Skip Navigation
Back 

res1104

res1104



                      Minutes of the
          Research Universities Sector Committee
             November 4, 1996   1:30- 5:30 p.m. 

Members Present                         Members Absent
                    
Mr. Larry Wilson, Chair                 Dr. Janis Bellack
Mr. William Dauksch                Dr. Ronald Thurston
Dr. Layton McCurdy                 Mr. Winfred Greene
Dr. Walton Owens, Jr.                   Ms. Patricia McAbee
Dr. Marcia Welsh                        Mr. Thomas Marschel

Staff Assisting Committee

Mr. Fred Sheheen
Mr. David Fleming, Clemson University
Mr. Harry Matthews, USC-Columbia
Dr. Gail Morrison, CHE
Dr. Nancy Healy-Williams, CHE
Dr. David Loope, CHE
Mr. Nelson Lindsay, CHE


     Mr. Wilson called the meeting to order and stated that the committee will begin
benchmarking each of the performance indicators.  The Committee discussed the
revised list of aspirational peer institutions provided by each of the three research
universities (Attachment 1).   The revised list was accepted by the Committee,
pending resolution by Clemson as to whether the University of Florida should be
included.  Mr. Wilson suggested that both Clemson and U.S.C.-Columbia examine
their lists and decide if they want to have eight aspirational peers as MUSC has
indicated.

     Mr. Wilson distributed to the Committee the tabulation of the member's
weighting of the performance indicators (Attachment 2).  These weightings resulted
from the request of the chair for each committee member to weight each indicator so
that the sum would equal 100 percent.  The next tasks for the committee were to
benchmark each indicator,  determine which ones can be measured in a cost-effective
manner, and discuss those indicators where there was wide divergence in the
weightings as shown in Attachment 2.

     Mr. Sheheen indicated that the staff have determined that data are available for
only 15 of the 37 performance indicators at the present time.  The Steering Committee
recommends that the indicators be implemented incrementally; a suggested time line
is included in each member's notebook.  He further indicated that it is appropriate for
the Sector Committees to make recommendations for changes in the performance
indicators to the General Assembly but that a complete plan for implementation of all
37 indicators as approved by the CHE must be submitted to the General Assembly in
January.

The following represents the consensus actions the members present of the
Committee took regarding tentative benchmarkings for individual performance
indicators:

   Research Universities Sector Committee Benchmarkings
                             
1A.  Expenditure of funds to achieve mission.  The data for this indicator are
IPEDS data; however, in order to provide the required level of detail, refinement will be
required and will be completed in FY 1998-99.  Mr. Fleming noted that IPEDS data
collection forms are being revised and may not provide the desired categories of
expenditures.  The Committee recommended that the benchmark should define
instruction expenditures as including: instruction, research, public service, academic
support, student services, and scholarships and fellowships expenditures.  Questions
raised by the members included:  Should the academic/instructional expenditures
account for 80 percent of the overall budget for an institution?   Should the three
institutions compare their expenditures among themselves or against their aspirational
peers?  Should the measure include only expenditures for instruction or should it
include other components for comparison?  Should the benchmark be set at the same
ratio as that of the aspirational peers?  

The benchmark for Performance Indicator 1A. will be that the ratio of
instruction expenditures (as defined above) to total E&G expenditures must
be within one standard deviation of the average of the comparable ratios for
the aspirational peers.
          
Mr.  Fleming was instructed by Mr. Wilson to provide an example of such a
comparison using the available data from FY 1993-94. 

1B.  Curricula Offered to Achieve Mission.  Dr. Morrison distributed a handout
detailing a possible method for collection of data for this indicator (Attachment 3). 
The Committee approved the method of collection as presented in the attachment with
the caveat that the possible use of service enrollment may need to be revisited.  It was
noted that service enrollment is not included in the indicator.  After considerable
discussion, the Committee agreed to the data collection instrument, noting that the
standards are very low for degree production.  If service enrollment (which applies
only to baccalaureate and master's programs) is to be included the degree production
levels should be raised if standards are to be meaningful in promoting productivity.

The benchmark for Performance Indicator 1B. will be that the institution must
achieve  97 percent of this indicator to meet the standard.

1C. Approval of Mission Statement.  The Committee indicated that this is a Yes or
No indicator and benchmarked it accordingly.  The weighting for this indicator will be
determined at a later date.  The benchmark for Performance Indicator 1C is 100%
for Yes, 0% for No.

1D.  Adoption of Strategic Plan to Support the Mission.  The Committee
indicated that this is a Yes or No indicator and benchmarked it accordingly. The
weighting for this indicator will be determined at a later date.  The benchmark for
Performance Indicator 1D is 100% Yes; 0% No. 

1E.  Attainment of Goals of the Strategic Plan.  The Committee agreed that this
indicator is based on quantifiable factors and should be measured on a scale which
reflects progress towards attaining goals.  The Committee accepted as a useful
suggestion that evaluation of this progress might be conducted by a panel of
reviewers selected from the aspirational peer institutions.  The benchmark for
Performance Indicator 1E is a five-point evaluation scale as follows:


                         Excellent
                           Good
                        Acceptable
                         Marginal
                       Unacceptable
                             
                             
                           100 %
                           75 %
                           50 %
                           25 %
                            0 %
                             

2A.  Academic and Other Credentials of Professors and Instructors.  This
indicator received the fourth highest weighting by the Committee (Attachment 2).  
The Committee agreed that all three research institutions shall meet the SACS criteria
of Part A. (100 %).  Part B. must be defined in terms of measure of scholarship and
instructional quality.  The staff were directed to survey the three institutions for the
following which will be used to define a benchmark for 2A. Part B:

    provide 4-5 criteria which will be used to evaluate how faculty exceed the
     SACS criteria utilizing such factors as funded research, refereed publication,
     book publications, professional awards, honors, etc.

    determine which of these criteria can be measured against aspirational peers

To the extent possible, these data are to be prepared for the November 18, 1996
meeting of the Research Universities Sector Committee.  The benchmark for
Performance Indicator 2A.a is 100%.  The benchmark for 2A.b is to be
determined at a later meeting.

2B.  Performance Review for Faculty to Include Student and Peer Evaluations. 
The Committee agreed  that the institutions will be evaluated against the "Best
Practices" document developed by the Task Force and approved by the Commission. 
The benchmark for Performance Indicator 2B is set a five-point evaluation
scale as follows: 

                             
                         Excellent
                           Good
                        Acceptable
                         Marginal
                       Unacceptable
                             
                             
                           100%
                            75%
                            50%
                            25%
                            0%
                             


2C. Post-Tenure Review for Tenured Faculty.  The Committee agreed that the
institutions will be evaluated against the "Best Practices" document developed by the
Task Force and approved by the Commission.  The benchmark for Performance
Indicator 2C is a five-point evaluation scale as follows:



                         Excellent
                           Good
                        Acceptable
                         Marginal
                       Unacceptable
                             
                             
                           100%
                            75%
                            50%
                            25%
                            0%
                             
                             
2D. Compensation.  Compensation will be compared to aspirational peer institutions
                   in order to measure:
                             
     1.  movement toward aspirational peer compensation levels; and
     2.  attainment of aspirational peer compensation levels.
                             
The Committee agreed that faculty salaries will be compared annually with the average
salaries by rank and discipline from the aspirational peer institutions calculated as a
three-year moving average weighted at 60% / 30% / 10%, with ten percent
            representing the most recent year. 
                             
The members further agreed that this measure should determine the baseline salary
for the three institutions, determine the differential with the aspirational peer
institutions, and develop a scale for progress on which to base incremental increases. 
Dr. Matthews and Mr. Fleming were asked to compute an example of how this system
would work beginning with a baseline of 85 percent of aspirational peer compensation. 
These data will be made available at the November 18, 1996, meeting of the Research
Universities Sector Committee.  The Committee agreed to continue discussion of this
        indicator at the November 6, 1996, meeting.
                                                    MInutes of the
          Research Universities Sector Committee 
             November 6, 1996 1:30 - 5:30 p.m.
                             
Members Present                         Members Absent
Mr. Larry Wilson, Chair                 Dr. Walton Owens, Jr.
Mr. William Dauksch                Dr. Ronald Thurston
Dr. Marcia Welsh                        Mr. Winfred Greene
Dr. Janis Bellack                       Ms. Patricia McAbee
                                   Mr. Thomas Marschel
                                   Dr. Layton McCurdy
                                   
Staff Assisting Committee
Mr. David Fleming, Clemson University
Mr. Harry Matthews, U.S.C.-Columbia
Dr. Gail Morrison, CHE
Dr. Nancy Healy-Williams, CHE
Dr. Lynn Kelley, CHE
Mr. Nelson Lindsay, CHE

Mr. Wilson began the meeting with an overview of the work the Committee had
accomplished at its meeting of November 4, 1996.  The Committee continued
discussion on two indicators (2A.b and 2D) which it has not yet benchmarked.

 2A. Academic and Other Credentials of Professors and Instructors.  With
regards to data availability for part b of this indicator, USC has sent an e-mail inquiry
to 29 doctoral institutions.  The ten institutions that have responded indicate that they
do not maintain a database on other credentials including scholarship.  Because of the
potential difficulty in obtaining comparable data, this indicator may not be
benchmarked against aspirational peers.  Discussion again focussed on how to
determine "exceeds standard" for faculty at the research institutions.  It was
recommended that the staff work with the three institutions to develop a process which
would review reserach and scholarship credentials, perhaps once every three years, in
terms of:

     1.  Progress toward a target level of achievement;
     2.  Rate of speed toward target level of achievement; and
     3.  Achievement of target level of achievement.

The staff, in conjunction with institutional representatives, will develop a proposed
methodology for this indicator (2A, part b) which will include development of a
baseline, development of a target level, and recommendation for weighting of the
indicator.

The benchmark for Performance Indicator 2A.b has not yet been determined.

2D. Compensation.  The Committee continued the discussion from November 4
regarding this indicator.  Mr. Wilson indicated that the members must assume that the
current salary support will remain stable and that the General Assembly will be asked
to expand these resources because of the  institution's attainments of the
performance indicators.  Compensation will be based on two measures:

     1.  Reward for 100% parity with aspirational peer average; and/or
     2.  Reward for movement toward parity with aspirational peer average. 

These measures will be analyzed as progress within a specific time line.  The
Committee recommended that before a benchmark can be defined, data will need to
be made available.  These will include: calculation of the aspirational peer averages
and determination of how the three research institutions compare with these averages. 
From these data, an aggressive but obtainable time line for achievement will be
defined.  In order to do the latter, it was also suggested that each of the three
institutions calculate how much money would be needed to raise faculty salaries to the
aspirational peer average.  For example, USC estimated that according to one study
they conducted, $12 million, plus fringes, would be needed.  

The benchmark for Performance Indicator 2D has not yet been determined.

The following represents the consensus actions the members present of the
Committee took regarding tentative benchmarkings for individual performance
indicators:

2E. Availability of Faculty to Students Outside of the Classroom.  The
benchmark for Performance Indicator 2E will be as follows:

     2E.a      on a four-point scale, 85 percent of faculty must receive a           rating of 3 (satisfactory) or higher.
     2E.b On a four-point scale, 85% of students must report a rating of        3 (satisfactory) or higher.

2F.  Community and Public Service Activities of Faculty for which No Extra
Compensation is Paid.  The institutions will develop a yes/no survey to determine
the number of faculty who have been involved in such activities during the academic
year.  The total number responding each year will be divided by the total number of
faculty to obtain a percentage.  The benchmark for  Performance Indicator 2F was
established at  90 percent of faculty at an institution will have participated in
such activities.

3A. Class Size and Student/Teacher Ratios.  The Committee indicated that this is
not a very meaningful indicator of instructional quality and it will be very difficult to
measure.  Class size is frequently dependent on the discipline in which the course is
being taught as well as the attributes of the faculty member.  Thus smaller or larger as
a means of determining quality is not necessarily useful.  The suggestion was made
that student evaluation of class size would be a more useful way for analyzing this
indicator as it might pertain to quality.  The Committee agreed this indicator should
receive a very low weighting.

The benchmark for Performance Indicator 3A is as follows:

     3A.1 This indicator is not applicable to the research institutions         because the database for comparison is not statistically         significant (only three institutions).

     3A. 2     If the institutional average FTE ratio of student to faculty is < 20:1,="" then="" the="" institution="" has="" achieved="" the="" standard.="" 3b.="" number="" of="" credit="" hours="" taught="" by="" faculty.="" the="" committee="" agreed="" that="" this="" benchmark="" will="" be="" for="" comparison="" within="" the="" sector.="" the="" commission="" does="" not,="" at="" the="" present="" time,="" collect="" faculty="" teaching="" load="" data.="" the="" institutions="" indicated="" that="" it="" is="" difficult="" to="" define="" full-time="" teaching="" faculty="" and="" fte="" teaching="" faculty="" in="" terms="" of="" level.="" the="" staff,="" in="" conjunction="" with="" institutional="" representatives,="" will="" develop="" a="" definition="" for="" these="" terms.="" all="" three="" institutions="" will="" make="" recommendations="" plus="" peer="" aspirational="" institutions="" will="" be="" contacted="" to="" determine="" what="" they="" consider="" to="" be="" the="" standard="" fte="" work="" load="" for="" both="" undergraduate="" and="" graduate.="" the="" following="" benchmark="" for="" performance="" indicator="" 3b="" is="" tentatively="" set="" at="" 90="" percent="" of="" the="" sector="" average="" for="" credit="" hours="" taught="" but="" will="" be="" revisited="" once="" data="" above="" is="" obtained.="" 3c.="" ratio="" of="" full-time="" faculty="" as="" compared="" to="" other="" full-time="" employees.="" dr.="" morrison="" distributed="" a="" handout="" (attachment="" 4)="" from="" 1995="" ipeds="" data="" which="" indicated="" the="" percent="" of="" full-time="" faculty="" for="" each="" institution.="" these="" data="" will="" be="" available="" for="" aspirational="" peers="" unless="" the="" ipeds="" reporting="" changes.="" concern="" arose="" as="" to="" the="" definition="" of="" full-time="" employee="" as="" to="" whether="" this="" included="" those="" on="" restricted="" and/or="" unrestricted="" funds.="" ipeds="" collects="" data="" on="" full-time="" employees="" by="" state="" slot,="" regardless="" of="" source="" of="" payment="" (restricted/unrestricted).="" the="" committee="" agreed="" that="" the="" institutions="" will="" be="" compared="" to="" the="" average="" of="" the="" aspirational="" peers.="" the="" benchmark="" for="" performance="" indicator="" 3c="" is="" that="" the="" institutional="" ratio="" of="" full-time="" faculty="" as="" compared="" to="" other="" full-time="" employees="" must="" be="" within="" one="" standard="" deviation="" of="" the="" aspirational="" peer="" average="" for="" comparable="" ratios="" to="" meet="" the="" standard.="" 3d.="" accreditation="" of="" degree-granting="" programs.="" the="" benchmark="" for="" performance="" indicator="" 3d="" is="" 100="" percent="" of="" programs="" for="" which="" accreditation="" is="" available="" must="" hold="" accreditation.="" 3e.="" institutional="" emphasis="" on="" quality="" teacher="" education="" and="" reform.="" this="" indicator="" will="" only="" affect="" clemson="" and="" usc.="" the="" benchmark="" for="" performance="" indicator="" 3e="" is="" a="" five-point="" evaluation="" scale="" as="" follows:="" excellent="" good="" acceptable="" marginal="" unacceptable="" 100%="" 75%="" 50%="" 25%="" 0%="" 4a.="" sharing="" and="" use="" of="" technology,="" programs,="" equipment,="" supplies,="" and="" source="" matter="" experts="" within="" the="" institution="" and="" with="" other="" institutions.="" the="" discussion="" indicated="" that="" the="" data="" collection="" would="" be="" very="" difficult,="" very="" expensive,="" and="" involve="" enormous="" amounts="" of="" data.="" the="" committee="" benchmarked="" this="" indicator="" in="" terms="" of="" a="" yes/no="" measure.="" to="" provide="" data="" for="" this="" indicator,="" each="" institution="" will="" develop="" and="" use="" a="" sample="" survey="" to="" estimate="" the="" number="" of="" activities,="" people="" served,="" and="" financial="" impact.="" each="" institution="" will="" submit="" to="" the="" commission="" this="" estimate,="" along="" with="" a="" written="" analysis="" of="" the="" institution's="" best="" practices="" in="" meeting="" this="" standard="" and="" an="" evaluation="" of="" improvements="" made.="" the="" commission="" will="" determine="" if="" the="" institution="" is="" meeting="" this="" indicator="" from="" the="" data="" and="" analysis="" presented="" and="" award="" a="" yes="" or="" no="" for="" meeting="" the="" standard.="" the="" benchmark="" for="" performance="" indicator="" 4a="" is="" 100%="" for="" yes,="" 0%="" for="" no.="" 4b.="" cooperation="" and="" collaboration="" with="" private="" industry,="" the="" business="" community="" and="" government.="" this="" indicator="" is="" to="" be="" handled="" in="" the="" same="" way="" as="" performance="" indicator="" 4a.="" the="" benchmark="" for="" performance="" indicator="" 4b="" is="" 100%="" for="" yes,="" 0%="" for="" no.="" 5a.="" percentage="" of="" administrative="" costs="" as="" compared="" to="" academic="" costs.="" this="" indicator="" will="" be="" compared="" to="" aspirational="" peers="" using="" ipeds="" data.="" thus,="" this="" benchmark="" is="" tentative="" until="" the="" data="" for="" the="" institutions="" and="" the="" aspirational="" peers="" can="" be="" collected="" and="" analyzed.="" it="" may="" be="" that="" a="" sliding="" scale="" will="" be="" developed="" for="" both="" ratios.="" the="" benchmark="" for="" performance="" indicator="" 5a="" is="" that="" the="" ratios="" must="" be="" within="" one="" standard="" deviation="" of="" the="" aspirational="" peer="" average="" for="" comparable="" ratios="" to="" meet="" the="" standard.="" 5b.="" use="" of="" best="" management="" practices.="" the="" benchmark="" for="" performance="" indicator="" 5b="" is="" a="" five-point="" evaluation="" scale="" as="" follows:="" excellent="" good="" acceptable="" marginal="" unacceptable="" 100%="" 75%="" 50%="" 25%="" 0%="" 5c.="" elimination="" of="" unjustified="" duplication="" of="" and="" waste="" in="" administrative="" and="" academic="" programs.="" the="" committee="" indicated="" that="" this="" indicator="" should="" offer="" an="" incentive="" to="" the="" institution="" such="" that="" for="" each="" dollar="" saved,="" a="" proportion="" of="" this="" amount="" is="" awarded="" to="" the="" institution.="" it="" will="" be="" necessary,="" as="" in="" several="" other="" indicators,="" for="" the="" commission="" to="" evaluate="" institutional="" effort="" based="" on="" the="" data="" submitted="" by="" the="" institutions="" to="" the="" commission="" for="" its="" review.="" the="" benchmark="" for="" performance="" indicator="" 5c="" is="" a="" five-point="" evaluation="" scale="" as="" follows:="" excellent="" good="" acceptable="" marginal="" unacceptable="" 100%="" 75%="" 50%="" 25%="" 0%="" 5d.="" amount="" of="" general="" overhead="" costs.="" ipeds="" data="" are="" available="" for="" comparison="" to="" aspirational="" peers.="" the="" committee="" agreed="" that="" the="" data="" must="" be="" examined="" before="" a="" final="" benchmark="" can="" be="" set.="" the="" tentative="" benchmark="" for="" performance="" indicator="" 5d="" is="" that="" the="" ratio="" of="" general="" overhead="" costs="" to="" total="" fte="" students="" must="" be="" within="" one="" standard="" deviation="" of="" the="" aspirational="" peer="" average="" to="" meet="" the="" standard.="" 6a.="" sat="" and="" act="" scores="" of="" student="" body.="" much="" discussion="" occurred="" about="" this="" indicator.="" sat="" and="" act="" scores="" do="" not="" apply="" to="" musc="" which="" would="" like="" to="" see="" developed="" an="" indicator="" for="" gre="" and="" professional="" entrance="" exams.="" it="" was="" noted="" ,="" however,="" that="" legislative="" concerns="" focus="" on="" undergraduate="" admissions="" standards="" in="" this="" particular="" indicator.="" it="" was="" agreed="" that="" this="" is="" one="" of="" the="" most="" important="" indicators,="" especially="" when="" evaluated="" against="" its="" ability="" to="" change="" institutional="" behavior.="" the="" indicator,="" as="" currently="" defined,="" requires="" comparison="" for="" the="" sector="" within="" the="" state.="" however,="" this="" would="" only="" compare="" clemson="" and="" usc.="" it="" was="" recommended="" that="" these="" institutions="" be="" compared="" to="" their="" aspirational="" peers.="" the="" consensus="" of="" the="" committee="" was="" that="" the="" institutions="" should="" be="" rewarded="" for="" progress="" towards="" a="" goal,="" i.e.,="" improvement="" in="" narrowing="" the="" gap="" between="" the="" institutions="" scores="" and="" the="" aspirational="" peers'="" scores.="" the="" committee="" proposed="" that="" this="" indicator="" be="" re-visited="" at="" the="" next="" meeting="" at="" which="" time="" the="" staff="" will="" have="" obtained="" sat="" information="" on="" the="" aspirational="" peers.="" mr.="" wilson="" indicated="" that="" he="" would="" like="" to="" suggest="" to="" the="" steering="" committee="" that="" the="" indicator="" be="" changed="" so="" that="" the="" measure="" allows="" the="" research="" institutions="" to="" compare="" their="" scores="" with="" the="" scores="" of="" the="" aspirational="" peers.="" at="" the="" next="" meeting,="" scheduled="" for="" november="" 18,="" 1996,="" 1:30="" -="" 5:30="" p.m.,="" data="" will="" be="" made="" available="" to="" allow="" the="" benchmarking="" of="" this="" indicator.="" attachment="" 1="" aspirational="" peer="" institutions="" clemson="" university="" auburn="" university="" of="" california-davis*="" university="" of="" florida*="" georgia="" tech="" iowa="" state="" university*="" michigan="" state="" university*="" north="" carolina="" state="" university="" purdue="" university*="" virginia="" polytechnic="" institute="" musc="" university="" of="" alabama-birmingham="" university="" of="" iowa*="" university="" of="" florida*="" university="" of="" washington*="" university="" of="" california-san="" francisco="" university="" of="" north="" carolina-chapel="" hill*="" university="" of="" texas-galveston="" medical="" college="" of="" georgia="" u.s.c.-columbia="" university="" of="" california-davis*="" university="" of="" california-irvine*="" university="" of="" florida*="" university="" of="" georgia="" university="" of="" north="" carolina-chapel="" hill*="" university="" of="" virginia*="" university="" of="" maryland*="" university="" of="" kentucky="" university="" of="" colorado*="" *members="" of="" the="" association="" of="" american="" universities="" (aau);="" u.s.c.="" has="" indicated="" membership="" is="" one="" of="" its="" goals.="" ="" attachment="" 2="" research="" universities="" sector="" committee="" weighting="" of="" performance="" indicators="" by="" percent="" performance="" indicator="" %="" %="" %="" %="" %="" %="" average="" weight="" 1a.="" expenditure="" of="" funds="" to="" achieve="" mission="" 1.0="" 0.0="" 2.0="" 0.0="" 10.0="" 1.0="" 2.33="" 1b.="" curricula="" offered="" to="" achieve="" mission="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 10.0="" 4.0="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 2.50="" 1c.="" approval="" of="" a="" mission="" statement="" 0.0="" 0.1="" 1.0="" 5.0="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 1.18="" 1d.="" adoption="" of="" a="" strategic="" plan="" to="" support="" the="" mission="" statement="" 0.0="" 0.1="" 7.5="" 3.0="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 1.93="" 1e.="" attainment="" of="" goals="" of="" the="" strategic="" plan="" 7.0="" 3.8="" 3.0="" 3.0="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 2.97="" 2a.="" academic="" and="" other="" credentials="" of="" professors="" and="" instructors="" 2.0="" 1.0="" 10.0="" 10.0="" 10.0="" 8.0="" 6.83="" 2b.="" performance="" review="" system="" for="" faculty="" to="" include="" student="" and="" peer="" evaluations="" 4.0="" 2.0="" 8.0="" 1.0="" 10.0="" 3.0="" 4.67="" 2c.="" post-tenure="" review="" for="" tenured="" faculty="" 2.0="" 2.0="" 2.0="" 2.0="" 10.0="" 3.0="" 3.50="" 2d.="" compensation="" of="" faculty="" 5.0="" 5.0="" 2.0="" 8.0="" 2.0="" 13.0="" 5.83="" 2e.="" availability="" of="" faculty="" to="" students="" outside="" the="" classroom="" 1.0="" 0.5="" 2.0="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 1.0="" 0.92="" 2f.="" community="" or="" public="" service="" activities="" of="" faculty="" for="" which="" no="" extra="" compensation="" is="" paid="" 0.0="" 0.5="" 1.0="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 0.25="" 3a.="" class="" sizes="" and="" student/teacher="" ratios="" 2.0="" 2.0="" 0.5="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 0.75="" 3b.="" number="" of="" credit="" hours="" taught="" by="" faculty="" 2.0="" 3.0="" 0.5="" 1.0="" 1.0="" 3.0="" 1.75="" 3c.="" ratio="" of="" full-time="" faculty="" as="" compared="" to="" other="" full-time="" employees="" 4.0="" 6.0="" 0.5="" 2.0="" 1.0="" 6.0="" 3.25="" 3d.="" accreditation="" of="" degree-granting="" programs="" 2.0="" 1.0="" 4.0="" 6.0="" 1.0="" 2.0="" 2.67="" 3e.="" institutional="" emphasis="" on="" quality="" teacher="" education="" and="" reform="" 2.0="" 0.0="" 0.5="" 3.0="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 1.08="" 4a.="" sharing="" and="" use="" of="" technology,="" programs,="" equipment,="" supplies,="" and="" source="" matter="" experts="" with="" the="" institution,="" with="" other="" institutions,="" and="" the="" business="" community="" 2.5="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 0.75="" 4b.="" cooperation="" and="" collaboration="" with="" private="" industry="" 2.5="" 1.0="" 3.0="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 1.25="" 5a.="" percentage="" of="" administrative="" costs="" as="" compared="" to="" academic="" costs="" 10.0="" 15.0="" 0.5="" 1.0="" 10.0="" 5.0="" 6.92="" 5b.="" use="" of="" best="" management="" practices="" 5.0="" 2.0="" 3.0="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 3.0="" 2.17="" 5c.="" elimination="" of="" unjustified="" duplication="" of="" and="" waste="" in="" administrative="" and="" academic="" programs="" 3.0="" 1.0="" 0.5="" 1.0="" 0.0="" 2.0="" 1.25="" 5d.="" amount="" of="" general="" overhead="" costs="" 3.0="" 1.0="" 0.5="" 1.0="" 5.0="" 1.0="" 1.92="" 6a.="" sat="" and="" act="" scores="" of="" student="" body="" 8.0="" 15.0="" 0.5="" 6.0="" 10.0="" 15.0="" 9.08="" 6b.="" high="" school="" standing,="" grade="" point="" averages,="" and="" activities="" of="" student="" body="" 2.0="" 0.0="" 0.5="" 6.0="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 1.58="" 6c.="" post-secondary="" non-academic="" achievement="" of="" student="" body="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 0.5="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 0.08="" 6d.="" priority="" on="" enrolling="" in-state="" students="" 3.0="" 15.0="" 3.0="" 6.0="" 1.0="" 2.0="" 5.00="" 7a.="" graduation="" rate="" 4.0="" 3.0="" 5.0="" 3.0="" 5.0="" 3.0="" 3.83="" 7b.="" employment="" rate="" for="" graduates="" 2.0="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 0.0="" 5.0="" 3.0="" 1.83="" 7c.="" employer="" feedback="" on="" graduates="" who="" were="" employed="" or="" not="" employed="" 1.0="" 0.0="" 3.0="" 0.0="" 5.0="" 1.0="" 1.67="" 7d.="" scores="" if="" graduates="" on="" post-graduate="" professional,="" graduate="" or="" employment-related="" examinations="" and="" certification="" tests="" 1.0="" 2.0="" 4.0="" 4.0="" 0.0="" 2.0="" 2.17="" 7e.="" number="" of="" graduates="" who="" continue="" their="" education="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 0.5="" 0.25="" 7f.="" credit="" hours="" earned="" of="" graduates="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 0.5="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 0.5="" 0.17="" 8a.="" transferability="" of="" credits="" to="" and="" from="" the="" institution="" 0.0="" 0.0="" 0.5="" 2.0="" 1.0="" 1.0="" 0.75="" 8b.="" continuing="" education="" programs="" for="" graduates="" and="" others="" 1.5="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 1.0="" 0.0="" 1.0="" 0.75="" 8c.="" accessibility="" to="" the="" institution="" of="" all="" citizens="" of="" the="" state="" 1.5="" 2.0="" 3.0="" 5.0="" 1.0="" 1.0="" 2.25="" 9a.="" financial="" support="" for="" reform="" in="" teacher="" education="" 1.0="" 1.0="" 0.5="" 2.0="" 1.0="" 1.0="" 1.08="" 9b.="" amount="" of="" public="" and="" private="" sector="" grants="" 15.0="" 15.0="" 15.0="" 14.0="" 10.0="" 12.0="" 13.50="" ="" attachment="" 3="" 1.b="" curricula="" offered="" to="" achieve="" mission="" #="" of="" yes="" responses="" in="" a+b+(c.1)+(c.2)+(c.3)+d+e)="" -="" (#="" of="" no="" responses="" in="" f)="" total="" possible="" number="" of="" responses="" in="" a-f="" program="" curricula="" appropriate="" to="" approved="" degree-level="" (a)="" curricula="" support="" approvedmission="" (b)="" curricula="" meet="" productivity="" standards*="" reasonable="" cost="" (d)="" #="" of="" majors="" (c.1)="" #="" of="" degrees="" (c.2)="" student**="" placements="" (c.3)="" program="" of="" excellence="" (e)="" programs="" not="" offered="" which="" need="" to="" be="" offered="" (f)="" *="" does="" not="" include="" "service="" enrollment"="" standard="" **="" applies="" only="" to="" two-year="" institutions="" ="" 1.b="" curricula="" offered="" to="" achieve="" mission="" program="" productivity="" standards="" the="" minimum="" standards="" for="" productivity="" involve:="" 1)="" the="" number="" of="" degrees="" conferred="" in="" the="" program="" annually;="" and="" 2)="" the="" number="" of="" upper-division="" fte="" students="" enrolled="" in="" any="" given="" degree="" program.="" the="" specific="" standards="" are="" as="" follows:="" minimum="" standards="" for="" degree="" productivity="" productivity="" criteria="" (five-year="" average)="" degrees="" major="" service="" awarded="" enrollment="" enrollment="" baccalaureate="" 5="" 12.5*="" (not="" used="" in="" master's/first="" professional="" 3="" 6.0**="" performance="" doctoral="" 2="" 4.5="" indicator="" measure)="" *="" upper-division="" majors="" **g-1="" enrollments="" ="" attachment="" 4="" research="" university="" full-time="" faculty="" total="" full-time="" employees="" %="" of="" total="" clemson="" 1,067="" 3,947="" 27.0%="" musc="" 704="" 1,530="" 46.0%="" usc="" 1,379="" 4,145="" 33.3%="" all="" research="" universities="" 3,150="" 9,622="" 32.8%="" source:="" 1995="" ipeds="" fall="" staff="">