A plan for the Future of Higher Education in Arizona Submitted by Northern Arizona Task Force on Higher Education



Download 132.86 Kb.
Date conversion05.02.2017
Size132.86 Kb.



A Plan for the Future of Higher Education in Arizona
Submitted by Northern Arizona Task Force on Higher Education
Executive Summary
This proposal takes inspiration from the Herstam initiative and it further seeks to account for and overcome the constraints that will be placed on Arizona’s higher education system in the future. This proposal maintains and supports the three universities currently in the system: ASU (doctoral extensive in the Carnegie system), U of A (doctoral extensive), NAU (doctoral intensive), and acknowledges the likelihood that ASU-West (currently Masters I) might attain independence soon. Additional planned capacity will be provided incrementally through university partnerships with community colleges until such time that certain community colleges attain independent four-year baccalaureate university status (as and when they meet standard benchmarks). As demographic pressures increase on the university system, select community colleges may become baccalaureate colleges within an appropriately complex and responsive university system. Each university and college would be led by a president who would report independently to ABOR, and each institution will serve the higher education system in unique ways.
NAU’s role will focus on the delivery of quality degree programs from baccalaureate to doctoral degrees in multiple modes, including the use of branch campuses, such as NAU-Yuma. NAU provides an integrated learning environment that combines quality undergraduate and graduate instruction with strong research programs. NAU’s partnerships with community colleges statewide represent one cost-effective model to address the state’s immediate need for four-year degree programs in various locations. These types of branch campuses might attain independent institution status in direct response to specific incremental demographic and economic changes in their communities. In summary, this plan provides for a flexible university system with the ability to serve the increasing demand for higher education among growing populations of both traditional and nontraditional students throughout all Arizona’s regions.


A Plan for the Future of Higher Education in Arizona
Northern Arizona Task Force on Higher Education
President Herstam, the Arizona Board of Regents, and the Council of Presidents have taken an important first step to providing for the long-term future of higher education in Arizona. Clearly the population of 18- to 21-year-old students will grow, and, just as importantly, students from 25-55 years of age will return to the university for advanced degrees at the baccalaureate, master’s and doctoral levels, for professional development, and for workforce growth. The proposal submitted by President Herstam and the Council of Presidents is sound in its rationale and in its key assumptions. Arizona’s population is likely to experience tremendous growth, and the demand for quality higher education is likely to increase accordingly. Access is a critical component for both the present and future Arizona university system. The system of the future must respond to these needs while recognizing the real financial constraints on state resources for higher education.

Rationale
The proposal we offer here takes its inspiration from the Herstam proposal. This proposal projects a future for Arizona’s higher education system that builds on the current strengths of the system:

  1. The ability to address Arizona’s growing needs in focused, strategic ways that are timely and responsive

  2. The guarantee of access for all qualified potential students

  3. The guarantee of a quality education for all students at all levels in the higher education system

  4. The ability to meet the growing complexities of student needs and desires with an appropriately flexible system

  5. Established partnerships with communities and community colleges across Arizona for economic advantage

  6. Fiscally responsible practices in planning and delivering higher education



Benefits
This proposal positions the state to respond effectively and strategically to needs as demographics change. It avoids the negative implications of creating a multi-tier university system and avoids the significant fiscal and bureaucratic costs of such a system. It cements the principle of partnership between the university and community college systems, and it accounts for the rapid deployment of technology in the delivery of educational programs. It highlights the principle of adding institutions when (but not before) they can be viable independent entities. In short, it holds the promise of being a winning situation for all.

Diversity in the System
The key to this plan is recognizing the strengths and contributions of each university currently in the system, including ASU-West. An important assumption in our proposal is that any higher education system must provide a range of options and offerings to student populations. This assumption also underpins the national Carnegie classification system for U.S. universities. In order to respond effectively to the diverse needs of a growing university-bound population, a mature, responsive university system of the future must offer the range of options embodied in the Carnegie classification system, each option serving a unique purpose. This arrangement of institution types responds to the increasingly complex mix of student populations seeking the appropriate education for their needs as well as for the needs of the state. The system must have the capacity for institutions to change their Carnegie classification as their missions expand and change in response to future student populations seeking higher education in Arizona. Thus, under this proposal, an institution would be able to change from a Master’s I institution to a metropolitan research institution (doctoral intensive), depending on such factors as demand (both economic and educational) and student demographics.

The Proposal
This proposal maintains and supports the three universities currently in the system: ASU, U of A, NAU, and acknowledges the possibility that ASU-West might attain independence soon. Each university will be led by a president, and each president will report independently to ABOR. Each institution would serve the higher education system in unique ways. Figure 1 represents the immediate situation under this proposal. Figure 2 envisions one possible scenario twenty-five years into the future assuming significant growth in university enrollment demands. This second figure reflects the fact that the three current state universities occupy particular, well-defined roles in the current system, and it projects the development of different types of institutions in the system depending upon demographic changes. Figure 2 suggests that growth could lead to three new universities, perhaps via different paths. The Figure is also intended to show that a number of the universities may (or may not) continue to be involved in 2+2 partnerships with community colleges. NAU is likely to be one of the universities involved in 2+2 arrangements.
In the short term, additional enrollment demand can be handled through 2+2 partnerships. Each of the universities may decide to play a role in such partnerships with community colleges. As student enrollment pressure requires additional university capacity, select community colleges should undergo a review and development process. This process may eventually lead to two or four new baccalaureate colleges that can address new student demand with a cost-effective administrative and instructional infrastructure.
F
Arizona Board of Regents

University of Arizona

Doctoral Extensive


------------------------------

President



Northern Arizona University

Doctoral Intensive

------------------------------

President



Arizona State University -West

Master’s I (Currently)

------------------------------

President



Arizona State University

Doctoral Extensive


------------------------------

President



NAU-Yuma

----------------

Executive Director

Other Centers as Appropriate

-----------------


igure 1: Proposed Plan: Initial Configuration1



One Administrative Layer
This plan does not envision two different levels (or tiers) of administration for the state’s public universities. Indeed it assumes that additional bureaucracy is made redundant by the already robust infrastructure of the current system−a system that has the flexible capacity for incremental growth to match the growth of communities statewide. Each existing university has an important role to play in Arizona’s educational future by blending different combinations of undergraduate and graduate education, and by developing research profiles that enhance university resources and that become engines of greater economic development in urban and rural communities. As the Governor herself recently noted, “I am working hard to ensure that our public universities have the resources they need, not only to expand on the excellence of the education they offer, but to remove the barriers their scientists encounter when they try to convert research innovations into successful high-tech business ventures” (AzMetro, Summer 04: 30). The strengths of the current system must be developed appropriately to respond to the Governor’s vision for higher education in Arizona.

Figure 2. One Possible Outcome of Proposed Plan (Year 2030)



Arizona Board of Regents


Doctoral Extensive

UofA President

Doctoral Extensive

ASU


President

Doctoral Intensive NAU

President



Master’s I

ASU-West


(Currently)

President



Master's II

President



Baccalaureate

President



Baccalaureate

President



NAU 2+2
Executive Director

Other Centers as Appropriate

Other Centers as Appropriate

Other Centers as Appropriate


The Carnegie Classification
Our proposal assumes that each institution must be able to cement and develop its mission in a strategic manner, responding effectively to the nature and needs of the communities that it serves. The four universities named in Figure 1 currently represent three of the classification levels within the Carnegie system (see Figure 3). The plan allows for further options that reflect other classification levels in the Carnegie framework. It is possible to envision a system twenty-five years from now that includes three or four doctoral universities, one or two master’s universities, and two to three baccalaureate universities (Figure 2).

Figure 3: Carnegie Classification





Type


Example

# of Institutions


Doctorates


Master’s


Bachelor’s

Associate and other

Arizona Community Colleges

1,697










Specialized

ASU East

766










Baccalaureate

To be determined

606







Min. 50% all degrees

Master’s II

To be determined

115




Min. 20




Master’s I

ASU West

496




Min. 40




Doctoral Research Intensive

NAU

110

Min.10 in 3 disciplines

or min. 20









Doctoral Research Extensive

UA,

ASU Main

151

Min. 50

in 15 disciplines










First-Generation Students, Rural Students, and Ethnic Minority Students
Planning for the future of higher education requires more than a general consideration of population growth; it requires a better understanding of which groups of future students will grow most rapidly and what their specific needs will be as they seek the advantages of higher degrees. Given current demographic patterns and predictions, it is likely that Hispanic students will be a major part of enrollment pressures.2 Other groups of future students will also contribute to enrollment pressures. These groups of students will need much greater educational support than the student who typically enrolls in highly selective, doctoral extensive universities.
These students, unlike already skilled and well educated students, will incur greater costs if they are to be successful in earning a university degree. There is no “education on the cheap” that will serve their needs. However, an educational system that is flexibly designed and appropriately funded will meet students’ needs. In Arizona, the best option for meeting these needs rests with some combination of community college/university partnerships until such time as new baccalaureate universities emerge.

Non-Traditional Students
Arizona’s leaders should also realize that many of the “new” students who might return for baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral degrees will not be traditional students. These students will not necessarily need the physical structure of a campus in order to be served. Many will gain access to higher education through web-based delivery of programs or on-site programs delivered at local community colleges, high schools, and commercial business centers. The numbers of these students will increase significantly as workforce needs expand throughout the state. The use of off-campus programs—when supported by a mature university institution—provides a cost effective means for addressing expanding needs strategically.

Community Colleges
It is clear that a great deal of study and deliberation must inform the ways in which each institution identified in this proposal will be responsible for serving the higher education needs of Arizona. In general, this plan presupposes that institutions with established 2+2 partnerships with Arizona’s community colleges will continue, and possibly expand, such programs depending upon the economic and workforce development needs of each community and constituency.
The 2+2 model allows the state to provide new baccalaureate degree programs in a manner that is responsive to community needs. And since these programs are offered in existing facilities, minimal initial investment in new infrastructure is required. Moreover, population growth and student enrollment pressures in Arizona may not follow uniform growth patterns across all sectors or all geographic regions. Arizona should not abandon its historically deliberate approach to college/university expansion; it should closely monitor demographic change and economic demand and be ready to respond flexibly, yet in a thoughtful, fiscally responsible, and planned manner.
As communities outgrow the currently successful model, they may apply to transform their community college into a fully functioning independent baccalaureate institution. This process can be implemented gradually as specific triggering criteria are met (see North Central Accreditation Criteria—Appendix A). For example, a community college might be considered for independent four-year status when a critical enrollment and resource mass are reached for upper-division course delivery, when adequate library resources are in place, when a funding base demonstrates self-sustaining resources beyond state appropriations, and when accreditation criteria are achievable. One plan for such growth, established in Texas, provides a good example of policies for transition from community college to four-year college (Appendix B).

Northern Arizona University as Contributor
Our plan assumes a specific set of roles for each university. As Northern Arizona’s Task Force on Higher Education, we focus here on the roles that NAU will play. NAU, as a doctoral intensive university, is already well positioned to fill the need for access to higher education in Flagstaff and in communities around the state (see Appendices C-H). In Flagstaff, NAU has been, and will continue to be, committed to providing quality education opportunities to a diverse population including Hispanic and Native American groups. NAU provides an integrated learning environment that combines quality undergraduate and graduate instruction with strong research programs. At the same time, students are served by tenured and tenure-track faculty teaching undergraduate courses, undergraduate student research opportunities, and close student-faculty contact. These latter characteristics are typical of many doctoral intensive universities.
NAU’s current operations for statewide and Distance Learning should be recognized and endorsed for their well-established and highly effective delivery of programs from baccalaureate to doctoral degrees in multiple modes, including the use of branch campuses, such as NAU-Yuma (see Appendix H). The plan proposes that the need for four-year degree programs in various locations be addressed initially through NAU partnerships and branch campuses. Each of the major higher education centers within the NAU umbrella—hereafter branch campuses—will have a campus leader reporting either to the President of NAU or to the Vice President for Extended Programs—depending on the size and maturation point of the center. Each center should build upon strong relationships with the community colleges in the region. Additional centers can be established depending on demand from currently enrolled students at community colleges seeking advanced degrees.

Key Advantages
This proposal resolves a number of outstanding questions raised in many public forums in the past month. It also incorporates a number of good ideas proposed in several other communications. Moreover, it addresses the concerns of a range of constituencies throughout the state, provides a fiscally responsible design for higher education in the state, provides an incremental yet flexible response to student demand, plans for student access to quality instruction, and provides numerous diverse pathways into higher education for minority, place-bound, and non-traditional student populations in the state. The key advantages that this proposal offers include the following:


  1. The plan answers the concerns raised by the Governor and others that institutions should be assessed and valued based on their mission and how well they deliver on that mission. It also addresses the widespread concern that quality of instruction not be jeopardized or that the value of any university degree from the system not be weakened in any way. This plan preserves academic integrity in addition to adopting modern naming conventions that align with the Carnegie classification used throughout the country.




  1. The plan recognizes that educational institutions and the communities that surround them are closely connected. Accordingly, the scope of the ABOR feasibility study must include an analysis of the relationships that link each university with local governments, K-12 systems, community colleges, and employers. The study should also address quality of life issues, educational choices, and social responsiveness in order to develop well-informed and appropriate plans for growth in the higher education system.




  1. The plan avoids the necessity for investing in additional bureaucratic layers, which can be costly and unwieldy to operate. University systems typically add layers of bureaucracy, and thereby lessen, not increase, responsiveness to change and to students and other stakeholders. The construction of additional administrative systems to manage the delivery of higher education in the state should be avoided in order to allow state funds to be appropriated more directly for instructional support.




  1. The plan’s assumption of capacity for incremental growth recognizes that the costs of delivering quality education to Arizona’s citizens are considerable. There will be many additional costs in the future to meet the needs of the new populations of students—many of them first-generation with substantial financial need and with differing cultural and lifestyle expectations. These needs should not be placed in direct competition with costs driven by a new and unnecessary administrative level in the university governance system.




  1. The plan recognizes that the type of employers (and their employees) Arizona wishes to attract in the future will require a wider range of educational options. Accordingly, a university system for the future must be responsive to the educational needs of professionals. At the same time, mature doctoral and master’s universities themselves will draw professional employers and high-skilled jobs into local economies and build positive synergies for regions and local urban centers across the state. Arizona wants to attract educated in-migrants as well as industries of the future, and to achieve this end, it must consider the array of educational programs that will attract such populations. Our plan recognizes future demographic complexities and proposes educational options that provide multiple points of entry into higher education.




  1. The plan acknowledges the critical role of the community college in local communities and seeks to establish four-year degree programs in partnership with the community college system. This 2+2 model not only facilitates strategic growth but it does so in a timely response to community needs, with minimal new infrastructure costs, and it provides for the eventual transition of certain community colleges in 2+2 partnerships to independent four-year colleges.




  1. The plan for the redesign of Arizona’s higher education system recognizes that it is important to identify effectiveness and efficiency criteria for the development and maturation of learning centers in various locations across the state. Currently NAU offers a wide range of educational courses and programs for place-bound students, including master’s and doctoral degrees in specific fields. The system of the future needs to maintain system flexibility and allow prospective students to earn the master’s and doctoral degrees they need, regardless of location.



NAU’s Strengths
NAU has a vital role to play in this extension of the ABOR proposal, as do the other universities. NAU’s specific strengths that would assist the state in implementing the plan include the following:


  1. NAU has well-established operations in many counties and has community college partnerships with Dine College, Northland Pioneer College, Arizona Western College, Eastern Arizona College, Central Arizona College, Mohave Community College, Yavapai College, many of the Maricopa Community College District campuses, and Pima Community College as well as in location at 110 sites, including several in Phoenix and Tucson.

  2. NAU operates a state-of-the-art and nationally recognized distributed learning network using web-based technologies delivering 64 degree programs on-line or a combination of on-line and on-site delivery methods.

  3. NAU already has effective partnerships with communities across Arizona, local industries, and professional groups, all of which are enriched by the complex instructional and research missions of NAU.

  4. NAU has had considerable success in educating ethnic minority students, place-bound students, and first-generation students. NAU has one of the highest percentages of Native American students of all doctoral universities in the nation. NAU’s distance learning sites serve thousands of place-bound students across the state. NAU-Yuma enrollments include 70% first-generation students and it is an officially designated Hispanic-serving branch campus under federal guidelines.

  5. NAU, a doctoral intensive university, has the ability to offer programs from baccalaureate to doctoral levels at higher education centers and new campuses throughout the state. It is, by all nationwide measures, a robust, effective university within this classification.

NAU is looking forward to partnering with ABOR and the other universities, including ASU-West, in building a strong, strategically responsive, and financially sound system to serve Arizona’s needs in the 21st century. We envision a system that offers full access to Arizona’s students, meets the pressing demographic pressures that affect the state, expands its mission to include minority populations more effectively, offers a quality education for all citizens, enriches the local and regional communities, and challenges students to raise their educational and economic horizons. Such a plan is good for state governance, the university system, the students it will serve, and all citizens of Arizona.



Appendices

Appendix A: North Central Accreditation Criteria


Appendix B: Supply-Demand Pathway Model for New Universities in Texas
Appendix C: FY 2003 Graduate Degrees Granted
Appendix D: NAU Annual Research Awards
Appendix E: NAU’s Status as Doctoral Intensive Institution
Appendix F: Peer Institutions and Benchmark Statistics
Appendix G: 2000 Carnegie Classification: Category Definitions
Appendix H: Current NAU Statewide Delivery Network
Appendix I: Members of the Northern Arizona Task Force on Higher Education

Appendix A. North Central Accreditation Criteria

An applying institution must demonstrate that it meets the General Institutional Requirements. In addition, it will be measured against the Criteria for Accreditation. An institution seeking candidacy will document, through its self-study, the degree to which it meets each of the five Criteria, and, through a carefully articulated plan and timetable, will show how it intends to meet fully each of them within the four-year period of candidacy.



To achieve candidacy, an institution will be expected to provide an emerging pattern of evidence for each criterion. Throughout the candidacy period, Evaluation Teams evaluate and address in their reports whether the institution is progressively demonstrating the patterns of evidence needed to achieve accreditation before the end of the candidacy period.

General Institutional Requirements

  • It has a mission statement, formally adopted by the governing board and made public, declaring that it is an institution of higher education.

  • It is a degree-granting institution.

  • It has legal authorization to grant its degrees, and it meets all the legal requirements to operate as an institution of higher education wherever it conducts its activities.

  • It has legal documents to confirm its status: not-for-profit, for-profit, or public.

  • It has a governing board that possesses and exercises necessary legal power to establish and review basic policies that govern the institution.

  • Its governing board includes public members and is sufficiently autonomous from the administration and ownership to assure the integrity of the institution.

  • It has an executive officer designated by the governing board to provide administrative leadership for the institution.

  • Its governing board authorizes the institution’s affiliation with the Commission.

  • It employs a faculty that has earned from accredited institutions the degrees appropriate to the level of instruction offered by the institution.

  • A sufficient number of the faculty members are full-time employees of the institution.

  • Its faculty has a significant role in developing and evaluating all the institution’s educational programs.

  • It confers degrees.

  • It has degree programs in operation, with students enrolled in them.

  • Its degree programs are compatible with the institution’s mission and are based on recognized fields of study at the higher education level.

  • Its degrees are appropriately named, following practices common to institutions of higher education in terms of both length and content of the programs.

  • Its undergraduate degree programs include a coherent general education requirement consistent with the institution’s mission and designed to ensure breadth of knowledge and to promote intellectual inquiry.

  • It has admission policies and practices that are consistent with the institution’s mission and appropriate to its educational programs.

  • It provides its students access to those learning resources and support services requisite for its degree programs.

  • It has an external financial audit by a certified public accountant or a public audit agency at least every two years.

  • Its financial documents demonstrate the appropriate allocation and use of resources to support its educational programs.

  • Its financial practices, records, and reports demonstrate fiscal viability.

  • Its catalog or other official documents include its mission statement along with accurate descriptions of 1) its educational programs and degree requirements; 2) its learning resources; 3) its admissions policies and practices; 4) its academic and non-academic policies and procedures directly affecting students; 5) its charges and refund policies; 6) the academic credentials of its faculty and administrators.

  • It accurately discloses its standing with accrediting bodies with which it is affiliated.

  • It makes available upon request information that accurately describes its financial condition.

The Criteria for Accreditation

In addition to the General Institutional Requirements, an institution accredited by The Higher Learning Commission demonstrates that it satisfies five Criteria for Accreditation.

The five Criteria for Accreditation are:

Criterion 1. The institution has clear and publicly stated purposes consistent with its mission and appropriate to an institution of higher education.

Criterion 2. The institution has effectively organized the human, financial, and physical resources necessary to accomplish its purposes.

Criterion 3. The institution is accomplishing its educational and other purposes.

Criterion 4. The institution can continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness.

Criterion 5. The institution demonstrates integrity in its practices and relationships.



Appendix B. The State of Texas Supply/Demand

Pathway for Off-Campus Educational Units to Achieve University Status

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board developed the Supply/Demand Pathway as a way to address anticipated large-scale enrollment demand in a specified region. The Supply/Demand Pathway is used as the model to address higher education needs in areas without ready geographic access to existing public higher education institutions.


An off-campus educational unit is on the "Pathway" when it is awarded that designation by the Texas Higher Educational Coordinating Board.
The supply/demand pathway consists of three categories:
(1) Category A. Institutions temporarily test the market both in terms of demand and staying power by providing off-campus courses and/or programs by one or more institutions. Should demand decrease or not materialize, courses and programs can be discontinued and resources moved to areas of greater demand.
(2) Category B. As demand increases, offerings may be organized through a multi-institution teaching center (MITCH) or as a university system center as a Pathway Education Center. A group of institutions may request that the Board authorize the establishment of a MITC. Alternatively, a university system may request that the Board authorize the establishment of a university system center. In either case, a lead institution should be designated to provide leadership for the center and facilitate the provision of programs and resources from other institutions.
(3) Category C. After an entity in Category B has attained a full-time equivalent upper-level and graduate enrollment of 3,500 for four fall semesters, the parent institution(s) and Board(s) of Regents may request that the Board review the status of the center and recommend that the Legislature reclassify the unit as an upper-level general academic institution--a university. Reclassification may be considered sooner if the center attains a fall semester full-time equivalent enrollment of 3,500 followed the next fall semester by a full-time equivalent enrollment of 4,000. The 3,500 FTSE standard approximates the headcount enrollment included in the current university funding formula as the minimum size needed to achieve economies of scale.
Institutions will report enrollments at centers on the pathway and all off-campus educational units according to guidelines set up by the Commissioner. For the purpose of establishing the need for a new institution of higher education and meeting the enrollment threshold of 3,500 FTE students established in paragraph (3) of this section, internet-based courses and other courses offered in non-traditional formats that do not require the physical presence of the student at the center for a normal number of contact hours will not generally be counted.

Appendix C: FY 2003 Graduate Degrees Granted

University of Arizona System Universities and NAU Peer Universities

Appendix D: NAU Annual Research Awards



Appendix E: NAU Ranks High for Many Characteristics

Among the Public Doctoral Research Intensive Universities (2002 IPEDS Reports)



  • 3rd in number of graduate degrees awarded

  • 5th in graduate enrollment

  • 14th largest in total enrollment

  • 12th in federal operating grants and contracts

  • 11th in number full-time faculty

  • 21st in six-year graduation rate



Fiscal Year 2002 Federal IPEDS Data

All Public Doctoral Research Intensive Averages (N=64)

Northern Arizona University

Total Enrollment

Average 14,221

Ranks 14th out of 64 (19,907)

Graduate Enrollment

Average 3,190

Ranks 5th

(6,330 )


Graduate Degrees (MA and PhD)

Average 799

Ranks 3rd

(1,896)


Federal operating grants and contracts

Average $32 Million

Median $25 Million



Ranks 12th out of 64

($38 Million)

Plus an additional $9-10 million in state/private/local


Number of Faculty (AAUP)

Average 505

Median 490



Ranks 11th

(681)


Graduation Rate

Average 45%

Median 43%



Ranks 21st (47%) -- increased to 51% for current year

Appendix F: Peer Institutions and Benchmark Statistics
































Enrollment^

Enrollment

Enrollment

Master's

Doctorates

Total Grad***

UG %

School

Total

UG

Grad

Awarded

Awarded

Degrees

Diversity

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA

41,102

34,170

6,932

431

151

582

26%

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY

28,246

17,102

11,144

1,759

329

2,103

37%

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA - LAS VEGAS

25,749

20,680

5,069

785

167

955

37%

CAL STATE UNIVERSITY - FRESNO

21,305

17,338

3,967*

647

13

660

47%

OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY

20,802

14,209

6,593

1,310

67

1,377

36%

BALL STATE UNIVERSITY

20,533

17,641

2,892

799

69

868

8%

OHIO UNIVERSITY

20,452

17,200

3,252

987

215

1,206

7%

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE

19,109

15,808

3,301

1,421

110

1,531

12%

NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY

18,824

13,015

5,809

1,896

84

2,009

24%

BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY

18,534

15,481

3,053

925

88

1,013

9%

MIAMI UNIVERSITY (OH)

16,863

15,150

1,713

520

43

563

10%

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY

16,575

12,958

3,617

794

19

813

14%

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA - RENO

15,093

11,752

3,341**

459

143

602

20%

UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA

13,026

11,152

1,874

176

-

183

8%

UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING

12,745

9,250

3,495

417

160

577

8%

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA

12,423

10,277

2,146

431

179

617

8%

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT

10,967

9,234

1,733

308

129

439

6%

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA - DULUTH

9,815

9,120

695**

743

135

878

7%

























*2002-2003 Common Data Set






















**IPEDS 2002






















^Includes Fall 2003 Numbers






















***Includes FY03 Numbers and PostBacc Certificates





















Appendix G: 2000 Carnegie Classification –



Category Definitions

Doctorate-granting Institutions


Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive: These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. During the period studied, they awarded 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 disciplines.

Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive: These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. During the period studied, they awarded at least ten doctoral degrees per year across three or more disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall.

Master's Colleges and Universities


Master's Colleges and Universities I: These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the master's degree. During the period studied, they awarded 40 or more master's degrees per year across three or more disciplines.

Master's Colleges and Universities II: These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the master's degree. During the period studied, they awarded 20 or more master's degrees per year.

Baccalaureate Colleges


Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts: These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. During the period studied, they awarded at least half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields.

Baccalaureate Colleges—General: These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. During the period studied, they awarded less than half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields.

Baccalaureate/Associate's Colleges: These institutions are undergraduate colleges where the majority of conferrals are below the baccalaureate level (associate's degrees and certificates). During the period studied, bachelor's degrees accounted for at least ten percent of undergraduate awards.

Associate's Colleges


These institutions offer associate's degree and certificate programs but, with few exceptions, award no baccalaureate degrees.1 This group includes institutions where, during the period studied, bachelor's degrees represented less than 10 percent of all undergraduate awards.

Specialized Institutions


These institutions offer degrees ranging from the bachelor's to the doctorate, and typically award a majority of degrees in a single field. The list includes only institutions that are listed as separate campuses in the 2000 Higher Education Directory.

Tribal Colleges and Universities


These colleges are, with few exceptions, tribally controlled and located on reservations. They are all members of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium.

.

Appendix H: NAU Statewide Delivery Network



Appendix I: Members of the Northern Arizona Task Force on Higher Education





  • Susan Fitzmaurice, co-chair, dean of the College of Arts and Letters

  • Bill Grabe, co-chair, executive director of the Academic Chairs Council

  • Josh Allen, director of Alumni and Constituent Relations

  • Diane Bellock, president of CSAC

  • Geeta Chowhdry, director, ethnic studies program,

  • Laura Huenneke, dean of the College of Engineering and Natural Science

  • Hari Kowtha, president of ASNAU

  • Hannah Ledbury, NAU student

  • Nick Lund, Executive Director, NAU Yuma

  • Barry Lutz, professor, Physics and Astronomy

  • Larry Mohrweis, president of the Faculty Senate

  • Lisa Nelson, director of Public Affairs, SPAC representative

  • Karen Pugliesi, vice provost for Undergraduate Studies

  • Zachary Smith, Regents professor, Political Sciences

Community Members

  • Steve Carlson, president of Flagstaff Medical Center

  • Joseph “Joe” C. Donaldson, mayor, city of Flagstaff

  • Jeri Dustir, deputy city manager, city of Flagstaff

  • David Maurer, president and CEO, Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce board of directors

  • Kay McKay, executive director of Big Brothers/Big Sister of Flagstaff and former member of the Arizona Board of Regents

  • Nathaniel White, astronomer and program manager at Lowell Observatory and member of the Coconino Community College District Governing Board



1 The initial configuration does not prescribe a particular classification for ASU-West or any other institution under the Carnegie system, but reflects the current classification. The proposal also acknowledges that ASU-West may well opt for independence from ASU, but again, does not prescribe such a status.

2 Melnick, R., & Taylor, S. (2004). The Latino Education Dilemma. Presentation at Jobs for American Graduate Board Meeting. Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University.



The database is protected by copyright ©dentisty.org 2016
send message

    Main page