Advancing the University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Towards the Top 25

Rising to the Top 25Realize UTK’s Potential to Serve the State as a Leading Public Research University

2

Governor's Challenge

Become a Top 25 public research university in a decade

Opportunity Increase the quality and value of

education

Further develop our strengths in research

Expand our contribution to economic growth and development

Strengthen the University of Tennessee’s flagship campus for the benefit of all Tennesseans

Defining Top 25Peer Universities and Performance Measures

Broad-based Task Force to assess our current position relative to Top 25 public universities

Group of 27 comparison universities

Quantitative performance measures

Metrics relating to infrastructure and faculty

3

"#$ %& ' ( ) * + , - . / 0*+##12

4

[D" 8P?P)% $%&'()*&+, 3 4 ; 9 . .()7 <( ( . 8 .#9$

"#$ %& !"#" %&'( )*+ ,-./+ 0&1-.2 '()* +, - %& ../ 0()1 23()4 56178(9 :8;##9 52$6.-76#)8.#9$

!" $%&'()*&+, -. /01&.-)%&0 2 3()4(1(, 5 3 4

6" $%&'()*&+, -. /01&.-)%&0 2 7-* 8%9(1(* 5 3 3

6" $%&'()*&+, -. :&)9&%&0 5 4 3

;" $%&'()*&+, -. <&=>&90% 2 8%% 8)?-) 5 4 3

@" $%&'()*&+, -. A-)+> /0)-1&%0 2 />0B(1 C&11 5 4 3

D" $%&'()*&+, -. E11&%-&* 2 $)?0%0F/>0GB0&9% 5 3 4

D" $%&'()*&+, -. H&*=-%*&% 2 <0I&*-% 5 3 3

!!" $%&'()*&+, -. /01&.-)%&0 2 J0'&* 5 3 3

!!" $%&'()*&+, -. /01&.-)%&0 2 K0%+0 30)?0)0 5 3 4

!!" $%&'()*&+, -. H0*>&%9+-% 2 K(0++1( 5 4 3

!@"

L(%%*,1'0%&0 K+0+( $%&'()*&+, 5 3 3

!@"

$%&'()*&+, -. M1-)&I0 5 3 3

!@"

$%&'()*&+, -. N(O0* 2 8P*+&% 5 4 4

!Q" N>( R>&- K+0+( $%&'()*&+, 5 3 3

!Q" $%&'()*&+, -. <0),10%I 2 /-11(9( L0)4 5 3 4

6S" $%&'()*&+, -. L&++*?P)9> 5 4 3

+%, - <& !"#" %&'( )*+ ,-./+ 0&1-.2 '()*

6!" $%&'()*&+, -. T(-)9&0 3 4

66" /1(G*-% $%&'()*&+, 3 4

66" LP)IP( $%&'()*&+, 5 3 4 "#$ %& "-.:(7 8.#9$66" N(O0* 8U< 2 /-11(9( K+0+&-% 5 3 4

66" $%&'()*&+, -. <&%%(*-+0 5 3 3

6V" WP+9()*X N>( K+0+( $%&'()*&+, -. A(Y Z()*(, 5 3 4

6D"

E%I&0%0 $%&'()*&+, 5 4 4

6D"

<&=>&90% K+0+( $%&'()*&+, 5 3 3

+<& - <= !"#" %&'( )*+ ,-./+ 0&1-.2 '()*

[D" E-Y0 K+0+( $%&'()*&+,

5 3

4

[D" A-)+> /0)-1&%0 K+0+( $%&'()*&+, 2 W01(&9> 3 4

Current Position – Undergraduate EducationRelative Standing Compared to the Top 25 Group

5

Metrics UTK Top 25 Target

UTK vs. Target Group

ACT Equivalent

(75th/25th Percentile) 29/24 28.5/23.5 +.5/.5

Retention Rate(1st to 2nd Year) 84% 90% -6 pts

6-Year Graduation Rate 60% 75% -15 pts

UC Berkeley

UV

A UCLA

Michigan

UNC

Wisconsin

Illinois

UC - Santa BarbaraUC Davis

Washington

Penn State

Florida

UT - Austin

Ohio State

UMD -College Park

Georgia

Clemson

Pitt

Purdue

Texas A&M

Minnesota

Rutgers

Indiana

Michigan State

NC State

Auburn

Iowa State

0102030Rank

405060

Current PositionSix-Year Graduation Rates

UTK’s graduation rates are the lowest among all comparison schools.

Gra

du

ati

on

Ra

te (

%)

Rank #52, 59.8%

50

95

6Source: Common Data Sets 2008-2009; U.S. News and World Report; 2008 Data Presented – Tracking Fall 2002 Cohort

Improvement OpportunitySix-Year Graduation RatesWe need to improve more rapidly, as Minnesota and Ohio State have done.

75%

73%

71%

69%

Six

-Ye

ar

Gra

du

ati

on

Ra

te (

%)

Ohio State, +11 pts

Source: UTK Institutional Data; Common Data Sets

67% Minnesota, +10 pts

65%

63%

61% +1 pt

59%

57%

55%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 7

8

Current Position – Graduate EducationRelative Standing Compared to the Top 25 Group

Metrics Top 25 UTK vs. Target

UTK Target GroupNumber of Ph.D. Degrees Awarded 277 486 -209

Number of Master’s and ProfessionalDegrees Awarded 1,845 2,130 -285

200

100

0

300

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

Graduate Education

9Source: Common Data Sets 2008-2009 University

Nu

mb

er

of

Ph

.D.s

Aw

ard

ed

Number of Ph.D.s Awarded (2008 to 2009)

UTK awards fewer Ph.D.s than all but two schools.

277

Current Position – ResearchRelative Standing Compared to the Top 25 Group

10

Metrics ($ Millions) Top 25 UTK vs. Target

UTK Target GroupFederal Research Expenditures $70 $182 -$112

Total Research Expenditures $165 $427 -$262

Current Position – FacultyRelative Standing Compared to the Top 25 Group

11

Metrics Top 25

UTK Target

UTK vs. Target Group

Avg. Tenure-Line FacultySalary Range $66.8 - $107.7 K $72.6 -

$120.0 K-$5.8 - $12.3 K

Faculty Awards 10

32

-22

Current Position – Financial Resources & InfrastructureRelative Standing Compared to the Top 25 Group

12

Metrics Top 25 UTK vs. Target

UTK Target GroupTotal Operating Expenditures/Student $16,100 $24,300 -$8,200

Endowment/ Student $14,380 $38,400 -$24,020

Improvement AreasSuccessful Universities

Case Studies

Clemson and Minnesota advanced into US News Top 25 ranking in the past five years

Common Characteristics Sustained commitment to improvement, with long-term goals

Progress tracked along measurable performance dimensions

Regular reports to stakeholders

Diverse sources of funds

13

Moving From Analysis to ActionOur Next Steps

Next Steps Communication to stakeholders

Specific action plans, related investments and prioritization

Potential sources of funds, including efficiency and effectiveness

October 2010 Board Meeting Action Plan

Financial Plan

Progress Tracking and Reporting Approach

14

Ambitious Plan

We need your help.

The journey wetake is more important than achieving the goal.

15