 |
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D
Volume 35-----APRIL 23, 2002-----Number 7
The Senate Record is the official publication of the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, as provided for in Article I, Section 9 of the Standing Rules of the Senate and contained in the Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate, The Pennsylvania State University 2001-02.
The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221). The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs under publications. Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.
Except for items specified in the applicable Standing Rules, decisions on the responsibility for inclusion of matters in the publication are those of the Chair of the University Faculty Senate.
When existing communication channels seem inappropriate, Senators are encouraged to submit brief letters relevant to the Senate's function as a legislative, advisory and forensic body to the Chair for possible inclusion in The Senate Record.
Reports which have appeared in the Agenda of the meeting are not included in The Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting or are considered to be of major importance. Remarks and discussion are abbreviated in most instances. A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file. Individuals with questions may contact Dr. Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary, University Faculty Senate.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Final Agenda for April 23, 2002
A. Summary of Agenda Actions
B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks
II. Enumeration of Documents
A. Documents Distributed Prior to April 23, 2002
Door Handout – Cahir Resolution
Senate Calendar for 2002-03
Standing Committee Assignments for 2002-03
Chairs and Vice-Chairs for 2002-03
Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2002-03
Results of Senate Elections for 2002-03
Senators Not Returning for 2002-03
Attendance
FINAL AGENDA FOR APRIL 23, 2002
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING –
Minutes of the March 26, 2002 Meeting in The Senate Record 35:6
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of April 9, 2002
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of April 9, 2002
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY –
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
Undergraduate Education
Revision of Senate Policy 60-00: Multiple Majors and Degrees
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –
Senate Council – Tuition Task Force, Rodney A. Erickson,
Executive
Vice President/Provost of the University
Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid
Time to Graduation Report
Senate Council – Statement by Penn State President Graham Spanier on
the Penn State Calendar
Senate Self Study Committee – Interim Report
University Planning – Construction Projects – 2001-02
Report of Senate Elections
Senate Council
Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President
Senate Secretary for 2002-03
Senate Chair-Elect for 2002-03
Comments by Outgoing Chair Nichols
Installation of Officers
Comments by Incoming Chair Moore
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE
UNIVERSITY -
M. ADJOURNMENT -
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS
The Senate passed one legislative report:
Undergraduate Education – “Revision of Senate Policy 60-00: Multiple Majors and Degrees.” This legislation proposed wording changes to the Senate Policies of dual-degree, simultaneous degree, and sequential degree programs, thus, changing and clarifying the language to eliminate distinctions between multiple majors and multiple degrees. The terms concurrent majors program and sequential majors program are proposed. (See Record, page (s) 7-8 and Agenda Appendix “B.”)
The Senate heard five informational reports:
Tuition Task Force Report - Provost Rodney Erickson shared the conclusions and recommendations of the Tuition Task Force, appointed by President Spanier in July 2001. Dr. Erickson’s remarks focused on comparisons with peer institutions, funding needs of the University, five-year budget projections and tuition requirements, possible tuition models and recommendations regarding Penn State’s tuition strategy for the next several years. (See Record, page(s) 8-23 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Time to Graduation Report.” This report investigates the graduation patterns of undergraduate students, using a time to degree study prepared by the Office of the University Registrar for Spring 1999, 2000, and 2001 semesters. (See Record, page(s) 23-24 and Agenda Appendix “D.”)
Senate Council – Statement by Penn State President Graham Spanier on the Penn State Calendar - Provost Erickson responded to questions on the final outcome of deliberations related to changes in the University calendar. (See Record, page(s) 24-28 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)
Senate Self Study Committee – “Interim Reort.” Committee chair George Franz gave an interim report on its findings and invite feedback on topics under consideration. (See Record, page(s) 28 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)
University Planning – “Construction Projects, 2001-02.” This informational report focused on projects at campus college locations. (See Record, page(s) 29-32 and Agenda Appendix “G.”)
The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John S. Nichols, Chair, presiding. One hundred and sixty-eight Senators signed the roster.
Chair Nichols: It is time to begin.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the March 26, 2002 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries, and is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Nichols: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for April 9, 2002. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.
REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL
Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of April 9, 2002. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Nichols: There are
several. First of all if you have not
glanced at the Senate Council minutes you might want to do so. There are a number of announcements and
remarks that will be of value to you but in the interest of time I will not
repeat them.
This being the last Senate
meeting of the year a number of Senators will be completing their term of
office today. I would like to take just
a few minutes to acknowledge those departing Senators and to thank them for
their service.
SENATORS NOT RETURNING FOR THE 2002-2003 SENATE YEAR
COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
Hector Flores
Harvey Manbeck
Michael Saunders
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND
ARCHITECTURE
Dan Brinker
PENN STATE ERIE - THE
BEHREND COLLEGE
Barbara Power
Syed Andaleeb
SMEAL COLLEGE OF
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Terry Harrison
J. Randall Woolridge
COLLEGE OF
COMMUNICATIONS
John Nichols
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Murry Nelson
COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING
Ali Borhan
Sabih Hayek
Jeffrey Mayer
Jose Ventura
PENN STATE HARRISBURG
CAPITAL COLLEGE
Jacob De Rooy
COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Linda Caldwell
Rebecca Corwin
Thomas Frank
Deborah Preston
COLLEGE OF THE
LIBERAL ARTS
Alan Block
Richard Bord
James Brasfield
Alan Derickson
Adrian Wanner
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
Steven Dear
Charles Hill
Joan Lakoski
EBERLY COLLEGE OF
SCIENCE
Robin Ciardullo
Renee Diehl
Robert Minard
Mark Strikman
UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
Loanne Snavely
BEAVER CAMPUS
JoAnn Chirico
DELAWARE CAMPUS
Lonnie Golden
NEW KENSINGTON CAMPUS
Theresa Balog
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION
SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
James Thomas
EX OFFICIO SENATOR
John Cahir
Nancy Eaton
UNDERGRADUATE
STUDENTS
Joshua Walker
Nicholas Pazdziorko
Laura Serfass
Robert Hill
Terry Shirley
Adam Schott
Dawn Noga
Jennifer Tingo
Molly Powell
Sunny Webb
Sean Limric
Anthony Wardle
GRADUATE STUDENTS
Sally Flowers
Gwenn McCollum
Mackenzie DeVos
Joseph Ferenchick
Chair Nichols: Again, thank
you for your service to the Senate and the university.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Nichols: At this time
I would like to make some special presentations. This is a newly established means by which the Senate
acknowledges Senators who have participated in the governance of the university
through lengthy service to the Senate and/or holding leadership positions and
as a result deserve special recognition.
The first recognition goes to Jacob De Rooy. Jake are you here? Jake
would you wind your way down here.
Jacob De Rooy joined the
Senate in 1983 as a Penn State Harrisburg, Capital College Senator. During Jake’s 17 years of service, he was
the Senate Secretary in 1992-93 and chaired the Senate Committee on Outreach
Activities for three years. He also was
elected to the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President and Faculty Rights
and Responsibilities Committee. In
addition, Jake has served on the Senate Committees on Faculty Affairs, Faculty
Benefits and Senate Council. The Senate
would like to present Jake with a special certificate and thanks for his
service.
Senators: Applause.
Louis Geschwindner has
served as a College of Engineering Senator since 1982. In 1995-96, Lou was elected Secretary of the
Faculty Senate and in 1996-97 he was elected Chair-elect. Lou has served as chair of the Senate
Committee on Curricular Affairs for six years; he has also chaired and been a
member of the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student
Aid and the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education. Lou has served the Senate for 19 years. I don’t believe Lou is here but let’s give
him a round of applause anyway.
Senators: Applause.
Sabih Hayek is a College
of Engineering Senator with 23 years of service and has served on the Senate
since 1977. Sabih has chaired and
vice-chaired the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules and has served as
chair of the Senate Committee on Libraries.
He has also been vice-chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs
and served on External Affairs. Again,
a round for Sabih.
Senators: Applause.
Harvey Manbeck joined the
Senate in 1984 as a College of Agricultural Sciences Senator. During his 16 years of service, he has
served and provided leadership for six Senate Committees including Faculty
Affairs, Undergraduate Education, Research, Intercollegiate Athletics and
Outreach Activities. Harvey is
currently serving on the self-study committee.
Thanks, Harvey.
Senators: Applause.
Murry Nelson joined the
Senate as a College of Education Senator in 1980. In 1998-99, Murry was elected chair-elect of the Senate and
served as chair and immediate past chair.
He has chaired the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and the Senate
Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics.
Murry has served on the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education,
Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations, Senate Committee on Committees
and Rules and the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. Murry has served the Senate for 17 years.
Senators: Applause.
Without objection, I would
like to present to the Senate for its consideration the following resolution
regarding a person who has had a very special relationship with the Senate for
an extended period of time. Let me read
the resolution for your consideration.
RESOLUTION
John J. Cahir
Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education
Professor of Meteorology
WHEREAS, Dr. John J. Cahir
has had a distinguished career at Penn State dating back to 1965, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has
demonstrated innovative and exemplary administrative leadership in his many
contributions to the university community, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has
served on the University Faculty Senate continuously since 1973, and has been a
member of Senate Council; an elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee
to the President and chaired the Faculty Affairs and Planning and Development
committees; and served on Undergraduate Education and Intercollegiate Athletic
committees, and led or served on numerous commissions, panels, and task forces,
and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has
helped shape the weather forecasting abilities of thousands of students and is
nationally and internationally recognized for his research and teaching in
climatology and using computer technologies to transform weather stations, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has
been a champion for excellence in teaching and learning and improving the
quality of undergraduate education at Penn State and nationally, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir has
been a mentor, guide, and friend to innumerable Penn State faculty, staff, and
students, and
WHEREAS, John Cahir is a
man of integrity, loyalty, and unflagging devotion to Penn State;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, on
this 23rd day of April, 2002, expresses its deepest gratitude and
appreciation to Dr. John J. Cahir for his many accomplishments on behalf of the
university, in support of excellence in undergraduate education. The Senate offers affectionate and heartfelt
best wishes for many more accurate weather forecasts and a full and productive
retirement.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Nichols: John, why don’t you come down? I am going to ask the Senate for a vote for affirmation on the resolution. All those in favor of affirming the resolution, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Nichols: Thank you. Every year the Faculty Senate Committee on Student Life is asked to review applications for John W. White Graduate Fellowship awards, given annually to graduating seniors who plan on enrolling in a graduate degree program. This year Bill Ellis, chair of the Senate Committee on Student Life and committee member Jeff Mayer and Executive Secretary Susan Youtz recommended four graduating seniors for receiving the White Graduate Fellowship. We invited the winners to join us today, three of them could not be here because they are in class, but I would like to read their names and fields of study.
Michelle Cook, Biology, Schreyer Honors College, will attend the University of Pennsylvania in a combined veterinary science and Ph.D. program.
Kimberly Herrmann, Penn State Erie, Physics and Astrophysics, Schreyer Honors College and she will attend Penn State in pursuit of a Ph.D. in the Department of Physics.
Laura Rosenberger majors in Sociology, Psychology and Women’s Studies, with a minor in Information Systems and Statistical Analysis, Schreyer Honors College. Laura will start a master’s degree program at American University in International Peace and Conflict Studies.
Suzanne Bisceglia. Thank you for standing up. Let me tell you a little bit about Suzanne. Suzanne is a Biology major with a concentration in Vertebrate Physiology, and a minor in World Literature. She said during the interviews that general education courses opened her eyes to world cultures and literature. Suzanne, a Schreyer Honors College student with an Honors Thesis in Nutrition has been admitted to the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Suzanne has served as a teaching assistant in the biology department and a volunteer in the Women’s Health Clinic at University Health Services and is a Healthworks Peer Educator and a Blue Belt in Karate. If we let her get back to class, she expects to graduate with a 4.0 grade point average. Congratulations.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Nichols:
We
are going to go back in the script a little bit and surprise Sabih Hayek who
just walked in the room. Sabih come on
down. While you were absent we passed
out certificates of those who had lengthy service and leadership positions in
the Faculty Senate and we said all sorts of nice things about you but we won’t
repeat them now, but congratulations.
Senators: Applause.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Nichols: Agenda Item E,
Comments By The President Of The University. President Spanier is not in attendance today, however, we will hear from
Provost Erickson in a few minutes.
FORENSIC BUSINESS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
Chair Nichols: As we begin our discussion of reports, I
will remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you
represent before addressing the Senate.
I also remind our guests that the Senate floor is open only to Senators
or others in the university community that have received previous permission
for access to the floor. Agenda Item H, Legislative Reports, Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Education, Revision of Senate Policy 60-00: Multiple Majors and Degrees. This is Appendix “B” in your Agenda and Laura Pauley the committee
chair is here to present.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Revision of Senate Policy
60-00: Multiple Majors and Degrees
Laura L. Pauley, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education
Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering: Last spring the Faculty Senate voted to award two separate diplomas to students who completed the multiple major program. When we did that, we now give diplomas to both simultaneous degrees and multiple majors and are blurring the distinction between these. The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education looked at this policy and decided to merge those two descriptions of multiple majors and call it a concurrent major and have one policy guideline.
Chair Nichols: Questions or comments for Laura? Seeing none we are ready for a vote. This is a legislative item. Your vote would be to approve the revisions in Senate Policy 60-00. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Nichols: Any opposed, "nay?" The aye’s have it. The motion carries and the policy is adopted. Thank you, Laura.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
None
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
Chair Nichols: Agenda Item J, Informational Reports. Senate Council is sponsoring the Tuition Task Force Report and Rodney Erickson, Executive Vice President and Provost will present the report and that is Appendix “C.” As Provost Erickson is making his way to the podium I would like to make three quick points. First of all, on behalf of my faculty colleagues I would like to applaud Provost Erickson and his really great team of vice provosts on their extraordinarily strong and effective academic leadership of the university. And to say how much I personally enjoyed working with him and his great leadership team this year and to thank him for his support for the Senate and the principle of shared governance.
Second, regarding the Tuition Task Force Report it is important for you to know that a great deal of the heavy lifting in this important report was done by Richard Althouse, the University Budget Officer and Steve Curley, the Financial Officer in the Provost’s Office. Dick, as most of you know is a Senator, but because he is a shy type, I did not note his presence at the last meeting and therefore failed to acknowledge that he was this year’s winner of the Administrative Excellence Award. Congratulations, Dick.
Third, the full report of the Tuition Task Force is being put up on the web as we speak so you don’t have to feverishly scribble down data in the provost’s presentation this afternoon. The web site is www.budget.psu.edu/tuition and it will also be linked to the Senate home page so you could have quick access to it. Provost Erickson, thank you.
SENATE COUNCIL
Tuition Task Force
Rodney A. Erickson, Provost: Thank you, Chair Nichols. Let me reciprocate by thanking you in your role as chair this year and the outstanding job that you have done. We have enjoyed, very much working with you.
I believe next year we are going to have to find funds in the budget to put a light here at the podium. As I advance in age, this is becoming more and more challenging all the time to work without a light.
As Chair Nichols indicated, I have been chairing a task force that has been looking into budget issues and forecasting future tuition needs at the university. There are a lot of difficult choices that we have to make and these are complex issues. It is critically important that we understand as best as we can the road that is before us. My report this afternoon is going to summarize the findings and recommendations of our study. I am very appreciative of this opportunity to come before the Faculty Senate to share this important report with you. There is much information that needs to be covered and I am going to stick rather closely to my formal remarks in the interest of making this presentation as clear and efficient as possible.
Dr. Spanier appointed the Tuition Task Force because he recognized that the university’s teaching, research, and service missions depend on adequate and consistent funding. To meet Penn State’s strategic goals, the Tuition Task Force was asked to consider realistic projections of a large range of tuition options that may be necessary over the next five years to support the continued competitiveness of the university as a premier institution.
I will not go into great detail about the university’s under-funding (and I emphasize serious under-funding) in relation to peer institutions because this topic is discussed in considerable detail in the report, and I have already presented much of the information to this group in my annual budget reports. However, I will provide you with some background that frames the context in which the university must consider its decisions with respect to tuition.
The commonwealth’s appropriations have made up a progressively smaller share of Penn State’s budget for several decades. Commonwealth appropriations now make up a mere 14 percent of Penn State’s total budget. I have told you in previous reports that our appropriation per full-time equivalent (FTE) student is the lowest among Big Ten public universities and, on the other side of the coin, our tuition is the highest. No other university among our peer group, has such a large gap between the high quality and reputation of its programs, on the one hand, and the low level of resources for faculty and other needs that are available, on the other.
At the same time as revenues have lagged, the university has faced significant cost increases in terms of salaries and benefits, capital improvements and maintenance, information technology, library resources, and regulatory compliance.
Penn State has cut costs through a decade and more of budget recycling, but it has still been necessary to raise tuition in order to maintain academic quality.
Looking ahead, we recognize that the university will continue to face significant cost increases.
Additional funds are needed for full-time, tenure-track faculty to reduce class sizes and to improve the student/faculty ratio. We need more modern classroom and lab facilities and funds for our growing deferred maintenance backlog. We need to fund critical academic and administrative support programs and interdisciplinary initiatives, develop library resources and technology improvements, enhance student life and learning experiences, and improve our outreach and technology transfer services to citizens of the commonwealth.
Several principles guided the Tuition Task Force deliberations. In keeping with Penn State’s land-grant mission, we believe that tuition should be held to the lowest level possible, consistent with enhancing the academic quality of the university and achieving its strategic goals.
We must continue to seek new ways to operate efficiently. We should be sensitive to the economic climate, but also take a principled and long-term approach to tuition strategy.
Tuition policies should be set in the context of market factors, the policies of our peer institutions, and the competitive regional environments of our Penn State campuses.
We must maintain many points of student access through our multi-campus system.
And, we need to preserve affordability by maximizing the amount of student financial aid that is available.
An important element in any discussion of tuition policy is student interest in the university. We are fortunate that student interest in a Penn State education is extremely strong. Applications for admission have been at record levels of 75,000 to 78,000 over the past three years. The yield rate for freshmen baccalaureate offers remains steady, and total enrollment of about 82,000 students is on target with the university’s enrollment management plan.
Here is a thirty-year look at tuition increases on a percentage basis. There have been times that Penn State has had to face significant tuition increases. In fact, in 11 of the 30 years, we have had to increase tuition nine percent or more.
The conditions that led to these increases varied over the years. In the late 1970's and 1980's, inflation was a factor. We are facing similar circumstances now, in that costs are increasing in the categories of salaries, benefits, equipment, maintenance, and technology.
During the 1980's, tuition increases averaged nearly ten percent. Over the past ten years, the increases have been more modest.
This slide represents Penn State’s tuition, and Educational and General Appropriation per full-time-equivalent student in constant dollars. The E&G appropriation is that line item in Penn State’s appropriation that represents the bulk of the commonwealth’s contribution to our basic instructional mission. Dollar values have been adjusted to a constant base year of 1970 using the Higher Education Price Index. In 1970, appropriation represented about two-thirds of the total expenditure per FTE student, while tuition represented about one-third. Today, the pattern is reversed with tuition representing two-thirds and appropriation one-third.
Overall, the funds available to the university per FTE
student from these two sources, when adjusted for inflation, are not much
higher now than in 1970. In other
words, the university’s purchasing power per student is virtually the same as
it was 30 years ago. This is a remarkable
fact, given the increased demands that have occurred over the past 30 years,
such as teaching and learning improvements, environmental and other regulatory
compliance, more student services, major maintenance expenditures, technology
improvements, and higher expectations from students and parents.
Since 1995-96, Penn State’s tuition increases have averaged 5.2 percent per year, but we are seeing an increasing trend over the past three years.
This chart shows Penn State’s actual appropriations from the commonwealth from 1995-96 to the current year. It also shows the $10.1 million budget rescission that occurred this year and the governor’s proposed budget for Penn State for 2002-03.
The proposed budget cuts of $16.7 million for 2002-03 would return Penn State to about the level of funding it received three years ago in 1999-2000.
The line with the red diamonds on this chart shows what the
appropriation amounts would have looked like if Penn State had received
annual increases over the 1995-96 appropriation that were equal to the
inflationary increases in the Higher Education Price Index. The line with the yellow squares shows the
actual appropriation. When inflationary
increases are factored in, the governor’s proposed budget, if enacted for next
year, would set Penn State back $35 million in purchasing power from 1995-96.
To project Penn State’s budget requirements for the next five years, the Tuition Task Force developed multiple budget scenarios based on projections for each of several budget variables such as salaries, benefits, and program needs.
Salaries make up the largest portion of Penn State’s budget, 69 percent when benefits are included. Comparisons with our peer institutions show that Penn State’s average faculty salaries have slipped substantially in ranking since 1995-96. Competitive salaries are important to maintaining a quality faculty. Recovering our lost ground in salaries will require a multi-year initiative.
As you can see from this table, among Big Ten public institutions, Penn State’s rank for average salaries dropped from second to fifth at the professor level, from second to sixth at the associate professor level, and we moved from eighth to seventh at the assistant professor level from 1995-1996 to 2000-2001.
The same comparison is made between Penn State and 22 public
institutions participating in the Association of American Universities Data
Exchange (AAUDE). For the same five
year period, Penn State’s rank for average salaries dropped from second to
eighth at the professor level, from second to tenth for associate professors,
and we continue to be ranked twelfth for assistant professor salaries.
Nationally, faculty salaries at private universities, on average, exceed faculty salaries at public universities, and the gap is growing. Here is some data published in 2001 in Academe for professor-rank faculty. The salary gap for private versus public university faculty was 12 percent in 1989-90 and had increased to 22.4 percent in 2001-2002. I should add that we were just about even in 1980.
With the growing national reputation of Penn State’s faculty, the relationship between our faculty salaries and those at the elite private universities is becoming increasingly important.
We analyzed faculty salary data for the private universities in the Association of American Universities (AAU) and compared them to Penn State faculty salaries. We found that Penn State faculty salaries are considerably below those of AAU private universities, and the gap is growing. At each level--assistant, associate, and professor--the salary gap increased between 1995 and 2001.
We are feeling the effects of this salary gap at Penn State. We have been losing excellent faculty to some of the AAU private universities, such as Cornell, Harvard, Chicago, Tulane, and the list goes on.
We also looked extensively at a number of other major factors in our budget planning assumptions.
Employee benefit costs are projected to increase for the coming years for the university’s educational and general operations. Nationally, health care costs are expected to increase 15 to 20 percent per year over the next several years. Penn State has projected an increase in health care costs from 14 to 16 percent per year over the five-year planning period.
Our budget plans also include providing health care benefits for graduate students that correspond with benefits provided to faculty and staff.
In line with national trends, we are expecting significant increases in property and liability insurances.
We continue to allocate funds to deferred maintenance, and we included funds for new and newly renovated facilities scheduled to come on line during the next five years.
In terms of program needs, we included funds to complete the funding commitments over the next three years for our academic initiatives in the Life Sciences, Materials Science, Environmental Studies, and Children, Youth and Families.
Program investment funds of $6 million per year have been included for such things as new faculty positions, start-up packages for replacement positions, competitive graduate assistant stipends, and selected expansion of baccalaureate programs at some campus locations.
The budget scenarios include $1 million per year to complete the funding for the School of Information Sciences and Technology, although we certainly hope that the commonwealth will provide additional funds for this important venture, which they have previously supported through a $5.3 million base budget allocation.
The Information Resources and Technology fee will provide $2 million per year for library information resources and student computing and telecommunications needs.
One and half million dollars per year has been included for other priority needs, such as the President’s Opportunity Fund, instructional workload funding, and the parking and transportation improvement programs.
The equivalent of one percent per year in departmental operating funds will be reallocated within each unit as part of the next cycle of strategic planning. Over the last ten years, we recycled over $87 million, which represents approximately twelve percent of our departmental operating budgets.
We are also planning to increase funding for student aid by an average of $1.2 million each year to mitigate the effects of tuition increases on our neediest students.
To project Penn State’s expenditures over the next five years, we made multiple projections with different levels of state appropriation and personnel costs. We projected state appropriation changes of minus five, minus three, zero, plus two, and plus four percent. We also projected personnel cost increases at three different levels--an increase below the peer group average which we know would cause further slippage in Penn State’s salary rankings, a level which would match the peer group average increase, and an increase of one percent over the peer group average which would start to improve our salary rankings. To place this in context, we believe that an increase of three percent in the basic merit pool plus one percent each in the President’s Excellence Fund and the Faculty/Staff Excellence Fund will be necessary just to stay at the peer group average next year.
In each scenario presented, we used a mid-range figure of $6 million per year for program investment funds.
Here are the results. Varying appropriation changes at five levels and personnel cost increases at three levels results in 15 different scenarios for tuition and fees increases ranging from 7.8 percent to 14.7 percent. You can see the devastating effect that a five percent budget cut will have on the tuition rate that we would need just to maintain our current relative standing.
We analyzed the pros and cons of four possible tuition models that could generate enough income to meet the university’s projected five-year financial needs. The models are:
1.
Incremental increases,
adjusted each year to meet economic conditions and university needs.
2.
One-time, significant
increases for all students, followed by more modest increases, in order to
provide significant catch-up funding.
3.
Significant increases
for incoming freshmen, with more modest annual increases for continuing
students.
4.
Expanded differential
tuition by student level and by campus location.
Incremental increases would allow tuition levels to be adjusted each year to meet economic conditions and university needs. No students would receive significantly larger increases than other students. This does not constitute a significant departure from our current practice.
However, the incremental increases will need to be higher than inflation, and this option still may not provide the necessary income to meet the university’s needs. Over time, we would also predict problems for campus college locations that are competing with local and regional institutions.
The second model, implementing one-time, significant increases for all students, followed by more modest annual increases, would provide an immediate inflow of income to meet the university’s needs, and it would accomplish the change in the tuition structure quickly.
However, this option impacts current students much more than the other options, and it has the greatest potential impact on access. Student aid would become an even more critical issue.
This option would also have a serious impact on our campus locations, and may price them out of some markets in comparison to their local competitors.
We believe that a better solution to meeting the university’s fiscal needs is through gradual increments over a period of time.
The next model is significant tuition increases for freshmen, with more modest increases for continuing students, similar to those they have experienced in the past. The income would be spread out over a four-year period, providing more effective use of the funds. Freshmen students would be advised of the increases before making their decision to come to Penn State.
On the downside, this model would have an impact on accessibility for new freshmen and student aid would continue to be a critical issue. It could again cause a problem for the fiscal competitiveness of our campus locations.
The last model involves expanding differential tuition by student level and by campus location. Expanding the tuition differentials between University Park and other campuses, for example, would be the best solution to the price competitiveness issues facing the campus locations. Further differentials by student level would better reflect the costs of upper-division and graduate education. Differentiation by student level and location could be implemented in conjunction with any of the other three models.
Some cautions to consider--tuition differentials might inhibit movement within the Penn State system. For example, a sophomore at a campus location moving to the junior level at University Park would face a substantial tuition increase.
Another disadvantage is that the differences in cost among Penn State locations might be misunderstood as representing differences in educational quality.
The next part of my report sets forth the Tuition Task Force’s observations and recommendations after evaluation of the four tuition models.
The Tuition Task Force made two primary observations.
First, the strong student interest in Penn State and the significant tuition rate increases planned by peer institutions suggest that enrollments can be maintained in the face of higher tuition, particularly at University Park.
Second, the flexibility to increase tuition is more limited at some other campuses due to local economic conditions, student demand, and the pricing policies of competing regional institutions.
Accordingly, we have endorsed the following two recommendations--first, that the most promising alternative to meet the university’s budget requirements is a combination of increased tuition differentials by campus location and by student level, and incremental increases as needed.
Second, we have concluded that higher tuition should be
phased in beginning with incoming freshmen, rather than for all students. Freshmen would be advised of the increases
before making their decision to come to Penn State.
For the next academic year, 2002-2003, we are proposing that all students receive the same percentage tuition increase.
Beginning in 2003-2004, we are proposing to increase tuition differentials by location and by student level. Incoming freshmen would receive a higher tuition increase in 2003-2004 and again as sophomores in 2004-05. Two consecutive years of the freshmen bump would become the new higher tuition base that works its way progressively through the student body year-by-year. The existing tuition differential for upper-division and graduate students would be increased over two years, and University Park students would receive higher tuition increases than students at other campus locations.
Here is some more detail about the planned increase for incoming freshmen in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. At University Park, freshmen would receive a basic tuition increase plus an extra increase in the range of $400 to $600 per year.
At other locations, freshmen would receive a basic tuition increase for their location plus an extra increase in the range of $50 to $100 per year.
As I indicated, the increases for freshmen would be announced well in advance so that students could consider the cost of tuition in their enrollment decision.
Larger differentials for upper-division students would also be implemented in 2003-04 and 2004-05. For upper-division students at University Park, we project a basic tuition increase plus an extra increase of $180 per year.
For other locations, upper-division students would receive a basic tuition increase for their location plus the upper-division increase of $180 in 2003-04 and again in 2004-05.
In any discussion of tuition increases, we must consider need-based student aid and its importance to financially needy students.
During the 2000-01 academic year, Penn State students received a total of $482 million in student aid from federal and state grants, loans, and institutional and private sources.
These bar charts show the percentage of full-time degree-seeking undergraduate and graduate students who received grant and/or scholarship assistance that covered at least some of their tuition in the fall semester 2001. These data do not include loans.
Fifty-three percent of full-time undergraduate students receive some tuition reduction from grants or scholarships, 27 percent of full-time undergraduate students receive the equivalent of 60 percent or more of full tuition, and 12 percent receive amounts equal to their full tuition charges or more.
Seventy-one percent of full-time graduate students receive some tuition reduction from grants, scholarships, or fellowships, and 96 percent of these students receive full tuition awards.
We have carefully studied the amount of student aid received and the unmet financial need for full-time undergraduate students. In this analysis, unmet need is defined as the balance of direct costs of tuition, room, and board after considering grants, scholarships, federal loans, and the expected family contribution.
As we might expect, the unmet need was greatest for families with incomes under $65,000, but there were other significant differences, as shown here. The unmet need for commuting students averaged $170 per year. Thus, campuses other than University Park will continue to be important points of access, especially for commuting students.
The unmet need for Pennsylvania resident students living on campus averaged $1,200 per year, and the unmet need for nonresident students living on campus averaged $6,450 per year.
In 1999-2000, the median debt for Penn State students who have debt upon completion of their baccalaureate degree was $17,125. National survey data indicated that the median undergraduate debt at public institutions was $15,375 and at private institutions was $17,250.
Of the $1.3 billion dollar overall goal of the Grand Destiny Campaign, $545 million is targeted for support of ongoing programs and $755 million is targeted for support of four featured objectives--Undergraduate Students, Graduate Students, Faculty, and Programs. Undergraduate and graduate support make up $393 million, or 52 percent, of the $755 million for featured objectives.
Penn State’s Campaign goal for Undergraduate Support is $320 million and the goal for Graduate Support is $73 million.
As of February 2002, we have raised $270 million or 84 percent of the Undergraduate Support goal. A majority of the funds in this category support undergraduate scholarships.
As of February, we have raised $53 million or 72 percent of the Graduate Support goal. Graduate support helps fund graduate fellowships which are a critical need in recruiting students for all of Penn State’s academic colleges.
Private fund raising is increasingly important as a source of student aid funds. In 1996, endowed scholarships and annual giving funds provided 3,268 awards totaling $6.1 million. By 2000, these figures had increased to 4,632 awards totaling $12.1 million, thanks to substantial gifts from the Grand Destiny Campaign.
We are projecting that awards totaling $16.2 million will be available in 2006, as additional gifts from the Grand Destiny Campaign are received and activated.
Philanthropic support is critically important in helping Penn State compete for the most talented students. Through the efforts of the Grand Destiny Campaign, we are providing assistance to needy students with tremendous potential.
With the help of federal and state based student aid, loans, institutional funds and private philanthropy by Penn State alumni and friends, our goal is to ensure that all prospective students in the commonwealth who want to attend this university can continue to do so.
The next few slides will summarize the main points of the Tuition Task Force’s report.
Comparative rankings show that Penn State is seriously (and I underline seriously) under-funded in relation to our peers, both nationally and within the commonwealth. This under-funding shows in virtually all comparisons of university activities.
We are a very efficient university and we rank highly in productivity and administrative efficiency.
Years of budget reallocations and recycling have contributed to this productivity, but have left us with limited flexibility to generate internal funds.
The Grand Destiny Campaign has been very successful, but it is not designed to provide funds for basic operating costs. No one has ever given us a gift to pay the electric bill. It does help to provide funds for a margin of excellence in academic programs and critical financial support for students.
Because of state budget constraints, commonwealth appropriations now account for less than one-third of Penn State’s general funds budget and only 14 percent of our total budget. It is highly unlikely that the state appropriation will increase enough to meet the university’s needs.
The demand for a Penn State education should continue to be robust, and it should be possible to sustain enrollments with the tuition increases in most of the ranges considered in our report.
The planned tuition strategy will enhance Penn State’s academic quality and reputation. Peer public institutions are planning significant increases in their tuition rates over the next few years. Limiting tuition increases below the mid-range scenarios in this report would almost certainly result in erosion of academic quality and reputation of the university.
We are recommending larger increases for entering students over a two-year period and relatively lower increases than might otherwise be the case for our current students.
Our analysis supports greater differentials among campuses, programs, and student levels, based on the actual costs of educational programming. Differential tuition would permit Penn State to compete effectively in regional markets while permitting University Park to secure the financial resources necessary to support its mission. The campus colleges would take on an even greater role in providing access to higher education in the Penn State system.
Penn State will continue its strategy of cost containment and continuous quality improvement. As President Spanier indicated at the last Senate meeting, a small task force has been created to look at the overall university budget and find new places to reduce costs. Gary Shultz and I are co-chairing the task force and we want to make sure that every stone is turned over to see if we can find additional cost savings that will not adversely affect our academic mission.
The university will need to place even greater emphasis on private fund raising for student financial aid.
Even with significantly higher tuition rates, a Penn State education remains an excellent investment for students. While no one likes to raise tuition, there appears to be no reasonable alternative to provide the financial resources that will be required to support the university’s continued competitiveness and its development as a premier academic institution. Penn State’s potential and goals are high, and we owe our students the highest quality education.
I would encourage all of you to take time to review the full Tuition Task Force report at the web site address noted here.
Again I want to thank the Senate for the opportunity to come and present the results and recommendations of our report that we will share with the Board of Trustees on May 10, 2002 and this will in turn provide information and context for them as they consider tuition increases for next year and concepts for the following year when they meet in July at the Dickinson School of Law.
Finally, I would like to extend special thanks to Dick Althouse, University Budget Officer and Steve Curley, Financial Officer in the president’s office and Assistant to the Executive Vice President and Provost. They and the staff of the budget office have spent a lot of long, long days into the night working on different kinds of budget scenarios, tuition scenarios and concepts and they have been invaluable in putting together this kind of analysis. We believe that this is a set of realistic projections. It is a roadmap for the future of where we have to go. It will be in many ways a bitter pill to swallow in terms of tuition, but as I said before there really is no alternative to maintain and indeed, enhance the academic quality of this university. If the chair permits, I will stand for questions.
W. Travis DeCastro, College of Arts and Architecture: The bad news on state appropriations has been a subject that the Senate Chair brought up in February and last w