UMass Lowell 2020Draft Recommendations

July 2009

The following are the reports from the nine committees working on different aspects of UMass Lowell 2020, the strategic planning project currently underway. Each committee, at a retreat meeting in June, presented these reports which include a recap of their original charge, the approach they took to the process and background information they developed or accessed to draft recommendations. Each committee had been asked to come up with no more than 10 recommendations and presented in priority order.

For more information about the project, the process and the committee memberships, go to intranet.uml.edu/2020.

You are invited to look over these recommendations and make comment. Remember that will be further developed, with benchmarks added, over the fall semester. Also, meetings open to the entire campus community will be held in the fall for presentation and comment.

Send your comments to Christine_Dunlap@uml.edu and they will be forwarded to all the relevant parties.

Committee on Branding and MarketingCo-Chairs Patti McCafferty and Gary Mucica

Introduction ChargeThe Branding and Marketing Committee was charged with establishing a strategy to strengthen the University’s image and boost its recognition quotient. The Committee was asked to determine the current image of the campus and identify the key strengths and qualities that distinguish it from other colleges. This information will serve as the basis for building a consistent and effective messaging and branding program as well as informing marketing activities overall. As part of its charge, the Committee was asked to identify the strengths and weaknesses of current marketing activities in order to enhance those efforts.

ApproachOver the past four months, several meetings were held. After some initial brainstorming about audiences, campus goals and current messages, as well as a look at existing data, the Committee broke into two subcommittees, one to focus on establishing a plan to come up with overarching messages to brand the campus, the other to focus on how to best deliver the messages. A review of existing data about the campus’s image was conducted, including an overview of current marketing undertaken by Public Affairs, Athletics and Continuing Studies,

1

Corporate and Distance Education. Additionally, each committee member surveyed colleagues in his/her department or college.

Image Analysis: The CampusIntroductionWhile several characteristics of the campus emerged as clear strengths or weaknesses, other characteristics showed up in both categories. This is significant because it is a reflection of the size and complexity of the campus, the range of perceptions about any one characteristic and differences in opinion about priorities.

In addition, marketing UMass Lowell involves several target audiences, from prospective to current students (graduate, undergraduate, continuing and online); alumni; donors; corporate, government, and community leaders; the media; members of the UMass system; opinion leaders in higher education; and more. Which characteristics are important to which audiences? How do the different audiences feel about any one characteristic of the campus? To which audiences should the campus tailor overarching messages?

Also, the campus’s history – merging from two institutions which operated separately for over 80 years before becoming part of the UMass system in 1991– also complicates perceptions about UMass Lowell by both internal and external audiences. What are the core mission, values and character of UMass Lowell? What should they be? The answer, still, is: it depends who is asked.

These complexities sparked discussion about whether the current image of the campus and the development of messages can be determined solely by members of the campus community, who are unlikely to see the campus in a clear, objective light.

Some strengths and weaknesses emerged, as noted in the following section, along with a list of those characteristics that found their way into both columns and why.

Strengths The quality of many academic programs is high and well known. The comprehensive nature of the campus provides many offerings and

opportunities for students. Campus life is becoming more vibrant. Students attend athletic events in

greater numbers, the number of students living on campus is increasing and there are more and better activities going on throughout the academic year.

Tuition and fees, combined with the quality of offerings, make a UMass Lowell education a good value.

Membership in the UMass system helps with name recognition and credibility.

The mid-sized University offers the resources of a large institution and the comforts of a small one.

Ethnic, cultural and age diversity among the student population is a plus.

2

Winning athletics teams boost name recognition for the University as a whole. As teams have become more successful, especially with the Division 1 ice hockey team playing in Hockey East, the campus image has benefitted.

There are improved facilities across the campus. The Campus Recreation Center is one example, but other improvements are more subtle – high tech classrooms, individual labs and cutting edge equipment like the Nursing Simulation Laboratory with SIMman.

Weaknesses An urban campus in the City of Lowell is still perceived to be a negative. Some believe the University’s only strong programs are in engineering and

science, possibly because of their status over the last 100 years in the community and regional industry.

UMass Lowell is still seen as a safety school. Some aspects of campus life are not appealing. The perceived lack of

weekend activities, lack of a late-night venue for socializing and eating, and lack of shared study/team project spaces are frequently noted by students.

There has not been a new academic building on campus in more than 30 years, resulting in older buildings that suffer from “deferred maintenance” due to funding problems.

The campus needs to increase its ethnic and cultural diversity (which is under-represented in some groups) among faculty, staff and students.

Despite being a public university, only one-third of UMass Lowell’s budget comes from the state.

SWOT Analysis: Current Marketing EffortsStrengths

Quality of and cohesiveness of printed materials, banners and other professionally produced marketing materials – from Fox Hall signage to the view book to the staff phone book

The website is well designed and functional with successful integration of all first-level Web pages into the content management system for a consistent look. A pilot project in search engine optimization and pay-per-click advertising is underway.

Marketing is expanding into new media: blogging, video on web, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Partnering between Public Affairs and CSCDE on billboards has resulted in improved visibility for CSCDE and University-wide programs than either entity could have attained separately.

More marketing campaigns, such as “Gotta Be Here,” are being conducted as partnerships among Public Affairs and other offices, such as Student Affairs, Admissions and Athletics.

The University has produced more advertising, primarily radio and print, particularly before important events or key recruitment periods.

The UMass system marketing, particularly TV advertising, helps the campus.

Weaknesses

3

Marketing data are needed (focus groups, market research) to build a more effective, data-driven marketing strategy.

Lack of a consistent message or set of messages All members of the campus community need to consider themselves

advocates/representatives of the campus among all audiences. There is a need for consistent budgeting to plan multi-year strategies and hit

bigger ticket items, such as advertising. All communications to outside audiences should adhere to centrally

controlled standards. Better communications with internal audiences would enhance overall

marketing. Perception that UMass Lowell is a branch or satellite campus to Amherst Lack of sufficient maps/directions/signs on and off campus

Opportunities Funding for marketing is better and more consistent. Marketing is a growing administrative priority. Marketing is more centralized on campus than in the past, allowing for more

effective strategy and programs. The creation this year of the graphic identity standards guide will help brand

the campus. Leverage television advertising produced by the President’s Office.

Threats The troubled economy, coupled with declining high school graduation rates,

poses risks for state budget funding, fundraising and recruitment. Ramped up competition from other institutions threatens to erode traditional

student pool.

Recommendations (All of which could begin or continue in FY10.)1. Develop a marketing and branding strategy across all programs and

departments to communicate a clear, concise image of UMass Lowell to all audiences. This strategy should be based on market research, including data such as focus groups and web surveys. Messages should be developed along with a strategic plan for delivery.

2. Ensure that faculty and staff members recognize their responsibility to know the campus’s messages and deliver them consistently. As the brand strategy is developed, the internal audience should be familiar with the messages and understand the importance of helping to deliver them.

3. Electronic communications have become critical to message delivery. The University’s website should be enhanced with a redesign and a new content management system, along with more Web 2.0 features such as audio, video and blogging. Message delivery should be expanded in new media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, etc.

4. The campus must project a consistent look in its promotional materials, including appropriate use of the University and Riverhawk logos. The new identity standards guide established this year needs to be implemented

4

across campus. All departments and offices should be equipped with materials needed for successful marketing.

5. Develop strategies that will help raise the University’s profile and improve its rankings in U.S. News and World Report and elsewhere. This effort may include marketing specific on-going or new academic programs, recruitment of high caliber students and faculty, and consistent outreach to key constituencies. This campaign would dovetail with other efforts to improve the University’s image overall.

6. Messages about UMass Lowell should be delivered on a regular basis to diverse national and international audiences. Increasingly, it is important to develop international partnerships and to attract students, faculty and staff from across the nation and around the world to remain a campus relevant to the global marketplace. All marketing materials should reflect diversity in their content.

7. Expand high-visibility advertising such as billboards, television, radio and targeted publications. Use of these message delivery systems in the past year has been successful. They should be coordinated with development of the brand strategy.

8. Increase positive attention to the campus through a continued aggressive media relations program to reach print, broadcast and web-based media. Without decreasing attention to local media, strategies for attracting high profile or national media such as The Chronicle of Higher Education and others should be developed and implemented.

9. Signature events such as Commencement, the Chancellor’s Inauguration and major fundraisers can be used to draw positive attention to the University and assist in image-building. Bringing in compelling speakers or guests, garnering media attention, highlighting large donors and attracting a wider range of attendees should result in more awareness of the campus and its messages.

10. Expand outreach to those who mentor and assist prospective students in decision-making. Prospective students look to parents, teachers, guidance counselors and other adults to help make a college choice. The University must be more targeted and aggressive in getting out communications to those audiences.

Committee on Corporate Partnerships and Urban EngagementCo-Chairs: Steve Tello and Oneida Blagg

ChargeThe charge to this Committee is to identify ways to strengthen our engagement with the community, which includes corporations, nonprofit organizations, K-12 schools, and municipalities. An assessment of current and proposed activities would include an analysis of how they contribute to the campus mission “to enhance the intellectual, personal and cultural development of its students through excellent, affordable educational programs. The University seeks to meet the needs of the Commonwealth today and into the future and supports the development of sustainable technologies and communities through its teaching, research, scholarship and engagement.”

Approach5

The committee’s approach included a number of small and large group, facilitator-led activities to address the questions indicated in the charge to the committee. These questions focused on the reasons the University develops partnerships/engagements, the types, benefits, costs, relation to the mission, and criteria for assessing partnerships as well as the structure needed to support partnerships. A sample of constituent groups, associated benefits and costs, used as a working document in by our committee, is included in Appendix A.

Early in this process it became clear to the committee that those external groups or constituents involved with partnerships and engagement fell into two categories, those providing services or opportunities to University constituents and those served by various University constituents (it should be noted that these are not exclusive categories and, in fact, the richness of partnerships is realized in mutually beneficial engagements). This led to a discussion of why the University seeks partnerships and engagements and why constituents may seek the same from the University. The reason for these partnerships covered a wide range including but not limited to access to knowledge, access to resources, benefits to society and enhancing faculty scholarship. Other interesting distinctions also emerged: Some partnerships/engagement are sustainable, some are not. Others may be more collaborative in nature, involving a “quid pro quo” exchange of services and ideas, while others may consist solely of the provision of services to an external entity. The committee felt very strongly that the concept of “benefits” should be interpreted broadly, based on the needs and abilities of both constituent groups and the University and that benefits manifest in both tangible ways (e.g., money, services) and intangible ways (e.g., public relations, goodwill, future opportunities). The consensus was that both types of benefits were of equal value to the University as a whole. Similarly then, “costs” also referred to as challenges, were described in both quantifiable terms (e.g., lab space, staffing, expenses) as well as less tangible but still real terms (e.g., individual impact on tenure/promotion, opportunity costs). Finally, in relation to the University’s mission statement, the committee then linked the identified activities to corresponding portions of the mission statement, using each of the main components of the mission statements as indicators in Appendix A.

Recommendations

I. Embrace “Partnerships and Engagement” as a central theme of academic and scholarly activity at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

a. Develop a definition of “community-engaged scholarship” that acknowledges the range of teaching and research activities across disciplines that involve corporate and community partnerships.

b. Articulate the value of “community-engaged scholarship” activities to the University and incorporate a value for these activities into promotion and tenure decisions.

c. Develop a model to ensure that all UMass Lowell undergraduate students participate in multiple community-engaged learning experiences during their academic careers.

6

Resourcesa. 6 Months - Requires formation of a committee representing all major

University constituents. Some of this work has already been completed by prior working groups and should be used as a foundation for the definition.

b. 6 Months to 1 Year - Requires formation of a faculty, administration and union committee to discuss and articulate the value of “community-engaged scholarship” to the University and in the promotion and tenure process.

c. Multi-year – Requires faculty and staff resources to coordinate offerings. May benefit from a staffed office to assist in coordination and communication of community learning experiences. Should be considered a “Differentiator” for the University, a strength that attracts students to UMass Lowell. Similar resources may be needed for faculty to assist them in identifying engagement opportunities and to coordinate a “speaker’s bureau” as indicated in the Appendix.

Marketing NeedThe University needs to embed the idea of partnerships and engagement into the University culture in order to express its value to internal and external constituents. A definition of “community-engaged scholarship” should be broad enough to include local, regional, national, and international efforts that engage community partners in teaching and research activities.

II. Improve the coordination, communication and marketing of University partnership and engagement activities and capabilities to internal and external stakeholders.

a. Upgrade and revise the University’s website to better update, locate and communicate the range of partnership and engagement activities underway across the University.

b. Develop a partnership and engagement database, integrated with the University’s website, that helps to connect internal and external stakeholders around engagement and partnership opportunities.

c. Clearly designate and communicate the contacts, offices and entry points that will assist external stakeholders to connect to the numerous partnership opportunities and resources the University has to offer.

Resources a. Immediate Need – Web Software that simplifies and improves the

process of updating websites. Additional web design staff assigned to each department to improve update of information.

7

b. 1 Year – Database design team, design meetings to work with major stakeholders to identify content, format and technology.

c. 1 Year – Requires faculty and staff resources to coordinate offerings. May benefit from a staffed office to assist in coordination and communication of community learning experiences. May be same office identified in I.c. above.

Marketing NeedImplement a campaign to promote existing partnerships on campus by revising the current web site for external users that is easy to find, easy to navigate, and which is regularly updated to improve communication. Consider a design which focuses on the needs of core constituent groups (e.g., New Students, Current Students, Parents, Faculty, Community Organizations) rather than our concept of departments and what is important in a particular year.Highlight partnership initiatives via a web presence which also promotes the University to potential partners. The revision of the website with six months should include and encompass:

Stories written about current partnerships authored by professional staff to achieve the maximum impact when promoting the Universities.

A faculty data base with accomplishments related to partnerships or with information on events that result from partnership, as well as resources that are available to the community.

Information about who on campus has expertise in certain areas. Above all, a presentation that is “tech savvy”.

III.Create a University climate and environment that welcomes our partners to campus and demonstrates the value the University places on these many teaching, research and working relationships.

a. Review, revise and publicize the process and policies guiding access to University facilities for community, corporate and government partners.

b. Develop an access policy to University facilities that weighs the contribution each partnership makes to the teaching, research and service mission of the University along with the partner’s ability to pay for this access.

c. Expand efforts to improve the physical image and cleanliness of existing facilities across the University campus.

Resourcesa. 6 Months – First form a small committee of University administrators,

faculty and staff to collect and organize in a central, web repository all policies regarding partner access to University facilities. Next expand the committee to include community, corporate and government partners to identify impact of existing policies, identify appropriate revisions then publicize facilities policy recommendations.

8

b. Immediate to Ongoing – Unclear as to staff resource needs. Need to improve visual aesthetics of current recycling initiative (e.g., new recycling barrels, closets for barrels) which may require equipment purchases. Ongoing capital improvements required of most buildings.

Marketing NeedThe physical plant poses challenges to developing an appropriate image which needs to be overcome within 6 months. All stakeholders immediately see the physical plant and it impacts both decisions as to whether or not to engage the University (as student, faculty, staff or partner). While the committee applauds efforts made to improve the physical plant in spite of budget issues, there is more work to be done. The recycling bins in the hallway are an excellent demonstration of the University’s commitment to follow verdant practices to protect the environment. Due to some intended and unanticipated consequences, such as odors and appearance, identifying an alternative that reduces this impact, blending commitment and aesthetics calls for some redesign.

An increase in the frequency of cleaning common use areas such as restrooms, hallways, lecture halls, conference rooms, and laboratories, etc would improve their appearance and state. The increased reliance on faculty and staff (not assigned to facilities) to clean office areas more than once weekly and change empty trash receptacles results in an inconsistent level of overall cleanliness around the campus

Committee for Facilities Renewal and Campus Master Planning Co-Chairs Joanne Yestramski and John TingIntroduction

The mission of the Facilities Renewal and Campus Master Planning Committee is to develop a comprehensive Campus Master Plan to align the University’s physical campus with its strategic and academic goals. Central to this mission is the development of a long range phased implementation plan that is based on the assessment of the existing facilities and programmatic needs, including the analysis of land use, potential acquisitions, and transportation issues.

Fundamental challenges immediately confronting this effort included the lack of foundational planning materials such as updated AutoCAD plans, a space inventory, and a log of current materials available. With a sizable backlog of deferred maintenance, limited funding sources and years of unmet programmatic needs, there is little doubt that this effort is long overdue and will encounter threats to its successful implementation.

While the changes that a University undergoes with a new administration can be unsettling to processes and institutional memory, in UML’s case this change has provided a great opportunity to rethink and re-vision many fundamental planning issues that have not been comprehensively analyzed since becoming a part of the UMass system. The current effort can be summarized below:

9

On-going Efforts Comprehensive Campus Master Plan – Perry, Dean, Rogers/Partners

Architects (PDRP) South Academic Facilities – Cambridge Seven Associates, Inc. (C7A)

Scope of Work Comprehensive Assessment of Physical Campus & Programmatic needs Space Allocation/Classroom Utilization Study Land Use Analysis; Open Space; New Building Sites; Potential Acquisitions Circulation – vehicular and pedestrian; parking, transportation Phased re-purposing of existing buildings Design guidelines for future development; Massing, Materials Sustainability – Energy

Progress to date Space inventory – AutoCAD plans and space inventory database coded Facility assessments of existing buildings Programmatic needs assessments of all departments Meetings with City officials Community, Facility and Green Workshops Compiling inventory and Analysis Reports

Findings Lack of spaces that promote sense of community Inconsistent allocation of space and poor quality of space in general Lack of consistent classroom technology Excess of general-purpose classrooms on both campuses Excess of office space on North Campus

Preliminary RecommendationsAs both studies have not yet compiled all the findings, these recommendations are preliminary and will be developed in more detail as the effort proceeds.

General River as Quad to connect campuses Parking to perimeters; new garages Transportation is CRITICAL; alternative solutions should be

explored Reallocate and renovate space to meet needs before expanding Distribute complementary uses across campuses instead of

duplicating Collaborate with City on streetscapes, riverbank improvements

and transportation

South Campus Right-size all departments New Building Site at corner of Broadway & Wilder - Psychology,

Criminal Justice, Nursing and General-purpose classrooms Relocate Art, Bookstore, Health and Counseling

10

Dining / Food Court to McGauvran with addition; expand Student Union spaces

Demolish South Dining Hall to create green space, prominence to Coburn, service moved from center of Campus

Renovation of Coburn Hall is a priority Mahoney as swing space; demolish for future building growth Re-vision Library as Learning Commons - collaborative services,

centralized computer labs, project spaces Durgin renovation

Next steps Generate and present Alternative Solutions Propose policy changes that impact facilities Programming new South Academic Building Completion of both studies by January 2010

Committee on Financial Planning and Budget Review

Co-chairs Kathryn Carter and Steve O’Riordan

Introduction (item 1A)

Consistent with the goals of the emerging strategic plan, UMass Lowell has appointed a Financial Planning and Budget Review Committee (FPBRC) committed to increasing transparency; involving and communicating the entire campus in short and long term operating and capital budgeting decisionmaking; and empowering managers by increasing the accountability and responsibility over the management of university resources. The Financial Planning and Budget Review Committee (FPBRC) had two immediate charges:  to plan for the FY2010 budget, and to establish a multi-year, integrated budget model to ensure long-term financial stability. 

Process (item 1C)

The Committee conducted 24 meetings between March 6th and June 5th to review all major FY2010 departmental budgets, including goals, strategic priorities, efficiency ideas, and contingency planning depending upon available financial resources. In addition the Committee tracked changes at the state and national levels and their impact on the University’s budget and financial planning.

Review (item 1B)

Some of the “budget themes” that have emerged from this process include the identification of additional opportunities for reorganization to increase efficiencies such as IT services, faculty development, international student services, research administration and events and conference services. Chargeback systems and administrative assessments will also be reviewed in more detail to determine the appropriate levels of accountability and responsibility for certain administrative costs, facility and research equipment usage, debt service, overtime for capital

11

projects and events, research assistant stipends and waivers, among other things. Strategic management of procurement, contracts and energy management will also be a focus including partnering more with the UMass system and other higher education and state consortia to get the best price for goods and services.

Rigorous attention to academic program planning will continue to focus on achieving the vision of national and international recognition as a world class institution set by the Chancellor. The Provost has outlined for the Financial Planning and Budget Review Committee the following criteria by which program expansion, reorganization and reallocation proposals will be reviewed:

- numbers of majors served - annual graduates produced - associated credit hours taught- research and scholarly productivity, and - service productivity.

Detail of Strategic Recommendations (item 2)

Overarching goals for the strategic planning process and for the development of the FY2010 budget:

Increase transparency and expand campus involvement Improve knowledge transfer Expand empowerment accompanied by accountability Implement an all funds approach to budgeting Simplify and adopt best practices in budgeting processes Increase student success and improve student services (access card,

transportation, residential living) Invest in academic quality Invest in facility renewal and expansion Finalize a goal-oriented balanced budget with reallocations to strategic

priorities and appropriate contingencies built in to address future uncertainties

Budget Themes Identified:

1. Reorganizations may provide more streamlined and efficient operations to better meet our goals. For example:

a. Faculty development centerb. Information technology servicesc. International student servicesd. Office of research administratione. Events and conference services

2. Chargebacks, as appropriate, may improve accountability and responsibility. For example:

a. Facility use b. Publicationsc. Postage and duplicating services

12

d. Research administration waiverse. Specialty labs (animal, characterization, etc.)f. Financial aid (i.e., residential life) g. Debt financed projectsh. Overtime for capital projects and eventsi. Reallocation of IDR to fund research facilities

3. Eliminate historical transfers which are not deemed strategic uses of funds. Take a fresh look at “revenue diversion programs”

4. Efficiencies to be achieveda. Strategic procurementb. Recharge centersc. Energy managementd. Maximize use of investment in technology, particularly PeopleSofte. Phased retirementf. See UML@Budget.edu listing

5. Fee Fairnessa. Telecom fee reviewb. Parking fee now negotiated to be charged to all employeesc. Consider Commencement fees

6. Contingencies are needed to address future uncertainties

Highest priority needs identified (not in any order) – Strategic Recommendations

1. Faculty to meet increased enrollment demand2. Support for faculty and student work including smart classroom and lab

equipment investments3. Professional staff to support revenue enhancement efforts including

Advancement, and new business enterprise development (events/conferences)

4. Facilities: custodians, maintenance staff and trades, capital projects management, planning and finance and energy management; funding for repairs and renewal

5. Transportation System investments6. Marketing and Branding including web enhancement7. Information Technology including academic computing, network support,

audio visual and video conferencing, training8. New business ventures including Inn & Conference Center, strategic land

acquisitions, Tsongas arena and Boathouse9. Administration, Finance and Public Safety investments required to implement

a One-card solution, expand strategic procurement efforts, additional police and dispatcher personnel, blue light and security camera upgrades

10. Invest in Office of Research Administration fiscal and compliance operations

13

These budget themes and the high priority areas identified for investment by the FPBRC have proved valuable to the Executive Cabinet as it develops the FY2010 budget recommendations for the Chancellor.

Next Steps for the FPBRC:

1. Reach out to and receive input from the other Strategic Planning Committees to assess alignment of strategic planning priorities identified and budget and financial planning impact of recommendations

2. Review campus Capital Planning and Budgeting Processes, needs and Priorities

3. Develop a Multi-year financial planning model4. Identify benchmarks to gauge budget outcomes and track the financial

health and capacity of the institution.

Committee on Graduate Education and Academic Programs

Introduction

The University currently offers 56 graduate degree programs, organized across 21 departments. The UML Factbook reported Fall 2008 headcounts of 509 doctoral degree students, 1438 Master’s degree students, and 904 nondegree graduate students. Over the past five years, since 2004, the number and percentage of graduate students has grown by 31.2%, from 2172, to the current level of 2851. Graduate students now represent 28.3% of the total student body. The numbers of Master’s degree and Certificate students, especially online, have been growing, while the number of doctoral students has remained relatively level.

To be recognized as a world-class university, U. Mass. Lowell must attract and produce a substantial number of outstanding scholars across many disciplines. To accomplish this 2020 vision, the current graduate programs must be strengthened, in quality and quantity, and new graduate programs must be developed. Understanding this endeavor, the 2020 Strategic Planning Committee on Graduate Education and Academic Programs embraced a University-wide mission statement for graduate education: “Building internationally recognized graduate programs one student at a time”. The phrase “one student at a time” intends to convey, not a sense of cautious gradualism in growth, but rather attention to the care and nurturing that must be invested in successfully recruiting, educating, graduating, and reaping alumni support for each student.

To achieve this mission the following draft statement aims to recognize the essential diversity across disciplines, while formulating recommendations that can improve coordination of efforts throughout the University. The Committee drafted a general “one-page” academic plan, as a template from which every department was invited to draft its own preliminary document; the respective departmental drafts are attached as appendices to this brief report; they portray the perceived strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the individual graduate

14

programs. It is important to note that most of these drafts are “placeholders” for further work, not consensus statements.

The academic plans now serve as the framework from which faculty can coordinate efforts in building curriculum and new graduate research initiatives as well as the broad range of student related support services within every department. Offering the opportunity for positive change through this method of interdepartmental exchange, departments will be encourage to review and modify their academic plans annually as their graduate programs evolve and grow.

This report reflects the collective efforts of our 24 member committee. We met five times as a total group and each person took responsibility for preparing and reacting to drafts. We also invited submissions from departments not represented on the Committee, to afford all departments an opportunity to present ideas for the future of graduate education. Having identified the objectives and strategies detailed in the Committee’s academic plan on the following page, the committee members itemized the plans for implementation and discussed the details necessary to achieving these plans as outlined in this draft report.

During the fall semester, we anticipate conducting a number of additional meetings to elaborate on recommended plans and review the entire document before submitting a final report in December 2009.

A “One-Page” Academic Plan

Building internationally recognized graduate programs one student at a time

VisionTo identify strategies for becoming internationally recognized for the quality of our graduate programs. To review and analyze the core measures of success for academic programs such as student enrollment, scholarly activity, professional accreditations and AQAD.

MissionBuilding internationally recognized graduate programs one student at a time

Objectives• Improve public awareness of U. Mass. Lowell’s growing number of graduate programs• Expand recruitment of domestic and international students• Increase student enrollment in the Bachelor’s Plus One Master’s Programs• Leverage existing academic activities to develop new interdisciplinary degree programs• Prepare students to address regional, national and international issues in a global society• Further develop distinctive doctoral programs offering new academic opportunities to students

Strategies15

• Co-ordinate undergraduate advising to increase awareness of Plus One Master’s Opportunities• Develop a corporate, non-profit and public sector network for populating academic programs• Facilitate opportunities for faculty to organize new programs with administrative support• Host forums for departmental and interdepartmental dialog on graduate education• Assess student learning, student satisfaction, and career placement

Plans• Improve Web-based presence for all academic and graduate research programs• Generate a graduate program’s profile catalog encompassing campus-wide activities• Encourage the formation of corporate and philanthropic sponsored endowed fellowships• Review and analyze existing academic programs measuring enrollment and scholarly activity• Expand support for departments addressing professional accreditations and AQAD reviews• Establish university-wide graduate faculty focus groups to unify programs, efforts and activities• Develop a student ambassador outreach program to raise admission levels• Analyze workforce requirements in the profit, non-profit, and public sectors• Survey students to acquire input on ways to improve their academic and campus experience

A Summary of Discussions – “How Positive Change is Possible”

With a draft of the academic plan completed as exhibited on the prior page, the Committee on Graduate Education and Academic Programs reached consensus that the two highest priority Plans for strengthening Graduate Education programs were to improve the: 1) Web presence and 2) print materials of each department. In preparation for this meeting, members were asked to review web sites from other universities that they considered to be models for us to emulate.  We viewed and discussed several of these during our meeting.  The group derived eight principles that characterized the sites regarded as most effective.

1. A clear concise organization of information with an intuitive easily navigated framework2. A visually exciting appearance with photos of students and faculty3. Consistency in appearance among frames with links between day school and continuing ed.4. Information that is relevant to the discipline with students who can explain the content5. Coordinated content informing prospective students how to apply and obtain financial aid, while equally valuable to current students seeking information on courses and current events6. an easily accessible current calendar of events in each department

16

7. any archived pages deleted to avoid students accessing outdated policies and information.8. An FAQ section addressing Financial Aid and job opportunities along with Admissions and International Student issues.

When discussing the requirement for printed materials, it was agreed that the “Graduate Profiles” book is not a good use of funds.  Much of the information was outdated before the thousands of printed copies arrived. Rather, one-page inserts that provide accurate, current information about each department should be available and the pertinent pages could be chosen and inserted into a UML Graduate Programs folder depending on the nature of the event. All printed and Web-based materials should take into consideration recommendations from the 2020 Branding and Marketing Committee

At a subsequent meeting, the Committee reconvened to finish its initial discussions on their academic plan. First as special topic focus groups and then reporting back to the entire assembly of members for open discussions, the Committee addressed the Plans while the individual comments were recorded for generating this summary. While the Committee recognized that a range of issues were involved for attracting and retaining high quality graduate students, financial support and outreach seemed central to their discussions. The following three avenues of financial support were identified.

1) Encourage the formation of corporate and philanthropic sponsored endowed fellowships by identifying alumni and corporate/private entities to participate. Administrative support staff could be expanded to free up Deans and Chairs to solicit industry and develop alumni ties for recruiting and fundraising. Companies could provide fellowship and internship opportunities.

2) Increase the funding for graduate Teaching and Research Assistantships (TAs and RAs) to expand availability for University-wide programs while increasing the stipend levels to be competitive nationally.

3) Tie into Career Service Resources to develop co-ops and internships with active faculty participation and attendance at Career Fairs

During discussions on expanding the University’s outreach to prospective students, the Committee believed both visibility and rankings should be improved through better Web presence and careful attention to ranking metrics such as class size and faculty/adjunct ratios. The committee also discussed expanding personal interactions through alumni involvement with student recruiting by adding alumni profiles on departmental websites and keeping alumni active through departmental magazines, newsletters and annual invitational events such as banquets and receptions. Additional comments on raising admission levels included developing a student ambassador program and student survey to acquire input on their impression of the academic and campus experience.

Strengthening graduate education at the University, the Committee recommends review and analysis of existing academic programs measuring enrollment and scholarly activity. The Admissions Office already collects a wide range of

17

admissions and enrolled student data regarding acceptance and denial including: test scores, GPA, previous education, gender, ethnicity, etc. The Committee believes there is a need for more administrative support to effectively utilize this data for improving University programs

Committee members also discussed the usefulness of collecting more qualitative data regarding why students chose UML, which will help us understand the ambassadorship of faculty and students as well as the effectiveness of advertising campaigns. Qualitative data could be collected through departmental review of statement of purpose letters, references, and during in-take interviews. This would also require support of designated faculty, additional grad coordinator responsibilities, or administrative support.

Directing the outcome of the gathered information with similar-tier schools as comparisons, enrollment data could be analyzed by program and type of degree. Regional and local trends along with shifts could be identified and measured. Additional staff or faculty release to conduct exit interviews would provide the qualitative information. For quality outcome assessments, a report should be developed summarizing student involvement in professional organizations and peer-reviewed activities such as publications, conference presentations, and documented service to community. Where appropriate, data should be collected for standardized professional measures, such as the MTEL for teacher certification and the state-board of nursing licensure exam should be included. Access to Alumni Office and administrative support to collect data regarding post-grad professional placement would also be considered critical data. All suggestions would require additional resources.

Critical to the growth of every graduate program, the Committee discussed expanding support for departments addressing professional accreditations and AQAD reviews. While the web-based tools provided by the University are helpful, the Committee suggested forming an AQAD Task Force comprised of individuals who have experience with the process. These individuals would be able to assist departments by explaining the process, making suggestions and providing insight on past successes; saving faculty time.

Acknowledging that professional accreditations are more work, the Committee felt additional support would be required when departments are going through the accreditation review. For this process, there should be a faculty coordinator, who has been given a reduced course load, for organizing the data along with designated clerical support during the process. There needs to be a single, coordinated data reporting side of the house. Currently some graduate data needs to be produced in Graduate Admissions, some is available from Institutional Research – There is more data collection relative to undergraduates than there is at the graduate level.

Post-review support is critical in order to follow-up on recommendations and action items. In examining previous reviews, often the same recommendations are made and the same deficiencies are pointed out. There aren’t sufficient resources to bring about change. We need to be strategic about our efforts and link to the percent that each measure will affect rankings.

18

The Committee suggested establishing university-wide faculty focus groups to unify the academic programs, efforts and activities. These groups of faculty could look at curricula across the University and assess where it makes sense to share resources. (Then implement it.) Tapping into libraries, IT and the Faculty Development Center, knowledge regarding what’s available and how to best utilize resources could be shared for evolving entire graduate programs.

Understanding that the best outcome for students is driven by employment opportunities, the Committee has recommended that the University analyze workforce requirements in the profit, non-profit and public sectors. Achieving this goal, the Committee discussed gathering information available from the President’s Office (Data on Biotech and Life Sciences), Donahue Institute, Office of Economic Development (state level) and US Bureau of Labor Statistics (federal/national). Focus groups with Advisory Board members and Industry Partners could review what skills are required and how we can train our graduates to meet those needs? It was recommended that every department should have an active Advisory Board to insure academic programs match targeted growth to job projections (“jobs of the future”). The Advisory board could work collaboratively with Career Services to establish a feedback loop with employers (co-ops, internships and job placements) along with non-profit, public and business associations such as the Mass Bio-tech Council and Mass Software Council. A University support staff person would be required to conduct research on industry/employment trends and keep current information.

Committee on International Partnerships Co-chairs: Krishna Vedula and Jie Wang

Mission: (1) Assess the current status of the University’s exiting international programs and partnerships. (2) Make recommendations to further develop these programs and partnerships and create new ones to provide opportunities for UML students to become globally competent and bring more international students to campus. (3) Review the administrative and organizational capacity of the University to support growth of international programs and partnerships.

This committee should address the following questions:1. How can we provide opportunities for students to have meaningful and

substantive international learning experiences, including traditional study abroad as well as experiential learning?

2. How can we establish partnerships among our faculty and students with those from universities around the globe, across disciplines, in scholarship, research, economic development projects, and public diplomacy?

3. How can we better reach out to immigrant groups in the area to meet their higher education needs?

4. How can we involve our international alumni in these efforts?5. What external funding opportunities are available to make these programs

self-sustaining?

Assessment:

19

1 Strengths: A strong group of enthusiastic and active faculty and staff have developed various international programs and partnerships.

2 Weaknesses: Most existing international programs and partnerships are formed by individuals. There is a lack of adequate administrative infrastructure to coordinate these activities and support new initiatives.

3 Opportunities: 1) International Student Enrollment: Current enrollments of international

students were reviewed and found to be low. Increasing these enrollments can increase revenue as well as enhance globalization of the campus.

2) Study Abroad Programs: (a) The Lowell region has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all over the world, which makes it an ideal place for developing international collaborations. (b) UML is well positioned to offer a range of study abroad experiences synergistically interwoven with other dimensions of broad-based international initiatives

3) International Partnerships: A large number of the committee members are already engaged in international partnerships and strongly feel that with a strategic approach, an enormous number of beneficial partnerships can be sustained and scaled up. The committee has initiated a process for creating a data base of existing partnerships.

4) Online and Hybrid Programs: (a) Build on current connections in China, India, Ireland, Italy, Turkey, and other countries; extend “on campus” collaboration to online. (b) Expand online offerings: more degree programs, esp. professional Master’s. Leverage strengths in Science, Engineering, Management, and interdisciplinary. (c) Offer Blended programs

5) Fundraising: Committee members believe that in this global economy, the climate is right for reaching out to individual alumni as well as friends and corporations in order to seek support for international programs; a strategic approach is needed.

Overarching approach Six subcommittees were formed. They are International Students, Study Abroad

Programs, International Partnerships, Online and Blended Programs, Fundraising, and Infrastructure. The full committee met three times and subcommittees met several more times during the period from February to June 2009.

Critical Elements for Success: The committee members quickly came to the consensus that the success of international partnerships depends on the following three elements: Global and innovative thinking Faculty Passion Infrastructure

Review of Transformations Report: Several committee members pointed out that a relevant report had been prepared by the previous administration in July 2006.. The committee reviewed this report and recommended that it be used to guide the current strategic planning as well. Many recommendations here are very similar to those in the earlier report.

Recommendations 20

1 Increase International Student Enrollment1) Aggressively recruit international students by creating programs and

marketing “2 + 3” and “4 + 1” year BS/MS program; transfer articulation

agreements with universities Scholarships to subsidize Tuition/Fees for international students Create International Student Recruitment staff position Establish a local recruiter in China, India, and other countries that have a

large number of students interested in studying in the US Increase international visibility through websites Analyze how students have been recruited and by whom

2) Improve Infrastructure for addressing needs of international students using customer service approach: Help international students adjust to Lowell and Massachusetts Create ESL summer program for new international students, or coordinate

with Middlesex CC. Create good all-round atmosphere for international students on campus

2. Develop and Increase Study Abroad Programs 1) Establish key international collaborations with universities in countries that

have connections to local immigrant communities, which have been identified for strategic purposes

2) Develop study abroad programs at those locations3) Continue to work with private study abroad providers for other destinations4) Engage alumni and area residents, particularly those with ties to certain

locations, to finance study abroad opportunities5) Standardize a system for awarding of academic credit for study abroad

coursework.

3. Increasing Partnerships1) Share information

Increase visibility of Campus International Activities with a dynamic inventory and e-newsletter

Annual forum to present summaries of international activities Develop guidelines on how to locate funding institutions and international

partners and for visiting international scholars and UML faculty abroad2) Provide support and keep track of funding sources of international activities3) Recognize international academic work carried out by faculty and staff 4) Create innovative programs

International Institute for Faculty (summer) International College for Students (summer) Joint degrees between international academic institutions Build on strengths: Assistive Technology Programs etc

4. Increase Online and Hybrid Programs 1) Develop “workable” models of online programs with international partners. 2) Develop “3+1+1” and “3+2” programs3) Develop 3-year online education in home country; 1-2 year at UML campus 4) Develop 1 year plus Master’s degree programs (esp. MBA)

21

5) Split a semester into online session (3 months) and face-to-face session (1 month) with Faculty to foreign institutes

6) Identify New Funding: Example: Department of Education: $2 million for Business and International Education Program,

5. Enhance Fundraising1) Reach out to alumni as well as individuals within the Lowell communities for

scholarships, summer employment, housing for international students and study abroad students

2) Partner with Fortune 500 companies, multi-national corporations, and government agencies on specific programs they promote and support: Industry examples (Mobile Exxon: Diversity and International Initiatives;

“Educating Women and Girls”; Africa Health Initiative, Community Summer Jobs Program; ConocoPhillips (2008 Corporate contributions :50% Education & Youth; WalMart)

Government (Peace Corps; US Embassy in Iraq; NSF)

Committee on Research and Scholarship

Co-chairs: Julie Chen and Partha Chowdhury1 Introductiona. Charge to the CommitteeThe mission is to assess current efforts in research, scholarship, and creative work (RSCW) and to identify strategies for strengthening these efforts. In particular, the following questions were addressed:

What strategies should we use to enhance Research, Scholarship, and Creative Work

How can we increase external funding in support of research from federal agencies, corporations, and foundations? (i) For large grants (e.g. Center-level); (ii) For single-investigator or small-group grants

How can we strengthen collaboration with other UMass campuses? How can we strengthen partnerships with industry in order to support

commercialization efforts that will boost economic development of the state with emphasis in the northeast and the Merrimack Valley?

What strategies should we use to enhance national and international recognition?

What faculty support and incentives are most effective? What are the road-blocks?

How do we enhance the educational experience of our graduate and undergraduate students through our RSCW endeavor?

How should we evaluate and manage the University’s research centers?

b. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and ThreatsSeveral reports and white papers over the past few years have assessed the SWOT of the existing UML RSCW enterprise. In particular, a white paper by the Interim Vice Provost for Research (June 2007) and the respective reports from the Task Force on a Strategic Plan for Research Development (December 2004) and the

22

Task Force for Collaborative Research (March 2003) contain much information and many recommendations that are still very relevant.With the major changes in upper administration and a large influx of new faculty comes an opportunity for a significant shift in strategic vision, process, and outcomes. The university is fortunate to be large enough for the depth, and small enough for the cross-cultural dialog that transcends physical separation of colleges and campuses. We have established national and international recognition in core areas that should serve as both foundation and examples for growth and offshoots. In addition, an important asset is our location, where we are in close proximity to world-class science, technology, art, education and culture, and are free to create our own local and global synergies. This geographical placement is a powerful draw for quality recruitment in both graduate students and faculty. As the University moves towards the next level, however, changes must occur in processes that were well-suited for a small-scale operation, but are not scalable for a major research institution. Communication for both collection and distribution of information becomes a potential barrier to full buy-in of the faculty and staff. Allocation of limited funds in a difficult economic environment must be done in a way that clearly invests in the continued growth and enrichment of the RSCW enterprise.

c. Overarching ApproachThe overarching approach taken by this committee was to define five key subcommittees to address the key questions: Funding, Partnerships, Infrastructure, Recognition, and Students. Each subcommittee reviewed the recommendations related to their theme area from prior task force reports. Augmented by additional discussion within the subcommittee, summaries were provided to the full committee for further discussion. This report is the outcome of these discussions.2 Recommendations a. Increase Time for Faculty to Pursue RSCW: The single overall barrier to enhanced RSCW is the lack of time to develop connections, write proposals, generate preliminary results, and actually conduct the RSCW. This issue is tied directly to definitions of workload and workload expectation. For example, the time required to advise a doctoral student in their thesis research or mentor an undergraduate student has not been effectively counted in past workload metrics. Recognizing that the workload issue will need to ultimately be addressed within the MTA/UML collective bargaining process, the Committee recommends:

Table A. Recommendations for Increasing Time for Faculty to Pursue RSCW Efforts

Recommendation Timeline Resources Needed

Marketing/ Communication

Benchmarks

1. Workload reductions for faculty who are pursuing significant RSCW projects, and/or demonstrate leadership in advancing research

Sept 2009 small scale; continue to expand

Funding for adjunct, visiting prof, scholar-teacher postdocs

Need to explain criteria for selection/funding decisions

Resulting growth in program productivity (e.g., students, grants, papers) and

23

programs and mentorship in assisting others, as well as in developing and growing graduate programs

success of mentored faculty

2. “Scholar-Teacher” postdoc or extra graduate assistant positions that are funded partially by the University for teaching and partially by research funds for active research programs and programs with growth potential.

Sept 2009 small scale; full implementation Sept 2010

Teaching stipend and tuition waiver funds

Need broad advertising to attract good candidates; recognition that research productivity will be reduced per postdoc, but valuable teaching experience gained; need to explain criteria for selection/funding decisions

Quality and subsequent placement of recruited postdocs; increased productivity of reduced-load faculty in other RSCW endeavors

3. Identification of appropriate workload definitions and expectations by field

Initiate near-term effort, but is a long-term process

Staff person to collect and organize information; time from faculty to provide input

Address union concerns; acknowledge limitations of single or few models for even one field

4. Reduced teaching load and “no-load” semesters for new and junior faculty

Already ongoing; continued support

Funding for adjunct, visiting prof, scholar-teacher postdocs

Need departments to have long-term strategy for mix of junior and senior faculty to support mission

Productivity and quality of tenure packages of junior faculty

b. Improve Faculty Connections within UML and Externally, and Increase Visibility/Recognition: Creation of large, multi-disciplinary, funded RSCW programs requires connection both within UML and with external partners. The first step is often creating more opportunities for faculty to “find” other faculty with relevant expertise and interests. Both electronic and face-to-face approaches should be included and are also important for increasing collaborations with other institutions (e.g., UMass campuses) and industry. An additional benefit of a user-friendly electronic data collection, organization, and searching system is the increased ability to more systematically identify and recognize RSCW achievements to further enhance UML’s external reputation. The Committee recommends:

Table B. Recommendations for Increasing Internal and External Collaborations and Recognition

Recommendatio Timeline Resources Marketing/ Benchmarks

24

n Needed Communication

1. Improve UML website and/or faculty and researcher database (keyword search, critical mass areas of expertise) -- establish user-friendly web-based input system (e.g., faculty can continuously update, easily generate updated CV, annual report, etc.

Fall 2009: Initial identification of categories to collect info on (e.g., research interests, funded projects, papers, students); mid-Spring 2010, launch database?

Investigate connection with UML E-Library system and staff; requires faculty to provide input, staff to keep info updated

Connect to other information collection needs – e.g., papers, awards, books, performances – and to recognition and dissemination needs – e.g., marketing of Univ success; address union concerns

2. Organize activities to generate more face time between faculty – promote interdisciplinary collaborations (e.g., thematic workshops, informal meeting spaces)

Ongoing Minimal – refreshments; facilitator/organizer

Marketing is key – need good participation by already over-scheduled faculty, therefore, activities should be productive (but not necessarily formal)

Number of multi-disciplinary proposals (and funded programs, scholarship, CW)

3. Encourage development of more interdisciplinary programs (e.g., to support graduate students for depts. without large grad programs, to pool recruiting resources)

Current examples: Biomedical Eng, Nano (but no coordinated student recruitment effort yet, and continued need to enhance faculty interaction)

Initial funds to establish, grow program; ultimately, program must generate enough students to justify sustainability; address issue of requisite faculty credit for extra-departmental academics; cross-linking programs

Include photos and descriptions of graduate students and their experiences to appeal to prospective students

Number of programs and students

4. Establish structure for reporting and acknowledging accomplishments, starting from dept

Ongoing (recent research funds and book publication

Connect to database support

Resource for marketing

25

chair to dean to univ-wide; integrate with acknowledgement of RSCW excellence and achievements, team awards

celebrations); effective dept chair to dean to univ structure to be established (in coordination with database development)

5. Facilitate visits to/by funding agencies and foundations; visibility at and hosting of conferences, panels, workshops;

Currently, individual-driven

Facilities for hosting (e.g., new downtown facility); travel funds

Start by encouraging faculty on an individual basis and then publicizing to expand

Number of activities (hard to tie directly to funding outcomes, general reputation enhancement)

c. Increase Grantsmanship Training and Information on Funding Resources: Obtaining more funding is not in direct proportion to the number of proposals submitted. Higher success rates from higher quality proposals are important not only for long-term external reputation, but also to avoid faculty fatigue and reduced time for actually creating scholarship and program growth over the long term. As the number of faculty involved in RSCW rises rapidly, new processes must be established for the Provost’s office and ORA in particular, to provide training and contacts, facilitate large proposal efforts, and create a more efficient post-award contracts and grants process.

Table C. Recommendations for Infrastructure-related Efforts to Increase External Funding

Recommendation Timeline Resources Needed

Marketing/ Communication

Benchmarks

1. Offer more grant writing workshops – throughout the year; invite external people with funding agency and foundation expertise; discipline-specific workshops

Some workshops (e.g., NSF CAREER) have been held in the past; need to expand these offerings on a regular basis

Support for external experts; refreshments

Strong interest exists, key is scheduling.

Number of proposals and success rate

2. Publicize and expand ORA resources (SMARTS database, examples of

Ongoing Staff to assist and keep up to

Address info overload issue

Number of users

26

funded proposals) date3. Publicize new university structure and contact people – improve integration of ORA, CVIP, Advancement, etc.

Very near term (end of July?), and continuous updating on website

Minimal

4. Increase effectiveness and transparency of support funds (e.g., seed, matching, OH return, user fees); establish discretionary funds of different levels for dept, college, and univ allocation; establish and publicize policies for shared-use facilities; ensure reasonable stability of OH return and user fees for planning

Ongoing Needs easier access to accounts and account reports

Need to show how any changes in fund allocation (e.g., user fees, OH return) correspond to reinvestment in RSCW infrastructure

Return on investment of funds

5. Strategic plans for research facilities and resources – maintenance, staffing, capital equipment, policies

Ongoing Major univ investment

Need to show how any changes in fund allocation correspond to reinvestment in RSCW infrastructure; need to have open process for input on strategic planning

Status of core facilities

6. Generate common core talent pool – e.g., graphics for proposals and presentations, statistical studies, assessment, K-12, accounts and purchasing

Identify highest priority services and potential support

Shared university and PI support of staff

Publicity of available resources

Number of users

7. Advisory Councils and other mechanisms to obtain feedback, generate new ideas, and share best practices;

Ongoing, but needs to be more clearly defined

d. Enhance the Quality and Experience of Our Graduate and Undergraduate Students: The success of the RSCW enterprise is heavily dependent on the quality of our students. Recruitment of high-quality students is paramount to both the quality and quantity of RSCW our faculty can generate.

27

Success of our students (our primary “product”) is critical to the mission and the long-term reputation of the University.

Table D. Recommendations to Enhance the Quality and Experience of Our Students in RSCW

Recommendation

Timeline Resources Needed

Marketing/ Communication

Benchmarks

1. Ensure graduate student funding is competitive and offers can be made in a timely fashion – e.g., funding pool for interdisciplinary and large programs

Recently negotiated GEO contract addresses competitive financial packages (in-state, out-of-state addressed?); need program coordination for Sept 2010 (Spring 2010 offers)

Process for allocation of PI funds and univ funds into coordinated funding pools

Needs to tie to increased recruiting

Number of applications (selectivity); number of accepted students that enroll (yield); number of students that graduate

2. Actively identify, develop connections with, and recruit high quality students, faculty, and staff from underrepresented groups

Initiate near term at small scale, institutionalize successful approaches

Funds to bring good candidates to campus in interactive groups

Identify targeted marketing options

Increase in number of underrepresented groups

3. Provide funding to students for professional development (travel, student research symposium, honors program) and undergraduate research

Ongoing Coordination of existing funds, identification of additional funds if necessary

Success of students (awards, grad school acceptance, post-grad placement)

3. Further topics that need addressing: While many issues around enhancing interdisciplinary research were discussed, the specific topic of how to evaluate and manage the University’s research centers and institutes were not addressed. This topic naturally fits into the “Infrastructure” category, and needs serious attention if we are to attain our institutional ambitions. A review of national models of interdisciplinary research center governance, and how they might be adapted to best fit our evolving university administrative structure, is recommended.

Committee on Undergraduate Education and Student Success28

Co-chairs Charlotte Mandell and Fred Martin

Introduction

The original charge to this Committee was to identify strategies for UMass Lowell to become nationally recognized for its quality of student learning and its undergraduate programs. The work focused on two primary areas: improving student success through enhanced support mechanisms and opportunities for engagements, and improving student learning through curricular reform and expanded models of pedagogy. The issues addressed by this committee included experiential learning, service learning and co-ops, undergraduate research, General Education, interdisciplinarity, Honors Program, first-year programs, programs to supports transfer students, gateway courses, student support in areas of personal and cultural development, and academic support services, admissions in general, and recruitment and support of international and multi-cultural students in particular.

The committee enumerated numerous strengths and weakness. In general, although there are individual programs (both in academic and support domains) that have achieved excellence, programs tend to be fragmented; there is a lack of communication and awareness among related programs; and there is weak outreach to students about specific programs. We need to take advantage of potential synergy among these programs; enhance the visibility of the programs, and strengthen the relationships among them.

The committee combined several methods to develop its recommendations; we met in small subcommittees, we met several times as a committee of the whole, we reviewed earlier documents such as the Transformation reports and related literature, and we conducted two surveys of undergraduate programs and of support programs to identify current status and best practices in a variety of areas. Most of our recommendations, however, grew out of extensive discussion in small working groups followed by discussion as a committee of the whole.

Recommendations

1. Greatly Expand Experiential Learning and Community EngagementGiven that education in the 21st century is no longer limited by the traditional boundaries of the classroom, we recommend that the University strengthen and expand its commitment to new modes of learning; that every program on campus develop opportunities and consider adding requirements of such modes as cooperative education, service learning, research opportunities, city as lab, and practica.   A specific dimension of experiential learning that we want to foster includes enhanced community contact on and off campus (strengthens students, communication, civic responsibility; strengthens learning). 2. Enhance Support for all New Students (First-year students and Transfer students)Assess current first year seminars to identify strengths and weaknesses. Provide first-year courses for students in all disciplines and a transitional-seminar for transfer students.

29

  Provide more opportunities for social and recreational engagement. Some of these opportunities for student interaction can be provided by adding service learning to first-year and transitional courses as well as through student life. 3. Foster Success in Gateway Courses.Require programs to identify courses that have high failure rates, particularly those courses that are "gateway" courses. Identify sources of high failure rates and examine curriculum and pedagogy; strengthen faculty support (through council initiatives, faculty development initiatives and administrative initiatives); provide TA support including appropriate training for TA's, consider structural supports relating to tutoring centers, classroom improvements. 4. Strengthen Student Support and Advising with Centers. Strengthen advising and tutoring, particularly targeting the needs of at-risk students (undeclared students, students on warning, students who have failed to meet the requirements of particular majors).

Integrate and centralize services so that students' needs can be addressed more efficiently. Improve evaluation of risk, perhaps through a mandatory midsemester warning for failing students (to replace the current midsemester grade option, which we believe has not been effective), enhanced intervention and follow-up by related services, represented on both campuses. Vastly enhance access to support-information using improved technology (web-based, text-based, phone-based, including 24-7 access). 5. Develop a Vibrant, Institutionalized Honors Program.It is to the advantage of the University to have a strong and vibrant honors program. We recommend following the guidelines of the Commonwealth Honors Program to achieve this goal. A particular challenge is to develop mechanisms to facilitate faculty teaching within the Honors program. 6. Encourage Interdisciplinarity for Teaching Excellence and Strategic Research Opportunities.Create and enhance means of bringing people together. Create means of identifying common interest areas across disciplines, develop and implement policies that address workload and FTE issues and departmental restrictions and culture. 7. Integrate Research Opportunities into the Undergraduate Experience.Using the definition of research as the "creative endeavors within a discipline," create a means of identifying and developing on-campus research opportunities and provide a structure dedicated to coordinating and advertising these efforts.  8. Promote Diversity and Multi-Culturalism.As with other transitional students we will need to enhance on-campus opportunities for support and early orientation and community engagement of under-represented students, but these efforts might be targeted to the specific cultural issues of particular groups. We would like to encourage opportunities for synergy between ethnic minority groups and international student groups. We would like to expand recruitment efforts and bridge programs in areas with high numbers of ethnic minorities and expand academic and recreational programs that target the ethnic minority groups on campus. 9. Revitalize Intra-Institutional Communication.None of the above will happen in a meaningful way without commitment from the university to centralize and provide administrative structures that facilitate integration and communication, such as central offices, web-based inventories, standing committees, individuals identified as key contacts, etc., to foster greater

30

student awareness of opportunities and greater faculty collaboration in the development of such opportunities.

10. Develop a 21st Century General Education Program.Given that many of the recommendations above appear to reflect an expanded model of an ideal undergraduate education, and that GenEd2K was first conceptualized almost 15 years ago, it is time for a commitment to the development of a new Gen Ed program for the campus that can incorporate many of the principles above.

Committee on University AdvancementCo-chairs Robert Tamarin and Elizabeth Shorr

Charge to the Committee on University Advancement

The Committee on University Advancement is charged with developing a strategic plan to1. Dramatically increase private revenues with new, sustainable sources of funding2. Expand the scope and scale of student scholarship 3. Strengthen the relationship between the University and its alumni

Strengths and Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

UMass Lowell has many opportunities to build on successes and capitalize on opportunities that will create long-term, sustainable support for the institution. Student engagement must be addressed for the University to build and create sustainable philanthropy. In addition, alumni support and engagement across the University must increase in all areas.

University Advancement has undergone significant change in the past 4-5 years and experienced significant turnover in staff and budget reductions. There are key functions that must be enhanced, including planned giving, corporate and foundation relations, and major gifts. The University, through appropriate staffing, has the opportunity to build its fundraising capacity, increase its return on investment, re-build its annual fund, and increase alumni participation despite the current economic environment.

UMass Lowell is fortunate to have a very committed team of Deans and Chairs who can be active fundraisers for their schools and colleges. Staff members from

31

Advancement need to work closely with the Deans to ensure best practices in fundraising.

Process

The Committee on University Advancement met six times throughout March, April and May, 2009, to develop its recommendations. The Committee began with an initial review of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing UMass Lowell and its efforts. The Committee reviewed data providing comparative results developed by the Core Group (Attachment 1) for UMass Lowell. The group also looked at the activities of peer institutions (Attachment 2), including the UMass System campuses and aspirant fundraising institutions, including private institutions, and large successful public institutions. The Committee reviewed past fundraising performance of each school and college. The Committee also addressed the questions posed to it in the “Charge to the Committee.”

Recommendations

1) Student-Alumni Engagement

Develop and implement a University-wide student-alumni engagement program by July 2010.

The University’s relationship with its alumni begins when a prospective student is admitted to the University. All interactions between the University and its freshmen and transfer students affect the students’ perceptions of the institution. The University should:

a. Strengthen ties with students beginning when they first arrive on campus; create a freshmen “year book.”

b. Teach students what it means to be alumni, how important alumni support is to the institution, and what is expected of them as they become good stewards of the University.

c. Identify best practices in student engagement and ensure that those are adopted by the schools and colleges.

d. Ensure that alumni and alumni recognition are prominent throughout the campus.

e. Engage alumni with appropriate staff in their areas of affinity.f. Identify where geographical concentrations of alumni are and

develop a regional engagement strategy.g. Meet alumni “where they are” either physically or virtually (using social

and professional networking sites).h. Gather information from alumni of different decades to determine how

they would like to be engaged.i. Use class year (e.g., John Smith ’08), school or college, whenever alumni

names appear in print.j. Invite current faculty and staff to alumni events, and students and

alumni to serve on committees.

2) Create a Culture of Philanthropy

32

Create a culture of philanthropy in all of the schools and colleges and other areas that engage with students.

As a culture of philanthropy is created throughout the University, faculty and staff working with the Office of Alumni Programs should begin to reach out and meet with alumni who have the potential to support UMass Lowell.

a. Develop and implement a structured communications strategy regarding philanthropy, expectations as students, and expectations as alumni by September 2010.

b. Orientation, welcome days, and other student affairs activities should contain discussion of alumni expectations.

c. Build philanthropic activities into student affairs programs and service learning activities.

d. Highlight the success of UMass Lowell alumni and highlight alumni philanthropic support of UMass Lowell.

3) Fundraising

Develop and implement a plan to conduct the UMass Lowell Capital Campaign, beginning in 2011.

The launch of a Capital Campaign to support UMass Lowell 2020 will be critical to the effort to achieve a dramatic increase in private philanthropy as donors are able to see tangible results of the transformational effect of their gifts to UMass Lowell.

a. Double the size of the UMass Lowell endowment by 2020.b. Develop a planned giving program. As wealth transfer takes place, the

University can significantly increase its support from bequests and other planned gifts.

c. Implement new tools for wealth-screening, predictive modeling, and employment of best practices, resulting in an annual 10% growth rate of funds raised.

d. Develop appropriate staffing levels to support a comprehensive Capital Campaign.

During the interim period, prior to the start of the Capital Campaign, fundraising efforts will be focused on increasing participation in annual giving and increasing the number and size of major and principal gifts.

4) Build University Infrastructure

Develop and implement a University-wide plan by 2014, increasing staff resulting in an increase in private philanthropic support for UMass Lowell.

Advancing the University to dramatically increase private philanthropy requires a significant influx of resources in the University Advancement Office and other areas of the University. Resources must be invested in three areas: development (fundraising), alumni and student relations, and donor communications and stewardship. In order to bring staffing to the levels of UMass Lowell’s aspirational peer institutions, staffing in the development area should at least double, moving from 3 at present, to 6 active directors of development and adding staff in Corporate

33

and Foundation Relations. Each school and/or college should have a director of development assigned specifically to it, reporting to Advancement yet housed in the school or college with dotted line reporting to the Dean. Significant investment should also be made in Alumni Relations dedicating resources to the schools and colleges and student affairs. Each school should have its own associate director of alumni relations reporting to Advancement with a dotted line to the Dean. In this fashion the role of the Deans, the Athletic Director, and Dean of Students in development should be supported and increased.(Attachment 3)

5) Marketing and Promotion

Support the implementation of a bold, visible marketing campaign focused on raising awareness of, and funds for UMass Lowell, based on the work of the Committee on Branding and Marketing.

Fund-raising at UMass Lowell will be greatly supported by a campaign to raise awareness among its alumni donors and prospective donors, in order to raise the percentage of alumni supporting the institution from 7% in 2008 to our goal of 20% by 2020. The campaign should be institution-wide and should support the planned Capital Campaign as well as transcending all areas of the University from academics to athletics.

Benchmarks

The following have been identified as benchmarks by which to judge success:

1. Percentage of students participating in the UMass Lowell Fund.2. The percentage of alumni giving to UMass Lowell.3. Fundraising performance as measured:

a. against yearly goalb. against peer institutionsc. against aspirant peer institutionsd. by number and size of major gifts receivede. by return on investmentf. by growth in endowment

4. Attendance at University events.

Conclusion

The University of Massachusetts Lowell has a significant opportunity to position itself as a world class institution. It has the opportunity to increase significantly the level of sustainable private philanthropic support afforded to the institution by building an institutional culture of philanthropy and support of student and alumni services and investing in University-wide advancement, including appropriate staffing levels.

34

35