The official minutes of the University of South Carolina Board of Trustees are maintained by the Secretary of the Board. Certified copies of minutes may be requested by contacting the Board of Trustees’ Office. Electronic or other copies of original minutes are not official Board of Trustees' documents.
The University of South Carolina Board of Trustees met on Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 1:05 p.m. in the Carolina Plaza Board Room.
Members present were: Mr. Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Chairman; Mr. Herbert C. Adams, Vice Chairman; Mr. Arthur S. Bahnmuller; Mr. James Bradley; Mr. Mark W. Buyck, Jr.; Dr. C. Edward Floyd; Mr. Samuel R. Foster, II; Mrs. Helen C. Harvey; Mr. William C. Hubbard; Mr. Toney J. Lister; Mr. Miles Loadholt; Mr. Robert N. McLellan; Mr. Michael J. Mungo; Mr. M. Wayne Staton; Mr. John C. von Lehe, Jr.; Mr. Eugene P. Warr, Jr.; and Mr. Othniel H. Wienges, Jr. Trustees absent were: Ms. Darla D. Moore; Mr. James A. Shuford, III; and Mrs. Inez M. Tenenbaum. The faculty representative, Dr. James Augustine, and the student representative, Ms. Katie Dreiling, were also present.
Others present were: President Andrew A. Sorensen; Secretary Thomas L. Stepp; Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Jerome D. Odom; Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Richard W. Kelly; Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer William F. Hogue; Vice President for Research and Health Sciences Harris Pastides; Vice President for Human Resources Jane M. Jameson; Vice President for University Advancement T.W. Hudson Akin; Vice President for Student Affairs Dennis A. Pruitt; General Counsel (Walter) Terry H. Parham; Vice Provost and Executive Dean for Regional Campuses and Continuing Education Chris P. Plyler; Chancellor of USC Aiken Thomas L. Hallman; Chancellor of USC Beaufort Jane T. Upshaw; Dean of USC Lancaster John Catalano; Dean of USC Salkehatchie Ann Carmichael; Dean of USC Sumter C. Leslie Carpenter; Dean of USC Union James W. Edwards; Vice President for Medical Affairs and Dean of the Medical School Larry R. Faulkner; Dean of the College of Engineering and Information Technology Ralph E. White; Dean of the Graduate School Gordon B. Smith; Interim Dean of the College of Liberal Arts John V. Skvoretz; Interim Dean of the Arnold School of Public Health Donna L. Richter; Associate Dean for Clinical Research and Special Projects, School of Medicine, Stanley D. Fowler; Associate Dean for Administration, Moore School of Business, Robert E. Markland; Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Moore School of Business, Rodney L. Roenfeldt; Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Arnold School of Public Health, Cheryl Addy; Assistant Treasurer Susan D. Hanna; Executive Director of the Alumni Association, Division of University Advancement, Marsha A. Cole; Assistant to the Vice President, Office of Business and Finance, Ken Corbett; Executive Assistant, Campus Planning and Construction, Donna Collins; Project Manager, Campus Planning and Construction, Delisa Clark; University Legislative Liaison John D. Gregory;, Associate Vice President, Noel-Levitz Consultants, James J. Mager; Public Information Officer, Office of Media Relations; Karen Petit; Campus Minister, Palm Campus Ministry, Reverend Tom H.B. Wall; Director of University Communications, Division of University Advancement, Russ McKinney, Jr; and members of the media.
Chairman Whittle stated that notice of the meeting had been posted and the press notified as required by the Freedom of Information Act; the agenda and supporting materials had been circulated to the members; and a quorum was present to conduct business.
Chairman Whittle welcomed everyone and invited Board members to introduce themselves. Mr. McKinney introduced members of the media who were in attendance. At Chairman Whittle's invitation, the Reverend Tom H.W. Wall delivered the Invocation.
Chairman Whittle asked Dr. Jeffrey Arpan, a faculty member whom the Board had approved to receive an honorary faculty title effective with his retirement in May, to step to the podium. He commented that Dr. Arpan had provided outstanding leadership in his eighteen years of service as Chair of the International Business Department in the Moore School of Business leading that department to national recognition. President Sorensen and Chairman Whittle extended congratulatory handshakes to him while the Board of Trustees acknowledged his efforts with a round of applause. Dr. Arpan offered brief remarks about his tenure as a faculty member at the University.
Chairman Whittle also recognized three other retiring faculty members unable to attend this meeting who would receive honorary faculty titles when they retired.
On behalf of the Board of Trustees, Chairman Whittle congratulated Mr. Mungo on the 50th Anniversary of his founding of the Mungo Company and on the Joint Legislative Resolution praising him for his successes.
Chairman Whittle stated that there was a contractual matter with respect to gift naming opportunities and a personnel matter with respect to appointments on a foundation board which were appropriate for discussion in Executive Session. Mr. Bradley moved to enter Executive Session, and Mr. Mungo seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
The following persons were invited to remain: Dr. Sorensen, Mr. Stepp, Dr. Odom, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Jameson, Dr. Pruitt, Dr. Hogue, Dr. Pastides, Dr. Plyler, Mr. Parham, Mr. Gregory, Mr. McKinney, Ms. Tweedy, and Ms. Stone.
Return to Open Session
There were no additions, deletions or corrections to the minutes; therefore, they stood approved as distributed.
The Buildings and Grounds Committee met earlier today and heard a status report on previously approved projects.
The $40,000 increase was funded from Parking Revenue and resulted in a total budget of $452,000 funded entirely with Parking Revenue.
The $218,000 increase was funded with Institutional Capital Project Funds and resulted in a total project budget of $22,018,000 funded with $14.5 million in Institution Bonds, $2 million in Parking Revenue Bonds, $4.2 million in Federal Funds (Department of Justice), $1.1 million in USC Asbestos Funds, and $218,000 in Institutional Capital Project Funds.
The Committee approved the following items which will require consideration by the Board today:
The development of the MEMS/NEMS laboratory would accelerate and support the University's current strategic plans in the areas of bioengineering, nanotechnology and photonics, as well as greatly increase the level of cross-disciplinary research activities among various departments.
On behalf of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, Mr. Loadholt moved approval to establish 300 Main MEMS/NEMS Laboratory Construction project with a budget of $500,000 funded with Institutional Funds (Indirect Cost Recovery). Mr. Lister seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
The latest expansion will fund the preliminary planning to renovate approximately 8,000 square feet of the first floor west wing to fit and furnish laboratory space. The laboratory space will be allocated to Dr. Richard Webb, an internationally recognized nanoscience researcher. The estimated project cost for this phase of the project was $1.5 million.
On behalf of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, Mr. Loadholt moved approval to increase the Sumwalt College NanoCenter Renovation project by $1.5 million funded with departmental research funding. The total project budget will be $3,369,620 funded with $1,645,000 from appropriated state funds, $1,700,620 from departmental research funds, and $24,000 from Institutional Funds. Mr. Foster seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
On behalf of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, Mr. Loadholt moved approval to increase the USC Aiken Convocation Center budget by $400,000 funded by USC Aiken ICPF. It will result in a total project budget of $20,650,000 funded with $6 million in Capital Improvement Bonds, $5,420,000 in Institution Bonds, $1 million in Private Funds, $800,000 in Institutional Capital Projects Funds (ICPF), and $7,430,000 in County Funds. Mrs. Harvey seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
At this time, Mr. Kelly summarized the project as approved by the Committee. He explained that a $7.4 million increase had been requested; the current funding amount was $26,850,000.
Principle reasons for enlarging the scope of this project included the following: the large number of additional grants dealing with bioterrism, diabetes and obesity studies, cancer research, and other studies which the school had been awarded; the concomitant increase of faculty required to address the expanded needs of the college; the various improvements to the Carolina Plaza which would capture more space including the construction of highly sophisticated and technical classrooms and laboratory space.
In addition, it was recommended that the University position itself to be able to expand the data communications and technology lines routed from the research campus (west campus) to this building. And, finally, the cost of building an energy facility behind the Carolina Plaza was added to this requested increase. The additional amount will be funded from research indirect costs as well as unallocated funds from the Capital Fund Plan presented at the October 17, 2003, Board of Trustees meeting in Spartanburg.
On behalf of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, Mr. Loadholt moved approval of the Arnold School of Public Health project increase as presented. Mr. Bahnmuller seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
The project was currently approved with a budget of $8,895,000. To complete the project, an increase of $4,240,000 was required. The increase will be funded with $2 million in Federal Funds (anticipated grant funding) and $2,240,000 in School of Medicine ICPF. This will result in a total project budget of $13,135,000 to be funded with $7 million in School of Medicine Institution Bonds, $1,047,600 in Appropriated State Funds, $2,737,400 in School of Medicine ICPF, $350,000 in Capital Improvement Bonds, and $2 million in Federal Funds.
Phase II housing was located in the housing core which had been identified in the 1990 campus master plan. It included a 105,000 square foot facility which will provide 294 private student beds in a suite configuration. A ground floor will accommodate support offices, a laundry facility, a computer/clearing center, and a community recreational space. The design will mirror the Phase I basic plan; therefore, the two facilities will complement each other.
The budget for the project was $15 million to be funded with USCS Housing Revenue Bonds. Phase I was developed privately through an agreement with the Carolina Piedmont Foundation. Phase II may also be developed in the same manner if proven to be more timely and cost effective. If this option was chosen, construction and management of the facility will be as approved for Phase I.
On behalf of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, Mr. Loadholt moved approval of the 2004 Comprehensive Permanent Improvement Plan (CPIP) with budgets and funding as presented. Mr. Staton seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
On behalf of the Building and Grounds Committee, Mr. Loadholt moved approval of these Gift Naming Opportunities as presented. Mr. Bahnmuller seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
On behalf of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, Mr. Loadholt moved approval of a $175,000 budget increase for the South End Zone project which would raise the total budget from $3 million to $3,175,000. The total project would be $3,181,500 funded with private funds and Gamecock Club contributions. Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
The Executive Committee met earlier today and approved an Athletics Department contract for a head softball coach and ten indefinite delivery contracts. President Sorensen also reported on the status of legislative activities for higher education.
The following items were approved for recommendation to the Board:
The University was seeking authorization to borrow the $1 million; the interest rate for this 8 year loan was 1 percent. Utility savings will be used to repay the loan. Specific projects will be presented to the Board of Trustees for approval as part of the work contracted under the Energy Performance Contract.
Mr. Mungo moved approval of the State Energy Office Energy Efficiency Loan as presented. Mr. Bahnmuller seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Mr. Mungo moved approval of the change in the graduate fee structure in the Moore School of Business effective May 1, 2004 as presented. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion.
While considering this matter during the Executive Committee meeting earlier today, Mr. McLellan had inquired about the number of students who would be affected by this increase; Mr. Bradley had ascertained from the academic dean of the Moore School of Business that number was 700.
The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Mr. Staton moved approval of the five Research Campus Foundation Board members as presented. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
At our last Board meeting we discussed the advantages of a specific Board focus on a number of items important to the history and heritage of the University. A University Committee on Fine Arts and Heritage was suggested and Chairman Whittle asked me, Mr. Hubbard, and Mr. Stepp to begin the work of the Committee.
To date, we have had several conversations and one meeting by telephone. We have identified the following areas for our immediate consideration:
The University Medallion project - prior efforts have been researched and we will have a recommendation for the President and the Board based on the work done several years ago. The medallion would be presented to persons who have made significant contributions to Carolina over the long term or because of a single exceptional effort; it likely would not be presented more than once per year and only when strict criteria are met.
Repair and restoration of the Portraits of Presidents - Mr. Craig Crawford, an appraiser and expert in the repair of artwork, has been engaged to assess the portraits and estimate the cost of properly repairing the paintings and frames.
Portraits of First Ladies - we are going to undertake an inventory of portraits of first ladies and then follow the same process of evaluating their status as we are undertaking with portraits of presidents.
We will examine the status of Rutledge Chapel, work with facilities planning to determine needed improvements and study the funding (including the use of revenue from weddings) to fund needed refurbishment.
We will evaluate the art and furnishings in and available to the President's House.
We will re-evaluate the role of the University Archivist and determine present duties, responsibilities and reporting, and propose any revisions we deem appropriate.
We have asked the Secretary to analyze what persons could be interviewed, and to determine who could best undertake a project to create a compendium of University traditions and protocols. He will also survey other institutions including Yale, Harvard, and the University of Virginia to determine how they codify such matters.
We are exploring prior efforts on inculcating the values and traditions of the University in students, including prior courses on the history of the University, Orientation, and University 101.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, I was named to chair this group with Mr. Hubbard acting as Vice Chair and, of course, the Secretary is the Secretary.
That concludes my report at this time. These efforts reflect a great deal of need and future activity. I would welcome any persons interested in these topics, with the Chairman's permission, to join our efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Whittle stated that this report was received for information.
The University of South Carolina School of Medicine was created from a lengthy and contentious political process; at the time of its founding, many sensitivities had existed between the two schools of medicine. The long-standing perception of competition and antagonism between these institutions had resulted in the creation of a series of oversight committees by the Legislature to facilitate collaborative efforts; most recently, it was named the Deans' Committee on Medical Education (1993-Present). As a result, a measure of trust and an improved spirit of collaboration had developed between the two schools. At this time, they were relating well and had participated jointly in strategic planning and the development of a variety of educational and research collaborations.
Dean Faulkner reviewed the current status of three collaborative efforts: analysis of the South Carolina medical workforce; improvement of medical education curricula; and development of multidisciplinary research programs.
Dean Faulkner noted that the population of South Carolina numbered as many medical students, residents and physicians per inhabitants as other southern states. It also had approximately the same number of medical students but fewer residents (15 percent less) and physicians (45 percent less) per capita than the average of all states.
In addition, more than 50 percent of the counties in this state had been designated as Medically Underserved Areas (MUAs) and approximately 63 percent as Health Professions Shortage Areas (HPSAs). Nine counties (20 percent) had 4 or fewer primary care physicians per 10,000 inhabitants. Therefore, no evidence existed to suggest that South Carolina had too many doctors, residents, or medical students, but rather that this state needed as many medical school graduates as it currently produced (225). As Dean Faulkner emphasized, no one location in South Carolina could train that many medical students. At least two and most likely three major sites were needed for medical education. "This is an important underlying issue that needs to be understood well as we think about collaborating between USC and MUSC."
Dean Faulkner commented that the two schools of medicine had worked closely to help one another develop medical education curricula. He specifically referenced the Rural Primary Care Rotations program; all third year medical students in both schools were required to complete an experience in rural primary care. Faculty from both institutions had developed identical curricula and the students rotated through each other's clinics often educated side by side.
Dean Faulkner pointed out that NIH (National Institutes of Health) had funded several very successful multidisciplinary multi-institutional collaborative research projects. These endeavors involved not only faculty in the schools of medicine, but faculty in other units at USC and MUSC as well. Nearly $40 million of significant research dollars had been recently received for multi-institutional collaborations. In addition, multiple individual collaborations existed between the institutions.
Dean Faulkner discussed future collaborative opportunities in the areas of education; research; clinical service; and infrastructure.
In the area of education, Dean Faulkner believed that it was appropriate at this time for the two schools to consider and to discuss the number of students and residents needed in South Carolina. If a decision was made to significantly expand this number, he supported an increase of out of state students with strong ties to the state; in addition, it would be necessary to expand the role of the Greenville Hospital System.
Dean Faulkner also suggested an increased integration of the basic science medical student education including the sharing of faculty expertise especially in areas where recruiting of quality individuals proved difficult; and the use of internet-based instruction between the two institutions. "I think we need to look at bringing faculty from the two institutions together to do the very hard, difficult, time consuming work of coming up with a common curriculum across these institutions so that medical students in the third and fourth years can receive their clinical education anywhere throughout the system."
In the area of research, Dean Faulkner proposed the expansion of cancer research as well as helping MUSC to obtain its National Cancer Institute Center designation; a designated cancer center would bring attention to South Carolina and would facilitate the procurement of federal funds to support research in that area.
In addition, he suggested possibilities for collaboration in the areas of aging; biomedical engineering; healthcare delivery; neuroscience; and nutrition.
In the area of clinical services, Dean Faulkner recommended the integration of academic clinicians in the teaching institutions of South Carolina into a network which could serve "as a really powerful platform for clinical education and clinical research activities." This network would facilitate the ability to share expensive clinical services and equipment and would allow the institutions to collaborate on clinical quality improvement activities in order to reduce medical errors, develop "best practices" and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the program.
In the area of infrastructure, Dean Faulkner referenced the I-26 Video Communications Corridor which will impact the ability of faculty, clinicians, educators, and researchers to communicate with one another, a key factor for successful collaborative efforts. Funding had been received to launch this system which will allow the various medical individuals to communicate with one another "in real time" so that they do not have to leave their offices. "They can see one another, interact with one another, and develop these types of collaborations that we need."
Dean Faulkner suggested various strategies to facilitate collaborative opportunities including an increased coordination of strategic planning; sharing of administrative expertise; modification of the promotion and tenure guidelines so that faculty were not penalized for working collaboratively; recruitment of joint faculty with roles in either institution; adoption of uniform research policies and procedures; inter-institutional research mentorships; establishment of an Inter-institutional Research Development Fund; promotion of joint public relations and development activities.
In conclusion, Dean Faulkner noted that the relationship between the two schools had developed into one of mutual respect and collaboration. Several important educational and research collaborations were currently in place and doing well; other opportunities existed to expand joint efforts. "Timing is of the essence and I think we need to strike while the iron is hot."
Dr. Floyd applauded the collaborative efforts of the two institutions. "I am not sure in the early days that I ever thought that it would get to this stage."
Current IT projects under consideration at the University included the acquisition of an integrated library system; the creation of a teaching and learning center; revisiting various course management systems; expansion of on line learning opportunities; enhancement of research computing capacity; strengthening privacy and security for all users; renewal of the communications infrastructure; and the replacement of the Legacy Systems for the core administrative student and human resource functions at the University.
An integrated library system would expand the scope, depth and breadth of the information available to students, faculty and staff as well as to the citizens of South Carolina.
The creation of a teaching and learning center would provide an opportunity for faculty and graduate teaching assistants to gather information about instruction; to engage in seminar activities; and to better understand those IT tools available for instruction.
Revisiting the various course management systems would ensure a maximum integration with other software activities in which the University was engaged. "We need to make sure that as our on line activities increase, the course management system keeps pace." The expansion of on line learning activities would ensure the continued extension of the reach of educational opportunity to "all of the citizens of the state anywhere anytime."
Dr. James Bottom, Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer at Purdue University, had chaired a team which visited the University in October to review IT operations and to assist in the process of making intelligent choices about future IT activities. A video of his remarks regarding research computing opportunities was shown to Board members.
Dr. Bottom explained that research computing described the information technology resources, tools and techniques necessary to conduct research in today's information society. They included state of the art networks, high performance computers, and visualization technologies or the ability to turn large data sets into accessible paradigms which would lead to scientific insight.
Dr. Bottom noted that because many of the University's research goals were inherently computational and data intensive in nature, data handling and storage needs would increase as research activities expanded. Therefore, it was recommended that the University commit to a long term strategy for supporting computational research; review what other universities were doing in this area; and support the development and operation of a balanced, generally available high performance computing resource for the USC research community. Dr. Hogue commented that in the near future a group of the most research intensive faculty will be formed to help guide the University "in what kinds of investments it should be making toward that end."
The University will continue to focus heavily on privacy and security issues for all users. Dr. Hogue referenced as an example the recent outbreak of viruses associated with e-mail transmission; the University had halted 343,000 viruses in a one week period (approximately 1 virus per every 2 seconds). "Unfortunately, that's the game we are in every day, all day, 24 hours a day."
The University will also need to renew the communications infrastructure. "We have to look at our capacity planning as we look at the growing needs of our faculty, students and staff to ensure that our planning cycle stays ahead of emerging needs."
Of high priority was the replacement of various core administrative human resource business and student information systems. "Great administrative and information systems are very important, of course, but that's not what we are all about. At our heart, what we are really about strategically is making sure that we focus on instruction, research, scholarship and creative works."
Dr. Hogue concluded his presentation by reviewing various faculty projects within the IT realm.
President Sorensen commented that this institution must increasingly invest in the area of information technology in order to continue the pursuit for excellence as established in the University goals even as legislative appropriations were shrinking.
Dr. Jim Mager, today's presenter, had been chosen as a consultant for Noel-Levitz because of his 30 years of experience at The Ohio State University in a variety of enrollment management positions. At this time, President Sorensen asked Dr. Mager to share his recommendations about enrollment planning at the University.
Dr. Mager made the following remarks:
...Noel-Levitz has worked with many institutions during the past ten years - institutions that typically want to reposition themselves from the current state of their enrollment to a long range plan different from the current profile, whether that would be the numbers of students, the diversity of those students or the academic profile...Our job is to identify opportunities; to identify weaknesses; to identify best practices in light of fiscal constraints, the demographics, and the competition.
Let me give you the highlights of both a qualitative assessment and a quantitative assessment which we conducted at the University. Qualitative assessments included the ability to use limited recruitment resources (we do not know an institution that has unlimited resources and limited financial aid to attract academically talented students); the understanding of the marketplace; the ability to identify and capture new markets; the ability to retain special populations to improve student retention; and, most importantly, and likely the cornerstone of Noel-Levitz' success, the ability to take a data driven approach to all of the above. We have found that institutions are making major strategic plans or short term strategic plans based on a hunch, based on an anecdote, based on a particular view of the world.
Even more important were the quantitative effectiveness results we observed at the University. For example, just looking at the last two years, the increase in the freshman class size from 2502 to 3478 while at the same time increasing the average SAT score, the selectivity, the number of National Merit, National Achievement, National Hispanic Scholars from 31 to 55 is very significant. In addition, this institution has increased the percentage of non residents from 23 percent to 26 percent and the retention rates from 79 percent to 84 percent. Having worked with many institutions to reposition themselves, I and my colleagues characterize these quantitative results during the past two years as truly remarkable, remarkable in at least three respects: (1) increased class size and the average SAT scores simultaneously; (2) dealing with budgets which were approximately the same or, in some cases, even declining; and, (3) working in a state where demographics and higher SAT scores are not positive indicators.
The downside of this trend is a major caution. Sooner or later, it will not continue without additional strategic planning and hard decisions on your part whether the investment should be to reposition the institution in whatever ways you deem appropriate.
Because USC is definitely well positioned and at a very high effectiveness level, it is now a selective institution and has already repositioned itself into a more highly competitive league; therefore, USC must invest further in this area.
USC is now positioned to reexamine the mission of the University; to redefine the long range strategic enrollment plan given the demographics, the competition, and the fiscal realities that you face; and to develop a strong financial plan to support the mission. A major observation that Noel-Levitz has made is the fact that there are so many enrollment goals not supported by the demographic, the competitive, or the fiscal realities. And, I would say that most institutions do not reach their goals because of that disconnect between 'what we want to be' and 'how are we going to fund it.' That is a major message I want to leave with you today.
Let me quickly address the demographic challenges that this institution faces. The University is located in the only state in the Southeast that will experience a decline in high school graduates over the next 10 years. There will be 3 percent fewer high school graduates in South Carolina when, in fact, North Carolina is going to experience a 13 percent increase, Georgia a 16 percent increase, etc. This situation is a challenge no matter in which direction you choose to go as an institution.
As far as the number of high school graduates in South Carolina, that number is relatively small - 38,000. The SAT profile is typically the lowest in the national comparison with other states. If part of your enrollment future is to attract higher ability students, there is no doubt that you can attract those students in South Carolina. Other opportunities during the next admissions cycle would involve the development of added markets in neighboring states.
Other challenges to face include scholarship dollars. With additional scholarship dollars you can attract a better profile student. However, there is actually going to be less money available for that incoming class even though the applicant pool is sitting there primed for scholarships. Why? The fact that you are growing and the fact that your retention rate is increasing means that fewer students are giving up their scholarships; therefore, those same scholarships cannot be recycled to your growing incoming class. One of your immediate challenges is the fact that you are sitting with an applicant pool that can truly enhance the goals you want to attain as a 'victim of your own success.'
In addition, the fact that you have no need based aid is important because, nationally, public institutions are investing more in this area; therefore, it is another issue that needs to be further addressed as you move forward.
The fact that you are in a state that puts a two percent cap on net tuition so that when you increase the tuition, only two percent can go back in the way of financial aid and scholarships is certainly a countertrend to what is happening nationally. Private institutions have been doing this for many years; public institutions that are successful on repositioning are now very much into net tuition revenue. The state regulations that you have are truly a major obstacle to a risk free positioning of any institution in the state.
Let me briefly review our short term and long term recommendations. We have completed a Financial Aid Impact Analysis so that we know exactly what kind of return on an investment you can get for every scenario of scholarship. I will return next week to talk about predictive modeling. By better understanding who is going to be responsive to your message, you can focus limited resources on those individuals as opposed to trying to be everything to everyone. And then you can also use those same predictive modeling techniques in order to identify new markets for individuals who are going to be the most responsive to your messages.
The web presence is so important. Institutions are dealing with this all over the country. This generation of students is making college choices by searching the web and by internet recruiting and admission. But, institutions going all the way in that direction are making a mistake because there is a balance of students out there who are not using the web. So, you need to do both very well.
Also recommended is a combination of continuing on the road of personalization as well as seeking regulatory relief on your scholarships. As a large public institution with all of the resources and all of the opportunities you have, the biggest impact that you can have on your prospective students is personalization, personalization, personalization. Personalization is a combination of what you have to offer at the price you have to offer in combination with breaking down the image of a large public non personal institution - that is what it is all about.
I have now changed that mantra to personalization, personalization, financial aid. It is vital to have the relationship building in combination with scholarships so that you are not only reaching out personally but also reaching out in other ways.
I strongly encourage you, as the final part of my recommendations, to use the data based approach as you conduct long range strategic planning. I was so impressed when I saw all of the analyses that went into your SDI recommendations (one of the most impressive analyses I have seen). Before you make any long term decisions about the direction of this institution, I encourage you to carefully review the 2004 model of the demographics, the financial planning, competition analyses, and fiscal planning that are needed and then based on that set of information. Then you can chart the course of the University responsibly.
Again, I want to emphasize the importance of understanding the relationship between a higher SAT and the number of students; so many institutions do not understand that relationship. Understand the investments required to both simultaneously have more academically qualified students and deal with the diversity implications. You need to have charts in front of you to understand the gives and takes and the scenarios on that.
Something else very important in a large public institution, as each college is charting its own course in a more entrepreneurial way under the value centered management system, as your academic mix of students changes, note that the students' interests will be different. A typical trend is that as the academic profile increases, the number of students interested in math, physical sciences, and engineering goes up. You need to understand that relationship before you chart the course of this institution.
You also need to understand, as people are coming up with their own enrollment plans, the coordination of how they fit into the institution's enrollment plans.
For long range planning, it is necessary to understand the implications of the honors program and additional scholarship dollars. Increasing the size of the Honors College will not only increase the operating costs but also the additional scholarship implications. And then, of course, there must be consideration of the increased diversity needs and need-based aid.
The long range planning process will consist of such activities as conducting a financial gap analysis to determine the cost associated with enrollment goals; conducting a capacity study and the enrollment demand system you have on that capacity. And, very important, you may need to engage additional recruitment, retention, and fiscal impact researchers to support data driven strategic decisions. This is a big business - you all know that. You will be making multi-million dollar decisions and you need to bring in additional researchers to help make sure that those decisions are well supported.
In conclusion, I would like to say that USC is definitely well positioned, but must manage these institutional challenges I have outlined as well as investing in selected opportunities. You are now a selective institution and positioned in a highly competitive league.
I recommend that the institutional leadership engage in an enrollment retreat to, primarily, understand the implications of the different directions and, secondly, based on that, to begin to talk about ways to strengthen the long range plan while aligning the demographic, the competitive, and the funding realities.
I understand that decisions need to be made on the size and the shape of the 2004 class. I suggest that you separate the issue of your 2004 class from your long range planning.
Thank you.
President Sorensen thanked Dr. Mager for his thoughtful and comprehensive report. He suggested to Chairman Whittle that a session be scheduled for Monday, February 23, to establish policies which will govern the class to be admitted in Fall 2004. In addition, President Sorensen asked that substantial time be devoted to enrollment management issues during the Board's annual retreat scheduled for April 4-5 at Wampee; he asked Dr. Mager to join this event.
Since there were no other matters to come before the Board of Trustees, Chairman Whittle declared the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Stepp
Secretary