aau performance update

Prepared byOffice of Decision Support, Planning & Analysis

December 2010

A Performance Update:Advancing USF’s Strategic Plan

Table of Contents

President’s Message .............................................................................................................................1

Provost’s Overview of Progress ............................................................................................................2

A Performance Update Overview ........................................................................................................11

University Leadership ..........................................................................................................................11

University of South Florida (USF) .........................................................................................................12

USF Strategic Plan ...............................................................................................................................12

Association of American Universities (AAU) ........................................................................................13

AAU Eligibility Criteria ..........................................................................................................................13

Strategic Performance Metrics ............................................................................................................15

Performance Dashboard ......................................................................................................................16

Performance Data:

Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................17

Students .......................................................................................................................................29

Faculty...........................................................................................................................................49

Research .......................................................................................................................................58

President’s Message

I am pleased to share with you an interim performance update (2007-2010) for Transforming Higher Education for Global Innovation, USF’s Strategic Plan for 2007-2012. Since the plan was approved by the USF System Board of Trustees on May 31, 2007, we have witnessed some major changes at USF, the most significant of which has been a rapid loss of base state funding and the emergence of our multi-campus system.

This is the second phase of strategic planning and advancement during my presidency, with the first guiding us to become a Top 50 Public Research University during the period 2001-2006. Our ambitious vision continues and I am sure that you’ll be struck by the remarkable gains that we have demonstrated in spite of the most challenging economic climate in the history of USF.

Initially conceived of as a plan for the USF System, the thoughtful development and approval of distinctive missions and visions at USF St. Petersburg, USF Sarasota-Manatee, and USF Polytechnic has meant that our vision to become “a premier research

university with state, national, and global impact, and positioned for membership in the Association of American Universities,” has become the focus of USF, embraced by the doctoral granting, research intensive campus in Tampa, that includes USF Health and the College of Marine Science.

As you know, USF has emerged as a national leader in strategic planning and performance accountability. Our earlier interactive electronic platform has been replicated by institutions around the world to track institutional performance. This report, that is also available online, provides a fresh, exciting, and new look which aligns institutional planning and performance assessment in a focused and disciplined manner.

I invite you to reflect on our university’s remarkable growth as a top tier national research university as you navigate the following pages and I thank you for your continuing support of the University of South Florida.

JUDy GEnSHAFTPresident

1

Provost’s Overview of Progress

The University of South Florida’s rapid emergence on the national stage as a top tier public research university, over the past decade, is perhaps unprecedented. Just 50 years after the first student enrolled at the university, USF is proud to take its place alongside many of the nation’s most esteemed public research universities, but we are not yet satisfied. At the outset, I want to acknowledge the hard work and valued contributions of a remarkably talented group of data and policy analysts in the Office of Decision Support, who are responsible for this report and whose important work continues to inform budget and strategic decision making at USF.

Guided by the prior strategic plan (2001-2006), institutional gains over the past decade have been nothing short of dramatic. Student headcount across the USF System has grown by one third, from 35,728 during the 2000-2001 academic year to 47,576 in Fall 2010 (with a growth of 30 percent at USF, from 31,042 to 40,433), while the average

freshman SAT score has increased by more than 100 points (from 1,059 in Fall 1999 to 1,194 last Fall) while the mean high school grade point average climbed from 3.36 to

3.83. During the same period, USF witnessed a 19 percent decline in state appropriated funds (i.e. general revenue and lottery) per full-time equivalent student (from $8,591 to $6,973), while undergraduate tuition for a full-time Florida resident student has doubled (from $2,256 to $4,577). It is important to note that available revenue per FTE, derived from state appropriations plus student tuition, barely increased over the decade, challenging the university to diversify its revenue base. Although USF’s endowment climbed above $400 million in early 2007, before the worldwide collapse of the financial markets, gains from $203 million in 1999-2000 to $360 million in 2008-2009 amounted to a 56 percent growth. Through careful alignment of strategic and budget planning, USF has been able to avoid academic program closures, furloughs and the layoff of tenured and tenure-earning faculty, while maintaining considerable progress toward its strategic destination.

Throughout these most challenging of times, USF has emerged as one of the nation’s most rapidly growing research universities, with total research expenditures doubling to $278 million (for fiscal year 2008) in the past decade and federal expenditures jumping from $51 million to $170 million. During the same period, the number of degrees awarded climbed 80 percent, from 5,996 in academic year 2000-2001 to 10,805 in 2009-2010. The past decade also saw library holdings increase from 1.7 million to 2.5 million volumes (or 47 percent), characterized by a dramatic shift to electronic sources, while instructional space across the USF System grew 18 percent, from 573,321 to 678,546 square feet.

As the USF Board of Trustees approved the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, Transforming Higher Education for Global Innovation, in May 2007, they acknowledged the bold vision yet could not have anticipated the impact of the worldwide economic recession on the life of the university. Since July 1, 2007, the USF System has seen a loss of $103 million in state appropriations from its base budget (with $83 million, or 30 percent, alone being cut from the USF budget). While the budget gap has, in part, been filled with $23.0 million in non-recurring federal economic stimulus funds (for Fy 2009-2010 and 2010-2011) and increasing tuition revenues, the university has had to count on the implementation of efficiencies (including but not limited to reductions in administrative costs, restrictions on enrollment growth, reduced course offerings and increased class sizes, consolidated purchasing, shared services, and energy efficiencies), and the judicious spending down of non-recurring reserves to offset budget deficits. “Staying the course” through strategic focus and discipline has become a hallmark of collective decision-making across the university, over the past three years, for though it is recognized that the destination might now be more distant than once envisioned, there remains a strong commitment to the path that is being navigated.

RALPH WILCOxProvost & Executive Vice President

2

This strategic planning and performance update centers only on USF, the doctoral granting, research intensive campus of the USF System. With USF St. Petersburg, USF Sarasota-Manatee, and USF Polytechnic each developing a differentiated mission and distinctive vision for the future, as separately accredited institutions, their individual reporting to the U.S. Department of Education through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), will ultimately result in their differential classification by the Carnegie Foundation, and separate rankings by U.S. News & World Report. It is anticipated that each member campus of the USF System will, in due course, present regular reports on their strategic progress.

Transforming Higher Education for Global Innovation

Having achieved its strategic goal of climbing into the nation’s top 50 public research universities, as measured by the national Science Foundation’s (nSF) ranking of institutions’ total and federal research and development expenditures, USF embarked upon an even more ambitious path for its 2007-2012 phase of strategic planning. Striving to become “a premier research university with state, national, and global impact, and positioned for membership in the Association of American Universities,” the university has focused its future on performance benchmarking of the then 34 (and now 35 with the addition of Georgia Institute of Technology), public AAU member institutions.

Classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a Research University with Very High Activity (RU/VH: a classification reserved for just 63 public research universities nationwide), USF has also tracked its performance against Florida’s other three top-tier research universities – the University of Florida, the University of Miami, and Florida State University. Annual performance data are also collected for the University of Central Florida, Florida International University, and Florida Atlantic University. Moreover, USF’s national peers (carefully selected based upon similarity of institutional characteristics), include four AAU members – Rutgers University, Stony Brook University, the University at Buffalo, and the University of California, Irvine – along with four non-AAU institutions – north Carolina State University, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, the University of Cincinnati, and the University of Illinois, Chicago. Finally, we track the performance of the following prospective AAU member institutions – Arizona State University, Colorado State University, the University of Utah, Virginia Tech and the University of Georgia. Collectively, these performance analyses and comparisons inform USF’s annual planning activities.

Strengthening USF’s position in the Carnegie Foundation’s top tier (RU/VH) of research universities remains our top priority as we track progress toward meeting AAU’s primary and secondary performance indices. Concurrently, we carefully gauge institutional progress in the nSF’s ranking of research universities, the national Research Council’s ratings of graduate programs, the Top American Research Universities (TARU) annual report, along with higher education institutional rankings provided by U.S. News and World Report and other commercial and academic/professional sources.

Guided by its mission, vision, values, and goals, USF’s upward trajectory as a national public research university is carefully tracked through a set of prioritized strategic metrics. For the first time, this report includes both inputs and outputs for the latest reported year (as well as a decade of trend data), and is framed around USF’s infrastructure, students, faculty, and research. As we seek to benchmark USF’s resource base and performance against prior years, and a wide range of referential universities (public AAUs, Florida’s research universities, national peers, and AAU prospects), we utilize national data sources, thus, the most recent reporting period often lags one or two years behind the current year. Definitions and data sources are also included.

3

Strengthening USF’s Infrastructure

The data on pages 17-28 paint the picture of a university that is significantly undercapitalized compared to the nation’s top public research universities. Falling short of all 35 AAU public universities in total expenditures per student FTE explains, in large part, the extremely poor student-to-faculty ratio which, incidentally, characterizes most public universities in the state of Florida. This, in turn, presents widespread challenges for improving student success and continuing growth in research productivity at USF. It is notable that the level of investment also falls short of eight of the nine AAU prospects seemingly placing USF at a comparative disadvantage in pursuing its vision.

While the relative share of state appropriations to USF (and other Florida universities) remains quite high, we recognize that such levels of public investment are rapidly shrinking resulting in an increased burden on other fund sources to ensure continued access, quality, and productivity. The resulting budget shortfall will, in part, be offset with enhanced tuition revenues (from both increases to undergraduate resident tuition and the enrollment of more full-fee paying out-of-state students), increases in available endowments and other private gifts, and growth in research expenditures and other revenues streams, including but not limited to auxiliaries and licensing revenues. The total revenues per student FTE underscores the weak position that USF finds itself in compared to AAU members and prospects, as well as national peer institutions. Significant improvements in annual giving and successful completion of the current comprehensive campaign will be essential to undergirding USF’s fragile infrastructure.

Future Considerations:

• Recognizing the fragility of USF’s infrastructure, the university must reduce its dependency on diminishing state resources in seeking to diversify its sources of revenue.

• USF’s Board of Trustees must carefully consider annual increases to undergraduate resident tuition (consistent with Florida Statute), to help offset losses in general revenue while maintaining academic access and quality. Primary investments must contribute to reducing student-to-faculty and student-to-advisor ratios with a mind to enhancing student learning and success. It will be imperative that USF grow sources of need-based financial aid (including university funded and foundation scholarships) to offset tuition increases for those who qualify for need – with a mind to maintaining access and improving the academic success (i.e. retention, persistence, and graduation rates) of limited income students.

• As USF seeks to reshape its enrollment profile to grow both graduate student headcount and FTE to 25 percent of the university’s enrollment, consideration must be given to moderating graduate student tuition increases.

• The Board of Trustees must be careful to control out-of-state tuition increases (at both undergraduate and graduate level), to ensure that USF remains nationally and internationally competitive in attracting intellectual talent from outside of Florida. At this point, the 4:1 ratio of undergraduate non-resident to resident tuition, and 3:1 ratio of graduate non-resident to resident tuition ensures that non-residents are covering more than the full cost of instruction (without Florida taxpayer subsidy).

• At the same time, it will be essential to effectively manage enrollment growth, limiting student headcount to approximately 40,000 students (25 percent at the graduate level) at USF while increasing the FTE yield (i.e. more full-time research graduate students).

• USF must significantly increase annual giving and build a more robust endowment, with a particular focus on strategic fundraising (to support student scholarships and fellowships, as well as endowed chairs and professorships), if it is to strengthen its position for membership in the AAU.

4

USF’s Students

Florida is home to five of the 20 largest public universities (by headcount) in the nation. The product of population growth, increasing demand for access to higher education, historically low tuition, a pattern of funding enrollment growth, and a reluctance to build new institutions on the part of state government, USF’s infrastructure (from investment in additional faculty and advisors, to adequacy of instructional space and need-based financial aid) has failed to keep pace with rapidly expanding student enrollment. Moreover, a tendency toward part-time enrollment (evidenced by the fact that USF was ranked 16th by headcount yet only 24th by FTE, among the nation’s largest public universities in Fall 2009), has placed an additional burden on institutional infrastructure, has reduced operational efficiencies, and has stifled improvements in student success (i.e. retention and graduation rates).

The data on pages 29-48 further speak to the relatively large student enrollment at USF along with the less than optimal headcount to FTE relationship. While gains in both the academic quality (SAT/ACT scores, high school GPA, and percentage of freshmen in the top 10 percent of their high school class) and diversity (including both socioeconomic profile as demonstrated by a relatively high percentage of Pell recipients at 27 percent and racial/ethnic representation) of first-time-in-college (FTIC) students are impressive, the number and percentage of students enrolled in education abroad, and the number and percentage of international students remains very low, particularly for an institution that claims “Global Literacy and Impact” as a strategic priority. It is anticipated that the imminent restructuring of USF World combined with such initiatives as InTO USF, the Confucius Institute, the Center for India Studies, the Institute for the Study of Latin America and the Caribbean, the Center for the Study of International Languages and Culture, and the Global Academic Partners (GAP) program, will stimulate growth in international student enrollment and Education Abroad.

The number and percentage of graduate students enrolled at USF are nearing the institutional goal of 25 percent of headcount, although the graduate student share of total student FTE lags, suggesting too few full-time research graduate students. This is, perhaps, manifested in the relatively low level of Ph.D. degree production as the doctoral student pipeline appears to empty too slowly. The recent approval of new Ph.D. programs (in economics, government, history, and sociology) has increased doctoral student capacity and, along with a recent $2.0 million infusion of recurring funds (and $500,000 in non-recurring funds) to support doctoral students is, over time, expected to increase the number of research doctorates awarded on an annual basis.

The relationship of student enrollment to faculty cohort results in too few small classes (29 percent with fewer than 20 students) which are characteristic of AAU institutions, particularly at the undergraduate upper level and graduate level, as well as too few large classes (14 percent with more than 50 students, due to a limited number of classrooms able to accommodate larger numbers of students) that support greater instructional efficiency at the undergraduate lower level. Once again, the most compelling data point is the student to faculty ratio which, at 27:1 falls short of all AAU members and prospects, Carnegie RU/VH institutions, and all but one of Florida’s research universities.

Equally important is the low six-year graduation rate for FTIC students. With just 49 percent of freshmen graduating within six years, USF falls short of all public AAU institutions, most AAU prospects, and statewide peers. Undergraduate student retention, persistence and time-to-graduation must show significant improvement if USF is to join the ranks of the nation’s very best public research universities in the future. To this end, USF has implemented a wide range of strategies, beginning in 2005, to improve student success, with the most significant results anticipated with the Summer/Fall 2006 freshman class. These initiatives have included improving the academic preparedness/selectivity of incoming students, implementing “intrusive” advising and early interventions by reducing the student-to-advisor ratio (from 600:1 in 2004-2005 to 381:1 in 2009-2010), enhancing financial aid through marketing FAFSA, designing a searchable scholarship database, packaging of financial aid offers earlier in the year, converting to a direct loan program, developing and implementing the “Don’t Stop, Don’t Drop” program, designing and implementing a required Life Skills for Collegiate Success program (financial literacy, Alcohol EDU, academic integrity, and public safety), implementing Summer Stampede access programs, enhancing instructional and learning strategies (e.g.

5

large sections paired with recitation breakouts), implementing mandatory residential living for the freshman year, consolidating the Student Success Center in the library, revising the class schedule to offer more sections and to better utilize classroom space especially in high demand courses and those with large enrollments, implementing Blackboard and Eluminate enhancements along with investing $1.3 million in classroom instructional technology enhancements, effecting academic policy changes including a declaration of major upon admission, maintaining affordable tuition, improving financial aid and scholarship services, enhancing student orientation, increasing student engagement (e.g. REU, Volunteer USF, etc.), expanding cooperation between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs with expanded living and learning communities, construction of new and renovation of existing instructional and learning facilities, and extending library investments through capital investments, enhancements of collections and 24/5 service. Overall, there has been a renewed focus on institutional effectiveness and quality assurance which is essential to meeting the principles associated with continued regional accreditation by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.


• The USF Student Success Council will continue the work of the USF-wide Student Success Task Force, driving stronger collaboration between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs, with a focus on:

o Institutionalizing student success as a permanent priority, o Integrating student success into the institutional culture, and o Building an institutional research capacity to support student success initiatives.

Planned initiatives include hosting a student success conference, identifying “gatekeeper” courses, establishing a model for financial aid leveraging, continued improvement of the Learning Commons and the Student Success Center, implementing a 3-year degree completion program, expanding capacity for education abroad and funded global experiences through USF World, developing a plan for The Learning Center (TLC), building and launching a USF branded online application, and fully implementing Degree Works, an electronic degree audit system.

• With the growth of the Florida State College System (offering four year degrees), and the arrival of more higher

education providers (including proprietary and online institutions) in Florida, USF will need to carefully plan and manage future enrollment – particularly with regard to a projected decline in qualified undergraduate transfer students. Working in close collaboration with other USF System institutions, and Hillsborough Community College in particular, continuing student headcount is not expected to exceed approximately 40,000 (25 percent at the graduate level), with expectations of the IPEDS FTE to climb beyond the current level of 32,248, so driving the headcount to FTE ratio of 0.81 toward the 0.90 level. That is, USF must drive more full-time undergraduate and graduate enrollment, so accelerating students’ time to graduation.

• As graduation rates improve, USF must be prepared to replenish the pipeline of qualified undergraduate and graduate students and to grow the Ph.D. pipeline. This will require new investments, especially privately funded scholarships and fellowships, to attract and retain world class doctoral level talent to USF.

• The selectivity profile of all admitted/enrolled student groups: FTICs, undergraduate transfers, master’s, doctoral,

and professional is expected to continue to rise based upon ACT/SAT/GRE/GMAT/MCAT scores, the number of students in the top 10 percent of their high school class, high school grade point average, and undergraduate grade point average. The relatively high number of Pell Grant recipients, along with the ethnic and racial diversity of USF’s student body is expected to be maintained.

• USF will seek to increase the freshman retention rate (with a goal of 87 percent), to advance the 6-year graduation rate to 51 percent, and award 290 doctorates in 2011.

6

• USF expects to increase the geographical diversity of its student talent base, so bringing different experiences and perspectives to the classroom, by increasing the number of full fee-paying out-of-state and international students at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

• While USF will likely reduce its level of scholarship support for national Merit, national Achievement and national Hispanic scholars, the numbers of those enrolled will be expected to maintain.

• USF World will significantly enhance student participation in education abroad opportunities.

• USF must continue to examine the utility of emerging technologies (including classroom capture) to enhance academic delivery and student learning.

USF’s Faculty

USF’s faculty members continue to represent the institution’s most precious asset. The data on pages 49-57 paint a picture of a rather small (for the size of the institution) yet highly accomplished faculty cohort. At 1,281 tenured and tenure-earning faculty, and 1,261 full-time instructional staff, the resulting student-to-faculty ratio of 27:1 positions USF dead last among the 63 Carnegie public research universities with very high activity, and lagging all public AAU universities. While significantly disadvantaging USF in the area of student success and overall research productivity, the university’s professors are respectably positioned with public AAU institutions in regard to faculty awards (including a Fellow of the American Academy in Rome, Fulbright Scholars, Getty Scholars, Guggenheim Fellows, and nSF CAREER Award winners), citation impact, and total research expenditures per tenured and tenure-earning faculty. USF tenured and tenure-earning faculty exceeded the performance of their colleagues at all Florida research universities in averaging $217,000 in total research expenditures.

The recruitment and retention of faculty talent, which represents the foundation of any great university, will be challenging as salary levels for professor ($101,912), associate professor ($74,003), and assistant professor ($62,764) ranks, each falls short of 34 of the 35 public AAU institutions and most of the AAU prospects. Even in the Florida market, USF currently ranks sixth among the seven research universities for the rank of professor, fifth for associate professors, and sixth for assistant professors. During the 2008-2009 academic year, the USF Board of Trustees and USF Chapter of the United Faculty of Florida agreed on salary increases amounting to an average of 3.1 percent (at a time when the national average increase was 1.2 percent), which moderately enhanced USF’s position. It is hoped that ratification of the current tentative agreement on a 3-year contract (through academic year 2012-2013) will help to bring USF faculty members’ salaries into closer alignment with national levels. Moreover, establishing (and protecting) a nationally competitive benefits package is essential, which is why the recent introduction of domestic partner benefits and a parental leave policy were so important. Suffice it to say, there remains considerable room for improvement to USF faculty salaries and benefits if we are to be successful in recruiting and retaining more world class faculty members.

Finally, the relatively small number of faculty (3) who hold membership in the national Academy of Sciences, national Academy of Engineering, or the Institute of Medicine represents a dilemma for USF. Preferring to invest limited institutional resources in the retention and “cultivation” of our own cohort of prospective members of the national academies, rather than “buying” them from other universities, suggests that strategic progress in this important area will be limited.

7


• Growingthetenuredandtenure-earning(andotherfull-time)facultycohortwhilemanagingstudentenrollment(at40,000headcount)willbeessentialtoUSF’ssuccessinprogressingalongitsstrategicpath,andimprovingthestudenttofacultyratio.

• WiththeEarlyRetirementIncentiveProgram,andtheState’sDROPprogram,furtherreducingthenumberoftenuredandtenure-earningfacultyinacademicyear2010-2011,thecontinuingeconomicchallengespromptedbyastatebudgetdeficitlimitsUSF’sabilitytogrowitsfacultycohortatthedesiredrate.

• Equallyimportantwillbeincreasingtheuniversity’sinvestmentinfacultytalentbyraisingsalarylevels(andmaintainingorimprovingthebenefitspackage,aswellasconsideringfacultyhousing)tothatofpublicAAUinstitutions.Withoutimprovement,therecruitmentandretentionofthebestandbrightestfacultymemberswillcontinuetobeachallengeforUSF.

• Thesloweconomicrecovery(anddiminishingpublicinvestmentintheStateUniversitySystemofFlorida)andrelativelylowresidenttuitionrates,significantlylimitavailableresourcestoenhancefacultyrecruitment,supportandretention.Significantgrowthinthenumberofprivatelyfunded(endowed)chairsandprofessorshipswillbeessentialtobuildingUSF’sfacultybase.

• USFmustcarefullyplanforcapitalinvestmentstoprovideadequateresearchspace,equipmentandlibraryresourcestosupportnewfacultymembers,particularlyinthefieldofscience,technology,engineeringandmathematics(STEM).

USF’s Research Enterprise

USF’simpressiveresearchtrajectoryisreinforcedonpages58-69,withasolidplacementamonglong-establishedAAUinstitutionsforbothTotalResearchExpenditures(29thwhenjuxtaposedagainstthe35publicAAUs)andFederalResearchExpenditures(25th),asreportedbytheNationalScienceFoundation.Supportedbyasolidbaseofpostdoctoralfellows(26thandstrengthenedbyanewOfficeofPostdoctoralAffairsatUSF)andnon-facultyresearcherswithdoctorates(17th),therecentlyreportedcitationimpactofUSFfacultyresearchpublications,placesUSFat#110amongtheWorld’s500HighImpactUniversities(2010),andsecondamongFloridainstitutions.

Inthebroadrealmofinnovation,commercializationandtechnologytransfer,asmeasuredbyinventiondisclosuresreceived,totalpatentsissued,totallicense/optionsexecuted,cumulativeactivelicenses,startupsinitiatedandlicenseincomereceived,USFfaresexceedinglywellwhencomparedwiththe35publicAAUinstitutions.Licensingrevenuesareexpectedtoclimbasmorefacultyandstudentinventions(suchastherecentlicensingoftheTC-5214antidepressantdrug)arecommercialized.

GuidedbytheSeniorVicePresidentforResearchandInnovation,USF’ssignatureinterdisciplinaryresearchprogramsexploitthediscoveryofnewknowledgeattheinterfaceofdiscretedisciplines,andincludeintegratedneurosciences,diabetesandautoimmunedisorders,sustainablehealthycommunities(includingcleanenergy,water,publichealth,oceanography,andthebuiltenvironment),veterans’reintegration,alongwithdrugdiscoveryanddevelopment.


• FurtherexpansionofUSF’sresearchenterprisewillinlargepartbedependentupontheavailabilityofexpanded,cutting-edgeresearchlaboratories.AdditionalspaceintheInterdisciplinaryResearchBuilding,andtheInterdisciplinaryScienceTeachingandResearchFacilitywillnotaccommodateasignificantlyenlargedcohortofscientistsandengineers.

8

• Equallyimportant,asUSFseekstogrowitscompetitivefederalresearchportfolio,willbeensuringtheavailabilityofstate-of-the-artequipment(formanythroughshareduseresearchcores)alongwitharobustpre-awardandpost-awardmanagementsystemtoensureinstitutionalcomplianceandtoeasetheadministrativeburdenonprincipalinvestigators.

• USF’slocationintheTampaBayregionrepresentsamajorassetsecondonly,perhaps,totheintellectual

capitaloftheuniversitycommunity.Partnershipswithotheruniversities,industry,publicandprivatesectorresearchorganizations(suchasSRI,Draper,JacksonLabsandMoteMarineLaboratory),andcommunity-basedorganizations(suchashospitalsandschooldistricts)willbeessentialtoexpandingUSF’sresearchenterpriseinthefuture.

• Promotingandrewardinginternalcollaboration(forexternalcompetition)acrosscolleges,departmentsanddisciplineswillcontinuetobeanimportantpriority.NotonlywillthisbetterpositionUSFfacultytocompetesuccessfullyforfederalresearchawardsbutthegreatersynergieshelpestablishacriticalmassofscholarsinwhatare,forthemostpart,comparativelysmalldepartmentsatUSF.

• Acharacteristicofcomprehensivepublicresearchuniversities(representedbythevastmajorityofpublicAAUmembers)isthebreadthanddiversityofscholarly,scientificandcreativeinquiryacrosstheuniversitycommunity.WhiletheSTEMfieldwilllikelywitnessgrowingprominenceglobally,nationallyandinthecontextofNew Florida,thearts,humanitiesandsocialsciencesmustcontinuetobesupportedwithanemphasisonresearchrelevanceandimpact.

• Finally,providingenhancedinvestmentinfacultyandstudentinventionsanddiscoveries,alongwithexpanded

supportforcommercialization,throughtheUSFResearchFoundationandtheDivisionofPatentsandLicensing,willbeessentialtomaturingtheuniversity’sresearchenterpriseinthefuture.

The USF Community

Whiletheempiricaldatapresentedinthisreportishelpfulinassessingprogress,settingprioritiesandinformingdecisions,itcannotcapturethebreadthofaccomplishmentsatacomprehensivepublicresearchuniversity.Forinstance,USF’swell-regardedResearchExperienceforUndergraduates(REU)isrealizinggreatsuccessinconnectingthebenefitsandrelevanceofpursuingabaccalaureatedegreeatoneofthenation’stopresearchuniversities.Whilenotforeveryone,thedistinctiveopportunitiesarerecognizedasavalue-additionforthosecontemplatingapathtograduateschoolorprogresstoafirstprofessionaldegree(includingmedicalandlawschool).Notsurprisingly,todaywearewitnessingincreasingsuccessinthenumberofUSFundergraduatestudentsbeingawardedprestigiousnationalawards,includingGoldwater,Gilman,andFulbrightscholarships.

Meanwhile,USFcontinuestobuilditsinstitutionalbaseinpursuitofmembershipintheAssociationofResearchLibraries,andtowardshelteringachapterofPhiBetaKappa,thenation’soldestandmostprestigioushonorsocietyintheliberalartsandsciences.Tothisend,theCollegeofArtsandSciences,incollaborationwiththeOfficeoftheProvostandtheTampaMayor’sOffice,sponsorsaPBKFacultyAlumniLectureSeries,bringingnotablescholarsandintellectualstosharetheirthoughtswithmembersoftheuniversityandbroadercommunities.

BuildingupontheCarnegieFoundation’sclassificationofUSFasan“EngagedUniversity,”andrecognizingtheincomparablestrengthofassetrepresentedbyourcommunity,theuniversitytookamajorstepforwardlastyearinestablishingtheUSFOfficeofCommunityEngagement.Seekingtoexpandlocalandglobalinitiativesthatstrengthenandsustainhealthycommunitiesandimprovethequalityoflifeforall,theofficecarriesoutitsmissionbybuildingmutuallybeneficialandreciprocaluniversity-communitypartnershipsfoundedonengagedscholarshipandservice-learningmodels.

9

At the same time, USF established the Office of Sustainability to coordinate and build partnerships that advance the institution’s goal of creating a sustainable campus environment. The office is aligned closely with the new School of Global Sustainability which, along with the Carol and Frank Morsani Center for Advanced Health Care, USF’s participation in iTunes University, USF Health’s proposed Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation (CAMLS) in the heart of downtown Tampa, InTO USF (a public-private partnership that is expanding international student enrollment), USF’s partnership in the Mote Aquaculture Research Park, and the new healthcare leadership track created by USF’s College of Medicine and Lehigh Valley Health network, demonstrates the university’s continuing commitment to seeking innovative and entrepreneurial solutions.

In spite of the broader financial slowdown, capital construction continues at USF providing a significant economic boost and jobs for the community. In the coming year, the university will open the Dr. Kiran C. Patel Center for Global Solutions ($23.8 million), the Music Teaching and Performance Building ($46.6 million), the Campus Recreation Center Expansion and Southeast Student Dining Facility (the Wellness and nutrition Center, $14.9 million), the Interdisciplinary Science Teaching and Research Facility ($92.8 million), and new USF Athletic facilities ($30.0 million). Together, these new investments in the lives of USF students, faculty and staff are a symbol of the university’s commitment to growth even in the most challenging of times.

Future Priorities

As we contemplate the final two years of the current strategic plan, and begin to shape a vision for the next phase, USF appears to be faced with four big challenges:

• The worst student-to-faculty ratio in the nation,• An unacceptably low graduation rate for FTIC students,• A less than robust institutional infrastructure, and• The changing landscape of higher education in Florida

Compounded by a slow economic recovery and a radical shift in the funding model for Florida’s public universities (from high appropriation/low tuition enrollment growth funding, to diminishing appropriation/rising tuition performance-based funding), USF’s innovative spirit will be tested as together we confront these challenges while balancing affordability, access, quality, accountability as well as strengthening our competitive position locally and in both national and global contexts.

As we continue the university’s expected strategic progress in the coming years, we must redouble our collective efforts to recruit, reward, and retain more talented full-time faculty members; embrace, “own,” and celebrate our students’ success; make enhancements to our support personnel, policies, space, equipment, and library; and creatively confront the competition (from the state colleges to private and for-profit providers) as they seek to grow their share of the higher education market in Florida, through exploiting technology-based delivery of academic programs and like strategies. Above all, USF’s greatest relevance will be found in solidifying its position as a national research powerhouse and an engine for economic growth for the region, the state and nation.

10

A Performance Update: Advancing USF’s Strategic Plan

Overview

An examination of the University of South Florida juxtaposed with peer institutions, including public AAU institutions, AAU prospects, and Florida research institutions, provides the university community and decision makers with relevant data aligned with the vision and goals of the institution, as delineated in the USF 2007-2012 Strategic Plan1.

University Leadership

USF System Board of Trustees

John B. Ramil, ChairHarold W. Mullis, Vice ChairLee E. Arnold, Jr.Margarita R. Cancio, M.D.W. Gene EngleCesar R. HernandezBrian D. LambElizabeth LarkinRhea F. LawDebbie nye SemblerByron E. ShinnSherrill M. TomasinoJordan B. Zimmerman

USF Leadership

Judy Genshaft, PresidentRalph Wilcox, Provost and Executive Vice PresidentKaren Holbrook, Senior Vice President for Research and InnovationStephen Klasko, Senior Vice President for USF Healthnick Trivunovich, Vice President for Business and FinanceJoel Momberg, Vice President for AdvancementJennifer Capeheart-Meningall, Vice President for Student AffairsMichael Pearce, Vice President for Information TechnologiesMichael Hoad, Vice President for Communications and MarketingSandy Lovins, Vice President for Administrative Services

1 The 2007-2012 Strategic Plan reflects the immediate goals and objectives of the University of South Florida, the Tampa member institution of the USF System; the USF System 2010-2015 Strategic Plan differs from the USF 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.

11

University of South Florida

About

The University of South Florida, located in Tampa, Florida, is one of the nation’s top public research universities and one of only 25 public research universities nationwide with very high research activity that is designated as community engaged by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. As a member of the USF System, USF is comprised of the campus located in Tampa, USF Health, and the College of Marine Science.

Prior to the recent development of a USF System Strategic Plan, the USF 2007-2012 Strategic Plan served as an initial guide for the young and emerging system. With an inherently differentiated mission and characteristics, USF continues its course guided by a strategic plan crafted for a metropolitan research institution.

USF Strategic Plan

Mission

As Florida’s leading metropolitan research university, USF is dedicated to excellence in:• Student access and success in an engaged, and interdisciplinary, learner-centered environment; • Research and scientific discovery, including the generation, dissemination, and translation of new knowledge

across disciplines; to strengthen the economy; to promote civic culture and the arts; and to design and build sustainable, healthy communities; and

• Embracing innovation, and supporting scholarly and artistic engagement to build a community of learners together with significant and sustainable university-community partnerships and collaborations.

Vision

The University of South Florida envisions itself as a pre-eminent research university with state, national, and global impact, and positioned for membership in the Association of American Universities (AAU).

Goals

I. Expanding world-class interdisciplinary research, creative, and scholarly endeavors.

II. Promoting globally competitive undergraduate, graduate and professional programs that support interdisciplinary inquiry, intellectual development, knowledge and skill acquisition, and student success through a diverse, fully- engaged, learner-centered campus environment.

III. Expanding local and global engagement initiatives to strengthen and sustain healthy communities and to improve the quality of life.

IV. Enhancing all sources of revenue, and maximizing effectiveness in business practices and financial management to establish a strong and sustainable economic base in support of USF’s growth.

12

Association of American Universities (AAU)

Overview

The Association of American Universities (AAU) is a nonprofit organization of 63 leading public and private research universities in the United States and Canada. Founded in 1900 to advance the international standing of U.S. research universities, AAU today focuses on issues that are important to research-intensive universities, such as funding for research, research policy issues, and graduate and undergraduate education.

AAU member universities are on the leading edge of innovation, scholarship, and solutions that contribute to the nation’s economy, security, and well-being. The 63 AAU universities in the United States award more than one-half of all U.S. doctoral degrees and 55 percent of those in the sciences and engineering.

AAU programs and projects address institutional issues facing its member universities, as well as government actions that affect these and other universities.

AAU works to maintain the productive partnership between the nation’s research universities and the federal government. The major activities of the association include federal government relations, policy studies, and public affairs.

Membership in the association is by invitation.

Eligibility Criteria

A standing Membership Committee, charged with periodically evaluating non-member universities for invitation to membership, is guided by a set of Membership Principles and Membership Indicators. The Membership Indicators are a two-phase set of quantitative measures used to “assess the breadth and quality of university programs of research and graduate education” (AAU Website, 2010).

Phase I

1. Competitively funded federal research support: These data are collected by the national Science Foundation. The Membership Committee has been using obligations, which are the only measures that break down federal support by agency. The committee has recently switched to using nSF research expenditure data, which are more accurate, with a correction factor to subtract the estimated proportion of university expenditures drawn from USDA. Most USDA funding is not allocated competitively, and USDA support accordingly is included as a Phase II indicator.

2. Membership in the National Academies (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,

Institute of Medicine): The national Academies’ membership database maintains the current institutional affiliation of its members.

3. National Research Council (NRC)faculty quality ratings: These ratings are drawn from the decennial national assessment of research-doctorate programs conducted by the nRC. Though the data become dated between surveys, the committee believes that they continue to provide a valuable peer-assessment of faculty quality. The last nRC report was published in 1995 based on 1993 data; preparation for the next nRC assessment is currently underway.

13

4. Faculty arts and humanities awards, fellowships, and memberships: For its last research doctorate assessment, nRC compiled a list of awards, fellowships, and memberships signifying faculty achievement primarily in arts and humanities fields. The Membership Committee has expanded this list and will use it as an additional assessment of the distinction of an institution’s faculty, focusing on the arts and humanities faculty (Attachment 1). Additional appropriate awards, fellowships, and memberships will be added to this list as they are identified.

5. Citations: The U.S. University Science Indicators citations database provides an annually updated measure of both research volume and quality and will provide a valuable complement to the first four indicators listed above.

Phase II

1. USDA, state, and industrial research funding: Though these three sources of academic research support fund important, high-quality research, they will be treated as Phase II indicators since they are generally not allocated through competitive, merit-review processes. Competitively funded USDA research programs that can be separately identified in reported data will be included in phase I data.

2. Doctoral education: The committee will use number of Ph.D.s granted annually as well as tabulate the distribution of Ph.D.s across broad disciplinary categories (e.g., engineering but not aerospace engineering), using Department of Education IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) data. These data will be treated as Phase II indicators to de-emphasize the quantitative dimensions of Ph.D. programs and avoid sending an unintended signal to institutions to increase Ph.D. output at a time when many institutions are or are considering scaling back their Ph.D. programs.

3. Number of postdoctoral appointees: The committee will use nSF-compiled data from institutions on postdoctoral appointees, most of whom are in the health sciences, physical sciences, and engineering. Postdoctoral education is an increasingly important component of university research and education activities that the committee believes should be tracked in AAU membership indicators. However, because postdoctoral activity is highly correlated with university research and because self-reported postdoctoral data are less uniform than data on federally funded research, postdoctoral appointees will be treated as a Phase II indicator.

4. Undergraduate education: The committee will assess the institution’s undergraduate programs to determine that the institution is meeting its commitment to undergraduate education. Recognizing that differing institutional missions among research universities dictate different ways of providing undergraduate education, the committee will be flexible in this assessment. A number of measures have been suggested, including some that focus on input and others that look primarily at output variables. These are at this time imperfect, but may provide some guidance to the committee in making its judgments on this topic.

14

Strategic Performance Metrics

Infrastructure• Total University Expenditures• Total Expenditures per Student FTE• Tuition & Fees• Tuition & Fee Revenues per Total Student FTE• State Appropriations• State Appropriations per Student FTE• Annual Giving• Endowment• Endowment per Total Student FTE

Students• Total Student Headcount• Total Student FTE• Graduate Student Headcount• Percent Graduate Student Headcount• Doctorates Awarded **• First Time in College (FTIC) Student Enrollment• Median SAT Score *• FTICs in Top 10% of High School Class• national Merit Scholars• Percent Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grant Aid• Percent of Classes with Fewer than 20 Students• Percent of Classes with 50 or More Students• Freshman Retention Rates• Six year Graduation Rate for First Time in College

(FTIC) Students• International Student Headcount• Percent International Student Headcount• Students Studying Abroad• Percent Students Studying Abroad• Student-to-Faculty Ratio

Faculty• Tenured / Tenure Track Faculty• Full-Time Instructional Staff• Faculty Awards *• national Academy Members *• Citation Impact *• Total Research Expenditures per Tenured / Tenure

Track Faculty• Full Professors Average Salary• Associate Professors Average Salary• Assistant Professors Average Salary

Research• nSF Total Research Expenditures• AAU Federal Research Expenditures *• nSF non-Federal Research Expenditures• Research Performance Index (RPI)• Postdoctoral Appointees **• non-Faculty Researchers with Doctorates• Invention Disclosures Received• Total Patents Issued• Total Licenses / Options Executed• Cumulative Active Licenses• License Income Received• Startups Initiated

* AAU Indicator – Phase I** AAU Indicator – Phase II

15

TOTAL UNIVERSITY EXPENDITURES

Definition:This measure reflects total university expenditures as a sum of the operating and non-operating expenses and deductions of the institution as reported in the IPEDS Finance component.

Source: IPEDSType: IPEDS

USF System includes all member institutions (USF, USF St. Petersburg, USF Sarasota-Manatee, USF Polytechnic).USF refers to the campus located in Tampa which includes USF Health and the College of Marine Science.

Dollars in Thousands

$977,784

$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000

OregonUC Santa Barbara

NebraskaIowa State

ColoradoBuffaloKansas

USFGeorgia Tech

IndianaPurdue

Maryland, College ParkArizona

PittsburghMissouriRutgers

UC IrvineMichigan State

Stony BrookUC Berkeley

FloridaIllinois, Urb-Ch

Texas A&MUT Austin

IowaVirginia

Wisconsin-MadisonUNC Chapel Hill

UC San DiegoMinnesota

UC DavisWashingtonPenn StateOhio State

UCLAMichigan

Thousands

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Total Expenditures, FY2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Expenditures, FY 2008

PUBLIC AAUsGeorgia Institute of TechnologyIndiana UniversityIowa State UniversityMichigan State UniversityThe Ohio State UniversityPennsylvania State UniversityPurdue UniversityRutgers UniversityStony Brook UniversityTexas A&M UniversityUniversity at BuffaloUniversity of ArizonaUniversity of California, DavisUniversity of California, BerkeleyUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of California, Los AngelesUniversity of California, San DiegoUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraUniversity of Colorado at BoulderUniversity of FloridaUniversity Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of IowaUniversity of KansasUniversity of Maryland, College ParkUniversity of MichiganUniversity of Minnesota, Twin CitiesUniversity of Missouri, ColumbiaUniversity of Nebraska, LincolnUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel HillUniversity of OregonUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of Texas, AustinUniversity of VirginiaUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Wisconsin- Madison

AAU PROSPECTSArizona State UniversityColorado State UniversityNorth Carolina State UniversityUniversity of Alabama, BirminghamUniversity of CincinnatiUniversity of GeorgiaUniversity of Illinois, ChicagoUniversity of UtahVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

NATIONAL PEERSNorth Carolina State UniversityRutgers University*Stony Brook University*University at Buffalo*University of Alabama, BirminghamUniversity of California, Irvine*University of CincinnatiUniversity of Illinois, Chicago

FLORIDA RESEARCHUNIVERSITIESFlorida Atlantic UniversityFlorida International UniversityFlorida State UniversityUniversity of Central FloridaUniversity of Florida*University of Miami

*AAU member

17

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMetric examined on the following two pages.

DEFINITIONDefinition as determined by data source.

USF SYSTEM / USFReminder of definition of USF System and USF.

PUBLIC AAU INSTITUTIONSPublic AAU institutions and USF performance in most recent year available. Multi-year trend data is located on the back page.

USF PERFORMANCEUSF or USF System data are highlighed with a green bar and exact data is noted to the right.

PUBLIC AAUS35 institutions currently members of AAU.

AAU PROSPECTS9 public institutions with similar characteristics as USF that are not currently AAU members but are potential candidates.

NATIONAL PEERS8 institutions selected based upon similarity of charactistics. Includes 3 AAU members.

FLORIDA RESEARCH UNIVERSITIESIn addition to USF, 6 universities in Florida designated as research universites by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

How to Use This Book

SOURCE & TYPEGovernment, academic, and commercial sources utilized as standards in higher education.

30

USF

FAU

FIU

FSU

UCF

MiamiUF

Mean

$0

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

$1,400,000,000

$1,600,000,000

$1,800,000,000

$2,000,000,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Florida Research University PeersTotal Expenditures, FY2002 - FY2008

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$0

$1,000,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$3,000,000,000

$4,000,000,000

$5,000,000,000

$6,000,000,000

$7,000,000,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Milli

ons

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Expenditures, FY2002 - FY2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesTotal Expenditures, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Expenditures, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Milli

ons

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Expenditures, FY2002 - FY2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Expenditures, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE METRICS

INPUT/OUTPUT MEASURES

Infrastructure MeasuresTotal University ExpendituresTotal Expenditures per FTETuition & FeesTuition & Fee Revenue per FTEState AppropriationsState Appropriations per FTEAnnual GivingEndowmentEndowment per FTE

Student MeasuresTotal Student HeadcountTotal Student FTEGraduate Student HeadcountDoctorates Awarded **FTIC Student EnrollmentNational Merit ScholarsPercent Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grant AidPercent of Classes with Fewer than 20 StudentsPercent of Classes with 50 or More StudentsFreshman Retention RatesSix Year Graduation Rate for First Time in College StudentsInternational Students% International StudentsStudents Studying Abroad% Students Studying AbroadStudent-to-Faculty Ratio

Faculty MeasuresTenured / Tenure Track FacultyFull-Time Instructional StaffFaculty Awards *National Academy Members *Citation Impact *Total Research Expenditures per Tenured / Tenure Track FacultyFull Professors Avg. SalaryAssociate Professors Avg. SalaryAssistant Professors Avg. Salary

Research MeasuresNSF Total Research ExpendituresAAU Federal Research Expenditures *NSF Non-Federal Research ExpendituresResearch Performance IndexPostdoctoral Appointees **Non-Faculty Researchers with DoctoratesInvention Disclosures ReceivedTotal Patents IssuedLicenses/Options ExecutedCumulative Active LicensesLicense Income ReceivedStartups Initiated

* AAU Indicator - Phase I ** AAU Indicator - Phase II

USF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE METRICSMetrics are divided into four categories: • Infrastructure • Student • Faculty • Research

For the first time, the report examines both inputs (i.e., tuition and fees, faculty salaries) and outputs (i.e., freshman retention rate, research expenditures).

AAU INDICATOR • Phase I • Phase II

Indicators guide AAU Membership Committee in the evaluation of non-member universities.

FLORIDA RESEARCH UNIVERSITIESMulti-year trend data comparing USF’s performance with other Florida research universities. Mean is noted with a red dashed line. • USF • FAU • FIU • FSU • UCF • UF • Miami

PUBLIC AAU INSTITUTIONSMulti-year trend data comparing USF’s performance with the highest performing, lowest performing and interquartile ranges of the 35 public AAU institutions. Mean is noted with a red dashed line.

• Arizona State • Colorado State • North Carolina State • Alabama, Birmingham • Cincinnati • Georgia • Illinois, Chicago • Utah • Virginia Tech

AAU PROSPECTSMulti-year trend data comparing USF’s performance with 9 public institutions with similar characteristics as USF that are not currently AAU members but are potential candidates. Mean is noted with a red dashed line.

INFR

AS

TR

UC

TU

RE



Students• Total Student Headcount• Total Student FTE• Graduate Student Headcount• Percent Graduate Student Headcount• Doctorates Awarded **• First Time in College (FTIC) Student Enrollment• Median SAT Score *• FTICs in Top 10% of High School Class• National Merit Scholars• Percent Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grant Aid• Percent of Classes with Fewer than 20 Students• Percent of Classes with 50 or More Students• Freshman Retention Rates• Six Year Graduation Rate for First Time in College


Faculty• Tenured / Tenure Track Faculty• Full-Time Instructional Staff• Faculty Awards *• National Academy Members *• Citation Impact *• Total Research Expenditures per Tenured / Tenure


Research• NSF Total Research Expenditures• AAU Federal Research Expenditures *• NSF Non-Federal Research Expenditures• Research Performance Index (RPI)• Postdoctoral Appointees **• Non-Faculty Researchers with Doctorates• Invention Disclosures Received• Total Patents Issued• Total Licenses / Options Executed• Cumulative Active Licenses• License Income Received• Startups Initiated


15









15

$978

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000


NebraskaIowa State

ColoradoBuffaloKansas

USFGeorgia Tech

IndianaPurdue


PittsburghMissouriRutgers

UC IrvineMichigan State



Texas A&MUT Austin

IowaVirginia

Wisconsin-MadisonUNC Chapel Hill

UC San DiegoMinnesotaUC Davis

WashingtonPenn StateOhio State

UCLAMichigan

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Total Expenditures, FY2008

TOTAL UNIVERSITY EXPENDITURES

Definition:This measure reflects total university expenditures as a sum of the operating and non-operating expenses and deductions of the institution as reported in the IPEDS Finance component.



Dollars in Millions

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Expenditures, FY 2008





*AAU member

17

USF SystemTotal University Expenditures

FY 2009: $897,722,733

30

USF

FAU

FIU

FSU

UCF

MiamiUF

Mean

$0

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

$1,400,000,000

$1,600,000,000

$1,800,000,000

$2,000,000,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Florida Research University PeersTotal Expenditures, FY2002 - FY2008

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$0

$1,000,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$3,000,000,000

$4,000,000,000

$5,000,000,000

$6,000,000,000

$7,000,000,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Milli

ons

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Expenditures, FY2002 - FY2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesTotal Expenditures, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Expenditures, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Milli

ons

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Expenditures, FY2002 - FY2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Expenditures, FY 2002 - FY 2008








$27

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160

USFOregon

ColoradoIndiana

UC Santa BarbaraIowa State

PurdueNebraska

KansasBuffaloFlorida

Michigan StateMaryland, College Park

ArizonaUT Austin

Texas A&MIllinois, Urb-Ch

RutgersUC Berkeley

Wisconsin-MadisonGeorgia Tech

MissouriPittsburghMinnesota

UC IrvineOhio State

Penn StateIowa

Stony BrookUNC Chapel Hill

UC DavisWashington

UC San DiegoVirginia

UCLAMichigan

Thousands

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Total Expenditures per FTE, FY2008

TOTAL UNIVERSITY EXPENDITURESPER STUDENT FTE

Definition:This measure reflects total expenses as a sum of the operating and non-operating expenses and deductions of the institution as reported in the IPEDS Finance component by total student FTE as reported in the IPEDS Enrollment survey.



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Expenditures per FTE, FY 2008





*AAU member

18


USF SystemTotal University Expenditures

per Student FTE

FY 2009: $27,838

Illinois, ChicagoUtah

UAB

Mean

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Expenditures per FTE, FY2002 - FY2008

NC StateCincinnatiGeorgiaVA TechColorado StateUSFASU

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Expenditures per FTE, FY2002 - FY2008

USFFAUFIUFSU

UCF

Miami

UFMean

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Florida Research University PeersTotal Expenditures per FTE, FY2002 - FY2008 31 USF System & Florida Research Universities

Total Expenditures per FTE, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Expenditures per FTE, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Expenditures per FTE, FY 2002 - FY 2008








TUITION & FEES:IN-STATE, UNDERGRADUATE

Definition:Charges to full-time undergraduate students for the full academic year, specifically the tuition charge by the institution to those students who meet the state’s or institution’s residency requirements; as reported in the IPEDS Institutional Characteristics component.

Source: IPEDSType: IPEDS, NSF


$3,991

$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000

FloridaUSF

UNC Chapel HillArizona

Georgia TechStony Brook

BuffaloIowa State

OregonIowa

NebraskaWashington

KansasColorado

UCLAWisconsin-Madison

UC BerkeleyPurdue

Texas A&MMaryland, College Park

UC IrvineUC San Diego

IndianaUC Santa Barbara

MissouriUT AustinUC Davis

Ohio StateVirginia

MinnesotaMichigan State

MichiganRutgers

Illinois, Urb-ChPittsburgh

Penn State

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsIn-State Average Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2008/09USF System & Public AAU Institutions

In-State Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2008-09





*AAU member

19

Tuition & Fees in Dollars

USF Tuition & FeesIn-State, Undergraduate

FY 2009: $4,580FY 2010: $5,200

32Miami

Mean

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersIn-State Average Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2001/02 - 2008/09

FSUUSFUCFFIUUFFAU

USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsIn-State Average Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesIn-State Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2001 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsIn-State Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2001 - 2008

USF

Cincinnati

Illinois, Chicago

VA Tech

Mean

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsIn-State Average Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2001/02 - 2008/09

Colorado StateASUGeorgiaUtahNC StateUAB

USF System & AAU ProspectsIn-State Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2001 - 2008








TUITION & FEES:OUT-OF-STATE, UNDERGRADUATE

Definition:Charges to full-time undergraduate students for the full academic year, specifically the tuition charge by the institution to those students who meet the state’s or institution’s residency requirements; as reported in the IPEDS Institutional Characteristics component.



$16,707

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000

Stony BrookBuffalo

MinnesotaUSF

KansasNebraska

Iowa StateArizonaMissouriOregonFlorida

IowaRutgers

Wisconsin-MadisonOhio State

Texas A&MUNC Chapel Hill

Maryland, College ParkWashington

PurduePittsburgh

IndianaPenn State

Georgia TechIllinois, Urb-ChMichigan State

ColoradoUT Austin

UCLAUC Berkeley


UC Santa BarbaraUC Davis

VirginiaMichigan

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsOut-of-State Average Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2008/09USF System & Public AAU Institutions

Out-of-State Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2008-09





*AAU member

20


USF Tuition & FeesOut-of-State, Undergraduate

FY 2009: $15,390FY 2010: $16,010

32

FAU

Miami

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersOut-of-State Average Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2001/02 - 2008/09

MeanUFUCFFSUUSFFIU

USF

Publicc AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsOut-of-State Average Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesOut-of-State Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2001 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsOut-of-State Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2001 - 2008

USFASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsOut-of-State Average Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF System & AAU ProspectsOut-of-State Undergraduate Tuition & Fees, 2001 - 2008








TUITION & FEES:IN-STATE, GRADUATE

Definition:Charges to full-time graduate students for the full academic year, specifically the tuition charge by the institution to those students who meet the state’s or institution’s residency requirements; as reported in the IPEDS Institutional Characteristics component.



$7,292

$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000

ArizonaUNC Chapel Hill

NebraskaGeorgia Tech

KansasIowa State

USFIowa

Texas A&MPurdue

Stony BrookIndiana

MissouriFloridaBuffalo

UT AustinColorado

Maryland, College ParkUCLA

Wisconsin-MadisonWashington

UC San DiegoUC Berkeley

Ohio StateUC Davis

UC Santa BarbaraUC Irvine

Michigan StateIllinois, Urb-Ch

VirginiaOregon

MinnesotaRutgers

Penn StatePittsburghMichigan

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsIn-State Average Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2008/09USF System & Public AAU Institutions

In-State Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2008-09





*AAU member

21


USF Tuition & FeesIn-State, Graduate

FY 2009: $8,040FY 2010: $8,850

32Miami

Mean

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersIn-State Average Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2001/02 - 2008/09

UFFIUUSFUCFFSUFAU

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesIn-State Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2001 - 2008

USFASUColorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsIn-State Average Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF System & AAU ProspectsIn-State Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2001 - 2008

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsIn-State Average Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsIn-State Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2001 - 2008








TUITION & FEES:OUT-OF-STATE, GRADUATE

Definition:Charges to full-time graduate students for the full academic year, specifically the tuition charge by the institution to those students who do not meet the state’s or institution’s residency requirements; as reported in the IPEDS Institutional Characteristics component.



$21,141

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000

Stony BrookBuffalo

MinnesotaKansas

NebraskaIowa State

ArizonaMissouriOregonFlorida

IowaUSF

RutgersWisconsin-Madison

Ohio StateTexas A&M

UNC Chapel HillMaryland, College Park

WashingtonPurdue

PittsburghIndiana

Penn StateGeorgia Tech

Illinois, Urb-ChMichigan State

ColoradoUT Austin

UCLAUC Berkeley


UC Santa BarbaraUC Davis

VirginiaMichigan

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsOut-of-State Average Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2008/09USF System & Public AAU Institutions

Out-of-State Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2008-09





*AAU member

22


USF Tuition & FeesOut-of-State, Graduate

FY 2009: $19,740FY 2010: $18,690

USF

FAU

FIU

FSU

UCFMiami

UF

Mean

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$22,000

$24,000

$26,000

$28,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersOut-of-State Average Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2001/02 - 2008/0932

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsOut-of-State Average Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesOut-of-State Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2001 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsOut-of-State Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2001 - 2008

USFASU

Colorado StateNC State

CincinnatiGeorgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VATech

UAB

Mean

$5,000

$7,000

$9,000

$11,000

$13,000

$15,000

$17,000

$19,000

$21,000

$23,000

$25,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsOut-of-State Average Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF System & AAU ProspectsOut-of-State Graduate Tuition & Fees, 2001 - 2008








TOTAL REVENUES PER STUDENT FTE

Definition:This measure reflects the total revenues and other additions to net assets as reported in the IPEDS Finance component per total student FTE as reported in the IPEDS fall enrollment survey. Financial figures reported by fiscal year (FY).







*AAU member

23

$30,783

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000

OregonUSF

IndianaColorado

BuffaloIowa State

KansasNebraska

PurdueTexas A&M

Michigan StateUC Santa Barbara

ArizonaFlorida

Illinois, Urb-ChMaryland, College Park

UT AustinRutgers

Wisconsin-MadisonGeorgia TechUC Berkeley

PittsburghMissouri

MinnesotaUC Irvine

Ohio StateStony BrookPenn State

IowaWashington

UNC Chapel HillUC Davis


UCLAMichigan

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Total Revenues per FTE, FY2008USF System & Public AAU Institutions

Total Revenues per Student FTE, FY 2008

Total Revenues per Student FTE

USFFAUFIUFSU

UCF

Miami

UFMean

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersTotal Revenues per FTE, FY2002 - FY2008

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Revenues per FTE, FY2002 - FY2008

32 USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesTotal Revenues per Student FTE, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Revenues per Student FTE, FY 2002 - FY 2008

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

UAB

Mean

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTuition & Fee Revenues per Total Student FTE, FY2002 - FY2008

NC StateGeorgiaCincinnatiVA TechUSFColorado StateASU

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Revenues per Student FTE, FY 2002 - FY 2008








$368,554,534

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800

OregonVirginia

UC Santa BarbaraIndiana

NebraskaMissouri

UC IrvineKansas

Georgia TechIowa State

Illinois, Urb-ChPurdue

UC San DiegoUT Austin

IowaWashington

MichiganUSF

Michigan StateWisconsin-Madison

Maryland, College ParkOhio State

ArizonaStony BrookTexas A&M

UC DavisBuffalo

RutgersUC Berkeley

UNC Chapel HillMinnesota

FloridaUCLA

Millions

USF System & Public AAU Institutions State Appropriations, FY2008

STATE APPROPRIATIONS

Definition:This measure reflects amounts received by the institution through acts of a state legislative body, except grants and contracts and capital appropriations. Funds reported in this category are for meeting current operation expenses, not for specific projects or programs; as reported in the IPEDS Finance Component.



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsState Appropriations, FY 2008





*AAU member

24

State Appropriations in MillionsNote: Penn State, Colorado, and Pittsburgh data not available for FY2008

USF SystemState Appropriations

FY 2009: $297,233,541

9

USF

FAUFIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Milli

ons

USF System & Florida Research University PeersState Appropriations, FY2002 - FY2008 28

USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Milli

ons

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsState Appropriations, FY 2002 - FY2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesState Appropriations, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsState Appropriations, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USF

Arizona State

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

UtahVA Tech

UAB

Mean

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

$400,000,000

$450,000,000

$500,000,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Milli

ons

USF System & AAU ProspectsState Appropriations, FY 2002 - FY2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsState Appropriations, FY 2002 - FY 2008








$10,202

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

OregonIndiana

UT AustinIllinois, Urb-Ch

VirginiaPurdue

MissouriMichigan State

MichiganOhio State

WashingtonUC Irvine

UC Santa BarbaraWisconsin-Madison

USFKansas

Texas A&MNebraska

Iowa StateUC San Diego


IowaFlorida

RutgersGeorgia TechUC Berkeley

MinnesotaUC Davis

UCLABuffalo

UNC Chapel HillStony Brook

USF System & Public AAU Institutions State Appropriations per FTE, FY2008

STATE APPROPRIATIONS PER STUDENT FTE

Definition:This measure reflects amonts received by the institution through acts of a state legislative body, except grants and contracts and capital appropriations per total student FTE. Funds reported in this category are for meeting current operation expenses, not for specific projects or programs; as reported in the IPEDS Finance Component.



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsState Appropriations per Student FTE, FY 2008





*AAU member

25

State Appropriations per Student FTE in Dollars

Note: Penn State, Colorado, and Pittsburgh data not available for FY2008

USF SystemState Appropriations

per Student FTE

FY 2009: $9,217

29

USFFAU

FIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersState Appropriations per FTE, FY2002 - FY2008

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsState Appropriations per FTE, FY 2002 - FY2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesState Appropriations per Student FTE, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsState Appropriations per Student FTE, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USFASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia


VA State

UAB

Mean

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsState Appropriations per FTE, FY2002 - FY2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsState Appropriations per Student FTE, FY 2002 - FY 2008








$44,683

$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000

Stony BrookBuffalo

USFIowa StateNebraska

RutgersOregon


KansasUC DavisColoradoMissouri

Georgia TechUC San Diego

Maryland, College ParkIowa

PittsburghMichigan StateIllinois, Urb-Ch

Penn StateArizonaPurdueIndiana

Texas A&MFlorida

Ohio StateVirginia

UT AustinUC Berkeley


WashingtonMichigan

Wisconsin-MadisonUCLA

Thousands

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Annual Giving, FY2008

ANNUAL GIVING

Definition:These data are collected by the Top American Research Universities (TARU) as reported by institutions on the Council for Aid to Education’s Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) Survey. Figures reported by fiscal year (FY). These data include all contributions actually received during the institution’s fiscal year in the form of cash, securities, company products, and other property from alumni, non-alumni individuals, corporations, foundations, religious organizations, and other groups. Not included are public funds, earnings on investments held by the institution, and unfulfilled pledges.

Source: TARUType: AAU, NSF


USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAnnual Giving, FY 2008





*AAU member

26


USF System Annual Giving

FY 2009: $34 millionFY 2010: $36.4 million

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

AAU Mean

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAnnual Giving, FY2000 - FY2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAnnual Giving, FY 2000 - FY 2008

USF

FAUFIU

FSU

UCF

MiamiUF

Mean

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research Universities Annual Giving, FY2000 - FY2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesAnnual Giving, FY 2000 - FY 2008

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

GeorgiaIllinois, Chicago

Utah

VA TechUAB

Mean

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsAnnual Giving, FY2000 - FY2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsAnnual Giving, FY 2000 - FY 2008








$360,035

$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000

Stony BrookUC Santa Barbara

UC IrvineUSF

Maryland, College ParkOregon

ColoradoArizona

UC San DiegoMissouriBuffalo

Iowa StateRutgers

UC DavisNebraska

IndianaIowa

KansasIllinois, Urb-Ch

Penn StateFlorida

Michigan StateGeorgia Tech

PurdueOhio State

Wisconsin-MadisonWashington

UCLAPittsburgh


UC BerkeleyVirginia

Texas A&MUT AustinMichigan

Thousands

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Endowment, FY2008

ENDOWMENT

Definition:The market value of an institution’s endowment assets as of June 30 as reported to the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) Endowment Study and as reported by The Center in Top American Research Universities (TARU).

Source: NACUBOType: TARU



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsEndowment, FY 2008





*AAU member

27

USF System Endowment

FY 2009: $275,398,000FY 2010: $296,000,000 (est.)

USF

FAUFIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Florida Research University PeersEndowment, FY2000 - FY2008

Note: FIU data not available for FY 2000, not included in mean for FY 2008. FAU data not available for FY 2008, not included in mean for FY 2008.

12

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsEndowment, FY2000 - FY2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsEndowment, FY 2000 - FY 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesEndowment, FY 2000 - FY 2008

USFASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

UtahVATech

UAB

Mean

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & AAU ProspectsEndowment, FY2000 - FY2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsEndowment, FY 2000 - FY 2008








$10

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

Stony BrookUC Santa Barbara

UC IrvineUSF


ColoradoRutgersMissouri

UC San DiegoBuffalo

UC DavisIowa State

OregonIndiana

Illinois, Urb-ChFlorida

Penn StateMichigan State

KansasIowa

NebraskaOhio State

PurdueWisconsin-Madison

UCLAWashington

MinnesotaUC Berkeley

Georgia TechUNC Chapel Hill

PittsburghTexas A&M

UT AustinMichigan

Virginia


USF System & Public AAU Institutions Endowment per Total Student FTE, FY2008

ENDOWMENT PER TOTAL STUDENT FTE

Definition:A ratio of the total student FTE of an institution (as reported to the IPEDS fall enrollment survey) and the market value of an institution’s endowment assets as of June 30 (as reported to the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) Endowment Study).

Source: IPEDS, NACUBOType: USF


USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesEndowment per Total Student FTE, FY 2008






*AAU member

28

USF System Endowment per Student FTE

FY 2009: $9,000FY 2010: $9,000 (est.)

13

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsEndowment per Total Student FTE, FY2002 - FY2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsEndowment per Total Student FTE, FY 2002 - FY 2008

Note: FIU data not available for FY 2000, not included in mean for FY 2008. FAU data not available for FY 2008, not included in mean for FY 2008.

USF

FAU

FSU

UCF & FIU

Miami

UF

Mean

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Florida Research University PeersEndowment per Total Student FTE, FY2002 - FY2008

USF System & Florida Research InstitutionsEndowment per Total Student FTE, FY 2002 - FY 2008

USFASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & AAU ProspectsEndowment per Total Student FTE, FY2002 - FY2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsEndowment per Total Student FTE, FY 2002 - FY 2008








STU

DEN

TS









15









15

40,022

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Georgia TechOregon

UC Santa BarbaraNebraska

VirginiaStony Brook

UC IrvineIowa StatePittsburgh

UC San DiegoBuffalo

UNC Chapel HillIowa

KansasMissouri

UC DavisColorado

UC BerkeleyMaryland, College Park

RutgersUCLA

ArizonaUSF


MichiganIndiana

Illinois, Urb-ChPenn StateWashington

Michigan StateTexas A&M

FloridaUT Austin

MinnesotaOhio State

USF & Public AAU Institutions Total Student Headcount , Fall 2009

TOTAL STUDENT HEADCOUNT

Definition:This variable reflects the total men and women enrolled for credit in the fall of the academic year.

Source: IPEDSType: USF


Note: In fall 2009, the USF System began reporting separately to IPEDS; thus, fall 2009 is USF only.

USF & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Student Headcount, Fall 2009





*AAU member

29

Total Student Headcount

USF Total Student Headcount

Fall 2010: 40,433(drop/add benchmark)

USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF

FAU

FIUFSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research Universities Total Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesTotal Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia


VA Tech

UAB

Mean

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008








32,248

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Georgia TechOregon

Stony BrookNebraska

VirginiaUC Santa Barbara

PittsburghBuffalo

UNC Chapel HillIowa State

IowaKansas


MissouriColoradoUC Davis

USFMaryland, College Park

RutgersUC Berkeley

ArizonaUCLA


IndianaMichigan

Illinois, Urb-ChWashington


Penn StateTexas A&M

FloridaUT Austin

Ohio State

USF & Public AAU Institutions Total Student FTE, Fall 2009

TOTAL STUDENT FTE

Definition:This variable is derived from the enrollment by race/ethnicity section of the fall enrollment survey. The full-time equivalent of the institution’s part-time enrollment is estimated and then added to the full-time enrollment of the institution. This formula has been used to produce the full-time equivalent enrollment that is published annually in the Digest of Education Statistics. The full-time equivalent of part-time enrollment is estimated by multiplying the part-time enrollment by factors that vary by control and level of institution and level of student. It is important to note that while the federally-defined FTE calculation is used below for all institutions listed, there are instances in other reports where a formula for calculating student FTE, as defined by the state of Florida is used, resulting in a different FTE for Florida institutions.




USF & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Student FTE (Fall Enrollment), 2009





*AAU member

30

Total Student FTE

USF Total Student FTE

Fall 2010: 32,531 (est.)

USF

ASU

Georgia

UAB10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Student FTE (Fall Enrollment), 2002 - 2008

USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Student FTE (Fall Enrollment), 2002 - 2008

USF

FAU

FIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research Universities Total Student FTE (Fall Enrollment), 2002 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Student FTE (Fall Enrollment), 2002 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesTotal Student FTE (Fall Enrollment), 2002 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Student FTE (Fall Enrollment), 2002 - 2008








9,486

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000

UC Santa BarbaraOregon

UC IrvineNebraska

UC San DiegoIowa State

ColoradoPenn State

UC DavisGeorgia Tech

MissouriKansasRutgers

Stony BrookIowa

ArizonaPurdueVirginia

USFBuffaloIndiana

Texas A&MPittsburgh

UC BerkeleyMaryland, College Park

Michigan StateUNC Chapel Hill


Illinois, Urb-ChUT Austin

WashingtonOhio State

MichiganFlorida

Minnesota

USF & Public AAU Institutions Graduate Student Headcount , Fall 2009

GRADUATE STUDENT HEADCOUNT

Definition:This variable reflects the headcount at the fall of an academic year of graduate students, defined as a student who holds a bachelor’s or first-professional dgeree (or equivalent), and is taking courses at the post-baccalaureate level; reported in the IPEDS Fall Enrollment Survey



USF & Public AAU InstitutionsGraduate Student Headcount, Fall 2009






*AAU member

31

Total Graduate Student Headcount

USF Graduate Student Headcount


USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsGraduate Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsGraduate Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF

FAU

FIU

FSUUCF

Miami

UF

Mean

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research Universities Graduate Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesGraduate Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC StateCincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsGraduate Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsGraduate Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008








24%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

UC Santa BarbaraPenn State

OregonColoradoUC Irvine


Texas A&MPurdue

UC DavisNebraska

ArizonaRutgers

Michigan StateIndiana

USFMissouri

Ohio StateUT Austin

KansasWisconsin-Madison


UC BerkeleyWashington

IowaUCLA

BuffaloGeorgia Tech

Stony BrookFlorida

MinnesotaPittsburgh

VirginiaMichigan

UNC Chapel Hill

USF & Public AAU Institutions % Graduate Student Headcount, Fall 2009

PERCENT GRADUATE STUDENT HEADCOUNT

Definition:This variable reflects percent of graduate students of the total student enrollment (headcount); based on fall enrollment data reported on the IPEDS Enrollment Survey.




USF & Public AAU InstitutionsPercent Graduate Student Headcount, Fall 2009





*AAU member

32

USF Percent Graduate Student Headcount

Fall 2010: 23%(drop/add benchmark)

USF

ASU


Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU Prospects% Graduate Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF & Mean

FAUFIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research Universities % Graduate Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU Institutions% Graduate Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsPercent Graduate Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesPercent Graduate Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsPercent Graduate Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008








DOCTORATES AWARDED

AAU Phase I Indicator

Definition:This data element reflects the actual unduplicated number of degrees awarded at the doctoral level.

Source: IPEDS Completion SurveyType: AAU, NSF, TARU


256

0 200 400 600 800 1000

OregonNebraska

USFIowa State

KansasColoradoMissouri


BuffaloVirginia

Stony BrookIowa

IndianaRutgers

Michigan StateArizona

PittsburghGeorgia TechUC San Diego

UC DavisTexas A&M

UNC Chapel HillPurdue

Penn StateWashington


MichiganOhio State

Illinois, Urb-ChWisconsin-Madison

MinnesotaFlorida

UT AustinUC Berkeley

USF & Public AAU Institutions Doctorates Awarded, 2008 - 2009USF & Public AAU Institutions

Doctorates Awarded, 2008-09





*AAU member

33

USF Doctorates Awarded

2009-2010: 288

Total Doctorates Awarded

USF

FAUFIU

FSU

UCFMiami

UF

Mean

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF & Florida Research University PeersDoctorates Awarded, 2000 - 2008 6

USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

AAU Mean

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF & Public AAU InstitutionsDoctorates Awarded, 2000 - 2008

USF & Florida Research UniversitiesDoctorates Awarded, 2000 - 2008

USF & Public AAU InstitutionsDoctorates Awarded, 2000 - 2008

USF

ASU

Colorado State

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF & AAU ProspectsDoctorates Awarded, 2000 - 2008

MeanNC StateCincinnati

USF & AAU ProspectsDoctorates Awarded, 2000 - 2008








3,738

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000


VirginiaBuffalo

PittsburghUSF

UC San DiegoOregonKansas

UNC Chapel HillNebraska

IowaUC Irvine

Maryland, College ParkIowa State

UC DavisUC Berkeley

UCLAUC Santa Barbara

MinnesotaMissouri

ColoradoWisconsin-Madison

RutgersMichigan

WashingtonPurdueFlorida

Penn StateOhio State

ArizonaIllinois, Urb-Ch

UT AustinMichigan State

IndianaTexas A&M

USF System & Public AAU Institutions FTIC Student Enrollment, Fall 2009

FIRST TIME IN COLLEGE (FTIC)STUDENT ENROLLMENT

Definition:This variable reflects the number of first-time in college (FTIC) students enrolled for credit in the fall of the academic year.



USF & Public AAU InstitutionsFirst-Time-In-College (FTIC) Student Enrollment, Fall 2009





*AAU member

34


USF FTIC Student Enrollment


FTIC Student Enrollment

26

USF

FAUFIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesFTIC Student Enrollment (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesFirst-Time-In-College (FTIC) Student Enrollment (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsFTIC Student Enrollment (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsFirst-Time-In-College (FTIC) Student Enrollment (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF

ASU


Cincinnati

Georgia


VA Tech

UAB

Mean

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsFTIC Student Enrollment (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsFirst-Time-In-College (FTIC) Student Enrollment (Fall), 2000 - 2008








1150

700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

ArizonaOregon

Iowa StateKansas

USFIndiana

Michigan StatePurdue

IowaNebraska

BuffaloUC DavisColoradoMissouri

UC Santa BarbaraPenn State

Stony BrookRutgers

UC IrvineTexas A&MWashington

MinnesotaOhio StateUT AustinPittsburgh

UC San DiegoFlorida

Wisconsin-MadisonMaryland, College Park

Illinois, Urb-ChUCLA

UNC Chapel HillMichigan

VirginiaUC Berkeley

Georgia Tech

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Median SAT Scores, 2008

MEDIAN SAT SCORE

Definition:This variable reflects the median SAT score. For institutions that only accept the ACT and not the SAT, the estimated median ACT score is converted to an SAT equivalent using a concordance table.

Source: Education Trust, College Results OnlineType: USF


USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsMedian SAT Scores, 2008





*AAU member

35

1240-14201200-14601220-14401220-14301210-14001160-14101180-14101170-13801160-13801160-13801130-13601150-13401100-13501130-13301110-13801070-13201100-13501060-12801070-13001090-12701090-13001070-13001080-13101070-12801030-12901040-12601040-13401070-13401030-12701020-12801040-12601080-12301030-12101040-1320970-1210980-1220

* data represents interquartile scores

*

Median SAT Score

USF Median SAT Score

Fall 2009:1100-1280

Fall 2010:

1090-1260 (est.)

USF

ASU

NC State

GeorgiaIllinois, Chicago

Colorado State, UAB

VA Tech

Utah, Cincinnati,Mean

1,000

1,050

1,100

1,150

1,200

1,250

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsMedian SAT Scores, 2002 - 2008

USF

FAU

FIU

FSU

Miami

UF

Mean & UCF

1,000

1,050

1,100

1,150

1,200

1,250

1,300

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research Universities Median SAT Scores, 2002 - 2008

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

1,000

1,050

1,100

1,150

1,200

1,250

1,300

1,350

1,400

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsMedian SAT Scores, 2002 - 2008

26 USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesMedian SAT Scores, 2002 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsMedian SAT Scores, 2002 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsMedian SAT Scores, 2002 - 2008








FTICs IN TOP 10% OF HIGH SCHOOL CLASS

Definition:The proportion of enrolled freshmen who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school classes as reported in the U.S. News & World Report rankings.

Source: U.S. News & World ReportType: USF


35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ColoradoMissouri

NebraskaKansasOregonBuffalo

Iowa StateMichigan State

MichiganIndianaArizona

USFPurdue

Stony BrookRutgers

MinnesotaPittsburghOhio State

Penn StateTexas A&M

Wisconsin-MadisonIllinois, Urb-Ch

Maryland, College ParkUT Austin

FloridaUNC Chapel Hill

IowaGeorgia Tech

WashingtonVirginia

UC IrvineUC Santa Barbara

UCLAUC Berkeley

UC DavisUC San Diego

USF System & Public AAU Institutions FTIC's in Top 10% of High School Class, Fall 2009USF & Public AAU Institutions

FTICs in Top 10% of High School Class, 2009





*AAU member

36

USF FTICs in Top 10%

of High School Class

Fall 2010: 32%

24

USF & UCF

FAU

FIU

FSU

Miami

UF

Mean

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

USF System & Florida Research Universities FTIC's in Top 10% of High School Class, 2001 - 2009

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesFTICs in Top 10% of High School Class, 2001 - 2009

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsFTIC's in Top 10% of High School Class, 2001 - 2009

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsFTICs in Top 10% of High School Class, 2001 - 2009

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati &

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

USF System & AAU ProspectsFTIC's in Top 10% of High School Class (Fall), 2001 - 2009

USF System & AAU ProspectsFTICs in Top 10% of High School Class, 2001 - 2009








NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARS

Definition:“The number of students receiving either the National Merit Scholarship or the National Achievement Scholarship as reported by The Center in Top American Research Universities (TARU). The Center indicated that it intends to track the number of students receiving the National Hispanic Scholars Program should those data become available.”

Source: TARUType: TARU, USF


2008

23

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


BuffaloColoradoUC Davis

Stony BrookUC San Diego

OregonPenn State

RutgersUSF

Wisconsin-MadisonPittsburgh

IowaMissouriVirginia

UCLAMaryland, College Park

WashingtonKansas

Iowa StateMichigan State

NebraskaIndianaArizonaPurdue

MichiganMinnesota

UC BerkeleyIllinois, Urb-ChGeorgia Tech

Ohio StateUNC Chapel Hill

Texas A&MFlorida

UT Austin

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Natonal Merit Scholars, 2001 - 2008USF System & Public AAU Institutions

National Merit Scholars, 2008





*AAU member

37

USF National Merit Scholars

2009: 242010: 21

Number of National Merit Scholars

11

USFFSUUCF, FAU, FIU

Miami

UF

Mean

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersNatonal Merit Scholars, 2001 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesNational Merit Scholars, 2001 - 2008

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNatonal Merit Scholars, 2001 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNational Merit Scholars, 2001 - 2008

USF

ASU


CincinnatiGeorgia

Illinois, Chicago

UtahVA Tech

UAB

Mean

0

50

100

150

200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsNatonal Merit Scholars, 2001 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsNational Merit Scholars, 2001 - 2008








27%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

VirginiaGeorgia Tech

ColoradoMichigan

Wisconsin-MadisonIndianaKansas

Maryland, College ParkUNC Chapel Hill

Penn StatePurdue

Illinois, Urb-ChMissouri

PittsburghTexas A&M

IowaMinnesotaNebraska

Ohio StateIowa State

Michigan StateOregon

WashingtonUT Austin

ArizonaRutgersFlorida


USFBuffalo


UC DavisUCLA

UC San Diego

USF System & Public AAU Institutions % Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grant Aid, 2008 - 2009

PERCENT UNDERGRADUATESRECEIVING PELL GRANT AID

Definition:This variable reflects percent of undergraduate students receiving Pell grant aid; based on data provided in the IPEDS Student Financial Aid component. The Pell Grant program is a federal program which provides grant assistance to eligible undergraduate postsecondary students with demonstrated financial need to help meet education expenses. This variable has recently been added to the IPEDS database, one year is currently available.



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsPercent Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grant Aid, 2008-09





*AAU member

38

27%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Miami

FSU

UCF

Mean

FAU

UF

USF

FIU

USF System & Florida Research Universities % Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grant Aid, 2008 - 2009

27%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

AAU Low

Public AAU 25%

Mean

Public AAU 75%

USF

AAU High

USF System & Public AAU Institutions% Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grant Aid, 2008 - 2009

27%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

VA TechGeorgia

NC StateColorado State

UtahCincinnati

MeanASUUABUSF

Illinois, Chicago

USF System & AAU Prospects% Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grant Aid, 2008 - 2009

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsPercent Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grant Aid, 2008-09

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesPercent Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grant Aid, 2008-09

USF System & AAU ProspectsPercent Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grant Aid, 2008-09








29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Texas A&MMichigan State

USFPenn State

Maryland, College ParkIowa StateOhio State

BuffaloUC DavisUT Austin

WashingtonStony Brook

ArizonaIllinois, Urb-Ch

IndianaPurdue

NebraskaOregon

Georgia TechKansasRutgersFlorida

MinnesotaPittsburgh

UC San DiegoWisconsin-Madison

UNC Chapel HillMichiganMissouri

UC IrvineVirginia

UC Santa BarbaraColorado

IowaUCLA

UC Berkeley

USF System & Public AAU Institutions % of Classes with Fewer than 20 Students, 2008

PERCENT OF CLASSES WITHFEWER THAN 20 STUDENTS

Definition:The proportion of undergraduate classes with fewer than twenty students as reported in the U.S. News & World Report rankings.



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsPercent of Classes with Fewer than 20 Students, 2008





*AAU member

39

USF System Percent of Classes with Fewer than 20 Students

2009: 24%

22

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU Institutions% of Classes with Fewer than 20 Students 2001 - 2008

USF

Mean & FAUFSU

UCF & FIU

Miami

UF

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University Peers% of Classes with Fewer than 20 Students, 2001 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesPercent of Classes with Fewer than 20 Students, 2001 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsPercent of Classes with Fewer than 20 Students, 2001 - 2008

USF

ASU

NC State

Cincinnati

VA Tech

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU Institutions % of Classes with Fewer than 20 Students, 2001 - 2008

Utah

Mean, UAB, GeorgiaIllinois, Chicago &Colorado State

USF System & AAU ProspectsPercent of Classes with Fewer than 20 Students, 2001 - 2008








14%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

IowaArizonaKansas

UNC Chapel HillUC Berkeley

ColoradoMaryland, College Park

MissouriNebraska

VirginiaUSF

PittsburghMinnesota

OregonIndiana

Iowa StatePenn State

PurdueUC Irvine

UC Santa BarbaraWashington

MichiganWisconsin-Madison

Ohio StateIllinois, Urb-Ch

RutgersUCLA

FloridaGeorgia Tech

Michigan StateStony Brook

BuffaloTexas A&M

UT AustinUC Davis

UC San Diego

USF System & Public AAU Institutions % of Classes with 50 or More Students, 2008

PERCENT OF CLASSES WITH50 OR MORE STUDENTS

Definition:The proportion of undergraduate classes with fifty or more students as reported in the U.S. News & World Report rankings.



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsPercent of Classes with 50 or More Students, 2008





*AAU member

40

USF System Percent of Classes with

50 or More Students

2009: 15%

23

USF & Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU Institutions% of Classes with 50 or More Students, 2001 - 2008

USFFAU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF & FIU

Mean

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University Peers% of Classes with 50 or More Students, 2001 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesPercent of Classes with 50 or More Students, 2001 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsPercent of Classes with 50 or More Students, 2001 - 2008

Cincinnati

VA Tech

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU Prospects% of Classes with 50 or More Students, 2001 - 2008

Illinois, ChicagoUtahColorado StateNC StateMeanASUUSFUABGeorgia

USF System & AAU ProspectsPercent of Classes with 50 or More Students, 2001 - 2008








86%

70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

ArizonaKansas

ColoradoIowa

Iowa StateNebraska

OregonMissouri

USFPurdueIndiana

Stony BrookBuffalo


RutgersUC Santa Barbara

Ohio StateUC Davis

UT AustinGeorgia Tech

Penn StateTexas A&M


PittsburghWashington

UC IrvineWisconsin-Madison

UC San DiegoUC Berkeley

FloridaMichigan

UNC Chapel HillUCLA

Virginia

USF & Public AAU Institutions Retention Rate, 2009

FRESHMAN RETENTION RATE

Definition:This variable reflects the percent of the fall full-time cohort from the prior year that re-enrolled at the institution as either full- or part-time in the current year; as reported on the IPEDS Enrollment component. Data for 2003 are not consistent due to instiutitons completing this item voluntarily for all institutions.



USF & Public AAU InstitutionsFreshman Retention Rate, Fall 2009





*AAU member

41

Colorado State

Georgia

ASU & Illinois, Chicago

Utah & Cincinnati

VA Tech & NC State

UAB

USF & Mean

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

USF System & AAU ProspectsRetention Rate, 2004 - 2009

USF

FAUFIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

USF System & Florida Research Universities Retention Rate, 2004 - 2009

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsRetention Rate, 2004 - 2009

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsFreshman Retention Rate (Fall), 2004 - 2009

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesFreshman Retention Rate (Fall), 2004 - 2009

USF System & AAU ProspectsFreshman Retention Rate (Fall), 2004 - 2009








49%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

USFArizonaKansas

Stony BrookBuffalo

NebraskaIowa

MinnesotaOregon

Iowa StateColoradoMissouriPurdueIndiana

Ohio StateMichigan State

RutgersPittsburgh

Georgia TechWashingtonTexas A&M

UT AustinUC DavisUC Irvine

UC Santa BarbaraWisconsin-Madison


Maryland, College ParkPenn State

UC San DiegoUNC Chapel Hill

MichiganUCLA

UC BerkeleyVirginia

USF & Public AAU Institutions Six-Year Graduation Rates for First-Time-In-College (FTIC) students 2008 - 2009 (fall 2002

cohort)

SIX-YEAR GRADUATION RATE FORFIRST TIME IN COLLEGE (FTIC) STUDENTS

Definition:The six-year graduation rate for first-time-in-college students.

Source: Common Data Set, IPEDSType: U.S. News & World Report


USF System & Public AAU Institutions6-Year Graduation Rate for First-Time-In-College (FTIC) Students, 2008-09





*AAU member

42

USF System 6-Year Graduation Rate

Fall 2003 Cohort

2009-2010: 48%

FAU

USF & FIU

FSU

MiamiUF

Mean & UCF

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2001-02 (fall 95 cohort)








USF & Florida Research University PeersSix-Year Graduation Rates for First-Time-In-College (FTIC) students 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%









USF & Public AAU InstitutionsSix-Year Graduation Rates for First-Time-In-College (FTIC) students 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%









USF & AAU ProspectsSix-Year Graduation Rates for First-Time-In-College (FTIC) students 2001/02 - 2008/09

10

USF System & Public AAU Institutions6-Year Graduation Rate for First-Time-In-College (FTIC) Students, 2001-02 - 2008-09

USF System & Florida Research Universities6-Year Graduation Rate for First-Time-In-College (FTIC) Students, 2001-02 - 2008-09

USF System & AAU Prospects6-Year Graduation Rate for First-Time-In-College (FTIC) Students, 2001-02 - 2008-09








1,285

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

UC Santa BarbaraColorado

USFUNC Chapel Hill

OregonUC IrvineNebraskaUC DavisMissouri


PittsburghKansas

IowaArizonaRutgers

Stony BrookIowa State


UC BerkeleyWashington

Georgia TechFlorida

Wisconsin-MadisonPenn StateOhio State

IndianaTexas A&M

UT AustinMinnesota

BuffaloMichigan State

MichiganPurdue

Illinois, Urb-Ch

USF & Public AAU Institutions International Student Headcount, Fall 2009

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT HEADCOUNT

Definition:This variable reflects the headcount at the fall of an academic year of students who are classified as “nonresident aliens”and are not citizens or nationals of the United States and who are in this country on a visa or temporary basis and do not have the right to remain indefinitely; reported in the IPEDS Enrollment Survey



USF & Public AAU InstitutionsInternational Student Headcount, Fall 2009






*AAU member

43

Total International Students

USF International Student Headcount


USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsInternational Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsInternational Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsInternational Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USFFAU

FIU

FSU

UCFMiami

UF

Mean

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research Universities International Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsInternational Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesInternational Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008USF STRATEGIC

PERFORMANCE METRICS







PERCENT INTERNATIONALSTUDENT HEADCOUNT

Definition:This variable reflects percent of international students (i.e., non-resident aliens) of the total student enrollment (headcount); based on fall enrollment data reported on the IPEDS Enrollment Survey.



3%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

USFUC Santa Barbara

ColoradoUC DavisMissouri

UNC Chapel HillRutgersArizona

UC IrvineNebraska

UC San DiegoIowa

KansasOregon

PittsburghOhio State

UCLAFlorida

Maryland, College ParkVirginia

WashingtonPenn StateTexas A&M

UC BerkeleyMinnesotaUT Austin

IndianaMichigan State

Wisconsin-MadisonIowa State

Stony BrookMichigan

PurdueIllinois, Urb-Ch

BuffaloGeorgia Tech

USF & Public AAU Institutions % International Student Headcount, Fall 2009USF & Public AAU Institutions

Percent of International Student Headcount, Fall 2009






*AAU member

44

USF Percent InternationalStudent Headcount

Fall 2010: 4%(drop/add benchmark)

USF, FSU, UCFFAU

FIU

Miami

UF

Mean

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research Universities % International Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesPercent of International Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF & Colorado State

ASU & UAB

NC State & VA Tech

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Mean, Utah, Cincinnati

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU Prospects% International Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsPercent of International Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU Institutions% International Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsPercent of International Student Headcount (Fall), 2000 - 2008








664

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

BuffaloUSF

NebraskaRutgers

Georgia TechUC Berkeley

OregonUC Irvine


IowaPurdue

ColoradoPittsburghUC Davis

Texas A&MKansas


Ohio StateVirginiaArizona

MichiganFlorida

IndianaIllinois, Urb-Ch

Penn StateWashington


UT AustinMinnesota

MissouriMichigan State

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Number of Students Studying Abroad, 2007-2008

STUDENTS STUDYING ABROAD

Definition:This variable reflects the number of students studying abroad as reported by the Institute of International Education (IIE), Open Doors Report on Internaitonal Educational Exchange.

Source: IIE, Open DoorsType: USF


Note: Data for Stony Brook and UC Santa Barbara not reported for current year.

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNumber of Students Studying Abroad, 2007-08





*AAU member

45

Total Number of Students

USF System Students Studying Abroad

2008-2009: 533undergraduate: 437

graduate: 96

2009-2010: 810 (est.)undergraduate: 622

graduate: 188

Note: UAB data not reported consistently; data not displayed

Note: FAU data not reported consistently; data not displayed

USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNumber of Students Studying Abroad, 2000/01 - 2007/08

USF FIU

FSU

UCFMiami

UF

Mean

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesNumber of Students Studying Abroad, 2000/01 - 2007/08

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC State Mean

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

Cincinnati

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

USF System & AAU ProspectsNumber of Students Studying Abroad, 2000/01 - 2007/08

USF System & AAU ProspectsNumber of Students Studying Abroad, 2000-01 - 2007-08

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNumber of Students Studying Abroad, 2000-01 - 2007-08

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesNumber of Students Studying Abroad, 2000-01 - 2007-08USF STRATEGIC

PERFORMANCE METRICS







1%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

USFBuffalo

RutgersUC BerkeleyTexas A&M

PurdueNebraska

Ohio StateUC Irvine

UC San DiegoFlorida

ColoradoIowa

Georgia TechIowa State

UC DavisMaryland, College Park

UT AustinMichigan

OregonPittsburgh

Penn StateIllinois, Urb-Ch

MinnesotaArizonaKansasIndiana

WashingtonWisconsin-Madison

UNC Chapel HillUCLA

Michigan StateVirginia

Missouri

USF & Public AAU Institutions % Study Abroad, 2007

PERCENT STUDENTS STUDYING ABROAD

Definition:This variable reflects the percent of students enrolled in a study abroad program as reported by the Institute of International Education (IIE), Open Doors Report on Internaitonal Educational Exchange.



Note: Data not available for Stony Brook and UC Santa Barbara, Fall 2007.

USF & Public AAU InstitutionsPercent of Students Studying Abroad, Fall 2007





*AAU member

46

USF Percent of Students Studying Abroad

Fall 2008: 1%Fall 2009: 2%

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC StateCincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

USF System & AAU Prospects% Study Abroad, 2000 - 2007

USFFAU

FIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

USF System & Florida Research Universities % Study Abroad, 2000 - 2007

USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

USF System & Public AAU Institutions% Study Abroad, 2000 - 2007

USF System & AAU ProspectsPercent of Students Studying Abroad, 2000 - 2007

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsPercent of Students Studying Abroad, 2000 - 2007

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesPercent of Students Studying Abroad, 2000 - 2007USF STRATEGIC

PERFORMANCE METRICS







STUDENT-TO-FACULTY RATIO

Definition:The student-to-faculty ratio is the total FTE students not in graduate or professional programs divided by total FTE instructional staff not teaching in graduate or professional programs, as reported in the IPEDS Fall Enrollment survey.

Source: IPEDSType: IPEDS, USF


Note: In fall 2009, the USF System began reporting separately to IPEDS; thus, fall 2008 is for the USF System and fall 2009 is USF.

27

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

USFOregon

Wisconsin-MadisonMinnesota

ArizonaFlorida

KansasIndiana

Stony BrookTexas A&M

UC IrvineUC San DiegoIllinois, Urb-Ch

MissouriGeorgia Tech

ColoradoMaryland, College Park

VirginiaMichigan State

Penn StateUCLA

UC Santa BarbaraNebraskaUT Austin

Iowa StateBuffalo

UC BerkeleyUC Davis

Ohio StateIowa

PittsburghPurdueRutgers

UNC Chapel HillMichigan

Washington

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsStudent-to-Faculty Ratio, Fall 2009USF & Public AAU Institutions

Student-to-Faculty Ratio, Fall 2009





*AAU member

47

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

USFASU

Colorado StateGeorgia

Illinois, ChicagoMean

NC StateUAB

CincinnatiVA Tech

Utah

USF System & AAU ProspectsStudent-to-Faculty Ratio, Fall 2008 & 2009

2009

2008

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

UCF

USF

FIU

FSU

Mean

UF

FAU

Miami

USF System & Florida Research Universities Student-to-Faculty Ratio, Fall 2008 & 2009

2009

2008

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

USF

AAU High

Public AAU 75%

Mean

Public AAU 25%

AAU Low

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsStudent-to-Faculty Ratio, Fall 2008 & 2009

2009

2008

32




USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsStudent-to-Faculty Ratio, Fall 2008 - 2009

USF System & AAU ProspectsStudent-to-Faculty Ratio, Fall 2008 - 2009

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesStudent-to-Faculty Ratio, Fall 2008 - 2009USF STRATEGIC

PERFORMANCE METRICS







48

USF E-PROFILE: FALL 2010, PRELIMINARY

USF’s eProfiles application displays select institutional metrics on new and all students by campus and for the total USF system at each enrollment benchmark for each term. Data are compared to comparable benchmarks in the previous like term.


USF E-PROFILE: FALL 2010, PRELIMINARY, continued

FAC

ULT

Y









15









15

TENURED / TENURE TRACK FACULTY

Definition:This variable reflects the number of total employees at an institution classified with the faculty status of tenure/tenure-track as reported in the IPEDS Human Resources survey; counts reflect fall reporting.



1,281

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500



UC IrvineColorado

UC San DiegoNebraska

BuffaloUSF

MissouriIowa State

UC BerkeleyVirginia

UC DavisKansasIndiana

Maryland, College ParkRutgers

WashingtonArizona

PittsburghIowa

Penn StateUCLA

Texas A&MUNC Chapel Hill

PurdueUT Austin

Michigan StateIllinois, Urb-Ch


MichiganOhio State

Florida

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty, Fall 2008USF System & Public AAU Institutions

Total Tenured / Tenure-Track Faculty, Fall 2008





*AAU member

49

Total Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty

Tenured/Tenure Track FacultyFall 2009

USF System: 1,268USF: 1,144

32UF

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersTotal Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USFMeanMiamiFSUUCFFIUFAU

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesTotal Tenured / Tenure-Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Tenured / Tenure-Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, ChicagoUtahVA Tech

UAB

Mean

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Tenured / Tenure-Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008








FULL-TIME INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF

Definition:This variable reflects the number of full-time employees at an institution categorized as instructional as reported in the IPEDS Human Resources survey; counts reflect fall reporting. Total includes tenured, on tenure track, non-tenure track and those without faculty status classification.



1,261

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

OregonStony Brook

UC Santa BarbaraGeorgia Tech


BuffaloNebraska

VirginiaKansas

USFMissouri

IowaIowa State

ColoradoUC Davis

UC BerkeleyArizona

UNC Chapel HillRutgers

Wisconsin-MadisonMaryland, College Park

PittsburghIndiana

UCLAWashington

MinnesotaOhio State

Illinois, Urb-ChPurdueFlorida

Michigan StatePenn State

UT AustinTexas A&M

Michigan

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Full-Time Instructional Staff, Fall 2008USF System & Public AAU Institutions

Total Full-Time Instructional Staff, Fall 2008





*AAU member

50

Total Full-Time Instructional Staff

USF SystemFull-Time Instructional Staff

Fall 2009: 1,098

32

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Full-Time Instructional Staff (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF

FAUFIU

FSU

UCFMiami

UF

Mean

500

700

900

1,100

1,300

1,500

1,700

1,900

2,100

2,300

2,500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersTotal Full-Time Instructional Staff (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesTotal Full-Time Instructional Staff (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Full-Time Instructional Staff (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

UtahVA Tech

UAB

Mean

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Full-Time Instructional Staff (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Full-Time Instructional Staff (Fall), 2002 - 2008








FACULTY AWARDS


Definition:The number of institutional affiliated faculty members receiving awards from 24 prominent grant and fellowship programs in the arts, humanities, science, engineering, and health fields as reported by The Center’s Top American Research Universities (TARU). A list of these faculty awards is available in the TARU’s source notes. The number reported is for the academic year that preceded the reporting year.The number of faculty awards is also a membership eligibility requirement for the Association of American Universities (AAU). A list of the 27 awards considered by the AAU is available in the AAU’s Membership Policy.

Source: TARUType: AAU, TARU


11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Iowa StateNebraska

Stony BrookPurdueKansas

UC Santa BarbaraMissouri

Georgia TechOregon

USFMichigan State

BuffaloColorado


IndianaTexas A&M

UC DavisArizonaFlorida

VirginiaOhio State

RutgersMinnesota

Penn StateUC Irvine

UT AustinPittsburgh

UNC Chapel HillUCLA

UC San DiegoIllinois, Urb-Ch

Wisconsin-MadisonWashingtonUC Berkeley

Michigan

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Faculty Awards, 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsFaculty Awards, 2008





*AAU member

51

Total Faculty Awards

USF SystemFaculty Awards

2009: 12

USF

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

AAU Mean

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsFaculty Awards, 2001 - 2008

USF

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean & FIU

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersFaculty Awards, 2001 - 2008 7 USF System & Florida Research Universities

Faculty Awards, 2001 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsFaculty Awards, 2001 - 2008

NC State

Cincinatti

USF & Illinois, Chicago

UtahVA Tech

Colorado State & UAB

Mean, ASU, Georgia

0

5

10

15

20

25

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsFaculty Awards, 2001 - 2008USF System & AAU ProspectsFaculty Awards, 2001 - 2008








NATIONAL ACADEMY MEMBERS


Definition:National Academy members reflects the number of USF faculty members who are members of a national academy as reported by TheCenter (Top American Research Universities). Membership in these organizations is reported annually: National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), or the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Academy memberships as reported by TheCenter are an eligibility measure for the Association of American Universities (AAU).

Source: TARUType: AAU, TARU


3

0 50 100 150 200 250

NebraskaUSF

BuffaloKansas

MissouriOregon

Michigan StateIowa State

IndianaStony Brook

FloridaIowa

PurdueTexas A&MOhio State

Penn StatePittsburgh

ArizonaMaryland, College Park

Georgia TechColorado

VirginiaUC Davis


RutgersUC Irvine

UC Santa BarbaraIllinois, Urb-Ch

UT AustinWisconsin-Madison

MichiganUCLA

WashingtonUC San Diego

UC Berkeley

USF System & Public AAU Institutions National Academy Members, 2008USF System & Public AAU Institutions

National Academy Members, 2008





*AAU member

52

Total National Academy Members

USF SystemNational Academy Members

2009: 3

USFFAU FIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Florida Research University PeersNational Academy Members, 2000 - 2008

&

&

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesNational Academy Members, 2000 - 2008

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

AAU Mean

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNational Academy Members, 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNational Academy Members, 2000 - 2008

USF

ASU

NC State

Georgia & Cincinnati

Illinois, Chicago

UtahVA Tech

Colorado State, UAB,

Mean

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsNational Academy Members, 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsNational Academy Members, 2000 - 2008








CITATION IMPACT


Definition:The citation impact factor is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular time period. Citations are tracked in two ways: (1)The Florida Board of Governors tracks the number of persons at each SUS institution who are listed as Highly Cited Scholars in the database maintained by ISIHighlyCited.com. The number of Highly Cited Scholars per institution is reported here.The Association of American Universities (AAU) considers citations as a membership eligibility measure. The U.S. University Science Indicators citations database provides annually updated information.

Source: Thompson ISIType: USF


6.14

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

NebraskaPurdue

MissouriGeorgia Tech

FloridaKansas

Iowa StateMichigan StateIllinois, Urb-Ch

Maryland, College ParkUSF

BuffaloUT AustinUC Davis

Ohio StatePenn State

IndianaRutgersOregon

MinnesotaIowa

Texas A&MColorado

Wisconsin-MadisonArizonaVirginia

MichiganUC Irvine

UC Santa BarbaraStony Brook

PittsburghUNC Chapel Hill

UC BerkeleyUCLA

UC San DiegoWashington

USF System & Public AAU Institutions5-Year Citation Impact, 2003-2007USF System & Public AAU Institutions

5-Year Citation Impact, 2003 - 2007





*AAU member

53

Five-Year Citation Impact Factor

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

AAU Low

Public AAU 25%

USF

Mean

Public AAU 75%

AAU High

USF System & Public AAU Institutions5-Year Citation Impact, 1981/1985 - 2003/2007

2003-2007

1981-1985

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

FAU

UCF

FIU

Mean

UF

FSU

USF

Miami

USF System & Florida Research Institutions5-Year Citation Impact, 1981/1985 - 2003/2007

2003-2007

1981-1985

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

VA TechNC StateGeorgia

Illinois, ChicagoASU

Colorado StateMeanUSFUtah

CincinnatiUAB

USF System & AAU Prospects5-Year Citation Impact, 1981/1985 - 2003/2007

2003-2007

1981-1985

Note: Calculated totals include five university systems

USF System & Public AAU Institutions5-Year Citation Impact, 1981-1985 - 2003-2007

USF System & Florida Research Universities5-Year Citation Impact, 1981-1985 - 2003-2007

USF System & AAU Prospects5-Year Citation Impact, 1981-1985 - 2003-2007








$217,000

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800

OregonKansas

Iowa StateVirginia

Michigan StateIowa

MissouriFlorida

RutgersUSF

PurdueIllinois, Urb-Ch

Ohio StateUC Santa Barbara

UT AustinMaryland, College Park

MinnesotaStony Brook

UNC Chapel HillIndianaBuffalo

UC IrvineNebraska

Texas A&MMichigan

ArizonaPittsburgh

Penn StateWisconsin-Madison

UC BerkeleyUC Davis

UCLAColorado

WashingtonGeorgia TechUC San Diego


USF System & Public AAU Institutions Total Research Expenditures by Total Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008

TOTAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES PERTENURED / TENURE TRACK FACULTY

Definition:This variable reflects the ratio of total NSF research expenditures (research expenditures resulting from all external funding sources) and total employees at an institution classified with the faculty status of tenure/tenure-track, as reported to the National Science Foundation and IPEDS respectively.

Source: NSF, IPEDSType: USF


USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Research Expenditures by Total Tenured / Tenure Track Faculty, Fall 2008






*AAU member

54

USF SystemTotal Research Expenditures per

Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty

Fall 2009: $244,000

USF

ASU

Colorado StateCincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean & NC State

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Research Expenditures by Total Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF

FAU

FIU

FSU

UCF

MiamiUF

Mean

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research Universities Total Research Expenditures by Total Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Research Expenditures by Total Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Research Expenditures by Total Tenured / Tenure Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesTotal Research Expenditures by Total Tenured / Tenure Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Research Expenditures by Total Tenured / Tenure Track Faculty (Fall), 2002 - 2008








$102

$80 $90 $100 $110 $120 $130 $140 $150

OregonUSF

Wisconsin-MadisonNebraska

Iowa StateMissouriPurdueArizonaKansasFlorida

Texas A&MWashington

IndianaUC DavisColorado

Michigan StatePittsburghOhio State

IowaIllinois, Urb-Ch

BuffaloStony Brook

MinnesotaPenn State


UC San DiegoUT Austin

Maryland, College ParkVirginiaRutgers

Georgia TechMichigan

UNC Chapel HillUC Berkeley

UCLA

Thousands

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Full Professor Average Salaries, 2008-09

FULL PROFESSOR AVERAGE SALARIES

Definition:This variable reflects the average salaries of full professors as reported in the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

Source: AAUPType: USF


USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsFull Professor Average Salaries, 2008-09





*AAU member

55

Salaries in Thousands

USF SystemFull Professor Average Salaries

2009-2010: $107,000

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA TechUAB

Mean

$70,000

$75,000

$80,000

$85,000

$90,000

$95,000

$100,000

$105,000

$110,000

$115,000

$120,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsFull Professor Average Salaries, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF

FAU

FIUFSU

UCF

Miami

UFMean

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

$110,000

$120,000

$130,000

$140,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research Universities Full Professor Average Salaries, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

$110,000

$120,000

$130,000

$140,000

$150,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsFull Professor Average Salaries, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsFull Professor Average Salaries, 2001-02 - 2008-09

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesFull Professor Average Salaries, 2001-02 - 2008-09

USF System & AAU ProspectsFull Professor Average Salaries, 2001-02 - 2008-09








$74

$50 $55 $60 $65 $70 $75 $80 $85 $90 $95 $100

OregonUSF

NebraskaMissouri

UC Santa BarbaraFlorida

Wisconsin-MadisonTexas A&M

KansasPurdueArizona

Iowa StateUC Davis

PittsburghIndiana

Ohio StateIowa

Illinois, Urb-ChUC Irvine

Penn StateUT Austin

UC San DiegoMichigan State

MinnesotaWashington

BuffaloColorado

VirginiaStony Brook

Georgia TechRutgers

UCLAMichigan


UC Berkeley

Thousands

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Associate Professor Average Salaries, 2008/09

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AVERAGE SALARIES

Definition:This variable reflects the average salaries of associate professors as reported in the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAssociate Professor Average Salaries, 2008-09





*AAU member

56


USF SystemAssociate Professor

Average Salaries

2009-2010: $77,000

USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

$75,000

$80,000

$85,000

$90,000

$95,000

$100,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAssociate Professor Average Salaries, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF

ASUColorado State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

NC State

Mean

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

$75,000

$80,000

$85,000

$90,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsAssociate Professor Average Salaries, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF

FAU

FIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

$75,000

$80,000

$85,000

$90,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research Universities AssociateProfessor Average Salaries, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAssociate Professor Average Salaries, 2001-02 - 2008-09

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesAssociate Professor Average Salaries, 2001-02 - 2008-09

USF System & AAU ProspectsAssociate Professor Average Salaries, 2001-02 - 2008-09








$63

$40 $45 $50 $55 $60 $65 $70 $75 $80 $85 $90

MissouriUSF

KansasNebraska

OregonArizona

Michigan StateFlorida

Texas A&MPittsburgh

Penn StateWisconsin-Madison

IndianaPurdue

Iowa StateStony Brook

BuffaloIowa

Ohio StateUC Santa Barbara

RutgersMinnesota

ColoradoIllinois, Urb-Ch

VirginiaUC DavisUC Irvine


UCLAGeorgia Tech

MichiganUT Austin

UC BerkeleyUNC Chapel Hill

Maryland, College Park

Thousands

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Assistant Professor Average Salaries, 2008/09

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AVERAGE SALARIES

Definition:This variable reflects the average salaries of assistant professors as reported in the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAssistant Professor Average Salaries, 2008-09





*AAU member

57


USF SystemAssistant ProfessorAverage Salaries

2009-2010: $65,600

USF

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

$75,000

$80,000

$85,000

$90,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAssistant Professor Average Salaries, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USFFAU

FIUFSU

UCF

Miami

UFMean

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

$75,000

$80,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research Universities Assistant Professor Average Salaries, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF

ASU

Colorado State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

NC State

Mean

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

$75,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsAssistant Professor Average Salaries, 2001/02 - 2008/09

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAssistant Professor Average Salaries, 2001-02 - 2008-09

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesAssistant Professor Average Salaries, 2001-02 - 2008-09

USF System & AAU ProspectsAssistant Professor Average Salaries, 2001-02 - 2008-09








RES

EAR

CH









15









15

$278,419

$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000


KansasIowa State

MissouriStony Brook

VirginiaUSF System

IowaRutgers

UC IrvineBuffalo

NebraskaMichigan State

Maryland, College ParkIndianaPurdue

UT AustinIllinois, Urb-ChGeorgia Tech

UNC Chapel HillColorado

ArizonaTexas A&M

FloridaUC Berkeley

PittsburghUC Davis

MinnesotaPenn StateOhio State

Washington UC San Diego

UCLAMichigan

Wisconsin-Madison

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Total Research Expenditures, FY2008

NSF TOTAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Definition:This measure reflects research expenditures resulting from all external funding sources (federal, state, local, business, and industry). These data are collected by the National Science Foundation. Figures reported by fiscal year (FY).

Source: NSF Expenditure SurveyType: AAU, NSF


USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNSF Total Research Expenditures, FY 2008






*AAU member

58

USF System NSF Total Research Expenditures

FY 2009: $309 millionFY 2010: $332 million (est.)

USF

FAUFIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Florida Research University PeersTotal Research Expenditures, FY 2000 - FY2008 3

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

AAU Mean

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Research Expenditures, FY 2000 - FY2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesNSF Total Research Expenditures, FY 2000 - FY 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNSF Total Research Expenditures, FY 2000 - FY 2008

USFASU

Colorado State

NC StateCincinnatiGeorgiaIllinois, Chicago

Utah

VA TechUAB

Mean

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Research Expenditures, FY2000 - FY2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsNSF Total Research Expenditures, FY 2000 - FY 2008








$169,910

$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000

OregonIowa State

MissouriStony Brook

UC Santa BarbaraKansas

NebraskaMichigan State

RutgersBuffaloPurdue

USF SystemUC Irvine

IndianaTexas A&M

FloridaVirginia


Illinois, Urb-ChUC Berkeley

UC DavisArizona

Georgia TechOhio StateUT Austin

MinnesotaUNC Chapel Hill

Penn StateColorado

PittsburghWisconsin-Madison

UCLAUC San Diego

MichiganWashington

USF System & Public AAU Institutions AAU Federal Research Expenditures, FY2008

AAU FEDERAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES


Definition:These data are collected by the National Science Foundation. This metric is defined by the AAU Membership Committee as NSF federal funding minus NSF agricultural (USDA) funding.



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAAU Federal Research Expenditures, FY 2008


USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAAU Federal Research Expenditures, FY 2008





*AAU member

59

USF System AAU Federal Research Expenditures

FY 2009: $191 millionFY 2010: $183 million (est.)

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAAU Federal Research Expenditures, FY2000 - FY2008

AAU High

AAU Low

USF

AAU Mean

Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

USF

FAU

FIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF & Florida Research University PeersAAU Federal Research Expenditures, FY2000 - FY2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesAAU Federal Research Expenditures, FY 2000 - FY 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsAAU Federal Research Expenditures, FY 2000 - FY 2008

USF

ASUColorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia


VA Tech

UAB

Mean

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & AAU ProspectsAAU Federal Research Expenditures, FY2000 - FY2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsAAU Federal Research Expenditures, FY 2000 - FY 2008








$108,508

$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000

OregonVirginia

IowaUC Santa Barbara

KansasColorado

USFIowa State

MissouriPittsburghUC Irvine

Stony BrookWashington


UT AustinBuffalo

RutgersMichigan State

NebraskaIndiana

Illinois, Urb-ChGeorgia Tech

PurdueArizona

MichiganPenn StateMinnesota

Texas A&MUC Berkeley

UC San DiegoFlorida

Ohio StateUC Davis

UCLAWisconsin-Madison

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNSF Non-Federal Research Expenditures, FY2008

NSF NON-FEDERAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Definition:These data represent the nonfederally financed R&D expenditures at universities and colleges as reported by the National Science Foundation. The AAU Membership Committee recognizes that these sources of academic research support fund high-quality research; however, since thery are generally not allocated through competitive, merit-review processes, they are considered as Phase II indicators for membership consideration. Non-federal funding sources include associations, foundations, and industry.



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNSF Non-Federal Research Expenditures, FY 2008






*AAU member

60

4

USF

FAUFIU

FSUUCF

Miami

UF

Mean

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Florida Research University PeersNSF Non-Federal Research Expenditures, FY2000 - FY2008

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNSF Non-Federal Research Expenditures, FY2000 - FY2008

Note: Virginia Tech data not consistently available for reporting

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesNSF Non-Federal Research Expenditures, FY 2000 - FY 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNSF Non-Federal Research Expenditures, FY 2000 - FY 2008

USFASU

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

UAB

Mean

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dolla

rs in

Tho

usan

ds

USF System & AAU ProspectsNSF Non-Federal Research Expenditures, FY2000 - FY2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsNSF Non-Federal Research Expenditures, FY 2000 - FY 2008








0.3709

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

NebraskaKansasOregon

MissouriBuffalo

Iowa StateUSF

Stony BrookTexas A&M

PurdueIndiana

ColoradoIowa

UC Santa BarbaraGeorgia Tech

RutgersUC Irvine


VirginiaMichigan State

ArizonaUC DavisUT Austin

Maryland, College ParkOhio StatePittsburgh

UNC Chapel HillPenn State



MichiganUC Berkeley

UCLA

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Research Performance Index (RPI) 2010

RESEARCH PERFORMANCE INDEX (RPI)

Definition:As reported in the High Impact Universities pilot study designed to benchmark the research output or performance of the world’s top univesities involving over 1,000 universities and 5,000 faculty. This variable is based on the calculation of a g-value index value representing the quality and consistency of publication or research output. This value is between 0 and 1 comprised of equal contributions from all faculties and is interpreted as an indication of the comprehensiveness or all around relative performance of a universities. The actual RPI value is an indication of performance relative to a dream team comprising the best faculties of all the universities in the world. The RPI value is calculated following a three-step process for each university (1-calculate the g-index for each faculty; 2-normalize the g-index for each faculty by that of the highest globally performing faculty; 3-average the normalized faculty indices for final value).

Source: High Impact Universities, in affiliation with the University of Western AustraliaType: USF


USF & Public AAU InstitutionsResearch Performance Index (RPI), 2010





*AAU member

61

4567

101218202631323435383941434850515256596466697485

103110115138152224260268

* data represents international ranking

*

Research Performance Impact

USF System

0.3709

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Lowest

USF

Q1

Mean

Q3

Highest

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsResearch Performance Index (RPI) 2010

0.3709

0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

FAU

FIU

UCF

Mean

FSU

Miami

USF

Florida

USF System & Florida Research Universities Research Performance Index (RPI) 2010

0.3709

0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

UABColorado State

GeorgiaVA TechNC State

MeanUSF

Illinois, ChicagoCincinnati

UtahASU

USF System & AAU ProspectsResearch Performance Index (RPI) 2010

USF & Public AAU InstitutionsResearch Performance Index (RPI), 2010

USF & Florida Research UniversitiesResearch Performance Index (RPI), 2010

USF & AAU ProspectsResearch Performance Index (RPI), 2010

50

110

113

150

299

433

485

58

63

93

105

110

134

163

168

201

258








231

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

OregonNebraska

UC Santa BarbaraStony Brook

MissouriUT Austin

KansasGeorgia Tech

USFMaryland, College Park

Iowa StateRutgers

UC IrvineBuffaloArizona

IowaMichigan State

Texas A&MPurdue

Penn StateIllinois, Urb-Ch

VirginiaMichigan

Ohio StateFlorida

MinnesotaUNC Chapel Hill

Wisconsin-MadisonUC Davis

PittsburghWashington

UCLAUC San Diego

UC Berkeley

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Postdoctoral Appointees, Fall 2008

POSTDOCTORAL APPOINTEES

AAU Phase II Indicator

Definition:The number of postdoctoral appointees per institution reported via the NSF Survey on Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering as reported by the Top American Research Universities (TARU). Postdoctoral appointees reported in the 2009 report were for Fall 2007.

Source: NSF Survey of Graduate Students & Postdoctorates in Science & EngineeringType: AAU, Carnegie, NSF, TARU


Note: Indiana and Colorado data not available for 2008.

USF & Public AAU InstitutionsPostdoctoral Appointees, Fall 2008





*AAU member

62

Total Postdoctoral Appointees

USFPostdoctoral Appointees

Fall 2009: 261

5

USF & Public AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

AAU Mean

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF & Public AAU InstitutionsPostdoctoral Appointees (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF

FAUFIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF & Florida Research University PeersPostdoctoral Appointees (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF & Florida Research UniversitiesPostdoctoral Appointees (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF & Public AAU InstitutionsPostdoctoral Appointees (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF

Arizona State


Cincinnati

U of Georgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF & AAU ProspectsPostdoctoral Appointees (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF & AAU ProspectsPostdoctoral Appointees (Fall), 2000 - 2008








112

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

UCLAIowa State

Georgia TechOregon

MissouriPurdueBuffalo

ColoradoMichigan State

VirginiaNebraska

UC Santa BarbaraIndiana

Penn StateUSF

UT AustinRutgers

UC San DiegoPittsburgh

Washington SeattleIllinois Urb-Ch

Texas A&MKansas

MichiganUNC Chapel Hill

UC IrvineIowa

Ohio StateArizona

MinnesotaWisconsin-Madison

USF System & Public AAU Institutions Nonfaculty Researchers with Doctorates, Fall 2008

NON-FACULTY RESEARCHERSWITH DOCTORATES

Definition:Non-faculty research staff include all doctoral scientists and engineers who are involved principally in research activities but are not considered either postdoctoral appointees or members of the regular faculty.

Source: WebCASPAR, NSF Survey of Graduate Students & Postdoctoral Appointees in Science & EngineeringType: AAU, Carnegie, NSF, TARU


Note: Stony Brook, UC Davis, Florida, Maryland-College Park and UC Berkeley data not available

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNonfaculty Researchers with Doctorates, Fall 2008





*AAU member

63

Total Non-Faculty Researchers with Doctorates

USF SystemNon-Faculty Researchers with Doctorates

Fall 2009: 164

112

25

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNonfaculty Researchers with Doctorates (Fall), 2000 - 2008

Note: FIU, UF data not available

Note: Stony Brook, UC Davis, Florida, Maryland-College Park and UC Berkeley data not available

Note: ASU, NC State data not available

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsNonfaculty Researchers with Doctorates (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF

Colorado State

CincinnatiGeorgia

Illinois, Chicago

Utah

Tech

UAB

Mean

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsNonfaculty Researchers with Doctorates (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsNonfaculty Researchers with Doctorates (Fall), 2000 - 2008

USF

FAU

FSU

UCF

Miami

Mean

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF & Florida Research UniversitiesNonfaculty Researchers with Doctorates (Fall), 2000 - 2008USF System & Florida Research Institutions

Nonfaculty Researchers with Doctorates (Fall), 2000 - 2008USF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE METRICS







INVENTION DISCLOSURES RECEIVED

Definition:The number of invention disclosures received in a given year as reported by the Association of University Technology Managers in the annual Licensing Survey.

Source: AUTMType: USF


139

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

OregonKansas

IowaIowa State

Michigan StateRutgersArizona


Missouri SystemUSF

Ohio StatePenn State

IndianaUT AustinNebraska

VirginiaMinnesota

Texas A&M SystemPurdue

ColoradoPittsburgh

SUNY SystemFlorida

Michigan Georgia Tech

WashingtonIllinois, Urb-Ch

Wisconsin-MadisonUC System

USF & Public AAU Institutions Invention Disclosures Received, 2008USF System & Public AAU Institutions

Invention Disclosures Received, 2008





*AAU member

64

USF System

Total Invention Disclosures

20

Note: Illinois-Chicago data missing/not available

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsInvention Disclosures Received, 2000 - 2008

USF

FAUFIU

FSU

UCFMiami

UF

Mean

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersInvention Disclosures Received, 2000 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesInvention Disclosures Received, 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsInvention Disclosures Received, 2000 - 2008

USFASU

Colorado State

NC State

CincinnatiGeorgia

UtahVA Tech

UAB

Mean

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsInvention Disclosures Received, 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsInvention Disclosures Received, 2000 - 2008








TOTAL PATENTS ISSUED

Definition:The number of U.S. patents issued during the period indicated as reported by the Association of University Technology Managers in the annual Licensing Survey.



31

0 50 100 150 200 250

KansasOregonIndianaVirginia

NebraskaOhio State

UNC Chapel HillArizona

Missouri SystemMaryland, College Park

IowaPurdue

UT AustinIowa State

ColoradoTexas A&M System

USFPittsburgh

RutgersMinnesota

Penn StateSUNY SystemGeorgia Tech

Michigan StateFlorida

Illinois, Urb-ChWashington

MichiganWisconsin-Madison

UC System

USF & Public AAU Institutions Total Patents Issued, 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Patents Issued, 2008





*AAU member

65

USF System

Total Patents Issued

USFTotal Patents Issued

2009: 66 (est.)

31

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

Mean

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Patents Issued, 2000 - 2008

USF

FAUFIU

FSU

UCF

Miami

UF

Mean

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersTotal Patents Issued, 2000 - 2008

Note: U.Illinois-Chicago data missing/not available

16 USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesTotal Patents Issued, 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Patents Issued, 2000 - 2008

USF

Arizona State

Colorado State

NC State

Cincinnati

Utah & Georgia

VA Tech

UAB

Mean

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF & AAU ProspectsTotal Patents Issued, 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Patents Issued, 2000 - 2008








TOTAL LICENSES / OPTIONS EXECUTED

Definition:The number of licenses or option agreements that were executed in the year for all technologies as reported by the Association of University Technology Managers in the annual Licensing Survey.



28

0 50 100 150 200 250

KansasMaryland, College Park

IowaOhio

Michigan StatePenn State

NebraskaUSF

IndianaArizonaOregon

Texas A&M SystemGeorgia Tech

UT AustinSUNY System

Iowa StatePittsburgh

UNC Chapel HillColorado

MinnesotaMissouri System

VirginiaIllinois, Urb-Ch

FloridaWisconsin-Madison

PurdueMichigan

RutgersUC System

Washington

USF & Public AAU Institutions Total Licenses/Options Executed, 2008USF System & Public AAU Institutions

Total Licenses/Options Executed, 2008





*AAU member

66

USF System

Total Licenses/Options Executed

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

AAU Mean

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Licenses/Options Executed, 2000 - 2008

USF

FAUFIU

FSUUCFMiami

UF

Mean

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersTotal Licenses/Options Executed, 2000 - 2008 17 USF System & Florida Research Universities

Total Licenses/Options Executed, 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsTotal Licenses/Options Executed, 2000 - 2008

USF

ASU

Colorado State

NC State

VA Tech

Georgia

Utah

CincinnatiUAB

Mean

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF & AAU ProspectsTotal Licenses/Options Executed, 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsTotal Licenses/Options Executed, 2000 - 2008

Note:Illinois, Chicago data missing/not available








121

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Kansas

Oregon

Missouri System

Colorado

USF System

Penn State

Nebraska

Ohio State


Arizona

Pittsburgh

UT Austin

Indiana

Iowa

Michigan State

UNC Chapel Hill

Michigan

Illinois, Urb-Ch

Virginia

Georgia Tech

Florida

Texas A&M System

SUNY System

Rutgers

Iowa State

Wisconsin-Madison

Minnesota

Washington Seattle

UC System

USF & Public AAU Institutions Cumulative Active Licenses, 2008

CUMULATIVE ACTIVE LICENSES

Definition:The cumulative number of actice licenses as reported by the Association of University Technology Managers in the annual Licensing Survey.



Note: Data for Purdue was not available for 2008.

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsCumulative Active Licenses, 2008





*AAU member

67

Cumulative Active Licenses

21

USFPublic AAU 25%

Public AAU 75%

AAU Low

AAU High

AAU Mean

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsCumulative Active Licenses, 2000 - 2008

USF

FAUFIU

FSUUCFMiami

UF

Mean

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersCumulative Active Licenses, 2000 - 2008

USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesCumulative Active Licenses, 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsCumulative Active Licenses, 2000 - 2008

Note:Data for Purdue was not available for 2008, in turn it was not included in summary calculations.



NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

UtahVA Tech

UABMean

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsCumulative Active Licenses, 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsCumulative Active Licenses, 2000 - 2008








$1,831

$0 $30,000 $60,000 $90,000 $120,000 $150,000

Arizona

Kansas

Penn State


USF System

Ohio State

Georgia Tech

Nebraska

UNC Chapel Hill

Purdue

Virginia

Michigan State

Indiana

Colorado

Pittsburgh

Missouri System

Oregon

Illinois, Urb-Ch

Rutgers

Iowa State

UT Austin

Texas A&M System

SUNY System

Iowa

Michigan

Florida

Wisconsin-Madison

Washington Seattle

Minnesota

UC System

Thousands

USF & Public AAU Institutions License Income Received, 2008

LICENSE INCOME RECEIVED

Definition:This revenue includes several fees, payments and royalties as reported and specified by the Association of University Technology Managers in the annual Licensing Survey.



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsLicense Income Received, 2008





*AAU member

68

License Income Received iin Thousands

Note: U.Illinois-Chicago data missing/not available

AAU High

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsLicense Income Received, 2000 - 2008

Mean ($20.9m)Public AAU 75% ($17.6m)Public AAU 25% ($2.6m)USF ($1.8m)AAU Low ($690,000)

UF ($52m)

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersLicense Income Received, 2000 - 2008

Mean ($9m)USF ($1.8m)FSU ($1.25m)Miami ($526k)UCF ($327k)FAU ($199k)FIU ($9k)

18 USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesLicense Income Received, 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsLicense Income Received, 2000 - 2008


NC StateCincinnati

GeorgiaUtah

VA Tech

UABMean

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF & AAU ProspectsLicense Income Received, 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsLicense Income Received, 2000 - 2008








STARTUPS INITIATED

Definition:The number of new companies initiated in a given year as reported by the Association of University Technology Managers in the annual Licensing Survey.



USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsStartups Initiated, 2008

5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Iowa

Oregon

Penn State

Texas A&M System

Minnesota

Indiana

Iowa State

Rutgers

Kansas

Virginia

Michigan State


Nebraska

Pittsburgh

Ohio Stat

UNC Chapel Hill

USF

Arizona

Missouri System

Wisconsin-Madison

Georgia Tech

Washington

SUNY System

UT Austin

Illinois, Urb-Ch

Purdue

Colorado

Michigan

Florida

UC System

USF & Public AAU Institutions Startups Initiated, 2008





*AAU member

69

Number of Startups Initiated

USF System

USF & NC State

Cincinnati

Georgia

Utah

VA Tech, Colorado State

UAB & ASU

Mean

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF & AAU ProspectsStartups Initiated, 2000 - 2008

AAU High

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsStartups Initiated, 2000 - 2008

Public AAU 75%Mean USFPublic AAU 20%AAU Low

USF

FSU

UCF

UF

Mean

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USF System & Florida Research University PeersStartups Initiated, 2000 - 2008

FAUMiamiFIU

19 USF System & Florida Research UniversitiesStartups Initiated, 2000 - 2008

USF System & Public AAU InstitutionsStartups Initiated, 2000 - 2008

USF System & AAU ProspectsStartups Initiated, 2000 - 2008









aau performance update

Documents

history of usf

usf polytechnic

usf sarasotamanatee

south florida usf

usf system board of

performance update overview

interim performance

performance metrics