Excellence in Graduate Education

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Excellence inExcellence inGraduate EducationGraduate Education

Texas Higher EducationTexas Higher Education

Coordinating BoardCoordinating Board

April 21, 2005April 21, 2005

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Excellence inExcellence inGraduate EducationGraduate Education

Examples of excellence measuresExamples of excellence measures

Comparisons among public doctoral Comparisons among public doctoral granting institutions in:granting institutions in:

– Texas, California, Florida, Illinois, Texas, California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and PennsylvaniaNew York, and Pennsylvania

Statewide planning processes in TexasStatewide planning processes in Texas

Questions and points for discussionQuestions and points for discussion

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Examples ofExamples ofExcellence MeasuresExcellence Measures

StudentsStudents FacultyFaculty ProgramsPrograms

# applicants, # applicants, admission offers, admission offers, enrolleesenrollees

Graduation rateGraduation rate

Degrees/yearDegrees/year

# core faculty by # core faculty by rankrank

Teaching loadsTeaching loads

PublicationsPublications

% FT students% FT students

% students with % students with fellowshipsfellowships

$ amount of $ amount of stipends for stipends for teaching/research teaching/research assistantsassistants

Student placementStudent placement

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Public 4-Year InstitutionsPublic 4-Year Institutionsby Carnegie Classification by Carnegie Classification

StateState ## Med Med Sch/CtrSch/Ctr

Doc ExtDoc Ext Doc IntDoc Int Master’sMaster’s BaccBacc

CACA 3030 00 88 22 1919 11

FLFL 1111 00 44 22 44 11

ILIL 1212 00 44 11 77 00

NYNY 3535 22 55 11 2020 77

PAPA 2626 11 33 11 1717 44

TXTX 40*40* 66 66 66 2020 22

*Two campuses of Sul Ross State University counted once.

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Public 4-Year Institutions in CaliforniaPublic 4-Year Institutions in Californiaby Carnegie Classification (30)by Carnegie Classification (30)

Doctoral/Research – Extensive (8) = 27%Doctoral/Research – Extensive (8) = 27%– UC-BerkeleyUC-Berkeley

– UC-DavisUC-Davis

– UC-IrvineUC-Irvine

– UC-Los AngelesUC-Los Angeles

Doctoral/Research – Intensive (2) = 7% Doctoral/Research – Intensive (2) = 7% – San Diego State UniversitySan Diego State University

– UC-San FranciscoUC-San Francisco

Medical Schools (0) = 0%Medical Schools (0) = 0%

Masters I, II (19) = 63%Masters I, II (19) = 63%

Baccalaureate (1) = 3%Baccalaureate (1) = 3%

– UC-RiversideUC-Riverside– UC-San DiegoUC-San Diego– UC-Santa BarbaraUC-Santa Barbara– UC-Santa CruzUC-Santa Cruz

Source: The Carnegie Foundation, 2000

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Doctoral/Research – Extensive (4) = 36%Doctoral/Research – Extensive (4) = 36%– Florida International University (Miami)Florida International University (Miami)– Florida State University (Tallahassee)Florida State University (Tallahassee)– University of Florida (Gainesville)University of Florida (Gainesville)– University of South Florida (Tampa)University of South Florida (Tampa)

Doctoral/Research – Intensive (2) = 18%Doctoral/Research – Intensive (2) = 18% – Florida Atlantic University (Boca Raton)Florida Atlantic University (Boca Raton)– University of Central Florida (Orlando)University of Central Florida (Orlando)

Medical Schools (0) = 0%Medical Schools (0) = 0%Masters I, II (4) = 36%Masters I, II (4) = 36%Baccalaureate (1) = 9%Baccalaureate (1) = 9%


Public 4-Year Institutions in FloridaPublic 4-Year Institutions in Floridaby Carnegie Classification (11)by Carnegie Classification (11)

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Public 4-Year Institutions in New YorkPublic 4-Year Institutions in New Yorkby Carnegie Classification (35)by Carnegie Classification (35)

Doctoral/Research – Extensive (5) = 14%Doctoral/Research – Extensive (5) = 14%– City University of New York Graduate CenterCity University of New York Graduate Center– State University of New York at AlbanyState University of New York at Albany– State University of New York at BinghamtonState University of New York at Binghamton– State University of New York at BuffaloState University of New York at Buffalo– State University of New York at Stony BrookState University of New York at Stony Brook

Doctoral/Research – Intensive (1) = 3% Doctoral/Research – Intensive (1) = 3% – State University of New York College of Environmental Science State University of New York College of Environmental Science

and Forestry (Syracuse) and Forestry (Syracuse)





THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Doctoral/Research – Extensive (6) = 15%Doctoral/Research – Extensive (6) = 15%– Texas A&M UniversityTexas A&M University

– Texas Tech UniversityTexas Tech University

– University of HoustonUniversity of Houston

Doctoral/Research – Intensive (6) = 15% Doctoral/Research – Intensive (6) = 15% – Texas A&M - CommerceTexas A&M - Commerce

– Texas A&M - KingsvilleTexas A&M - Kingsville

– Texas Southern UniversityTexas Southern University




– University of North TexasUniversity of North Texas– UT at ArlingtonUT at Arlington– UT at AustinUT at Austin

– Texas Woman’s UniversityTexas Woman’s University– UT at DallasUT at Dallas– UT at El PasoUT at El Paso


Public 4-Year Institutions in TexasPublic 4-Year Institutions in Texasby Carnegie Classification (40)by Carnegie Classification (40)

Public Institutions in Texas Public Institutions in Texas and Peer States Awarding and Peer States Awarding

Doctoral DegreesDoctoral Degrees

(Using Earned Doctorate Data)(Using Earned Doctorate Data)

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Nu

mb

er o

f D

oct

ora

tes

Over 40,000 doctoral degrees were awarded in the U.S. in 2003

Source: National Science Foundation, Webcaspar, Doctoral Survey

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

14% of the doctoral degrees awarded in the 14% of the doctoral degrees awarded in the U.S. in 2003 were awarded by 10 of the U.S. in 2003 were awarded by 10 of the

largest public and independent institutionslargest public and independent institutions

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Do

cto

rate

s A

war

ded

5 Publics 5 Independents

Source: National Science Foundation, Webcaspar, Doctoral Survey

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Texas has more public institutions awarding Texas has more public institutions awarding doctoral degrees than any statedoctoral degrees than any state

Source: NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates

Note: Only those public institutions that awarded doctoral degrees in 2003 are included.

26

4

9

6

810

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Calif. Florida Illinois New York Penn. Texas

Nu

mb

er

of

Ins

titu

tio

ns

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Many Many publicpublic institutions in Texas offering institutions in Texas offering doctoral degrees award few doctorates doctoral degrees award few doctorates



12

1

4

01

2 21 1

4

2 21

0 01

6

2 2

43

4

17

0

3

6

9

12

15

18


Nu

mb

er o

f In

sti

tuti

on

s

1 - 50 Degrees Awarded 51 - 100 Degrees Awarded

101 - 150 Degrees Awarded 151+ Degrees Awarded

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Since 1991, 9 Texas public institutions have been Since 1991, 9 Texas public institutions have been given authority to offer their first doctoral degreesgiven authority to offer their first doctoral degrees

Prairie View A&M UniversityTarleton State UniversityTexas A&M International UniversityTexas A&M University – Corpus ChristiTexas State University – San MarcosThe University of Texas – Pan AmericanThe University of Texas at San AntonioWest Texas A&M UniversityUniversity of North Texas Health Science Center

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Generally, enrollments in doctoral programs Generally, enrollments in doctoral programs at these institutions remain relatively lowat these institutions remain relatively low

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

PVAMU Tarleton TAMIU

TAMUCC TxSU-SM UTSA

UTPA WTAMU UNT HSC

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

New doctoral and master’s degree programs are New doctoral and master’s degree programs are approved at Texas public institutions every yearapproved at Texas public institutions every year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No.

of N

ew P

rogr

ams

Master's Doctoral

Source: THECB

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Most peer states have more Most peer states have more independentindependent institutions offering doctoral degrees than Texasinstitutions offering doctoral degrees than Texas



26

4

9

68

10

6

29

14

28

1310

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Nu

mb

er

of

Ins

titu

tio

ns

Public Independent

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Many Many independentindependent institutions in peer states institutions in peer states offering doctoral degrees award few doctoratesoffering doctoral degrees award few doctorates



22

3

10

18

97

3

0 13

2 22 1 02

0 12 23

5

20

0

5

10

15

20

25


Nu

mb

er

of

Ins

titu

tio

ns

1 - 50 Degrees Awarded 51 - 100 Degrees Awarded101 - 150 Degrees Awarded 151+ Degrees Awarded

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Top 6 States Receiving Federal Funding for Top 6 States Receiving Federal Funding for Science and Engineering (2002)Science and Engineering (2002)

$1.28

$1.44

$1.49

$1.51

$1.93

$3.26

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50

Source: NSF Webcaspar, Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges

California

New York

Maryland

Pennsylvania

TEXAS

Massachusetts

in Billions

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Federal Funding for Sciences and Engineering to Federal Funding for Sciences and Engineering to Institutions Awarding Doctoral Degrees (2002)Institutions Awarding Doctoral Degrees (2002)

Sources: 1) NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates; 2) Webcaspar - Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Date System, NSF


$921$717

$250$406$425

$2,046

$166

$1,070

$415

$1,399$740 $354

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500


Mil

lio

ns

of

Do

llar

s

Public Independent

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Federal Funding for Sciences and Engineering to Federal Funding for Sciences and Engineering to PublicPublic Institutions Awarding Doctoral Degrees Institutions Awarding Doctoral Degrees

(2002)(2002)

Sources: 1) NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates; 2) Webcaspar - Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Date System, NSF


108

9

4

26

6

$2,046

$717

$250$406$425

$921

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Nu

mb

er

of

Ins

titu

tio

ns

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Mil

lio

ns

of

Do

lla

rs

Number of Institutions Federal Funding

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

The bulk of federal funding to The bulk of federal funding to publicpublic institutions institutions goes to just a few institutionsgoes to just a few institutions

Sources: 1) NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates; 2) Webcaspar - Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Date System, NSF, 2002 data.

*Not all public institutions that awarded doctoral degrees in 2003 received federal funding for sciences and engineering.

$921

$717

$250

$4

06

$425

$2,0

46

$341

$1,2

35

$393

$189

$716

$491

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Calif. (10) Florida (8) Illinois (6) NY (9) Penn. (4) Texas (22*)

Mil

lio

ns

of

Do

llar

s

All Funded Publics Top 3 Funded Publics

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

The bulk of federal funding to The bulk of federal funding to independentindependent institutions goes to just a few institutionsinstitutions goes to just a few institutions

Sources: 1) NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, 2003 Survey of Earned Doctorates; 2) Webcaspar - Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Date System, NSF, 2002 data.

$871

$165

$3

91

$904

$698

$349

$3

54

$740

$1,3

99

$415

$1,0

70

$166

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

Calif. (13*) Florida (4*) Illinois (14) NY (23*) Penn. (10*) Texas (7*)

Mil

lio

ns

of

Do

llar

s

All Funded Independents Top 3 Funded Independents

*Not all independent institutions that awarded doctoral degrees in 2003 received federal funding for sciences and engineering.

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Student Enrollments by Level at Selected Public Student Enrollments by Level at Selected Public Institutions Awarding Doctoral Degrees (2004)Institutions Awarding Doctoral Degrees (2004)

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS

72.7

%76

.7%

74.2

%

70.5

% 83.7

%

77.3

%

27.3

%23

.3%

25.8

%

29.5

% 16.3

%

22.7

%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UC-Berkeley

U ofFlorida

UI-Urbana SUNY-Buffalo

PennState

UT-Austin

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tud

ents

Undergraduate Graduate

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Median Revenues per FTE Student at Median Revenues per FTE Student at Doctoral/Research-Extensive Public Institutions Doctoral/Research-Extensive Public Institutions

((20042004))

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS

$4,9

55

$2,9

08$5

,081

$3,5

18 $4,3

75

$11,

622

$8,3

78$8

,964

$11,

509

$4,9

77

$0

$3,000

$6,000

$9,000

$12,000

$15,000

Calif. Florida Illinois New York Texas

Mil

lio

ns

of

Do

llar

s

Tuition & Fees State & Local Government Appropriations

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

California has the most research universities California has the most research universities in the Association of American Universitiesin the Association of American Universities

NY (7)NY (7)

SUNY-St BrookSUNY-St Brook Cornell UCornell U U of RochesterU of Rochester

SUNY-BuffaloSUNY-Buffalo NY UNY U

Columbia UColumbia U Syracuse USyracuse U

CA (9)CA (9)

UC-BerkeleyUC-Berkeley UC-Los AngelesUC-Los Angeles Cal Inst of TechCal Inst of Tech

UC-DavisUC-Davis UC-San DiegoUC-San Diego StanfordStanford

UC-IrvineUC-Irvine UC-Santa BarbaraUC-Santa Barbara U of So CalU of So Cal

PA (4)PA (4)Penn State UPenn State U Carnegie Mellon UCarnegie Mellon U

U of PittsburghU of Pittsburgh U of PennU of Penn

IL (3)IL (3) U of Il at Urb ChamU of Il at Urb Cham NorthwesternNorthwestern U of ChicagoU of Chicago

TX (3)TX (3) Tx A&M UTx A&M U UT-AustinUT-Austin Rice URice U

FL (1)FL (1) U of FloridaU of Florida

Source: Association of American Universities

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

UC-Berkeley Has More National Academy UC-Berkeley Has More National Academy Members Than All Texas InstitutionsMembers Than All Texas Institutions

Science Engineering Total

UT at Austin 12 44 56

Texas A&M University 5 17 22

Rice University 4 11 15

UT Med Cntr-Dallas 15 0 15

University of Houston 3 8 11

Baylor College of Medicine 3 0 3

Southern Methodist University 2 0 2

UT at Dallas 2 1 3

Texas Tech University 0 1 1

UTHSC Houston 1 0 1

UT at Arlington 0 1 1

State of Texas Total 49 148 197

UC-Berkeley 127 74 201

Issues for TexasIssues for Texas

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Texas’ peer states have concentrated Texas’ peer states have concentrated public resources for doctoral education.public resources for doctoral education.

Having more doctoral-granting institutions Having more doctoral-granting institutions does not necessarily translate into more does not necessarily translate into more federal research dollars.federal research dollars.

Issues for TexasIssues for Texas

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

Texas has no comprehensive plan for doctoral Texas has no comprehensive plan for doctoral programs.programs.

The CB uses a two-step proposal process to guide new The CB uses a two-step proposal process to guide new program development.program development.

Planning authority allows Board review prior to Planning authority allows Board review prior to committing significant state resources. The process is committing significant state resources. The process is inherently inherently reactivereactive. Requests are institution-driven.. Requests are institution-driven.

The process sometimes operates as a first-come, first-The process sometimes operates as a first-come, first-served system.served system.

Issues for Texas (Cont.)Issues for Texas (Cont.)

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

How can the state support the development of doctoral How can the state support the development of doctoral programs that can have an impact on all regions of the programs that can have an impact on all regions of the state?state?

How can institutions develop partnerships to better utilize How can institutions develop partnerships to better utilize state resources? state resources?

How can institutions become more competitive in How can institutions become more competitive in offering financial support to attract top graduates?offering financial support to attract top graduates?

How can institutions better balance resources for How can institutions better balance resources for master’s versus doctoral programs?master’s versus doctoral programs?

GEAC QuestionsGEAC Questions

THECB 04/2005THECB 04/2005

How can the CB provide a more proactive role in How can the CB provide a more proactive role in the development of new graduate programs?the development of new graduate programs?– Identify needed programs?Identify needed programs?– Develop a state plan for doctoral education?Develop a state plan for doctoral education?

How can this role How can this role complementcomplement the appropriate the appropriate and necessary function of institutions? and necessary function of institutions? – Monitor quality of doctoral programs in context of Monitor quality of doctoral programs in context of

accountability system?accountability system?

Next StepsNext Steps

Excellence in Graduate Education

Documents

Transcript of Excellence in Graduate Education