How do we build on such positive trends while, at the same time, address new challenges including:
North Carolina needs to educate the 80,000 additional North Carolina students the UNC system expects to absorb by 2017. UNC-Chapel Hill must shoulder its share of that growth, but what is the right number for our campus?
As part of the Art & Science Group study, the trustees have received information about how total enrollments of 33,000 and 35,000 would affect students' application patterns.
Though not complete, that study has already reinforced critically important issues including at what point the applicant pool would diminish in quality and how important prospective students perceive merit-based financial aid. Study results to date show that the availability of merit aid could help the University offset some negative effects of a possible slippage in applications from top North Carolina students, who have already been a major focus of the admissions office in the past several years.
Other considerations include practical considerations related to growth - resources and quality. Funding needs are expected to include new faculty lines and support staff, along with the necessary infrastructure of physical space needed to do that (see below).
Quality is another huge concern. Among the considerations: keeping undergraduate admissions standards highly selective and not adversely affecting the quality of the entering class or those students' Carolina experience. No one wants to compromise the quality of a Carolina education and the value of the diploma that our graduates earn.
A September 2008 report by the Art & Science Group report to the trustees will examine how size could affect the decisions of admitted students to enroll at Carolina.
The success of programs like the Carolina Covenant, coupled with pressure from Congress about endowment spending levels, has prompted many of the nation's most prestigious private universities to offer deep discounts on tuition and beef up financial aid and merit offerings for low-income, middle- and middle-upper class students and their families.
That trend is making it harder and harder for flagship public universities like Carolina to remain attractive to the very best students, especially those from North Carolina. For example, we've already started seeing alarming declines in the acceptance rates of our top prospects for the prestigious Morehead-Cain Scholarship.
The prospect of significant enrollment growth has already underscored the importance of expanded merit aid packages as a crucial part of future recruiting strategies to successfully attract the top high school seniors in North Carolina.
Paulien & Associates, a consultant, presented data as part of a preliminary space needs analysis to the Board of Trustees in March 2008 that evaluated the demand for additional space that enrollment growth might trigger.
The University already has a deficit of nearly 1.4 million square feet of available based on enrollment in the 2007-08 academic year (more than 28,000 students). The report said those space gaps span space for instruction, research, offices, libraries, support activities and students.
If the University grew to 29,477 - a target set by trustees several years ago - the space shortage would grow to 2 million square feet. Enrollment at 33,000 would add another 400,000 square feet to the space shortage.
Results of the full Paulien & Associates study will be presented to the Board of Trustees in the coming months.
The current Academic Plan, a first for the University in recent years, was completed in July 2003 and outlined six major academic priorities, identified related strategic areas of opportunities, presented recommendations, linked strategic planning to resource allocations and assigned administrative units to be accountable for follow-up action.
The plan, endorsed by the Board of Trustees, has proven to be a great tool for making the University's top priorities clear to the campus community, as well as prospective faculty and others. In setting seven University priorities after the plan was completed, the Board of Trustees added an additional priority: completing the campus development plan and beginning Carolina North. Annual budget requests and allocation decisions have been directly tied to the Academic Plan's key objectives and past performance results. This year, our budget process is directly linked with the UNC Tomorrow Commission report's priorities (which are not in conflict with those from the 2003 Academic Plan).
The initial five-year life of the Academic Plan as a roadmap has expired, and now is the time for a fresh look at the plan in the context of University priorities and future aspirations.
Carolina has responded well to a faculty retention crisis that peaked in 2003, when we retained only 40 percent of faculty who received outside offers and to whom the campus made counter offers. In 2007-08, the University retained 69 percent of those faculty. Prior year totals have ranged from 72 percent in 2006-07 to 52 percent the prior year.
Major factors in the turnaround were consecutive years of strong faculty salary appropriations from the General Assembly - combined with revenue from campus- and school-based tuition increases - as well as a new recruitment and retention fund created by legislators in 2007 at President Bowles' request.
However, recent indicators are painting a troubling picture. Despite this great legislative support and the consecutive years of excellent average faculty raises, our competitors have been doing just as well or even better. It's been enough to keep us holding steady, but we haven't moved ahead as much as expected.
In the most recent U.S. News and World Report rankings Carolina placed 50th among the top national universities for faculty resources. That was the same as last year, when 50th reflected a 10-point drop from 2006. We had been 39th the previous year. The measures for this category include undergraduate class size; two academic years (2006-07 and 2007-08) of average total faculty compensation (salary and benefits) based on indexes compiled by a consultant and weighted for regional differences; student-faculty ratio; and % of faculty who are full time and have earned highest degree.
Our goal for average pay for tenure and tenure-track faculty is to match the 80th percentile of our UNC Board of Governors-approved peer group. We reached the 50th percentile of our peers in the past year for salaries.
But recent analysis of our comparative strength for benefits shows vulnerabilities.
Dependent coverage for the health insurance plan available for UNC employees through the state is too expensive for most. That presents serious challenges to recruiting people with families. We are the only campus among our peers that does not contribute to family health-care coverage. Three-quarters of our peer campuses offer domestic partner coverage, which is excluded by the State Health Plan of North Carolina.
The UNC Optional Retirement Program sets mandatory contribution rates at too high a level (6% vs. a peer average rate of 3.87%). Our employer contribution rate is too low (less than 7% compared with nearly 9% among peers). And the vesting schedule on most campuses is immediate compared to our five-year requirements.
Human Resources is scheduled to present additional findings specific to faculty at the September trustee meeting.