Our Three Themes

Remarks by Provost Holub to the SPC on December 12, 2007

I wanted to return briefly to the three themes for our strategic plan: accessibility, excellence or quality, and diversity and inclusiveness.

Accessibility

I have already stated that a central feature of our plan is the need for us to increase in size, and I show here in graphic form the comparison between undergraduate seats at a research university with high research activity for Tennessee and for other states. Obviously there are states that provide fewer seats than Tennessee at their public institutions, and we see that Alabama is one of them. In Alabama there is one seat for approximately every 500 citizens of the state at a research university categorized as “very high research.” I would also note that some states, such as Massachusetts, also provide few seats at public institutions with high research activity for their students. However, in a state like Massachusetts, there are many private institutions located in the state that compensate to a degree for the deficiencies in public education. The bottom line here is that Tennessee provides fewer seats for its citizens at universities of the type that we are at UTK than in most states with similar populations. Our strategic plan seeks to make us more competitive in this area.

Another key issue with regard to the size of the campus is what proportion of the students should be graduate students. Currently we have approximately 6,000 graduate students and approximately 21,000 undergraduates. That means that about 22% of our students are graduate students. At a campus like Chapel Hill we find about 25-40% of the student body in graduate studies. At Berkeley there are 10,000 graduate students out of a total student population of approximately 34,000 (over 29%). Michigan has close to 36% graduate students; Minnesota 31.5%; Florida over 27.5%; Washington and Wisconsin are over 29% and over 27%, respectively. There are many institutions that are in the range of 20-25%, and some with fewer than 20%. The general trend, however, is clear. The top research institutions in the country tend to have a higher percentage of graduate students.

If we are aiming at 33,000 students as a total for our campus, we would do well to consider increasing our graduate population by 2,000 students. The percentage of graduate students would thereby increase to just over 24%, still below most of the top-ranked public institutions. We must recognize, of course, that it is much more difficult to add graduate students than undergraduates, since undergraduates normally generate revenue for the campus, while graduate students require funding from the campus. The exception among the graduate population is professional school students, but professional school students in many fields do not contribute to the research and scholarly activity we also would like to increase.

We must recognize, therefore, that in order to become a better institution we will have to grow our graduate population faster than our undergraduate population, and that we have to consider carefully the mix of professional school graduates and academic graduate students.

Quality or Excellence

The Chancellor has spoken often about membership in the American Association of Universities (AAU), or at least becoming an AAU-type institution. We should note here briefly what that means. The AAU consists of 61 American and 2 Canadian institutions. 33 public institutions in the United States are members. Membership expands slowly and is by invitation only; three-quarters of the member institutions must vote for membership. Only two schools have been admitted since the turn of the century, both in 2001 (SUNY Stonybrook and Texas A&M), and only three were added in the 1990s (UC Davis [1996], UC Irvine [1996], and Emory [1995]). I don’t believe any institution has been excluded once admitted, although the principles do include a procedure for disqualification; nonetheless, it seems obvious that quite a few institutions admitted earlier in the twentieth century would have difficulty qualifying for admission at this point.

The AAU states that its member institutions are “distinguished by the breadth and quality of their programs of research and graduate education.” The association publishes its principles and indicators that it uses for potential members. Phase I indicators are federally funded federal research support; membership in the national academies; National Research Council faculty quality ratings; faculty arts and humanities awards, fellowships, and memberships; and citations. Phase II indicators are USDA, state and industrial research funding; doctoral education; number of postdoctoral appointees; and undergraduate education.

With regard to our current standing, we can turn to the Lombardi report on top research universities to see where we rank among public institutions. The data in this report stems mostly from 2004 and 2005. At that time we ranked 45th in total research and 48th in federally funded research; we were 66th in the number of academy members and 62nd in faculty awards; we ranked 36th in the number of doctoral degrees granted and 55th in the number of postdoctoral appointments employed on the campus; our undergraduate data in the Lombardi report placed us 91st.

As you can see, to rank among the top 30 public institutions would mean an improvement in many areas. In research we would have to increase our expenditures by $80 million in general research and $70 million would have to come from federal dollars. We would need 14 additional members of the national academies, 36 additional PhDs, and 120 more postdocs. Even if we achieve these goals we will be only on the edge of the qualifications since our reputation in the National Research Council surveys would have to improve dramatically, and these surveys are taken only about once every ten years. To be a genuine candidate for AAU membership we would have to move into the top 25 or top 20 in most categories.

Let me note also that we have improved already significantly in some areas since the last Lombardi data was taken. We certainly rank higher than 91st in undergraduate indicators, and we have done well during the past year in faculty awards. In addition, we are not far away from the top 30 in PhD production.

My conclusion from the data is that we should not set our sights on AAU membership as an immediate goal for this strategic plan. We need to improve first as an institution in too many areas. If we complete a strategic plan that moves us toward the types of universities we would like to emulate, then at some point we can begin to set our sights realistically on the AAU. For now, however, we simply have to increase the quality of our programs, particularly our research programs, so that we can begin the climb toward the status of a premier institution of higher education.

Diversity and Inclusiveness

As I have stated this theme permeates our strategic plan. It includes more than numbers of minorities on the campus, extending to our curriculum, the campus climate, our education aboard programs, and our attractiveness to foreign students.

But it also includes numbers of minorities, and I would like to discuss them briefly now.

Over the ten-year period from 1997 to 2006, we did manage to increase the number of minority students on campus. We have also made slight gains among Hispanic and Asian-American populations. But with the end of the Geier decree we must recognize that it will not be easy to maintain the number of African-American students on the campus, and we must also keep in mind the other minority populations of the state and how we can attract them to Knoxville.

With regard to minority populations among faculty and staff our record is more mixed. The percentage of minority faculty members has increased, but almost the entire increase is attributable to increased numbers of Asian Americans. The percentages of minorities among the staff have remained flat or decreased slightly. In these areas we must obviously redouble our efforts to secure a representative and diverse group of employees.

I welcome any comments you may have on these issues.

The Office of the Provost and the strategic planning committee welcome input from the campus community at any point during this important process. You may send comments here.