Task Force on Student Educational Capacity OPEN FORUM – November 18, 2010

enrollment.mst.edu

Founded 1870 | Rolla, Missouri

Assess whether the fall 2009 student population was at, below, or above the university’s capacity to provide each student with a quality education.

Task Force Charge

2009-10 TASK FORCE MEMBERS

Review Task Force charge and membership

Overview of Task Force reports:– General Observations– Capacity Definitions, Key Factors & Assessments

Sub-committee Findings– Chair Reports

Overall Conclusion & Recommendations

Open Discussion

Forum Agenda

Enrollment Update

Total Enrollment Fall 2000 - 201056% Enrollment Growth: 2,580 Additional Students

1702 Graduate Students

1610 Female Students

960 International Students

560 Under-Represented Minority Students

Enrollment Records

TOTAL Enrollment 7,206 Undergraduate students 5,504

Graduate students 1,702

New freshman class* 1,170

New transfer class 388

Average class size 28.6

Average lab size 18.2

Fall 2010 Enrollment Stats

*Freshman Engineering Class Capped in June

Total Enrollment 2000-2010

Fall 1981Total Students:

7,480

On-campus: 7,039

Distance/EEC: 441

Undergraduate:6,313

Freshmen: 1,488

Graduate: 1,167

Fall 2010Total Students:

7,206

On-campus: 6,520

Distance/EEC: 686

Undergraduate:5,504

Freshmen: 1,170

Graduate: 1,702

Managing Capacity

Fall 2000Total Students:

4,626

On-campus: 4,393

Distance/EEC: 233

Undergraduate:3,698

Freshmen: 696

Graduate: 928

19th in Nation for Largest Undergraduate Engineering Enrollment 17th in Nation for Number of Engineering Degrees Granted to African-Americans

19th in Nation for Number of BS Engineering Degrees Granted

2010 ASEE Rankings

Fall 201043

8

4

3

2

43

2941

19

556

128

3629

4,901

54

8125

7

4

20

20

45928

20

34

20

18

16 25

7

24

12

12

3

22

22

32

6

174

4

12

Total Enrollment

48 states & 51 nations

70% Missouri residents

10% minority students

9% international students

DC 1

4

Students’ Home States

1

2

Unofficial data until after 4th week census

Enrollment Diversity

Retention and Graduate Rates1988 - Present

Classroom Utilization, Fall 2010

0 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 81+

Total Rooms Available: 10 24 29 4 8

Total Rooms Used Percentage Functional Capacity*Mon - Wed - Fri Mon - Wed - Fri Mon - Wed - Fri

Class Time 0 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 81+ 0 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 81+ 0 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 81+

8:00 AM- 9:00 AM 3 12 19 3 6 30% 50% 66% 75% 75% X X9:00 AM- 10:00 AM 5 23 25 3 8 50% 96% 86% 75% 100% X X X X

10:00 AM- 11:00 AM 9 16 29 4 8 90% 67% 100% 100% 100% X X X X11:00 AM- 12:00 PM 7 17 28 4 8 70% 71% 97% 100% 100% X X X12:00 PM- 1:00 PM 0 1 3 2 3 0% 4% 10% 50% 38%

1:00 PM- 2:00 PM 3 18 26 3 8 30% 75% 90% 75% 100% X X X X2:00 PM- 3:00 PM 3 18 24 4 8 30% 75% 83% 100% 100% X X X X3:00 PM- 4:00 PM 2 17 13 2 4 20% 71% 45% 50% 50% 4:00 PM- 5:00 PM 0 11 9 2 6 0% 46% 31% 50% 75% X5:00 PM- 6:00 PM 0 7 5 3 5 0% 29% 17% 75% 63% X 6:00 PM- 7:00 PM 2 12 6 2 7 20% 50% 21% 50% 88% X7:00 PM- 8:00 PM 1 11 8 2 4 10% 46% 28% 50% 50% 8:00 PM- 9:00 PM 1 6 5 2 1 10% 25% 17% 50% 13%

I. Most S&T constituents recognize the university’s resources have been significantly stretched over the past decade by large growth in student enrollments and the mission-driven need to increase research levels.

II. These accomplishments were purposeful and a key focus of the university’s strategic plan.

Observations

III. The growth has established new institutional records for faculty scholarship, the transfer of new knowledge to industry, and the quality, success and diversity of the student body, while stabilizing the university’s budget.

IV. During this same period, the state has reduced institutional funding and implemented tuition restraints.

Observations

IV. The Task Force recognizes that quality instruction and course access issues are developing largely due to the lack of funding available for:

1. replacing departed faculty

2. expanding and maintaining academic facilities

3. growing compliance and need-based financial aid requirements

4. developing alternative instructional delivery methods

Observations

Educational capacity is a complex management issue and incorporates many variables for a residential research university.

Capacity ultimately is a planning and quality assurance concept.

Generally defined: – “Educational capacity is the university’s ability to

receive, enroll, house, feed, and properly educate students in an appropriate time period.”

Defining Capacity

Quality Teaching and Learning Enrollment and Research Growth Teaching Loads & Instructional Faculty Numbers Instructional and Laboratory Space Student Financial Assistance Resources Student and Campus Support Resources Housing, Dining and Parking Volume

Key Factors in Determining Capacity

Established set of short-term strategic enrollment goals and quality student profiles for both undergraduate and graduate populations

Objectives: 1. achieve optimum enrollments by filling excess

capacity 2. focus on achieving quality learning outcomes 3. minimize the average costs per student

2004 Capacity Assessment

Due to the 2004 enrollment goals being exceeded in fall 2009 (45% increase over 1999) and some departments struggling to meet instructional needs of larger enrollments and increased research levels, capacity must be assessed in terms of the sum of many crucial factors.

Capacity could not be based exclusively upon the percentage of occupied seats in classrooms, beds in residence halls or spaces in campus parking lots.

2009 Capacity Assessment

The 2009-10 Task Force had to employ a myriad of definitions and datasets to determine capacity.

Due to the complexity of the issue, each department chair and unit director was asked to assess the capacity of their departments.

Capacity Assessments by Unit Leaders

1. Campus housing, dining and parking– Chair: Tina Sheppard

2. Student financial aid and scholarships– Chair: Rance Larsen

3. Campus and student support services– Chair: Margaret Cline

4. Faculty and academic instructional space– Chair: Larry Gragg

2009-01 Capacity Sub-committees

Chair: Tina Sheppard

Campus housing, dining and parking

Patti Frisbee Rachel Morris Ted Ruth Debbie Schatz Tina Sheppard Jay Goff

Housing, Dining, and Parking Committee

2000 2004 2009 2010 2011

Total Beds Available

1,229 1,229 1,449 1,449 1,773

Fall Semester Housing Contracts – 4th week

1,046 1,409 1,643 1,711 N/A

Available Residence Hall Beds

Housing Benchmarks & Data Points

Housing occupancy Capacity post renovation is 1773. This is above the highest occupancy seen by

Residential Life.

Fall occupancy counts Because Organizational Housing (Greek Life and CCH) is not required to accept

a minimum number of students, for the purposes of capacity we are reporting only residence hall numbers.

First Week Fourth WeekFall 2009 1689 1643 Fall 2008 1724 1647

Convenient location Based on walking distance, the subcommittee has determined current

locations are convenient to residential students. All locations are no more than a 15 minute walk from the farthest extreme of campus

1. Current residence hall housing needs are being met.

2. Additional beds are needed only as replacement for existing beds.

3. Current campus population cannot be supported without the 400 beds that will be lost when the Quad is taken off line.

4. How the beds are replaced (traditional residence hall beds or apartment units) is a question to be addressed by the Residential Life & Campus Master Plans.

Housing Recommendations

Seating and Design Capacity Thomas Jefferson design capacity - 366 Rayl (Quad) design capacity - 307 Havener design capacity - 456

Number of Diners Lunch meals have the greatest participation numbers.

Service (Convenient dining locations and quality of food) Based on walking distance (Chart 1), current locations are convenient to

diners. Based on data from two surveys, most diners rate quality at or above average.

Dining Benchmarks & Data Points

S&T CAFETERIA DINING CENTERS

THOMAS-JEFFERSON

RAYL (QUAD)

HAVENER CENTER

Seating and Design Capacity

366 307 456

October 2009 Total Meals Served per Week

15,741 9,697 37,459*

Campus Cafeteria Dining Capacity

*includes all meals served at the Havener Food Court, Coyote Jacks Grill and Einstein’s Bagels

Chart 1 - Walking Distance to Dining

Dining Observations & Considerations

The campus’s overall dining capacity is about 1130 seats with about 1180 to 1340 patrons served per meal.

The Rayl Cafeteria’s physical infrastructure is in very poor condition and likely needs to be replaced before 2015.

Future students are more likely to be residential and more will be from low income families.

Havener capacity is exceeded Monday and Wednesdays, 11:50 a.m. – 12:20 p.m. during the common lunch hour. See Chart 2.

Chart 2 – Havener Lunch Usage

1. Replacing Rayl cafeteria will be critical in the next three – five years. The current campus population cannot be supported without the 307 seats that will be lost when Rayl is taken off line.

2. Resist expanding the food court style dining options in the future as both low income and male students tend to prefer the traditional cafeteria all you care to eat dining option.

3. Should the academic free hour be removed, dining capacity concerns in Havener would be eliminated.

Dining Recommendations

Parking Benchmarks & Data Points

Availability of parking in desired locations Number of parking spaces available – 2330

Number of parking spaces assigned

Parking Observations/Considerations

The dashboard usage reports indicate the campus’s overall parking capacity is about 2330

Upon investigation by committee, we learned no data points existing to direct a recommendation to this task force.

New Police Chief and Parking Committee investigate the parking issues and deliver data points on

- Availability of parking in desired locations- Number of parking spaces available- Number of parking spaces assigned

Continue to develop parking spaces to replace any parking removed

Parking Recommendations

Chair: Rance Larsen

Student financial aid and scholarships

Carol M. Heddinghaus – Director of Budget Plan Bradley Keith Starbuck – Enrollment Management Dr. Phil D. Whitefield – Professor, Chemistry Dr. Stephen A. Raper - Assoc. Professor, Engineering Mgt. & Sys. Engr. Dr. S. N. Balakrishnan - Professor, Mechanical & Aerospace Engr. Rance E. Larsen - Director of Admission

Lynn K. Stichnote - Director, Student Financial Assistance Cindy Barton, (Admissions Office)

Scholarships and Financial Aid Sub Committee

2007 2008 2009 2010

FAFSA Submissions

To S&T2,551 2,647 2,817 3,192

25% Increase Undergraduate Financial Aid Requests 2007-2010

With current enrollment goals and changes to the federal and state student assistance programs, the level of financial aid resources at Missouri S&T is at or above capacity to meet campus strategic plan goals.

Scholarships and Financial Aid Committee

Given currently available G.O. & endowment funds, ‐S&T is at an equilibrium point in its ability to attract desired number of students at preferred quality while meeting our land grant mission. ‐

The subcommittee agreed, however, that being “at capacity” means S&T has no reserve capacity and is at risk of deterioration in student quality and/or decreased enrollments.

“Capacity” in terms of financial assistance is difficult to define.

Benchmarks

A. Students’ ability to pay the cost of attendance as indicated by average unmet need.Average unmet need 2009 10: Graduate: $7,011 Undergraduate: $4,431‐

B. Ratio of SFA staff per student compared to other UM campuses 2009 10: 1 staff per every 850 students. Projected increase in total number ‐

of Pell Grant eligible students per campus strategic plan. ‐

C. Percentage of gross need of undergraduate FAFSA filers that is met by institutional scholarships.

2009 10: 48.5%‐

Quality Benchmarks

D. Percentage of institutional merit based aid that goes to ‐ meet unmet need.

43% ($4,700,172) AY2009-10

E. Total GO funds supporting institutional aid

2009 10: $17M ($11.5 M undergrad, $5.5 M graduate) ‐Conclusion changes to “above capacity” if these funds were reduced and not replaced by a non GO source.‐

F. Availability of financial aid to attract high quality ‐graduate students.

See “Stipend X” Task Force Report

Quality Benchmarks (cont.)

Chair: Margaret Cline

Campus and student support services

Assessing the staffing and support resources based on agreed upon benchmarks proved to be difficult.

Each unit’s self-assessments indicated that most service areas are lightly staffed and struggling to balance the resources allocated.

STAFFING FOR CAMPUS AND STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES

ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT

# OF UNIT FUNCTIONS REPORTED AT EACH CAPACITY LEVEL

BELOW CAPACITY

AT CAPACITY

ABOVE CAPACITY

Admissions 1 2 2Athletics 3Career Opportunities Center 2 Counseling XDisability Support Services X Community Standards and Student Conduct X Leadership and Cultural Programs 1 1 Residential Life 3 1Student Health Services XStudent Life 6 Testing Center 1 1Student Diversity Programs 2Registrar 5 3Student Financial Assistance 1 1 6Writing Center 4 4Office of Graduate Studies 2 4 6Freshman Engineering Program 2News Student Programs/Orientation XPre-College Programs 1 1Information Technology 1 1Undergraduate Advising 4

Condensed Staffing Survey ScorecardTable 10

Chair: Larry Gragg

Faculty & academic instructional space

Chairs’ Perceptions:• “It is likely the learning experience already

is more impersonal than it was a decade ago.”

• The enrollment burden “is very demoralizing for faculty with serious research ambitions.”

Critical Warning Signs

1982 2003

GAIN/LOSS

1982-2003 2009

GAIN/LOSS 2003-2009

Campus Total Classrooms Available 84 82 -2 75 -7

Campus Total Seats Available 3,805 4,356 551 4,093 -263

Building Comparison of Rooms and Seats Net Gain/Loss (1982-2009) Table 7

The entire campus, not just the academic departments, must engage in a serious dialog in an effort to shape our recruitment and retention efforts.

Overall Committee Recommendation

Findings & Recommendations

Collective Findings of Subcommittees and Data Reviews

“ …the university was very close to exceeding its overall capacity to provide all enrolled students with a quality education in the fall 2009 semester.”

Task Force Conclusion

1. Establish an overall on campus enrollment level ‐ until additional faculty, staff and classroom/lab facilities can be added. Consider limiting new student class sizes and raising academic fees to cover the existing operational costs. Approved – Freshman Engineering Capped in June 2010 - Added to tactical plan goal 2.1 new UG 2015 targets & keep current graduate student targets based on 1750 total and 2009 department chair preferred student profile.

2. Establish a maximum student to faculty ratio‐ ‐ and student credit hour average per faculty member for departments to maintain quality instruction and research levels consistent with a top five TRU. Use the metric to ‐prioritize future faculty hiring. Approved - Add to tactical plan goal 5.1 . Suggested 2009 department ratios to be reviewed by August 2011.

3. Eliminate the Academic Free Hour (12:00 1:00 MWF). It adds classroom and ‐lab periods and decreases the lunch dining delays at the Havener Center on Mondays and Wednesdays. Not a strategic issue – Not approved. STUCO has requested this change NOT be made.

Recommendations

4. Develop plans for additional general-use classrooms that includes at least four 65 seat CLC distance education ‐classrooms , two +150 seat auditoriums and a +350 seat ‐space that can be configured for testing and smaller classes. Approved - Added to tactical goal 5.4 – Specific space needs will be considered in the development of Schenk Hall Renovation-Addition

5. Provide appropriate staffing in the Student Financial Assistance office to manage large increases in student aid requests and the more complex compliance standards. Approved August 2010 – Search for two positions underway

Recommendations

6. Develop fundraising goals and execution plans for need based ‐student financial aid and graduate assistantships. Approved - Added to tactical goal 4.1

7. Review the current student quality profiles to assess the strategic value achieved in relation to the institutional scholarship expense. The graduate/undergraduate ratio should also be considered to completed by September 2011. Approved - Added to tactical plan goal 2.1

8. Develop a plan for the replacement of the Quadrangle Complex and Rayl cafeteria facilities by 2014. Approved -Added to tactical plan goal 5.4

Recommendations

8. Revisit the quality benchmarking and operational capacity of other student support units on a regular basis. Recognized – Ongoing in Strategic Planning Process

9. Establish more online and blended e learning options at ‐the undergraduate level. Include both lower level service and upper level major courses. Approved - added to tactical plan goal 2.2

10. University Police should establish a tracking system for parking space and permit availability. Addressed September 2010

Recommendations

OPEN DISCUSSION