Materials linked from May 11 Graduate Council Agenda
GRADUATE ENROLLMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Spring, 2009
The Graduate Enrollment Management Task Force was appointed by the Dean of
the Graduate School in fall, 2008. Members of the Task Force include Scott Ashford,
Tony Wilcox (representing Executive Committee of Faculty Senate), Becky Warner,
Valerie Rosenberg, Eric Yahnke, Walt Loveland (representing Graduate Council),
Donna Champeau, Larry Curtis, and Rosemary Garagnani. The Task Force was
charged to
• Set overall graduate enrollment targets both in absolute numbers and in
proportion to total enrollment;
• Set targets for enrollment by degree level and by demographics including
citizenship;
• Establish strategic foci for graduate enrollment targets that are aligned with
OSU's areas of strength; and
• Recommend strategies for achieving the targets that are set.
As a research university, OSU is deeply committed to excellence in graduate
education. Strong graduate programs are essential to the institution's ability to
deliver its three-part mission, are critical in OSU's goal of achieving top ten land
grant status, and are key to Oregon’s prosperity. In a recent op-ed, Debra
Stewart, President of the Council of Graduate Schools, stated, “The future of the
country depends on making a renewed commitment to graduate education to
produce the future innovators, discoverers and leaders necessary to address
current and future problems” (Washington Times, 1/15/09). Strong graduate
programs depend on a number of factors including not only our ability to be
competitive in recruiting the highest quality graduate students but also our ability
to build viable intellectual communities of graduate students with adequate critical
mass in terms of enrollment. A graduate enrollment plan is needed to focus our
graduate enrollment goals moving forward.
OSU, along with other very high research universities, holds scholarship and
graduate education as central to its mission. This document presents a proposal
that recommends a graduate student enrollment target for OSU over the next five
years culminating in the year 2013-14 at an enrollment mix of 20% graduate
and 80% undergraduate or 4100 graduate students, an increase of about 900
students over 2008-09 graduate enrollment (see Table 2, page 9). This
recommendation is in alignment with prior graduate enrollment targets. In 2000 a
University Issue Group recommended that OSU establish a target of 20% graduate
to total OSU enrollment by 2011 and in 2001 another work group recommended
that OSU pursue an aggressive enrollment strategy to achieve a graduate
enrollment of about 18% of total enrollment. In addition, the Task Force
recommends that the ratio of PhD student to Graduate Faculty should be 2:1 by
2013-014 and eventually reach a 3:1 ratio. Given that there are currently 1208
faculty members at OSU who have been authorized to direct doctoral dissertations,
this recommendation would result in a target of 2416 PhD students or 59% of the
targeted graduate enrollment of 4000. In fall, 2008, of a total graduate enrollment
of 3204, 1101 were PhD students or 34% of total graduate enrollment (see Table 3,
page 10). The Task Force declined to set a target for graduate enrollment
according to citizenship. While the Task Force fully recognizes and supports the
importance of all forms of diversity, including strong international participation,
within graduate programs it believes that the overall goal must be to attract the
very best qualified graduate students possible regardless of citizenship.
These goals are aligned with the enrollment targets of the College of Engineering
(COE). COE plans to reach a total graduate student to total student ratio of 23%.
Within this target, a ratio of PhD student to faculty member of 3:1 and a master’s
student to faculty member ratio of 5:1 are planned. The 20% target also is in
alignment with graduate enrollment at benchmark institutions. The proportion of
graduate student enrollment at OSU’s comparator and aspirational top ten landgrant institutions is shown in Table 4 (page 11). The data reveal that the average
graduate enrollment at these institutions and at the top ten land-grant institutions
was 20% of total enrollment. The proportion of graduate enrollment at peer
institutions ranged from 14.5% at Pennsylvania State University to 28.5% at
Cornell University. In comparison, fall, 2007, graduate enrollment at OSU was
15.5% of total enrollment.
Figure 1 (page 3) illustrates the Task Force’s 20% graduate enrollment target
(blue) alongside projected total enrollment at OSU (total, graduate, and non-degree
graduate). Black, red, and green lines depict actual enrollment from fall, 1995,
through fall, 2008; from fall, 2009, forward, the black, red, and green lines depict
projected enrollment. Fall, 2008, total enrollment was 20,320 and is projected to
reach 21,056 by fall, 2013, the target year for this report. Similarly, fall, 2008,
graduate enrollment was 3095 and would need to reach 4100 by fall, 2013, to
achieve the proposed 20% target.
2
Figure 1 OSU Projected Enrollment
Rationale
The rationale for targeting an enrollment of 20% graduate students is based on:
• Top ten land-grant status is partially dependent on strong graduate programs.
Top ten land-grant institutions maintain a graduate population of 20% of total
enrollment. Peer data are presented in Table 4.
• Expanding OSU’s graduate enrollment will produce more recipients of advanced
degrees who can be predicted to contribute directly to economic development
and innovation. About 60% of advanced degree recipients stay and work in
Oregon.
• The master’s degree is rapidly becoming the entry level degree for a growing
number of jobs leading to an increase in master’s enrollments nationally. There
is an opportunity to respond to this need.
• Strong graduate programs spark the research enterprise of the University.
• Undergraduate programs are enriched by the presence of strong graduate
programs.
• Online graduate programs are an attractive growth area. OSU has built capacity
to expand its offerings in this format.
• Graduate programs contribute substantially to the diversity of the student
population, particularly by attracting international students. The INTO
partnership creates an opportunity to expand international enrollment.
3
•
Knowledge-based industries require well educated workers. There is an
opportunity to respond to this need through expanded graduate enrollment.
SWOT
Members of the Task Force identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats – SWOT – to increasing graduate enrollment. Table 1 (see page 7)
presents the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that were identified
relative to OSU’s potential for achieving the 20% graduate enrollment target.
Obvious strengths include OSU’s classification as a major research university with
strong research faculty and research facilities, experience in online programming,
and an array of graduate programs in areas of demand for graduates. On the other
hand, weaknesses identified include little diversity within the local community, lack
of graduate programming in the social sciences and humanities, cost of graduate
student support, and certain organizational weaknesses. Opportunities to support
achieving the 20% goal include the historic growth in graduate enrollments during
poor economic cycles, economic stimulus funds to NSF and NIH that could support
graduate assistants, certain increased funding opportunities, and the “Obama”
effect. Finally, threats include probable severe budget cuts in the next 2-4 years
and resultant loss of faculty and student support.
Focused Conversation
The Task Force invited several guests to discuss specific opportunities for increasing
enrollment in selected graduate programs. Guests included:
Ilene Kleinsorge, Dean, College of Business
Larry Rodgers, Dean, College of Liberal Arts
David King, Associate Provost, Outreach and Engagement
Marie Harvey, Chair, Department of Public Health
Ursula Bechert, Director, Off-Campus Programs, College of Science
This conversation revealed that there are definite growth opportunities in the areas
of Public Health, Business Administration, Liberal Arts and the Professional Sciences
Master’s (PSM) program. E-campus offerings could be part of any of these areas as
well as international student opportunities. In addition, all of these areas integrate
very well with OSU’s 2009 Strategic Plan’s signature areas—Advancing the Science
of Sustainable Earth Ecosystems; Improving Human Health and Wellness; and
Promoting Economic Growth and Social Progress.
The Public Health and Business Administration programs are evident in the second
two of the signature areas, and there is already a statewide PSM initiative in place
for Renewable Energy. In addition, the Public Health program is currently
positioned to be the only offering in the State of Oregon. The Liberal Arts programs
and E-campus offerings align with the Strategic Plan’s action commitment to lead in
the development of a globally competitive workforce and an informed and capable
citizenry. Given the small amount of existing graduate programs in Liberal Arts
programs, there is great opportunity for growth, and E-campus offerings can allow
OSU to increase all of its offerings in a very cost-effective and nimble manner.
4
Strategies for Achieving 20% Target
In 1999, a work group made up of Sherm Bloomer, Bob Bontrager, Sally Francis,
Henry Sayre, Rob Specter, and chaired by Sabah Randhawa stated, “The
enrollment goals recommended…will only be possible if we can maintain and
improve the quality of the educational and campus experience we offer all students.
This will require a substantial investment of resources….” The group estimated that
an investment of about $7M (biennial) per 1000 additional students would be
required to reach its stated enrollment goals, presenting a significant challenge.
In today’s financial climate, this challenge is even more pronounced and the
strategies more constrained. The Task Force assumes that some capacity to absorb
additional graduate student enrollment currently exists. The basis for this
assumption derives from a campus wide capacity survey conducted in 2000 by an
Issue Group charged to develop graduate enrollment recommendations. The
results of the capacity survey indicated that 439 (104 PhD and 335 master’s)
additional graduate students could be served given no additional resources.
Therefore, the Task Force envisions that the 20% goal could be partially reached
without new costs. However, 2-3 years into the plan, incremental costs would
accrue as a result of the increase in graduate student enrollment.
• Encourage increased funding of graduate students through increased grant
activity and the hiring of graduate research assistants instead of faculty research
assistants on grant funds.
• Increase the number of externally funded graduate fellowships.
• Increase the minimum graduate assistant appointment from 0.20 to 0.30 by
2013-14, or as close to 0.49 as possible, in order to attract the highest quality
graduate students.
• Establish the ability to make multiple-year offers to enhance success in
recruiting graduate students.
• Increase efforts to improve graduate student retention and completion rates.
• Maximize the use of tuition remission budgets to leverage external funds that
support graduate students.
• Develop incentives to reward programs for increasing graduate enrollments.
• Provide centralized assistance and support for enhancing program level
recruiting campaigns with focus on web based approaches.
• Offer a lower tuition rate at later stages of doctoral work.
• Develop more graduate programs that use hybrid delivery mechanisms
combining face-to-face and online approaches.
5
Table 1. SWOT Analysis
TOPIC
STRENGTHS
Professional
Already have 4 PSM
Science Master’s
degrees and initiative is
Degree (PSM)
underway through OUS to
establish a statewide PSM
initiative as in CA and NY.
OSU will play major role.
Financial climate
OSU is a land grant,
research university where
graduate education is
central to the mission.
WEAKNESSES
Lack of visibility/marketing
of existing PSM degrees at
OSU.
OPPORTUNITIES
$15 million will be available
from NSF to support PSM
program development.
THREATS
Reluctance of faculty in
sciences to embrace this
approach to graduate
science education.
Short-term stimulus dollars
will be available from NSF
and NIH that could support
graduate students.
New GI Bill benefits will
support graduate study.
Budget cuts. Will the
financial crisis impact
graduate student
stipends?
Graduate
curriculum
OSU offers many
graduate programs in
fields with high demand
(eg, engineering,
teaching, etc.).
Oregon needs a highly
educated workforce;
workforce development acts
such as the federal “Trade
Act” program funding for
students.
http://www.doleta.gov/trade
act/
Research
infrastructure
OSU has world class
research facilities (e.g.
Wave Lab) to support
graduate study.
Proposed increase in
sustainable energy due to
Federal stimulus
Diversity
Reputation/
ratings
OSU offers top ranked
graduate programs in
agricultural sciences and
conservation biology.
There is a lack of diversity
within the OSU/Corvallis
community.
The “Obama Effect” may
have positive effect on
recruitment of diverse
populations.
OSU lacks strong reputation
outside of region (except in
a few areas).
Jane Lubchenco’s
appointment to NOAA will be
a reputation boost.
6
Budget cuts may
negatively impact our
ability to aggressively
recruit under-represented
students.
Curricular
offerings
Infrastructure
Some OSU graduate
programs overlap with
offerings at other OUS
campuses.
The existing structure for
web delivery (E-campus)
is well developed.
Increased opportunities for
funding in human sciences
research are anticipated.
The economic crisis may
drive people to graduate
study.
Economic crisis
Student support
Public Health
OSU offers the only PhD
program in Public Health
in Oregon; there is a
strong Oregon MPH
Program.
OSU faculty do not consider
graduate students ‘cost
effective and tend to hire
postdocs
That OSU has no
school/college of public
health is a funding and
recruitment disadvantage.
International
Technical
infrastructure
Administrative functions
through Banner are
inflexible and not
responsive to quick
changes. This hinders our
ability to move swiftly when
opportunities arise.
7
There is a need for a school
of public health and
additional graduate offerings
in Oregon since the only
schools are located at UW,
California and Arizona.
Iraqi government plans to
send students to study
abroad (10,000 students
per year for five years,
approximately 30% at
graduate level).
The budget situation could
be an opportunity to begin
dialogue about need for
adequate technical staffing
and infrastructure at OSU.
(Banner as an Enterprise
Resource Planning [ERP] is
not the root of the problem).
Budget cuts may cause
loss of essential faculty
and staff.
Currently OSU is in a
hiring “freeze.”
No funds to support this
initiative. Pressure from
OHSU and PSU.
Graduate
programs in social
sciences and
humanities
Graduate
programs in
business
Faculty capacity
Not all graduate faculty
members are as engaged
in graduate education as
are others.
OSU is limited in offering
graduate programs in the
social sciences and
humanities.
Are there fewer tenured
professors in business?
OSU is not located in an
urban setting attractive to
MBA students.
Our PhD student to
graduate faculty ratio is 1:1
compared to our peers that
are 1:2+.
8
New programs in social
sciences and humanities
could be developed.
The INTO pathway program
could double the number of
MBA students.
New graduate programs
in social sciences and
humanities at OSU may
not receive OUS approval.
UO offers the MBA and
the PhD in business.
Table 2. Graduate Enrollment Targets
TOTAL
GRAD
UATE
ENROL
L OSU
YEAR
200809
Total
Gradua
te
Full
time
Internat
ional
Minority
student
s
3203
PhD
Reside
nt
Nonresiden
t
Internat
ional
Master'
s
19768
2250
71%
616
19%
333
10%
1101
34%
332
30%
422
38%
353
32%
OSU
Ugrad
Enroll
ment
16565
OUS
project
ed
total
Enroll
OUS
project
ed with
Prof
Deduct
ed
(estima
ted
600)
TARGE
T Grad
as 20%
Total
OUS
Project
ion
(Less
Prof.)
TARGE
T Grad
as 5%
increas
e on
actual
use F
'2008
base)
Project
ed %
Using
5% of
Actual
Project
ed %
Using
5% of
Actual
(includ
ing
prof)
16.20%
1569
Reside
nt
Nonresiden
t
Internat
ional
Female
OSU %
subgroup
OSU
actual
total
enroll
(w/o
prof)
Grad
as %
OF
TOTAL
ENROL
LMENT
(witho
ut prof)
871
56%
414
26%
226
14%
1596
50%
200910
Total
Gradua
te
20570
19970
3994
3363
16.84%
16.35%
201011
Total
Gradua
te
20939
20339
4068
3531
17.36%
16.86%
201112
Total
Gradua
te
21136
20536
4107
3708
18.06%
17.54%
201213
Total
Gradua
te
21122
20522
4104
3893
18.97%
18.43%
201314
Total
Gradua
te
21056
20456
4091
4088
19.98%
19.41%
9
Table 3. Graduate Enrollment Fall 1998-Fall 2008
Total Grad Students
Enrolled
Graduate DegreeSeeking
Total PhD Enrollment
Fall
2008
Fall
2007
Fall 2006
Fall
2005
Fall
2004
Fall 2003
Fall 2002
Fall 2001
Fall
2000
Fall
1999
Fall
1998
3,204
3,109
3,016
3,047
3,052
3,077
3,045
2,893
2,805
2,654
2,618
2,670
2,621
2,560
2,609
2,586
2,613
2,592
2,404
2,356
2,351
2,308
1,101
1,110
1,132
1,114
1,061
1,038
960
908
942
928
952
Female
450
450
473
463
436
441
405
381
408
396
393
Male
651
660
659
651
625
597
555
527
534
532
559
*Resident
332
332
336
319
280
237
219
222
220
231
238
*Nonresident
422
431
402
380
367
335
320
346
365
374
329
*International
353
365
372
373
393
381
376
372
337
346
367
Total Masters Enrollment
1,569
1,511
1,428
1,495
1,525
1,575
1,636
1,496
1,414
1,423
1,356
Female
830
797
730
813
795
763
803
745
719
733
683
Male
739
714
698
682
730
812
833
751
695
690
673
*Resident
871
889
885
870
821
827
741
722
754
664
661
*Nonresident
414
381
409
387
399
395
358
336
343
390
423
*International
226
217
218
250
327
396
378
339
308
294
332
Female
1,596
1,547
1,469
1,534
1,484
1,481
1,473
1,441
1,396
1,285
1,226
Male
1,608
1,562
1,547
1,513
1,568
1,596
1,572
1,452
1,409
1,369
1,392
Resident
1,428
1,477
1,449
1,522
1,533
1,451
1,407
1,345
1,285
1,180
1,105
Nonresident
1,160
1,026
966
913
864
797
822
743
761
768
817
International
616
606
601
612
655
829
820
805
759
706
696
29
Total Enrollment by
Gender
Total Enrollment by
Residency
Total Enrollment by
Ethnicity
African American
46
36
44
44
41
46
27
26
23
28
Asian American
125
116
114
129
118
395
95
74
75
75
92
Hispanic
116
87
92
92
86
72
75
60
54
45
43
Native American
34
24
31
34
38
23
23
23
21
13
15
Pacific Islander
12
13
10
8
10
9
10
13
12
9
5
2,255
2,227
2,124
2,128
2,104
1,703
1,990
1,889
1,860
1,776
1,738
White/Declined/Other
10
Table 4. Fall 2007 IPEDS Graduate Enrollment Comparison Data
% Intl
Grad
% Grad
White
NonHispani
c
% Grad
Minority
(see
detail)
Grad
Female
%
PhD's
Granted
Masters
Granted
9.09%
0.0%
78%
15%
49%
211
965
5,353
27.09%
40.0%
36%
15%
39%
485
1,701
2,600
11.42%
32.0%
52%
8%
40%
296
752
5,672
14.03%
27.0%
58%
13%
56%
493
1,910
Total F/T
Enrollment
F 2007
Headcount
Grad F/T
Enrollment
Fall 2007
Headcount
Colorado State University
21,885
1,989
Cornell University
19,763
Iowa State University
22,762
Michigan State University
North Carolina State University at
Raleigh
40,435
Institution
% F/T
that is
Grad
24,989
3,954
15.82%
26.0%
60%
13%
45%
411
1,457
Ohio State University-Main Campus
Pennsylvania State University-Main
Campus
46,075
7,152
15.52%
25.0%
58%
11%
55%
667
2,635
40,906
5,278
12.90%
37.0%
55%
9%
44%
646
1,131
Purdue University-Main Campus
36,059
4,928
13.67%
42.0%
49%
9%
38%
613
1,377
Texas A & M University
41,693
6,693
16.05%
38.0%
47%
14%
41%
598
1,768
University of Arizona
31,056
4,560
14.68%
21.0%
52%
18%
53%
460
1,382
University of California-Davis
University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign
28,281
4,241
15.00%
20.0%
44%
20%
48%
474
882
39,017
7,823
20.05%
35.0%
49%
13%
47%
698
2,582
University of Wisconsin-Madison
36,795
6,921
18.81%
23.0%
67%
11%
50%
775
1,944
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
16,334
2,029
12.42%
21.0%
61%
9%
49%
179
621
Averages
31,861
4,942
15.5%
30.0%
54.7%
12.7%
46.7%
500
1,508
11
FALL 2007 IPEDS COMPARISON DATA, including both Full-Time and Part-Time Students,
Professional Excluded)
Institution
% Intl
Grad
% Grad
White
NonHispani
c
% Grad
Minority
(see
detail)
Grad
Female
%
PhD's
Granted
Masters
Granted
19.8%
0.0%
78%
15%
49%
211
965
5,375
28.5%
40.0%
36%
15%
39%
485
1,701
4,664
18.2%
32.0%
52%
8%
40%
296
752
8,265
18.6%
27.0%
58%
13%
56%
493
1,910
Total GR &
UG*
Enrollment
F 2007
Headcount
Grad *
Enrollment
Fall 2007
Headcount
Colorado State University
27,030
5,359
Cornell University
18,885
Iowa State University
25,668
Michigan State University
North Carolina State University at
Raleigh
44,337
% Total
that is
Grad
31,491
7,346
23.3%
26.0%
60%
13%
45%
411
1,457
Ohio State University-Main Campus
Pennsylvania State University-Main
Campus
49,306
10,097
20.5%
25.0%
58%
11%
55%
667
2,635
43,048
6,233
14.5%
37.0%
55%
9%
44%
646
1,131
Purdue University-Main Campus
39,569
6,959
17.6%
42.0%
49%
9%
38%
613
1,377
Texas A & M University
46,037
8,680
18.9%
38.0%
47%
14%
41%
598
1,768
University of Arizona
35,940
6,870
19.1%
21.0%
52%
18%
53%
460
1,382
University of California-Davis
University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign
28,322
4,844
17.1%
20.0%
44%
20%
48%
474
882
41,316
10,421
25.2%
35.0%
49%
13%
47%
698
2,582
University of Wisconsin-Madison
39,042
8,876
22.7%
23.0%
67%
11%
50%
775
1,944
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
19,207
2,983
15.5%
21.0%
61%
9%
49%
179
621
29.8%
55%
13%
47%
500
1508
*Professional Excluded
Averages
20.0%
12