of the
Environment, July 2006 (separately bound) • Ranking
Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161 • Selected Information
Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164
3
I. Overview of Strategy-Development Process
Messina & Graham
1.SITUATION
ASSESSMENT
2.OPTION
GENERATION
3.OPTION
EVALUATION
4.STRATEGYSELECTION
5.EXECUTION
• Profiling the environment
• Profiling Auburn - Main campus - AUM
• Identifying strategic challenges and implications
• Candidate strategic objectives and directions
• Rationale for each option
• Detailed assessment of each option
• Comparison of options
• Rationale
• Full description, including goals and action initiatives
• Implementation plan, responsibility assignments
• Progress measures, review milestones
• Adjustments and adaptation
4
Key Elements of a Strategy
Messina & Graham
DISTINCTIVENESS
RESOURCECOMMITMENTS
EXECUTION
• Special attributes and their sources
• Differentiation that confers relative advantage
• Consistent with vision and mission
• Choices about allocating scarce resources
• Fact-based decision-making
• Coherent set of initiatives
• Implementation plans, responsibility assignments
• Progress measures, review milestones
• Adjustments and adaptation
5
II. Profile of the Environment
Messina & Graham
6
• Summary Slides - Pervasive Trends - Forces Affecting Higher Education
• Implications- For all universities- For AU (Illustrative)
PERVASIVE TRENDSFORCES AFFECTINGHIGHER EDUCATION
• Globalization
• Information Revolution
• Natural-Resource Demands and Environmental Strain
• Aging Populations and Increasing Minorities
• Enrollment Growth
• Affordability Challenge
• Demands for Quality Improvement
• Efficiency Imperative
• Diverse Perspectives on the University in the Twenty- First Century
Summary
Messina & Graham
7
Pervasive Trends
Messina & Graham
GLOBALIZATION
• Transforming worldwide commerce and employment• Generating global competition for knowledge work
• Information technology, telecommunications, connectivity• Dramatic and ubiquitous impacts
• Aging populations in developed countries• Rapid rise in U.S. minorities, especially Hispanics
INFORMATIONREVOLUTION
NATURALRESOURCES
DEMOGRAPHICS
• Demand increasing because of global economic and population growth• Environment under strain
8
Implications of Pervasive Trends for Universities
Messina & Graham
GLOBALIZATION
• Ensuring competitiveness of graduates• Increasing students’ international awareness
• Multiple challenges and opportunities in teaching and learning, research, extension, and administration and operations
• Enriching lifelong learning• Embracing greater diversity
INFORMATIONREVOLUTION
NATURALRESOURCES
DEMOGRAPHICS
• Teaching and learning, research, extension and operations opportunities• Examples: alternative energy sources, conservation, agricultural technologies
9
Implications of Higher-Education Trends for Universities
Messina & Graham
ENROLLMENTGROWTH
• Focusing on enrollment objectives
• Ensuring diverse access
• Implementing proven business practices to reduce cost growth
• Innovating and experimenting with new curricula and teaching approaches• Measuring performance in learning and teaching
AFFORDABILITYCHALLENGE
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
EFFICIENCYIMPERATIVE
21ST CENTURYUNIVERSITY
• Re-examining vision and mission• Redesigning business model to adapt to dramatic change
10
Implications for Auburn University
Messina & Graham
Pervasive Trends
• Ensure implementation of technologies that enable cost and quality improvements
TREND / IMPLICATIONS POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSE
GLOBALIZATION
• Competitiveness of graduates
• Students’ international awareness
• Raise performance expectations for students and measure results
• Develop new approaches to undergraduate education
• Increase international course and language skills offerings and requirements
INFORMATION REVOLUTION
• Challenges and opportunities across the enterprise
11
ILLUSTRATIVE
Implications for Auburn University
Messina & Graham
Pervasive Trends
• Advance teaching and research in alternative energy sources, conservation, agricultural technologies
• Promote energy-efficient building design and operations
• Explore distance learning for specific markets (e.g., alumni, seniors)
• Prepare for challenges resulting from growth in Hispanic students
NATURALRESOURCES
• Opportunities across the enterprise
DEMOGRAPHICS• Enriching lifelong learning
• Embracing greater diversity
12
TREND / IMPLICATIONS POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSEILLUSTRATIVE
Implications for Auburn University
Messina & Graham
Forces Affecting Higher Education
• Strengthen image of value to compensate for possible reduction in applicant pool
• Constrain expense growth through improving efficiency and applying technology
• Increase resources available for need-based aid
ENROLLMENTGROWTH
• Focusing on enrollment objectives
AFFORDABILITYCHALLENGE
• Ensuring diverse access
13
TREND / IMPLICATIONS POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSEILLUSTRATIVE
Implications for Auburn University
Messina & Graham
Forces Affecting Higher Education
• Raise performance expectations for students
• Innovate and experiment with new teaching approaches, including beyond the classroom
• Focus on learning objectives and measure results
QUALITYIMPROVEMENT
• Developing innovative teaching and learning approaches
• Measuring performance in learning and teaching
14
TREND / IMPLICATIONS POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSEILLUSTRATIVE
Implications for Auburn University
Messina & Graham
Forces Affecting Higher Education
• Perform a comprehensive review of cost elements and processes
• Implement focused technology solutions that reduce or contain costs
• Examine approaches to help enable the faculty to become more productive in their teaching and research activities
EFFICIENCYIMPERATIVE
• Implementing proven business practices to reduce cost growth
15
TREND / IMPLICATIONS POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSEILLUSTRATIVE
Implications for Auburn University
Messina & Graham
Forces Affecting Higher Education
• As a key building block for creating a twenty-first
century vision for Auburn, perform an assessment of
the University’s strengths and weaknesses, and profile
the opportunities and threats it faces (“SWOT”
assessment)
21ST CENTURYUNIVERSITY
• Re-examining vision and mission
• Redesigning business model to adapt to dramatic change
16
TREND / IMPLICATIONS POSSIBLE AUBURN RESPONSEILLUSTRATIVE
III. Auburn University*
Messina & Graham
• Profile
• Assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT” Assessment)
• Strategic Challenges and Implications
17
*Acknowledgment: The Director and staff of Auburn’s Office of Institutional Research and Assessment were extremely helpful in compiling and critiquing selected data presented in this profile of Auburn, and in suggesting additional sources. Even so, the selection of data to be presented, all judgments expressed, and any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of Messina & Graham
Profile of Auburn University
Messina & Graham
18
1. Students
2. Research
3. Extension
4. Finances
• Student demographics. AU’s demand outlook (in terms of projected numbers of high-school graduates) is relatively flat, and its current acceptance rate is above 80 percent. It may be challenging for Auburn to maintain enrollment levels while at the same time raising tuition and the target scores of entering freshmen
• In-state competition. Reasons for strong students to choose in-state competitors likely include family allegiance, cost, and preferences for certain campus environments or programs
• Out-of-state competition. Out-of-state students face a high financial penalty for attending AU. This is especially true for strong students from Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina who qualify for HOPE or similar merit scholarships
• Value proposition (real and perceived quality of the institution and benefit of attending, relative to cost). Overall, AU’s value proposition is in the middle range of its regional peers. But several AU programs have compelling value propositions
Messina & Graham
19
1. Students
• Scope for selectivity. AU’s scope for greater student selectivity is limited because, given its large size in a relatively small state, it enrolls a higher fraction of its home state’s high-school graduates than competitors in Georgia and Florida enroll from theirs
• Value-added (impact of the undergraduate program on building students’ skills). AU’s current value-added performance evidences significant opportunity to improve. This observation applies to many peer institutions as well
• Distribution by areas of study. AU’s distribution of students by area of study is similar to that of Alabama’s leading universities overall and to that of a highly-regarded land-grant institution in another state, Texas A&M
• Tuition trends. Over the past decade, AU’s tuition increases have far exceeded inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
Messina & Graham
20
1. Students (Continued)
STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
• The regional demand outlook for university attendance appears reasonably level over
time.
Alabama’s public high-school graduate numbers are projected to peak in 2007, and by
2015 to be five percent below their 2005 level. After their recent rapid growth, Georgia’s
and Florida’s numbers of high-school graduates are projected to level off between 2010
and 2014, and then to begin growing again. (It is worth noting that there are significant
variations among demographic projections). In total, Georgia produces approximately two
times as many, and Florida more than four times as many, public high-school graduates as
Alabama. Chart 1
Messina & Graham
21
Public High-School Graduates 1995 - 2015
Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): Projections to 2015, Table 24
Alabama
Messina & Graham
Chart 1
2015 - Down 5% from 2005
22
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Number of Students
37,40035,000
37,100 37,90035,300
Public High-School Graduates 1995 - 2015 (Continued)
Source: NCES: Projections to 2015, Table 24
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Georgia
Messina & Graham
Alabama
Chart 1
23
56,300
78,900
62,50073,700 80,500
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
37,40035,000 37,100 37,900 35,300
Number of Students
2015 – Up 10% from 2005
Public High-School Graduates 1995 - 2015 (Continued)
Source: NCES: Projections to 2015, Table 24
Messina & Graham
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Alabama Florida
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
24
Chart 1
Number of Students
37,40035,000 37,100 37,900 35,300
89,000
154,400
139,800
150,000
111,000
2015 – Up 10% from 2005
• Hispanics, currently a very small portion of high-school populations in Alabama and
Georgia, are projected to make up ten percent of Alabama’s and 26 percent of Georgia’s
high-school graduates by 2018. Hispanics historically have attended and completed
college at much lower rates than whites and African-Americans, potentially reducing the
applicant pool unless this group can be integrated more successfully into higher
education. Hispanic students are expected to account for over one-third of Florida’s
public
high-school graduates by 2018, equivalent to twice the number of African-American
graduates. Chart 2
Messina & Graham
25
African-American Hispanic
Minority Shares of Public High-School Graduates
Source: SREB Fact Book on Higher Education, 2005; AU OIRA
Alabama
Messina & Graham
Note: AU 1.5% Hispanic enrollment in 2005
Chart 2
26
2002 2018 2002 2018
32%30%
1%
10%
Minority Shares of Public High-School Graduates (Continued)
Source: SREB Fact Book on Higher Education, 2005; AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
Georgia
Chart 2
27
Alabama
2002 2018
32%30%
1%
10%
2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018
33%
27%
2%
26%
African-American
Hispanic African-American
Hispanic
Minority Shares of Public High-School Graduates (Continued)
Source: SREB Fact Book on Higher Education, 2005; AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
Chart 2
28
Alabama Florida
2002 2018
32%30%
1%
10%
2002 2018
African-American
Hispanic
2002 2018
20%18% 17%
36%
2002 2018
African-American
Hispanic
• Over 40 percent of AU's out-of-state freshmen entering in fall 2006 were from Georgia,
down slightly from 2005. Chart 3
- This high dependency on Georgia as AU’s main out-of-state market does not provide
much opportunity for diversification in case of a policy or economic change that
affects AU’s enrollments from that state
- However, AU captures an impressive 31 percent of all Georgia students and 19
percent of all Florida students who leave their states to attend a public research
university in the southern region. Chart 4
- Out-of-state freshmen score at levels slightly below those of Alabama residents on the
ACT. The other states’ flagships will naturally tend to attract the strongest students
from their own states. Chart 5
Messina & Graham
29
Source: AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
AU Freshmen by State – 2006Chart 3
Alabama 61%
Other 12%
Tennessee 4%
Florida 6%
Georgia 17%
30
100% = 4,077
Source: AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
AU Share of Freshmen Leaving Their Home State for an SREB Public
Research University – 2005 Chart 4
31
Georgia Florida Tennessee
31%
19%
14%
Source: AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
Equivalent ACT Scores of AU Freshmen – 2005Chart 5
In-State Out-of-State
24.424.1
32
• With an acceptance rate at above 80 percent, there is little room for Auburn to increase
enrollment by admitting more liberally. Chart 6
• At 26 percent, AU’s yield on out-of-state acceptances is half of its in-state yield. Chart 7
Messina & Graham
33
Source: AU OIRA
Messina & Graham
Applied Accepted Enrolled
AU Total Applications, Acceptances, and Enrollment – 2005
11,616
Chart 6
4,197
34
Note: 81.5 percent of applicants are accepted, with a 36 percent yield
14,249
Source: National Student Clearinghouse; AU Office of Admissions & Records
Messina & Graham
Out-of-state Alabama
Yield Rate of AU Admitted Students In-State and Out-of-State – Average,
2002 - 2005 Chart 7
35
26%
52%
IN-STATE COMPETITION
University of Alabama (U of A), University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), Southern Union
State Community College (SUSCC), University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), and Troy
represent the main competition for Alabama students, together accounting for half of all AU
admits who enrolled elsewhere. It is worth questioning whether prospective students who
decided to attend much less academically strong schools were actually an appropriate
admissions match for AU. If practicable, declining admission to the least-qualified candidates
would lead to a lower acceptance rate, which would both present a stronger image of AU and
result in a higher US News & World Report (USNWR) score, at minimal cost in numbers
enrolling. Charts 8, 9
The three U of A schools, along with Samford and Birmingham Southern (BHAM S), enrolled
350 of the best-prepared AU admits in 2003, compared with 960 who chose Auburn. Reasons
for strong students to select these competitors likely include family allegiance, cost, and
campus-environment and program preferences
Messina & Graham
36
Top 10 Competitors for Alabama Students: Schools Attended by AU Admits Not Enrolling at
Auburn – 2003
Source: National Student Clearinghouse; AU Office of Admissions & RecordsMessina & Graham
University of Alabama (U of A)
University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)
Southern Union State Community College (SUSCC)
University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH)
Troy University (Troy)
University of South Alabama (USA)
Birmingham Southern University (BHAM S)
Samford University (Samford)
University of North Alabama (UNA)
Auburn University Montgomery (AUM)
Combined Total (Ten Schools)
Other Institutions
All AU AdmitsBest-Prepared AU Admits
(ACT 27 and Above)*
Chart 8
37
*In-State and Out-of-State
Percent NumberPercent
23
9
6
8
5
5
4
3
3
70
30
4
7
2
--
3
--
1
2
2
--
--
17
83
144
49
--
56
--
23
42
33
--
--
347
21-27
21-27
20-26
NA
22-28
21
19-25
23-29
23-28
18-23
18-23
Competition for Alabama Students: Schools Attended by AU Admits Not Enrolling at
Auburn – 2006
Source: USNWR, August 2006; Messina & Graham
Messina & Graham
AU -- --
U of A 23 7
UAB 9 2
SUSCC 8 --
UAH 6 3
TROY 5 --
USA 5 1
BHAM S 4 2
Samford 4 2
UNA 3 --
AUM 3 --
TOTAL 70 17
--
-2,400
NR
NR
-2,600
-3,800
-2,800
17,000
8,700
-4,000
-3,530
% Attend1
88th best*, more selective, large, public
88th best*, more selective, large, public
Selective, large, public
Community college
More selective, mid-size, public
Selective, mid-size, public
Selective, mid-size, public
More selective, small, private, Utd Methodist
More selective, small, private, Baptist
Selective, mid-size, public
Less selective, mid-size, public
Cost versus AU ($)3
% Best ≥ 272 University type (USNWR Category)4
Avg. GPA5
3.5
3.4
3.3
NA
3.4
NA
NA
3.3
3.6
2.9
NA
ACT Range (25% - 75%)6
Likely Reason (M&G
Assessment)7
--
Loyalty, price
Price
Price, work
Price
Price
Price
Prefer small private
Prefer small private
Price
Price
Chart 9
38
2003 Data
Notes to this chart are on the next page
Messina & Graham
1Percentage of AL resident admits to AU who instead attend each listed school
2Percentage of ACT 27 resident and out-of-state admits to AU who instead attend each listed school
3Cost equals the total of tuition, fees, room and board (NR denotes non-residential schools). Difference in dollars per year between AU’s full-pay tuition and living expenses and those of listed school. Negative number indicates school costs less than AU
4Type of institution based on USNWR categories
5Average of entering freshmen’s high-school GPAs
6Lower and upper quartiles of ACT scores of entering freshman class
7Messina & Graham judgment regarding why student might chose the listed school over an offer from AU
Chart 9
39
Competition for Alabama Students Schools Attended by AU Admits Not Enrolling at Auburn –
2006 (Continued)
*Ranking versus all schools. For public schools both AU and U of A were rated 39 th
Notes
• AU’s combined in-state, full-pay tuition, room and board are 18 – 30 percent more
than
those of public-university competitors. AU tuition is almost twice SUSCC’s. For the
best-prepared students that AU would probably seek to capture, there is no survey
evidence, but price would be a logical factor in some of their decisions to decline AU
for a place at U of A or at the less academically-strong UAB, UAH, or USA. U of A,
UAH, and UAB are on Princeton Review’s “Best-Value” list, while Auburn is not.
Chart 10
Messina & Graham
40
Cost of Attending for Alabama Students – 2005-06
Source: USNWR, August 2006; SUSCC website; Princeton Review
Messina & Graham
Room andBoard
Tuition andFees
AU U of A “Best-Value”
UAH “Best- Value”
Troy UAB “Best- Value”
SUSCC
Chart 10
41
Combined Tuition, Fees, Room and Board – Dollars
5,500 5,3004,800
4,300
4,800
2,700
7,500
5,4005,700
4,900
9,200
10,50010,700
13,000
• Using USNWR’s overall scores as a reasonable proxy for how students and their parents
value universities, AU appears to represent a good value tradeoff for Alabama students
compared to out-of-state flagships, even those that rank much higher academically.
Similarly, AU seems to offer a better value proposition than the state’s premier private
schools, which nevertheless attract well-prepared students. There may be an opportunity
to further develop and position AU’s Honors College as a strong alternative to these small
private schools. Chart 11
Messina & Graham
42
Note: Scores for Troy, Birmingham Southern, Samford and UAH, not ranked among top national universities in USNWR, were assigned using judgment based on other USNWR scores, graduation rate, ACT score and student-faculty ratio
Price/Value Map – Alabama Students’ Perspective 2005-06
Source: USNWR, August 2006Messina & Graham
Combined Tuition, Fees, Room and Board Chart 11
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Troy UAHU of A
UTN
Samford
USC
BHAM S
GA TechClemsonUGA
UFL
Good value at various price points
Value, measured by USNWR scores*
*USNWR score is based on a blend of peer assessment, retention/graduation rates, class size, faculty ratio, freshmen ACT scores, percent in top ten percent of high-school class, and alumni giving. See appendix for more detail
43
ILLUSTRATIVE
AU
OUT-OF-STATE COMPETITION
University of Georgia (UGA) is the leading competitor for Auburn admits from out-of-state;
otherwise, many universities each command small shares. The principal rivals are other
states’ flagships. For the strongest AU admits who enroll out-of-state, UGA, Georgia Tech,
Clemson, and the University of Florida (UFL) enroll the largest numbers; but in this best-
student group as well, several institutions each account for small shares. Chart 12
Messina & Graham
44
Top 10 Out-of-State Competitors – 2003
Source: National Student Clearinghouse; AU Office of Admissions and Records
Messina & Graham
University of Georgia (UGA)
Clemson University (Clemson)
University of Tennessee (UTN)
Georgia Institute of Technology (GA Tech)
University of Florida (UFL)
Florida State University (FL S)
University of Mississippi (UMS)
University of South Carolina (USC)
Georgia Southern University (GA S)
Kennesaw State University (KSU)
Combined Total (Ten Schools)
Other Schools
14
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
40
60
10
3
2
6
3
1
2
--
--
--
27
73
Chart 12
45
*In-State and Out-of-State
All AU AdmitsBest-Prepared AU Admits
(ACT 27 and Above)*Percent NumberPercent
209
65
41
124
62
21
46
--
--
--
568
• Out-of-state students, especially Georgia students who qualify for HOPE, and their
families face a high financial penalty for attending AU. Chart 13. Financial
considerations
probably factor into the college choices of a segment of these students. AU ranks highest
among competing schools on USNWR’s “Most-Debt” list. According to this source, 65
percent of AU graduates incur debt averaging $21,000. At the regional “Least-Debt”
winner, UGA, 43 percent of graduates incur an average debt of $13,000
• A Georgia high-school graduate who is admitted to Georgia Tech or UGA may not
choose
AU over those schools unless attracted by a specific program with a strong reputation. In
general, the implication is that it is difficult for AU to attract many top students from
Georgia
• A Georgia high-school graduate who is not admitted to UGA can choose either to attend
an in-state school that ranks lower than AU or to pay a substantial premium to attend
school out-of-state. To such students, UTN and U of A may appear to offer superior
value compared to AU, family allegiances aside
Messina & Graham
46
Price/Value Map – Georgia Students’ Perspective – 2006
Source: USNWR, August 2006
Messina & Graham
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Combined Tuition, Fees, Room and Board
GA Southern
GA Southern HOPE
UGA
UGA HOPE
GA Tech
Tech HOPE
UTN
U of AAU
Clemson
UFL
Value plays out-of-state for those who don’t get into UGA or GA Tech
Georgia schools for non-HOPE students
Georgia schools forHOPE students
Value USNWR Score
Chart 13
47
ILLUSTRATIVE
VALUE PROPOSITION
AU is in the middle range among its regional public-school competitors in the overall USNWR
ranking. But AU’s undergraduate Engineering and Business programs advanced from
2005 to 2006 and are ranked as stronger than those of several competitors. Chart 14. The
Architecture program is nationally competitive, and the Graduate School of Education and the
Communications Disorders programs both rank well. Chart 15. There may be further scope
to
emphasize this program performance in marketing AU to students and parents who are
attentive to quality and career value when choosing schools
AU’s value proposition to a Georgia high-school student likely features big-time sports and a
more personal touch than UGA, with possible draws for those interested in specific programs
with strong reputations. Another potential positive is AU’s graduation rate over predicted
performance, which was outstanding in 2005 and remains good in 2006. A potential
negative is AU’s absence from Princeton Review’s “Best-Value” list. AU’s disappearance in
2006 from the list of schools where “students (almost) never study” should help attract stronger
undergraduates. Chart 15
Messina & Graham
48
26 29 UFL
30 29 UGA
30 29 Texas A&M
35 35 Georgia Tech
40 42 USC
47 42 FL ST
47 42 UTN
57 51 Auburn
57 60 U of A
77 73 Clemson
87 83 UAB
87 83 UMS
AU Competitor Rankings in USNWR – 2005-06
Messina & Graham
9 8 Georgia Tech
16 13 UFL
19 21 UGA
21 21 Texas A&M
34 30 Clemson
38 39 Auburn
38 39 UTN
50 39 U of A
52 52 FL ST
52 54 USC
BEST UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS PROGRAMSTOP PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
2005 2006
6 6 Georgia Tech
14 17 Texas A&M
31 30 UFL
57 60 Clemson
67 60 Auburn
67 71 UTN
102 * U of A
102 * USC
2005 2006
BEST UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING SCHOOLS
2005 2006
* Not listed among top 105
Chart 14
49
Auburn’s Value Proposition
Messina & Graham
USNWR 2006 RANKINGS
• Ranked 18th (4th in 2005) in nation for retention over predicted level (but 98th for absolute retention)
• Ranked 88th among all schools and 39th among public schools
• Graduate School of Education in top 100 in nation
• Communication Disorders program in top 50 in nation
• Faculty-Student ratio better than U of A, UGA, and much better than UFL and FL ST
• “Faculty resources” – class size, faculty pay and caliber – rank significantly lower than for Georgia Tech, UGA, U of A, and UTN
DESIGN INTELLIGENCE 2006 RANKINGS
• Architecture program 15th in nation (no regional competitor)
• Interior Design 7th in nation (LSU 10th, no other regional competitor)
• Industrial Design 3rd in South (after Georgia Tech)
Chart 15
50
Source: USNWR; Design Intelligence
Auburn’s Value Proposition (Continued)
Messina & Graham
PRINCETON REVIEW LISTS
AU RANK REPRESENTATIVE COMPETITORS2005 2006 RANKED ON LIST
Best-Value College (“Fabulous NOT LISTED NOT LISTED U of A, UAB, UAH, Clemson, Education at Reasonable Price”) University of South Carolina,
FL ST, GA Tech
“Town-Gown Relations are Great” #9 #11 Samford, Clemson, Texas A&M
“Students Pack the Stadiums” #11 #13 UGA, UFL, UNC, UTN, UT AustinU of A, Clemson
“Their Students (Almost) Never Study” #10 NOT LISTED UGA, UFL, UMS, UT Austin
“Best College Library” #14 #15
Chart 15
51
Source: Princeton Review
LIST
• AU’s ACT scores in 2005 were no longer the highest among Alabama public schools, as
they had been in 2004. U of A’s scores matched those at AU, and UAH’s scores were
higher. AU’s scores are closer to those of lesser-ranked Georgia Southern and GSU than
to Georgia’s flagships, UGA and Georgia Tech. AU’s number of National Merit Scholars
is lower than that at regional competitors including UFL and Georgia Tech. Chart 16
Messina & Graham
52
Freshmen ACT Scores for Leading Competitors – 2005
25th to 75th Percentiles
Messina & Graham
Chart 16
53
20 25 30 35
GA Tech
UFL UGA
Clemson
FL ST
USC
UTN
UAH
GA Southern
AU
U of A
UMS
100
230
49
31
10
40
21
1
36
29
68
1
Number of National Merit Scholars
Source: USNWR, August 2006; National Merit Scholarship Corporation Annual Report, 2005
28-32
25-31
25-30
25-30
23-28
23-28
23-28
22-28
21-27
21-27
20-26
22-26
SCOPE FOR SELECTIVITY
AU has limited scope for greater selectivity, because its enrollment is large in relation to the
total number of Alabama’s high-school graduates – a far higher share than the flagships in
Georgia, Texas, and Florida educate, for example. Charts 17, 18
• With two relatively large flagship institutions in a comparatively small state, as a matter of
arithmetic AU cannot hope to attain the elite undergraduate status of a Texas A&M or
Georgia Tech. AU and U of A enroll numbers equal to 18 percent of Alabama’s high-
school graduates, while UT and Texas A&M enroll numbers equivalent to only six percent
of the Texas class. Other things equal, the Texas flagships can be three times as
selective as AU. The picture for Florida’s flagships is very similar to Georgia’s: their
combined share of high-school graduates is ten percent, but also one institution is clearly
academically stronger than the other, able to draw the better students and rank much
higher
Messina & Graham
54
Auburn U of A Both Flagships
Scope for SelectivityFreshmen as Percent of State’s High-School Graduates – 2005
Source: USNWR; NCES
Messina & Graham
Chart 17
Alabama
*Percent From Top 10% of High-School Class
35* 24*
55
9.5% 8.9%
18.4%
GA Tech UGA Both Flagships
66* 50*
Georgia
3.6%
6.3%
9.9%
UT Austin Texas A&M Both Flagships
Scope for SelectivityFreshmen as Percent of State’s High-School Graduates – 2005
Source: USNWR; NCES
Messina & Graham
Chart 18
Texas
*Percent From Top 10% of High-School Class
66* 49*
56
2.8% 3%
5.8%
U FL FL ST Both Flagships
85* 26*
Florida
5.5%4.6%
10.1%
• Reportedly, 35 percent of AU students are from the top ten percent of their high-school
class. Because Alabama is a small state with two relatively equal flagships, this level is
almost inevitably lower than the 50 to 66 percent achieved by the Georgia and Texas
flagship schools, not to mention the University of Florida’s 85 percent. To reach UGA’s
level of 50 percent of students coming from the top ten percent of their high-school class,
Auburn would have to capture about half of all Alabama high-school graduates who finish
in the top ten percent, which would be exceedingly difficult
Messina & Graham
57
• But South Carolina shows more similarity to Alabama: it is a small state with two top
national, public universities. Clemson's share of its state’s high-school graduates is
similar to Auburn’s, and USC’s share is actually higher than U of A’s. Yet despite this
“market share of talent” challenge, Clemson ranks considerably higher academically than
Auburn, gaining much higher marks for selectivity. It appears Clemson has achieved this
by working to position USC as the clear second in the state, enabling Clemson to attract
the stronger applicant pool. Chart 19. Auburn’s particular challenge is that it is viewed as
equivalent to U of A academically, diluting both Alabama universities’ selectivity
Scope for SelectivityFreshmen as Percent of State’s High-School Graduates – 2005
Clemson USC Both Flagships
Source: USNWR; NCES
South Carolina
Messina & Graham
Chart 19
66 49
58
Percent From Top 10% of High-School Class
9%
12%
21%
• Another perspective on this limited scope for selectivity is that if AU aspired to reach
Clemson’s ACT scores, (i.e., to move the ACT lower-quartile point up to 24), it would
have to replace 900 low-scoring freshmen in its current class profile with new students
scoring 24 or higher. But the pool of higher-scorers is finite (absent any marked
improvement in Alabama’s quite weak high-school performance), and AU competes with
other institutions to recruit from this pool. Adding 900 higher-scorers would require
increasing AU’s share of all such Alabama students from 25 percent to 37 percent, largely
at the expense of U of A, UAB, UAH, Samford, Birmingham Southern, and Troy. While
there probably are incremental opportunities to gain some market share, a goal of 50
percent share gain in a rather mature “market” seems unrealistic. (Note: The foregoing
analysis is based on data reported in 2005. In the August 2006 USNWR report, Clemson
has moved its lower-quartile ACT bar one point higher and AU’s has decreased by one
point, making catch-up that much harder). Chart 20
Messina & Graham
59
Alabama ACT Scores Distribution - 2005
Source: ACT; USNWR
Messina & Graham
Chart 20
100%
20% 23%
7,400 target students for improving freshmen scores at AU
60
AU 25%
U of A 21%
UAB 8%
Samford 6%
UAH 6%
BHAM S 4%
Troy 3%
Other 27%
Shares of Those with ACT of 24 and Over*
*2004
Number ofStudents 18,263 6,467 7,392
20 or below 21 - 23 24 and over
57%
23%
32,122
20%
• The State of Alabama receives a D- grade from the National Center for Public Policy and
Higher Education on the measure of “High-School Student Preparation to Succeed in
College.” Relative to other states, a smaller fraction of Alabama high-school students
perform well on the ACT and Advanced-Placement tests. Chart 21. This makes it more
difficult for Auburn to be as selective as universities in many other states
Messina & Graham
61
Alabama High-School Student Preparation
Source: Measuring Up, 2006; Advanced Placement Report to the Nation, 2006
Messina & Graham
Chart 21
62
Alabama Nation
ACT Performance Percentage of Students Scoring in the Top 20%
Nationally 2005
Alabama Nation
Advanced Placement Performance Percentage of Students Scoring 3 or Higher On At Least One AP Exam
2005
14.4%
20%
5.3%
14.1%
• AU’s 25 percent share of the state’s National Merit Scholars, while much lower than that of
rival U of A’s, is similar to UGA’s share of Georgia’s National Merit Scholars. Increasing the
number of in-state National Merit Scholars at AU would largely have to occur at the expense
of U of A, since Alabama’s other schools enroll only 16 percent of the total. Chart 22.
National Merit Scholar finalists are those high-school students who score highest in their
states on the Preliminary SAT test in junior year and whose school record does not
disqualify
them.1 This designation may not be a necessary and / or sufficient marker for a university
that is intent on targeting a desirable group of academic stars. Moreover, the National Merit
Scholar designation does not reflect any of the non-academic strengths – such as
participation or excellence in athletics, arts, student leadership, community service and so
on
– that leading universities typically seek to recruit to their student body. Recruiting more
National Merit Scholars would have no impact on AU’s position in the leading rankings
1 Only six percent of these top-scoring semi-finalists are disqualified, so the screening of in-school performance does not provide universities with much evidence of academic excellence.
Messina & Graham
63
Competitor Shares of National Merit Scholars - 2005
Source: National Merit Scholarship Corporation Annual Report, 2005
Messina & Graham
Chart 22
64
Alabama (116 Students in total)
Auburn 29
U of A 68UAB, BHAM S,
UAH, Other 10
Samford 9
59%
25%
8%
8%
Georgia (208 Students in total)*
* Georgia colleges import a net 19 Scholars above the 189 state winners
Other 3
Emory 56
UGA49
GA Tech 100
48%
24%
27%
1%
VALUE-ADDED
Input measures such as admission yields, ACT scores, USNWR rankings, and tuition do not
indicate how well the university educates its undergraduates – its “value-added.” In terms of
the competition among peer schools to enroll students, that neglect of value-added is currently
appropriate, since prospective students, parents and high-school counselors have limited
access to (or understanding of) comparisons of value-added. The informed student prospect
will consult USNWR and Princeton Review and form a subjective impression from a campus
visit and conversations with friends, but that is the extent of his or her information about a
university
• Still, as suggested in Chapter II, “Profile of the Environment,” value-added is a natural
way
for Auburn to consider responding to many of the external forces at work. These possible
responses include raising performance expectations for students, developing new
approaches to undergraduate education, strengthening AU’s value image, and focusing
on
learning objectives and measuring results
Messina & Graham
65
• AU has been among the fairly early adopters of the two main assessments of value-added
that have received widespread national support and a degree of validation: the Collegiate
Learning Assessment (CLA) and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). CLA
results so far show that AU is roughly at parity with most other participating schools but
behind the best schools in terms of developing desirable skills in its undergraduates.
Relative to the top 10 percent of participating schools nationally, Auburn earns a B or C
grade on its educational approaches, as broadly measured by the NSSE. Chart 23
Messina & Graham
66
Measures of Auburn’s Value-Added
Messina & Graham
Source: AU OIRA
COLLEGIATE LEARNING ASSESSMENT (CLA) 2005 – 2006
Chart 23
67
Analytic WritingMake an ArgumentCritique an ArgumentPerformance Task
At Expected Level (on par with 60-75% of CLA-participating schools)
AU’s OVERALLRESULT
SENIORS’ PERFORMANCEBY TASK (RELATIVE TOEXPECTED LEVEL)
Below Expected LevelAt Expected LevelBelow Expected LevelAt Expected Level
NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE)
Academic Challenge 79.8 82.5
Active, Collaborative Learning 75.7 87.7
Student-Faculty Interaction 77.1 76.4
Enriching Experiences 75.3 70.1
Supportive Campus 88.7 88.5
Implied Improvements
More Assigned Reading and Writing
More Time Preparing for Class
More Emphasis on Developing Higher-Order Cognitive Skills
Measures of Auburn’s Value-Added (Continued)
Messina & Graham
Source: AU OIRA
Chart 23
68
AU Scores – 2006*
Freshmen Seniors
*Where 100 equals the average score of the top 10 percent of participating schools
• A gross measure of a university’s educational effectiveness, cited by the Spellings
Commission among others, is its students’ six-year graduation rate. Against this
measure, AU has performed well relative to graduation rates predicted from the ACT
scores of entering students. Even so, it must be considered a disappointing result that
only 62 percent of the 1999 entering class had obtained their AU degrees by 2005. This
level is below that of most of AU’s research university competitors and below the figure for
U.S. four-year schools overall. Chart 24
Messina & Graham
69
Six-Year Graduation RateAU versus Selected Competitors
Source: USNWR, 2006; Spellings Commission final report
Percent of 1999 Entering Class Receiving Bachelor's Degree
Messina & Graham
Clemson FL ST USCGA Tech
UFL AUU of AUGA
79 76 75 74
66
65 63 62
Chart 24
70
National Average = 66%
UTN UMS
5657
Messina &
Graham71
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY AREA OF STUDY
Auburn’s current distribution of undergraduates by college or school generally reflects that
of the state’s top four universities taken together (AU, U of A, UAH, and UAB). Liberal Arts
is the most popular field of study, followed by Business, Engineering, and Science / Math.
The traditional land-grant studies account for about 40 percent of the undergraduates.
Chart 25. This pattern is consistent with AU’s long-established breadth of studies as well
as its position as a relatively large university in a relatively small state
Distribution of Undergraduates by School
Source: AU OIRA; U of A system
State of Alabama 2005 AU, U of A, UAH, UAB
Messina & Graham
Chart 25
Education 7%
Liberal Arts 25%
Business 22%
Engineering 16%
Human/Social Science
9%
Science/Math 10%
Other 11%
100% = 48,554
72
Auburn 2005
Education 8%
Liberal Arts 24%
Business 19%
Engineering 15%
Architecture 7%
Science/Math 13%
Agriculture 5%
100% = 19,250
Human/Social Science
6%Nursing
3%
Source: AU OIRA
Traditional Land Grant Studies
Messina &
Graham73
For comparison, even Texas A&M, in the huge state of Texas (where specialization would be
relatively unconstrained by numbers of potential students), has not specialized in technology
schools. Only 19 percent of A&M’s undergraduates are in Engineering, fairly comparable to
Auburn’s 15 percent. Taken together, A&M’s traditional land-grant studies – Engineering,
Agriculture, Science, Veterinary Medicine, and Architecture Colleges – account for 48 percent of
all its undergraduates. The same schools account for 40 percent of Auburn’s enrollment (and
Auburn does not offer undergraduates Veterinary Medicine). Twenty-nine percent of A&M’s
undergraduates are in Liberal Arts or General Studies, compared with 24 percent of Auburn’s in
Liberal Arts. Chart 26
Distribution of Undergraduates by School
Source: Texas A&M Fact Book
Texas A&M - 2004
Messina & Graham
Chart 26
Education 11%
Engineering 19%
Business 11%
Agriculture 15%
Architecture 4%
General Education
Studies 11%
Science 5%
100% = 35,700
Veterinary Medicine
5%
Geosciences 1%
Liberal Arts 18%
74
Traditional Land Grant Studies
Messina &
Graham75
Auburn’s leading shares of the top four’s students are in Architecture and Agriculture –
where AU has the only programs – followed by Science / Math, Education, Liberal Arts,
Engineering and Business. The only two schools that have a somewhat lower share than
AU’s overall share of top four universities’ students are Human Sciences and Nursing.
Chart 27
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AU Shares of Alabama Undergraduates by School
Source: AU OIRA; U of A system
Percent of AU, U of A, UAH and UAB Enrolled 2005*
Messina & Graham
Chart 27
100% =
76
*2003 for UAH and 2004 for UAB
Education Engineering BusinessAgriculture Architect. Human / Social Science
Nursing Liberal Arts
Science/ Math
1,263 887 4,883 3,538 11,996 7,604 10,488 2,283 4,534
Messina &
Graham77
With respect to AU’s distribution of graduate students by field of concentration, Education
has the largest share, followed by Engineering. Chart 28
Distribution of Graduate Students by School
Source: AU OIRA
Auburn - 2005
Messina & Graham
Chart 28
Education 23%
Liberal Arts 13%
Business 15%
Engineering 21%
Architecture 4%
Science/Math 9%
Agriculture 7%
100% = 3,169
78
Other 8%
TUITION TRENDS
Over a decade, AU’s tuition increases have consistently far exceeded inflation as measured by
the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
• Between 1995-1996 and 2005-2006, AU’s tuition increased at a compound annual rate of
8.9 percent, 3.5 times the rate of inflation as measured by CPI, and also twice the rate of
public four-year colleges in general
• During this period, AU’s tuition level moved from being much lower than that of the average
public four-year college to about the same
• Out-of-state tuition has generally been maintained at 2.8 times the in-state level, very
slightly less than the average ratio of SREB peers
• Over time, tuition increases at public universities have been larger during periods when
state funding has been less, a trend also reflected at Auburn
• “We currently operate under a model in which educational expenditures at colleges and
universities across the country are rising by about 4.5 to 5 percent annually.”
(University System of Maryland Chancellor William Kirwan)
Continuing increases in net tuition that are in excess of CPI carry the risks of eventually
creating resistance and reducing enrollment, and – if not somewhat attenuated by financial
aid to students who need it – of diminishing diversity in the student body
Messina & Graham
79
Although AU’s research funding has increased considerably in dollar terms during the past five
years, it has not kept pace with funding increases at other universities. This result reflects a
much more competitive research environment, in which success depends in part on the
availability of supplementary resources to cover the costs generated by the research enterprise
in excess of the funding it provides. AU’s research funding is well below the Southern Region
Education Board (SREB) median
• Total federal research expenditures are projected to be at best flat or, more likely, to
decline over the next five years, driven by the latest budget outlook for large federal
deficits
into the indefinite future. Chart 29
- This deficit forecast in turn derives largely from a combination of tax cuts, entitlement
growth for seniors, and defense / security spending increases since September 2001
- At the same time, R&D does not appear to have the strong political constituency
required to command a growing share of the squeezed discretionary budget
Messina & Graham
80
2. Research
- Accordingly, the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) forecasts a 10 percent real drop in funding for the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), a modest increase in National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of
Energy (DOE), and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) funding
(with
a caveat that projected increases often do not translate into reality), and a decrease in
all other non-defense R&D
Messina & Graham
81
2. Research (Continued)
Projected Nondefense R&D FY 2006 - 2011
Messina & Graham
Chart 29
82Source: AAAS Analysis Projected Effects of President’s FY 2007 Budget on Nondefense R&D
• Alabama’s #10 rank among states for federal R&D dollars is well ahead of its
population (#23) and gross-state-product (#25) rankings, driven by massive DoD and
NASA intramural spending
- The state’s academic R&D ranking (#23) is in line with its population. Federally-
funded academic R&D ranks #20, but industry R&D lags at #32
- In Alabama, life sciences account for 69 percent of all academic R&D dollars. In
the
U.S., life sciences account for 59 percent of all academic R&D dollars. The
difference presumably reflects UAB’s funding
• Research is becoming much more competitive, with lower success rates projected for
applications for NIH grants (down to 19 percent in 2007 from a recent high of 30
percent). Chart 30. Scale matters – the larger research institutions generally have
higher success rates
Messina & Graham
83
National Institutes of Health (NIH)Research Project Grant (RPG) Success Rate
Source: NIH Agency Budget Justification for FY 2007Messina & Graham
Chart 30
84
• Research is costly
- In general, as evaluated by several sources including the Huron Consulting Group,
university research-related costs are consistently somewhat greater than the
associated revenues, even including indirect-cost reimbursement by the federal
government
- The trend is toward higher costs, driven by increased compliance requirements
and an increasingly cross-disciplinary research process
- Additionally, state and other funders typically reimburse at lower indirect-cost rates
than the federal government
- Despite the costly nature of performing research, it creates many benefits beyond
the university. For example, research dollars spent generate economic activity that
multiplies the effect, and technology transfer can create value-added intellectual
property and new companies that produce jobs and wealth
Messina & Graham
85
• Research is becoming more cross-disciplinary
- Many research frontiers today occur at the intersection of two or more fields
- Collaborative research partnerships (government / universities / business) are
increasing, even though industrial funding has declined somewhat in recent years
- Technology transfer is getting more attention. Alabama’s rank for patents issued
(35th) is lower than its population or gross-state-product ranks
- There is a rise of R&D-based economic hubs, such as the Research Triangle, with
a
few advantaged locations accounting for a disproportionately large share of R&D-
related jobs and funding. In this regard, Auburn is not currently in a strong
position,
though it is close enough for faculty collaboration with research universities in
Atlanta and, for life sciences, Birmingham
Messina & Graham
86
• While the amount of research spending at AU has grown considerably in absolute dollars
over the last five years or so, the University's relative position (rank) – 90 th among public
universities in federal research dollars and 72nd in total research dollars – has declined,
moving down from 66th in both measures between 1998 and 2003. Chart 31
Messina & Graham
87
Auburn Federal Research Dollars and Rank
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Source: TheCenter; AU OIRAMessina & Graham
Chart 31
Rank(Public Universities) #66 #88 #83 #82 #84 #90
88
$ Millions
27.7 27.1
31.5
40.142.4
45.4
• AU’s federal research is at 64 percent of the SREB non-medical school median on a
dollar basis, and even slightly lower when viewed on a per-faculty basis. Chart 32. In
comparisons on all other measurements, AU is also below the SREB median
• Total research comparisons are somewhat more favorable, but even in the best light, AU’s
research funding and other performance measures are well below the SREB median.
Chart 32
Messina & Graham
89
AU versus Median of SREB Non-Medical Peer GroupOn TheCenter’s Measures – 2005
Source: TheCenter; AU OIRAMessina & Graham
Chart 32
90
Research University Quality Indicators AU In Relation to Median Values
for Non-Medical School Members of SREB Peer Group
*Tenure and Tenure-Track
Total Research
Total, Per Faculty*
Federal Research
Federal, Per Faculty*
Endowment Annual Giving
National Academy
78
70
64 61
77
83
0
SREB Median = 100
AU versus Median of SREB Non-Medical Peer GroupOn TheCenter’s Measures – 2005 (Continued)
Source: TheCenter; AU OIRAMessina & Graham
Chart 32
91
Research University Quality Indicators AU In Relation to Median Values
for Non-Medical School Members of SREB Peer Group
Faculty Awards
Doctorates Awarded
Doctorates Per Faculty*
Postdocs Merit Scholars
Merit Scholars Per 1000
*Tenured
46
67 68
60
67
59
SREB Median = 100
• Comparisons with selected public research universities highlight the challenges for Auburn
in advancing its position. As TheCenter has observed, research growth involves a
competition for top talent, and over time the resulting dynamics produce a widening gap
between the strongest participants and the others. Large regional research institutions
such as Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, and UGA perform two to four times as much federally
funded research as AU, have between ten and 30 National Academy members on their
faculty, and award two to three times as many Ph.D.s. Their endowment assets range
from two to 16 times the size of Auburn’s. Charts 33, 34, 35, and 36
Messina & Graham
92
Federal Research ExpendituresAU versus Selected Institutions – 2003
Source: TheCenter, 2005
$ Millions
Messina & Graham
Texas A&M
Clemson AUGA Tech
U of AUGA
204
177
94
63
45
26
Chart 33
93
National Academy MembersAU versus Selected Institutions – 2004
Source: TheCenter, 2005
Messina & Graham
Texas A&M
Clemson AUGA Tech U of AUGA
30
20
10
1 0 0
Note: Includes National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine
Chart 34
94
Ph.D.s AwardedAU versus Selected Institutions – 2004
Source: TheCenter, 2005
Messina & Graham
Texas A&M
Clemson AUGA Tech U of AUGA
311
515
404
113
161 158
Chart 35
95
Endowment AssetsAU versus Selected Institutions – 2003
Source: TheCenter, 2005
$ Millions
Messina & Graham
Texas A&M
Clemson AUGA Tech U of AUGA
1,118
4,623
475
265 269
392
Chart 36
96
• Even while performing at multiples of Auburn’s scale in their research enterprises,
impressive regional institutions like Georgia Tech and Texas A&M are not among the
national research leaders as measured by TheCenter. Texas A&M is ranked among the
top 25 American Research Universities on only three of TheCenter’s nine measures, and
among the next 25 universities on another three measures. Georgia Tech is ranked
among the top 26-50 American Research Universities on seven of TheCenter’s nine
measures; UGA on only two
• AU is somewhat more dependent on state research funds than many other institutions
• In a few research areas – including several engineering fields and agricultural sciences –
AU has much higher shares of federal R&D funding than its overall share across all fields
combined. Chart 37
- AU’s funding share in these selected areas is several times its overall share
- Such funding levels can form the basis for building a nationally competitive position
in
carefully selected areas of concentration
Messina & Graham
97
Auburn’s Federal Research Funding as a Percentage Share of Total Federal R&D Dollars – Four-Year Average – 2000 to 2003
Source: NSF; AU OIRAMessina & Graham
Chart 37
$ Millions 39.8 15 2.5 1.8 2.2 9
Overall R&D
All Engineering
Civil Eng. Chem. Eng.
Mech. Eng.
Agricultural Science
98
0.19%
0.50%
0.89%0.79%
0.49%
1.38%
AU’s Overall R&D Share (%)
OVERVIEW
Auburn and Alabama A&M, together with Tuskegee University, cooperate under the ACES to
provide a wide variety of extension services to Alabamians through county offices across the
state
The Extension System’s mission is “to deliver research-based educational programs that
enable people to improve their quality of life and economic well-being”
PROGRAM AREAS AND STAFF
Extension has six overarching program areas:
• 4-H and Youth Development
• Agriculture
• Forestry and Natural Resources
Messina & Graham
99Source: Annual Report and Highlights on ACES website; AU OIRA
3. Extension
Alabama Cooperative Extension System (ACES)
Source: Annual Report and Highlights on ACES website; AU OIRA; AU Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2005
• Urban Affairs and New Non-traditional Programs • Family and Individual Well-Being • Community and Economic Development
Recent initiatives include Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts, insect-pest management,
outreach to the Hispanic / Latino population, nutrition education to food-stamp recipients,
training for food safety at school, and a waste-oil pilot for poultry farming. Many ACES
initiatives cut across several of the program areas
AU has 429 full-time and 146 part-time employees dedicated to ACES. The full-time staff
represents about ten percent of Auburn’s total number of employees. Almost all ACES
employees at Auburn are non-faculty, categorized as “other professional,” secretarial /
clerical, or technical
FINANCES
Total 2005 revenue for ACES was $49.1 million. This represented a decrease of some $2.6
million from 2004
Messina & Graham
100
Source: Annual Report and Highlights on ACES website; AU OIRA; AU Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2005
The leading sources of ACES operating revenues are federal appropriations, grants, and
contracts that totaled about $14.8 million in 2005, down 21 percent from 2004
State appropriations (not accounted for as operating revenues) were $28.8 million, an
increase of six percent over 2004
Total expenses were $46 million, resulting in a margin of $3 million “increase in net assets” for
2005
ACES unrestricted net assets were $9.9 million at September 30, 2005
Messina & Graham
101