Skip Navigation
Back 

res1120

res1120


Minutes of the Research Universities Sector Committee
November 20, 1996   1:30- 5:30 p.m. 

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

Staff Assisting Committee

Mr. David Fleming, Clemson University Mr. Harry Matthews, USC-Columbia Dr. Gail Morrison, CHE Dr. Nancy Healy-Williams, CHE Dr. David Loope, CHE Dr. Mike Smith, CHE

Mr. Wilson called the meeting to order and reviewed the actions taken by the Committee at its meeting of November 18, 1996. He indicated that only two performance indicators remained to be benchmarked and that this was the first order of business. Once all the indicators were benchmarked, the Committee was to rank each by weighted category factoring in whether data were available or the indicator was measurable.

The Committee agreed that the top three performance indicators are 2.D Compensation of faculty; 6.A SAT and ACT scores of student body; and 9.B Amount of public and private sector grants. After extended discussion, the Committee agreed that faculty compensation and SAT/ACT scores should not be fully linked (i.e., the percentage of funding for faculty compensation is capped at the percentage of funding awarded for SAT/ACT scores). The cap on faculty compensation will begin at 110% of the SAT/ACT percentage and will be reduced to 100% in ten years. This change will allow faculty salaries to move ahead at a faster pace than SAT/ACT scores. The rationale for this change is to increase faculty compensation first to raise the quality of the faculty at an institution which in turn will attract better qualified students, thus raising the SAT/ACT scores of entering freshmen.

The staff presented a recommendation regarding performance indicator 6.A SAT and ACT scores of student body and its appropriateness for MUSC. MUSC indicated that if this performance indicator is eliminated for the institution, then there would be no performance measure on the quality of students. The Committee agreed that MUSC would use the GRE, PCAT, MCAT and DAT scores for comparison to its aspirational peer group. Because 70% of MUSC's students are in graduate programs use of these graduate level test scores is appropriate only for MUSC and will not be used for USC or Clemson. Because this measure represents a change from the measure approved by the Committee, it will have to be presented to the Steering Committee as a proposed change.

Benchmark: The percentage of funding received by MUSC will be identical to the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the average score for the GRE, PCAT, MCAT and DAT examinations for the institution to the average score on the GRE, PCAT, MCAT and DAT examination for the aspirational peer institutionswith each test to be weighted as 25% of these ratios. Midpoint range for institution / = % of Funding Average midpoint range scores for peers

The following performance indicators for Research Funding were benchmarked:

9.A Financial support for reform in teacher education. Measure: The percentage of an institution's private and public research grants and Educational and General costs dedicated to teacher education programs as measured against the total Educational and General costs and public and private grants allocated to research for the institutions, weighted by total FTE enrollment in teacher education programs (graduated and undergraduate) as related to the enrollment in all other degree programs (graduate and undergraduate)

The benchmark for Performance Indicator 9.A is based on a 100% scale. The institution will receive funding based on the percentage of funding which supports reform in teacher education, i.e., as derived from the measurement, 50% for 50% support; 100% for 100% support.

9.B Amount of public and private sector grants. Measure: The current year's grants (i.e., the total dollars received from public and private sector grants expended in State fiscal year for research, including federal and state grants, private gifts, and local support, and excluding monies for financial aid, student scholarships and loans) divided by the weighted average if grant funding from the prior three years (weighted at 60%, 30% and 10% from most recent to least recent years, respectively).

The benchmark for performance indicator 9.B is that the institution will receive 25 cents for each dollar generated in public and private sector grants for research.

2.A Academic and other credentials of professors and instructors. The Committee had not set a benchmark for part b of this indicator. Measure: The quality of faculty as represented by the academic and other credentials of professors and instructors is to be measured as: a) percent of all headcount faculty who meet the criteria for faculty credentials of the Southern Association of colleges and Schools (SACS);and b) the percent of all headcount faculty who exceed the criteria for faculty credentials for SCAS.

The benchmark for performance indicator 2.A (b) is that the institution will report annually to the Commission on Higher Education the percent of faculty (headcount) exceeding SACS criteria. The percent exceeding these criteria will be equal to the percent of funding for this indicator.

The Committee then divided the performance indicators into four categories and assigned weights to each of the indicators as shown on the following table:

Mr. Wilson called the meeting to order and reviewed the actions taken by the Committee at its meeting of November 18, 1996. He indicated that only two performance indicators remained to be benchmarked and that this was the first order of business. Once all the indicators were benchmarked, the Committee was to rank each by weighted category factoring in whether data were available or the indicator was measurable. The Committee agreed that the top three performance indicators are 2.D Compensation of faculty; 6.A SAT and ACT scores of student body; and 9.B Amount of public and private sector grants. After extended discussion, the Committee agreed that faculty compensation and SAT/ACT scores should not be fully linked (i.e., the percentage of funding for faculty compensation is capped at the percentage of funding awarded for SAT/ACT scores). The cap on faculty compensation will begin at 110% of the SAT/ACT percentage and will be reduced to 100% in ten years. This change will allow faculty salaries to move ahead at a faster pace than SAT/ACT scores. The rationale for this change is to increase faculty compensation first to raise the quality of the faculty at an institution which in turn will attract better qualified students, thus raising the SAT/ACT scores of entering freshmen. The staff presented a recommendation regarding performance indicator 6.A SAT and ACT scores of student body and its appropriateness for MUSC. MUSC indicated that if this performance indicator is eliminated for the institution, then there would be no performance measure on the quality of students. The Committee agreed that MUSC would use the GRE, PCAT, MCAT and DAT scores for comparison to its aspirational peer group. Because 70% of MUSC's students are in graduate programs use of these graduate level test scores is appropriate only for MUSC and will not be used for USC or Clemson. Because this measure represents a change from the measure approved by the Committee, it will have to be presented to the Steering Committee as a proposed change. Benchmark: The percentage of funding received by MUSC will be identical to the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the average score for the GRE, PCAT, MCAT and DAT examinations for the institution to the average score on the GRE, PCAT, MCAT and DAT examination for the aspirational peer institutionswith each test to be weighted as 25% of these ratios. Midpoint range for institution / = % of Funding Average midpoint range scores for peers

The following performance indicators for Research Funding were benchmarked: 9.A Financial support for reform in teacher education. Measure: The percentage of an institution's private and public research grants and Educational and General costs dedicated to teacher education programs as measured against the total Educational and General costs and public and private grants allocated to research for the institutions, weighted by total FTE enrollment in teacher education programs (graduated and undergraduate) as related to the enrollment in all other degree programs (graduate and undergraduate) The benchmark for Performance Indicator 9.A is based on a 100% scale. The institution will receive funding based on the percentage of funding which supports reform in teacher education, i.e., as derived from the measurement, 50% for 50% support; 100% for 100% support. 9.B Amount of public and private sector grants. Measure: The current year's grants (i.e., the total dollars received from public and private sector grants expended in State fiscal year for research, including federal and state grants, private gifts, and local support, and excluding monies for financial aid, student scholarships and loans) divided by the weighted average if grant funding from the prior three years (weighted at 60%, 30% and 10% from most recent to least recent years, respectively). The benchmark for performance indicator 9.B is that the institution will receive 25 cents for each dollar generated in public and private sector grants for research. 2.A Academic and other credentials of professors and instructors. The Committee had not set a benchmark for part b of this indicator. Measure: The quality of faculty as represented by the academic and other credentials of professors and instructors is to be measured as: a) percent of all headcount faculty who meet the criteria for faculty credentials of the Southern Association of colleges and Schools (SACS);and b) the percent of all headcount faculty who exceed the criteria for faculty credentials for SCAS. The benchmark for performance indicator 2.A (b) is that the institution will report annually to the Commission on Higher Education the percent of faculty (headcount) exceeding SACS criteria. The percent exceeding these criteria will be equal to the percent of funding for this indicator. The Committee then divided the performance indicators into four categories and assigned weights to each of the indicators as shown on the following table: