Post on 29-Jan-2016
description
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Excellence inExcellence inGraduate EducationGraduate Education
Texas Higher EducationTexas Higher Education
Coordinating BoardCoordinating Board
April 21, 2005April 21, 2005
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Excellence inExcellence inGraduate EducationGraduate Education
Examples of excellence measuresExamples of excellence measures
Comparisons among public doctoral Comparisons among public doctoral granting institutions in:granting institutions in:
– Texas, California, Florida, Illinois, Texas, California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and PennsylvaniaNew York, and Pennsylvania
Statewide planning processes in TexasStatewide planning processes in Texas
Questions and points for discussionQuestions and points for discussion
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Examples ofExamples ofExcellence MeasuresExcellence Measures
StudentsStudents FacultyFaculty ProgramsPrograms
# applicants, # applicants, admission offers, admission offers, enrolleesenrollees
Graduation rateGraduation rate
Degrees/yearDegrees/year
# core faculty by # core faculty by rankrank
Teaching loadsTeaching loads
PublicationsPublications
% FT students% FT students
% students with % students with fellowshipsfellowships
$ amount of $ amount of stipends for stipends for teaching/research teaching/research assistantsassistants
Student placementStudent placement
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Public 4-Year InstitutionsPublic 4-Year Institutionsby Carnegie Classification by Carnegie Classification
StateState ## Med Med Sch/CtrSch/Ctr
Doc ExtDoc Ext Doc IntDoc Int Master’sMaster’s BaccBacc
CACA 3030 00 88 22 1919 11
FLFL 1111 00 44 22 44 11
ILIL 1212 00 44 11 77 00
NYNY 3535 22 55 11 2020 77
PAPA 2626 11 33 11 1717 44
TXTX 40*40* 66 66 66 2020 22
*Two campuses of Sul Ross State University counted once.
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Public 4-Year Institutions in CaliforniaPublic 4-Year Institutions in Californiaby Carnegie Classification (30)by Carnegie Classification (30)
Doctoral/Research – Extensive (8) = 27%Doctoral/Research – Extensive (8) = 27%– UC-BerkeleyUC-Berkeley
– UC-DavisUC-Davis
– UC-IrvineUC-Irvine
– UC-Los AngelesUC-Los Angeles
Doctoral/Research – Intensive (2) = 7% Doctoral/Research – Intensive (2) = 7% – San Diego State UniversitySan Diego State University
– UC-San FranciscoUC-San Francisco
Medical Schools (0) = 0%Medical Schools (0) = 0%
Masters I, II (19) = 63%Masters I, II (19) = 63%
Baccalaureate (1) = 3%Baccalaureate (1) = 3%
– UC-RiversideUC-Riverside– UC-San DiegoUC-San Diego– UC-Santa BarbaraUC-Santa Barbara– UC-Santa CruzUC-Santa Cruz
Source: The Carnegie Foundation, 2000
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Doctoral/Research – Extensive (4) = 36%Doctoral/Research – Extensive (4) = 36%– Florida International University (Miami)Florida International University (Miami)– Florida State University (Tallahassee)Florida State University (Tallahassee)– University of Florida (Gainesville)University of Florida (Gainesville)– University of South Florida (Tampa)University of South Florida (Tampa)
Doctoral/Research – Intensive (2) = 18%Doctoral/Research – Intensive (2) = 18% – Florida Atlantic University (Boca Raton)Florida Atlantic University (Boca Raton)– University of Central Florida (Orlando)University of Central Florida (Orlando)
Medical Schools (0) = 0%Medical Schools (0) = 0%Masters I, II (4) = 36%Masters I, II (4) = 36%Baccalaureate (1) = 9%Baccalaureate (1) = 9%
Source: The Carnegie Foundation, 2000
Public 4-Year Institutions in FloridaPublic 4-Year Institutions in Floridaby Carnegie Classification (11)by Carnegie Classification (11)
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Public 4-Year Institutions in New YorkPublic 4-Year Institutions in New Yorkby Carnegie Classification (35)by Carnegie Classification (35)
Doctoral/Research – Extensive (5) = 14%Doctoral/Research – Extensive (5) = 14%– City University of New York Graduate CenterCity University of New York Graduate Center– State University of New York at AlbanyState University of New York at Albany– State University of New York at BinghamtonState University of New York at Binghamton– State University of New York at BuffaloState University of New York at Buffalo– State University of New York at Stony BrookState University of New York at Stony Brook
Doctoral/Research – Intensive (1) = 3% Doctoral/Research – Intensive (1) = 3% – State University of New York College of Environmental Science State University of New York College of Environmental Science
and Forestry (Syracuse) and Forestry (Syracuse)
Medical Schools (2) = 6%Medical Schools (2) = 6%
Masters I, II (20) = 57%Masters I, II (20) = 57%
Baccalaureate (7) = 20%Baccalaureate (7) = 20%
Source: The Carnegie Foundation, 2000
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Doctoral/Research – Extensive (6) = 15%Doctoral/Research – Extensive (6) = 15%– Texas A&M UniversityTexas A&M University
– Texas Tech UniversityTexas Tech University
– University of HoustonUniversity of Houston
Doctoral/Research – Intensive (6) = 15% Doctoral/Research – Intensive (6) = 15% – Texas A&M - CommerceTexas A&M - Commerce
– Texas A&M - KingsvilleTexas A&M - Kingsville
– Texas Southern UniversityTexas Southern University
Medical Schools (6) = 15%Medical Schools (6) = 15%
Masters I, II (20) = 50%Masters I, II (20) = 50%
Baccalaureate (2) = 5%Baccalaureate (2) = 5%
– University of North TexasUniversity of North Texas– UT at ArlingtonUT at Arlington– UT at AustinUT at Austin
– Texas Woman’s UniversityTexas Woman’s University– UT at DallasUT at Dallas– UT at El PasoUT at El Paso
Source: The Carnegie Foundation, 2000
Public 4-Year Institutions in TexasPublic 4-Year Institutions in Texasby Carnegie Classification (40)by Carnegie Classification (40)
Public Institutions in Texas Public Institutions in Texas and Peer States Awarding and Peer States Awarding
Doctoral DegreesDoctoral Degrees
(Using Earned Doctorate Data)(Using Earned Doctorate Data)
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Nu
mb
er o
f D
oct
ora
tes
Over 40,000 doctoral degrees were awarded in the U.S. in 2003
Source: National Science Foundation, Webcaspar, Doctoral Survey
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
14% of the doctoral degrees awarded in the 14% of the doctoral degrees awarded in the U.S. in 2003 were awarded by 10 of the U.S. in 2003 were awarded by 10 of the
largest public and independent institutionslargest public and independent institutions
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Do
cto
rate
s A
war
ded
5 Publics 5 Independents
Source: National Science Foundation, Webcaspar, Doctoral Survey
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Texas has more public institutions awarding Texas has more public institutions awarding doctoral degrees than any statedoctoral degrees than any state
Source: NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates
Note: Only those public institutions that awarded doctoral degrees in 2003 are included.
26
4
9
6
810
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Calif. Florida Illinois New York Penn. Texas
Nu
mb
er
of
Ins
titu
tio
ns
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Many Many publicpublic institutions in Texas offering institutions in Texas offering doctoral degrees award few doctorates doctoral degrees award few doctorates
Source: NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates
Note: Only those public institutions that awarded doctoral degrees in 2003 are included.
12
1
4
01
2 21 1
4
2 21
0 01
6
2 2
43
4
17
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
Calif. Florida Illinois New York Penn. Texas
Nu
mb
er o
f In
sti
tuti
on
s
1 - 50 Degrees Awarded 51 - 100 Degrees Awarded
101 - 150 Degrees Awarded 151+ Degrees Awarded
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Since 1991, 9 Texas public institutions have been Since 1991, 9 Texas public institutions have been given authority to offer their first doctoral degreesgiven authority to offer their first doctoral degrees
Prairie View A&M UniversityTarleton State UniversityTexas A&M International UniversityTexas A&M University – Corpus ChristiTexas State University – San MarcosThe University of Texas – Pan AmericanThe University of Texas at San AntonioWest Texas A&M UniversityUniversity of North Texas Health Science Center
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Generally, enrollments in doctoral programs Generally, enrollments in doctoral programs at these institutions remain relatively lowat these institutions remain relatively low
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
PVAMU Tarleton TAMIU
TAMUCC TxSU-SM UTSA
UTPA WTAMU UNT HSC
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
New doctoral and master’s degree programs are New doctoral and master’s degree programs are approved at Texas public institutions every yearapproved at Texas public institutions every year
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
No.
of N
ew P
rogr
ams
Master's Doctoral
Source: THECB
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Most peer states have more Most peer states have more independentindependent institutions offering doctoral degrees than Texasinstitutions offering doctoral degrees than Texas
Source: NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates
Note: Only those public institutions that awarded doctoral degrees in 2003 are included.
26
4
9
68
10
6
29
14
28
1310
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Calif. Florida Illinois New York Penn. Texas
Nu
mb
er
of
Ins
titu
tio
ns
Public Independent
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Many Many independentindependent institutions in peer states institutions in peer states offering doctoral degrees award few doctoratesoffering doctoral degrees award few doctorates
Source: NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates
Note: Only those public institutions that awarded doctoral degrees in 2003 are included.
22
3
10
18
97
3
0 13
2 22 1 02
0 12 23
5
20
0
5
10
15
20
25
Calif. Florida Illinois New York Penn. Texas
Nu
mb
er
of
Ins
titu
tio
ns
1 - 50 Degrees Awarded 51 - 100 Degrees Awarded101 - 150 Degrees Awarded 151+ Degrees Awarded
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Top 6 States Receiving Federal Funding for Top 6 States Receiving Federal Funding for Science and Engineering (2002)Science and Engineering (2002)
$1.28
$1.44
$1.49
$1.51
$1.93
$3.26
$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50
Source: NSF Webcaspar, Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges
California
New York
Maryland
Pennsylvania
TEXAS
Massachusetts
in Billions
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Federal Funding for Sciences and Engineering to Federal Funding for Sciences and Engineering to Institutions Awarding Doctoral Degrees (2002)Institutions Awarding Doctoral Degrees (2002)
Sources: 1) NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates; 2) Webcaspar - Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Date System, NSF
Note: Only those public institutions that awarded doctoral degrees in 2003 are included.
$921$717
$250$406$425
$2,046
$166
$1,070
$415
$1,399$740 $354
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
Calif. Florida Illinois New York Penn. Texas
Mil
lio
ns
of
Do
llar
s
Public Independent
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Federal Funding for Sciences and Engineering to Federal Funding for Sciences and Engineering to PublicPublic Institutions Awarding Doctoral Degrees Institutions Awarding Doctoral Degrees
(2002)(2002)
Sources: 1) NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates; 2) Webcaspar - Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Date System, NSF
Note: Only those public institutions that awarded doctoral degrees in 2003 are included.
108
9
4
26
6
$2,046
$717
$250$406$425
$921
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Calif. Florida Illinois New York Penn. Texas
Nu
mb
er
of
Ins
titu
tio
ns
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Mil
lio
ns
of
Do
lla
rs
Number of Institutions Federal Funding
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
The bulk of federal funding to The bulk of federal funding to publicpublic institutions institutions goes to just a few institutionsgoes to just a few institutions
Sources: 1) NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates; 2) Webcaspar - Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Date System, NSF, 2002 data.
*Not all public institutions that awarded doctoral degrees in 2003 received federal funding for sciences and engineering.
$921
$717
$250
$4
06
$425
$2,0
46
$341
$1,2
35
$393
$189
$716
$491
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Calif. (10) Florida (8) Illinois (6) NY (9) Penn. (4) Texas (22*)
Mil
lio
ns
of
Do
llar
s
All Funded Publics Top 3 Funded Publics
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
The bulk of federal funding to The bulk of federal funding to independentindependent institutions goes to just a few institutionsinstitutions goes to just a few institutions
Sources: 1) NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates; 2) Webcaspar - Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Date System, NSF, 2002 data.
$871
$165
$3
91
$904
$698
$349
$3
54
$740
$1,3
99
$415
$1,0
70
$166
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
Calif. (13*) Florida (4*) Illinois (14) NY (23*) Penn. (10*) Texas (7*)
Mil
lio
ns
of
Do
llar
s
All Funded Independents Top 3 Funded Independents
*Not all independent institutions that awarded doctoral degrees in 2003 received federal funding for sciences and engineering.
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Student Enrollments by Level at Selected Public Student Enrollments by Level at Selected Public Institutions Awarding Doctoral Degrees (2004)Institutions Awarding Doctoral Degrees (2004)
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS
72.7
%76
.7%
74.2
%
70.5
% 83.7
%
77.3
%
27.3
%23
.3%
25.8
%
29.5
% 16.3
%
22.7
%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
UC-Berkeley
U ofFlorida
UI-Urbana SUNY-Buffalo
PennState
UT-Austin
Nu
mb
er o
f S
tud
ents
Undergraduate Graduate
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Median Revenues per FTE Student at Median Revenues per FTE Student at Doctoral/Research-Extensive Public Institutions Doctoral/Research-Extensive Public Institutions
((20042004))
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS
$4,9
55
$2,9
08$5
,081
$3,5
18 $4,3
75
$11,
622
$8,3
78$8
,964
$11,
509
$4,9
77
$0
$3,000
$6,000
$9,000
$12,000
$15,000
Calif. Florida Illinois New York Texas
Mil
lio
ns
of
Do
llar
s
Tuition & Fees State & Local Government Appropriations
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
California has the most research universities California has the most research universities in the Association of American Universitiesin the Association of American Universities
NY (7)NY (7)
SUNY-St BrookSUNY-St Brook Cornell UCornell U U of RochesterU of Rochester
SUNY-BuffaloSUNY-Buffalo NY UNY U
Columbia UColumbia U Syracuse USyracuse U
CA (9)CA (9)
UC-BerkeleyUC-Berkeley UC-Los AngelesUC-Los Angeles Cal Inst of TechCal Inst of Tech
UC-DavisUC-Davis UC-San DiegoUC-San Diego StanfordStanford
UC-IrvineUC-Irvine UC-Santa BarbaraUC-Santa Barbara U of So CalU of So Cal
PA (4)PA (4)Penn State UPenn State U Carnegie Mellon UCarnegie Mellon U
U of PittsburghU of Pittsburgh U of PennU of Penn
IL (3)IL (3) U of Il at Urb ChamU of Il at Urb Cham NorthwesternNorthwestern U of ChicagoU of Chicago
TX (3)TX (3) Tx A&M UTx A&M U UT-AustinUT-Austin Rice URice U
FL (1)FL (1) U of FloridaU of Florida
Source: Association of American Universities
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
UC-Berkeley Has More National Academy UC-Berkeley Has More National Academy Members Than All Texas InstitutionsMembers Than All Texas Institutions
Science Engineering Total
UT at Austin 12 44 56
Texas A&M University 5 17 22
Rice University 4 11 15
UT Med Cntr-Dallas 15 0 15
University of Houston 3 8 11
Baylor College of Medicine 3 0 3
Southern Methodist University 2 0 2
UT at Dallas 2 1 3
Texas Tech University 0 1 1
UTHSC Houston 1 0 1
UT at Arlington 0 1 1
State of Texas Total 49 148 197
UC-Berkeley 127 74 201
Issues for TexasIssues for Texas
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Texas’ peer states have concentrated Texas’ peer states have concentrated public resources for doctoral education.public resources for doctoral education.
Having more doctoral-granting institutions Having more doctoral-granting institutions does not necessarily translate into more does not necessarily translate into more federal research dollars.federal research dollars.
Issues for TexasIssues for Texas
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
Texas has no comprehensive plan for doctoral Texas has no comprehensive plan for doctoral programs.programs.
The CB uses a two-step proposal process to guide new The CB uses a two-step proposal process to guide new program development.program development.
Planning authority allows Board review prior to Planning authority allows Board review prior to committing significant state resources. The process is committing significant state resources. The process is inherently inherently reactivereactive. Requests are institution-driven.. Requests are institution-driven.
The process sometimes operates as a first-come, first-The process sometimes operates as a first-come, first-served system.served system.
Issues for Texas (Cont.)Issues for Texas (Cont.)
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
How can the state support the development of doctoral How can the state support the development of doctoral programs that can have an impact on all regions of the programs that can have an impact on all regions of the state?state?
How can institutions develop partnerships to better utilize How can institutions develop partnerships to better utilize state resources? state resources?
How can institutions become more competitive in How can institutions become more competitive in offering financial support to attract top graduates?offering financial support to attract top graduates?
How can institutions better balance resources for How can institutions better balance resources for master’s versus doctoral programs?master’s versus doctoral programs?
GEAC QuestionsGEAC Questions
THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005
How can the CB provide a more proactive role in How can the CB provide a more proactive role in the development of new graduate programs?the development of new graduate programs?– Identify needed programs?Identify needed programs?– Develop a state plan for doctoral education?Develop a state plan for doctoral education?
How can this role How can this role complementcomplement the appropriate the appropriate and necessary function of institutions? and necessary function of institutions? – Monitor quality of doctoral programs in context of Monitor quality of doctoral programs in context of
accountability system?accountability system?
Next StepsNext Steps