Academic Affairs

Vision

Bowling Green State University aspires to be a premier learning community, and a national model, for developing individuals

and shaping the future through learning, discovery, collaboration and personal growth

Strengths Weaknesses

Opportunities Threats

Total Full-Time (FT) FacultyTotal FT Faculty

(TT+NTT) Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011

A&S 498 503 455 453 473BA 89 83 77 78 74EDHD 142 129 128 125 139HHS 30 29 28 28 29MA 55 55 53 52 52TECH 46 44 39 39 39Bowling Green Campus Total 860 843 780 775 806Firelands 49 52 48 51

Total Student Credit Hours (SCH)SCH Total (Fall

and Spring) 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

A&S 279,855 268,933 256,047 267,782 265,358BA 57,092 51,176 47,565 44,463 44,072EDHD 84,772 81,792 76,310 77,129 75,734HHS 17,786 16,749 17,734 17,707 18,777MA 15,294 15,463 16,381 15,593 15,543TECH 19,136 18,818 17,873 17,749 16,743Bowling Green Campus Subtotal 473,935 452,931 431,910 440,423 436,227

SCH per FT facultySCH Total/FT

Faculty (TT and NTT) 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

A&S 562.0 534.7 562.7 591.1 561.0BA 641.5 616.6 617.7 570.0 595.6EDHD 597.0 634.0 596.2 617.0 544.8HHS 592.9 577.6 633.4 632.4 647.5MA 278.1 281.1 309.1 299.9 298.9TECH 416.0 427.7 458.3 455.1 429.3Bowling Green Campus Subtotal 551.1 537.3 553.7 568.3 541.2

Percent of FT TTF to FT FacultyPercent of TTF to

TTF+NTTF Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011

A&S 64.26% 61.83% 63.30% 57.84% 57.29%BA 66.29% 67.47% 68.83% 67.95% 66.22%EDHD 75.35% 73.64% 70.31% 68.80% 69.78%HHS 96.67% 86.21% 85.71% 85.71% 89.66%MA 87.27% 87.27% 84.91% 88.46% 88.46%TECH 45.65% 40.91% 48.72% 43.59% 46.15%Bowling Green Campus Total 67.91% 65.60% 66.54% 62.97% 62.90%Firelands 48.98% 50.00% 50.00% 56.86%

NSICP TrendsFTE Student per TT Faculty/FTE Student per NTT Faculty

Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 A&S 12.7/24.5 11.7/23.0 11.6/20.0 13.7/24.4

BA 16.4/26.5 18.4/26.1 16.9/24.6 17.2/28.1

EDHD 14.2/17.8 14.2/19.1 14.2/15.9 15.3/17.0

HHS 11.6/5.4 12.8/5.5 14.6/12.1 15.4/14.8

MA 10.0/12.0 10.0/7.0 10.0/9.0 10.0/14.0

TECH 11.0/14.0 8.0/14.0 9.0/15.0 12.0/15.0BGSU 13.0/22.1 13.1/20.4 13.1/19.2 14.5/22.9

NSCIP Peer Comparisons*% of Average Peer # of Departments:

% of TTF to Total Faculty

# of Departments: FTE Students/TTF

# of Departments: FTE Students/NTTF

> 110% 14 11 5

90% to 110% 11 6 5

< 90% 9 17 24

Total 34 34 34

* Based upon Fall 2009 data

General Observations

We are good……….

But is good, good enough?

Vision

Bowling Green State University aspires to be a premier learning community, and a national model, for developing individuals

and shaping the future through learning, discovery, collaboration and personal growth

Focus

Invest strategically in Faculty +Invest strategically in Academic Programs +Invest strategically in Facilities and Technology += High Quality Academic Programs and Enhanced

Student Success

Budgetary Policy Changes from Prior Year

• Open faculty lines return centrally– strategic reallocation between Colleges– held central for subsequent focused investment

• Plans are required for optimal use of Colleges/Units Reserves

• Using data to inform budgetary decisions– Peer, Productivity, Enrollment Trends, Outcomes

Necessary…….

• Protect core academic foundation (i.e., Accreditation, etc.)

• Ensure financial sustainability• Adequate and appropriate facilities

…………But not sufficient to improve quality

Budget PrioritiesQuality

– Strategically invest in faculty– Academic programming– Recruit and Retain Students

Efficiency and Effectiveness– Administrative Infrastructure

Budget Priorities: QualityStrategically Invest in Faculty

– Overall, increase the percent of TT Faculty– Balance productivity of faculty– Where appropriate, enhance operating budgets– Development funds to support teaching/research

Budget Priorities: Quality• Academic programming

– Refocus current programming• General Education Renewal• Support “high impact” programming (retention, quality, and/or

recruitment)• Reallocate resources from “limited impact” programming or low

demand programs

– Create new academic programming that:• Supports the enhancement of the academic profile of traditional

student body• And/or increases overall enrollment

Budget Priorities: Quality

• Recruit and Retain Students– Enhance academic profile of traditional students– Increase overall enrollment of new students

• International (UG and Grad)• Distance Learning (UG and Grad)• Transfer (2+2, etc.)

– Increase retention and 6 year graduation rate• Advising,

Long-term Goal: 22,500 to 25,000 HC enrollment

Budget Priorities: Efficiencies and Effectiveness

• Administrative Infrastructure– Rethink - Quality– Realign - Focus– Reduce – reallocation of resources– For Example,

• Centralize vs. Decentralize– Advising, International programs, Learning communities,

Faculty development, Support services • Missing Infrastructure

– Assessment, Research support, Decision Support, Curriculum Management

Budget PrioritiesQuality

– Strategically invest in faculty– Academic programming– Recruit and Retain Students

Efficiency and Effectiveness– Administrative Infrastructure

• Establishing the financial foundation for the future– Grow quality of academic programming– Increase profile and number of UG and Graduate

students– Increase external research funding