BENCHMARKS TOWARD EXCELLENCE

These archived pages present the Academic Plan adopted by the Board of Trustees in August 2003.

A new academic plan is being formulated. Please check the Academic Plan homepage for updates.

Introduction

In order to enhance the quality and stature of the University of Connecticut, and to assure accountability to its constituencies, the Academic Plan proposes six categories of measurement—benchmarks—for assessing University performance. These benchmarks are both internal (measuring ourselves according to our own past performance) and external (comparing University performance to that of other public research universities).

The external benchmarks include faculty and institutional measures. The external benchmarks discussed below involve comparisons only with other public research universities in the United States. It should be noted that the University of Connecticut is increasingly competing in an international arena. It is hoped that in the future benchmarks will be developed for such international comparisons as doctoral programs and publications in first-rank journals.

Internal benchmarks include standards for undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, and institutional measures. The Academic Plan aims to enable the University of Connecticut to rise in national rankings and to meet the goals of the University diversity plan while the institution strives to be the best that it can be, independently of what other institutions may achieve.

Peer Institutions

Based on the model created by the Connecticut Department of Higher Education (DHE), peer institutions for purposes of quality comparison are:

• Colorado State University
• University of Missouri
• Iowa State University
• University of Nebraska
• University of Iowa
• Rutgers University
• Louisiana State University
• University of Tennessee
• University of Massachusetts
• West Virginia University

It should be noted that many of these are larger in size than the University of Connecticut so comparisons can be misleading.

The institutions listed above were chosen as peers based on such characteristics as:

• Public institution
• Land grant institution
• State flagship institution
• Similarities in research productivity, particularly research external funding through grants and contracts
• Comprehensive array of academic programs, from undergraduate to doctoral levels

These peers have been selected based on our present status. There are also aspirational peers that we wish to emulate in various ways as we realize the goals of our academic plan: University of California at Berkeley, University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin, University of Texas, University of Illinois, University of Virginia, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and University of California at San Diego.

Because some of these universities, particularly the aspirational peers, are substantially larger than University of Connecticut, according to some measures they will necessarily outrank us; however it is appropriate to meet or exceed their standards in many areas.

Key Characteristics of Actual and Aspirational Peers

• SAT scores and class rank of undergraduate students
• Student/Faculty ratio
• GRE/LSAT/MCAT/GMAT scores of graduate students
• Research expenditures
• Research expenditures/FTE Research Faculty
• Diversity of undergraduate students

The Goals

Internal:

Undergraduate Students

• Increase the mean high school rank in class of entering students by 5% over the next five years to the 85% range from the present 80% (2003).
• Increase the combined SAT score of entering students by 25 points over the next five years into the 1200 range from the 2003 score of 1170.
• Make comparable improvements for class rank and standardized admissions tests in professional school rankings.
• Meet the goals of the University diversity plan.
• Improve the freshman/sophomore retention rate at Storrs to over 90% during the next five years to make them more comparable to aspirant schools (2002 rate = 88%).
• Improve the six-year overall graduation rate to over 70% during the next five years (2002rate = 68%).
• Compile data on prestigious national prizes (such as Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, WoodrowWilson, and Fulbright) won by undergraduates to establish baselines as a precursor to increasing the number of recipients of these awards.
• Continue to monitor student performance on professional entrance examinations and increase pass rates if applicable (note: for many licensure exams, the pass rate is already 100%).
• Increase number of students admitted to honor societies, where applicable.
• Compile job placement data on students in terms of length of time to placement and types of jobs.

Graduate Students

• Increase mean Graduate Record Exam scores of entering students by five points per year for the next five years, with similar proportional increases for other graduate entranceexaminations.
• Meet the goals of the University diversity plan.
• Double the number of training grants from NIH, NSF, and other prestigious agencies with a goal of 30 grants which support 80 students by 2008.
• Increase the number of externally funded graduate students.
• Compile data on prestigious national prizes and fellowships won by graduate students to establish baselines for future benchmarking. Fulbright, Woodrow Wilson, and other awards would be included.

Faculty

• Meet the goals of the University diversity plan.
• Move the scholarly and artistic or creative productivity of faculty up by 0.1 product per year for the next five years (present productivity: 7 per faculty member).
• Increase the number of invention disclosures from 13 in 2002 to 25 in 2005 and to 50 by 2008.
• Compile data through the Office of Institutional Research on prestigious national and international grants, fellowships, artistic commissions, and prizes so as to establish baselines for future benchmarking. These would include Fulbright, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Endowment for the Arts, John Simon Guggenheim, Rockefeller, Ford, Mellon, National Book Award, Pulitzer and national teaching awards.

Institutional

• Increase research expenditures by ten percent annually for the next five years (present (2002) amount of research expenditures: 86.8 million).
• Approach national norms in grant size so that within two years, our federal grant size is 50% of the average federal grant size of our peer institutions and 90% within 5 years.(Where relevant, performance must be pro-rated according to the number of FTE Research Faculty and weighted with consideration to teaching load)
• Within 2 years, increase grant applications by research faculty in order to approach national averages in proportion of grants funded per application.
• Meet standards of peers for externally funded postdoctoral fellowships.

The Goals

External

Faculty

• Elevate doctoral program rankings in the next National Research Council survey so that with respect to faculty quality the University of Connecticut will have five departments in the top quartile and twenty in the top half. [Present rankings in 1994 NRC survey: 2departments, EEB and Psychology in top quartile, and 7 departments in top 50% (including EEB and Psychology)]

Institutional

• Increase external support from its current level by 10% per annum.
• Increase the number and quality of institutional partnerships, both corporate and nonprofit, and request the Office of Institutional Research to gather data on these efforts.
• Work to increase the “reputational” component of such rankings as U.S. News and World Report so that component matches the rankings for other components.

Best Academic Practices for Excellence

In order to establish appropriate and challenging goals, benchmarking peer and aspirational institutions is a critical component in assessing the University of Connecticut’s place among the constellation of academic institutions. We will establish a process for constantly ascertaining and modeling best practices at other successful institutions.

The University of Connecticut has three primary methodologies in place for planning to emulate and improve upon best practices: the academic assessment process, the education of institutional leaders through participation in appropriate organizations and conferences, and the obtaining of expert advice in particular areas of need.

In terms of the academic disciplines, the university is now in its fifth year of academic program assessment. This assessment process, which involves a unit self study that includes comparison to peer institutions, is followed by a site visit by leaders in the field. This assessment program has already been extended in a limited number of cases to academic centers or academically related administrative units.

Academic administrators throughout the institution are involved with appropriate organizations that are a constant source of new ideas and information on best practices nation wide. Formation of the Center for Undergraduate Education and the successful First Year Experience program are examples of incorporating best practices into the fabric of the academic institution. This Task Force report contains a number of recommendations that are linked to successful practices at other institutions. Further, on an as-needed basis, consultants may be retained to make recommendations for specific issues related to the Academic Plan. A current example of this activity is retention of a consultant to carry out an evaluation of classroom needs.

Next: Areas of Emphasis & Research Allocation