report 0705

7/28/2019 Report 0705

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/report-0705 1/402

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Strategic Assessment

DRAFT Final Report

Submitted to

J. Milton Adams

Senior Vice Provost

April 30, 2013

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment

1

Art & Science Group

Table of Contents

Part 1: Executive Summary page 2

Part 2: Strategic Assessment page 5

I. The Project page 5

II. The Higher Education Environment page 7

III. The University of Virginia’s Current Position page 14

IV. Implications for Strategy page 44

Part 3: Appendices page 52

I. Comparison School Study Final Report

II. Summary of Internal Interviews

a. List of Internal Interviewees

III. Comparative Peer Data Spreadsheet - please see attached .zip file

a. Comparative Peer Data Sources

IV. University of Virginia Positioning & Pricing Study Key Findings

a. University of Virginia Attributes & SDM Variables

b. Positioning & Pricing Research Report

V. Financial Aid Optimization Report

VI. Comparative Financial Aid Benchmarking Report

7/28/2019 Report 0705



2

Art & Science Group

Part 1: Executive Summary

In concert with a strategic planning process at the University of Virginia, Art & Science Group

was tasked with conducting an assessment of UVA relative to its institutional goals and the

environment in which it operates. Our work comprised an examination of internal and

external data and documents; interviews with UVA deans, department chairs, senior

administrators, and board members; examination of strategic priorities at nine comparison

universities selected by UVA; and interviews with higher education thought-leaders and

senior officials at the comparison universities.

These distinguished leaders and observers consistently characterized the present as an

“inflection point” for higher education. A leading public university, in particular, confronts “a

broken business plan,” finding every one of its revenue sources stressed; fierce competition

for outstanding faculty against better-funded private institutions at a time of mass

retirements; technological innovations that may be leading to a revolution in how colleges

teach and deliver education, juxtaposed with a greater-than-ever need for top students to

gain what only a rich residential education can provide; heightened expectations to

innovate, help solve social and environmental problems, and operate more efficiently, with

measurable results; flawed governance; and the real possibility that its fortunes could rise orfall sharply, depending on the choices that it makes.

In this environment, even a prestigious university is routinely advised to build on its

comparative advantages, not to imagine that it can do everything well or thrive where

competitors already have built a significant lead. The University of Virginia is almost

uniformly understood to begin with a true and singular advantage: a superior,

extraordinarily valued undergraduate experience in which many highly engaged students

take unusual responsibility for their educational experience. UVA is seen to havecomplementary advantages as well: a distinctive shared culture among faculty and

students, leadership in areas of the humanities and social sciences, outstanding

professional schools which also notably value the student experience, and an unusual mid-

size that creates opportunity for exceptional teaching and learning.

7/28/2019 Report 0705



3

Art & Science Group

The criticisms leveled most frequently at UVA are that it has been comparatively complacent,

slow to insist on evidenced-based strategies, and indecisive about its direction at a time

when other universities, both leading and lower-tier, have aggressively pursued every facet

of institution-building. Research funding has not kept pace, faculty quality is seen as less

strong than it should be, political pressures to keep tuition low have meant tuition revenues

have not been optimized, and fundraising, while robust, has left strategic priorities

unaddressed.

Strategic planning presents an opportunity for decisiveness, and this round of planning

comes at an opportune time. UVA’s core strengths and distinctions favor it in a higher

education environment that rewards outstanding student experiences, already-established

research and scholarly strengths on which to build, and clear differentiation. And, if for

reasons it would not have wished, UVA finds itself in the national spotlight, creating an

unparalleled opportunity to assert in a very public way what it stands for and where it is

headed. Observers see UVA’s problems as both unique and representative of the problems

faced by many universities, and both internal and external constituents are anxious to see

how UVA responds, including in this strategic planning effort.

Rather than emulate other research universities, our assessment suggests that UVA would

gain greatest comparative advantage through a strategy rooted in a bold recommitment to

its counter-trending greatness as a collegiate research university—focused on students’

academic-residential experience, extensive interaction with teaching faculty, and

development of leadership qualities, skills, and motivation. UVA would do well to protect its

core advantage vigorously and indeed to invest further in aspects of the residential

experience to remain competitive and to ensure that a high percentage of UVA students

partake in the full experience. In particular, UVA could claim leadership development—

notably, the preparation of imaginative, scientifically literate, globally educated, public-

service-oriented future leaders—as a major institutional focus and reason for continuedinvestment in residential education.

UVA would also do well to embrace and lead the significant changes happening in pedagogy

and the student experience—in ways that build on UVA’s distinctive institutional values and

strengths across multiple schools. As it joins many others in considering the means of

7/28/2019 Report 0705



4

Art & Science Group

educational delivery, UVA should lead in rethinking the content of an undergraduate

education today and the path through advising, experiential learning, and other forms of

engagement that students take to develop “useful knowledge” for this era.

UVA will be best-served to position itself as a research institution but not aspire to become aresearch-driven institution. This will mean reinvesting in UVA’s historic areas of leadership

in the humanities and social sciences, while also sustaining and developing strong offerings

in carefully selected, highly focused areas in the sciences. It will also mean more vigorous

interdisciplinary collaboration across departments, programs, and schools. It will mean

continuing to focus graduate and professional school resources even further on programs of

national prominence.

Many in the University of Virginia community see UVA as facing an inflection point of its own.They admit to being deflated by cuts and controversy yet at the same time ready, behind

decisive leadership and strategic investment, to release enormous pent-up energy for

revitalization and renewal. UVA can thrive by making clear, strategic choices and reasserting

a proud, vital, accountable culture and commitment to academic leadership.

7/28/2019 Report 0705



5

Art & Science Group

Part 2: Strategic Assessment

I. THE PROJECT

In concert with a strategic planning process at the University of Virginia, we were tasked with

assessing UVA’s competitive position relative to:

Its institutional purposes and goals

The environment in which it operates

Our work steps included:

Examination of internal and external data and documents

Interviews with UVA deans, department chairs, senior administrators, and board

members (total of 90-95)

Examination of strategic priorities at nine comparison universities:

o Duke University

o New York University

o University of California, Berkeley

o University of California, Los Angeles

o University of Chicago

o University of Michigan

o University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

o University of Southern California

o Vanderbilt University

Interviews with higher education thought-leaders and senior officials at the

comparison universities. We have completed one-on-one interviews with

approximately 30 individuals:

7/28/2019 Report 0705



6

Art & Science Group

Thought Leaders

Tony Carnevale

Director, Center on Education and the Workforce

Georgetown University

Ralph J. Cicerone

President, National Academy of Sciences

Chair, National Research Council

National Academy of Sciences

Jonathan R. Cole

Provost and Dean of the Faculties, Emeritus

Columbia University

Scott Cowen

President, Tulane University

James J. Duderstadt

President Emeritus & University Professor of Science

and Engineering

University of Michigan

Ronald G. Ehrenberg

Director of the Cornell Higher Education Research

Institute

Cornell University

Don Finley

President, Virginia Business Higher Education Council

Andrew Hamilton

Vice-Chancellor, University of Oxford

Darrell G. Kirch, M.D.

President and CEO, Association of American Medical

Colleges

Daphne Koller

Founder of Coursera

Stanford University

Earl Lewis

President, Andrew Mellon Foundation

Bernie Machen

President, University of Florida

Bill Massey

President, The Jackson Hole Higher Education Group

M. Peter McPherson

President, Association of Public and Land-Grant

Universities

Hunter R. Rawlings, III

President, Association of American Universities

Thomas Sullivan

President, University of Vermont

Richard Vedder

Professor Emeritus, Ohio University

Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Charles M. Vest

President, National Academy of Engineering

Mark Yudof

President, University of California

7/28/2019 Report 0705



7

Art & Science Group

Comparison Institutions

Mary Sue Coleman

President, University of Michigan

Philip J. Hanlon

Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic

Affairs


Michael Hout

Natalie Cohen Professor of Sociology & Demography

& Director, Berkeley Population Center

University of California- Berkeley

Peter Lange

Provost, Duke University

Richard McCarty

Provost, Vanderbilt University

Terrence J. McDonald

Dean, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts


Holden Thorp

Chancellor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Scott Waugh

Executive Vice Chancellor & Provost

UCLA

Universities, notably public flagship institutions, operate today in an especially demanding

environment, so we begin by looking at these external factors affecting UVA: section II,

below, highlights some of these key factors. In Section III we describe UVA’s current

position. In Section IV we give what we see as the implications of UVA’s position for its

strategic choices.

Unless indicated otherwise, quotes in the document are from the thought-leader and

comparison-school interviews.

7/28/2019 Report 0705



8

Art & Science Group

II. THE HIGHER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

Financial Constraints and Competition

Universities face decreases, limitations, and highly aggressive competition for each of their

major funding sources (federal, state, private support, tuition)

“All of higher education has a broken business plan.”

The tuition/financial aid model is vulnerable and poorly understood

“We have a breakdown in the compact between higher education and society in

terms of how we innovate and advance and who will pay for it.”

“The public model is broken, and given the pressures on state resources it won’t be

fixed. UVA must try to figure out way to privatize itself, or to further privatize key parts

of the University. It must do more and more to be independent of the state.”

“Universities should be more aggressive in creating innovative ideas – sell or

privatize ancillary operations. UVA has to be more to be sensitive to these

opportunities. They should ask: why are we in the housing business? Lease out the

dorms, set standards for the developer to renovate and build housing, and put the

gains into renovations of existing facilities that are out of date. In other words, it has

to think strategically about how to leverage its assets. Consider moving employee

pensions outside the state retirement system if that is an issue. Consider and

implement differential tuition pricing and market inputs to pricing, college by college,

program by program, school by school. Charge more for the highest demand most

selective programs.”

“I think UVA should be the first top public university in line to be privatized. The state

is a minority shareholder, and a small one at that. Why should it have the kind of

control it does?”

7/28/2019 Report 0705



9

Art & Science Group

Universities will continue to compete aggressively for the very top faculty candidates, of

whom there are far fewer than there are universities pursuing them, and public universities

are at a financial disadvantage

From the annual report of the American Association of University Professors released

in early April: The average salary across all faculty ranks at private colleges was

$99,771, an increase of 2.4 percent from the previous academic year. At public

colleges, the average salary was $80,578, a 1.3-percent increase. The public-sector

disadvantage is greatest for full professors who earn 35 percent less at public

doctoral universities than do their peers at private doctoral institutions.

“The only strategic planning that universities do that’s really strategic is recruiting

faculty. That will shape where you’re going for 30 to 40 years.”

“What new faculty look for are the colleagues – strength of faculty already there, the

graduate programs, and the depth. UVA is vulnerable here. The most promising

faculty will look at UVA and find it wanting.”

“If you focus on what faculty care about – what resources are available, salaries,

research support, conferences, etc., the very best senior faculty are running away

from public universities. So the question is not only about attracting the best, but

whether UVA can hold onto its best.”

“Key is to start hiring right now. They can’t start soon enough – most publics are not

in a hiring mode, so there’s advantage to leaping ahead. This is a real opportunity.

They’ll get the pick of the best young people out there. They should borrow to do it.”

“There is a high level of concurrence in what constitutes a promising young scholar.

We’re competing for the same few people. It’s a Darwinian process. The challenge is

for a university to present opportunities to attract the best people in the market—the

one who will number one in her cohort—year in and year out. It’s a hard ideal to hit.

A university must keep its standards for what’s acceptable in faculty hires at the

highest level.”

“You need some super-competent people. Above average is not enough.”

7/28/2019 Report 0705



10

Art & Science Group

“It’s just a resource question when they’re being squeezed on both sides by the

state. So they’ll have to follow a strategy that focuses on pursuing young faculty who

are hidden stars. For example, they’ll have to go after people with didn’t quite make it

into National Academy of Sciences, or who just missed a major NIH or DOD grant, but

whose work is worthy and promising. And they won’t able to compete with the

leading publics let alone the privates. They’ll have to outwork and outthink richer

competitors – they’ll have to be very bold and willing to takes risks, and this will

require a Board that will stand behind them.”

“I wouldn’t join the faculty there today – there’s just too much uncertainty. It doesn’t

project stability to me, and the current situation probably leaves some doubts in the

minds of the best faculty.”

7/28/2019 Report 0705



11

Art & Science Group

Technology and Residential Learning

Technological and other innovations and conditions are initiating a great deal of

experimentation which may lead to a revolution in how colleges teach and deliver education

“For almost all universities, we are at an inflection point. The question for leaders is

how many experiments to run at once.”

“We’ve been in this model where the least trained members of the community—TA’s—

are doing the most important and difficult part of teaching: really engaging kids. The

approach to teaching has resembled taking the Hippocratic Oath: Do no harm. The

teaching model is backwards and not scalable. Now we’re applying learning science

and putting real R&D into education.”

“I wouldn’t invest a lot on money in MOOCs. There’s too much uncertainty about

where those technologies will end up. But I would work with Chapel Hill, Maryland,

etc. Meet and talk with everyone who has a platform to determine what model works

for then – and what can be monetized. Here UVA’s smaller size might be a real

advantage – it should make them more nimble.”

“MOOC’s are not the silver bullets – it’s one form of democratization of higher

education, but there’s no substitute for interactions among students. Technology

can flip the way we use information and then faculty use the information to solve

problems with students. But the days of the large lecture in traditional form are over.

Faculty will focus students learning – problem solving sessions. Bricks and mortar

are not dead. Terry Sullivan was right in moving cautiously on the technology front.

There’s no ideal for cost model and no sustainable economic model – yet. It’s not

even clear that these technologies can save money if they still provide a high-quality

experience. And we don’t know yet if students are leaning or how they’re learning

over time.”

It appears there will increasingly be a bifurcation between heavily residential versus

heavily online institutions

o “For the best students and those with the greatest difficulties, face to face will

remain essential. We must engage them, challenge them.”

7/28/2019 Report 0705



12

Art & Science Group

o “If professors can be replaced by a computer screen, they should be. If you’re

not offering more than a computer, then you deserve to be replaced. I’m

thrilled by online developments. It forces us to up our game.”

A residential experience is, if anything, becoming even more important for top

students who must be prepared to assume demanding positions of leadership

o “Current 18-year-olds will live into their 100’s. They will work into their 80’s.

Higher education will be increasingly important to fill those many years.”

Elite universities are making significant new investments in their residential

experiences, emphasizing the education they provide outside the classroom and

outside of coursework

“The big challenges will be in using Internet access and social media to create

blended classroom experiences tailored to the learning habits of this generation of

students. But there must be no sacrifice of quality –maintaining closely engaged

faculty experience in the classroom is critical. But good uses of the technology can

help take the routine, grunt work, out of teaching and learning but also enhance the

traditional classroom experience.”

“Technolog y can be a powerful pathway to accomplish multiple things – but you have

to understand each pathway, how you achieve it, how you monetize it, and make it

sustainable. You also have to determine what works for each market. One method

does not fit all. But focus on the core audience first – undergraduates then expand

from there.”

7/28/2019 Report 0705



13

Art & Science Group

Expectations

Universities are expected to become more efficient—at the same time they are

expected to become more innovative

Graduating students are expected to have practical work skills—at the same time

they are expected to be more imaginative and adaptable

Universities are increasingly expected to contribute directly to the amelioration of

complex, pressing societal and environmental issues

Boards and other constituents call for bold responses to these challenges, generally

focused on the business aspects of the university enterprise.

o “Measurement is a leadership task which goes against the grain of faculty

tradition. Medicine faced it; from the era of doctors saying "we have mystical

powers" to now, where there is a realistic model in place for measuring

outcomes.”

o “If we want to be a great university, what will it take to get us there? Leading

with an austerity argument will be a disaster. We have to lead instead with

enhancing learning and introducing assessment.”

Universities remain the institution in the society expected to act as a guardian and

champion of free and scientific inquiry—providing expertise, asserting the importance

of evidence-based policies and decisions, and protecting the right to divergent

viewpoints and dissent.

7/28/2019 Report 0705



14

Art & Science Group

Urgency of Differentiation

Each university must increasingly play to its comparative advantages in order to be

competitive for funds from any of its major sources

Institutions that are not already among the leading research-driven universities are

likely to be ill-served by aspiring to compete for funds or prestige by copying that

model

“Don’t go into areas you’re not already in. Period.”

Universities with strong market appeal for their residential education experience

should protect that advantage

“UVA is sitting on a pedestal, and the strength of the brand opens many opportunities

that would not be available to lesser places. Undergraduate education is where I

think they should focus. They have to capitalize on existing strengths.”

o From the SERU (Student Experience at a Research University) survey : UVA

students rate UVA as having a significantly greater commitment to

undergraduate education than its peers. (Average score for UVA was 5.14,

compared to the average for peers of 4.63, on a 6-point scale.)

Threat to Competitive Standing

In light of all of above, especially the financial and technological factors, even universities

that are near the top in prestige are vulnerable to significant declines in standing.

“Unlike anything we have seen in decades, there will be real shifts in the higher

education hierarchy in this era. The University of Virginia is not safe.”

o “While UVA’s endowment is relatively strong regarding other publics, next to

major high-endowment privates it’s in a very weak position. It’s very easy tocompromise excellence but once it’s lost it’s much more costly and difficult to

rebuild and sustain it—that’s the threat to UVA as the state simultaneously

cuts support and constrains tuition revenue. It’s being squeezed on both

sides and the consequences are not good.”

7/28/2019 Report 0705



15

Art & Science Group

III. The University of Virginia’s Current Position

True Distinction

UVA is almost universally seen as special, exceptional (“the highest graduation rate of a

public”), noted for having enduring and valued traditions (“It’s like Jefferson died yesterday.

When I was there I saw a lot of bow ties and those bathroom-less buildings everyone

competes to be in.”), having an aura—which, were it to lose that and become “merely

pedestrian,” would be dealt a devastating blow from which it likely could not recover

“They have done undergraduate education better than we have. They’re the best at

it of any of us.” “They have a distinctive undergraduate college. There’s a lot of pride in it. Do they

use technology to enhance that experience? Like other publics, do they load more

students on the same faculty base? They have a choice—which not many publics

have. They are different in this regard even from other elite publics.”

“From my point of view UVA represents the ideal of a university. Everyone thinks of

UVA as a great university – it’s an icon – even though by the most objective

measures it’s really not.”

“There’s this big buzz about efficiency. It’s hard to think of UVA—of what it does well—

as ‘efficient.’”

Leader of one of the comparison universities: “Everything we’ve done that’s

propelled us forward in undergraduate education in the last decade—doubling

research experiences, internships, senior capstone experiences—has been, quote

unquote, inefficient. But they’ve also been effective and differentiating.”

“If there ever was a ‘public Ivy’ it is UVA. This quality will be an advantage in

marketing, development, etc. and perhaps even state support. This is why Virginia

should play to its strengths.”

“It’s interesting to look at, say, Maryland versus Virginia. Thirty years ago, Maryland

was inferior. Not anymore. If you were having dinner at the country club, you’d be

7/28/2019 Report 0705



16

Art & Science Group

more pleased to say UVA than Maryland. But that’s historical, not current reality.

And Virginia Tech is more of an academic threat than UVA realizes.”

“One of the problems is that UVA is inherently an aristocratic school. It’s

fundamentally a residential place and residential experience. This is a real

marketing advantage. But the board may not fully understand the implications of this.

You have to be careful to avoid going too aggressively with online education and

other things that would take the university off on a tangent away from its core

mission and strength.”

“I understand the aura—it’s a very good place for students—but it’s not a powerhouse

research university.”

“Were it to lose that aura, it would be just like any other public university.”

UVA continues to hold its place as a top-ranked public institution.

In looking at the US News & World Report rankings over the past ten years for top

public national universities (removing all private institutions), UVA has held steady at

the second position. In 2004, UVA shared the top spot with UC: Berkeley, but for the

past nine years UVA has been ranked as the second top public.

o UVA’s scores on each of the components that make up the ranking have

remained steady or improved over the past ten years. Only alumni giving rate

has dropped in ten years, from 27% in 2004 to 22% in 2013.

UC: Berkeley has remained ranked as the top public national university for the past

ten years. UCLA has moved up recently – from fourth to now sharing the second

position with UVA for the past four years. Michigan’s ranking has been falling in the

past few years, and now sits at fourth. UNC has remained as the fifth best public for

the past ten years.

o In comparing UVA’s ranking factors vs. UC Berkeley’s, there are some areas in

which improvement might help close the gap between the two schools.

Berkeley has an advantage in academic reputation and student quality.

Berkeley’s median SAT score is consistently 20-30 points higher and top 10%

percentage is consistently 8-10 percentage points higher than UVA. Also,

7/28/2019 Report 0705



17

Art & Science Group

Berkeley is much more selective with acceptance rates 10-11 percentage

points lower than UVA.

o UCLA has improved in ranking due to consistently increasing their graduation

rate from 85% in 2004 to 90% in 2013 and regularly outperforming their

predicted graduation rate. The median SAT score has also shown consistent

improvements and is now up almost 50 points from ten years ago. Compared

to UVA, UCLA has a higher percentage of students in the top ten percent of

their class and is more selective.

o Michigan has been slowly declining in undergraduate rank despite an

improved graduation rate, increased student quality, and becoming more

selective. It seems that Michigan’s fall in rank is due to institutions near them

making larger strides. Compared to UVA, Michigan has a slight edge inacademic reputation, which accounts for the largest percentage of the US

News ranking. UVA also benefits in being more selective and having a higher

alumni giving rate than Michigan.

UVA Freshmen rate the importance of rankings in national magazines

much higher than freshmen at other large publics, including those at more

selective universities. (2010 CIRP Freshmen Survey )

7/28/2019 Report 0705



18

Art & Science Group

US News 2013 Best National Universities Rankings Among Publics

School Rank

Public

Rank Score

UG

Academic

Reputation

Index

Average

freshman

retention

rate

Predicted

Grad Rate

Actual

Grad Rate

Grad

Performance

% of classes

under 20

% of classes

50 or more

University of California: Berkeley 21 1 79 93 97% 90% 90% - 64% 14%

University of Virginia 24 2 77 87 97% 90% 94% +4% 53% 15%

University of California: Los Angeles 24 2 77 86 97% 87% 90% +3% 51% 22%

University of Michigan 29 4 74 88 96% 89% 90% +1% 48% 17%

University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 30 5 73 85 97% 85% 90% +5% 33% 13%

School Rank

Public

Rank

Student/

faculty

ratio

% of faculty

who are full-

time

SAT/ACT

25th

percentile

SAT/ACT

75th

percentile

SAT/ACT

Median

Freshmen in

top 10% of HS

class Accept rate

Average

alumni giving

rate

University of California: Berkeley 21 1 17/1 89% 1250 1490 1370 98% 22% 12%

University of Virginia 24 2 16/1 98% 1240 1460 1350 91% 33% 22%

University of California: Los Angeles 24 2 17/1 91% 1180 1440 1310 97% 25% 13%

University of Michigan 29 4 16/1 93% 28 32 30 95% 41% 17%

University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 30 5 14/1 97% 1200 1400 1300 79% 31% 22%

7/28/2019 Report 0705



19

Art & Science Group

From the comprehensive study of UVA’s prospective-student market conducted by Art &

Science Group in the 2011-2012 academic year: In the prospective-student market, UVA

holds a highly distinctive, strong, but not commanding position. There are many very goodstudents who want to come to UVA; however, there is not the line-without-end of outstanding

students that some people imagine there to be.

Students who choose to apply and enroll rate it very highly (8.1 and 9.0 on a 10-

point scale, respectively)

o Notably on attributes including student honor code, beautiful campus,

history and tradition

No in-state institutions represent significant competitive threats

UVA could raise price significantly in-state and moderately out-of-state without

losing market share

If UVA were to decrease financial aid significantly, as some have suggested, it

would experience significant declines in the quality and diversity of its

matriculating students, especially from out of state

UVA does not stand out from its competition on the attributes that are most

important in students’ choices:

o strong program in the student’s expected field of study

o outstanding students

o advising

o exceptional faculty

UVA also lags on other attributes that drive students’ perceptions of quality:

o strong science and engineering programs

o job placement

o career counseling

Higher-ability admitted students rate UVA significantly lower than do other

prospects

Competition is stiff: 2/3 of out-of-state admit-declines plan to attend top-25

institutions

7/28/2019 Report 0705



20

Art & Science Group

Many non-applicants and even admit-declines are turned off by their visit to UVA

Grounds

o Half of non-applicants who visited UVA became less interested

UVA’s cultural identity is unusually well-defined and polarizing. It is decidedly

desirable to some and undesirable to many.

UVA is perceived by prospects to be notably less welcoming than competitors

o a decisive factor

o even applicants and enrolling students concur

It is also seen as more elitist, preppy, and homogenous than the competition

The effects of UVA’s perceived culture on students’ choices are the strongest we

have ever seen as decisive as attributes such as student and faculty quality – a

first in our experience

Of the initiatives tested, UVA could have the greatest positive effect on

applications and matriculations by investing in faculty-student relationships—in

and beyond the classroom

o This would have a strong effect on desirable cohorts: +17% yield rate if

emphasized, -21% if not emphasized for out-of-state admitted students

“Higher education, especially the elites, needs to reinvent admissions. We need

more quirky students and an intellectual and cultural mash-up. That’s whatstimulates inventiveness, entrepreneurship, creativity. My sense is that UVA’s

students are a rather homogeneous lot. That needs to change.”

“It’s clear to me that constraints on the number of out-of-state students have to

be lifted especially since the political forces resist a market driven pricing

strategy. It’s quite obvious that the University and the state need more out of

state students to pay the bills, and it’s foolish not to act on that.”

According to UVA’s First and Fourth Year Survey from 2009, students in their fourth year

have shown large improvements in key skills and proficiencies. Across every skill comparing

fourth-year students currently and to when they started at UVA, there is at least a 20% bump

in students who feel they are ‘excellent’ at the particular skills.

7/28/2019 Report 0705



21

Art & Science Group

Some of the skills where students report the largest amount of excellence in their

fourth year include ‘the ability to get along with and appreciate people of different

races, cultures, countries, and religions’ (71%); ‘the ability to think critically and

analytically’ (64%); and ‘the ability to acquire new skills and knowledge on your own’

(64%).

The skills showing the biggest improvement in excellence since their first year include

‘the ability to judge the value of information based on the soundness of sources,

methods, and reasoning’ (60%, up from 17%); the ability to acquire new skills and

knowledge on your own’ (64%, up from 22%); and the ability to work as a member of

a team (62%, up from 23%).

It is interesting to note that while fourth-year students feel strongly that they have

excelled in the ability to get along with and appreciate people of many different

backgrounds, they also are less likely than first-year students to report that UVA is

welcoming to key minority groups.

The view from within UVA: A sizable number of UVA undergraduates are exceptionally

engaged in and take unusual responsibility for their educational experience, which is

seen to lead to exceptional outcomes in the careers and contributions of graduates

o Questions remain about what percentage of its students partake in this

exceptional experience

o Thought-leader: “The residential college initiative at UVA seems to havestalled. The value proposition now isn’t how well classes are delivered on

campus. It’s what happens beyond class. That’s the critical part of why

students and parents will choose a college. Without knowing what students

are getting from these experiences you can’t know the people you’re trying to

change. Students change not in the classroom but outside it.”

First-year Fourth-year

Women 8.8 8.3

LGBT individuals 6.9 6.2

Racial and ethnic minorities 7.7 7.0

UVA climate and welcoming

(1=least welcoming,10=most welcoming)

7/28/2019 Report 0705



22

Art & Science Group

o From the SERU (Student Experience at a Research University) survey : 50% of

4th-year UVA students completed a significant research project as part of their

undergraduate program, and 66% completed or plan to complete an

internship in their 4 years at UVA. Just over 80% of those who completed an

internship arranged the internship on their own and without significant help

from the university, school, or department.

From the NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) survey : we

see similar numbers as above, and additionally note that UVA students

closely match the norms at other research universities on high-impact

practices and participation by students.

o From NSSE: Students at UVA report spending more time participating in co-

curricular activities than the national average. First-year students at UVAspend about 5.5 hours participating in co-curricular activities, compared to

the national average of about 2 hours. Seniors at UVA spend about 6 hours

participating in co-curricular activities compared to the national average of

about 1.5.

o We also see in NSSE that UVA students spend more time per week preparing

for class than do students nationally. First-year students spend about 15.5

hours preparing while nationally students spend about 12.5 hours, and

seniors at UVA spend about 14 hours while seniors nationally spend about 13

hours preparing for class.

o From NSSE: Students reported significantly higher than national average the

perception that UVA emphasizes spending significant amounts of time

studying and on academic work (on a scale of 1-4, 3.41/3.42 compared to

national 3.19/3.17), but did not diverge significantly from the perception of

providing support needed for academic success (3.10/2.96 to national

3.12/2.96).o UVA Freshmen take their education seriously: They report that they fail to

complete homework on time less frequently, asked a teacher for advice after

class more frequently, fall asleep in class less frequently, were a guest in a

teacher’s home more frequently than freshmen at other large publics,

including those more selective universities. (2010 CIRP Freshmen Survey )

7/28/2019 Report 0705



23

Art & Science Group

o While we see in SERU that students are quite satisfied with the quality of and

access to faculty, in NSSE students cite a lower satisfaction with their

relationships with faculty.

From SERU: nearly all UVA students are very satisfied with the quality

of faculty instruction (4.97 rating out of 5) and rate access to faculty

outside of class very highly (4.86).

From NSSE: UVA students rated their relationships with faculty

members slightly below other Southeast Publics and further below the

NSSE national average.

On a scale of 1-7, UVA first-year students rated it 5.15 and

seniors rated it 5.31, compared to Southeast Publics averagesof 5.20/5.43 (first-year/seniors) and the NSSE national average

of 5.29/ 5.46.

From NSSE: Students generally reported lower interaction with faculty

than the national average (discussing grades/assignments, talking

about career plans, discussing ideas from readings or classes with

faculty, receiving prompt feedback, working together on non-

coursework projects, and even “Worked harder than you thought you

could to meet and instructor’s standards or expectations”.)

According to the First and Fourth Year Survey , fourth-year students are

more likely to interact with faculty outside of the classroom. About

30% of fourth-year students interact with faculty outside of classroom

at least once per week, while only 16% of first-year students interact

with faculty outside of classroom. Although first-year students are

slightly more likely to use faculty office hours than fourth-year

students, fourth-year students are far more likely to interact with

faculty for lunch/dinner/coffee, in co-curricular activities, and in other

situations.

7/28/2019 Report 0705



24

Art & Science Group

Other possible risks for UVA:

From NSSE: Students, particularly first years, ranked the quality of academic

advising received at UVA slightly lower than the national average. On a scale of 1-4,

first year students at UVA rate the quality of academic advising 2.9 compared to a

3.1 rating for first-year students nationally. Seniors at UVA rate advising at 2.8

compared to seniors nationally at 2.9.

From NSSE : UVA students report a lower perception of the institution’s contribution

to their ability to use computing and information technology than the national

average (3.03 vs. 3.20 among seniors on a scale from 1-4).

Most students are counting on the continued prestige of UVA more than specific

skills they might gain.

o From SERU: Students at UVA cited the most important aspects of a research

university, on a 5-point scale, as “The prestige of this campus when you apply

for a job” (4.8) and “The prestige of this campus when you apply to grad

school” (4.57). These aspects were more important than aspects that pointed

to “practical work skills” or being “imaginative and adaptable”, such as “Being

able to attend plays, concerts, lectures, and other cultural events” (4.11),

“Having access to a world-class library collection” (4.16), “Learning research

methods” (3.8), “Pursuing your own research” (3.41), and “Assisting faculty

members in their research, for pay or as a volunteer” (3.29). While this is notunique among UVA’s closest public peers, UVA students found attending

plays, concerts, lectures, and other culture events significantly more

important than did their peers, and research-related items significantly less

important than did their peers.

Faculty interaction outside of classroom


Office hours 93% 90%

Lunch/dinner/coffee 11% 24%

Co-curricular activities 8% 20%

Other 9% 19%

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705



26

Art & Science Group

Law: Over the past seven years UVA has moved from a low of 10th to a high of 7th in

the current rankings. While all schools have experienced a decrease in calculated

scores to rank them, this has not hurt UVA ’s law rankings.

In looking at trend data for the law school rankings of similarly ranked schools, it

appears that UVA has some ranking criteria where improvements could lead to

continued climbing of the ranks.

o University of Virginia’s nearest ranked competitors, New York University (6th)

and University of Pennsylvania (also 7th), have remained fairly steady over the

last 5 years.

o UVA could help themselves in jumping over NYU and spacing themselves from

Penn by improving student quality in terms of both undergraduate GPA and

LSAT scores. Currently, NYU has an edge on UVA in LSAT scores and Penn has

a slightly higher median undergraduate GPA. UVA is also lagging behind NYU

and Penn in student/faculty ratio.

o The factors where UVA has consistently succeeded compared to their nearest

competitors are in selectivity and employment placement. NYU and Penn

have had fairly noticeable decline in placement of jobs at graduation and 9

months out, but UVA has remained fairly stable.

o University of Chicago has moved up in rank from 7 th in 2009 to 4th in the most

recent year of ranking by increasing student quality, in terms of

undergraduate GPA, and improving the student/faculty ratio. University of

Chicago’s growth in the rankings is somewhat surprising as they have become

slightly less selective in the past five years and have had a noticeable decline

in employment placement.

o The only law school with an evident decline in law school ranking over the

past several years is UC: Berkeley, currently ranked 9th, from as highly ranked

as 6th. The ranking factors that have most hurt UC: Berkeley are a steady

decline in peer and lawyer/judge assessments and a marked drop in

employment placement in the most recent year.

7/28/2019 Report 0705



27

Art & Science Group

US News & World Report 2014 Law School Ranking

School Rank Score

Peer

Assessment

(out of 5.0)

Lawyer/

Judge

Assessment

(out of 5.0)

Median UG

GPA

Median

LSAT Accept rate

Yale University 1 100 4.8 4.7 3.91 173 8%

Harvard University 2 95 4.8 4.8 3.86 173 16%

Stanford University 2 95 4.8 4.7 3.86 171 10%

University of Chicago 4 92 4.6 4.7 3.81 170 20%

Columbia University 4 92 4.6 4.6 3.70 172 18%

New York University 6 89 4.4 4.6 3.69 171 28%

University of Virginia 7 85 4.4 4.6 3.73 168 15%

University of Pennsylvania 7 85 4.3 4.6 3.75 168 16%

University of California: Berkeley 9 83 4.4 4.4 3.80 167 12%

University of Michigan 9 83 4.4 4.7 3.70 168 25%

Rank

Student/

faculty

ratio

Grads

employed

at

graduation

Employed 9

mos after

grad

Bar

passage

rate in

jurisdiction

State with

most bar

test

takers

Jurisdiction's

overall bar

passage rate

Yale University 1 7.9/1 90.7% 91.2% 96.3% NY 77%

Harvard University 2 11.4/1 90.9% 93.7% 97.5% NY 77%Stanford University 2 7.6/1 93.2% 95.8% 88.5% CA 67%

University of Chicago 4 7.5/1 90.6% 95.1% 96.4% IL 89%

Columbia University 4 8.0/1 93.2% 95.4% 96.2% NY 77%

New York University 6 9.0/1 93.1% 93.8% 95.5% NY 77%

University of Virginia 7 10.9/1 97.3% 96.0% 91.8% VA 79%

University of Pennsylvania 7 10.3/1 83.6% 91.2% 94.2% NY 77%

University of California: Berkeley 9 11.6/1 72.6% 82.6% 86.8% CA 67%

University of Michigan 9 12.8/1 70.7% 85.8% 94.8% NY 77%

B

7/28/2019 Report 0705



28

Art & Science Group

Darden: The most recent ranking of 12th is the highest for Darden since 2008.

Student quality at Darden has been increasing, but is still noticeably lower than top

ten ranked institutions, as is selectivity. Corporate recruiters’ assessments also

appear to be lagging compared to other top institutions.

o As Darden has made some gains in the business school rankings, so too has

Duke (Fuqua), who is currently ranked 11th. Over the past five years, Fuqua

has been held in higher regard, in terms of peer and recruiter assessments,

than Darden. Darden has a noticeably higher median GMAT score than

Fuqua, but Fuqua has the clear advantage in placement data at graduation

and 3 months out. By working to improve career placement, UVA would likely

benefit from increased assessment ratings by recruiters.

o Yale, currently ranked 13th, has been decreasing in rank over the past fiveyears and it’s clearly due to a decline in selectivity and a large drop in

employment placement.

7/28/2019 Report 0705



29

Art & Science Group

US News & World Report 2014 Business School Ranking

School Rank Score

Peer

Assessment

(out of 5.0)

Recruiter

Assessment

(out of 5.0)

Average

UG GPA

Average

GMAT Score

Accept

rate

Harvard University 1 100 4.8 4.5 3.67 724 11.5%

Stanford University 1 100 4.8 4.6 3.69 729 7.1%

University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) 3 99 4.8 4.6 3.60 718 20.0%

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan) 4 97 4.7 4.4 3.53 710 15.6%

Northwestern University (Kellogg) 4 97 4.7 4.4 3.69 708 22.9%

University of Chicago (Booth) 6 96 4.7 4.4 3.52 720 23.0%

University of California: Berkeley (Haas) 7 93 4.6 4.1 3.61 715 13.8%

Columbia University 8 91 4.5 4.2 3.50 715 20.8%

Dartmouth College (Tuck) 9 90 4.3 4.0 3.49 717 20.4%

New York University (Stern) 10 87 4.2 3.9 3.51 720 15.7%

Duke University (Fuqua) 11 86 4.3 4.0 3.42 690 27.5%

University of Virginia (Darden) 12 85 4.2 3.9 3.45 703 26.6%

Yale University 13 84 4.2 4.1 3.55 717 21.3%

University of California: Los Angeles (Anderson) 14 82 4.1 3.8 3.56 704 22.6%

University of Michigan (Ross) 14 82 4.3 3.9 3.40 703 40.6%

School Rank

Average

starting

salary and

bonus (in

thou)

Grads

employed at

graduation

Employed 3

mos after

grad

OOS

Tuition

and Fees

Total full-

time

enrollment

Harvard University 1 $142.5 77.4% 89.3% $63,300 1,824

Stanford University 1 $140.5 71.3% 87.8% $57,300 803

University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) 3 $138.3 79.7% 91.7% $62,000 1,685

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan) 4 $139.0 84.5% 94.4% $58,200 816

Northwestern University (Kellogg) 4 $134.0 76.9% 91.7% $56,800 1,161

University of Chicago (Booth) 6 $135.7 84.1% 92.3% $56,900 1,161

University of California: Berkeley (Haas) 7 $133.8 74.4% 92.7% $56,300 490

Columbia University 8 $134.9 77.0% 91.6% $60,900 1,274

Dartmouth College (Tuck) 9 $138.7 85.8% 92.9% $60,500 549

New York University (Stern) 10 $133.9 79.5% 90.5% $55,200 780

Duke University (Fuqua) 11 $136.5 86.5% 91.7% $54,900 874

University of Virginia (Darden) 12 $131.9 81.5% 90.9% $53,900 637

Yale University 13 $121.6 66.5% 85.5% $56,500 494

University of California: Los Angeles (Anderson) 14 $121.9 71.9% 86.5% $54,500 737

University of Michigan (Ross) 14 $134.4 74.3% 81.4% $55,200 992

B

7/28/2019 Report 0705



30

Art & Science Group

From within UVA: Consistent with the distinctions of undergraduate education, both

Law and Darden place a very high emphasis on teaching while, at the same time, a

number of their faculty are leading scholars in their fields, in some cases world-class

Both benefit from collaborations with scholars and graduate departments in related

fields at UVA

The student experience at both, as well as in the School of Medicine, is a strength to

build on

o UVA's Medical School is ranked 26th in research and 18th in primary care.

UVA's ranking in research has slowly dropped from a ranking as high as 22nd,

largely due to decreased NIH funding and amount of funding per faculty. At

the same time, UVA has shown steady to positive increase in peer and

residency director assessments and noticeable increases in student quality

and selectivity in recent years.

Other Distinctions

UVA occupies, as it always has, a unique place in higher education as the first institution

founded to adapt longstanding traditions in liberal education to the conditions of a

democracy dependent upon an educated, active citizenry equipped with useful knowledge.

UVA’s unusual “mid” size and “human scale” creates opportunity for exceptional, even one -

of-a-kind teaching and learning, but also means it faces both the threats of being too small

(especially in research) and too large (especially in the educational experience).

UVA Freshmen rate the importance of wanting to go to a school about the size of

their chosen college as more important than those freshmen at other large publics,

including those at more selective universities. (2010 CIRP Freshmen Survey )

7/28/2019 Report 0705



31

Art & Science Group

Local Community

Job opportunities, services, and quality of life in the Charlottesville community are very

important to UVA’s ability to recruit and retain faculty and senior administrators.

The Charlottesville community is seen as both a significant asset and liability; UVA is

thought not to be fully exploiting the advantages of its location (notably the proximity

to Washington, DC, and northern Virginia)

“Universities need to think seriously about the social pieces it needs to put in place

to make hiring possible—whether that’s Asian markets or African-American barber

shops—what social community they need to create. Universities can’t recruit without

having strong ties to their community.”

The characterizations of UVA’s relationship with the local community that we heard

range widely, but most people expressed a need for renewed outreach and new

investments

7/28/2019 Report 0705



32

Art & Science Group

Leadership

Observers note that UVA has been hit with budget cuts but also is resting on its laurels—that

it is still of high quality but has been comparatively complacent at a time when other

universities, both leading and lower-tier, have been highly aggressive in every facet of institution-building.

“UVA is not as well positioned as it was 15 years ago. Budget cuts have taken a toll.

The narrative out of Richmond is not uplifting. What is the value proposition for

higher education in the Commonwealth? Over 15 years, leading officials in

Richmond have squandered one of the best higher education systems. It’s

remarkable it’s as good as it is. They’re living on the razor’s edge.”

“There’s a sense they’re riding on 200-year-old laurels. They’re in a time-warp of

sorts. A number of others have surpassed them.”

UVA is not associated strongly with innovations or a culture of innovation and many thought-

leaders described UVA as risk-averse.

“It’s a wonderful place—that doesn’t feel as driven as others.”

Relative to other institutions, UVA largely missed the recent growth wave in federal research

funding.

“They’ve had a little bump recently in their research profile but before that had seven

years where they didn’t move up at all—while others doubled their federal funding.”

“They don’t have the horsepower of Illinois or Wisconsin. In fact I’ll bet that the

recent AAU admittees—BU, Irvine, Emory, and Santa Barbara—bring in as much

federal money as UVA.”

Over the last four full years, UVA has had a 24% decrease in the total amount of NIH

awards and 25% decrease in the total amount of NSF awards. The comparison

schools have had more modest declines to slight increases in NIH funding; however,

many have had more significant declines in NSF funding.

7/28/2019 Report 0705



33

Art & Science Group

In looking at domestic rankings for both undergraduate and graduate programs, UVA is

typically ranked around the middle of their peer institutions. However, global or

international rankings consistently rank UVA far behind competitive peers. This is primarily

due to the fact that international rankings rely heavily on research and funding towards

research.

NIH Funding

2012

Awards 2012 Funding

# of Awards

Change since '09

Amount Change

since '09

University of Virginia 313 $120,410,783 -24% -25%

University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 829 $377,641,180 12% 9%

University of California: Los Angeles 815 $367,216,676 -8% -7%

University of California: Berkeley 328 $118,610,088 1% 4%

University of Michigan 1054 $458,491,303 0% 1%

New York University 494 $212,416,998 18% 28%

University of Chicago 405 $186,624,901 -17% -13%

Duke University 763 $355,648,391 4% -4%

Vanderbilt University 763 $329,043,070 5% 8%

NSF Funding

2012 awards 2012 Funding

# of Awards

Change since

'09

Amount

Change since

'09

University of Virginia 61 $16,310,812 -35% -23%

University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 76 $27,399,326 -7% -13%

University of California: Los Angeles 107 $30,096,447 -20% -53%

University of California: Berkeley 103 $30,685,057 -32% -73%

University of Michigan 209 $50,836,050 -16% -51%

University of Southern California 89 $34,974,100 -9% -16%

New York University 54 $14,095,322 2% -38%

University of Chicago 90 $24,512,077 -16% -44%

Duke University 91 $23,492,836 -9% -54%

Vanderbilt University 51 $15,614,038 4% -31%

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705



35

Art & Science Group

Other indicators: “The faculty in arts and sciences at Virginia are of variable quality. There

are some very good faculty, a few good departments.”

“When you start looking hard at many of the science departments they’re actually

languishing in the 30s and 40s rather than the 20s where you’d have thought them

to be. The quality of the research standing of the departments is not where it should

be.”

“I worry that the UVA medical school will expand, they won’t keep getting great

scholar-teachers in the college, the college will become secondary to the medical

enterprise and UVA will become Emory, Hopkins, or Wash U.”

Academic

Ranking of

World

Universities '12 -

Shanghai Jiao

Tong University

World

University

Rankings '12 -

Times Higher

Education

University of California: Berkeley 4 9

University of Chicago 9 10

University of California: Los Angeles 12 13

University of Michigan 22 20

New York University 27 41

Duke University 36 23

University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 41 42

University of Southern California 46 56

Vanderbilt University 50 106University of Virginia 101-150 118

7/28/2019 Report 0705



36

Art & Science Group

NRC Rankings

Program

# of

Programs

Ranked

R

5th

R

95th S 5th

S

95th

RA

5th

RA

95th

SS

5th

SS

95th D 5th

D

95th

Religious Studies 40 1 11 16 26 19 31 9 20 25 32

Spanish, Italian & Portuguese 60 3 14 14 40 14 28 3 34 56 60

Kinesiology 41 5 34 13 27 14 30 22 31 24 37

Physiology 63 5 34 6 30 12 46 29 57 45 59

Microbiology 74 7 24 4 30 9 42 29 65 16 44

Biomedical Engineering 74 9 21 7 28 9 40 31 63 40 65

German Language & Literature 29 10 24 25 29 15 25 23 29 12 25

Astronomy 33 11 25 11 27 11 28 14 32 21 32

Systems Engineering 72 11 41 18 43 14 45 41 58 66 72

Cell Biology 122 15 63 25 89 27 96 21 102 21 64

Neuroscience 94 16 55 9 44 15 73 4 42 15 46

French Language & Literature 43 18 31 29 38 29 37 24 38 12 27

English Language & Literature 119 18 53 33 69 26 53 11 57 100 113

Chemical Engineering 106 19 38 24 60 14 54 13 68 11 36

Psychology 236 20 71 19 54 22 65 57 137 95 165

Nursing 52 21 39 9 25 18 40 2 18 9 24

Anthropology 82 23 52 55 71 75 81 19 47 23 42

Civil Engineering 130 25 63 39 94 41 109 89 117 58 106

7/28/2019 Report 0705



37

Art & Science Group

Program

# of

Programs

Ranked

R

5th

R

95th S 5th

S

95th

RA

5th

RA

95th

SS

5th

SS

95th D 5th

D

95th

Environmental Sciences 140 26 55 35 87 22 71 107 129 45 88

Politics 105 28 53 66 83 63 79 61 85 74 91

Biochemistry & Molecular

Genetics 159 28 57 17 63 25 96 4 72 57 111

Biology 120 28 61 26 67 26 78 32 111 17 51

Pharmacology 116 28 81 3 39 4 50 11 82 86 108

Mechanical & Aerospace

Engineering 127 29 57 37 82 29 97 8 41 78 112

History of Art 58 30 49 43 55 32 44 42 56 46 56

Philosophy 90 30 50 46 62 50 72 69 84 22 44

Economics 117 32 64 55 76 43 63 83 106 63 96

History 137 34 56 58 90 65 101 44 99 101 121

Materials Science &

Engineering 83 34 58 47 74 31 71 6 50 69 77

Computer Science 126 35 65 36 74 21 76 25 87 25 59

Electrical Engineering 136 37 73 18 60 16 68 52 105 10 52

Biophysics 159 37 85 12 59 16 90 13 90 36 77

Chemistry 178 39 96 56 107 40 105 32 124 95 155

Mathematics 127 44 76 40 71 41 74 21 84 63 93

7/28/2019 Report 0705



38

Art & Science Group

Program

# of

Programs

Ranked

R

5th

R

95th S 5th

S

95th

RA

5th

RA

95th

SS

5th

SS

95th D 5th

D

95th

Statistics 61 48 60 32 48 23 41 40 59 3 16

Sociology 118 55 91 89 111 65 103 94 108 103 116

Engineering Physics 161 60 114 49 128 19 109 32 117 147 155

Physics 161 61 112 42 110 39 118 10 102 118 146

7/28/2019 Report 0705



39

Art & Science Group

There are only a couple interdisciplinary programs ranked – Center for Global Health

and Biophysics, neither of which has been ranked particularly favorably.

o In the 2013 University Global Health Impact Report Card done by the

Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, UVA ranked 44 th out of 54 ranked

Global Health programs.

UVA’s association with Thomas Jefferson’s vision for faculty -student interaction and

educating active citizens is an asset; at the same time, the continual evocation of

Jefferson’s name prompts skepticism that the institution is focused sufficiently on

the present day

o According to the First and Fourth Year Survey , students report that their

experiences at UVA have made them much better prepared for a role in civic

life.

School Rank

Duke University 7

Vanderbilt University 8

University of California: Berkeley 14

University of Michigan 19

University of California: Los Angeles 23University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 25

University of Chicago 35

New York University 40

University of Southern California 43

University of Virginia 44

7/28/2019 Report 0705



40

Art & Science Group

From within UVA: Basic science at the School of Medicine was once excellent but

now is suffering from funding competition, leadership neglect, and, consequently, low

morale

Many faculty fear that UVA is becoming a short-term stop for their top colleagues, a

place to get tenure and then move on, and that the greats retiring from the UVA

faculty are not being replaced quickly enough, if at all.

o According to salary wage data provided by UVA, most faculty members at UVA

are paid well below faculty at other similar public and private institutions.

The only schools and departments at UVA where wages for professors

rank above the 75th percentile are Law (mean at UVA is

$231,600/$222,500 (full professors/all professors) vs. overall mean

of $211,400/$195,400) and Public Policy ($220,046/$164,400 vs.

overall mean of $173,800/$138,100).

Other program or school wages that rank at or above the 60th

percentile for full professors are French Language, Systems

Engineering, and Nursing.

All other programs or schools rank below the 60th percentile.

Much better prepared for role in civic life


Academic experiences at UVA 36% 58%

Co-curricular experiences at UVA 48% 67%

Overall experiences at UVA 57% 76%

7/28/2019 Report 0705



41

Art & Science Group

Among the public universities in the competitive peer set, financial support and

funding from sources such as individuals, foundations, corporations, and other

organizations are far behind at UVA by more than $50 million. However, the total

financial support covers a larger percentage of institutional expenditures at UVA

which are the lowest among all competitive peers - by nearly $800 million. (from

Council for Aid to Education)

Total Support

2010 - 2011

(Not including

deferred)

Institutional

Expenditures

% Inst. Exp

covered by

Total

Support

University of Virginia $216,162,000 $952,000,000 23%

University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill $274,946,000 $1,732,350,000 16%

University of California: Berkeley $283,347,000 $1,731,788,000 16%

University of California: Los Angeles $415,330,000 $2,735,991,000 15%

University of Michigan $270,352,000 $3,010,138,000 9%

Duke University $349,658,000 $2,090,834,000 17%

New York University $337,852,000 $3,692,235,000 9%

University of Chicago $216,748,000 $1,840,754,000 12%

University of Southern California $402,411,000 $2,660,214,000 15%

Vanderbilt University $119,440,000 $1,552,454,000 8%

7/28/2019 Report 0705



42

Art & Science Group

Strategy, Planning, Execution, and Morale

UVA has not articulated clearly its overarching strategies, nor has it executed effectively on

the plans it has developed.

UVA has operated recently as a largely top-down but decentralized institution, leaving a

relatively weak culture of lower-level authority but creating the possibility that strong central

leadership could galvanize a sense of shared purpose among the leaders who have

developed in the various units.

Many perceive that UVA’s current administrative leadership—in part in reaction to pressures

from its board—is protecting more than inspiring and challenging the faculty.

Faculty and administrative leaders see UVA as only infrequently coming together as one

community, while perceiving that the shared culture of the community may be its greatest

asset.

Likewise, programmatic initiatives and fundraising have tended to focus on specific

initiatives as opposed to expressions of university-wide direction and priority

The new budget model is seen as likely, unless handled with great skill, to lead to

further decentralization and separateness

Those faculty and administrative leaders today evidence, on the one hand, demoralization in

the face of recent cuts, losses, and controversy and, on the other, great present and latent

energy in light of opportunities and deep regard and affection for the institution.

Many of them see UVA at a decisive, even make-or-break, moment

7/28/2019 Report 0705



43

Art & Science Group

Governance and Last Summer’s Upheaval

Though governance was not included in this assessment, the thought-leaders interviewed

almost unanimously volunteered the observation that flaws in how UVA is governed

represent a significant threat to the University, at least on par with the most pressing financial and competitive threats.

UVA is allowing to slip away the opportunity created by last summer’s leadership crisis to

assert in a very public way what it stands for and where it is headed

Observers see UVA’s problems as both unique and representative of the problems

faced by many universities, and are anxious to see how UVA responds, including in

this strategic planning effort

“Even with the best of planning, governance is always a concern, but with the

pressures on UVA the tensions are exacerbated and the need for a clear strategy is

even greater.”

“Virginia is not going to have a world-class university by providing single digit support

of its budget or exercising control over its in- and out-of-state tuition – they’re kidding

themselves if they think this will work. “

“They’ve taken a terrible rap out there and they haven’t done much to repair it.”

“Today, public university leaders must understand that they can’t just deal with their

states in terms of politics and getting money, but instead must be public figures.

They must explain what benefits derive from the fact that their university is national

and international as well as for the state. Being able to articulate this when the

whole world is paying attention is an opportunity.”

“The events of past year or so have diminished the brand. It’s unbelievable to me

that and an institution of UVA’s history and stature went through this kind of turmoil

that and is still going through it. Of course this is not going to destroy the institution,

but it most certainly will undermine it. I see it as a colossal failure of governance.

There’s a lot of blame to pass around, but this should not have happened. And is

suspect it happened because there was no coherent, overarching strategy for the

future of the university.”

7/28/2019 Report 0705



44

Art & Science Group

“Everybody’s doing some soul-searching about public institutions. UVA is a part of

this – but it looks like it’s headed in the wrong direction, not the least of which

because it doesn’t have a supportive state. Virginia once had one of the finest

systems of public higher education, but it looks like the state is letting that advantage

slip away.”

“Virginia’s system of boards is crazy, too much churning politically. It’s a design flaw.

Maybe time has come that board composition and appointments should change. As

a start, perhaps the University should be able to appoint some of its own board

members.”

“Governance has to be public trust – we should have no elected or politically

appointed trustees. It’s like mixing oil and water. Trustees have to have experience

with universities, understand research, and appreciate the value of the research

enterprise and what it’s meant for our nation.”

“But there are also serious governance issues regarding finances and ideology. They

must work more closely with the governor and pay much more attention to state

relations. Michigan goes about this very well – it built a strong business alliance that

supports the university. So it came from both directions – the University reached out

and business reached out as well. Higher education does best when it works with

enlighten business leaders.”

“It also must get the political appointees off the board. It’s not good when the

university has no control over who gets on its board. You simply can’t build and

sustain a great university without a great board.”

7/28/2019 Report 0705



45

Art & Science Group

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR STRATEGY

UVA’s Core Assets and Differentiation

It would place UVA at a competitive disadvantage to set a strategy that merely emulates

either the largest research-driven universities or the institutions that teach, or seek to teach,

the largest numbers of students

“It won’t be at all easy for them to compete in big science, and engineering can’t be

top notch, because of their size. They won’t get the oversized NIH and NSF grants.”

Instead, UVA would gain the greatest advantage through a strategy rooted in a bold

recommitment to its counter-trending greatness as a collegiate research university—focused

on students’ academic-residential experience, extensive interaction with teaching faculty,

and development of leadership qualities, skills, and motivation

“In faculty recruitment, a university needs, first, to have a sense of its priorities, its

strategic vision, and, second, to be aware of its own particular values. UVA is still Mr.

Jefferson’s university. Classics will have a place. Astronomy and physics. UVA’s

leaders should spend time in an imagining exercise, asking, what should be the most

salient features of Jefferson’s university in the 21st century?”

7/28/2019 Report 0705



46

Art & Science Group

Leadership in Teaching and Learning

UVA would do well to embrace and lead the significant changes happening in pedagogy and

the student experience—in ways that build on UVA’s distinctive strengths and institutional

values:

Prioritize interaction between undergraduate students and faculty

o Can UVA be a leader in developing alternatives for how teaching faculty are

funded, hired, and promoted?

Taking PhD students who aren’t getting placed, training them

extensively, and hiring them as “Faculty Fellows.”

Take the lead in considering new delivery mechanisms, schedules, etc.

o And, some would say even more importantly, rethinking: The content of an undergraduate education today (curriculum) (“We

are focused too much on questions about delivery.”)

The path students take to develop “useful knowledge” (advising ,

experiential learning, etc.)

In particular, UVA could claim leadership development—notably, the preparation of

imaginative, scientifically literate, globally educated, public-service-oriented future leaders—

as a major institutional focus and reason for continued investment in residential education

UVA might make leadership potential the core criterion for undergraduate admissions

and the basis of intentional student recruitment and marketing efforts

o Consider increasing the percentage of out-of-state students admitted, in order

to attract more of these future leaders to Virginia

Publicize and hire more UVA teachers and advisors who are themselves leaders, of

various kinds

UVA would distinguish itself if it could deliver this robust collegial experience to all, not just

some, of its students.

UVA must invest further in the residential experience it provides if it is to be competitive—

and actually realize its claim of a contemporary Academical Village.

7/28/2019 Report 0705



47

Art & Science Group

“I would strongly encourage UVA to strengthen its collegiate structure, to provide

something in the residential campus experience that is unique, pedagogically sound,

and leads to intellectual development that would be impossible online or in a large

anonymous urban university.”

Since there is little advantage to a university that delivers a premier undergraduate

experience to be known as a “value,” it would make sense for UVA to charge what the

market indicates it is worth in-state and out-of-state

UVA Freshmen rate the current economy’s effect on their choice of college to be less

strong than those attending a large public of normal selectivity, as reported in the

2010 CIRP Freshmen Survey .

UVA could take the lead in the study of contemporary higher education, including pedagogy

and curricular content and also adaptations in administrative leadership and governance in

the current environment.

7/28/2019 Report 0705



48

Art & Science Group

Research, Scholarship, and Collaboration

UVA would gain greatest advantage if it were to be positioned as a research institution but

not aspiring to become a research-driven institution.

Position UVA as a research partner, resource, convener

Give particular attention to inter-institutional partnerships, taking advantage of the

complementary strengths of other universities and institutions

o “UVA may find its future hinges not on what it does alone but through

partnering in state and regionally—with Duke, Hopkins, Maryland. The 20th

century model that each institution builds spires won’t be the most effective

way going forward.”

Position UVA as helping claim national leadership for the state of Virginia, building on

the dramatically increased assets of Northern Virginia in particular to position the

state as a leader in selected realms—including higher education—and on key issues

o “How much does UVA have going on in northern Virginia? Too little. Virginia

Tech is moving there big time. George Mason could become a competitor.

Maryland already is.”

Reinvest in UVA’s historic (and relatively inexpensive) areas of leadership in the humanities

and social sciences, while also sustaining strong offerings in the sciences.

Focus graduate program resources even further on programs of national prominence.

That said, the size of the graduate programs on which UVA focuses will be critical to

its faculty recruitment efforts

The Health Sciences strategy needs realistic revision, both in terms of emphasis on clinical

trials when the patient population is not adequate and in terms of its broad focus on three

central concerns (cardiovascular, cancer, and neuroscience) which are probably too broad

for an excellent but smaller medical school.

“The real threat is an over-extension of biomedical spending and construction based

on anticipation that the gravy train will continue—which is unlikely.”

7/28/2019 Report 0705



49

Art & Science Group

Increasingly use basic science faculty in the School of Medicine to teach basic sciences in

the College, as clinical teaching is taking over from faculty lectures in SOM.

Put a much stronger premium on collaboration across departments, program, and schools.

“UVA has to be very focused and careful– it can waste lot of money – and there are

serious dangers in trying to become a truly comprehensive research university, which

it isn’t now. Competition with giant state universities and leading privates is very

risky. UVA has been successful not by saying yes but by saying no. It can’t be all

things to all people. Say no to student growth and academically weaker students, say

no to graduate programs that don’t fit the model, but also be opportunistic. Play to

and leverage current strengths and build new ones very selectively. It also means

eliminating weak programs at the graduate level and even the undergraduate level.In a nutshell it would be better for UVA to have a dozen top programs than 40 or 50

so-so programs.”

“The days are over when can build real academic strength and leadership by focusing

on single departments. If you think of ways to organize – the depth of knowledge

that is necessary for effective collaboration – it is a very deep challenge. But if I had

to put bet on critical areas – they’d be the neurosciences, bioengineering, cognitive

science, and computer science. Here collaboration between the medical school and

academic departments is critical. I know UVA has a medical school on campus and

that’s an advantage at least in theory. Stanford right after war moved its medical

school from San Francisco to Palo Alto precisely for this reason. But just having the

medical school on campus is not a panacea. They must do a better job of

collaboration with their university counterparts. The University will have to be more

deliberate about setting up interdisciplinary programs. Joint appointments must be

made.”

“It’s not just a matter of being interdisciplinary, nor is it just societal problems. It’s

starting with the key questions. Mind-brain development, versus just neuroscience.

Understanding the creative process through the work of literary scholars, artists, and

computer scientists.”

7/28/2019 Report 0705



50

Art & Science Group

“The STEM areas are critical as are the health sciences. But UVA can’t do it all. It

has to be sufficiently strong is a limited number of fields. Focused strength in a few

areas should be the goal. Now I think of UVA’s strength in the humanities and social

sciences, less so the sciences. So selective excellence is the right strategy for the

future.”

“One answer might be collaboration with the other very good publics in UVA’s back

yard -- Virginia Tech, Chapel Hill, Maryland. How do you build on the relationships you

already have, provide more opportunities for faculty and students, eliminate

duplication, build complementary strengths, keep costs down, and give students

more experiences? UVA must be asking these questions.”

That said, make a point of continuing to value the work of the individual, as teacher

or scholar

7/28/2019 Report 0705



51

Art & Science Group

Revitalizing the Culture

UVA will thrive not as a defensive academic culture nor with a corporate culture, but rather

with a proud and vital academic culture.

Reassert the importance of scholarly inquiry—the fact that discovery and innovation come

not from re-studying what we already know but from following curiosity about what we don’t

know.

“Universities should seek revenue not just to have more money to spend but to free

people to be arcane, to seek after the Golden Fleece, to tell us something about the

human condition.”

Re-value UVA’s unusually civil, personal culture.

Communicate the value of what goes on at UVA and in public higher education more

effectively and more aggressively—make external communication more a part of the UVA

culture, and take a lead in the state and national conversations on the value of higher

education in the US today.

Stand up as what one interviewee characterized as “the public intellectual” of our time:

“This role is different from conducting research or preparing students for employment,

though it’s related to those purposes. Great institutions, going back to Thomas Jefferson,

were created to be bastions of argument and protective for people who stand up and say, no

matter what directs the politics, our policy and discourse must be based on deep thought,

on economics and science; we must have meaningful political conversations. What other

institution in society can champion those values?”

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

1

COMPARISON SCHOOL STUDY

Description

In this part of the assessment we focused on identifying the strategic priorities at nine

comparison universities selected by the University of Virginia. We reviewed comparative data

and conducted interviews with senior officials at six of the nine universities.

Duke University

Peter Lange, Provost

New York University

University of California, Berkeley

Michael Hout, Natalie Cohen Professor of Sociology & Demography

University of California, Los Angeles

Scott Waugh, Executive Vice Chancellor & Provost

University of Chicago


Mary Sue Coleman, President

Philip J. Hanlon, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs

Terrence J. McDonald, Dean of the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Holden Thorp, Chancellor

University of Southern California

Vanderbilt UniversityRichard McCarty, Provost

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

2

Strategic priorities at all of the comparison universities include notable commitments to:

I. Recruiting and supporting a diverse student body

II. Strengthening the undergraduate experience, with concerted effort focused on

residential life and experiential learning outside of the classroom

III. Tackling key societal problems in research and graduate education

IV. An increased global orientation

V. Investment in faculty recruitment and community

VI. Maximizing community impact

VII. Raising private funds for institution-wide priorities

While the strategic priorities are largely similar from institution to institution, implementation

and investment varies. In this report, which is organized around these seven themes, we

summarize the strategies, reference comparative data, and highlight examples of creative and

successful implementation. We conclude the report with a look at the competitive position of

each institution as reflected in selected rankings.

Throughout the report, comments from senior officials at comparison institutions are noted in

italics.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

3

I. Recruiting and Supporting a Diverse Student Body

All of the institutions studied have invested in the racial, ethnic, socio-economic, and

international diversity of their student populations. As summarized by one senior official:

Higher education, especially the elites, needs to reinvent admissions. We need more

quirky students and an intellectual and cultural mash-up. That’s what stimulates

inventiveness, entrepreneurship, creativity.

Total

Enrollment

Undergrad Graduate Caucasian

(UG)

International

(UG)

% on

Inst. Aid

Any

Aid

UVA 21,095 14,641 6,454 60% 7% 27% 59%

UC-

Berkeley

36,142 25,885 10,257 30% 13% 53% 66%

Michigan 43,426 27,979 15,447 66% 5% 47% 64%

UCLA 41,341 27,941 12,004 32% 6% 58% 71%

UNC 29,137 18,579 8,325 66% 1% 46% 70%

Chicago 15,219 5,369 9,850 43% 10% 60% 70%

Duke 14,591 6,484 8,107 47% 9% 47% 62%

NYU 50,917 19,401 18,8990 41% 16% 54% 60%USC 40,000 18,000 22,000 41% 2% 61% 75%

Vanderbilt 12,859 6,817 6,042 62% 6% 59% 64%

Information concerning financial aid strategy and initiatives for most of the comparison

institutions can be found in the Financial Aid Benchmarking Study conducted by Art & Science

Group for UVA last year.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

5

on how many research opportunities they provide. We count undergraduate research in

tenure and promotion review. Other enrichment activities, such as internships and study

abroad, are also important.

Even the largest publics are seeking ways to build and strengthen their residential academic

community . This includes efforts to connect academic and residential life more fully, through

expanding on-campus housing, residential colleges and learning communities, other creative

uses of space, and campus life programming.

Total

Enrollment

Undergraduate

Enrollment

Living in university

housing

UVA 21,095 14,641 All first year students

live on campus; 42%

of others

UC-Berkeley

36,142 25,885 All freshmen live oncampus, housing

guaranteed for

sophomores;

77% of all others live

within one mile of

campus

Michigan 43,426 27,979 Virtually all freshmen

live on campus

UCLA 41,341 27,941 94% of freshmen live

on campus

66% of sophomores

live on campus

UNC 29,137 18,579 All freshmen live on

campus

55% of others

Chicago 15,219 5,369 Housing is guaranteed

for all four years

Duke 14,591 6,484 Required to live on

campus through junior year

NYU 50,917 19,401 NA

USC 40,000 18,000 All freshmen live on

campus

Vanderbilt 12,859 6,817 Most students live on

campus

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

6

Increased attention to the visual and performing arts has been an important component of

campus life initiatives.

Technology was cited as an important tool in exploring new models of undergraduate

education. No institution, however, advocates a move to online education simply for the

purposes of increasing efficiency or expanding enrollment.

We are all talking about the flipped classroom. It has become a platitude and we need

to be careful with platitudes. There is a lot of fantasy about how technology is going to

bring down costs. It is a valuable add on, but I don’t see it bringing down costs. It’s a

mirage if you think it ’ s going to solve the fiscal crisis.

The key issue to these leading universities is how technology will improve the undergraduate

residential experience and increase faculty-student interaction.

There must be no sacrifice of quality —maintaining closely engaged faculty experience in

the classroom is critical. But good uses of technology can help take the routine, grunt

work, out of teaching and learning but also enhance the traditional classroom

experience.

Noteworthy Undergraduate Initiatives

First-Year Programs

Duke's Focus Program for first-year students provides clusters of courses designed

around an interdisciplinary theme, taught by faculty from diverse academic

departments who are leading researchers in their fields. Courses in each cluster fulfill

Duke’s general education curriculum requirements and may contribute to a major,

minor or certificate. The program features small seminars, shared housing among Focus

students, and integrated learning experiences on campus and in the community.

UCLA’s College’s Freshman Cluster Program is a curricular initiative designed tostrengthen the intellectual skills of first year students, introduce them to faculty

research, and expose them to best practices in teaching as seminars and

interdisciplinary study. Clusters are year-long, interdisciplinary courses, collaboratively

taught by some of the university’s most distinguished faculty. During the fall and winter

quarters, students attend lecture courses and small discussion sections and/or labs. In

http://focus.duke.edu/about



7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

7

the spring quarter, these same students enroll in one of a number of satellite seminars

dealing with topics related to the cluster theme.

Faculty-Student Interaction

Berkeley expects all faculty to contribute to undergraduate education, not only through

classroom instruction but also through advising, research mentoring, and other

activities. Academic units without undergraduate majors or programs are given

incentives to find creative ways to contribute, so the education of undergraduates

becomes a campus-wide endeavor.

o Berkeley’s Discovery Courses taught by the most outstanding professors are

offered to non-majors

Every USC faculty member, even Distinguished and University Professors, teachesundergraduate courses

Duke FLUNCH program (Faculty + Lunch = FLUNCH): Duke Student Government, in

partnership with the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs and the Office of

the Dean of Undergraduate Education, provides funding for undergraduates to take

their professors to lunch (or dinner). Each student has a FLUNCH allotment of $100 per

semester.

Experiential & Interdisciplinary Learning

The Berkeley Undergraduate Research Apprentice Program (URAP) is designed to

stimulate awareness of advanced research and interest in graduate study. Students

meet regularly with faculty for research mentoring and earn 1 unit of academic credit

for each 3 hours of research work (limited to 4 units per term). The program operates

much like an internship but students are not paid for their participation.

The Michigan Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) creates research

partnerships between first and second year students, and faculty, research scientists,

and staff from across the university. All schools and colleges are active participants,providing a wealth of research topics from which a student can choose.

Excel@Carolina offers a range of accelerated opportunities to outstanding first-year

students. Opportunities range from undergraduate research and specialized mentoring

and advising in the sciences to innovations scholarships and assured admission into

graduate schools.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

10

III. Tackling Key Societal Problems in Research and Graduate Education

We observed the following trends in graduate education:

A. Research at the comparison universities is defined by problem-driven approaches.

There has been a history of defining investments by discipline at universities, and I think

that increasingly the most successful universities will be defining their investments by

external problems or opportunities to pursue.

B. Increased investment in graduate funding; however, universities are making more

strategic choices among departments and disciplines in order to build distinction in

areas that show the greatest potential for success.

Focusing is important regardless of the scale of the institution. The model we always use

is to look at what Stanford was able to achieve after the war by building Spires of

Excellence. Build in areas you are already strong and let the aura of those areas raise

the quality of everything else.

First ask, what are the most highly ranked departments right now? You can’t just go

invest millions in what you’ve never done before. So look for strengths first, and then

look for ways to expand beyond them.

C. Expanded interdisciplinary programs and expectations and an explosion of centers and

institutes.

D. Vertical integration of research programs—faculty, postdoctoral fellows, graduate

students, and undergraduates interact collaboratively and work on pressing problems in

research teams.

E. Assessing and strengthening the support of graduate students’ long-term career growth.

Examples of each university’s focus areas are outlined below:

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

11

Publics

Berkeley Michigan UCLA UNC-Chapel Hill

Global Poverty

Stem Cell Research

(Berkeley Stem Cell

Center)

Alternative Energy(Energy Biosciences

Institute)

Computational Biology

Nanosciences &

Nanoengineering

Cultural Evolution &

Preservation

Metropolitan Studies

International Relations

& Global Security

New Economic

Theories

Complex Systems,

Design & Human

Interfaces

New Media

Environment

Nanoscience &

Technology

Michigan Energy

Institute

Life Sciences Institute Institute for Social

Research

Center for Statistical

Consultation and

Research

Sustainability

Community, Nation

and Society, including

population,

immigration, and

economic issues Cultural Tradition &

Innovation

Environment & Energy

Health & Biomedical

Science

Foundational Science &

Engineering

Science, Technology &

Economic Growth

Cancer Genome Atlas

Program

Institute for Global

Health & Infectious

Diseases Institute of Marine

Sciences

Frank Porter Graham

Child Development

Institute

Carolina Population

Center

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

12

Privates

Chicago Duke NYU USC Vanderbilt

Manager of

Argonne National

Laboratory and

Fermi National

AcceleratorLaboratory

Research

Computing Center

Urban Education

Neubauer Family

Collegium for

Culture & Society

Institute for

Neuroscience,

Quantitative Biology

& Human Behavior

Other Interdisciplinary

Programs:

Astrophysics

Computational

Neurosciences

Creative Writing

Education

Human Rights

Institute for Brain

Sciences

Nicholas Institute

for Environmental

Policy Solutions Kenan Institute for

Ethics

Institute for

Genome Sciences &

Policy

Global Health

Institute

John Hope Franklin

Humanities Institute

Social Science

Research Institute

Marron Institute on

Cities & the Urban

Environment

Center for Urban

Science & Progress NYI Innovation

Venture Fund

NYU

Entrepreneurial

Institute

NYU-Poly Incubator

Initiatives Program

Initiative in Data

Science & Statistics

Global Public Health

Program

Center for Neural

Science

Druckenmiller

Neuroscience

Initiative

Humanities

Initiative

Mann Institute of

Biomedical

Engineering

Biomemetic

MicroElectronicSystems

Brain and Creativity

Broad Center and

Regenerative

Medicine and Stem

Cell Research

Center for Dark

Energy Biosphere

Investigations

Center for Risk and

Economic Analysis

of Terrorism Events

House Ear Institute

Information

Sciences Institute

Institute for

Creative Technology

Institute for Health

Promotion and

Disease Prevention

Research

Trustees put $100M

into interdisciplinary

centers:

Exploring Culture,Society & Humanity

Understanding the

Human Mind

Exploring,

Understanding &

Engineering: The

Physical, Biological,

and Mechanical

World of the

Unseen

Markets, Politics,

Economic & Legal

Institutions

Other academic

initiatives:

Advanced

Computing Center

for Research and

Education

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

13

Schaeffer Center for

Health Policy and

Economics

Norman Lear Center

Norris

Comprehensive

Cancer Center

Religion and CivicCulture

Saban Research

Institute at

Children’s Hospital

SETI Institute

(Astrobiology)

Southern California

Clinical and

Translational

Science Institute

Southern California

Earthquake Center

Energy Institute

Wrigley Institute for

Environmental

Studies

Vanderbilt Institute

of Chemical Biology

Center for

Integrative and

Cognitive

Neuroscience

Research in

Proteomics andFunctional Biology

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

14

In addition, universities are working to lead in the creation, management, and delivery of scholarly

resources in support of teaching and research. Noteworthy initiatives include:

Michigan’s Center for Statistical Consultation and Research (CSCAR) provides support and training

to University of Michigan researchers in a variety of areas relating to management, collection, andanalysis of data. CSCAR also supports the use of technical software and advanced computing in

research.

Michigan has established Third Century Initiative in celebration of its bicentennial, a $50

million/five- year initiative to develop innovative, multi-disciplinary teaching and scholarship

approaches.

UCLA’s Faculty Research and Expertise Service provides a database of 3,000 descriptions and links

and assists researchers in finding collaborators

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

Program # of

Ranked

Programs

R

5th

R 95th S 5th S 95th RA 5th RA

95th

SS 5th SS

95th

D 5th D 95th

History of Art 58 30 49 43 55 32 44 42 56 46 56

Philosophy 90 30 50 46 62 50 72 69 84 22 44

Economics 117 32 64 55 76 43 63 83 106 63 96

History 137 34 56 58 90 65 101 44 99 101 121

Materials Science & Engineering 83 34 58 47 74 31 71 6 50 69 77

Computer Science 126 35 65 36 74 21 76 25 87 25 59

Electrical Engineering 136 37 73 18 60 16 68 52 105 10 52

Biophysics 159 37 85 12 59 16 90 13 90 36 77

Chemistry 178 39 96 56 107 40 105 32 124 95 155

Mathematics 127 44 76 40 71 41 74 21 84 63 93

Statistics 61 48 60 32 48 23 41 40 59 3 16

Sociology 118 55 91 89 111 65 103 94 108 103 116

Engineering Physics 161 60 114 49 128 19 109 32 117 147 155

Physics 161 61 112 42 110 39 118 10 102 118 146

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

17

An Increased Global Orientation

Comparison institutions have invested heavily in international programs over the last ten years.

Strategies have included:

A. Creation of a central office for global programs

B. Academic initiatives

C. Increased participation in Study Abroad programs

D. Increased enrollment of international students

E. Partnerships with institutions in strategic locations throughout the world

The following tables outline specific visions and strategies:

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

18

Publics

Berkeley Michigan UCLA UNC-Chapel Hill

Priorities

Create a Global

Engagement Office.

Improve academic

support services forinternational students.

Streamline and

improve services for

students studying

abroad.

Explore collaborative

research opportunities

in China.

Evaluate revenue-

generating prospects

from online education

targeting global

audiences.

Develop relationships

with major Indian

corporations that are

interested in enhancing

the skills of their young

workforce.

Develop a

communication

Vision

University of Michigan is

committed to internationalizing

with equity. The University seeks

reciprocal, mutually productiveengagement with nations and

institutions around the world to

enhance education and advance

knowledge and understanding.

U-M was one of five U.S.

colleges and universities to

receive the 2012 Sen. Paul

Simon Award that recognizes

outstanding and innovative

achievements in campus

internationalization.

Academic Initiatives

The President’s Challenge:

Enriching the Student Global

Experience

The Africa Initiative

The China Initiative

Michigan International

Institute (II) advances the

Vision

To be an international

university that attracts

the best faculty and

students worldwide andis distinguished by

international programs

and research.


Establish strategic

partnerships with

world’s best

universities (focusing

on Asia and Latin

America)

Considering a

conference center to

attract scholars from

around the world

Study Abroad

Aims to double the

number of students

who study abroad by

2019

Vision

To become a leading global

university that: prepares students

for life in an interconnected world

Helps North Carolina and the

nation succeed in a global

economy, and addresses pressing

international and regional

problems through teaching and

collaborative research among

UNC faculty experts and students,

and their partners around.

Organization

FedEx Global Education Center —

unique among American colleges

and universities in bringing

together the three major

components of international

education: student and faculty

services, academic instruction,

and programs and research

International strengths:

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

19

strategy for shaping the

perception of UC

Berkeley abroad.

Establish a strategy

committee for China,

India, and Latin

America.

Strengtheningrelationships with the

Pacific Rim.

Mobilizing Cal alumni

abroad.

exchange of knowledge,

ideas, and resources across

U-M’s campus and with

partnering institutions

worldwide. The Institute

houses 17 centers and

programs focused on world

regions and global themes.

Study Abroad

U-M was ranked No. 16 in

the nation in the total

number of students studying

abroad

International Community On-

Campus

U-M was has been ranked

highly for the size of its

international student body

As of the fall semester of

2012, a total 8,491

international students,

scholars, faculty and staff

studied or worked at U-M.

Global Health / Public Health

Business and Economic

Development

Population Studies and

Migration

Water, Sustainable

Development, and the

Environment Latin America and Europe


Curriculum in Global

Studies

Graduate Certificate in

International Development

Global Research Institute

Study Abroad

40% of undergraduates study

abroad

International Student Enrollment

International students enroll

directly through the new

Global Visiting Students

Program

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

20

Privates


Vision

Academic Initiatives:

InternationalCenters in Beijing

and Paris

Booth School of

Business has

campuses in London

and Singapore

Oriental Institute—a

museum and

research facility in

Chicago and an

archeological site in

Egypt

Graham School

Travel Study

Program—one to

three-week

continuing

education programs

Students intern in

85 cities around the

world

Vision

A leader in

internationalization,

exceeding all Americanuniversities in federal

support for

international area

studies.

Strategies:

Increasing

percentage of

international

students on campus

Developing

interdisciplinary

foreign language

and area centers

Enhancing study

abroad

Developing

educational

partnerships with

foreign institutions

Vision

First Global Network

University


Comprehensive

liberal arts

campuses in a

number of foreign

countries

Global Liberal

Studies program—

merges liberal arts

curriculum with

experiential

learning and

intensive

international

intellectual

experiences

Study Abroad:

According to Open

Doors Survey, NYU

sends more

Vision

The intellectual,

creative, and cultural

wellspring for thePacific Rim and

emerging societies of

Asia and Latin America


Partnerships:

Maintains eight

international offices

that work closely

with academic

partners in

education and

research, with

partners in the

corporate and NGO

worlds, with

government

agencies and

Vision

The university is

aggressively working to

recruit internationalstudents; develop

international research

collaborations and

exchanges; facilitate

connections between

schools, departments,

and offices to promote

internationalization;

identify funding

opportunities for

international research;

assist in the

coordination of visiting

delegations; and

integrate international

experiences into

Vanderbilt curricula.


The Vanderbilt

Initiative for

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

22

IV. Investment in Faculty Recruitment and Community

The following trends can be observed in faculty recruitment.

1. Focused hires in areas of strength—cluster hires, joint appointments, graduate fellows

One of the decisions we made is that we tried to think about areas of strength and then

make hires of young people based on groups. We have taken a cluster hiring approach

because people want to be with others who are great to work with, communicate well,

and are top in the country. So we don’t just approach it school by school or college by

college, but take an institution-wide approach.

Michigan

One of the surprising facts is that it is cheaper to get faculty hired in a highly ranked

department than a lower ranked department. So either reinvest in already highly ranked departments or choose some new foci that you are willing to invest five times as much to

achieve distinction.

2. Increased attention to mentoring

You must maintain an age balance in the faculty. Don’t create a cliff but just hiring

junior people. You also need mentoring and leadership, found and unfound. Be

attentive to where you’ll get that leadership.

3. Commitment to creating a culture of faculty engagement and innovation

One of our key strategic in faculty recruitment is to make the UCLA campus the most

desirable work environment in the country.

There is always a lot of innovation on campuses and academics love this, so investing in

programs that push innovation are the most important factor in recruiting and retaining

the next generation of faculty. If your strategy relies on creating that atmosphere, it’s a

self- fulfilling prophecy. It’s more important than money.

4. Expansion of tenure and promotion guidelines to include new institutional priorities

Noteworthy Initiatives

Michigan Staff Innovation Award recognizes individual staff members or teams whose big

ideas make the university a better place.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

23

Michigan launched an initiative in 2007 to hire 100 new junior faculty committed to

interdisciplinary teaching and research

o Cluster hires in support of sustainability focus:

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/sustainablefoodsystems/cluster_hires_in_sustainable_food

_systems

At Vanderbilt, the number of faculty chairs has increased from 76 in 2002 to 170 in 2012

Chicago Faculty Expansion Initiative, launched in 2010, has been led by the provost and

deans and has taken multiple forms in the schools and divisions, involving both junior and

senior faculty. Some of new positions are in response to competitively evaluated proposals

from throughout the University.

o University of Chicago uses a cluster system within their Biological Sciences Division for

graduate programs. The cluster system allows for integration of faculty, coursework,

research programs, training programs, and seminars for a multidisciplinary training

experience. The five clusters at U of Chicago are Cancer Biology, Immunology,

Microbiology, Molecular Metabolism & Nutrition, and Molecular Pathogenesis &

Molecular Medicine.

Duke has devoted $100 million to recruit and retain outstanding and diverse faculty (tenure

and non-tenure track) in the humanities, social sciences, and interdisciplinary areas that

address important issues in the world.

UNC-Chapel Hill’s Institute for the Arts and Humanities helps recruit, refresh, develop, and

retain teachers and scholars. The IAH aims to be a full-service faculty center, providing

resources to support faculty initiatives and a place for enriching intellectual exchanges. Two

core programs—the Faculty Fellows Program and the Ruel W. Tyson Jr. Academic

Leadership Programs encourage faculty to develop their talents and goals through

interaction with colleagues. Support for innovative scholarship and inspiring teaching is the

core mission of the IAH. The Institute fosters conversations about cutting-edge research and

teaching in the a variety of focus areas.

The UNC Faculty Engaged Scholars program is an initiative to advance faculty involvement

in the engaged scholarship. Scholars are selected through a competitive process. During the

two-year program, scholars participate in a highly interactive and experiential curriculum,

involving on site-visits and discussions with other Carolina faculty members and their

community partners.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/sustainablefoodsystems/cluster_hires_in_sustainable_food_systems



http://biomed.uchicago.edu/common/index.html

http://biomed.uchicago.edu/common/index.html



7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

26

Several museums and

collections

UC Botanical Garden:.

Chancellor's Community

Partnership Fund

EastBay Neighborhood

Initiative:

International

More undergrads from UC

Berkeley have gone on to

join the Peace Corps than

from any other university

in the country.

Carolina State University,

as well as the Durham-

based Council for

Entrepreneurial

Development, in the

effort.

National Association with Research

Triangle Park, a thriving

entrepreneurial

community and nexus for

technology and life

sciences firms

Carolina Covenant

International

http://botanicalgarden.berkeley.edu/education/education1.shtml

http://communityrelations.berkeley.edu/ccpf/




http://students.berkeley.edu/osl/calcorps.asp?id=1788








http://botanicalgarden.berkeley.edu/education/education1.shtml

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

27

Privates


Local and State

UChicago Promise—

University’s pledge

to help increase

college access andreadiness for

Chicago high school

students

National

University manages

two US Department

of Energy

laboratories

International

International

Houses is affiliated

with 15

international houses

across the world

Local and State

Duke-Durham?

National

Association with

Research Triangle Park

International

DukeEngage

Government of

China, State

Administration of

Foreign Experts

Affairs

Government of

India, Department

of Personnel and

Training, Indian

Administrative

Services

Korea Development

Institute

Government of

Korea

Local and State

In addition to its

Manhattan

locations, theUniversity is also

formally affiliated

the Polytechnic

Institute of NYU in

Brooklyn, the

second oldest

school of

engineering and

technology in the

country

Has research

facilities at the

Nelson Institute of

Environmental

Medicine, in Sterling

Forest, near Tuxedo,

New York

National Science

Foundation

NYU 2031: NYU in

NYC—a long-term

Local and State

National

International

The Vanderbilt

International

Strategy of 2005

calls for

partnerships with a

small number of

peer institutions in

strategic locations

throughout the

world." Since early

2006, Vanderbilt has

undertaken to

identify a select

group of strategic

partners for

Vanderbilt, focusing

on the key criteria

of research

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

28

ABC News – Be the

Change; Save a Life

Series contributing

partner

LabCorp of America,

for storage and use

of specimens for

research AmeriCorps, City

Year, Peace Corps,

Teach for America,

and Yellow Ribbon

Military Veterans,

for fellowships to

the Sanford School

for a MPP

strategic framework

for moving the

University forward

while respecting the

local community

prominence (world-

class strengths in

areas similar to

Vanderbilt's), discipl

inary breadth (at

least five

counterparts to VU's

ten Schools),and strategic

location (in terms of

geopolitics,

economics, and

accessibility).

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

29

Raising Private Funds for Institution-wide Priorities

Private universities are far ahead of publics when it comes to private philanthropy and

endowment size. However, because of decreases in state support, public universities have

developed a more entrepreneurial culture, turning to private gifts and new sources of revenue

(commercialization, self-supporting programs) to sustain and enhance the quality of academic

programs and facilities.

Public peers surpass UVA in financial support and funding individuals, foundations,

corporations, and other organizations.

Several of the comparison institutions have been particularly successful raising funds for need-

based aid.

Duke and Vanderbilt have been especially successful in raising funds for need-based aid.

Increased endowment funds for undergraduate aid have been a major institutional

priority and included in recent capital campaigns.

NYU’s Cal l to Action aims to raise funds in support of undergraduate and graduate

students

UC-Berkeley and Michigan have also found private fundraising to be essential to the

continued growth of need-based aid programs.

Total Support

2010 - 2011

(Not including

deferred)

Institutional

Expenditures

% Inst. Exp

covered by

Total

Support

University of Virginia $216,162,000 $952,000,000 23%

University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill $274,946,000 $1,732,350,000 16%

University of California: Berkeley $283,347,000 $1,731,788,000 16%

University of California: Los Angeles $415,330,000 $2,735,991,000 15%

University of Michigan $270,352,000 $3,010,138,000 9%

Duke University $349,658,000 $2,090,834,000 17%

New York University $337,852,000 $3,692,235,000 9%University of Chicago $216,748,000 $1,840,754,000 12%

University of Southern California $402,411,000 $2,660,214,000 15%

Vanderbilt University $119,440,000 $1,552,454,000 8%

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

30

Through the Bruin Scholars Initiative, UCLA aims to raise $500 million in support of aid

for graduate and undergraduate students

Public and private institutions that have been successful raising private funds for aid cite

the leadership of the president/chancellor and the board of trustees as instrumental.

Other Noteworthy Fundraising Initiatives

Chicago, Duke, and Vanderbilt have established strategic initiatives funds—essentially

venture capital funds in support of key strategies to meet programmatic goals

Innovate@Carolina aims to raise $125 million to make Carolina world leader in launching

ideas for the good of society

The State of North Carolina Distinguished Professorships Matching Program matches private

gifts to endow professorships that can be awarded to outstanding faculty members at the

full, associate or assistant professor level.

Duke does an especially effective job in making the case for university-wide priorities.

o Current Duke campaign themes:

Enriching the Duke Experience ($600M)

Experiential Learning

Innovation and Entrepreneurship

The Residential Experience

The Arts

Duke Athletics

Activating Duke’s Power for the World ($1.4 billion)

Global Health

Medical Discovery and Patient Care

Energy The Environment

Interdisciplinary Research

Durham and the Region

Sustaining Duke’s Momentum ($1.25 billion)

Financial Aid

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

31

Faculty Excellence

Duke Annual Fund

Campaign literature states: Support for our undergraduate, graduate, and

professional school students crosses all three themes of the campaign, and

fundraising priorities related to undergraduate education represent about 40 percent

of our goal. The three themes above represent the shared values and vision of

leaders across the university.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

32

APPENDIX

Competitive Position as Reflected in Rankings

In looking at domestic rankings for both undergraduate and graduate programs, UVA is typically

ranked around the middle of the comparison institutions.

UC-Berkeley has remained ranked as the top public national university for the past ten years. In

2004, UVA shared the top spot with UC-Berkeley, but for the past nine years UVA has been

ranked as the second top public. UCLA has moved up from fourth to now sharing the second

position with UVA for the past four years. Michigan’s ranking has been falling in the past few

years, and now sits at fourth. UNC has remained as the fifth best public for the past ten years.

Berkeley has an advantage in academic reputation and student quality. Berkeley’s

median SAT score is consistently 20-30 points higher and top 10% percentage isconsistently 8-10 percentage points higher than UVA Also, Berkeley is much more

selective with acceptance rates 10-11 percentage points lower than UVA

UCLA has improved in ranking due to consistently increasing their graduation rate

from 85% in 2004 to 90% in 2013 and regularly outperforming their predicted

graduation rate. The median SAT score has also shown consistent improvements

and is now up almost 50 points from ten years ago. Compared to UVA, UCLA has a

higher percentage of students in the top ten percent of their class and is more

selective.

Michigan has been slowly declining in undergraduate rank despite an improved

graduation rate, increased student quality, and becoming more selective. It seems

that Michigan’s fall in rank is due to institutions near them making larger strides.

Compared to U.Va, Michigan has a slight edge in academic reputation, which

accounts for the largest percentage of the US News ranking. UVA also benefits from

being more selective and having a higher alumni giving rate than Michigan.

Compared to the public peers, undergraduate education at UVA is seen as an unusual value:

#1 in Princeton Review , #4 in US News, and #2 in-state and #4 out-of-state in Kiplinger’s amongpublic institutions.

Princeton Review ranks UVA as the number 1 public best value college. UNC ranks

2nd, UCLA ranks 5th, and Michigan ranks 9th.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

33

UVA ranks 29th in US News Best Value Schools for national universities and 4th

among public national universities. UNC ranks 17th

overall and 1st

among public

institutions.

Kiplinger's rankings of Best Values in Public Colleges ranks UVA 2nd for in-state and

4th for out-of-state students. UNC ranks 1st in-state and 2nd out-of-state. UCLA

ranks 6th in-state and 7th out-of-state, UC-Berkeley ranks 8th both in-state and out-

of-state, and Michigan ranks 11th in-state and 18th out-of-state.

Global or international rankings consistently rank UVA far behind peers. This is primarily

due to the fact that international rankings rely heavily on research and funding towards

research.

Professional Education

Comparison institutions have a number of highly ranked professional programs. For the

purposes of this study, we have focused on law, business, and medicine.

Law Schools:

New York University (6th

) has remained fairly steady over the last 5 years.

o NYU has an edge on UVA in LSAT scores in student/faculty ratio.

o NYU has had fairly noticeable decline in placement of jobs at graduation and 9

months out

University of Chicago has moved up in rank from 7th

in 2009 to 4th

in the most recent

year of ranking by increasing student quality, in terms of undergraduate GPA, and

improving the student/faculty ratio. University of Chicago’s growth in the rankings is

somewhat surprising as they have become slightly less selective in the past five years

and have had a noticeable decline in employment placement.

UC-Berkeley is the only law school with an evident decline in law school ranking over the

past several years. Berkeley is currently ranked 9th

, from as highly ranked as 6th

. The

ranking factors that have most hurt Berkeley are a steady decline in peer andlawyer/judge assessments and a marked drop in employment placement in the most

recent year.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

34

Business Schools:

Duke’s Fuqua School of Business has made some gains and is currently ranked 11th

.

Over the past five years, Fuqua has been held in higher regard, in terms of peer and

recruiter assessments, than Darden. Darden has a noticeably higher median GMAT

score than Fuqua, but Fuqua has the clear advantage in placement data at

graduation and 3 months out.

For additional data on the comparison schools studied, including information on medical

schools, please see the UVA Comparative Peer Data file.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

35

Overall Rankings

Best Colleges Rankings (US News) UVA UNC UCLA UC: Berk UMich NYU USC U of Chi Duke Vand

UG National Universities 24 30 24 21 29 32 24 4 8 17

Top Public Schools 2 5 2 1 4

Best Value Schools (Publics) 4 1

Undergraduate Business 5 7 3 3 5 11

High School Counselor Rankings 22 29 22 17 29 29 29 17 11 11

Best Value Schools 29 17 38 11 9 16

Undergraduate Engineering 34 20 3 7 23 20 34

B

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

36

US News 2013 Best National Universities Rankings Among Publics

School Rank Public Ran Score

UG

Academic

Reputation

Index

Average

freshman

retention

rate

Predicted

Grad Rate

Actual

Grad Rate

Grad

Performance

University of California: Berkeley 21 1 79 93 97% 90% 90% -

University of Virginia 24 2 77 87 97% 87% 90% +3%

University of California: Los Angeles 24 2 77 86 97% 87% 90% +3%

University of Michigan 29 4 74 88 96% 89% 90% +1%

University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 30 5 73 85 97% 85% 90% +5%

School

% of

classes

under 20

% of

classes

50 or

more

Student/

faculty

ratio

% of faculty

who are full-

time

SAT/ACT

25th

percentile

SAT/ACT

75th

percentile

SAT/ACT

Median

Freshmen in

top 10% of HS

class Accept rate

Average

alumni giving

rate

University of California: Berkeley 64% 14% 17/1 89% 1250 1490 1370 98% 22% 12%

University of Virginia 53% 15% 16/1 98% 1240 1460 1350 91% 33% 22%

University of California: Los Angeles 51% 22% 17/1 91% 1180 1440 1310 97% 25% 13%

University of Michigan 48% 17% 16/1 93% 28 32 30 95% 41% 17%

University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 33% 13% 14/1 97% 1200 1400 1300 79% 31% 22%

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

37

Graduate School Rankings

Best Grad School Rankings (US News) UVA UNC UCLA UC: Berk UMich NYU USC U of Chi Duke Vand

Law 7 31 17 9 9 6 18 4 11 15

English 10 15 10 1 13 20 36 8 10 26

Business 12 20 14 7 14 10 26 6 11 30

Nursing 15 4 21 6 21 41 7 15

Medicine - Primary Care 18 1 11 8 74 74 39 44 31

Clinical Psychology 18 2 1 11 26 18 6 14

History 20 11 9 1 7 18 46 4 14 24

Education 22 37 8 12 11 17 17 1

Online Nursing 24 69

Psychology 26 12 2 2 4 30 40 21 21 30

Medicine - Research 26 22 13 8 21 31 8 8 14

Computer Science 28 20 14 1 13 28 20 35 27 58

Economics 30 32 15 5 13 11 48 1 19 36

Sociology 35 6 9 1 4 16 39 6 14 31

Politcal Science 36 13 10 6 4 15 54 12 10 36

Engineering 38 79 16 3 9 9 28 36

Physics 40 36 19 5 11 40 52 7 30 57

Chemistry 45 13 16 1 16 67 53 13 45 49

Public Affairs 46 23 23 6 12 6 6 23 16

Biological Sciences 46 24 24 2 20 56 46 13 13 32

Math 46 30 8 2 8 10 51 6 24 51

Speech-Language Pathology 52 11 52 3

Statistics 58 10 27 2 17 6 10

Earth Sciences 63 52 17 3 9 25 17 45

Clinical Psychology (School Psyc) 104

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

38

Professional School Rankings

US News & World Report 2014 Law School Ranking

School Rank Score

Peer

Assessment

(out of 5.0)

Lawyer/

Judge

Assessment

(out of 5.0)

Median UG

GPA

Median

LSAT Accept rate

Yale University 1 100 4.8 4.7 3.91 173 8%

Harvard University 2 95 4.8 4.8 3.86 173 16%

Stanford University 2 95 4.8 4.7 3.86 171 10%University of Chicago 4 92 4.6 4.7 3.81 170 20%

Columbia University 4 92 4.6 4.6 3.70 172 18%

New York University 6 89 4.4 4.6 3.69 171 28%

University of Virginia 7 85 4.4 4.6 3.73 168 15%

University of Pennsylvania 7 85 4.3 4.6 3.75 168 16%

University of California: Berkeley 9 83 4.4 4.4 3.80 167 12%

University of Michigan 9 83 4.4 4.7 3.70 168 25%

Rank

Student/

faculty

ratio

Grads

employed

at

graduation

Employed 9

mos after

grad

Bar

passage

rate in

jurisdiction

State with

most bar

test

takers

Jurisdiction's

overall bar

passage rate

Yale University 1 7.9/1 90.7% 91.2% 96.3% NY 77%

Harvard University 2 11.4/1 90.9% 93.7% 97.5% NY 77%

Stanford University 2 7.6/1 93.2% 95.8% 88.5% CA 67%

University of Chicago 4 7.5/1 90.6% 95.1% 96.4% IL 89%

Columbia University 4 8.0/1 93.2% 95.4% 96.2% NY 77%

New York University 6 9.0/1 93.1% 93.8% 95.5% NY 77%

University of Virginia 7 10.9/1 97.3% 96.0% 91.8% VA 79%

University of Pennsylvania 7 10.3/1 83.6% 91.2% 94.2% NY 77%

University of California: Berkeley 9 11.6/1 72.6% 82.6% 86.8% CA 67%

University of Michigan 9 12.8/1 70.7% 85.8% 94.8% NY 77%

B

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

39

US News & World Report 2014 Business School Ranking

School Rank Score

Peer

Assessment

(out of 5.0)

Recruiter

Assessment

(out of 5.0)

Average

UG GPA

Average

GMAT Score

Accept

rate

Harvard University 1 100 4.8 4.5 3.67 724 11.5%

Stanford University 1 100 4.8 4.6 3.69 729 7.1%

University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) 3 99 4.8 4.6 3.60 718 20.0%

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan) 4 97 4.7 4.4 3.53 710 15.6%

Northwestern University (Kellogg) 4 97 4.7 4.4 3.69 708 22.9%

University of Chicago (Booth) 6 96 4.7 4.4 3.52 720 23.0%

University of California: Berkeley (Haas) 7 93 4.6 4.1 3.61 715 13.8%

Columbia University 8 91 4.5 4.2 3.50 715 20.8%Dartmouth College (Tuck) 9 90 4.3 4.0 3.49 717 20.4%

New York University (Stern) 10 87 4.2 3.9 3.51 720 15.7%

Duke University (Fuqua) 11 86 4.3 4.0 3.42 690 27.5%

University of Virginia (Darden) 12 85 4.2 3.9 3.45 703 26.6%

Yale University 13 84 4.2 4.1 3.55 717 21.3%

University of California: Los Angeles (Anderson) 14 82 4.1 3.8 3.56 704 22.6%

University of Michigan (Ross) 14 82 4.3 3.9 3.40 703 40.6%

School Rank

Average

starting

salary and

bonus (in

thou)

Grads

employed at

graduation

Employed 3

mos after

grad

OOS

Tuition

and Fees

Total full-

time

enrollment

Harvard University 1 $142.5 77.4% 89.3% $63,300 1,824

Stanford University 1 $140.5 71.3% 87.8% $57,300 803

University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) 3 $138.3 79.7% 91.7% $62,000 1,685

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan) 4 $139.0 84.5% 94.4% $58,200 816

Northwestern University (Kellogg) 4 $134.0 76.9% 91.7% $56,800 1,161

University of Chicago (Booth) 6 $135.7 84.1% 92.3% $56,900 1,161

University of California: Berkeley (Haas) 7 $133.8 74.4% 92.7% $56,300 490

Columbia University 8 $134.9 77.0% 91.6% $60,900 1,274

Dartmouth College (Tuck) 9 $138.7 85.8% 92.9% $60,500 549

New York University (Stern) 10 $133.9 79.5% 90.5% $55,200 780

Duke University (Fuqua) 11 $136.5 86.5% 91.7% $54,900 874

University of Virginia (Darden) 12 $131.9 81.5% 90.9% $53,900 637

Yale University 13 $121.6 66.5% 85.5% $56,500 494

University of California: Los Angeles (Anderson) 14 $121.9 71.9% 86.5% $54,500 737University of Michigan (Ross) 14 $134.4 74.3% 81.4% $55,200 992

B

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

40

International Rankings

Academic

Ranking of

WorldUniversities '12 -

Shanghai Jiao

Tong University

World

UniversityRankings '12 -

Times Higher

Education

University of California: Berkeley 4 9

University of Chicago 9 10

University of California: Los Angeles 12 13

University of Michigan 22 20

New York University 27 41

Duke University 36 23University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 41 42

University of Southern California 46 56

Vanderbilt University 50 106

University of Virginia 101-150 118

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

1

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

INTERVIEWS WITH UVA DEANS, DEPARTMENT CHAIRS, AND ADMINISTRATORS

The following questions were sent to the interviewees in advance:

1. In what fields of research and scholarship does your department (for deans:

school/college) hold a position of national leadership? Given resources for

competitive faculty positions and salaries, in what fields could you reasonably expect

to hold such a position in the next 5-7 years?

2. What do you consider the best measures of a premier student experience in your

department (for deans: school/college), and how well is your department

(school/college) performing against those measures? (Please cite specifics.)

3. In what areas of public service and state and national societal impact does your

department (for deans: school/college) hold a position of leadership, and in what

areas could you reasonably expect to hold such a position in the next 5-7 years?

4. Please cite the 3-4 best examples of research collaboration across departments,

colleges/ schools, or universities in which your department (for deans:

school/college) is currently involved.

This summary of responses is organized around the primary themes that emerged from the

interviews:

1. Research Strengths, Faculty Recruitment and Program Strategy

2. Collaboration

3. Teaching

4. The Student Experience

5. Outreach and Community Impact

6. Building on UVA’s Culture

Representative quotes appear in italics.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

2

Research Strengths, Faculty Recruitment and Program Strategy

UVA’s ability to attract and retain top faculty is seriously compromised.

We are at a serious disadvantage at UVA – we can’t afford to keep our best faculty. The

number of top faculty we are losing to other top universities is alarming.

We’re a farm team for other universities.

We lost to another university a guy who was teaching a Coursera course with 48,000

students and who started Project Hi-Phi getting high school students involved in

philosophy.

I came here six years ago. I wouldn’t come here now.

A number of recruiting challenges were cited.

Our inability to do spousal hiring is a big impediment.

Dual career recruiting in Charlottesville is challenging.

We have no formal maternity policy at UVA.

Having no same sex benefits was mentioned by several departments as hurting their

recruitment efforts.

It’s a remote, small town with a small airport. Maybe we need to do something like

Cornell does with its daily bus to New York.

UVA’s moderate size creates a particular set of challenges and requires strategic choices.

We are one of only 2-3 programs of our size that is ranked in the 30’s. With three hires

we could move into the top 20.

We are decidedly not a leader in big data now, but we could catch up quickly with buy-in

from several schools.

All science departments here are small. Ours is about to have NO junior faculty.

We don’t have critical mass in any department.

You need a faculty of 30 in our discipline (math) to be in the game.

We’re losing faculty in our department but, at the same time, student interest is going

up.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

4

Development neurobiology is where we have the greatest promise.

Sociology: there’s tension between quantitative and qualitative everywhere. We’ve long

been known for qualitative – a focus on culture -- but are growing strong quant. Our

profile is more like elite privates than big publics. We won’t get the big grants. We do

humanistic social science. The quant people haven’t felt fully supported.

The arts are almost there, almost a respectable player of this type of departments,

almost ready to be mentioned with Princeton and Stanford. To get over this hump we

need a performing arts center, a connection with engineering and technology to study

creativity and public leadership, and seed funding in the office of the Vice Provost for the

Arts.

Religious Studies—tied to cultural issues of day, global competencies, development of

global leaders, biomedical ethics; connection to Contemplative Sciences Center; may be

moving in direction of field studies

Astronomy—threatened by operating costs of ownership in national projects/

laboratories that are critical to positioning of UVA program; early investments are just

getting ready to pay off but department is concerned that funding will not be protected

There are some real superstars in engineering, but they are quite old now. We don’t see

a plan to invest money in new faculty or in updating labs and instrumentation, so are not

sure where to go from here.

UVA’s existing strengths are being neglected or downplayed.

Good stewardship of what we already have is the most important thing—and no one

says that.

A truly strong global education starts with strong academic work concerning other

countries and cultures.

The Vice President for Research Office is biased toward the hard sciences.

The College of Arts & Sciences is behind in fundraising and its endowment. It’s been the

ugly duckling compared to Darden and McIntyre.

Undergraduate education is our core strength, but [the previous administration] really

focused on professional schools, at the expense of our College of Arts & Sciences.

We need to be sure we don’t now neglect our real strengths in the humanities while

pushing the sciences.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

5

Chemistry/Astrochemistry—University made a big investment in two world leaders (one

is a MacArthur genius grant winner) in an attempt to position the program for a big

NASA grant. The University was unsuccessful in the grant process and now has these

scholars to support. Meanwhile the fundamentals have been neglected in the

Chemistry department, which serves a large number of students (1,300 first yearstudents and 100 majors). Fundamentals neglected include having enough faculty to

teach undergraduates and creation of inquiry-based labs. Department head told this

story as an example as a big idea coming down from on high that was not based on the

interests and strengths of the people in the department. Chemistry research funding is

second highest in College of Arts & Sciences.

Physics—currently ranked 40th

in US News out of 146 departments. Department chair

believes that it has the potential to get to top 25. Undergraduate program is #15 in

number of majors, and students rate undergraduate experience highly. Faculty is quite

strong but the numbers are small. Labs are also outdated.

Computer Science was a real strength, nationally recognized, and supported our sciences

and engineering strengths, but loss of multiple faculty members without replacements

has deteriorated us. We will not be able to meet the demand unless there is significant

funding directed towards replacing and adding additional faculty.

UVA has not staked out fields and topics in which, by virtue of its unique history and setting, it

should be the leader.

The Carter Woodson Center does good work but is underutilized, and it’s crazy that UVAdoes not have the leading center in the country, in the world, on race. It should involve

public health, economics, education, Batten, politics, law, and the humanities.

We used to be the leader in digital humanities, but through significant losses of faculty

members we are now behind. We need to hire 2-3 prominent faculty members in this

area to regain our top reputation. It is now becoming more fractured and silo-ed.

There is concern that the dean and other faculty members are not as interested

in the digital humanities as they used to be.

We need to deal with the pressure on newer faculty to put aside work in digital

humanities until after they get tenure.

Architecture and Urban Planning are nationally recognized, but not emphasized enough.

Key choices made in the School of Medicine are seen as having a negative effect.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

6

To be successful, the medical/hospital strategy to focus on three areas (cancer,

neuroscience, cardiovascular medicine) depends on size of patient population for clinical

trials. We are sacrificing investment in basic science, once a huge strength for UVA, to

support this strategy but doubt that it will unfold well.

SOM leadership and vision are lacking, and even though that is about to change, we

have lost tremendous ground in basic science.

UVA lacks a shared, articulated vision for itself.

The medical/hospital strategy is an attempt to grow the profile of UVA as a medical

center, and also to grow its revenues. UVA does not have a CTSA grant, and to get one

it needs to grow in patient population size and infrastructure. It is not clear that policies

are in place to support that growth and to compete for patient care services with the

community hospital.

The teaching/student experience is above average due to TEAL (teaching enhanced

active learning).

Basic sciences were not included in medical/hospital strategy so are bound to diminish

over time.

There is enthusiasm and interest in the new interim Dean of Medicine, Nancy Dunlap,

but also uncertainty over why she is interim and whether she will preside over a new

strategy plan during her tenure.

UVA lacks a real identity -- who are we competing with, what do we want to be?

Funding has not been sought strategically.

In Medicine, more state money is going to VCU and VA Tech than UVA due to leadership

neglect and complacency.

Our approach to math and science funding is more of a scramble than strategic thinking.

What is the most important metric? While there are not huge amounts of research

dollars available in our field, an incremental investment in our program would createsignificant strength in our programs.

Ideas don’t come from the ground up. Instead, they are driven from the top.

Development attention is also controlled by the top. Fundraising is driving the program

instead of the program driving the agenda. It’s hard to know how critical initiatives can

get the attention.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

7

A bigger issue than money is aligning strategically. Someone has to be willing to step up

and lead.

We’re shooting at targets we don’t understand.

Collaboration

Leaders point to some notable successes and potential opportunities.

The Neuroscience Graduate Program is a gem involving 80 labs university-wide.

Quantitative Collaborative (QC)—Four themes: Data Analysis/Quantitative Methods,

Mathematical Modeling, Experiential Social Science, Data-Gathering Methodologies

Media Studies

Sustainability initiatives

Inter-Global Sustainability Program, Center for Design and Health, Community

Design and Research, Cultural Sustainability and Preservation (needs to be

regenerated)

Contemplative Science Center—leaders believe that it is succeeding because of buy-in

across the University. Potential for deep impact on faculty culture and undergraduate

experience.

Energy Center

Health Issues (Nursing, Medical, Law, Darden, Batten, Professional Studies—coming at it

from a number of different angles)

Curry (Psycholinguistics, Education Leadership, Kinesiology, Youth Violence)

Idea (in the early stages) of the Library collaborating with departments to serve as a

consulting center for the University and the Commonwealth

Leadership minor has been very successful in leading new collaborations between

McIntyre, Darden, Batten and others.

Even given our recent past issues with climate research, we still have a lot of strengths

here and it is collaborative in nature.

It’s important to remember that interdisciplinary work strengthens departments.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

8

We do interdisciplinary in ways that allow students to explore things they wouldn’t

otherwise.

The ten appointments as part of the Mellon grant are a real test to our ability to

collaborate.

On the other hand, they also express frustration with the continuing culture of silos and

competition across Grounds

There is a disconnect between the administration’s stated interest in interdisciplinarity

and the culture of competition between schools/colleges and departments.

My dean forbids me to talk with faculty in other schools about collaborative ideas.

We are very silo-oriented here when it comes to collaboration. Tenure process doesn’t

really support collaboration. Young faculty become risk-averse here, given no support in

promotion and tenure process for collaborations.

We need to do a better job breaking down the walls between the colleges and the

professional schools.

Joint appointments would really help at UVa, but the new budget model appears to

make this even more difficult, if not impossible.

Collaboration is seen as valuable but a kind of shibboleth, often misunderstood, and not

rewarded

Don’t put such an overemphasis on collaboration.

My department is inherently interdisciplinary. Such work within a department goes

unrecognized.

Let’s not forget w e still have humanities scholars, writing individual monographs.

Collaboration in the humanities happens less in research and more in teaching. In

research, the collaboration happens in dialogue, not the end product. There is a huge

amount of informal collaboration.

To be interdisciplinary you must be a mature scholar.

Interdisciplinary hires will be weaker.

Interdisciplinary is not rewarded here.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

9

Collaboration here is completely faculty-driven, without significant support from

administration. There is also a paucity of journals which will publish many of the new

efforts so far.

Teaching

There’s acknowledged to be a great deal of ferment, even “a revolution,” going on in pedagogy.

Some note how UVA is already doing some things well.

In the fourth year we teach as we should: working with primary sources, going from

consuming to synthesizing and producing ideas.

To apprehend the world differently: that’s the most radical thing on offer.

Others have not given it much thought.

We have never had formal discussion about our teaching methods.

We’ve made the major competitive; we weed out majors.

Others see UVA as the place to design and lead in reinvigorating and delivering great teaching.

This is an important time of change in teaching and, while we have great teachers in our

department, we need help from an expert.

We need to look at how we teach.

We need to get away from the model of training undergraduates as if they were mini-

PhD’s.

There’s a cl ose connection between teaching and leading. The best graduate students

approach undergraduate teaching like Teach for America.

The curriculum didn’t change for 40 years, and then in 1991 all we did was remove the

math requirement. Our latest efforts are more focused on creating an alternative

curriculum coordinated around a theme and spanning multiple disciplines.

Key goal is to show how a multidisciplinary approach solves problems.

UVA must change its model to do so.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

10

We don’t have enough faculty to require small group experiences for all of our majors.

We’re paying faculty more to teach less; the model isn’t affordable. The solution will be

a more bifurcated faculty.

The new method of teaching in groups in the School of Medicine will not generate newacademic scholars and leaders.

Leaders believe that the Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning (CASTL)

has the potential to be a signature program for UVA and the Curry School--as well as

well as a national model. It is currently a collaborative project across Grounds. Leaders

at the Curry School believe that they can help UVA build on its student experience

claims. The Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

(CASTL-HE) is focused on the science of postsecondary teaching and learning.

The Student Experience

The level of student engagement here is qualitatively different from other places—for some

students, in some departments.

Students are at university policy discussions.

Every new student class has produced a new initiative that we’ve sustained.

How great the students are here has to do with their commitment to the institution.They love it and they take pride in what they do.

Jefferson’s genius was the program: the student-faculty interaction.

The ease of double majoring is a great strength of UVA. You can do science and music –

one can be warm and fuzzy.

The small departments and programs are where students have a great experience.

The Distinguished Majors Program: We haven’t figured out how to do it properly.

The student experience in basic sciences at SOM is still above average due to faculty

efforts.

Student choice and “self-governance” remains a cherished precept.

Our objective is that the student finds a niche to grow in.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

12

The University has been talking about the sciences for years but it’s all research- focused.

There are some science and math disciplines that don’t require the same facility support

but could have an impact on the quality of the undergraduate experience.

Research experiences/public service

Happening on an ad hoc basis

Career advising and placement

Happens on an ad hoc basis in departments. Some seem to handle quite well.

Most students find the central career office to be useless.

Outreach and Community Impact

The Research Office sustains an ambitious agenda of outreach initiatives, which, individually

and collectively, are too little publicized and known.

We should position UVA as a comprehensive resource and partner, versus just around

specific issues or projects.

Charlottesville is emerging as a cultural hub and the University is leading the way

New Vice Provost for the Arts

Arts as a driver of creativity and innovation on Grounds, can be symbolic blending of

progressive and traditional spirit at UVA

Arts as the welcoming arm of the University

Our people run the local art scene, art as a means for social action.

Film Festival is celebrating its 25th

anniversary, has doubled in size

New Arts Grounds – opportunity for more collaboration and outreach

Alumni interested in arts have not been engaged; fundraising limited by decentralized

approach

For 30 years the Classics department has helped run The Classics Project for HS

teachers.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

13

We put on a lot of programs and initiate a lot of community engagement, but

nonetheless our relationship with Charlottesville is a weakness.

School of Continuing and Professional Studies is thought to be quite strong. Issue: how does it

relate to other colleges/departments? Leadership needs to come from top. Leaders of this

program note considerable duplication of effort.

McIntyre has a group of students that founded SEED, the largest student group that provides

consultations for social good.

Building on UVA’s Culture

UVA’s culture is differentiating and powerful.

There’s “an endowment of loyalty” among faculty here.

The way to di fferentiate UVA isn’t through individual programs like the Jefferson Public

Citizens. Those are only for the top students. We need to go after things systematically,

not programmatically —things that say, this is who we are. We don’t want to get to the

point we’re talking about “the McIntyre experience”; it’s the UVA experience. It’s the

“mush.”

I hope we don’t end up being just a collection of different units; I don’t want to see a

proliferation of schools. What’s important here is the common culture. It’s closer to a

typical British university. The personal qualities of the people here and how they relate

to each other; civility; scale; how departments feel about deans. An over-

professionalized, over-corporatized approach, formal, bureaucratic, more explicit

authority structures is a threat to the essence of UVA.

Collegiality has empowered collaboration rather than UVA leadership empowering

collaboration.

The Academical Village: myth or reality?

We talk about the undergraduate experience and the academical village, but most students live 5-7 miles off Grounds. We’ve become a suburban campus and we’re

disconnected from one another. That’s had an important impact on our culture. What

do we need to do programmatically to compensate?

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

14

There is no place for faculty to interact with each other on an informal basis. How are

Pavillion houses used? The Rotunda has become more of a museum and tourist site than

a living part of the academical village.

Some impediments need to be removed.

The bureaucracy burden on department chairs is becoming overwhelming.

There are a lot of spinning wheels, a lot of wasted time. We need to streamline, let

people go, get rid of administrative bloat.

There is a proliferation of centers and institutes, many seemingly unknown to people

not involved in them

UVA does not promote an "op-ed debate" forum for its community.

Faculty here need to become more savvy about communicating what they do.

In some ways, the culture needs to change.

Our challenges are getting past the legacy of Thomas Jefferson and the US News

Rankings. I believe the Rankings have held us back from taking a hard look at ourselves.

We’re playing above our weight.

UVA’s culture is based on word -of-mouth and oral history. We don’t document facts and

policies or make evidence-based decisions.

Tapping the culture now, especially, is urgent—and could make a major difference.

After the crisis, we need to realize we’re all in it together.

The University drifted in the 1990’s and has been defined by crisis in the 2000’s.

This university is running on fumes. We need the core capacity to move forward. It’s a

critical time.

The greatest challenge for the President and Provost is to inspire ambition.

There’s a lot of pent -up energy. Allow room for things to come from the bottom up. Set

up structures where faculty are asked to come up with proposals.

We must reinvigorate this place.

We must cultivate the faculty’s shared interest.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


WORKING DRAFT

15

Walls are easy to break down here. You can do what you want. Systems get in the way.

It requires leadership and coordination from the top.

We need to pick a few bold initiatives we know we can achieve, and show people how.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


1

UVA ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT

DEANS, DEPARTMENT HEADS, AND ADMINISTRATORS INTERVIEWED

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTUREKim M. Tanzer, Dean

Richard G. Wilson, Architectural History

Inaki Alday, Architecture

Tim Beatley, Urban and Environmental Planning

COLLEGE & GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Susan McKinnon, Anthropology

Howard M. Singerman, Art

Michael F. Strutskie, Astronomy

Laura Galloway, Biology

W. Dean Harman, Chemistry

John Miller, Classics

Thomas A. Bloom, Drama

Charles A. Holt, Economics

Cynthia S. Wall, English Language and Literature

Patricia L. Wiberg, Environmental Sciences

Deborah L. McGrady, French Language and Literature

Paul Halliday, History

John Imbrie, Mathematics

Siva Vaidhyanathan, Media Studies

Farzaneh M. Milani, Middle Eastern & S. Asian Languages & CulturesRichard J. Will, Music

Talbot M. Brewer, Philosophy

Joseph Poon, Physics

David A. Leblang, Politics

David L. Hill, Psychology

Kurtis Schaeffer, Religious Studies

David Herman, Slavic Languages and Literatures

J. Krishan Kumar, Sociology

Deborah W. Parker, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese

Jeff Holt, Statistics

MCINTIRE SCHOOL OF COMMERCE

Carl P. Zeithaml, Dean

Susan Perry Williams, Accounting

Ryan Nelson, Information Technology

Thomas Bateman, Management

7/28/2019 Report 0705


2

SCHOOL OF CONTINUING AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

Billy K. Cannaday, Jr., Dean

Susan Barr, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

Stephen J. Pryplesh, Assistant Dean of the FBI Programs

THE DARDEN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIONRobert F. Bruner, Dean

Mark Haskins, Accounting

Ken Eades, Finance

Alan Beckenstein, Global Economies and Markets

Ron Wilcox, Marketing

Elliott Weiss, Techonlogy and Operations Management

Sam Bodily, Quantitative Analysis

Jeanne Liedtka, Strategy, Ethics and Entrepreneurship

CURRY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

Robert C. Pianta, Dean

Stephanie van Hover, Curriculum, Instruction and Special Education

Peter L. Sheras, Human Services

Carol Tomlinson, Leadership, Foundations and Policy

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE

James H. Aylor, Dean

Roseanne M. Ford, Chemical Engineering

Brian L. Smith, Civil and Environmental Engineering

Kevin Skadron, Computer Science

W. Bernard Carlson, Science, Technology, and SocietyJohn C. Lach, Electrical and Computer Engineering

William C. Johnson, Materials Science and Engineering

Hossein Haj-Hariri, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Barry Horowitz, Systems and Information Engineering

SCHOOL OF LAW - NORTH GROUNDS

Paul G. Mahoney, Dean

George S. Geis, Vice Dean

Stephen T. Parr, Senior Associate Dean, Administration

SCHOOL OF MEDICINE - HEALTH SYSTEM

Steven T. DeKosky, M.D., Vice President and Dean

Anindya Dutta, M.D., Ph.D., Chair, Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics

Frederick H. Epstein, M.D., Chair, Biomedical Engineering

Barry M. Gumbiner, Ph.D., Cell Biology

Kevin S. Lee, Ph.D., Chair, Neuroscience

Peggy Shupnick, Senior Associate Dean for Research

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705


ABOUT THE SOURCES

State Council of Higher Education for Virginia

Collects institutional level data about Virginia institutions to assist the state government in making

higher education decisions on budget planning, enrollment projections, institutional technology

needs, and student financial aid

http://www.schev.edu/

Most recent data from the 2011-12 academic year

National Survey of Student Engagement

Student survey administered by institutions to determine how students are spending their time and

effort and how institutions use resources and organizes the curriculum to promote increased

engagement. Over 600 institutions participated in the recent survey.

http://nsse.iub.edu/

Most recent general data from the 2013 report, UVA specific data from the 2011 report

Student Experience in the Research University

Student survey administered by SERU consortium members to create new data sources and policy-

relevant analyses to better understand the undergraduate experience and promote institutional

improvement

http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/seru/

Most recent UVA specific data from the 2012 report

CollegeMeasures.org, partnership between the American Institutes for Research and Matrix

Knowledge Group

Aims to make available key data that informs and improves the decision-making process for

students, parents, and policy makers. Collected institutional level data from 1,575 four-year

colleges and 1,717 two-year colleges

http://collegemeasures.org/

Most recent data from the 2010 academic year

US News and World Report

Collects institutional level data and peer/recruiter assessments and ranks undergraduate and

graduate level programs

http://www.usnews.com/education

Most recent data from the 2013 report College data and from the 2014 report for Graduate school

data












7/28/2019 Report 0705


National Center for Education Statistics (The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System)

Interrelated surveys conducted by the US Department NCES to all institutions that participate in any

federal student financial aid program. Data is reported for over 7,500 institutions.

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/


College Board

Aims to promote excellence and equity in education, and collects institutional level data from over

3,800 colleges and universities

http://www.collegeboard.org/


Council for Aid to Education (Voluntary Support of Education)

Survey to higher education and private K-12 institutions regarding private giving and voluntary

support

http://www.cae.org/content/pro_data_trends.htm

Most recent data from the 2011 report

Higher Education Research Institute (Cooperative Institutional Research Program Freshman

Survey)

Administered by two-year and four-year colleges and universities to entering students during

orientation or registration

http://www.heri.ucla.edu/cirpoverview.php

Most recent data from the 2010 CIRP Freshman Survey report

National Research Council (A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the

United States)

Assesses the quality and effectiveness of doctoral programs from 212 universities by using

institutional level data and faculty survey responses

http://www.nap.edu/rdp/

Most recent data from the version revised in 2011, collected with data from the 2005-06 academic

year

Bloomsburg Businessweek

Ranks 237 graduate business schools and 169 undergraduate business schools by surveying students

and employers and considering the number of articles published

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings

Most recent data from the 2012 rankings


















7/28/2019 Report 0705


The Economist

The Economist’s “Which MBA?” ranking is made up of 130 selected leading business schools from

around the world and requires significant student/alumni response and takes into account

institutional level data from the institutions

http://www.economist.com/whichmba/full-time-mba-ranking


Forbes America

Forbes’ ranking of “America’s Top Colleges” measures and ranks 650 American colleges and

universities on institutional level data on factors most important to students, including quality of

teaching, career prospects, graduation rates, and low debt levels. Reputation and selectivity are

excluded from the rankings

http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/list/


Washington Monthly

Washington Monthly’s ranking of National Universities is based on institutional level data regarding

university’s contribution to the public good, in areas of social mobility (recruiting and graduating

low-income students), research (scholarships and producing PhDs), and service (students giving

back). Schools ranked include all schools ranked in the US News & World Report ranking.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2012/national_university_rank.php


Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Academic Ranking of World Universities)

The ARWU rankings are a world rankings based heavily on institutional level data regarding

academic and research performance. All universities that have published papers in Nature or

Science and who have decorated faculty are included in the rankings. In addition to the overall

ranking, ARWU ranks within specific fields and subjects.

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html


Times Higher Education

Pulled by institutional level data on core topics of teaching, research, knowledge transfer, and

international outlook, Times Higher Education ranks 400 world colleges and universities. THE, also,

ranks the top 100 universities on reputation by surveying senior and published academics.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/

















7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705


UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Strategic Positioning and Pricing Study

Report of Key Findings and Recommendations

WORKING DRAFT

April 26, 2013

7/28/2019 Report 0705


UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA STRATEGIC POSITIONING AND PRICING STUDY

A R T & S C I E N C E G R O U P , L L C .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1

II. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS FROM THE PROSPECTIVE STUDENT STUDY ............................. 4

III. OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 8

APPENDIX

Attributes and Initiatives Tested in Prospect Student Research

Final Research Report: Survey of Inquirers and Admitted Applicants

7/28/2019 Report 0705



A R T & S C I E N C E G R O U P , L L C

WORKING DRAFT

1

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The University of Virginia engaged Art & Science Group in Fall 2011 to conduct a

comprehensive study to address the following questions:

How much flexibility does U.Va. have in pricing and aid policy in its prospective

traditional undergraduate student markets?

What is U.Va.’s current competitive position, or drawing power, in these markets?

How should the University seek to strengthen its position to attract more desirable

students in these markets? What would be the effects of potential changes to the

student experience, communications, financial aid, and/or price? What challenges does U.Va. face in these markets? What are the University’s greatest

opportunities?

What are the differences between in-state and out-of-state student populations, and

between subgroups within each?

What would be the trade-offs of investing in financial aid versus other strategic

priorities?

In order to get at these questions, the project proceeded in the following phases:

Phase 1: Strategic Assessment on Grounds

Phase 2: Econometric Analysis of Financial Aid

Phase 3: Financial Aid Benchmarking Study

Phase 4: Quantitative Research with U.Va. Inquirers and Admitted Applicants

Phase 5: Preliminary Recommendations on Price and Aid

The Strategic Assessment included an overview of the University’s ob jectives in institutional

planning, pricing, financial aid, and student recruitment. Through interviews with selected

senior officials, faculty and board members, and a review of existing analyses, strategic plans,

publications, and other documents, we identified the underpinnings of the University’s

current market position, the anticipated threats and opportunities in the marketplace, and

strategic initiatives under consideration. A key goal of this phase was to develop pricing, aid,

and positioning initiatives to explore in the prospective-student research.

7/28/2019 Report 0705




WORKING DRAFT

2

The Financial Aid Optimization Analysis included a review of admission and financial aid

offers and the matriculation decisions of its prospects over the last several years. Art &

Science was then able to model the impact of different scenarios based on the University’s

price, aid, and enrollment objectives.

The Financial Aid Benchmarking Study included a review of need-based aid policies and

practices at seven peer universities:

Cornell University

Duke University

University of California-Berkeley


University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

Vanderbilt University

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Financial aid administrators at the participating universities provided detailed data and

responded to questions in telephone interviews with an Art & Science Group consultant.

Separate reports on the Optimization and Benchmarking studies have been submitted to the

University.

The Prospective Student Research was designed to help determine the potential market

impacts of larger scale pricing, aid, and positioning changes the University may want to make.The study focused on qualified prospects’ decisions about where to apply and matriculate,

and on the likely effect of a number of initiatives and positioning options under consideration

at U.Va. The survey was administered by professional interviewers using computer-assisted

telephone interviewing. Through structural competitive analysis, we assessed U.Va.’s true

competitors, categorically as well as individually. Proprietary multivariate statistical analyses

enabled us to determine real, as opposed to self-reported, factors motivating prospective

students’ decisions.

7/28/2019 Report 0705




WORKING DRAFT

3

This quantitative study began in February 2012 and was completed in July. We completed

surveys with:

Inquirers: 904

523 In-state

o 102 Non-applicant inquirers

o 421 Applicants

381 Out-of-state

o 183 Non-applicant inquirers

o 198 Applicants

Admitted Applicants: 775

400 In-state

o 69 Admit-Declineso 231 Matriculants

375 Out-of-state

o 287 Admit-Declines

o 88 Matriculants

Findings and implications of all three studies were presented to an Internal Working Group.

Because the initial focus of administrative and board action was the AccessUVa program, we

worked collaboratively with administrators to develop preliminary pricing and financial aid

recommendations for presentation to the Board of Visitors in February 2013.

It was agreed that further recommendations would be incorporated into the University’s

strategic planning initiative.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705




WORKING DRAFT

6

C. For out-of-state students, U.Va. primarily competes with research/doctoral

institutions outside of Virginia.

Two-thirds of out-of-state admit-declines plan to attend top 25 institutions

No specific school is a dominant competitor out-of-state.

Cost and Aid

A. Prospective students do not have an accurate awareness of the cost of attendance or

components of the AccessUVa program.

Prospective students are largely unaware of the true cost of attendance or

that U.Va. tuition is lower than at peer institutions.

It is not generally well-understood how generous U.Va. is with need-based aid.Competitors are seen as more generous.

o In-state non-applicant inquirers rate U.Va. low on affordability

The majority of survey respondents consider U.Va. to be need-blind but few

believe the University is meeting full need.

Survey respondents were less aware of U.Va.’s debt cap. Nearly half of the

inquirers don’t know about it or report no cap, and over half of the admitted

applicants don’t know or report no cap on student debt.

B. Awareness of a “need-blind and meets full need” policy has a significant positive

impact on conversion and yield, even more so in-state.

Just being need-blind has a neutral effect on conversion and yield in-state and

out-of-state

C. Debt cap has significant positive impact on conversion only at the $30,000 level

(lowest level we tested)

Also significant positive impact on yield, at any of the levels tested, especially

out-of-state

D. The study found a neutral impact associated with increasing price at the smaller

increments tested.

U.Va. could raise price in-state by as much as $3,500, beyond inflationary

increases, and see no effect or even small gains in applications and

enrollment.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705




WORKING DRAFT

8

III. Overarching Recommendations

The study findings lead us to make a handful of core recommendations. We note that some

of these recommendations have already been taken up in University’s strategic planning

process and urge that each of them is addressed within the context of the strategic direction

that emerges.

A. Invest in facilitating and publicizing the fact that students can develop meaningful

academic relationships with faculty.

B. Present a much more welcoming campus visit, and be mindful of the effects on

inquirers and visitors of the perceived campus culture.

C. Strengthen U.Va.’s reputation for program quality, advising, and student quality.

D. Increase emphasis on preparation for global citizenship and student leadership

opportunities.

E. Increase awareness of affordability and communicate much more vigorously the

features and benefits of AccessUVa.

With regard to financial aid, we recommend that U.Va. optimize need-based grants in order

to improve access for lower-income families, maintain or increase diversity, improveacademic quality, and increase net tuition revenue.

With the limitations of maintaining the current balance of in-state and out-of-state students

and remaining need-blind, the ways to accomplish U.Va.’s financial aid objectives are

nuanced. We recommend:

A. Conducting careful experiments to create greater variation in aid awarding for low-

income students. Only with such data will econometric modeling be able to help the

University understand how changes in its aid program would affect the lowest-

income students.

B. Focusing on in-state student populations, the University’s best opportunities are to

increase institutional grants to higher-academic quality aid applicants and those with

above median need.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705


Art & Science Group

Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside

of University of Virginia without the permission of both UVA and Art & Science Group. 1


STRATEGIC POSITIONING AND PRICING STUDY

INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES TESTED IN THE PROSPECTIVE STUDENT STUDY

Student honor code: Has a student honor code

History and tradition: Has a strong sense of history and tradition

Job placement: Has an excellent record of placing graduates in good jobs and careers

Honors program: Offers a strong honors program

Exceptional faculty: Has exceptional faculty who are internationally recognized

Outstanding students: Attracts the most outstanding students in the country

Student leadership: Has a strong tradition of student leadership

Strong science and engineering: Has outstanding programs in the sciences and engineering

Beautiful campus: Has a beautiful campus

4 year graduation rate: An exceptionally high percentage of students graduate in four years

Career counseling: Has strong career counseling programs

Strong program: Has a strong program in your intended major

Strong advising: Offers strong advising programs and mentorship opportunities

Public service and citizenship: Puts great emphasis on public service and citizenship

Welcoming: Is a place where students from many different backgrounds feel welcome and at

home

Affordable: Is affordable for you

Generous aid: Has committed to providing extensive financial aid to lower and middle income

students

SOCIAL CULTURES TESTED

Different colleges and universities have reputations for more than academic excellence or being hard to get

into; they are known by what kind of atmosphere prevails there. Respondents were asked to rate UVA,

their first-choice school if not UVA, and their second-choice school.

Welcoming

Work hard/Party hard

Non-conformist

Preppy

Elitists

Cut-throat competitive

Southern

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705


Art & Science Group



DESCRIPTIONS OF SIMULATED DECISION MODELING (SDM) INITIATIVES TESTED

Undergraduate Experience

Big university: This school provides all the opportunities and resources of a large research

university: top-ranked graduate and professional programs, internationally recognized experts onthe faculty, a wide variety of courses and majors, and a broad range of extracurricular and social

opportunities. The presence of outstanding scholars and researchers creates a stimulating

environment on campus, though many classes are taught by teaching associates instead of

professors. (Only for schools with enrollment greater than 10,000 – includes UVA)

Smaller college feel: This school combines the best features of a research university with some of

the best qualities of a liberal arts college. Students choose from a wide range of programs,

research opportunities, extracurricular activities, and social events. At the same time, this school

offers more individual attention and small-group learning opportunities than is typically found at

big universities. Professors, not just graduate students, regularly teach undergraduate courses,

many of which are small classes and seminars. (Only for schools with enrollment less than 15,000 –

includes UVA)

Faculty-Student Relationships

Strong emphasis: At this college, most students make unusually strong connections with

professors. Professors offer a range of undergraduate research opportunities, mentor students,

and assist in internship and job placement. Students and professors come together frequently in

formal and informal ways, including dinners at professors’ homes and impromptu lunches on

campus.

Limited but available: At this school, professors are available to students who seek them out.

Some students work on research or independent projects with members of the faculty.

Student Leadership Opportunities

Extraordinary: This school assumes that every student will become a leader in some way and

provides all students with leadership preparation matched to their interests and potential. Top

students have the opportunity to network with world-renowned leaders in science, business and

economics, public policy, and other key sectors of our society and economy. In addition, students

get hands-on leadership experiences through especially strong and independent student

organizations entrusted with ultimate responsibility for many aspects of campus life. Through high-

level coursework and engagement with faculty and administrators, students develop a portfolio of

experiences and graduate prepared to assume leadership roles and address the challenges facing

our world.

More than usual: Students who are interested have many opportunities to play leadership roles in

a variety of organizations on and off campus. Those students participating in student government

have especially strong leadership experiences and are given a great deal of independence and

responsibility. In addition to leading and planning many aspects of campus life, students determine

the standards to which they will hold each other accountable through an honor code and student-

run judicial system.

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705


Art & Science Group



Typical: While this school is not particularly focused on leadership development, students have a

number of opportunities for getting involved and for developing skills through coursework and

student organizations. (Not for UVA)

Global Citizenship

High degree of emphasis: This school believes that its students should graduate with a global

perspective, a strong sense of responsibility, and the skills needed for informed global citizenship.

In the classroom, public forums, campus organizations, international travel, and extracurricular

experiences, students work alongside faculty on important contemporary issues related to

technology, the environment, science, citizenship, democracy, ethics, and leadership in a global

society. Many students study or travel abroad or complete internships or service-learning projects

with one of the many global companies and organizations with which the college has unusually

strong ties.

Some emphasis: Students at this school can take advantage of a range of service-learning

opportunities, take courses in public policy and voluntarism, and become involved in community

and public service in the local community and surrounding region. Interested students also have

opportunities to study abroad and to explore the history and impact of globalization in many of

their classes.

Campus Culture

Community of tradition: This school is steeped in traditions that bring students and alumni

together in especially powerful ways. To a large extent, these traditions are expressed through

long-standing events, activities, and honor societies as well as Greek organizations and high-profile

athletic programs. Students who find living and learning in this culture most satisfying tend to be

well-rounded individuals who place a high value on being part of a group of like-minded peers.

Community of individuals: Along with a strong sense of community, this school is known for thewide range of interests and attitudes embraced by its students. Students here participate in a

variety of organizations and activities that allow them to express their own individual interests and

passions. Students come from many walks of life and value encountering other perspectives and

other cultures through activities on and off campus.

Admissions Policy

Need-blind and meets full need: This school is among an elite group of colleges that admits

students based on academic qualifications and fit, without considering their ability to pay for

college, and offers a financial aid package of loans, grants, and work study that meets 100% of a

family’s demonstrated financial need. Need-blind: This school admits students regardless of their ability to pay and offers financial aid

packages that may or may not meet 100% of a family’s demonstrated need.

Need-aware: While this school generally admits students based on academic qualifications and fit,

in selecting the last students for admission, it also takes into consideration their ability to afford the

cost of attending.

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705


Art & Science Group



Cost of Attendance for 2012-2013 Academic Year (AA)

The costs include Tuition & Fees and Room & Board. They do not include books, travel, and

personal and miscellaneous expenses, which many colleges and universities include in their

information about cost of attendance. This cost does not include any scholarships or grants a

student may receive from that institution.

In-state residents:

Current plus 80% T&F: Current cost plus 80% tuition and fees ($31,900)



Current: Current cost ($21,400)

Out-of-state residents:




Current: Current cost ($47,400)

Financial Aid (INQ)

Need-Based Grants (financial aid that does not have to be repaid)

Extensive: A relatively larger proportion of students at this school receive need-based grants.

Some: A relatively smaller proportion of students at this school receive need-based grants.

Merit Awards (scholarships or grants based on academic achievement, regardless of need, that do not have

to be repaid)

Some: Some students at this school receive merit scholarships.

Little or none: This school provides very little or no merit awards to its admitted students.

Grants Received for 2012-2013 Academic Year (AA)

The total amount of grants or scholarships (either merit or need-based), from the college oruniversity to which you’ve been admitted. This includes the amount of any grants from the college

and from Federal and State governments that were listed on the financial aid award letter from the

school. It does not include grants or scholarships received from any other sources, such as

churches or local organizations, or loans or work-study offered by the school.

No match

Half match

Full match

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/report-0705 132/402Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to

individuals or organizations outside of University of Virginia without the

University of VirginiaSDM Strategic Positioning and Pricing

Study Final Report of Inquirers and Admitted Applicants Research

Summer, 2012

Research Methodology – Inquirers

• Quantitative interviews with domestic students who inquired atUniversity of Virginia for the Fall of 2012

• 1,531 recruit interviews and 904 follow-up interviews

• 523 In-state Inquirers

• 102 Non-Applicant Inquirers

• 421 Applicant Inquirers

• 381 Out-of-state Inquirers

• 183 Non-Applicant Inquirers

• 198 Applicant Inquirers

• Phone-mail-phone administered

• Average total interview length – 44 minutes

• Surveyed from February 2012 to April 2012

• Survey administered “blind”

2

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Research Methodology – INQ, cont.

• All responses weighted by application status and residency toreflect actual representation in the sample

• Requirements for participation:

• Plan to attend a 4-year college or university in the Fall

• Intended major (broadly defined) offered at UVA

• Taken the SAT/ACT test and received score

• In-state Minority score of at least 1140/25

• In-state Caucasian/Asian score of at least 1240/28

• Out-of-state Minority score of at least 1180/26

• Out-of-state Caucasian/Asian score of at least 1300/29

• Able to name first choice school and schools applied to

• Able to name UVA as a school inquired at or at least somewhatfamiliar with the school

3

Research Methodology – Admitted Applicants

• Quantitative interviews with domestic students who wereadmitted to University of Virginia for the Fall of 2012

• 1,390 recruit interviews and 775 follow-up interviews

• 400 In-state Admitted Applicants

• 169 Admit-Declines

• 231 Matriculants

• 375 Out-of-state Admitted Applicants

• 287 Admit-Declines

• 88 Matriculants

• Phone-mail-phone administered

• Average total interview length – 36 minutes

• Surveyed from May 2012 to July 2012

• Survey administered “blind”

4

D

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705



Qualification Incidence – AA

Note: Completed recruit interviews = 1,390 7

Not planning toattend 4-yr/ DK, 1%

First choice not inIPED's database/

DK, 1%

Not admitted toUVA, 0.3%

Refused tocomplete survey,

1%

Completed recruitinterview, 97%

Respondent Profile

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Demographic highlights

Inquiry and admit pools are similar in terms of demographics:

Just over half are female

Around one-quarter are under-represented minorities

Slightly more than half are from Virginia

The average SAT score (or ACT equivalent) is 1380 for inquirers (with floors)and 1410 for admitted applicants

Half are intending to major in natural sciences/math/engineering; one-quarter in arts/humanities/social sciences; one-quarter inbusiness/education/other

Average household income self-reported by students is about $110,000 for inquirers and nearly $130,000 for admitted applicants

Over four-fifths of inquirers and three-quarters of admitted applicants planto apply for financial aid

9

Respondent demographics

10

IS

Total

OOS

Total

IS

Total

OOS

Total

Gender 523 381 400 375 SD

Female 59% 56% 57% 51% a-ab-ab-b

Male 41% 44% 43% 49% b-ab-ab-a

Race

Caucasian 65% 59% 59% 58% a-ab-ab-b

African American 11% 10% 7% 8% a-ab-b-ab

Asian/ Pacific Islander 9% 11% 17% 12% b-b-a-abHispanic 3% 6% 5% 9% b-ab-ab-a

Multi-racial/ Other 11% 14% 5% 6% a-a-b-b

Unknown 1% 0% 7% 7% b-b-a-a

NET: Caucasian/ Asian 74% 70% 76% 71%

NET: Mi nori ty (e xcl udi ng Asi ans) 26% 30% 17% 22% ab- a-c- bc

Note: AA data from sample

INQ AA

7/28/2019 Report 0705




11

IS

Total

OOS

Total

IS

Total

OOS

Total

State 523 381 400 375

California 13% 6%

New Jersey 9% 11%

Pennsylvania 10% 5%

New York 7% 7%

Maryland 5% 9%

Florida 5% 7%

Texas 5% 6%

Georgia 3% 7%

North Carolina 2% 6%

NET: Northern VA 46% 50%

NET: Central/ Tidewater VA 30% 35%

NET: Southwest VA 24% 15%

NET: Northeast 39% 42%

NET: South 25% 35%

NET: Other US 36% 23%

Note: Cut-off at 3% of phase total

INQ AA


12

IS

Total

OOS

Total

IS

Total

OOS

Total

Hometown type 523 381 400 375 SD

Suburb of a large city 47% 36% 48% 45% a-b-a-a

Medium or small city 24% 25% 27% 24%

Small town or rural 22% 21% 19% 17%

Large city 7% 18% 5% 13% b-a-b-ab

High school involvement: Leader

Varsity sports 33% 41% 38% 41%

Performing or visual arts 28% 23% 26% 22% a-ab-ab-bStudent government 21% 22% 19% 25%

Other clubs or organizations 52% 54% 61% 65% b-b-a-a

High school involvement: Participant

Varsity sports 58% 63% 58% 66%

Performing or visual arts 55% 54% 54% 53%

Student government 29% 29% 24% 31%

Other clubs or organizations 90% 91% 92% 93%

INQ AA

7/28/2019 Report 0705




13

IS

Total

OOS

Total

IS

Total

OOS

Total

First mentioned major 523 381 400 375 SDBiology 9% 10% 11% 8%

Business 7% 5% 5% 6%

Engineering (general) 6% 2% 5% 2% a-b-ab-b

Political science 4% 4% 3% 4%

Bioenginnering & Biomedical Eng 2% 3% 3% 5% b-ab-ab-a

Economics 1% 4% 3% 6% b-ab-ab-a

Chemistry 3% 3% 6% 5% b-b-a-ab

Undecided 8% 9% 5% 6% ab-a-b-ab

NET: Engineering 19% 18% 20% 22%

NET: NS/Math/Engineering 52% 52% 60% 49% b-b-a-b

NET: Bus/Ed/Other/Und 27% 22% 18% 19% a-ab-b-b

NET: Arts/Hum/SS 21% 27% 23% 26%

Note: Cut-off at 4% of total

Academic program

Arts & sciences 56% 74%

Engineering 25% 14%

Commerce 9% 7%Nursing 5% 1%

Education 3% 2%

Architecture 2% 2%

Note: Not collected in AA phase

INQ AA


14

IS

Total

OOS

Total

IS

Total

OOS

Total

Test taken 523 381 400 375 SD

SAT only 54% 29%

ACT only 1% 15%

Both 45% 56%

Note: Not asked in AA phase

SAT Score (ACT converted to SAT)Mean score 1360 1400 1380 1450 d-b-c-a

<1250 13% 6% 14% 8% a-b-a-b

1260-1400 55% 48% 37% 21% a-b-c-d

1410-1500 20% 27% 31% 36% c-b-ab-a

1510-1600 12% 19% 18% 35% c-b-b-a

Note: AA data taken from sample

INQ AA

7/28/2019 Report 0705




15

IS

Total

OOS

Total

IS

Total

OOS

Total

Applying for financial aid 523 381 400 375 SD

Yes, planning to apply 11% 8% 8% 7% a-ab-ab-b

Yes, have already applied 71% 77% 64% 66% ab-a-c-bcNo, not applying 17% 16% 29% 27% b-b-a-a

DK/ Ref 1% 0% 1% 1%

NET: Applying for aid 82% 84% 71% 73% a-a-b-b

Access Eligible

No 64% 54% 67% 68% a-b-a-a

Yes 36% 46% 33% 32% b-a-b-b

Income

Less than $40,000 8% 14% 8% 10% b-a-b-ab

$40,000 - $60,000 9% 13% 7% 7% ab-a-b-b

$60,000 - $80,000 10% 7% 8% 5% a-ab-ab-b

$80,000 - $100,000 14% 10% 11% 9% a-ab-ab-b

$100,000 - $150,000 21% 20% 23% 22%

$150,000 - $200,000 10% 9% 11% 13%

More than $200,000 9% 11% 17% 20% b-b-a-a

DK/ Ref 19% 16% 15% 14% a-ab-ab-b

Mean 111,600$ 105,000$ 125,500$ 131,500$ b-b-a-aNET: < $80,000 27% 36% 24% 22% b-a-b-b

NET: $80,000 - $150,000 35% 29% 34% 30%

NET: $150,000 + 19% 20% 28% 33% b-b-a-a

Legacy

Yes 12% 12%

No 88% 88%

Note: Not collected in IN Q phase

INQ AA

The Competition

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Competition highlights

Prospective students are applying to 5-6 schools and being admitted to 4-5schools on average

In-state competitors are not significant threats to UVa

William & Mary and Virginia Tech are most significant individualcompetitors, but UVa wins overwhelming majority of match-ups

In-state inquirers are primarily considering other Virginia publics; half of theadmit-declines are considering attending institutions in Virginia

Two-thirds of in-state, admit-declines consider UVa their second choice

There are no significant individual out-of-state competitors

For out-of-state students, UVa primarily competes with research/doctoralinstitutions outside of Virginia

Only one-third of OOS inquirers plan to attend top 25 institutions; nearlytwo-thirds of OOS admit-declines plan to do so

17

Mean number of schools recalled applying to (INQ) or admitted to (AA) – IS INQ & AA

S4/S5/S6/S15 Note: Unaided responses shown18

4.1

5.5

4.7

4.0

1

4

7

10

13

16

NAI APP A-D MAT

Applied Admitted

a

bc c

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Mean number of schools recalled applying to (INQ) or admitted to (AA) – OOS INQ & AA

S4/S5/S6/S15 Note: Unaided responses shown19

6.1

7.1

6.1

4.8

1

4

7

10

13

16

NAI APP A-D MAT

Applied Admitted

c

b b

a

S4/S5/S6 Note: Unaided responses; 11% or more of responses within a subgroup shown

Schools applied to or planning to apply to – IS INQ

20

11%

11%

11%

5%

7%

40%

21%

16%

35%

48%

91%

2%

3%

5%

15%

21%

23%

25%

28%

40%

40%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

UNC: Chapel Hill

U of Richmond

Princeton

Old Dominion

Christopher

Newport

William and Mary

George Mason

VirginiaCommonwealth

James Madison

Virginia Tech

UVA

IS NAI

IS APP

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Schools applied to or planning to apply to – OOS INQ

21

11%

15%

11%

11%

13%

13%

13%

23%

11%

13%

17%

17%

72%

4%

5%

6%

7%

7%

8%

8%

8%

9%

10%

12%

14%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U of Richmond

Georgetown

William and Mary

U Maryland

U of Pennsylvania

U of Michigan

Princeton

UNC: Chapel Hill

Tulane U

Vanderbilt

Boston College

Duke

UVA

OOS NAI

OOS APP*

*

*

*

*


Schools admitted to – IS AA

22

3%

6%

7%

1%

2%

15%

14%

31%

50%

28%

100%

8%

8%

8%

9%

9%

11%

12%

14%

37%

40%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

UNC: Chapel Hill

U of Richmond

Georgia Tech

Cornell

Duke

George Mason


James Madison

Virginia Tech

William and Mary

UVA

IS A-D

IS MAT

*

*

*

*

*

7/28/2019 Report 0705



S4/S5/S15 Note: Unaided responses; Base = IS AA cross-admits at UVA and competitor school, W&M n=129, VT n=181, JMU n=98

Win-loss rates for cross-admits at major in-state competitors – IS AA

23

79%

69%

53%

2%

10%

19%

19%

21%

27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

James Madison

Virginia Tech

William and Mary

Win Loss Other

b

a

a c

b

a


Schools admitted to – OOS AA

24

11%

1%

3%

0%

9%

1%

27%

8%

3%

15%

100%

10%

11%

11%

12%

12%

13%

13%

14%

15%

20%

93%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

William and Mary

Northwestern U

Vanderbilt

U of Pennsylvania

U of MD: College Park

Cornell

Boston College

Georgetown

Duke

UNC: Chapel Hill

UVA

OOS A-D

OOS MAT

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

7/28/2019 Report 0705



S4 Note: 2% or more of responses within a subgroup shown

Realistic first choice – IS INQ

25

2%

2%

1%

1%

8%

1%

2%

4%

4%

14%

36%

1%

1%

2%

4%

5%

7%

8%

9%

10%

21%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Stanford

U of Pennsylvania

Mary Washington

Old Dominion

William and Mary

George Mason

Christopher Newport


James Madison

Virginia Tech

UVA

IS NAI

IS APP

*

*

*

*

S4 Note: 2% or more of responses within a subgroup shown

Realistic first choice – OOS INQ

26

1%

1%

3%

0%

4%

1%

10%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rice U

Brown

U of Michigan

U of Pittsburgh

Duke

U of Chicago

UVA

OOS NAI

OOS APP

*

*

7/28/2019 Report 0705



S4 Note: 2% or more of responses shown

First choice school of schools admitted to – IS A-D

27

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

4%

12%

17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Christopher Newport

UNC: Chapel Hill

Princeton

Notre Dame

Duke


Cornell

Virginia Tech

William and Mary a

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

S4 Note: 3% or more of responses shown

First choice school of schools admitted to – OOS A-D

28

3%

3%

3%

4%

4%

5%

5%

5%

5%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Notre Dame

Harvard

Dartmouth

UNC: Chapel Hill

Stanford

U of MD: College Park

Georgetown

Duke

Cornell

U of Pennsylvania

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Second choice and Safety school – INQ & AA

• Second choice

• 16% of IS APP consider UVA to be their second choice

• 7% of OOS APP consider UVA to be their second choice

• 61% of IS A-D consider UVA to be their second choice

• 29% of OOS A-D consider UVA to be their second choice

• Safety/Back-up school

• 9% of IS APP consider UVA to be a safety/back-up school

• 9% of OOS APP consider UVA to be a safety/back-up school

• 28% of IS A-D consider UVA to be a safety/back-up school

• 14% of OOS A-D consider UVA to be a safety/back-up school

• 6% of IS MAT consider UVA to be a safety/back-up school

• 1% of OOS MAT consider UVA to be a safety/back-up school

29S5/S9

Note: Asterisk indicates category for UVA

Competitor Clusters – INQ

30

GEOGRAPHY Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice

Virginia * 24% 35% 16% 28% 37% 50%

Northast (DE,NJ,PA,WV,NY,MD,DC,CT,RI,MA,NH,VT,ME) 30% 21% 31% 22% 27% 19%

South (NC,SC,GA,FL,KY,TN,MS,AL,OK,TX,AR,LA) 20% 19% 22% 22% 16% 13%

Other US 26% 24% 31% 28% 20% 17%

CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice

Research/ Doctoral * 69% 77% 67% 76% 71% 79%

Masters 13% 10% 14% 10% 13% 10%

Bachelors 16% 11% 17% 12% 15% 10%

Others 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

PUBLIC VS PRIVATE Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice

Public * 43% 59% 40% 57% 47% 63%

Private 57% 41% 60% 43% 53% 37%

UG POPULATION Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice

1 - 5,000 28% 20% 30% 22% 25% 16%5,001 - 10,000 32% 29% 31% 28% 33% 31%

10,001 - 20,000 * 26% 25% 25% 26% 28% 24%

20,001 or more 14% 25% 14% 24% 14% 29%

US NEWS RANKINGS Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice

Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 14% 13% 14% 13% 15% 12%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * 16% 12% 16% 12% 16% 10%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 21% 19% 19% 17% 24% 23%


Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ 13% 14% 13% 16% 12% 10%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1%

All Others 17% 15% 18% 16% 16% 14%

All Inquirers Non-Applicant Inquirers Applicant Inquirers

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Competitor Clusters – IS INQ

31


Virginia * 47% 65% 59% 74% 42% 57%



Other US 16% 11% 11% 6% 17% 15%



Masters 17% 14% 26% 17% 13% 11%

Bachelors 16% 11% 20% 14% 15% 9%

Others 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 2%


Public * 53% 73% 62% 80% 49% 67%

Private 47% 27% 38% 20% 51% 33%


1 - 5,000 28% 18% 35% 21% 26% 15%

5,001 - 10,000 28% 23% 19% 14% 32% 30%

10,001 - 20,000 * 30% 31% 32% 38% 29% 24%

20,001 or more 14% 28% 13% 26% 14% 30%



Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * 13% 6% 7% 4% 15% 8%Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 20% 16% 11% 9% 23% 21%




All Others 21% 21% 33% 27% 17% 15%

In-state In qu irers Non -App lican t In qu irers Ap pl icant I nq uirers


Competitor Clusters – IS INQ by geography

32


Virginia * 47% 65% 39% 58% 55% 70%



Other US 16% 11% 19% 17% 13% 6%



Masters 17% 14% 13% 13% 20% 14%

Bachelors 16% 11% 12% 7% 21% 14%

Others 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2%


Public * 53% 73% 53% 74% 53% 73%

Private 47% 27% 47% 26% 47% 27%


1 - 5,000 28% 18% 21% 14% 35% 20%

5,001 - 10,000 28% 23% 31% 28% 26% 18%

10,001 - 20,000 * 30% 31% 32% 23% 28% 37%

20,001 or more 14% 28% 16% 35% 12% 24%



Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * 13% 6% 15% 9% 12% 4%





All Others 21% 21% 18% 16% 24% 23%

In-state Inquirers Northern VA Inquirers Other VA Inquirers

D

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Competitor Clusters – OOS INQ

33


Virginia * 3% 4% 3% 4% 6% 6%


South (NC,SC,GA,FL,KY,TN,MS,AL,OK,TX,AR,LA) 24% 27% 24% 27% 25% 29%Other US 36% 39% 36% 39% 34% 32%



Masters 10% 6% 10% 6% 8% 3%

Bachelors 16% 11% 16% 11% 14% 14%

Others 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3%


Public * 33% 44% 33% 45% 33% 34%

Private 67% 56% 67% 55% 67% 66%


1 - 5,000 28% 23% 29% 23% 24% 24%

5,001 - 10,000 35% 35% 34% 35% 40% 38%

10,001 - 20,000 * 22% 20% 23% 20% 21% 21%

20,001 or more 15% 22% 15% 23% 15% 18%


Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 16% 17% 16% 17% 17% 17%Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * 19% 17% 19% 17% 21% 23%





All Others 13% 10% 14% 10% 10% 6%

Out-of-state Inquirers Non-Appl icant Inquirers Appl icant Inquirers


Competitor Clusters – OOS INQ by geography

34

GEOGRAPHY Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice

Virginia * 3% 4% 7% 6% 3% 0% 1% 4%

Northast (DE,NJ,PA,WV,NY,MD,DC,CT,RI,MA,NH,VT,ME) 36% 30% 52% 55% 26% 16% 27% 14%

South (NC,SC,GA,FL,KY,TN,MS,AL,OK,TX,AR,LA) 24% 27% 11% 7% 61% 77% 12% 14%

Other US 36% 39% 30% 32% 11% 7% 61% 67%

CARNEGIE C LASSIFICATION Applications First C hoice Applications First C hoice Applications First C hoice Applications First C hoice

Research/ Doctoral * 72% 81% 67% 83% 74% 86% 76% 76%

Masters 10% 6% 11% 5% 10% 8% 9% 7%

Bachelors 16% 11% 20% 10% 14% 5% 14% 16%

Others 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 0% 1% 1%

PUBLIC VS PRIVATE Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice

Public * 33% 44% 29% 35% 37% 51% 35% 48%

Private 67% 56% 71% 65% 63% 49% 65% 52%

UG POPULATION Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice1 - 5,000 28% 23% 34% 21% 24% 18% 25% 29%

5,001 - 10,000 35% 35% 33% 40% 39% 35% 34% 30%

10,001 - 20,000 * 22% 20% 22% 24% 22% 25% 23% 11%

20,001 or more 15% 22% 11% 15% 15% 22% 18% 30%

US NEWS RANKINGS Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice Applications First Choice

Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 16% 17% 16% 17% 16% 13% 16% 20%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * 19% 17% 17% 14% 18% 20% 22% 19%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 22% 21% 24% 30% 18% 9% 23% 20%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 51-100 18% 22% 20% 22% 16% 25% 16% 20%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ 9% 11% 7% 8% 14% 20% 8% 9%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR 2% 1% 0% 0% 5% 2% 2% 0%

All Others 13% 10% 14% 8% 13% 11% 12% 13%

Out-of-state Inquirers New England Inquirers South Inquirers Other US Inquirers

D

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Competitor Clusters – AA by residency

35

Decision

Overlap

First Choice

(A-D)

Second Choice

(MAT)

Decision

Overlap

First Choice

(A-D)

Second Choice

(MAT)

Decision

Overlap

First Choice

(A-D)

Second Choice

(MAT)

GEOGRAPHY

Virginia * 31% 17% 48% 54% 45% 66% 4% 2% 7%Northeast 24% 33% 17% 15% 20% 9% 35% 40% 37%

South 22% 22% 19% 15% 15% 14% 29% 25% 31%

Other US 23% 28% 15% 16% 20% 11% 32% 33% 25%

CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION

Research/ Doctoral * 74% 88% 83% 66% 82% 80% 83% 91% 91%

Masters 12% 3% 11% 17% 3% 14% 7% 3% 2%

Bachelors 12% 8% 6% 16% 13% 5% 8% 5% 7%

Others 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0%

PUBLIC VS PRIVATE

Public * 54% 39% 67% 64% 51% 74% 42% 33% 50%

Private 46% 61% 33% 36% 49% 26% 58% 67% 50%

UNDERGRADUATE POPULATION

1 - 5,000 22% 14% 13% 26% 19% 14% 18% 11% 11%

5,001 - 10,000 30% 44% 30% 23% 43% 26% 37% 45% 37%

10,001 - 20,000 * 27% 21% 25% 31% 18% 26% 21% 23% 22%

20,001 or more 22% 21% 32% 20% 19% 33% 23% 21% 30%

US NEWS RANKINGS

Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 8% 23% 3% 4% 15% 2% 13% 27% 5%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * 16% 29% 15% 10% 22% 12% 23% 33% 22%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 25% 21% 30% 26% 29% 28% 24% 17% 36%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 51-100 22% 17% 31% 22% 18% 31% 23% 17% 29%Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ 11% 5% 9% 14% 9% 11% 8% 3% 5%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

All Others 15% 4% 11% 21% 7% 15% 8% 3% 2%

In-state Out-of-stateALL ADMITS


Competitor Clusters – IS AA by geography

36

Decision

Overlap

First Choice

(A-D)

Second Choice

(MAT)

Decision

Overlap

First Choice

(A-D)

Second Choice

(MAT)

Decision

Overlap

First Choice

(A-D)

Second Choice

(MAT)

GEOGRAPHY

Virginia * 54% 45% 66% 45% 34% 61% 64% 56% 70%

Northeast 15% 20% 9% 18% 20% 10% 12% 21% 7%

South 15% 15% 14% 16% 19% 16% 14% 10% 12%

Other US 16% 20% 11% 21% 27% 12% 10% 13% 10%

CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION

Research/ Doctoral * 66% 82% 80% 73% 86% 89% 59% 78% 71%

Masters 17% 3% 14% 13% 3% 10% 21% 3% 18%

Bachelors 16% 13% 5% 12% 11% 1% 19% 16% 10%

Others 2% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1%

PUBLIC VS PRIVATE

Public * 64% 51% 74% 63% 47% 74% 64% 55% 74%

Private 36% 49% 26% 37% 53% 26% 36% 45% 26%

UNDERGRADUATE POPULATION

1 - 5,000 26% 19% 14% 21% 17% 9% 30% 20% 20%5,001 - 10,000 23% 43% 26% 25% 48% 30% 21% 39% 23%

10,001 - 20,000 * 31% 18% 26% 31% 14% 24% 32% 23% 28%

20,001 or more 20% 19% 33% 23% 20% 37% 17% 18% 29%

US NEWS RANKINGS

Nat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 4% 15% 2% 5% 19% 1% 4% 11% 3%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * 10% 22% 12% 12% 25% 12% 8% 20% 11%



Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ 14% 9% 11% 11% 6% 10% 18% 11% 13%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4% 2% 1%

All Others 21% 7% 15% 17% 5% 11% 25% 9% 20%

Northern VA Other VAIn-State Admits

D

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Competitor Clusters – OOS AA by geography

37

DecisionOverlap

First Choice(A-D)

Second Choice(MAT)

DecisionOverlap

First Choice(A-D)

Second Choice(MAT)

DecisionOverlap

First Choice(A-D)

Second Choice(MAT)

DecisionOverlap

First Choice(A-D)

Second Choice(MAT)

GEOGRAPHY

Virginia * 4% 2% 7% 4% 2% 11% 6% 3% 2% 1% 0% 10%Northeast 35% 40% 37% 58% 60% 74% 18% 23% 16% 23% 31% 10%South 29% 25% 31% 9% 10% 0% 62% 55% 73% 16% 11% 0%

Other US 32% 33% 25% 29% 29% 16% 15% 19% 9% 61% 58% 80%

CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATIONResearch/ Doctoral * 83% 91% 91% 79% 90% 95% 89% 91% 86% 83% 92% 95%

Masters 7% 3% 2% 9% 6% 3% 2% 0% 0% 8% 0% 5%Bachelors 8% 5% 7% 8% 3% 3% 9% 8% 14% 8% 8% 0%Others 2% 1% 0% 4% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%

PUBLIC VS PRIVATEPublic * 42% 33% 50% 35% 28% 36% 51% 39% 61% 41% 32% 52%Private 58% 67% 50% 65% 72% 64% 49% 61% 39% 59% 68% 48%

UNDERGRADUATE POPULATION1 - 5,000 18% 11% 11% 22% 13% 5% 13% 10% 13% 13% 10% 13%

5,001 - 10,000 37% 45% 37% 37% 44% 58% 38% 43% 20% 38% 43% 20%10,001 - 20,000 * 21% 23% 22% 24% 25% 11% 20% 25% 33% 20% 25% 33%20,001 or more 23% 21% 30% 17% 18% 26% 29% 22% 33% 29% 22% 33%

US NEWS RANKINGSNat'l Univ/Colleges Top 10 13% 27% 5% 15% 29% 3% 13% 29% 9% 10% 21% 0%Nat'l Univ/Colleges 11-25 * 23% 33% 22% 22% 31% 19% 20% 25% 20% 26% 48% 35%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 26-50 24% 17% 36% 21% 11% 46% 26% 23% 33% 26% 18% 25%Nat'l Univ/Colleges 51-100 23% 17% 29% 24% 19% 30% 30% 18% 30% 14% 9% 25%Nat'l Univ/Colleges 101+ 8% 3% 5% 7% 4% 0% 8% 3% 9% 9% 2% 5%

Nat'l Univ/Colleges 2nd Tier/NR 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 3% 2% 5%

All Others 8% 3% 2% 11% 6% 3% 2% 0% 0% 11% 0% 5%

Northeast SouthOut-of-state Admits Other US

Influencers & Campus

Visit

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705



Completelystudent's, 30%

Mostly student's,50%

Equally shared,18%

Mostly parents', 2%

Completelyparents', 0%

Q5 Note: Base = IS INQ who are access eligible, IS INQ N=181

Whose decision about where to apply? – IS INQ

41

Q5 Note: Base = IS INQ who are access eligible

Whose decision about where to apply? – IS INQ

42

3%

0%

0%

0%

18%

18%

48%

54%

28%

31%

-100% 0% 100%

IS APPn=148

IS NAIn=33

(SMALL N!)

Completely parents' Mostly parents' Equally shared Mostly student's Completely student's

D

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Completelystudent's, 34%

Mostly student's,42%

Equally shared,19%

Mostly parents', 4%

Completelyparents', 0%

Q5 Note: Base = OOS INQ who are access eligible, OOS INQ N=141

Whose decision about where to apply? – OOS INQ

43

Q5 Note: Base = OOS INQ who are access eligible

Whose decision about where to apply? – OOS INQ

44

2%

4%

0%

0%

15%

16%

56%

42%

27%

35%

-100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

OOS APPn=52

(SMALL N)

OOS NAIn=89

Completely parents' Mostly parents' Equally shared Mostly student's Completely student's

D

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q6 Note: ‘Very influential’ responses; Base = IS INQ who are access eligible, IS INQ N=181

Parents were ‘very influential’ in determining characteristics about schools

applying to – IS INQ

45

19%

22%

25%

36%

46%

51%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Prestige

Career orientation

Campussafety

Location

Cost

Academicquality a

ab

b

c

c

c

Q6 Note: ‘Very influential’ responses; Base = IS INQ who are access eligible, IS NAI N=33(SMALL N!), IS APP N=148


applying to – IS INQ

46

21%

15%

20%

29%

44%

47%

16%

32%

32%

48%

49%

57%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Prestige

Career orientation

Campussafety

Location

Cost

Academicquality

IS NAI

IS APP

*

D

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q6 Note: ‘Very influential’ responses; Base = OOS INQ who are access eligible,OOS INQ N=141


applying to – OOS INQ

47

17%

17%

22%

24%

47%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Prestige

Career orientation

Location

Campussafety

Cost

Academicquality

c

c

c

c

a

b

Q6 Note: ‘Very influential’ responses; Base = OOS INQ who are access eligible,OOS NAI N=89, OOS APP N=52 (SMALL N)


applying to – OOS INQ

48

21%

25%

21%

19%

37%

46%

17%

17%

22%

25%

47%

61%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Prestige

Career orientation

Location

Campussafety

Cost

Academicquality

OOS NAI

OOS APP

D

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q8

Visited schools – IS INQ & AA

49

65%

91%88%

98%

93%

86%

97%

82%

71%

59%

65%68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP A-D MAT

IS INQ IS AA

UVA 1st/2nd OA

b b

a

cc

c

b

b

b

aaa

Q8

Visited schools – OOS INQ & AA

50

35%

65% 64%

90%

84%87%

96%

84%

68%65%

69% 70%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP A-D MAT

OOS INQ OOS AA

UVA 1st/2nd OA

a

a

a

aa

bb

bbb b

c

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q10 Note: Base = IS INQ or AA who visited UVA

Effect of visit to UVA on level of interest – IS INQ & AA

53

1%

26%

10%

22%

1%

7%

3%

28%

11%

23%

8%

12%

37%

32%

39%

28%

50%

12%

40%

10%

-100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

IS MATn=227

IS A-Dn=149

IS APPn=384

IS NAIn=68

(SMALL N)

Much less Somewhat less No effect Somewhat more Much more

c

b

bc

a

c

a

b

a

b

a

b

b

b

a

c

c

Q10 Note: Base = OOS INQ or AA who visited UVA

Effect of visit to UVA on level of interest – OOS INQ & AA

54

1%

14%

8%

28%

0%

4%

3%

17%

1%

6%

5%

11%

20%

44%

27%

27%

77%

32%

57%

17%

-100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

OOS MATn=79

OOS A-D

n=185

OOS APPn=129

OOS NAIn=64

(SMALL N)

Much less Somewhat less No effect Somewhat more Much more

c

d

b

ab

a

ab

ab

ab

a

a

b

a

c

b

b

b

b

b

a

D

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Reported reason respondents became lessinterested in UVA after visit – IS INQ

• Overall culture/ Atmosphere (n=25)

• Campus doesn’t feel welcoming/ Unfriendly (n=16)

• Campus size/ Layout (n=16)

• Unattractive campus/ Architecture/ Drab (n=11)

• Host student/ Tour guide was not impressive (n=10)

• Limited curriculum/ Not good for my major (n=10)

• Didn’t think I’d fit in (not specific) (n=8)

• Students are pretentious/ Snobs (n=8)

•

NET: Social/ Environment (n=67)• NET: Academics (n=15)

• NET: Location (n=6)

55

Q11 Note: Base = IS INQ whose visit to UVA made them less interested in the school, N=81; 8 or moreresponses shown; Open-ended and multiple responses accepted

Reported reason respondents became lessinterested in UVA after visit – OOS INQ


• Limited curriculum/ Not good for my major (n=10)

• Too big/ Too many people (general) (n=9)

• Location (other) (n=7)


• Not impressed (not specific) (n=5)


• Students were too preppy (n=3)

• Unattractive campus/ Architecture/ Drab (n=3)

• NET: Social/ Environment (n=30)

• NET: Academics (n=16)


56

Q11 Note: Base = OOS INQ whose visit to UVA made them less interested in the school, N=43 (SMALL N!); 3or more responses shown; Open-ended and multiple responses accepted

D

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Reported reason respondents became lessinterested in UVA after visit – IS AA

• Campus doesn’t feel welcoming (n=15)




• Unattractive campus/ Architecture (n=6)

• Student life/ Extracurricular activities (n=5)



•

NET: Academics (n=2)

57

Q11 Note: Base = IS AA whose visit to UVA made them less interested in the school, N= 53 (SMALL N);5 or more responses shown; Open-ended and multiple responses accepted

Reported reason respondents became lessinterested in UVA after visit – OOS AA

• Too big/ Too many people (general) (n=9)

• Campus not diverse (n=8)

• Didn’t think I’d fit in (n=5)

• Student life/ Extracurricular activities (n=5)

• Not impressed with information I received (n=4)


• NET: Academics (n=6)


58

Q11 Note: Base = OOS AA whose visit to UVA made them less interested in the school, N=34 (SMALL N!); 4or more responses shown; Open-ended and multiple responses accepted

D

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Institution Size

Perceptions of a “large” university – INQ

• Average size cited for a large university was around 20,000undergraduates and 25,000 undergraduate and graduate students

• Advantages of a large university are largely social, followed byacademics:

• Easier to meet people

• More diversity

•

Many clubs and social organizations• More course offerings and research opportunities

• Disadvantages of a large university are overwhelmingly academic:

• Lack of personal attention from faculty

• Larger classes

60

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q14 Note: Mean values shown; Base = Those who answered about undergraduatepopulation only, IS NAI = 55 (SMALL N), IS APP = 243, OOS NAI = 112, OOS APP = 137

Perceived enrollment of a “large” university, undergraduate population only – INQ

61

23,000 23,000

19,20020,500

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Undergraduate population only

IS NAI IS APP OOS NAI OOS APP

Q14 Note: Mean values shown; Base = Those who answered about undergraduate andgraduate populations, IS NAI = 43 (SMALL N!), IS APP = 167, OOS NAI = 71 (SMALLN), OOS APP = 60 (SMALL N)

Perceived enrollment of a “large” university, undergraduate and graduate

populations – INQ

62

37,100

26,700 26,300

23,800

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Undergraduate & graduate populations

IS NAI IS APP OOS NAI OOS APP

a

b

b

b

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q15 Note: 8% or more responses within a subgroup shown; Open-ended and multipleresponses accepted

Advantages to attending a large university – IS INQ

63

8%

17%

44%

87%

1%

8%

8%

15%

12%

24%

26%

47%

58%

6%

17%

39%

79%

1%

5%

6%

11%

13%

18%

26%

46%

48%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

NET: Cost

NET: Reputation

NET: Academics

NET: Social/Environment

None/ No benefits

Larger faculty

Better teachers

Athletics

Researchopportunities

Student clubsand organizations

Course offerings

Diversity

Easier to meetnew people

IS NAI

IS APP


Advantages to attending a large university – OOS INQ

64

10%

15%

52%

85%

1%

7%

10%

17%

25%

25%

30%

40%

60%

13%

21%

48%

79%

2%

9%

10%

13%

20%

26%

28%

40%

49%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

NET: Cost

NET: Reputation

NET: Academics


None/ No benefits

Better facilities

Well-funded

Athletics

Researchopportunities

Student clubsand organizations

Course offerings

Diversity

Easier to meetnew people

OOS NAI

OOS APP

*

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Disadvantages to attending a large university – IS INQ

65

2%

31%

85%

1%

7%

12%

7%

13%

4%

12%

26%

41%

65%

3%

39%

87%

0%

8%

8%

9%

11%

12%

12%

26%

39%

68%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

NET: Cost


NET: Academics

None/ No disadvantages

Large campus/Easy to get lost

More competition/Harder to stand out

Overwhelming/Too many people

Higher student:teacher ratio

Less sense of community

Decreased opportunityfor social networking

Can get lost in the

crowd/ Just a number

Larger classes

Lack of personalattention

IS NAI

IS APP

*


Disadvantages to attending a large university – OOS INQ

66

3%

35%

85%

1%

9%

12%

10%

11%

8%

14%

32%

35%

66%

4%

34%

91%

0%

7%

8%

10%

10%

12%

12%

26%

38%

73%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

NET: Cost


NET: Academics

None/ No disadvantages

Less access to faculty

Overwhelming/

Too many people

More competition/Harder to stand out

Higher student:teacher ratio

More courses taughtby a TA

Decreased opportunityfor social networking

Can get lost in thecrowd/ Just a number

Larger classes

Lack of personalattention

OOS NAI

OOS APP

7/28/2019 Report 0705



School Ratings

Q2 Note: Mean ratings where 10 = ‘best choice’ and 1 = ‘worst choice’; 17% of IS NAI rate

UVA 8-10; 50% of IS A-D rate UVA 8-10

Overall school ratings – IS INQ & AA

68

5.2

8.1

7.1

9.49.4

9.0

9.6

7.7 7.7

8.1

7.6

7.16.8

5.95.7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NAI APP A-D MAT

IS INQ IS AAUVA 1st choice 2nd choice OA

c

d

a

b

a

c

d

b

a

c

d

b

a

c

b

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q2 Note: Mean ratings where 10 = ‘best choice’ and 1 = ‘worst choice’; 17% of OOS NAI

rate UVA 8-10; 41% of OOS A-D rate UVA 8-10

Overall school ratings – OOS INQ & AA

69

5.5

7.2

6.8

9.49.1 9.0

9.4

7.9 7.8

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.46.1

5.4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NAI APP A-D MAT

OOS INQ OOS AAUVA 1st choice 2nd choice OA

a

c

d

b

a

bc

c

b

a

c

d

b

a

c

b

UVA overall ratings – IS INQ

The following IS INQ subgroups rated UVA significantly differently:

• APP rate much higher than NAI

• Northern VA and Central VA regions rate higher than SouthwesternVA region

• Caucasian rate higher than Minority

• NS/ Math and Engineering rate higher than Bus/ Ed/ Other/ Und

• Mid SAT scorers rate higher than Low SAT scorers

• Males rate higher than Females

• Those who visited rate higher than Those who didn’t visit

70

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



UVA overall ratings – OOS INQ

The following OOS INQ subgroups rated UVA significantly differently:

• APP rate much higher than NAI

• Mid income rate higher than High income

71

UVA overall ratings – IS AA

The following IS AA subgroups rated UVA significantly differently:

• MAT rate much higher than A-D

• Those receiving aid rate higher than Those not receiving aid

• Low and Mid SAT scorers rate higher than High SAT scorers

72

7/28/2019 Report 0705



UVA overall ratings – OOS AA

The following OOS AA subgroups rated UVA significantly differently:

• MAT rate much higher than A-D

• Bus/Ed/Other/Und rate higher than SS/Hum/Art

• Low SAT scorers rate higher than High SAT scorers

• Those who visited rate much higher than Those who did not visit

73

Decision Criteria

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q4 Note: Mean ratings where 10 = ‘describes the school perfectly’ and 1 = ‘does not

describe the school at all’

UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings – IS NAI

75

8.7

8.3

8.4

7.3

7.9

8.3

8.6

7.6

8.6

8.1

8.3

8.3

8.5

8.6

8.6

8.8

9.1

9.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Beautiful campus

Strong science

and engineering

Studentleadership

Outstandingstudents

Exceptionalfaculty

Honors program

Job placement

History andtradition

Student honor code

UVA

1st

*

*

*

*

*



UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings – IS NAI, cont.

76

7.1

7.9

8.4

8.2

8.3

8.8

8.1

8.1

6.3

6.7

6.9

7.5

7.5

7.6

8.0

8.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Generous aid

Affordable

Welcoming

Public serviceand citizenship

Strong advising

Strong program

Career counseling

4 year graduationrate

UVA

1st

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





UVA & 1st /2nd: Attribute ratings – IS APP

77

8.4

7.4

8.1

8.2

8.4

8.4

8.5

7.9

8.5

8.3

8.5

8.6

8.6

8.6

8.6

8.7

9.2

9.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Strong program

Outstanding

students

Studentleadership

Honors program

Job placement


Beautiful campus


Student honor code

UVA

1st/2nd

*

*

*

*

*

*

*



UVA & 1st

/2nd

: Attribute ratings – IS APP, cont.

78

7.1

8.1

8.1

7.5

8.0

7.9

8.1

7.8

6.7

7.4

7.8

7.9

7.9

8.0

8.2

8.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Generous aid

Welcoming

Strong advising

Affordable

Career counseling


Strong scienceand engineering

Exceptionalfaculty

UVA

1st/2nd

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings – OOS NAI

79

8.3

8.1

7.8

8.1

8.5

8.3

7.8

8.2

8.6

7.6

7.7

7.8

7.8

7.9

8.0

8.2

8.5

8.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Exceptional

faculty

Honors program

Studentleadership

Job placement


Student honor code


Beautiful campus

UVA

1st*

*

*

*



UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings – OOS NAI, cont.

80

7.3

7.5

8.0

8.2

8.9

7.9

8.0

7.9

5.9

6.4

7.2

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Affordable

Generous aid

Strong advising

Welcoming

Strong program


Career counseling

Outstandingstudents

UVA

1st

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705





UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings – IS A-D

83

8.4

8.4

8.5

8.9

8.2

8.6

8.8

8.5

8.8

8.2

8.2

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.4

8.5

8.9

9.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Studentleadership


Exceptionalfaculty

Beautiful campus

Honors program


Job placement


Student honor code

UVA

1st

*

*

*

*

*



UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings – IS A-D, cont.

84

7.7

8.4

8.5

8.2

8.3

7.7

8.9

8.1

6.6

7.4

7.4

7.6

7.7

7.8

7.9

8.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Generous aid

Welcoming

Strong advising


Career counseling

Affordable

Strong program

Outstandingstudents

UVA

1st

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





UVA & 2nd: Attribute ratings – IS MAT

85

7.3

7.8

6.9

8.0

8.0

7.5

7.9

7.4

7.7

8.6

8.8

8.9

8.9

8.9

9.0

9.1

9.5

9.6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Exceptionalfaculty

Strong program

Outstandingstudents

Job placement


Studentleadership

Beautiful campus

History and

tradition

Student honor code

UVA

2nd

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*



UVA & 2nd

: Attribute ratings – IS MAT, cont.

86

6.9

7.5

7.7

7.7

7.3

7.8

7.5

7.6

6.8

7.9

8.0

8.0

8.2

8.4

8.5

8.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Generous aid

Career counseling

Welcoming

Strong advising

Affordable

Honors program



UVA

2nd

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings – OOS A-D

87

8.4

8.6

7.5

8.3

8.9

8.7

8.4

8.6

8.2

7.6

7.7

8.0

8.1

8.1

8.3

8.9

8.9

9.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Outstandingstudents

Exceptionalfaculty

Honors program

Studentleadership

Job placement



Beautiful campus

Student honor code

UVA

1st*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*



UVA & 1st: Attribute ratings – OOS A-D, cont.

88

8.1

8.0

8.5

8.3

8.3

8.4

9.1

8.1

5.6

6.2

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.4

7.5

7.6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Affordable

Generous aid

Welcoming

Strong advising

Career counseling


Strong program


UVA

1st*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





UVA & 2nd: Attribute ratings – OOS MAT

89

7.6

7.6

8.0

8.2

7.5

7.9

7.3

7.2

7.3

8.4

8.4

8.7

8.8

8.9

8.9

9.6

9.7

9.7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Exceptionalfaculty


Job placement

Studentleadership

Strong program

Beautiful campus

Student honor code


UVA

2nd

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*



UVA & 2nd

: Attribute ratings – OOS MAT, cont.

90

6.3

7.9

7.2

7.7

7.8

7.6

7.6

7.2

7.6

7.7

7.8

7.9

8.0

8.2

8.2

8.4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Generous aid

Welcoming

Affordable

Career counseling

Strong advising


Honors program

Outstandingstudents

UVA

2nd

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors indifferentiating between competitors: IS NAI

Comfortable & Aid Plus – (Beta = 1.00) Welcoming, Generous aid, Strongadvising, and Affordable

Strong Academics – (Beta = 0.56) Strong program and Strong science andengineering

Campus Plus – (Beta = 0.27) Beautiful campus and Public service and

citizenshipNOT College – (Beta = 0.25) NOT History and tradition, NOT Outstanding

students, NOT Exceptional faculty, NOT Job placement, NOT 4 year graduation rate, NOT Student leadership, and NOT Student honor code

Adj. R2 = 0.27 91

NOT Outstandingstudents

Generous aid

NOT Honors program

NOT Student honor code

Welcoming

Strong program

Beautiful campus

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Hot-button perception gaps – IS NAI

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag

Important Very Important Most Important

Adj. R2 = 0.38 92

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors indifferentiating between competitors: IS APP

Strong Academics & Placement – (Beta = 0.84) Strong science andengineering, Strong program, Job placement, Exceptional faculty,Outstanding students, and Career counseling

College – (Beta = 0.66) History and tradition, Student honor code, Studentleadership, Beautiful campus, Outstanding students, Public service andcitizenship, and 4 year graduation rate

Aid & Affordable – (Beta = 0.17) Generous aid and Affordable

Adj. R2 = 0.30 93

Hot-button perception gaps – IS APP

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.35 94

NOT Generous aid

Welcoming

Job placement Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: HHI <$80K IS INQ

Strong Academics & Placement – (Beta = 0.83) Strong science andengineering, Strong program, and Job placement

Comfortable – (Beta = 0.47) Welcoming, Public service and citizenship,Career counseling, and Strong advising


Adj. R2 = 0.23 95

Hot-button perception gaps – HHI <$80K IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.35 96

Welcoming

Student leadership


Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: HHI $80K<$150K IS INQ

Campus & ?? – (Beta = 0.58) Beautiful campus, Public service andcitizenship, Strong advising, Student honor code, and Student leadership

Strong Academics – (Beta = 0.49) Strong program and Strong science andengineering

Aid Plus – (Beta = 0.37) Generous aid, Welcoming, and Affordable

Adj. R2 = 0.16 97

Hot-button perception gaps – HHI $80K<$150K IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.23 98

Welcoming

Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: HHI $150K+ IS INQ

Strong Academics & Placement Plus – (Beta = 1.04) Strong program, Strongscience and engineering, Job placement, Welcoming, Exceptional faculty,and Outstanding students

Support Plus – (Beta = 0.44) Strong advising, Public service and citizenship,Generous aid, and Career counseling

College – (Beta = 0.41) History and tradition, Outstanding students, Studenthonor code, Student leadership, Beautiful campus, 4 year graduation rate,and Exceptional faculty

Affordable – (Beta = 0.37) Affordable

Adj. R2 = 0.32 99

Hot-button perception gaps – HHI $150K+ IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.30 100

NOT Honors program

Welcoming

4 year graduation rate

Strong science and

engineeringStrong advising

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Minority IS INQ

Strong Academics & Placement – (Beta = 0.94) Strong program, Strongscience and engineering, Career counseling, Job placement, andExceptional faculty

Aid & Comfortable Plus – (Beta = 0.66) Generous aid, Welcoming, Affordable,and Public service and citizenship

College Plus – (Beta = 0.24) History and tradition, Student leadership,

Student honor code, Outstanding students, Honors program, Beautifulcampus, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, Public service andcitizenship, 4 year graduation rate, and Career counseling

Adj. R2 = 0.25 101

Hot-button perception gaps – Minority IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.32 102

Generous aid

Welcoming

Public service andcitizenship

NOT Honors program

Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: SAT 1450+ IS INQ

Comfortable Plus – (Beta = 0.77) Welcoming, Generous aid, Career counseling, Public service and citizenship, and Exceptional faculty

Strong Academics – (Beta = 0.72) Strong science and engineering andStrong program

College – (Beta = 0.41) History and tradition, Student honor code, 4 year graduation rate, Student leadership, Beautiful campus, and Outstandingstudents

Adj. R2 = 0.25 103

NOT Honors program

NOT Exceptionalfaculty

Welcoming

Career counseling

Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Hot-button perception gaps – SAT 1450+ IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.44 104

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Northern VA IS INQ

Strong Academics & Placement – (Beta = 0.85) Strong science andengineering, Strong program, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, andOutstanding students

College – (Beta = 0.54) History and tradition, Student honor code, Studentleadership, Beautiful campus, Outstanding students, Public service andcitizenship, Honors program, and 4 year graduation rate

Aid Plus – (Beta = 0.33) Generous aid, Welcoming, Affordable, and Strongadvising

Adj. R2 = 0.23 105

Hot-button perception gaps – Northern VA IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.32 106

Welcoming

Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Other Virginia IS INQ

?? – (Beta = 0.71) Strong advising, Public service and citizenship, Beautifulcampus, Welcoming, and Honors program

Strong Academics Plus – (Beta = 0.54) Strong science and engineering,Strong program, Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, and Jobplacement


Adj. R2 = 0.23 107

Generous aid

NOT Honors program

Welcoming


Strong program

Beautiful campus

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Hot-button perception gaps – Other Virginia IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.35 108

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Engineering IS INQ

Strong Academics plus Placement – (Beta = 1.36) Strong science andengineering, Strong program, and Job placement

Aid Plus – (Beta = 0.47) Generous aid, Welcoming, and Strong advising

Affordable Plus – (Beta = 0.28) Affordable, Student honor code, andBeautiful campus

Adj. R2 = 0.40 109

Hot-button perception gaps – Engineering IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.39 110

Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Caucasian/Asian IS INQ

Strong Academics & Placement – (Beta = 0.74) Strong science andengineering, Strong program, Job placement, Exceptional faculty,Outstanding students, and Welcoming

Affordable & Aid – (Beta = 0.44) Affordable and Generous aid

College & Campus – (Beta = 0.40) History and tradition, Student honor code,Student leadership, Beautiful campus, Outstanding students, Exceptional

faculty, and 4 year graduation rate

Adj. R2 = 0.21 111

Affordable

NOT Honors program


Welcoming

Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Hot-button perception gaps – Caucasian/Asian IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.31 112

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors indifferentiating between competitors: OOS NAI

Prestige & Placement Plus – (Beta = 0.94) Outstanding students, Jobplacement, Exceptional faculty, Strong science and engineering, Strongprogram, and Career counseling


Campus Plus – (Beta = 0.44) Beautiful campus, Student honor code, Historyand tradition, Student leadership, and Public service and citizenship

Adj. R2 = 0.28 113

Hot-button perception gaps – OOS NAI

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.35 114

Strong advising

NOT History andtradition

Welcoming

Strong science and

engineering

Outstanding students

Generous aid


Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors indifferentiating between competitors: OOS APP

Prestige Plus – (Beta = 0.95) Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students,Strong science and engineering, Job placement, Welcoming, Strongprogram, and Strong advising

Tradition Plus – (Beta = 0.67) History and tradition, Beautiful campus, 4 year graduation rate, Student honor code, and Outstanding students

?? – (Beta = 0.50) Honors program, Public service and citizenship, Strongadvising, Career counseling, Student honor code, and Student leadership


Adj. R2 = 0.37 115

Hot-button perception gaps – OOS APP

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.38 116

NOT Honors program

Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: HHI <$80K OOS INQ

Prestige & Placement – (Beta = 0.70) Outstanding students, Job placement,Strong science and engineering, Exceptional faculty, and 4 year graduation rate

Tradition Plus – (Beta = 0.64) History and tradition, Beautiful campus, andStudent honor code


Comfortable Plus – (Beta = 0.41) Welcoming, Public service and citizenship,

Strong advising, and Student leadership

Adj. R2 = 0.24 117

Hot-button perception gaps – HHI <$80K OOS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.34 118

Generous aid

Public service and

citizenship

Beautiful campus NOT Student honor code


Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: HHI $80K<$150K OOS INQ

Prestige & Placement & Strong Academics – (Beta = 0.99) Job placement,Outstanding students, Exceptional faculty, Career counseling, Strongscience and engineering, Honors program, Strong program, and Strongadvising

Campus plus ?? – (Beta = 0.46) Beautiful campus, Student honor code,History and tradition, Public service and citizenship, Student leadership,and Strong advising


Adj. R2 = 0.27 119

Hot-button perception gaps – HHI $80K<$150K OOS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.40 120

Strong science and

engineering


Beautiful campus


Strong advising

NOT 4 year graduationrate

Welcoming

Student leadership

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: HHI $150K+ OOS INQ

Prestige & Strong Academics Plus – (Beta = 1.06) Exceptional faculty,Outstanding students, Strong science and engineering, Job placement,Strong program, Welcoming, Career counseling, Strong advising, andStudent leadership

Aid Plus – (Beta = 0.75) Generous aid, Strong advising, and 4 year graduation rate

Honors plus Affordable – (Beta = 0.47) Honors program and Affordable

Adj. R2 = 0.31 121

Hot-button perception gaps – HHI $150K+ OOS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.38 122

Affordable

NOT History and

tradition

Beautiful campus

Job placement

Generous aid Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Minority OOS INQ

Prestige & Placement Plus – (Beta = 0.67) Outstanding students, Jobplacement, Exceptional faculty, Strong science and engineering, 4 year graduation rate, and Career counseling

Comfortable Plus – (Beta = 0.39) Welcoming, Strong advising, Student honor code, and Beautiful campus

Adj. R2 = 0.11 123

Hot-button perception gaps – Minority OOS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.36 124

NOT Affordable

NOT Honors program

NOT Career counseling

Job placement


NOT Exceptionalfaculty

Generous aid



Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: SAT 1450+ OOS INQ

Placement & Prestige & Strong Academics – (Beta = 1.11) Job placement,Outstanding students, Exceptional faculty, Strong science andengineering, Strong program, and Career counseling

Aid Plus – (Beta = 0.67) Generous aid, Welcoming, and Strong advising

?? – (Beta = 0.27) Student honor code, Beautiful campus, History and

tradition, Student leadership, and Public service and citizenship

Adj. R2 = 0.35 125

Hot-button perception gaps – SAT 1450+ OOS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.35 126


Generous aid Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Caucasian/Asian OOS INQ

Placement & Strong Academics – (Beta = 1.07) Job placement, Outstandingstudents, Exceptional faculty, Strong science and engineering, Strongprogram, Career counseling, Strong advising, and Welcoming


College & Campus – (Beta = 0.45) Beautiful campus, Student honor code,History and tradition, Student leadership, and Public service andcitizenship

Honors Program – (Beta = 0.16) Honors program

Adj. R2 = 0.35 127

Hot-button perception gaps – Caucasian/Asian OOS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.39 128

Affordable

Strong science andengineering


Welcoming


Generous aid


Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors indifferentiating between competitors: IS A-D

Strong Academics Plus – (Beta = 1.04) Strong science and engineering,Strong program, Outstanding students, Exceptional faculty, and Jobplacement

?? – (Beta = 1.00) Strong advising, Public service and citizenship, Career counseling, and Welcoming

Tradition Plus – (Beta = 0.53) History and tradition, Student honor code,Student leadership, Beautiful campus, 4 year graduation rate, and Jobplacement

Adj. R2 = 0.43 129

Hot-button perception gaps – IS A-D

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.53 130



Strong advising

Beautiful campusStrong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors indifferentiating between competitors: IS MAT

College – (Beta = 1.25) History and tradition, Student honor code, 4 year graduation rate, Outstanding students, Student leadership, Beautifulcampus, Public service and citizenship, Exceptional faculty, and Jobplacement

Strong Academics & Placement – (Beta = 0.88) Strong science andengineering, Strong program, Exceptional faculty, Welcoming, Strongadvising, Job placement, and Career counseling

Adj. R2 = 0.53 131

Affordable

Job placement

History and tradition

Beautiful campus

Strong program


-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Hot-button perception gaps – IS MAT

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.58 132

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: HHI <$80K IS AA

Strong Academics plus Welcoming – (Beta = 1.09) Strong science andengineering, Strong program, and Welcoming

College Plus – (Beta = 1.07) History and tradition, 4 year graduation rate,Student honor code, Outstanding students, Job placement, Exceptionalfaculty, Beautiful campus, Student leadership, Career counseling, Publicservice and citizenship, and Strong advising


Adj. R2 = 0.50 133

Strong advising

Strong program


Beautiful campus


-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Hot-button perception gaps – HHI <$80K IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.59 134

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: HHI $80K<$150K IS AA

College – (Beta = 0.91) History and tradition, Student honor code, Beautifulcampus, Student leadership, Outstanding students, 4 year graduation rate,and Public service and citizenship

Strong Academics – (Beta = 0.86) Strong science and engineering, Strongprogram, Exceptional faculty, Job placement, and Outstanding students

Advising Plus – (Beta = 0.65) Strong advising, Career counseling, and Publicservice and citizenship

Adj. R2 = 0.48 135

Hot-button perception gaps – HHI $80K<$150K IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.51 136

Affordable


Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: HHI $150K+ IS AA

College & Placement – (Beta = 1.18) History and tradition, Studentleadership, Student honor code, 4 year graduation rate, Outstandingstudents, Public service and citizenship, Beautiful campus, Jobplacement, and Exceptional faculty

Strong Academics – (Beta = 1.09) Strong science and engineering, Strongprogram, Exceptional faculty, Welcoming, and Honors program

Advising – (Beta = 0.50) Career counseling and Strong advising

Adj. R2 = 0.50 137

Beautiful campus Strong program


-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Hot-button perception gaps – HHI $150K+ IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.58 138

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Minority IS AA

Strong Academics & Placement – (Beta = 1.01) Strong program, Strongscience and engineering, Job placement, Outstanding students, andExceptional faculty

College Plus – (Beta = 1.00) 4 year graduation rate, Student leadership,History and tradition, Student honor code, Public service and citizenship,Beautiful campus, Outstanding students, Honors program, and Career counseling

Welcoming plus Advising – (Beta = 0.52) Welcoming and Strong advising

Adj. R2 = 0.45 139

Hot-button perception gaps – Minority IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.47 140

Generous aid

Job placement

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: SAT 1450+ IS AA

College Plus – (Beta = 0.98) History and tradition, Student honor code,Student leadership, Beautiful campus, 4 year graduation rate, Exceptionalfaculty, Outstanding students, Public service and citizenship, and Jobplacement

Strong Academics Plus – (Beta = 0.90) Strong science and engineering,Strong program, Exceptional faculty, Welcoming, and Job placement

Advising & Aid – (Beta = 0.58) Strong advising, Career counseling, andGenerous aid

Affordable & Honors – (Beta = 0.27) Affordable and Honors program

Adj. R2 = 0.38 141

Hot-button perception gaps – SAT 1450+ IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.53 142

Affordable

Beautiful campusStrong program

Strong advising


-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Northern VA IS AA

College Plus – (Beta = 1.10) History and tradition, Student honor code,Student leadership, Beautiful campus, 4 year graduation rate, Outstandingstudents, Exceptional faculty, Public service and citizenship, and Jobplacement

Strong Academics – (Beta = 0.90) Strong science and engineering, Strongprogram, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, andHonors program

Advising – (Beta = 0.44) Strong advising and Career counseling

Adj. R2 = 0.49 143

Hot-button perception gaps – Northern VA IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.54 144

Affordable

Strong program

Beautiful campus


-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Other VA IS AA

Strong Academics – (Beta = 1.11) Strong science and engineering, Strongprogram, Exceptional faculty, Job placement, and Welcoming

College & Placement – (Beta = 1.05) Student honor code, 4 year graduationrate, History and tradition, Outstanding students, Beautiful campus,Student leadership, Job placement, Public service and citizenship, andExceptional faculty


Adj. R2 = 0.46 145

Hot-button perception gaps – Other VA IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.53 146

Strong advising

Job placement


Beautiful campus


Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705


7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Caucasian/Asian IS AA

College Plus – (Beta = 1.05) History and tradition, Student honor code,Student leadership, Outstanding students, 4 year graduation rate,Beautiful campus, Exceptional faculty, Job placement, and Public serviceand citizenship

Strong Academics – (Beta = 0.93) Strong science and engineering, Strongprogram, and Exceptional faculty

Support – (Beta = 0.54) Strong advising and Career counseling

Adj. R2 = 0.47 149

Hot-button perception gaps – Caucasian/Asian IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.55 150

AffordableBeautiful campus

Strong program


-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Caucasian/Asian IS A-D

Support Plus – (Beta = 1.07) Strong advising, Public service and citizenship,Career counseling, and Welcoming

Strong Academics – (Beta = 0.94) Strong science and engineering, Strongprogram, Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, and Job placement

College – (Beta = 0.50) History and tradition, Student honor code, Student

leadership, Job placement, Outstanding students, Exceptional faculty,Beautiful campus, and 4 year graduation rate

Adj. R2 = 0.42 151

Beautiful campus

Strong program


-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Hot-button perception gaps – Caucasian/Asian IS A-D

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.50 152

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors indifferentiating between competitors: OOS A-D

Prestige & Placement Plus – (Beta = 1.38) Job placement, Exceptionalfaculty, Outstanding students, Strong science and engineering, Strongprogram, Welcoming, Career counseling, and Strong advising

College – (Beta = 0.53) Student honor code, History and tradition, Beautifulcampus, Public service and citizenship, and Student leadership


Adj. R2 = 0.49 153

Hot-button perception gaps – OOS A-D

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.48 154

Beautiful campus

Affordable

Job placement

Exceptional faculty

Strong program

Strong advising


-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors indifferentiating between competitors: OOS MAT

Campus & College Plus – (Beta = 1.48) Beautiful campus, Studentleadership, Outstanding students, History and tradition, Student honor code, Job placement, Exceptional faculty, 4 year graduation rate, Publicservice and citizenship, Career counseling, Strong advising, and Strongprogram

Affordable & Aid – (Beta = 0.33) Affordable, Generous aid, and Honorsprogram

Welcoming Plus – (Beta = 0.26) Welcoming, Strong science and engineering,and Exceptional faculty

Adj. R2 = 0.50 155

Hot-button perception gaps – OOS MAT

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.55 156



Student honor code

Beautiful campus

Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: HHI <$80K OOS AA

Prestige & Placement Plus – (Beta = 0.97) Exceptional faculty, Jobplacement, Outstanding students, Career counseling, Strong science andengineering, Strong advising, Strong program, Welcoming, 4 year graduation rate, and Student leadership

College – (Beta = 0.90) Student honor code, Honors program, History andtradition, Public service and citizenship, Beautiful campus, and Studentleadership


Adj. R2 = 0.50 157

Hot-button perception gaps – HHI <$80K OOS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.53 158

Strong program

Beautiful campus

Exceptional faculty

Job placement

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: HHI $80K<$150K OOS AA

Strong Academics & Prestige – (Beta = 1.21) Strong science andengineering, Strong program, Welcoming, Exceptional faculty, Jobplacement, and Outstanding students

Campus & College – (Beta = 0.91) Beautiful campus, History and tradition,Student honor code, Student leadership, Public service and citizenship,Outstanding students, 4 year graduation rate, Career counseling, andExceptional faculty


Adj. R2 = 0.47 159

Hot-button perception gaps – HHI $80K<$150K OOS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.49 160

Welcoming

Affordable

Strong program


-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: HHI $150K+ OOS AA

Welcoming & Strong Academics Plus – (Beta = 1.01) Welcoming, Strongscience and engineering, Exceptional faculty, Outstanding students, Jobplacement, and Strong program

Campus & College – (Beta = 0.98) Beautiful campus, Student leadership,History and tradition, Student honor code, Outstanding students, 4 year graduation rate, Job placement, and Public service and citizenship

NOT Honors – (Beta = 0.32) NOT Honors program


Adj. R2 = 0.46 161

Strong program

Strong advising


-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Hot-button perception gaps – HHI $150K+ OOS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.48 162

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Minority OOS AA

Prestige & Placement Plus – (Beta = 1.18) Exceptional faculty, Strongscience and engineering, Outstanding students, Job placement, Strongprogram, Career counseling, Welcoming, and Strong advising

College – (Beta = 0.74) History and tradition, Student honor code, Beautifulcampus, Student leadership, Public service and citizenship, and 4 year graduation rate


Adj. R2 = 0.48 163

Hot-button perception gaps – Minority OOS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.55 164

Affordable

Welcoming

Strong program


-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: SAT 1450+ OOS AA

Strong Academics & Prestige – (Beta = 1.07) Strong science andengineering, Exceptional faculty, Welcoming, Job placement, Strongprogram, and Outstanding students

Campus & College – (Beta = 0.92) Beautiful campus, History and tradition,Student leadership, Student honor code, Public service and citizenship, 4year graduation rate, Outstanding students, and Job placement


Adj. R2 = 0.45 165

Hot-button perception gaps – SAT 1450+ OOS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.47 166

Affordable


Strong advising



Strong program

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Significant attribute meta-factors in differentiatingbetween competitors: Engineering OOS AA

Strong Academics plus Placement – (Beta = 1.00) Strong science andengineering, Strong program, Job placement, Welcoming, Career counseling, Strong advising, Outstanding students, and Exceptionalfaculty

College Plus – (Beta = 0.96) Student leadership, History and tradition,Student honor code, Beautiful campus, Public service and citizenship,Outstanding students, 4 year graduation rate, Exceptional faculty, Jobplacement, and Career counseling

Adj. R2 = 0.47 167

Affordable

Beautiful campus


-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Hot-button perception gaps – Engineering OOS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.49 168

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Social Cultures



UVA & 1st: Social culture ratings – IS NAI

170

6.4

5.3

8.7

6.4

5.4

5.7

5.0

4.9

5.6

6.1

7.0

7.9

8.1

8.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Non-conformist

Southern

Welcoming


Elitist

Cut-throatcompetitive

Preppy

UVA

1st

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





UVA & 1st /2nd: Social culture ratings – IS APP

171

6.5

4.9

6.6

8.4

6.2

5.8

5.2

5.3

5.8

7.3

7.3

7.5

7.8

8.4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Non-conformist

Southern


Welcoming


Elitist

Preppy

UVA

1st/2nd*

*

*

*

*

*

*



UVA & 1st: Social culture ratings – OOS NAI

172

6.3

4.6

6.0

6.1

5.8

6.6

8.4

5.4

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.7

7.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Non-conformist

Southern

Elitist


Preppy


Welcoming

UVA

1st*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





UVA & 1st /2nd: Social culture ratings – OOS APP

173

6.1

6.0

4.5

6.0

7.0

8.3

6.0

5.2

6.6

6.7

6.8

7.2

7.4

7.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Non-conformist


Southern

Elitist


Welcoming

Preppy

UVA

1st/2nd

*

*

*

*

*



UVA & 1st: Social culture ratings – IS A-D

174

6.7

4.3

8.9

6.0

5.6

6.5

5.1

4.8

6.0

6.7

7.2

7.5

7.8

8.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Non-conformist

Southern

Welcoming


Elitist


Preppy

UVA

1st

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





UVA & 2nd: Social culture ratings – IS MAT

175

6.2

5.3

5.9

5.4

7.9

6.8

5.1

5.6

6.2

7.5

7.7

8.0

8.1

8.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Non-conformist

Southern


Elitist

Welcoming


Preppy

UVA

2nd

*

*

*

*

*



UVA & 1st: Social culture ratings – OOS A-D

176

6.4

6.2

5.9

3.7

7.3

8.4

6.0

5.1

6.1

6.5

6.9

7.3

7.4

7.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Non-conformist


Elitist

Southern


Welcoming

Preppy

UVA

1st

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





UVA & 2nd: Social culture ratings – OOS MAT

177

6.4

6.0

6.0

4.3

6.1

7.1

7.4

5.8

6.7

7.1

7.3

8.2

8.3

8.4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Non-conformist


Elitist

Southern

Preppy


Welcoming

UVA

2nd

*

*

*

*

*

NOT Elitist

NOT Preppy

Non-conformist

Welcoming

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – IS NAI

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.43 178

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – IS APP

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.13 179


Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – HHI <$80K IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.21 180

NOT Elitist

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



NOT Elitist

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – HHI $80K<$150K IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.23 181

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – HHI $150K+ IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.23 182

NOT Southern


NOT Preppy

Welcoming

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Minority IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.33 183

NOT Preppy

Welcoming

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – SAT 1450+ IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.24 184

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



NOT Elitist

NOT Preppy

Welcoming

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Northern VA IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.20 185

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Other Virginia INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.29 186

Non-conformistWelcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Engineering IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.24 187


Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Caucasian/Asian IS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.23 188

Non-conformistWelcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – OOS NAI

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.21 189

NOT Preppy

NOT Southern

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – OOS APP

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.18 190

NOT Southern

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.4 5 0.5 0.55 0.6

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – HHI <$80K OOS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.15 191

NOT Southern

Non-conformist

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – HHI $80K<$150K OOS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.14 192

NOT Southern

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – HHI $150K+ OOS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.34 193

NOT Southern

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Minority OOS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.13 194

NOT SouthernWelcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – SAT 1450+ OOS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.24 195

Non-conformist

NOT Southern

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Caucasian/Asian OOS INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.21 196

Non-conformist

NOT Preppy

NOT Southern

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – IS A-D

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.41 197

NOT Southern

NOT Preppy

Welcoming

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6


Welcoming

Preppy

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – IS MAT

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.30 198

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – HHI <$80K IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.24 199

Elitist

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – HHI $80K<$150K IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.22 200

Non-conformist


Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – HHI $150K+ IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.14 201

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Minority IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.25 202

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Non-conformist

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – SAT 1450+ IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.20 203


Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Northern VA IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.15 204

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



NOT Southern

Elitist

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Other VA AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.26 205

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Engineering IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.22 206

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Caucasian/Asian IS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.19 207

NOT Southern

NOT Preppy

Welcoming

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Caucasian/Asian IS A-D

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.45 208

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Non-conformist

NOT Southern

Welcoming

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – OOS A-D

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.25 209

Preppy

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – OOS MAT

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.32 210

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – HHI <$80K OOS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.29 211

NOT Southern


Non-conformist

Preppy

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

NOT Southern

Non-conformist

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – HHI $80K<$150K OOS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.21 212

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



NOT Southern


ElitistWelcoming

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – HHI $150K+ OOS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.20 213

Non-conformist

NOT Southern

Welcoming

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Minority AA INQ

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.31 214

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



NOT Southern

Welcoming

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – SAT 1450+ OOS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.20 215

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Engineering OOS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.18 216

NOT Southern


Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Non-conformist

NOT Southern


Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Caucasian/Asian OOS AA

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.16 217

Using Social Cultures to predict overall ratings – Caucasian/Asian OOS A-D

Dramatic Lead

SignificantLead

Similar

SignificantLag

Dramatic Lag


Adj. R2 = 0.20 218

Non-conformist

NOT Southern

Welcoming

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Q13 Note: Mean ratings where 10 = ‘extremely appealing’ and 1 = ‘extremely unappealing’

Academic initiatives ratings – IS INQ & AA

220

8.0

7.9

8.2

8.3

8.6

8.8

7.5

8.0

8.1

8.5

8.4

9.1

7.9

7.8

8.1

8.3

8.5

8.8

7.8

8.0

8.1

8.5

8.6

8.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Access to opportunitiesin DC

Intensive freshmanseminar experience

Academic support

for STEM students

Special concentrations

Bachelor's and master'sdegree in 4 years

Faculty interactionopportunities

NAI

APP

A-D

MATa

aab

b

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q13 Note: 8-10 ratings where 10 = ‘extremely appealing’ and 1 = ‘extremely unappealing’

Proportion of respondents who rated academic initiatives 8-10 – IS INQ & AA

221

68%

62%

72%

80%

77%

83%

65%

57%

69%

76%

76%

88%

63%

64%

69%

76%

74%

83%

63%

64%

68%

76%

77%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Academic supportfor STEM students




NAI

APP

A-D

MAT

ab

aba

b

Q13 Note: Mean ratings where 10 = ‘extremely appealing’ and 1 = ‘extremely unappealing’

Academic initiatives ratings – OOS INQ & AA

222

8.1

7.6

7.7

8.3

8.6

8.8

7.3

7.8

7.7

8.2

8.4

9.1

7.8

7.9

7.5

8.2

8.5

8.7

7.9

7.9

8.0

8.2

8.5

9.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



Academic support

for STEM students




NAI

APP

A-D

MAT

ab

abab

ab

ba

a

a

aa

b

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q13 Note: 8-10 ratings where 10 = ‘extremely appealing’ and 1 = ‘extremely unappealing’

Proportion of respondents who rated academic initiatives 8-10 – OOS INQ & AA

223

68%

56%

64%

74%

77%

85%

53%

61%

62%

72%

74%

90%

62%

67%

58%

71%

75%

81%

62%

66%

71%

74%

76%

88%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Academic supportfor STEM students




NAI

APP

A-D

MAT

aba

abb

abb

ba

a

aa

b

Simulated DecisionModeling (SDM) Initiatives

Tested

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



SDM Initiatives Tested

• Undergraduate Experience

• Faculty-Student Relationships

• Student Leadership Opportunities

• Global Citizenship

• Campus Culture

• Admissions Policy

• Student Debt

• Cost of Attendance 2011-2012 Academic Year (INQ)

• Cost of Attendance 2012-2013 Academic Year (AA)

• Need-Based Grants (INQ)

• Merit Awards (INQ)

• Grants Received for 2012-2013 Academic Year (AA)

225

Notes on cost of attendance at UVA &competitors

Tested costs for UVA were different based on the student’s state of residence.

Tested costs for competitor schools were dependent on school control andstudent’s state of residence. Increases for competitor schools werecalculated by percent increases to tuition and fees using the same percentfor UVA. Room and board were then added on to the cost.

Tested costs for UVA

•

In-state residents• Current: Current cost

• 1st increase: Current cost plus $3,500

• 2nd increase: Current cost plus $7,000

• 3rd increase: Current cost plus $10,500

• Out-of-state residents

• Current: Current cost

• 1st increase: Current cost plus $2,800

• 2nd increase: Current cost plus $5,600

• 3rd increase: Current cost plus $8,400

226

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q18 Note: Oval indicates current reality for UVA

Perceived undergraduate experience at UVA and 1st/2nd – IS INQ & AA

227

20%

47%

15%

48%

80%

53%

85%

52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UVA 1st/2nd UVA 1st/2nd

IS INQ IS AA

Biguniversity

Smaller college feel

a a

bc

ab

c c


Perceived undergraduate experience at UVA and 1st/2nd – OOS INQ & AA

228

23%

57%

16%

47%

77%

43%

84%

53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


OOS INQ OOS AA

Biguniversity

Smaller college feel

c

a

d

b

b

d

a

c

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



0% 0% 1% 1%

54%

31%

54%

35%

46%

69%

45%

64%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


IS INQ IS AA

Strongemphasis

Limited butavailable

DK/ Ref

a

b

a

b

b

a

b

a


Perceived faculty-student relationships at UVA and 1st/2nd – IS INQ & AA

229


Perceived faculty-student relationships at UVA – IS INQ & AA

230

0% 0% 1% 0%

64%

48%

71%

45%

36%

52%

28%

55%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP A-D MAT

IS INQ IS AA

Strongemphasis


DK/ Ref

b

c

a

c

b

a

c

a

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived faculty-student relationships at UVA and 1st/2nd – OOS INQ & AA

231

3% 0% 2% 1%

48%

29%

48%

36%

49%

71%

50%

63%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


OOS INQ OOS AA

Strong

emphasis


DK/ Ref

a

c

a

b

c

a

c

b


Perceived faculty-student relationships at UVA – OOS AA

232

2% 1%

53%

38%

45%

61%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A-D MAT

OOS AA

Strongemphasis


DK/ Ref

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q20 Note: Oval indicates current reality for UVA; ‘Typical’ not shown for UVA

Perceived student leadership opportunities at UVA – IS INQ & AA

233

0% 0%

56%

45%

44%

55%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

IS INQ IS AA

Extraordinary

More than usual

DK/ Ref

*

*

Q20 Note: Oval indicates current reality for UVA ; ‘Typical’ not shown for UVA

Perceived student leadership opportunities at 1st/2nd – IS INQ & AA

234

0% 0%

11% 14%

52%

57%

37%29%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

IS INQ IS AA

Extraordinary

More than usual

Typical

DK/ Ref

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q20 Note: Oval indicates current reality for UVA ; ‘Typical’ not shown for UVA

Perceived student leadership opportunities at UVA – IS INQ & AA

235

0% 0% 0% 0%

66%

51%

63%

35%

34%

49%

37%

65%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP A-D MAT

IS INQ IS AA

Extraordinary

More than usual

DK/ Ref

a

b

a

c

c

b

c

a


Perceived student leadership opportunities at UVA – OOS INQ & AA

236

1% 1%

77%

59%

22%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

OOS INQ OOS AA

Extraordinary

More than usual

DK/ Ref

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived student leadership opportunities at 1st/2nd – OOS INQ & AA

237

0% 1%9%

12%

51%48%

40% 39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

OOS INQ OOS AA

Extraordinary

More than usual

Typical

DK/ Ref


Perceived student leadership opportunities at UVA – OOS INQ & AA

238

1% 0% 1% 0%

79%

60%

69%

35%

20%

40%

30%

65%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP A-D MAT

OOS INQ OOS AA

Extraordinary

More than usual

DK/ Ref

c

a

b

d

b

d

c

a

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived global citizenship at UVA and 1st/2nd – IS INQ & AA

239

0% 1% 1% 1%

40%32% 32% 35%

60%67% 67% 64%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


IS INQ IS AA

High degree

of emphasis

Someemphasis

DK/ Ref b

ab

ab

ab

aab


Perceived global citizenship at UVA – IS AA

240

1% 1%

45%

24%

54%

75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A-D MAT

IS AA

High degreeof emphasis

Someemphasis

DK/ Ref

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived global citizenship at UVA and 1st/2nd – OOS INQ & AA

241

1% 0% 1% 0%

46%

27%

44%

27%

53%

73%

56%

73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


OOS INQ OOS AA

High degree

of emphasis

Someemphasis

DK/ Ref

a

a

a

a

b

b

b

b


Perceived global citizenship at UVA – OOS AA

242

1% 0%

51%

26%

48%

74%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A-D MAT

OOS AA


Someemphasis

DK/ Ref

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived campus culture at UVA and 1st/2nd – IS INQ & AA

243

0% 0% 0% 0%

21%

55%

12%

61%

79%

45%

88%

39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


IS INQ IS AA

Community of tradition

Community of individuals

DK/ Ref

b

a

c

a

a

b

a

c


Perceived campus culture at UVA – IS AA

244

0% 0%

19%

7%

81%

93%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A-D MAT

IS AA



DK/ Ref

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived campus culture at UVA and 1st/2nd – OOS INQ & AA

245

1% 0% 1% 0%

23%

53%

13%

53%

76%

47%

86%

47%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


OOS INQ OOS AA

Community

of tradition

Communityof individuals

DK/ Ref

a a

b c

c c

b

a


Perceived campus culture at UVA – OOS AA

246

1% 0%

16%

6%

83%

94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A-D MAT

OOS AA

Communityof tradition

Communityof individuals

DK/ Ref

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived admissions policy at UVA and 1st/2nd – IS INQ & AA

247

4% 4% 3% 3%

26%21% 22%

17%

54%

53% 51%

50%

16%22% 24%

30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


IS INQ IS AA

Need-blind andmeets full need

Need-blind

Need-aware

DK/ Ref

aab ab

b

b aba

c


Perceived admissions policy at UVA – IS INQ & AA

248

5% 4% 4% 2%

34%

21% 18% 24%

47%

57% 61%45%

14%18% 17%

29%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP A-D MAT

IS INQ IS AA


Need-blind

Need-aware

DK/ Ref

ab

a

bb

bc

ab ac

b b b

a

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived admissions policy at UVA and 1st/2nd – OOS INQ & AA

249

7%2% 4% 3%

20%

16% 12%9%

56%

46% 53%

49%

17%

36%31%

39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


OOS INQ OOS AA


Need-blind

Need-aware

DK/ Ref

b baba

bab

a

c

b ab

a

ab

abb

a

c


Perceived admissions policy at UVA – OOS INQ & AA

250

7%3% 4% 6%

21%

16% 14% 9%

56%

57% 59%

36%

16%24% 23%

49%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP A-D MAT

OOS INQ OOS AA


Need-blind

Need-aware

DK/ Ref ab ab

a

b

b

a

a a

a

bcbc

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived student debt at UVA and 1st/2nd – IS INQ & AA

251

12% 12%17% 18%

30% 29%

38%40%

16%10%

8%7%

26%

26%

21%21%

16%23%

16% 14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


IS INQ IS AA

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

DK/ Ref b ba a

b

a a

b

a

b

b

b

b bb

a


Perceived student debt at UVA – IS INQ & AA

252

9%14%

19% 17%

32%29%

41%

35%

25%12%

7%

8%

17%30%

24%

20%

17% 15%9%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP A-D MAT

IS INQ IS AA

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

DK/ Ref

abb

a a

ab

abb

a

ab

c

bc

b

a

ab

b

ba a

a

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived student debt at UVA and 1st/2nd – OOS INQ & AA

253

15% 12%17% 17%

35%34%

44% 41%

10%

8%

8%6%

32%

26%

18%

18%

8%

20%13%

18%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


OOS INQ OOS AA

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

DK/ Ref bab a a

a a

abb

aab

abb

b

a cc

c

a abb


Perceived student debt at UVA – OOS INQ & AA

254

15% 14%19% 17%

34%45%

48%

34%

10%

11%

7%

10%

33%

22% 16%

20%

8% 8% 10%19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP A-D MAT

OOS INQ OOS AA

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

DK/ Ref

a

a

b b

b

a

b

b

b b ab

a

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Q25 Note: Oval indicates current reality for UVA; INQ = $20,800 for 2011-2012 year, AA =$21,400 for 2012-2013 year

Perceived cost of attendance at UVA and 1st/2nd – IS INQ & AA

255

2% 2% 1% 2%

23%

35%29%

40%

41%

34%53%

41%

19%20%

13% 12%15%

9%4% 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


IS INQ IS AA

3rd increase

2nd increase

1st increase

Current

DK/ Ref

b

c

aa

ac

b

b

bb

b

aa

a

c c


Perceived cost of attendance at UVA – IS INQ & AA

256

1% 2% 0% 1%

20%25%

23%

33%

33%

45% 52%

53%

26%

16%16%

10%20%

12% 9%3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP A-D MAT

IS INQ IS AA

3rd increase

2nd increase

1st increase

Current

DK/ Ref

bb

b

b

b

bb

b

a

a

ab

a

aab

c

c

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



6%1% 3% 1%

20%34% 31% 34%

36%

30% 32%

45%

22%20%

23%

16%16% 15%

11%4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


OOS INQ OOS AA

3rd increase

2nd increase

1st increase

Current

DK/ Ref

c

a

aaa

a

a

aab

a ab

b bb

b

b

b b

b

b


Perceived cost of attendance at UVA and 1st/2nd – OOS INQ & AA

257

Q25 Note: Oval indicates current reality for UVA; AA = $47,400 for 2012-2013 year

Perceived cost of attendance at UVA – OOS AA

258

4%0%

32%31%

26%

46%

24%

20%

14%

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A-D MAT

OOS AA

3rd increase

2nd increase

1st increase

Current

DK/ Ref

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived need-based grants at UVA and 1st/2nd – IS INQ

259

2% 1%

75%

58%

23%

41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UVA 1st/2nd

IS INQ

Extensive

Some

DK/ Ref

*

*


Perceived need-based grants at UVA – IS INQ

260

3% 1%

81%

72%

16%

27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP

IS INQ

Extensive

Some

DK/ Ref

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived need-based grants at UVA and 1st/2nd – OOS INQ

261

3% 1%

66%

49%

31%

50%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UVA 1st/2nd

OOS INQ

Extensive

Some

DK/ Ref

*

*


Perceived merit awards at UVA and 1st/2nd – IS INQ

262

1% 1%

33%29%

66%70%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UVA 1st/2nd

IS INQ

Some

Little or none

DK/ Ref

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived merit awards at UVA – IS INQ

263

1% 1%

22%

40%

77%

59%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP

IS INQ

Some

Little or none

DK/ Ref

*

*


Perceived merit awards at UVA and 1st/2nd – OOS INQ

264

4%0%

26% 37%

70%63%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UVA 1st/2nd

OOS INQ

Some

Little or none

DK/ Ref

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Perceived merit awards at UVA – OOS INQ

265

4% 1%

25%40%

71%

59%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NAI APP

OOS INQ

Some

Little or none

DK/ Ref

*

*

S18/Sample Note: Financial aid = Grant aid from federal, state, or institution sources

Proportion of respondents receiving financial aid from UVA – IS AA

266

13% 11%

0% 0%

70%

57%88%

79%

17%

32%

12%21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A-D MAT A-D MAT

Self-reported From sample

Yes

No

DK/ Ref

a ab b

c

d

a

b

c

a

c

b

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



S18/Sample Note: Mean amounts only include those who received aid and knew theamount; Financial aid = Grant aid from federal, state, or institution sources

Financial aid received from UVA, not including $0 – IS AA

267

$12,800

$9,300

$10,500

$12,600

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

A-D MAT A-D MAT


S18/Sample Note: Financial aid = Grant aid from federal, state, or institution sources

Proportion of respondents receiving financial aid from UVA – OOS AA

268

14%7%

0% 0%

63%

42%

80%

57%

23%

51%

20%

43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A-D MAT A-D MAT


Yes

No

DK/ Ref

ab c c

b

c

a

b

b

a

b

a

7/28/2019 Report 0705



S18/Sample Note: Mean amounts only include those who received aid and knew theamount; Financial aid = Grant aid from federal, state, or institution sources

Financial aid received from UVA, not including $0 – OOS AA

269

$18,800

$30,800

$23,000

$32,100

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

A-D MAT A-D MAT


a

b

b

a

SDM ResultsInquirers

Note: Conversion Rate = % of inquirers who apply

Asterisks (*) indicate a significant difference from zero at the 95%

confidence level

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Base conversion rate (N) = 65.0% (523)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – In-state INQ

271

-5%

5%

-13%

17%

1%

-2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis

FACULTY-STUDENTRELATIONSHIPS

Smaller collegefeel

Big university

UNDERGRADUATEEXPERIENCE

*

*

*

*

*



272

-2%

-1%

-6%

4%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





273

8%

0%

-2%

-3%

-13%

2%

17%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY



274

-17%

-13%

2%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

$31,300(Current plus

$10,500)


$7,000)


$3,500)

$20,800(Current)

2011-2012 COSTOF ATTENDANCE

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





275

-7%

7%

-6%

10%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive

NEED-BASEDFINANCIAL AID


Effect of initiatives on number of applications – Out-of-state INQ

276

-1%

3%

-9%

8%

1%

0%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





277

1%

-1%

-4%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

*

*

*



278

4%

2%

-2%

-3%

-9%

0%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





279

-6%

-3%

1%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$8,400)


$5,600)


$2,800)

$45,800(Current)


*

*

*

*



280

-4%

3%

-5%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Base conversion rate (N): In-state = 65.0% (523), Out-of-state = 10.2% (381)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – INQ by residency

281

-1%

3%

-9%

8%

1%

0%

-5%

5%

-13%

17%

1%

-2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


In-state

Out-of-state

*

**

**

**

*



282

1%

-1%

-4%

2%

-2%

-1%

-6%

4%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

In-state

Out-of-state

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





283

4%

2%

-2%

-3%

-9%

0%

7%

8%

0%

-2%

-3%

-13%

2%

17%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

In-state

Out-of-state

**

**

**

**

*

**



284

-4%

3%

-5%

6%

-7%

7%

-6%

10%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


In-state

Out-of-state

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



SDM ResultsAdmitted Applicants

Note: Yield Rate = % of admitted applicants who enroll


confidence level

Base yield rate (N) = 63.4% (400)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – In-state AA

286

-4%

3%

-10%

13%

-2%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


*

*

*

*D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





287

0%

0%

-6%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

*

*



288

5%

3%

2%

-4%

-6%

-1%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





289

-13%

-5%

1%

8%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

$31,900, Current plus$10,500; no match



$21,400; Current costand aid

COST CHANGE ANDGRANT MATCH POLICY

*

*

*

*



290

6%

-1%

-13%

6%

1%

-5%

7%

4%

1%

8%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

$31,900, Current plus$10,500; fully matched

$31,900, Current plus$10,500; half matched










*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – Out-of-state AA

291

-7%

7%

-21%

17%

2%

-2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


*

*

*

*

*



292

-14%

1%

-10%

8%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





293

15%

10%

3%

-5%

-8%

-1%

8%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

*

*

*

*

*

*



294

-14%

-7%

-1%

12%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%






*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





295

13%

5%

-14%

11%

6%

-7%

11%

4%

-1%

12%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Base yield rate (N): In-state = 63.4% (400), Out-of-state = 28.9% (375)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – AA by residency

296

-7%

7%

-21%

17%

2%

-2%

-4%

3%

-10%

13%

-2%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


In-state

Out-of-state

*

*

*

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





297

-14%

1%

-10%

8%

0%

0%

-6%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

In-state

Out-of-state

*

*

*

*

*

15%

10%

3%

-5%

-8%

-1%

8%

5%

3%

2%

-4%

-6%

-1%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

In-state

Out-of-state

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

**

*

*



298

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Appendix ISDM Results

In-state Inquirers by subgroups



confidence level

300Base conversion rate (N): Northern VA = 65.2% (265), Central VA/Tidewater = 65.5% (130),Southwest VA = 63.9% (128)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – In-state INQ by region

-6%

6%

-11%

19%

3%

0%

-5%

4%

-10%

16%

3%

-2%

-6%

5%

-15%

16%

0%

-2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Northern VA

Central VA/ Tidewater

Southwest VA

**

**

*

***

***

***

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-2%

-1%

-7%

6%

0%

-1%

-6%

3%

-3%

-1%

-5%

3%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Northern VA


Southwest VA

*

**

***



12%

1%

-3%

-4%

-14%

2%

19%

6%

1%

-1%

-2%

-12%

0%

12%

7%

0%

-3%

-4%

-13%

2%

19%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Northern VA


Southwest VA

**

*

**

*

**

*

**

*

* **

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-20%

-16%

1%

6%

-12%

-9%

4%

5%

-18%

-14%

2%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$10,500)


$7,000)


$3,500)

$20,800(Current)


Northern VA


Southwest VA

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*



-11%

12%

-9%

12%

-5%

6%

-5%

8%

-6%

5%

-4%

11%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


Northern VA


Southwest VA

**

*

**

*

**

*

**

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



305Base conversion rate (N): Minority = 60.9% (130), Caucasian/Asian = 66.2% (392)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – In-state INQ by race

-5%

5%

-13%

15%

1%

-2%

-8%

6%

-15%

26%

3%

0%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

*

**

**

**

**



-2%

-1%

-6%

4%

-2%

-2%

-7%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





8%

1%

-2%

-3%

-15%

1%

17%

10%

-2%

-4%

-5%

-10%

4%

23%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

**

**

**

**

**



-18%

-14%

2%

6%

-18%

-13%

3%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$10,500)


$7,000)


$3,500)

$20,800(Current)


Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-7%

7%

-6%

10%

-9%

7%

-6%

16%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

*

*

**

**

**

310Base conversion rate (N): Access eligible = 65.5% (181), Not access eligible = 64.7% (342)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – In-state INQ by access eligibility

-5%

5%

-12%

17%

2%

-2%

-7%

6%

-17%

19%

-1%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Access eligible

Not access eligible

*

**

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-2%

-1%

-6%

3%

0%

-2%

-8%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Access eligible

Not access eligible

*

*

**



7%

0%

-2%

-3%

-11%

3%

16%

11%

1%

-4%

-5%

-21%

-2%

24%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Access eligible

Not access eligible

**

*

**

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-17%

-13%

2%

5%

-21%

-15%

2%

8%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$10,500)


$7,000)


$3,500)

$20,800(Current)


Access eligible

Not access eligible

*

*

*

*

*

*

*



-6%

7%

-4%

9%

-10%

8%

-10%

16%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


Access eligible

Not access eligible

*

*

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



315Base conversion rate (N): $150K+ = 69.3% (113), $80K<$150K = 61.7% (178), <$80K = 64.2%(149)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – In-state INQ by household income

-7%

6%

-15%

21%

-1%

-2%

-5%

5%

-14%

17%

-2%

-1%

-6%

6%

-12%

22%

7%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

**

*

**

*

***

**

*



-1%

-1%

-8%

4%

0%

0%

-7%

6%

-5%

-1%

-3%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

**

***

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





12%

0%

-4%

-6%

-23%

-3%

26%

10%

1%

-2%

-3%

-14%

1%

18%

7%

0%

-2%

-3%

-7%

6%

17%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

**

*

*

**

*

**

*

**

*

**

*



-17%

-12%

6%

11%

-18%

-15%

1%

6%

-14%

-11%

1%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$10,500)


$7,000)


$3,500)

$20,800(Current)


$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-11%

8%

-10%

21%

-8%

7%

-6%

10%

-4%

8%

-3%

4%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

**

*

*

**

**

**

*

320Base conversion rate (N): Engineering = 68.7% (106), NS/Math = 64.1% (175), SS/Hum/Arts= 64.2% (119), Bus/Ed/Oth/Und = 63.6% (123)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – In-state INQ by intended major

-3%

5%

-15%

14%

0%

-2%

-8%

2%

-14%

22%

1%

-1%

-6%

7%

-10%

19%

6%

-2%

-4%

5%

-14%

12%

-3%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

*

**

**

***

*

**

*

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-2%

-1%

-4%

3%

2%

0%

-8%

6%

-3%

-2%

-6%

4%

-3%

0%

-5%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

**

*

**

**



8%

1%

-1%

-2%

-10%

-2%

12%

11%

0%

-3%

-4%

-16%

5%

25%

4%

0%

-2%

-4%

-11%

2%

18%

10%

0%

-2%

-3%

-16%

2%

15%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

**

**

*

****

*** **** *

** *

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-18%

-16%

3%

4%

-13%

-11%

3%

8%

-19%

-14%

0%

6%

-15%

-11%

3%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$10,500)


$7,000)


$3,500)

$20,800(Current)


Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

*

***

*

**

**

**

**



-7%

3%

-4%

9%

-11%

10%

-8%

13%

-7%

6%

-5%

13%

-5%

9%

-6%

5%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

***

*

**

**

**

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



325Base conversion rate (N): 1450+ = 71.1% (121), 1350-1440 = 70.2% (155), <1350 = 58.7%(247)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – In-state INQ by SAT score

-9%

7%

-15%

24%

1%

-3%

-2%

4%

-12%

10%

-1%

-1%

-5%

5%

-14%

18%

5%

-2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


1450+

1350-1440

<1350

**

**

*

**

*

***

**

*



-1%

1%

-7%

5%

-5%

-1%

-5%

4%

0%

-3%

-7%

4%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

1450+

1350-1440

<1350

***

**

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





9%

0%

-4%

-5%

-11%

5%

22%

8%

0%

-1%

-2%

-18%

2%

19%

8%

1%

-2%

-3%

-15%

-3%

14%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

1450+

1350-1440

<1350

**

*

*

**

*

**

*

**

*

***



-20%

-16%

4%

9%

-14%

-12%

0%

5%

-20%

-15%

1%

3%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$10,500)


$7,000)


$3,500)

$20,800(Current)


1450+

1350-1440

<1350

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-8%

7%

-5%

14%

-7%

9%

-7%

11%

-7%

5%

-6%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


1450+

1350-1440

<1350

**

*

***

**

*

***

330Base conversion rate (N): Female = 64.4% (306), Male = 65.8% (217)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – In-state INQ by gender

-5%

4%

-10%

17%

-2%

-1%

-6%

6%

-16%

19%

4%

-3%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Female

Male

*

**

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





1%

-1%

-7%

3%

-4%

-1%

-6%

5%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Female

Male

**

**

*



7%

0%

-2%

-3%

-14%

1%

16%

9%

0%

-3%

-4%

-14%

2%

21%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Female

Male

**

**

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-18%

-15%

3%

7%

-18%

-13%

2%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$10,500)


$7,000)


$3,500)

$20,800(Current)


Female

Male

*

*

*

*

*

*



-6%

7%

-7%

10%

-9%

8%

-5%

11%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


Female

Male

**

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



335Base conversion rate (N): Visited = 67.1% (452), Didn’t visit = 51.6% (71) (SMALL N!)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – In-state INQ by visit to UVA

-7%

10%

-16%

30%

1%

-6%

-5%

4%

-12%

15%

1%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Visited

Didn’t visit

*

**

**

**

**



-6%

-1%

-3%

7%

-1%

-1%

-6%

3%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Visited

Didn’t visit

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





20%

0%

-4%

-5%

-18%

1%

24%

6%

0%

-2%

-3%

-12%

2%

16%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Visited

Didn’t visit

**

**

**

**

**



-21%

-14%

8%

13%

-16%

-13%

1%

5%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$10,500)


$7,000)


$3,500)

$20,800(Current)


Visited

Didn’t visit

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-19%

8%

-15%

26%

-6%

6%

-4%

8%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


Visited

Didn’t visit

*

*

**

*

*

**

Appendix IISDM Results

Out-of-state Inquirers by subgroups



confidence level

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



341Base conversion rate (N): Northeast US = 11.6% (162), South US = 8.3% (96) (SMALL N),Other US = 10.1% (123)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – Out-of-state INQ by region

0%

4%

-4%

5%

1%

1%

0%

2%

-9%

7%

3%

-2%

-3%

2%

-11%

11%

0%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Northeast

South

Other US

**

*

**

**

*



1%

-1%

-3%

1%

4%

-1%

-4%

3%

-1%

-1%

-4%

3%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Northeast

South

Other US

**

*

***

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





4%

1%

-2%

-2%

-7%

1%

11%

7%

4%

-1%

-1%

-7%

-2%

4%

3%

1%

-2%

-4%

-11%

-1%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Northeast

South

Other US

**

*

***

**

**

***



-6%

-4%

1%

2%

-3%

-1%

2%

3%

-7%

-4%

1%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$8,400)


$5,600)


$2,800)

$45,800(Current)


Northeast

South

Other US

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-2%

2%

-8%

6%

-5%

3%

-4%

6%

-4%

3%

-5%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


Northeast

South

Other US

***

**

*

***

**

*

346Base conversion rate (N): Minority = 11.0% (95) (SMALL N), Caucasian/Asian = 9.9% (286)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – Out-of-state INQ by race

-1%

2%

-9%

9%

2%

-1%

0%

4%

-8%

5%

-1%

1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

*

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





0%

-1%

-3%

2%

2%

0%

-4%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

**

*

*



4%

1%

-1%

-2%

-8%

-1%

6%

6%

3%

-2%

-3%

-11%

0%

9%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

**

**

*

*

**

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-5%

-3%

1%

2%

-6%

-5%

1%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$8,400)


$5,600)


$2,800)

$45,800(Current)


Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

*

*

*

*

*

*

*



-3%

3%

-5%

5%

-3%

1%

-5%

10%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

*

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Effect of initiatives on number of applications – Out-of-state INQ by accesseligibility

-2%

3%

-11%

10%

1%

-1%

0%

3%

-4%

4%

1%

1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Access eligible

Not access eligible

**

*

**



-1%

-1%

-4%

3%

4%

-1%

-2%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Access eligible

Not access eligible

**

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





5%

2%

-1%

-3%

-9%

-1%

6%

4%

1%

-2%

-2%

-8%

0%

8%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Access eligible

Not access eligible

**

**

*

*

**

*

**



-7%

-4%

1%

2%

-3%

-1%

1%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$8,400)


$5,600)


$2,800)

$45,800(Current)


Access eligible

Not access eligible

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-2%

4%

-3%

5%

-7%

0%

-9%

8%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


Access eligible

Not access eligible

**

**

**

**


Effect of initiatives on number of applications – Out-of-state INQ by householdincome

0%

3%

-3%

5%

1%

-1%

2%

2%

-12%

6%

-1%

2%

-4%

4%

-9%

12%

4%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

*

***

**

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





2%

-1%

-3%

1%

3%

-2%

-3%

2%

-1%

0%

-3%

3%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

*

**

*



3%

1%

-2%

-3%

-7%

-2%

10%

5%

2%

-2%

-3%

-11%

1%

6%

4%

2%

-1%

-3%

-8%

-1%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K**

*

**

*

*

*

**

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-5%

-2%

1%

2%

-6%

-4%

3%

3%

-7%

-4%

1%

1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$8,400)


$5,600)


$2,800)

$45,800(Current)


$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

*

**

*

*

*

**

*

*



-5%

2%

-10%

7%

-4%

2%

-5%

7%

-1%

3%

-1%

4%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

***

*

*

**

*

***

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



361Base conversion rate (N): NS/Math/Engin = 9.4% (171), SS/Hum/Arts = 10.8% (114),Bus/Ed/Oth/Und = 11.4% (96) (SMALL N)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – Out-of-state INQ by intended major

-1%

3%

-8%

10%

1%

-1%

-2%

5%

-9%

9%

-1%

1%

-1%

1%

-8%

7%

2%

-2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


NS/Math/Engin

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

*

*

**

**

*



3%

0%

-4%

1%

0%

-1%

-4%

4%

0%

-1%

-3%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

NS/Math/Engin

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

**

*

*

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





3%

1%

-1%

-2%

-10%

0%

4%

4%

2%

-1%

-2%

-9%

1%

10%

6%

1%

-2%

-4%

-8%

-2%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

NS/Math/Engin

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

**

*

**

*

**

**

***



-8%

-6%

1%

2%

-5%

-2%

1%

1%

-4%

-2%

2%

3%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$8,400)


$5,600)


$2,800)

$45,800(Current)


NS/Math/Engin

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-4%

3%

-6%

7%

-3%

2%

-5%

6%

-3%

4%

-5%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


NS/Math/Engin

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

*

**

*

***

*

**

*

366Base conversion rate (N): 1450+ = 9.0% (142), 1350-1440 = 12.7% (128), <1350 = 9.1% (111)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – Out-of-state INQ by SAT score

0%

1%

-5%

5%

3%

2%

-1%

2%

-7%

11%

0%

0%

-2%

4%

-12%

7%

0%

-2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


1450+

1350-1440

<1350

*

**

*

* *

*

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





2%

0%

-3%

2%

0%

-1%

-3%

1%

1%

-1%

-4%

4%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

1450+

1350-1440

<1350

***

**

*



4%

3%

-1%

-2%

-6%

-2%

8%

2%

-1%

-2%

-3%

-9%

1%

7%

7%

3%

-1%

-2%

-10%

-1%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

1450+

1350-1440

<1350

***

**

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-4%

-2%

1%

2%

-6%

-4%

1%

2%

-6%

-3%

2%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$8,400)


$5,600)


$2,800)

$45,800(Current)


1450+

1350-1440

<1350

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*



-3%

2%

-7%

5%

-3%

3%

-6%

5%

-4%

3%

-3%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


1450+

1350-1440

<1350

*

*

***

*

*

**

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Effect of initiatives on number of applications – Out-of-state INQ by gender

-1%

3%

-8%

10%

2%

-2%

-1%

2%

-9%

6%

1%

1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Female

Male

*

**

**

**



2%

-1%

-3%

3%

0%

-1%

-4%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Female

Male

*

*

**

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





5%

2%

-1%

-2%

-9%

1%

7%

4%

1%

-2%

-3%

-8%

-1%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Female

Male

**

**

*

*

**

*

*



-6%

-3%

1%

2%

-5%

-3%

2%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$8,400)


$5,600)


$2,800)

$45,800(Current)


Female

Male

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-3%

1%

-5%

5%

-4%

4%

-5%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


Female

Male

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

376Base conversion rate (N): Visited = 14.6% (193), Didn’t visit = 7.5% (188)

Effect of initiatives on number of applications – Out-of-state INQ by visit to UVA

0%

3%

-7%

6%

0%

0%

-2%

2%

-10%

10%

2%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Visited

Didn’t visit

*

**

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





4%

-1%

-3%

3%

-1%

-1%

-4%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Visited

Didn’t visit

**

**

*



2%

0%

-2%

-2%

-9%

1%

10%

6%

3%

-2%

-3%

-9%

-1%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Visited

Didn’t visit

**

**

*

*

*

**

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





-6%

-3%

1%

2%

-6%

-4%

1%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%


$8,400)


$5,600)


$2,800)

$45,800(Current)


Visited

Didn’t visit

*

*

*

*

*

*

*



-7%

1%

-7%

7%

-1%

4%

-5%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Little or none

Some

MERIT AWARDS

Some

Extensive


Visited

Didn’t visit

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Appendix IIISDM Results

In-State Admitted Applicants by subgroups



confidence level

382Base yield rate (N): Northern VA = 63.1% (171), Other VA = 63.4% (229)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – In-state AA by region

-2%

2%

-9%

12%

-3%

0%

-6%

4%

-11%

14%

-2%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Northern VA

Other VA

**

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



383


0%

0%

-6%

2%

0%

0%

-6%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Northern VA

Other VA

*

*

*

*

Base yield rate (N): Northern VA = 63.1% (171), Other VA = 63.4% (229)

384


6%

3%

1%

-5%

-6%

1%

6%

4%

2%

2%

-3%

-6%

-2%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Northern VA

Other VA

**

*

**

*

*

**

**

*


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



385


8%

-1%

-9%

10%

2%

-3%

10%

7%

2%

6%

3%

-1%

-17%

2%

0%

-7%

3%

2%

1%

9%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Northern VA

Other VA

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*


386Base yield rate (N): Minority = 58.6% (68) (SMALL N!), Caucasian/ Asian = 64.3% (305)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – In-state AA by race

-5%

3%

-11%

12%

-3%

-1%

-1%

1%

-9%

17%

1%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

**

**

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



387


0%

1%

-7%

2%

2%

-1%

0%

1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

*

*

Base yield rate (N): Minority = 58.6% (68) (SMALL N!), Caucasian/ Asian = 64.3% (305)

388


5%

3%

2%

-4%

-6%

-1%

6%

0%

0%

-2%

-2%

-3%

-2%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



389


5%

-1%

-10%

5%

1%

-4%

6%

5%

1%

7%

5%

-1%

-24%

6%

0%

-10%

8%

3%

0%

11%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

**

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

*


390

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – In-state AA by household income

-1%

2%

-6%

8%

-6%

1%

-6%

4%

-8%

14%

-2%

-1%

-5%

3%

-13%

15%

-2%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

*

**

***

**

**

*

Base yield rate (N): $150K+ = 63.5% (112), $80K<$150K = 66.2% (135), <$80K = 57.3% (104)

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



391


1%

0%

-5%

2%

-1%

1%

-7%

2%

-1%

0%

-7%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

**

***


392


3%

2%

1%

-5%

-10%

0%

9%

5%

1%

0%

-4%

-6%

0%

5%

6%

5%

5%

-4%

-1%

-2%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

**

*

**

***

*

*

*

*

**

*


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



393Base yield rate (N): $150K+ = 62.8% (112), $80K<$150K = 65.4% (135), <$80K = 56.1% (104)


15%

3%

-8%

17%

6%

-3%

17%

9%

2%

7%

4%

-2%

-13%

4%

0%

-5%

6%

5%

2%

10%

1%

-3%

-14%

1%

0%

-5%

3%

2%

0%

5%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

*

**

**

***

*

*

**

*

**

*

*

**

*

394Base yield rate (N): Access eligible = 61.7% (137), Not access eligible = 64.2% (263)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – In-state AA by access eligibility

-5%

3%

-13%

15%

-1%

-1%

-2%

1%

-5%

10%

-5%

0%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Access eligible

Not access eligible

*

**

**

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



395


-2%

0%

-6%

2%

3%

0%

-6%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Access eligible

Not access eligible

*

*

*

*

Base yield rate (N): Access eligible = 61.7% (137), Not access eligible = 64.2% (263)

396


5%

3%

2%

-3%

-5%

-1%

5%

4%

3%

1%

-6%

-8%

-1%

8%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Access eligible

Not access eligible

**

**

**

**

**

*


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



397


4%

-1%

-14%

3%

0%

-5%

4%

3%

1%

7%

10%

0%

-11%

12%

3%

-4%

12%

7%

2%

9%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Access eligible

Not access eligible

*

*

*

*

**

*

**

**

*

*

*

*


398Base yield rate (N): Receiving = 70.4% (108), Not receiving = 59.7% (246)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – In-state AA by receiving aid fromUVA

-4%

3%

-11%

16%

-3%

-1%

-4%

2%

-10%

9%

-1%

1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Receiving

Not receiving

**

**

**

**

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



399


0%

0%

-7%

3%

-1%

0%

-3%

1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Receiving

Not receiving

*

*

*

Base yield rate (N): Receiving = 70.4% (108), Not receiving = 59.7% (246)

400


5%

3%

1%

-4%

-6%

0%

6%

6%

3%

3%

-5%

-7%

-3%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Receiving

Not receiving

**

*

**

**

*

**

**

*


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



401


4%

-1%

-13%

4%

1%

-5%

7%

5%

1%

7%

6%

-2%

-11%

6%

1%

-4%

6%

3%

1%

10%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Receiving

Not receiving

*

**

**

**

**

*

*

*

*

*


402Base yield rate (N): Engineering = 62.6% (80) (SMALL N), NS/Math = 57.0% (161),SS/Hum/Arts = 64.2% (92) (SMALL N), Bus/Ed/Oth/Und = 77.5% (67) (SMALL N!)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – In-state AA by intended major

-4%

2%

-8%

9%

0%

0%

-6%

2%

-10%

13%

-1%

-1%

-3%

3%

-10%

17%

-2%

-1%

-3%

3%

-15%

11%

-6%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

*

*

***

****

***

**

**

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



403


-4%

0%

-6%

1%

-3%

0%

-11%

2%

3%

1%

-5%

4%

0%

-1%

-2%

1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

*

*

*

**

*

Base yield rate (N): Engineering = 62.6% (80) (SMALL N), NS/Math = 57.0% (161),SS/Hum/Arts = 64.2% (92) (SMALL N), Bus/Ed/Oth/Und = 77.5% (67) (SMALL N!)

404


2%

1%

0%

-2%

-5%

-2%

2%

4%

2%

1%

-6%

-5%

0%

2%

7%

5%

3%

-4%

-7%

0%

9%

6%

3%

2%

-3%

-5%

-1%

10%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und*

*

**

*

*

***

***

*

*

**

*

*


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



405


3%

-1%

-10%

3%

0%

-5%

3%

1%

-1%

5%

5%

1%

-12%

4%

1%

-5%

5%

4%

1%

6%

11%

1%

-10%

11%

5%

-3%

12%

8%

3%

9%

0%

-7%

-21%

1%

-4%

-9%

5%

3%

1%

11%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und*

****

***

*

**

**

**

**

*

*

**

*

*

*

*


406Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 56.1% (137), 1350-1440 = 67.7% (104), <1350 = 67.0% (159)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – In-state AA by SAT score

-3%

2%

-7%

10%

-5%

0%

-5%

2%

-16%

10%

-1%

-1%

-5%

4%

-9%

20%

0%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


1450+

1350-1440

<1350

*

*

*

**

**

*

***

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



407


-1%

0%

-7%

1%

-2%

0%

-4%

2%

2%

0%

-6%

3%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

1450+

1350-1440

<1350

*

*

*

**

Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 56.1% (137), 1350-1440 = 67.7% (104), <1350 = 67.0% (159)

408


5%

2%

0%

-5%

-4%

1%

6%

5%

3%

3%

-3%

-7%

-1%

5%

5%

3%

3%

-2%

-8%

-2%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

1450+

1350-1440

<1350

***

*

**

*

*

**

**

*

***

*

*

Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 56.1% (137), 1350-1440 = 67.7% (104), <1350 = 67.0% (159)

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



409


7%

0%

-11%

8%

3%

-4%

8%

5%

1%

5%

6%

1%

-10%

4%

0%

-5%

4%

2%

0%

7%

4%

-4%

-17%

5%

0%

-7%

8%

6%

2%

11%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












1450+

1350-1440

<1350

*

**

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

**

*

*

*

*

*

Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 56.1% (137), 1350-1440 = 67.7% (104), <1350 = 67.0% (159)

410Base yield rate (N): Female = 62.9% (228), Male = 64.0% (172)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – In-state AA by gender

-4%

4%

-9%

12%

-6%

0%

-4%

1%

-12%

13%

0%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Female

Male

*

**

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



411


1%

0%

-4%

1%

-2%

0%

-7%

3%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Female

Male

*

*

*

Base yield rate (N): Female = 62.9% (228), Male = 64.0% (172)

412


6%

4%

3%

-4%

-4%

-1%

8%

4%

2%

1%

-3%

-7%

0%

4%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Female

Male

**

**

**

*

**

**


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



413


3%

-4%

-14%

3%

-2%

-6%

5%

3%

1%

8%

8%

1%

-11%

8%

3%

-4%

8%

5%

1%

8%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Female

Male

**

*

*

*

*

*

**

**

*

*

*


414Base yield rate (N): Large city/ Suburb of large city = 64.1% (201), Medium or small city/Town or rural = 62.4% (198)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – In-state AA by hometown type

-3%

3%

-11%

15%

-2%

0%

-5%

3%

-10%

11%

-3%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Large city/ Suburbof large city

Medium or smallcity/ Town or rural

*

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



415


0%

0%

-6%

2%

-1%

0%

-6%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP



*

*

*

*

Base yield rate (N): Large city/ Suburb of large city = 64.1% (201), Medium or small city/Town or rural = 62.4% (198)

416


7%

3%

2%

-4%

-7%

1%

4%

4%

3%

2%

-4%

-5%

-2%

8%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY



*

**

**

**

**

*

*

*

*


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



417


7%

-2%

-13%

8%

2%

-6%

9%

6%

1%

6%

4%

-1%

-12%

4%

1%

-5%

5%

3%

1%

9%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%











COST CHANGE ANDGRANT MATCH P OLICY



*

**

**

**

**

*

*

*

*

*


Appendix IVSDM Results

Out-of-state Admitted Applicants bysubgroups



confidence level

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



419Base yield rate (N): Northeast = 32.2% (157), South = 27.9% (130), Other US = 24.7% (88)(SMALL N)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – Out-of-state AA by region

-6%

8%

-14%

15%

4%

-2%

-5%

5%

-24%

16%

6%

-3%

-10%

8%

-20%

18%

-2%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Northeast

South

Other US

**

*

**

**

**

*

*

*



-14%

-1%

-5%

8%

-19%

2%

-12%

4%

-10%

0%

-11%

11%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Northeast

South

Other US

**

*

**

*

**

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





13%

5%

1%

-8%

-7%

-10%

24%

12%

6%

0%

-3%

0%

0%

7%

18%

14%

6%

-6%

-15%

3%

1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Northeast

South

Other US

*

**

*

*

***

*

*

*

*

*



22%

13%

-10%

18%

6%

-8%

13%

-2%

-3%

22%

12%

1%

-16%

12%

10%

-6%

10%

10%

1%

8%

10%

3%

-13%

7%

2%

-8%

11%

1%

-1%

12%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Northeast

South

Other US

*

*

**

*

*

*

***

*

*

*

* *

**

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



423Base yield rate (N): Minority = 24.1% (84) (SMALL N), Caucasian/ Asian = 31.0% (263)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – Out-of-state AA by race

-8%

8%

-24%

18%

1%

-2%

-4%

1%

-12%

13%

7%

-2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

*

*

*

*

*



-14%

1%

-12%

9%

-11%

2%

-4%

2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





15%

11%

4%

-6%

-6%

1%

7%

5%

4%

-1%

-2%

-17%

-8%

12%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

**

**

*

*

*

*

*

*



13%

4%

-12%

10%

6%

-7%

9%

4%

-1%

12%

13%

8%

-20%

14%

6%

-11%

17%

1%

-2%

15%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Minority

Caucasian/ Asian

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

**

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



427Base yield rate (N): $150K+ = 27.8% (134), $80K<$150K = 28.4% (113), <$80K = 32.3% (86)(SMALL N)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – Out-of-state AA by householdincome

-5%

2%

-10%

7%

-2%

-1%

-8%

12%

-22%

22%

1%

0%

-8%

5%

-21%

19%

6%

-3%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

*

**

*

**

*

*

*

*



-5%

-1%

-6%

3%

-8%

0%

-10%

9%

-24%

2%

-13%

10%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

*

**

**

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





14%

8%

-1%

-7%

-17%

-3%

4%

12%

5%

3%

-4%

-17%

0%

13%

15%

14%

6%

-4%

4%

-2%

6%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind

Need-blind and

meets full need

ADMISSIONSPOLICY

$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K*

**

*

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

*



17%

9%

-10%

16%

8%

-5%

14%

3%

0%

10%

7%

1%

-16%

6%

2%

-10%

8%

3%

-2%

19%

10%

2%

-14%

10%

5%

-6%

12%

3%

-1%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












$150K+

$80K<$150K

<$80K

*

*

*

*

*

**

*

**

**

**

*

*

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – Out-of-state AA by accesseligibility

-9%

9%

-25%

21%

4%

-2%

-4%

2%

-11%

10%

-3%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Access eligible

Not access eligible

**

*

**

**

*

*



-18%

2%

-12%

10%

-5%

-1%

-6%

4%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Access eligible

Not access eligible

**

*

*

**

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





15%

11%

5%

-4%

-4%

1%

5%

14%

8%

0%

-8%

-17%

-5%

14%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Access eligible

Not access eligible

**

*

**

**

*

*



14%

6%

-13%

10%

6%

-7%

10%

4%

0%

11%

10%

3%

-14%

12%

4%

-9%

14%

3%

-1%

16%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Access eligible

Not access eligible

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – Out-of-state AA by receiving aidfrom UVA

-11%

9%

-29%

27%

2%

-4%

-4%

4%

-11%

6%

2%

0%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Receiving

Not receiving

*

**

**

**

**



-22%

2%

-15%

13%

-8%

0%

-4%

3%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUSCULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Receiving

Not receiving

**

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





21%

16%

6%

-5%

-4%

2%

9%

10%

5%

1%

-5%

-12%

-3%

9%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Receiving

Not receiving

*

*

*

**

**

*

*



15%

6%

-17%

14%

8%

-9%

16%

7%

-1%

11%

9%

2%

-11%

7%

3%

-6%

6%

0%

-1%

12%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Receiving

Not receiving

*

**

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



439Base yield rate (N): Engineering = 22.0% (83) (SMALL N), NS/Math = 29.4% (104),SS/Hum/Arts = 26.4% (99) (SMALL N), Bus/Ed/Oth/Und = 37.2% (89) (SMALL N)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – Out-of-state AA by intendedmajor

-7%

5%

-17%

9%

-6%

-3%

-11%

10%

-16%

24%

9%

-1%

-5%

5%

-24%

13%

4%

-2%

-6%

8%

-28%

28%

2%

-2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

**

**

**

*

**

**

**

*



-18%

2%

-10%

7%

-17%

0%

-9%

15%

-13%

-1%

-12%

5%

-4%

0%

-9%

5%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

*

**

**

***

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





8%

7%

1%

-1%

-3%

-3%

2%

12%

10%

5%

-9%

-13%

-2%

2%

17%

12%

3%

-7%

-7%

1%

12%

29%

11%

4%

-7%

-13%

2%

21%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und**

*

**

**

*

**

* *

*

*

*

**



3%

1%

-9%

6%

2%

-6%

7%

0%

-3%

8%

14%

8%

-15%

10%

6%

-7%

11%

5%

0%

10%

26%

10%

-14%

19%

13%

-6%

14%

5%

0%

9%

6%

-1%

-20%

8%

0%

-13%

16%

5%

-1%

30%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Engineering

NS/Math

SS/Hum/Arts

Bus/Ed/Oth/Und

***

*

*

**

*

*

**

**

**

*

* * **

*

*

* **

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



443Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 22.5% (225), <1450 = 37.9% (150)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – Out-of-state AA by SAT score

-5%

3%

-17%

8%

-1%

-3%

-10%

12%

-24%

28%

5%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


1450+

<1450

*

**

**

*

**

*

444Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 22.5% (225), <1450 = 37.9% (150)


-10%

0%

-7%

3%

-18%

1%

-14%

14%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

1450+

<1450

*

*

*

**

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



445Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 22.5% (225), <1450 = 37.9% (150)


12%

6%

1%

-4%

-11%

0%

3%

18%

14%

6%

-7%

-5%

-1%

14%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

1450+

<1450

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

*

446Base yield rate (N): 1450+ = 22.5% (225), <1450 = 37.9% (150)


12%

7%

-10%

10%

6%

-5%

9%

2%

0%

10%

14%

2%

-18%

11%

5%

-10%

14%

5%

-2%

15%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












1450+

<1450

*

**

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

**

*

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705




Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – Out-of-state AA by gender

-8%

8%

-20%

17%

2%

-2%

-7%

6%

-21%

17%

1%

-2%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Female

Male

*

**

*

*

**

*



-14%

1%

-10%

9%

-14%

0%

-10%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Female

Male

**

**

**

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





20%

13%

2%

-7%

-6%

-2%

11%

10%

7%

4%

-4%

-11%

1%

5%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Female

Male

**

*

*

**

**

**



10%

2%

-14%

8%

2%

-8%

11%

2%

-1%

14%

15%

7%

-13%

13%

9%

-7%

11%

5%

-1%

11%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Female

Male

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

**

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



451Base yield rate (N): Visited = 35.2% (264), Didn’t visit = 12.8% (111)

Effect of initiatives on number of matriculations – Out-of-state AA by visit to UVA

-5%

11%

-19%

29%

14%

-6%

-8%

6%

-21%

15%

0%

-1%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

More than usual

Extraordinary

STUDENTLEADERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES


Strong emphasis


Smaller collegefeel

Big university


Visited

Didn’t visit

*

**

*

**

*

*



-3%

-2%

-11%

12%

-15%

1%

-10%

7%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%



CAMPUS

CULTURE

Some emphasis


GLOBALCITIZENSHIP

Visited

Didn’t visit

*

*

**

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705





43%

27%

13%

-14%

-22%

-6%

18%

11%

7%

2%

-4%

-6%

0%

6%

-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Capped at$30,000

Capped at$60,000

Capped at$90,000

No cap

STUDENT DEBT

Need-aware

Need-blind


ADMISSIONSPOLICY

Visited

Didn’t visit

**

**

**

*

**

*

*



24%

10%

-16%

15%

8%

-10%

17%

5%

1%

31%

11%

4%

-13%

10%

5%

-7%

10%

3%

-1%

10%

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%












Visited

Didn’t visit

*

*

*

*

*

**

*

**

*

*

*

*

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705


UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Aid Analysis

Revised Report of Models and Simulations

DRAFT WORKING PAPERS

February 14, 2012

7/28/2019 Report 0705


ART & SCIENCE GROUP LLC

University of Virginia

Revised Models and Simulations

Draft Working Papers

February 14, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................3

II. W ORK STEPS ...........................................................................................................5

III. MATRICULATION MODELS....................................................................................6

IV. SIMULATED EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN AID A WARDS ........................................10

Confidential: This document and its contents are not to berevealed to individuals or organizations outside of the Universityof Virginia without the permission of both UVa and Art & ScienceGroup.

7/28/2019 Report 0705


UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA PRELIMINARY REPORT





February 14, 2012PAGE 3


I. Executive Summary

The University of Virginia has an opportunity to make progress on its goals ofimproving access for lower-income families, increasing diversity, and improvingacademic quality, all while increasing net tuition revenue through the use of

institutional grants in more optimal ways. However, the potential gains aremarginal for in-state students. With the limitations of maintaining the currentbalance of in-state and out-of-state students and remaining need-blind, the waysto accomplish UVa’s objectives are nuanced. The key strategic questions of howaid interacts with price and other strategic initiatives under considering remainsto be answered by the market research we are currently conducting, but will beof significant importance in understanding how the University can best reachthose goals.

It is important to note that this aid study was focused on domestic aid applicants

with incomes above the 200% federal poverty level only. The econometricmodeling was unable to measure sensitivities to changes in aid for the lowest-income families, due to extremely low variability in awarding and award levelssignificantly higher than other needy students. Moving forward, we recommendthat UVa conduct careful experiments to create greater variation in aid awardingfor low-income students. Only with such data will econometric modeling be ableto help the University understand how changes in its aid program would affectthe lowest- income students.

If UVa were less generous with needy students, it would lose significantnumbers of them. However, UVa’s decision to grow the undergraduate studentbody presents some opportunities to use changes in institutional aid to advanceits larger objectives. Focusing on in-state student populations, the University’sbest opportunities are to increase institutional grants to higher-academic qualityaid applicants and those with above median need.

In the short term, changing awarding parameters in a way that wouldincrease by $2,000 grants to applicants with demonstrated financial needand SAT scores of 1330 or higher would likely enroll an additional 40-45students. This would provide additional net revenue estimated at $300,000-$350,000. While the University could also decrease awards by a similar

magnitude to lower-scorers, 15-20 fewer students would likely enroll andnet tuition revenue would decrease by an estimated $100,000 to $150,000.

7/28/2019 Report 0705









Effectively increasing grants to applicants with above-median need by$2,000 would likely enroll 35-40 additional students. This would provideadditional net revenue estimated at $100,000-$150,000. This is also the mostefficient way to enroll under-represented minorities, with nearly one-thirdof the new students being under-represented minorities.

Focusing on out-of-state student populations, the University’s best opportunitiesamong students with demonstrated need are to increase institutional grantsbased on academic quality.

To maintain the geographic ratio, increasing by $2,000 grants to applicantswith need and SAT scores of 1430 or lower would likely enroll 55-60additional students. This would provide estimated additional net revenueof $1,200,000-$1,300,000. Note that the average SAT scores of this group arestill higher than the average scores for in-state students and would thus

increase overall academic quality. Increasing grants to lower-scorers wouldalso improve ethnic diversity, with over one-third of new students beingunder-represented minorities.

The University could also increase awards to higher scorers by $4,000 toenroll 40-45 additional students, which would likely increase net revenue by$700,000 to $750,000.

Decreasing grants to out-of-state students, regardless of cohort, woulddecrease enrollment and net revenue significantly. Reducing awards by as

much as $4,000 could result in enrollment decreases of up to 110 studentsand decreased net revenue of up to $2,000,000.

7/28/2019 Report 0705









II. Work Steps

The University of Virginia retained Art & Science Group to conduct an analysis

of its financial aid awarding practices for entering freshmen, as part of a larger

study that will continue into the fall of 2012. The core of the aid study included

an econometric analysis of aid awarding practices and matriculation experiences,

and application of the matriculation model to the fall, 2011 admitted applicant

pool to inform awarding policies.

We began our assignment by meeting with client teams of administrators and

BoV members to review their objectives for admission and financial aid, the

University’s experiences in recent years, and the data that would be available to

us.

Admissions and financial aid data were provided to us for all applicants for the

fall entering classes of 2009-2011 at the University. After several iterations of

checking, refining, and verifying the data, we began an analysis of trends in the

data.

When we had completed the analysis of trends in admission and aid, we met

with the administrative client team to review the data, identify any further

problems with the data, and explore hypotheses about the causes and

implications of the trends that we should be aware of as we proceeded to

develop the econometric model of individuals’ matriculation probability.

We developed what we believed to be the final model and presented a

matriculation model and preliminary simulations in January 2012. During that

presentation, it was decided that there was no need to gather additional data and

we would work to revise the model and run additional simulations to focus on

measuring the impact on enrollment and to look for cohorts where trade-offs in

students might be financially feasible.

After reviewing the findings of the simulations with the client team, wesummarized the University’s awarding position and recommended changes for

it to consider.

7/28/2019 Report 0705









III. Matriculation Models

The matriculation model specifies a functional relationship between the

probability of a student matriculating and certain variables that affect the

matriculation decision at UVa for aid applicants with incomes greater than 200%

of federal poverty level. These variables include financial aid offers from

institutional and government sources, as well as demographic, geographic, and

academic attributes that describe the student. This type of multivariate model

allows us to predict the matriculation probability for any student for whom we

have complete data.

In the tables below, the marginal effect for each variable can be thought of as an

approximation of the separate effect on matriculation probability of a unit

variation in the value of that variable for an individual who exhibits the meancharacteristics of the sample. The p-value is used to test for the significance of

the individual variable, or the family of variables to which it belongs. A p-value

of less than .105 for a variable (or another member of the same family of

variables) is considered to be statistically significant.

Of those variables that were useful in explaining the matriculation behavior of

UVa’s admitted applicants with need, some of the variables are described as

continuous variables, while others are called dummy variables. A continuous

variable is one that plays a role in every student’s matriculation decision, but

does so at a varying rate. For instance, Need amount is a continuous variablewhere the higher the need the lower the matriculation probability. A dummy

variable is one that affects the matriculation decision in a constant fashion. Each

dummy variable has only “yes” and “no” values attached to it, and the effect is

measured against an “omitted” variable. For instance, a legacy student is

significantly more likely to enroll than an otherwise identical non-legacy student.

The families of variables that are included in the matriculation model for UVa

(both because we have consistent data and because they were tested to be

significant) are:

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705









Year of Application: the proportion of the difference in matriculation rate

from one year to the next that cannot be explained by the other variables

in the model. Comparison year is Fall 2011.

Geography: where the student currently resides. Comparisons are to all

others in category.

Race: whether the student identified him- or herself as African- or

Hispanic-American, Asian-American, or another race (including

Caucasian). Comparison group is Caucasians.

Legacy: whether the student indicated that a parent, sibling, or other

relative had attended UVa. Comparison group is non-Legacy students.

Bandwagon effect: based on the number of students who were admittedfrom the same high school in preceding years.

SAT-Below Median/SAT Above Median: the student’s SAT score (or ACT

score converted to SAT) per point.

Echols: whether the student was considered for Echols versus all others.

Rodman: whether the student was considered for Rodman versus all

others.

Need Amount: the student’s amount of demonstrated need per $1,000.

State Aid: the student’s amount of aid received from Virginia per $1,000.

UVA Grant Size: the total amount of need-based grants and merit

scholarships the student was offered by UVa from institutional sources

per $1,000.

Note that these models are based on aid applicants only who are not considered“low income” by UVa (incomes > 200% of federal poverty level). Internationalstudents, athletes, and tuition remission students were also excluded from themodels.

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705









Matriculation Models2009 – 2011

Observations

In‐State / Below

Median Need

Observations

In‐State / Above

Median Need

1056

993

Variable

Partial

Probability p‐value Variable

Partial

Probability p‐value

Year = Fall 2009 0.008 0.805 Year = Fall 2009 0.090 0.006

Year = Fall 2010 0.039 0.237 Year = Fall 2010 0.015 0.644

Southwestern VA ‐0.161 0.004 Western Virginia 0.094 0.055

Non‐Asian Minorities ‐0.188 0.000 Non‐Asian Minorities ‐0.149 0.000

Asian‐Americans 0.059 0.141 Asian‐Americans 0.092 0.012

Legacy 0.055 0.255 Legacy 0.160 0.017

Bandwagon effect 0.005 0.356 Bandwagon effect 0.018 0.000

SAT‐Below

Median

‐0.001

0.000

SAT

‐Below

Median

‐0.001

0.000

SAT‐Above Median ‐0.001 0.000 SAT‐Above Median ‐0.001 0.000

Echols ‐0.057 0.261 Echols ‐0.155 0.003

Rodman ‐0.257 0.056 Rodman ‐0.407 0.002

Need Amount '000 ‐0.005 0.281 Need Amount '000 ‐0.021 0.000

State Aid '000 N/A N/A State Aid '000 0.029 0.000

UVA Grant '000 0.009 0.146 UVA Grant '000 0.035 0.000

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705









Observations

Out‐of ‐State / Below

Median Need

Out‐of ‐State / Above

Median Need

1206

1175

Variable

Partial


Partial


Year = Fall 2009 ‐0.001 0.971 0.039 0.212

Year = Fall 2010 0.021 0.395 0.064 0.024

Midwest ‐0.089 0.026 NA NA

Non‐Asian Minorities ‐0.045 0.123 ‐0.108 0.001

Asian‐Americans 0.000 0.996 ‐0.085 0.025

Legacy 0.105 0.001 0.192 0.000

Bandwagon effect 0.067 0.000 0.079 0.000

SAT‐Below

Median

0.000

0.268

0.000

0.005

SAT‐Above Median 0.000 0.100 0.000 0.001

Echols ‐0.013 0.690 ‐0.107 0.015

Rodman ‐0.029 0.712 ‐0.117 0.321

Need Amount '000 ‐0.008 0.003 ‐0.007 0.000

State Aid '000 N/A N/A N/A N/A

UVA Grant '000 0.014 0.000 0.012 0.000

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705









IV. Simulated Effects of Changes in Aid Awards

The matriculation model shown on the previous page was used to simulate the

effect changes in institutional awards would likely have had on aid applicantswith incomes above 200% of federal poverty level for the class entering UVA infall 2011.

When simulating the effect of decreases in awards, which we tested at values of$2,000 and $4,000, an admitted applicant’s award was reduced by up to theamount in question. An individual originally offered $2,500 in institutional grantwould have his award reduced to $500 for the first example, and to $1 for thesecond example. An individual not originally offered institutional grant wouldnot have any change in her award status.

When simulating the effect of increases in awards, which were also tested atvalues of $2,000 and $4,000, an admitted applicant’s award was increased by thefull amount in question. In no case did an individual’s award exceed the totalcost of attendance at UVA for fall 2011.

It is important that we emphasize that these are the likely effects of changes. Thetables on the following pages are the precise output of the modeling andsimulation exercise, but are not meant to imply precise enrollment or net revenueeffects.

The descriptions of metrics included in the simulations for UVA are:

Admitted applicants: the actual number of admitted applicants in a given

cohort for fall 2011.

Matriculants: the predicted number of matriculants in a given cohort for

fall 2011. Simulated changes represent the change in number of

matriculants in a given simulation.

Yield rate: the predicted yield of matriculants from admitted applicants ina given cohort for fall 2011. Simulated changes represent the increase or

decrease in yield for each simulation. Changes are not percentage changes

D

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705









of the yield percentage, but rather the increase or decrease in net yield;

e.g. a 12% increase on a 62% yield would result in a net 74% yield.

Minorities non-Asian: the predicted number of under-represented

minorities in a given cohort for fall 2011. Simulated changes represent the

change in number of under-represented minorities in a given simulation.

SAT score: the predicted average SAT score for a given cohort for fall

2011. Simulated changes represent the difference in average SAT score for

new/lost students in a given simulation.

Total net revenue: the predicted amount of net tuition revenue in a given

cohort for fall 2011. Simulated changes represent the change in amount of

net tuition revenue in a given simulation. Net tuition revenue takes into

account any increases/decreases in the number of students enrolling andany increases/decreases in total amount of aid offered.

Net revenue change per new/lost student: the predicted change in net

revenue for each new/lost student in a given cohort for fall 2011. This

represents the average amount of net revenue for each new/lost student

and is used to measure efficiencies between groups.

D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: In-stateOriginal

characteristics SimulatIncrease

grant by$4,000

Decrease

grant by$4,000

Admitted appl icants 713

Matricu lants (model) - original/addit ional 440 86 -5

Yield rate (model) - original/additional 62% 12% -8%

Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additi onal 94 26 -2

SAT Score (model) - original/additional 1280 20 -1

Total net revenue (model) - original/addit ional $7,048,738 -$646,283 -$158,41Net revenue change per new/lost student -$7,515 -$2,68


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: Out-of-stateOriginal

characteristics Simulat

Increasegrant by$4,000

Decreasegrant by$4,000

Admitted appl icants 1,076





Total net revenue (model) - or iginal/addit ional $5,173,803 $2,922,654 -$2,059,93

Net revenue change per new/lost student $18,498 -$19,07


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: In-state, SAT less than 1330

Original

characteristics SimulatIncreasegrant by$4,000






SAT Score (model) - original/additional 1220

Total net revenue (model) - original/addit ional $4,513,047 -$798,194 -$4,98

Net revenue change per new/lost student -$30,700 -$14


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: In-state, SAT 1330 or higher

Original






Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additional 7


Total net revenue (model) - original/addit ional $2,535,691 $151,911 -$153,43



D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, SAT less than 1430

Original











D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, SAT 1430 or higher

Original






Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additional

SAT Score (model) - original/additional 1455 5

Total net revenue (model) - original/addit ional $546,131 $726,262 -$237,00



D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: In-state, Below Median Need

Original






Minorities Non-Asian (model) - original/additi onal 43 7 -


Total net revenue (model) - original/addit ional $4,176,073 -$547,236 $64,51

Net revenue change per new/lost student -$20,268 $6,45


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: In-state, Above Median Need

Original








Total net revenue (model) - original/addit ional $2,872,665 -$99,047 -$222,92

Net revenue change per new/lost student -$1,679 -$4,54


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, Below Median Need

Original











D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, Above Median Need

Original











D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: In-state, Grant less than $6,000 Original




Matricu lants (model) - original/additi onal 69 9 -




Total net revenue (model) - original/addit ional $1,200,901 -$153,534 $44,67

Net revenue change per new/lost student -$17,059 $8,93


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: In-state, Grant $6,000 to less than $8,500

Original








Total net revenue (model) - original/addit ional $846,115 -$81,317 -$226,32

Net revenue change per new/lost student -$4,280 -$7,80


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort:

In-state, Grant $8,500 or higher

Originalcharacteristics SimulatIncreasegrant by$4,000



Matricu lants (model) - original/additi onal 88 9 -2




Total net revenue (model) - original/addit ional $755,082 -$297,952 $23,23

Net revenue change per new/lost student -$33,106 $93


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, Grant less than $15,000

Original







SAT Score (model) - original/additional 1380 10 1

Total net revenue (model) - original/addit ional $961,773 $1,152,439 -$760,81



D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, Grant $15,000 to less than $28,00

Original











D

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Simulation cohort: Out-of-state, Grant $28,000 or higher Original

characteristics Simulat

Increasegrant by$4,000








Net revenue change per new/lost student $438 -$7,56


D

7/28/2019 Report 0705


Confidential Working Draft

University of VirginiaFinancial Aid Benchmarking Study

Summary of Key FindingsPreliminary Working Draft

August 2012

Overview of project

UVa invited eight peer institutions to participate in a study of need-basedfinancial aid costs and performance since the economic crisis.Participants were promised an anonymous reporting of the responsesand of the data collected.

Of those contacted, seven agreed to participate by completing aspreadsheet of data for the last three years and a 30-minute phoneinterview conducted by a senior professional of Art & Science Group.

In addition to interviews with key financial aid administrators and areview of the data provided, Art & Science Group conducted a thoroughreview of participants’ websites and available materials.

The participants included UC-Berkeley, University of Michigan,University of North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Cornell, Duke andVanderbilt.

Information was gathered from J anuary–J une 2012.

2

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Contents

This report summarizes the key findings from the benchmarking study,organized as follows:

Policy, Priorities and the Recession 4

Changes in Student Profile 9

Funding and Implementation 17

Budgets and Budgeting Approaches 18

Sources of Funds 23

Needs Analysis and Packaging 28

Use of Merit Aid 31

3

Policy, Philosophy & theRecession

4

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Admissions and Financial Aid Pol ic ies

5

IS/OOS Ratio Need-blind Meets full need

Privates

University 1 Yes No

University 2 Yes Yes

University 3 Yes Yes

Publics

University 4 70/30 Yes No

University 5 82/18 Yes Yes

University 6 65/35 Yes In-state only

University 7 70/30 Need-aware No

U of Virginia 70/30 Yes Yes

Policy, Priorities, and the Recession

Almost every institution surveyed reported that their policies per se havenot changed as a result of the recession. However, demand for aid hasincreased significantly, and the universities are seeing a broader rangeof family incomes among current and prospective families seeking aid. All of the institutions reported an increase in expenditures on need-

based grants and scholarships, as well as growth in the size of theaverage grant, over the last three years.

Responding to these increased demands and changes in state andfederal funding, public institutions have made their priorities clear inallocating available need-based aid funds. For example, one university chose to prioritize the protection of in-

state students, while another focused on ensuring support of middle

income students. Another public with especially limited funding has used aid dollars to

give slight preference to first generation students, under-representedminorities, and students from selected geographic regions.

Only one other public institution in addition to UVa meets the full needof out-of-state students. (It should be noted that its percentage of out-of-state students is much lower than that of UVa.)

6

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Policies, Priorities, and the Recession, cont.

This public university has sustained a commitment to meeting the needsof all incomes both in-state and out-of-state and has done so only byredirecting other institutional funds to financial aid.

Although it does not meet 100% of need for out-of-state students,another public university reported such campus-wide support for aidinitiatives that they reallocated institutional funds to financial aiddespite comprehensive budget cuts across departments.

Privates have responded to the recession with loan initiatives—removalof loans from aid packages and loan caps based on family income—andincreased support of on-campus housing, summer school, and studyabroad.

7

Policies, Priorities, and the Recession, cont.

While all universities cite an overall goal of socio-economic diversity,they do not benchmark against a specific metric (such as percentage of student body).

Institutions with the clearest goals and most robust programs cite thekey role of board and administrative leadership in setting the stage for acampus-wide commitment both to their policy of meeting 100% needand their other objectives for financial aid.

8

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Changes in Student Profile

9

Changes in Student Profile

Nearly all institutions saw a decrease in the number of low incomestudents on aid in the last two years.

However, UVa saw a considerable increase in low income students onaid, notably from out-of-state

One private university saw a dramatic increase in the number of lowincome students on aid in 2010. It was able to meet a significantincrease in demand thanks to the availability of funding from asuccessful need-based aid fundraising initiative.

10

C

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Changes in Student Profile, cont.

Both publics and privates express more concern about declining yieldamong middle income students than among low income students.

All institutions saw a considerable growth in middle income studentson financial aid in 2010

UVa is the only institution that showed increased growth in middleincome students receiving aid in 2011; the growth of out-of-statemiddle income students receiving aid was especially high

UVa has a much higher percentage of middle income students as apercentage of all students receiving aid than any other public orprivate

As a result of the decline in the number of middle income applicants

and the challenges of their state economy, one public has launchedan aggressive financial aid initiative for middle income families

11

Changes in Student Profile, cont.

The number of out-of-state middle income aid recipients at UVa is threetimes the number of out-of-state low-income recipients. There is onlyone other school at which more middle income than lower incomestudents receive aid.

Publics vary in their support of in-state versus out-of-state students:

UVa and one other public meet 100% need of out-of-state students

One public places priority on aiding in-state students and aids out-of-state only as funds are available

Two publics protect in-state students from tuition increases during

their undergraduate years Another has used increases in out-of-state tuition revenue to maintain

growth in out-of-state aid

12

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Low Income

IncomeDefinition 2011-12 % Growth 2010-11 % Growth 2009-10

Privates

University 1 <$75,000 3129 -1% 3174 3% 3073

University 2 <$60,000 943 4.6% 901 187% 314

University 3 <$60,000 1066 -2.3% 1093 1.7% 1074

Publics

University 4 <$45,000 7883 -6.6% 8443 3% 8191

University 5 <150% of poverty 2872

University6 <$60,000

Total 4999 -5% 5278 3.7% 5090

In-State 3793 -7% 4084 3% 3948

Out-of-State 1206 1% 1194 4.5% 1142

University 7 <$60,000 4146 -6.8% 4452 0% 4448

U of Virgin ia < 200% of poverty

Total 1256 4.6% 1201 19.1% 1008In-State 965 6.2% 909 17.7% 772Out-of-State 291 -0.3% 292 23.7% 236

13

Low Income as a Percentage of Aided Students

Income Def in it ion 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10

Privates

University 1 <$75,000 44.3% 46.4% 47.2%

University 2 <$60,000 31.5% 30.4% 11.2%

University 3 <$60,000 25% 26% 26%

Publics

University 4 <$45,000 45% 45% 44%

University 5 <200% of poverty NA 24% NA

University 6 <$60,000 NA 29.0% 31.9%

University 7 <$60,000 23.6% 19.2% 19.6%

U of Virginia < 200% of poverty 26.2% 25.6% 23.6%

14

C

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Middle Income

Definition 2011-12 % Growth 2010-11 % Growth 2009-10Privates

University 1 $75,000-$120,000 1882 0% 1881 1% 1859

University 2 $60,000-$130,000 1146 -6% 1223 30% 940

University 3 $60,000-$130,000 1309 -2.5% 1343 7.5% 1249

Publics

University 4 $45,000-$140,000 5919 -1% 5961 13.4% 5882

University 5 200-500% of poverty 3322

University 6 $60,000-$120,000

Total 4483 -5% 4719 7.4% 4394

In-State 3700 -5% 3900 7.2% 3637

Out-of-State 783 -4.4% 819 8.2% 757

University 7 $60,000-$130,000 4342 -3.6% 4505 6.8% 4217

U of Virginia 200-500% of poverty

Total 2907 1.6% 2862 8.3% 2643

In-State 1994 1% 1979 12.3% 1756Out-of-State 913 3% 883 0% 887

15

Middle Income as % of Students Receiving Aid

Definition 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10

Privates

University 1 $75,000-$120,000 26.6% 27.5% 47.2%

University 2 $60,000-$130,000 38.3% 41.3% 33.5%

University 3 $60,000-$130,000 31.3% 31.6% 30.3%

Publics

University 4 $45,000-$140,000 33.7% 31.7% 31.6%

University 5 200-500% of poverty 27.8%

University 6 $60,000-$120,000 27.4% 26.6%

University 7 $60,000-$130,000 24.7% 19.5% 18.6%

U of Virginia 200-500% of poverty 60.7% 61.0% 61.9%

16

C

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Funding and Implementation

17

Budgets & Budgeting Approaches

18

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Budgets

UVa’s budget for institutional need-based aid is much lower than any of the other institutions surveyed. However:

When looking at budget in relation to the number of students receivingneed-based grants, UVa provides the most aid per student amongpublics (based on incomplete data from two publics).

In the last year, UVa had the highest percentage growth in need-based aid expenditures among the publics.

19

Budgets for Need-Based Grants/Scholarships

2011-12 Increase 2010-11 Increase 2009-10

Privates

University 1 $218,400,000 10%$198,400,000 13.7% $174,500,000

University 2 $105,400,000 25.8% $83,800,000 12% $74,600,000

University 3 $105,500,000 26%$102,800,000 10.2% $93,300,000

Publics

University4 $103,100,000 0%$102,700,000 41% $72,900,000

University 5 NA $80,863,683

University 6 NA 0% $76,400,000 25% $61,100,000

University 7 $15,907,813 10.5% $14,385,189 2.8% $13,989,101

U of Virginia $38,300,000 18% $32,400,000 22.7% $26,400,000

20

C

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Average Need-Based Grant/Scholarship

2011-12 % Increase 2010-11 % Increase 2009-10

Privates

University 1 $30,916 6% $29,140 8.7% $26,803

University 2 NA $33,574 7.0% $31,253

University 3 $37,478 3% $36,352 7.0% $33,928

Publics

University 4 $7,599 2.6% $7,406 25.6% $5,894

University 5 NA $10,906 NA

University 6 NA $8,672 9.5% $7,922

University 7 $3,013 $2,425 $2,401

U of Virginia $13,642 9.4% $12,465 10.0% $11,339

21

Budgeting Approaches

Privates generally submit a budget request based on meetingdemonstrated need.

Public approaches include the following:

Allocation that has been traditionally funded by a return to aid fromincreases in tuition revenues but has shifted to an allocation based onprogram objectives.

Allocation from increased tuition and housing revenues thatguarantees only sufficient funding to cover in-state students. If additional funding is available, it is allocated to reducing loans for in-state students and strengthening packages for out-of-state students.

Combination of a percentage allocation from new tuition revenues anda review of projected costs to implement policy. Additional costs notcovered by tuition revenues, endowment and gifts, and other feesdesignated for aid have been allocated from other sources as neededby senior administrators.

22

C

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Sources of Funds(beyond tuition revenues)

23

Creative Financing

In order to sustain funding for aid initiatives during the economicdownturn, one private employed creative financing measures includingthe following:

Quarterly rather than annual distributions from endowment funds

Use of reserve funds (funds not awarded in previous years and notdistributed back to schools and colleges)

Use of quasi-endowment funds

Use of strategic initiative or president’s discretionary funds

Two of the publics have allocated special fees to support financial aid:

A return of a percentage of local campus based fees (i.e., safety fees,sports recreational facility fees). Students voted to allocate apercentage of these fees to help needy students.

25% of trademark licensing fees

24

C

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Fundraising

Private universities have been especially successful in raising funds forneed-based aid. Increased endowment funds for undergraduate need-based aid have been a major institutional priority and included in recentcapital campaigns.

For two of the publics, successful fundraising campaigns have beenessential to the continued growth of need-based programs.

The two Virginia institutions in this study have been the least successfulin raising private dollars.

Those institutions who have been successful raising private funds citethe leadership of the president/chancellor and the board of trustees.

They also made it clear that need-based aid was campus-wide priority.

25

Fundraising for Need-Based Aid—privates

Status Keys to Success

University 1 Included as major priority in$4.75B campaign

Commitment of President andDevelopment Office

University 2 Raised $308.5 million forneed-based aid. Nowcontinuing the effort,includinga $10M challengegrant

Need-based aid has been auniversity-wide priority

University 3 Surpassed $100M goal for

need-based aid, andcounting

Chancellor and Board have made

need-based aid a top institutionalpriority

26

C

C

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Fundraising for Need-Based Aid—publics

Status Keys to Success

University 4 $300M goal for need-based aid Priority of the Chancellor and campus-widecommitment

University 5 Raised $10 million to supportlaunch of low income program.Seeking now to raise $10million more.

Described moderate success.Commitmentof Chancellor, Provost, andBoard central to success of effort.

University 6 Major university-wide initiative Priority of the President; agreed to matchevery need-based dollar raised

University 7 Fundraising for scholarships inits infancy

Limited success. Youth of developmentprograms and decentralization cited aschallenges.

UVA Included in $3B campaignunder programs and projectsbut no specific dollar goalindicated

Decentralization of fundraising cited as achallenge to raising dollars for need-basedaid.

27

Needs Analysis & Aid Packaging

28

C

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Needs Analysis & Aid Packaging

Based on their available funding, universities execute on their financial aidobjectives by adjusting their approaches to needs analysis and aidpackaging. It is difficult to get a clear picture of the changes made byindividual institutions because they are reluctant to discuss theirpackaging. These findings, however, are notable:

UVa is the only institution that does not include work-study in packagesfor low income students.

Most of the privates do not include loans for low income students andcap loans for others based on total family income.

UVa is the only public that caps loans based on Cost of Attendancerather than family income

Most publics use the Minimum Student Contribution in calculating need;

UVa does not include the Minimum Student Contribution at this time. One private has committed to matching aid packages offered by Ivies

and specific other top tier schools.

29

Work-Study

Exclusions Maximum

University 1 None $2,000



University 4 None $4,000 and will increase up to $6,000 on acase-by-case basis



University 7 Only offered to students withEFC up to $13,200

$1,200

U of Virgin ia Excluded for low incomestudents both in-state andout-of-state

$4,000 for out-of-state only

30

C

C

7/28/2019 Report 0705



Use of Merit Aid

31

Use of Merit Aid

Merit awards are used by some of the universities to compete for topstudents:

Two out of the three private universities offer merit awards

Only one public offers a wide range of merit awards

One public offers one-time summer enrichment “excellence grants” toincrease its competitive appeal

Both public and private universities report that an increased amount of their merit funding has been used to meet financial need.

Among privates and one public, there appears to be a highly

collaborative approach to combining need-based and merit aid awardsfor top students.

All of the other public universities have decentralized, school-basedmerit award programs, making it difficult to collaborate.

32

C

7/28/2019 Report 0705


Institutional Merit Aid in 2010-11

Budget % of UG Students Average Grant

Privates

University 1 NA NA NA

University 2 $112,490,000 3% $51,365

University 3 $23,299,567 12% $27,444

Publics

University 4 $8,778,228 10.9% $2,925

University 5**May include some private $

$9,578,845 8% $6,472

University 6 $46,196,650 25% $6,893

University 7 $18,807,861 19% $4,309U of Virginia $1,600,000 NA NA

33

Conclusions

C

report 0705

Documents