AUBURN UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC PLANNING SITUATION ASSESSMENT October 2006 Messina & Graham DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

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


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


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



Messina & Graham


• 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



Messina & Graham


• 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



Messina & Graham


• 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


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)


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)


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


More selective, small, private, Utd Methodist

More selective, small, private, Baptist


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


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


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


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)


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


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


Messina & Graham

Texas A&M


311

515

404

113

161 158

Chart 35

95

Endowment AssetsAU versus Selected Institutions – 2003


$ Millions

Messina & Graham

Texas A&M


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

Documents

AUBURN UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC PLANNING SITUATION ASSESSMENT October 2006 Messina & Graham DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION