UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Strategic Assessment DRAFT Report: Parts 1 and 2 Submitted to J. Milton Adams Senior Vice Provost May 23, 2013 May 23, 2013 J. Milton Adams University of Virginia Dear Milton: Attached you will find parts 1 and 2 of our draft strategic assessment report: the executive summary and the outline of key findings and implications. We look forward to working with President Sullivan, the Board of Visitors, and you and your administration colleagues to finalize the assessment and ensure that it meets the needs of your strategic planning process this summer and beyond. Sincerely, Benjamin G. Edwards J. Craig Goebel Principal Principal April 30, 2013 President Teresa Sullivan University of Virginia Dear President Sullivan: We are pleased to deliver this first draft of our strategic assessment of the University of Virginia, undertaken in service to the strategic planning process in which the University has been simultaneously engaged. As affirmed by the prominent observers of higher education with whom we spoke and evidenced in the multiple measurement sources we studied, the University of Virginia stands among a small group of the nation’s premier and most highly esteemed institutions of higher learning. Many of those observers described the University of Virginia as possessing invaluable and differential strengths critical to the future of higher education. In this assessment we have focused somewhat less on elaborating that widely acknowledged position of strength and leadership, and comparatively more on highlighting the competitive challenges and threats that face the University of Virginia at a time of multiple stresses and intense competition in public higher education. You asked us to explore those areas of institutional life where the University of Virginia might be unfocused, lagging the competition, or failing to take advantage of opportunities. Our report provides that more critical view. We appreciate that you and your colleagues urged such an assessment and are taking the results into account as you set strategic direction for the University. Sincerely, Benjamin G. Edwards J. Craig Goebel Principal Principal WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Table of Contents
Part 1: Executive Summary
page 2
Part 2: Outline of Key Findings and Implications
page 5
I.
II.
III.
IV.
page 5
page 6
page 14
page 43
The Project
The Higher Education Environment
The University of Virginia’s Current Position
Implications for Strategy
1 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Part 1: Executive Summary
In concert with a strategic planning process at the University of Virginia, Art & Science Group
was tasked with conducting an assessment of UVA relative to its institutional goals and the
environment in which it operates. Our work comprised an examination of internal and
external data and documents; interviews with UVA deans, department chairs, senior
administrators, and board members; examination of strategic priorities at comparison
universities; and interviews with higher education thought-leaders and senior officials at the
comparison universities.
These distinguished leaders and observers consistently characterized the present as an
“inflection point” for higher education. A leading public university, in particular, confronts “a
broken business plan,” finding every one of its revenue sources stressed; fierce competition
for outstanding faculty against better-funded private institutions at a time of mass
retirements; technological innovations that may be leading to a revolution in how colleges
teach and deliver education, juxtaposed with a greater-than-ever need for top students to
gain what only a rich residential education can provide; heightened expectations to
innovate, help solve social and environmental problems, and operate more efficiently, with
measurable results; flawed governance; and the real possibility that its fortunes could rise or
fall sharply, depending on the choices that it makes.
In this environment, even a prestigious university is routinely advised to build on its
comparative advantages, not to imagine that it can do everything well or thrive where
competitors already have built a significant lead. The University of Virginia is almost
uniformly understood to begin with a true and singular advantage: a superior,
extraordinarily valued undergraduate experience in which many highly engaged students
take unusual responsibility for their educational experience. UVA is seen to have
complementary advantages as well: a distinctive shared culture among faculty and
students; leadership in areas of the humanities, social sciences, and other fields;
outstanding professional schools which also notably value the student experience; and an
unusual mid-size that creates opportunity for exceptional teaching and learning.
2 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 The criticisms leveled most frequently at UVA are that it has been comparatively complacent,
slow to insist on evidenced-based strategies, and indecisive about its direction at a time
when other universities, both leading and lower-tier, have aggressively pursued every facet
of institution-building. Research funding has not kept pace, faculty quality is seen as less
strong than it should be, political pressures to keep tuition low have meant tuition revenues
have not been optimized, and fundraising, while robust, has left strategic priorities
unaddressed.
Strategic planning presents an opportunity for decisiveness, and this round of planning
comes at an opportune time. UVA’s core strengths and distinctions favor it in a higher
education environment that rewards outstanding student experiences, already-established
research and scholarly strengths on which to build, and clear differentiation. And, if for
reasons it would not have wished, UVA finds itself in the national spotlight, creating an
unparalleled opportunity to assert in a very public way what it stands for and where it is
headed. Observers see UVA’s problems as both unique and representative of the problems
faced by many universities, and both internal and external constituents are anxious to see
how UVA responds, including in this strategic planning effort.
Rather than emulate other research universities, our assessment suggests that UVA would
gain greatest comparative advantage through a strategy rooted in a bold recommitment to
its counter-trending greatness as a collegiate research university—focused on students’
academic-residential experience, extensive interaction with teaching faculty, and
development of leadership qualities, skills, and motivation. UVA would do well to protect its
core advantage vigorously and indeed to invest further in aspects of the residential
experience to remain competitive and to ensure that a high percentage of UVA students
partake in the full experience. In particular, UVA could claim leadership development—
notably, the preparation of imaginative, scientifically literate, globally educated, publicservice-oriented future leaders—as a major institutional focus and reason for continued
investment in residential education.
UVA would also do well to embrace and lead the significant changes happening in pedagogy
and the student experience—in ways that build on UVA’s distinctive institutional values and
strengths across multiple schools. As it joins many others in considering the means of
3 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 educational delivery, UVA should lead in rethinking the content of an undergraduate
education today and the path through advising, experiential learning, and other forms of
engagement that students take to develop “useful knowledge” for this era.
UVA will be best-served to position itself as a research institution but not aspire to become a
research-driven institution. This will mean reinvesting in UVA’s historic areas of leadership
in the humanities and social sciences, while also sustaining and developing strong offerings
in carefully selected, highly focused areas in the sciences and engineering. It will also mean
more vigorous interdisciplinary collaboration across departments, programs, and schools. It
will mean continuing to focus graduate and professional school resources even further on
programs of national prominence.
Many in the University of Virginia community see UVA as facing an inflection point of its own.
They admit to being deflated by cuts and controversy yet at the same time ready, behind
decisive leadership and strategic investment, to release enormous pent-up energy for
revitalization and renewal. UVA can thrive by making clear, strategic choices and reasserting
a proud, vital, accountable culture and commitment to academic leadership.
4 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Part 2: Outline of Key Findings and Implications
I.
THE PROJECT
In concert with a strategic planning process at the University of Virginia, we were tasked with
assessing UVA’s competitive position relative to:

Its institutional purposes and goals

The environment in which it operates
Our work steps included:

Examination of internal and external data and documents

Interviews with UVA deans, department chairs, senior administrators, and board
members (total of 90-95)

Examination of strategic priorities at comparison universities

Interviews with higher education thought-leaders including:
o Scholars of higher education
o Heads of education associations / academies
o Former and current university presidents and provosts, US and abroad
o National foundation leader
o Education delivery entrepreneur
o Virginia business leadership
o Policy-makers and advisors
Universities, notably public flagship institutions, operate today in an especially demanding
environment, so we begin by looking at these external factors affecting UVA: section II,
below, highlights some of these key factors. In Section III we describe UVA’s current
position. In Section IV we give what we see as the implications of UVA’s position for its
strategic choices.
Unless indicated otherwise, quotes in the document are from the thought-leader interviews
and represent the perspectives and conclusions of multiple observers with whom we spoke.
5 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT II.
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 THE HIGHER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT
Financial Constraints and Competition
Universities face decreases, limitations, and highly aggressive competition for each of their
major funding sources (federal, state, private support, tuition)

“All of higher education has a broken business plan.”

The tuition/financial aid model is vulnerable and poorly understood

“We have a breakdown in the compact between higher education and society in
terms of how we innovate and advance and who will pay for it.”

“The public model is broken, and given the pressures on state resources it won’t be
fixed. UVA must try to figure out a way to privatize itself, or to further privatize key
parts of the University. It must do more and more to be independent of the state.”

“Universities should be more aggressive in creating innovative ideas – sell or
privatize ancillary operations. UVA has to be more to be sensitive to these
opportunities. They should ask: why are we in the housing business? Lease out the
dorms, set standards for the developer to renovate and build housing, and put the
gains into renovations of existing facilities that are out of date. In other words, it has
to think strategically about how to leverage its assets. Consider moving employee
pensions outside the state retirement system if that is an issue. Consider and
implement differential tuition pricing and market inputs to pricing, college by college,
program by program, school by school. Charge more for the highest demand most
selective programs.”

“I think UVA should be the first top public university in line to be privatized. The state
is a minority shareholder, and a small one at that. Why should it have the kind of
control it does?”
6 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Universities will continue to compete aggressively for the very top faculty candidates, of
whom there are far fewer than there are universities pursuing them, and public universities
are at a financial disadvantage

From the annual report of the American Association of University Professors released
in early April: The average salary across all faculty ranks at private colleges was
$99,771, an increase of 2.4 percent from the previous academic year. At public
colleges, the average salary was $80,578, a 1.3-percent increase. The public-sector
disadvantage is greatest for full professors who earn 35 percent less at public
doctoral universities than do their peers at private doctoral institutions.

“The only strategic planning that universities do that’s really strategic is recruiting
faculty. That will shape where you’re going for 30 to 40 years.”

“What new faculty look for are the colleagues – strength of faculty already there, the
graduate programs, and the depth. UVA is vulnerable here. The most promising
faculty will look at UVA and find it wanting.”

“If you focus on what faculty care about – what resources are available, salaries,
research support, conferences, etc. – the very best senior faculty are running away
from public universities. So the question is not only about attracting the best, but
whether UVA can hold onto its best.”

“Key is to start hiring right now. They can’t start soon enough – most publics are not
in a hiring mode, so there’s advantage to leaping ahead. This is a real opportunity.
They’ll get the pick of the best young people out there. They should borrow to do it.”

“There is a high level of concurrence in what constitutes a promising young scholar.
We’re competing for the same few people. It’s a Darwinian process. The challenge is
for a university to present opportunities to attract the best people in the market — the
one who will number one in her cohort — year in and year out. It’s a hard ideal to hit.
A university must keep its standards for what’s acceptable in faculty hires at the
highest level.”

“You need some super-competent people. Above average is not enough.”
7 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT 
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 “It’s just a resource question when they’re being squeezed on both sides by the
state. So they’ll have to follow a strategy that focuses on pursuing young faculty who
are hidden stars. For example, they’ll have to go after people with didn’t quite make it
into National Academy of Sciences, or who just missed a major NIH or DOD grant, but
whose work is worthy and promising. And they won’t be able to compete with the
leading publics let alone the privates. They’ll have to outwork and outthink richer
competitors – they’ll have to be very bold and willing to takes risks, and this will
require a Board that will stand behind them.”
8 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Technology and Residential Learning
Technological and other innovations and conditions are initiating a great deal of
experimentation which may lead to a revolution in how colleges teach and deliver education

“For almost all universities, we are at an inflection point. The question for leaders is
how many experiments to run at once.”

“We’ve been in this model where the least trained members of the community — TA’s
— are doing the most important and difficult part of teaching: really engaging kids.
The approach to teaching has resembled taking the Hippocratic Oath: Do no harm.
The teaching model is backwards and not scalable. Now we’re applying learning
science and putting real R&D into education.”

“I wouldn’t invest a lot of money in MOOCs. There’s too much uncertainty about
where those technologies will end up. But I would work with Chapel Hill, Maryland,
etc. Meet and talk with everyone who has a platform to determine what model works
for them – and what can be monetized. Here UVA’s smaller size might be a real
advantage – it should make them more nimble.”

“MOOC’s are not the silver bullets – it’s one form of democratization of higher
education, but there’s no substitute for interactions among students. Technology
can flip the way we use information and then faculty use the information to solve
problems with students. But the days of the large lecture in traditional form are over.
Faculty will focus students learning – through use of problem solving sessions.
Bricks and mortar are not dead. Terry Sullivan was right in moving cautiously on the
technology front. There’s no ideal cost model and no sustainable economic model –
yet. It’s not even clear that these technologies can save money if they still provide a
high-quality experience. And we don’t know yet if students are learning or how
they’re learning over time.”

It appears there will increasingly be a bifurcation between heavily residential versus
heavily online institutions
o “For the best students and those with the greatest difficulties, face to face will
remain essential. We must engage them, challenge them.”
9 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 o “If professors can be replaced by a computer screen, they should be. If you’re
not offering more than a computer, then you deserve to be replaced. I’m
thrilled by online developments. It forces us to up our game.”

A residential experience is, if anything, becoming even more important for top
students who must be prepared to assume demanding positions of leadership
o “Current 18-year-olds will live into their 100’s. They will work into their 80’s.
Higher education will be increasingly important to fill those many years.”

Elite universities are making significant new investments in their residential
experiences, emphasizing the education they provide outside the classroom and
outside of coursework

“The big challenges will be in using Internet access and social media to create
blended classroom experiences tailored to the learning habits of this generation of
students. But there must be no sacrifice of quality –maintaining closely engaged
faculty experience in the classroom is critical. But good uses of the technology can
help take the routine, grunt work, out of teaching and learning but also enhance the
traditional classroom experience.”

“Technology can be a powerful pathway to accomplish multiple things – but you have
to understand each pathway, how you achieve it, how you monetize it, and make it
sustainable. You also have to determine what works for each market. One method
does not fit all. But focus on the core audience first – undergraduates then expand
from there.”
10 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Expectations

Universities are expected to become more efficient — at the same time they are
expected to become more innovative

Graduating students are expected to have practical work skills — at the same time
they are expected to be more imaginative and adaptable

Universities are increasingly expected to contribute directly to the amelioration of
complex, pressing societal and environmental issues

Boards and other constituents call for bold responses to these challenges, generally
focused on the business aspects of the university enterprise.
o “Measurement is a leadership task which goes against the grain of faculty
tradition. Medicine faced it; from the era of doctors saying ‘we have mystical
powers’ to now, where there is a realistic model in place for measuring
outcomes.”
o “If we want to be a great university, what will it take to get us there? Leading
with an austerity argument will be a disaster. We have to lead instead with
enhancing learning and introducing assessment.”

Universities remain the institution in the society expected to act as a guardian and
champion of free and scientific inquiry — providing expertise, asserting the
importance of evidence-based policies and decisions, and protecting the right to
divergent viewpoints and dissent.
11 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Urgency of Differentiation
Each university must increasingly play to its comparative advantages in order to be
competitive for funds from any of its major sources

Institutions that are not already among the leading research-driven universities are
likely to be ill-served by aspiring to compete for funds or prestige by copying that
model

“Don’t go into areas you’re not already in. Period.”

Universities with strong market appeal for their residential education experience
should protect that advantage

“UVA is sitting on a pedestal, and the strength of the brand opens many opportunities
that would not be available to lesser places. Undergraduate education is where I
think they should focus. They have to capitalize on existing strengths.”
o From the SERU (Student Experience at a Research University) survey: UVA
students rate UVA as having a significantly greater commitment to
undergraduate education than its peers. (Average score for UVA was 5.14,
compared to the average for peers of 4.63, on a 6-point scale.)
Threat to Competitive Standing
In light of all of the above, especially the financial and technological factors, even
universities that are near the top in prestige are vulnerable to significant declines in
standing.

“Unlike anything we have seen in decades, there will be real shifts in the higher
education hierarchy in this era. The University of Virginia is not safe.”
o “While UVA’s endowment is relatively strong regarding other publics, next to
major high-endowment privates it’s in a very weak position. It’s very easy to
compromise excellence but once it’s lost it’s much more costly and difficult to
rebuild and sustain it — that’s the threat to UVA as the state simultaneously
cuts support and constrains tuition revenue. It’s being squeezed on both
sides and the consequences are not good.”
12 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT III.
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 The University of Virginia’s Current Position
True Distinction
UVA is almost universally seen as special, exceptional (“the highest graduation rate of a
public”); noted for having enduring and valued traditions (“It’s like Jefferson died yesterday.
When I was there I saw a lot of bow ties and those bathroom-less buildings everyone
competes to be in.”); having an aura — which, were it to lose that and become “merely
pedestrian,” would be dealt a devastating blow from which it likely could not recover

“They have done undergraduate education better than we have. They’re the best at
it of any of us.”

“They have a distinctive undergraduate college. There’s a lot of pride in it. Do they
use technology to enhance that experience? Like other publics, do they load more
students on the same faculty base? They have a choice—which not many publics
have. They are different in this regard even from other elite publics.”

“From my point of view UVA represents the ideal of a university. Everyone thinks of
UVA as a great university – it’s an icon – even though by the most objective
measures it’s really not.”

“There’s this big buzz about efficiency. It’s hard to think of UVA—of what it does well—
as ‘efficient.’”

Leader of another top university: “Everything we’ve done that’s propelled us forward
in undergraduate education in the last decade—doubling research experiences,
internships, senior capstone experiences—has been, quote unquote, inefficient. But
they’ve also been effective and differentiating.”

“If there ever was a ‘public Ivy’ it is UVA. This quality will be an advantage in
marketing, development, etc., and perhaps even state support. This is why Virginia
should play to its strengths.”

“UVA is fundamentally a residential place and residential experience. This is a real
marketing advantage. But the board may not fully understand the implications of
this. You have to be careful to avoid going too aggressively with online education and
13 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 other things that would take the university off on a tangent away from its core
mission and strength.”

“I understand the aura—it’s a very good place for students—but it’s not a powerhouse
research university.”

“Were it to lose that aura, it would be just like any other public university.”
UVA continues to hold its place as a top-ranked public institution

In looking at the US News & World Report rankings over the past ten years for top
public national universities, UVA has held steady at the second position. In 2004,
UVA shared the top spot with UC Berkeley, but for the past nine years UVA has been
ranked as the second top public.
o UVA’s scores on each of the components that make up the ranking have
remained steady or improved over the past ten years. Only the alumni giving
rate has dropped in ten years, from 27% in 2004 to 22% in 2013.

UC Berkeley has remained ranked as the top public national university for the past
ten years.
o In comparing UVA’s ranking factors vs. UC Berkeley’s, there are some areas in
which improvement might help close the gap between the two schools.
Berkeley has an advantage in academic reputation and student quality.
Berkeley’s median SAT score is consistently 20-30 points higher and their top
10% percentage is consistently 8-10 points higher than UVA. Also, Berkeley is
much more selective with acceptance rates 10-11 percentage points lower
than UVA’s.
o Compared to UVA, UCLA has a higher percentage of students in the top ten
percent of their class and is more selective.
o Compared to UVA, Michigan has a slight edge in academic reputation, which
accounts for the largest percentage of the US News ranking. UVA benefits in
being more selective and having a higher alumni giving rate than Michigan’s.
 UVA freshmen rate the importance of rankings in national
magazines much higher than freshmen at other large publics,
14 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 including those at more selective universities. (2010 CIRP
Freshmen Survey)
15 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 US News 2013 Best National Universities Rankings Among Publics
School
Rank
University of California: Berkeley
University of Virginia
University of California: Los Angeles
University of Michigan
University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill
School
Rank
University of California: Berkeley
University of Virginia
University of California: Los Angeles
University of Michigan
University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill
Public Rank
21
24
24
29
30
Score
1
2
2
4
5
Public Rank
21
24
24
29
30
1
2
2
4
5
79
77
77
74
73
UG Academic Reputation Index
93
87
86
88
85
Average freshman retention Predicted Actual Grad % of classes % of classes rate
Grad Rate Grad Rate Performance under 20
50 or more
97%
90%
90%
‐
64%
14%
97%
90%
94%
+4%
53%
15%
97%
87%
90%
+3%
51%
22%
96%
89%
90%
+1%
48%
17%
97%
85%
90%
+5%
33%
13%
Student/ % of faculty SAT/ACT SAT/ACT Freshmen in Average faculty who are full‐ 25th 75th SAT/ACT top 10% of HS alumni giving ratio
time
percentile percentile Median class
Accept rate rate
17/1
89%
1250
1490
1370
98%
22%
12%
16/1
98%
1240
1460
1350
91%
33%
22%
17/1
91%
1180
1440
1310
97%
25%
13%
16/1
93%
28
32
30
95%
41%
17%
14/1
97%
1200
1400
1300
79%
31%
22%
16 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 From the comprehensive study of UVA’s prospective-student market conducted by Art &
Science Group in the 2011-2012 academic year: In the prospective-student market, UVA
holds a highly distinctive, strong, but not commanding position. There are many very good
students who want to come to UVA; however, there is not the line-without-end of outstanding
students that some people imagine there to be.

Students who choose to apply and enroll rate it very highly (8.1 and 9.0 on a 10point scale, respectively)
o Notably on attributes including student honor code, beautiful campus,
history and tradition

No in-state institutions represent significant competitive threats

UVA could raise price significantly in-state and moderately out-of-state without
losing market share

If UVA were to decrease financial aid significantly, it would experience significant
declines in the quality and diversity of its matriculating students, especially from
out of state

UVA does not stand out from its competition on the attributes that are most
important in students’ choices:
o strong program in the student’s expected field of study
o outstanding students
o advising
o exceptional faculty

UVA also lags on association with other attributes that drive students’ perceptions
of quality:
o strong science and engineering programs
o job placement
o career counseling

Higher-ability admitted students rate UVA significantly lower than do other
prospects
17 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT 
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Competition is stiff: 2/3 of out-of-state admit-declines plan to attend top-25
institutions

Many non-applicants and even admit-declines are turned off by their visit to UVA
Grounds
o Half of non-applicants who visited UVA became less interested as a result
of their visit

UVA’s cultural identity is unusually well-defined and polarizing. It is decidedly
desirable to some and undesirable to many.

UVA is perceived by prospects to be notably less welcoming than competitors
o a decisive factor
o even applicants and enrolling students concur

The effects of UVA’s perceived culture on students’ choices are the strongest we
have ever seen and as decisive as attributes such as student and faculty quality –
a first in our experience

Of the initiatives tested, UVA could have the greatest positive effect on
applications and matriculations by investing in faculty-student relationships—in
and beyond the classroom
o This would have a strong effect on some of the most desirable cohorts

“Higher education, especially the elites, needs to reinvent admissions. We need
more quirky students and an intellectual and cultural mash-up. That’s what
stimulates inventiveness, entrepreneurship, creativity.”

“It’s clear to me that constraints on the number of out-of-state students have to
be lifted especially since the political forces resist a market-driven pricing
strategy. It’s quite obvious that the University and the state need more out of
state students to pay the bills, and it’s foolish not to act on that.”
According to UVA’s First and Fourth Year Survey from 2009, students in their fourth year
have shown large improvements in key skills and proficiencies. Across every skill comparing
fourth-year students currently versus when they started at UVA, there is at least a 20% bump
in students who feel they are ‘excellent’ at the particular skills measured.
18 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT 
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Some of the skills where students report excellence in their fourth year include ‘the
ability to get along with and appreciate people of different races, cultures, countries,
and religions’ (71%); ‘the ability to think critically and analytically’ (64%); and ‘the
ability to acquire new skills and knowledge on your own’ (64%).

The skills showing the largest gain in excellence ratings since their first year include
‘the ability to judge the value of information based on the soundness of sources,
methods, and reasoning’ (60%, up from 17%); the ability to acquire new skills and
knowledge on your own’ (64%, up from 22%); and the ability to work as a member of
a team (62%, up from 23%).

While fourth-year students feel strongly that they have excelled in the ability to get
along with and appreciate people of many different backgrounds, they also are less
likely than first-year students to report that UVA is welcoming to key minority groups.
UVA climate and welcoming
(1=least welcoming,10=most welcoming)
First‐year Fourth‐year
Women
8.8
8.3
LGBT individuals
6.9
6.2
Racial and ethnic minorities
7.7
7.0

The view from within UVA: A sizable number of UVA undergraduates are exceptionally
engaged in and take unusual responsibility for their educational experience, which is
seen to lead to exceptional outcomes in the careers and contributions of graduates
o Questions remain about what percentage of its students partake in this
exceptional experience
o Thought-leader: “The residential college initiative at UVA seems to have
stalled. The value proposition anywhere now isn’t how well classes are
delivered on campus. It’s what happens beyond class. That’s the critical part
of why students and parents will choose a college. Without knowing what
students are getting from these experiences you can’t know the people you’re
trying to change. Students change not in the classroom but outside it.”
o From the SERU (Student Experience at a Research University) survey: 50% of
4th-year UVA students completed a significant research project as part of their
19 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 undergraduate program, and 66% completed or plan to complete an
internship in their 4 years at UVA. Just over 80% of those who completed an
internship arranged the internship on their own and without significant help
from the university, school, or department.

From the NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) survey: we
see similar numbers as above, and additionally note that UVA students
closely match the norms at other research universities on high-impact
practices and participation by students.
o From NSSE: Students at UVA report spending more time participating in cocurricular activities than the national average. First-year students at UVA
spend about 5.5 hours participating in co-curricular activities, compared to
the national average of about 2 hours. Seniors at UVA spend about 6 hours
participating in co-curricular activities compared to the national average of
about 1.5.
o We also see in NSSE that UVA students spend more time per week preparing
for class than do students nationally. First-year students spend about 15.5
hours preparing while nationally students spend about 12.5 hours, and
seniors at UVA spend about 14 hours while seniors nationally spend about 13
hours preparing for class.
o From NSSE: Students reported significantly higher than national average the
perception that UVA emphasizes spending significant amounts of time
studying and on academic work (on a scale of 1-4, 3.41/3.42 compared to
national 3.19/3.17), but did not diverge significantly from the perception of
providing support needed for academic success (3.10/2.96 to national
3.12/2.96).
o UVA freshmen take their education seriously: They report that they fail to
complete homework on time less frequently, asked a teacher for advice after
class more frequently, and were a guest in a teacher’s home more frequently
than freshmen at other large publics, including more selective universities.
(2010 CIRP Freshmen Survey)
20 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 o While we see in SERU that UVA students are quite satisfied with the quality of
and access to faculty, in NSSE students cite a lower satisfaction with their
relationships with faculty.

From SERU: nearly all UVA students are very satisfied with the quality
of faculty instruction (4.97 rating out of 5) and rate access to faculty
outside of class very highly (4.86).

From NSSE: UVA students rated their relationships with faculty
members slightly below other Southeast Publics and further below the
NSSE national average.

On a scale of 1-7, UVA first-year students rated it 5.15 and
seniors rated it 5.31, compared to Southeast Publics averages
of 5.20/5.43 (first-year/seniors) and the NSSE national average
of 5.29/ 5.46.

From NSSE: Students generally reported lower interaction with faculty
than the national average (discussing grades/assignments, talking
about career plans, discussing ideas from readings or classes with
faculty, receiving prompt feedback, working together on noncoursework projects, and even “Worked harder than you thought you
could to meet and instructor’s standards or expectations”.)

According to the First and Fourth Year Survey, fourth-year students are
more likely to interact with faculty outside the classroom. About 30%
of fourth-year students interact with faculty outside of classroom at
least once per week, while only 16% of first-year students interact with
faculty outside of classroom. Although first-year students are slightly
more likely to use faculty office hours than fourth-year students, fourthyear students are far more likely to interact with faculty for lunch/
dinner/coffee, in co-curricular activities, and in other situations.
21 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Faculty interaction outside of classroom
First‐year Fourth‐year
Office hours
93%
90%
Lunch/dinner/coffee
11%
24%
Co‐curricular activities
8%
20%
Other
9%
19%
Other notable findings for UVA:

From NSSE: Students, particularly first-years, ranked the quality of academic
advising received at UVA slightly lower than the national average. On a scale of 1-4,
first year students at UVA rate the quality of academic advising 2.9 compared to a
3.1 rating for first-year students nationally. Seniors at UVA rate advising at 2.8
compared to seniors nationally at 2.9.

From NSSE: UVA students report a lower perception of the institution’s contribution
to their ability to use computing and information technology than the national
average (3.03 vs. 3.20 among seniors on a scale from 1-4).

Most students are counting on the continued prestige of UVA more than specific
skills they might gain.
o From SERU: Students at UVA cited the most important aspects of a research
university, on a 5-point scale, as “The prestige of this campus when you apply
for a job” (4.8) and “The prestige of this campus when you apply to grad
school” (4.57). These aspects were more important than aspects such as
“Being able to attend plays, concerts, lectures, and other cultural events”
(4.11), “Having access to a world-class library collection” (4.16), “Learning
research methods” (3.8), “Pursuing your own research” (3.41), and “Assisting
faculty members in their research, for pay or as a volunteer” (3.29). While
this is not unique among UVA’s closest public peers, UVA students found
attending plays, concerts, lectures, and other culture events significantly more
important than did their peers, and research-related items significantly less
important than did their peers.
o In addition, from NSSE, students reported that their experience at UVA
contributed less to their acquisition of job- or work-related knowledge and
22 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 skills than the national average (2.93 vs. 3.07 among seniors on a 4-point
scale).
Undergraduate education at UVA is seen as an unusual “value,” that is, inexpensive relative
to the quality of the experience and worth of the degree: #1 in Princeton Review, #4 in US
News, and #2 in-state and #4 out-of-state in Kiplinger’s among public institutions

Princeton Review ranks UVA as the number 1 public best value college. Princeton
Review's ranking of great academics combined with affordable costs takes into
account academic ratings, financial aid ratings, and sticker price minus average gift
aid. UNC ranks 2nd, UCLA ranks 5th, and Michigan ranks 9th.

UVA ranks 29th in US News’ ranking of Best Value Schools for national universities
and 4th among public national universities. US News' ranking of Best Value Schools
is calculated using ratio of quality to price (60%), need-based aid (25%), and average
discount (15%).

Kiplinger's rankings of Best Values in Public Colleges ranks UVA 2nd for in-state and
4th for out-of-state students. Kiplinger's ranking of value uses admit rate, 4-yr
graduation rate, cost after need-based aid, and average debt.
The professional schools, notably law and business, both highly ranked (Law 7, Darden 12 in
US News), have contributed much to the University’s national and international reputation
(Note that we interviewed deans and others from the other professional schools at UVA and
recognize their contributions and importance to UVA’s distinction, but this assessment is to
be focused primarily on the university as a whole and, among the professional schools,
specifically to include comparative information about law, business, and medicine.)

Law: Over the past seven years UVA has moved from a low of 10th to a high of 7th in
the current rankings. While all schools have experienced a decrease in calculated
scores to rank them, this has not hurt UVA’s law rankings.
23 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT 
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 In looking at trend data for the law school rankings of similarly ranked schools, it
appears that UVA has some ranking criteria where improvements could lead to
continued climbing of the ranks.
o University of Virginia’s nearest ranked competitors, New York University (6th)
and University of Pennsylvania (also 7th), have remained fairly steady over the
last 5 years.
o Currently, NYU has an edge on UVA in LSAT scores, and Penn has a slightly
higher median undergraduate GPA. UVA is also lagging behind NYU and Penn
in student/faculty ratio.
o The factors where UVA has consistently succeeded compared to their nearest
competitors are in selectivity and employment placement. Notably in terms of
jobs at graduation and 9 months out, UVA has remained fairly stable.
24 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 US News & World Report 2014 Law School Ranking
School
Yale University
Harvard University
Stanford University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Virginia
University of Pennsylvania
University of California: Berkeley
University of Michigan
Rank
Score
1
2
2
4
4
6
7
7
9
9
Rank
Yale University
Harvard University
Stanford University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Virginia
University of Pennsylvania
University of California: Berkeley
University of Michigan
1
2
2
4
4
6
7
7
9
9
100
95
95
92
92
89
85
85
83
83
Lawyer/ Peer Judge Assessment Assessment Median UG Median (out of 5.0) (out of 5.0) GPA
LSAT
Accept rate
4.8
4.7
3.91
173
8%
4.8
4.8
3.86
173
16%
4.8
4.7
3.86
171
10%
4.6
4.7
3.81
170
20%
4.6
4.6
3.70
172
18%
4.4
4.6
3.69
171
28%
4.4
4.6
3.73
168
15%
4.3
4.6
3.75
168
16%
4.4
4.4
3.80
167
12%
4.4
4.7
3.70
168
25%
Grads Bar State with Student/ employed Employed 9 passage most bar Jurisdiction's faculty at mos after rate in test overall bar ratio
graduation grad
jurisdiction takers
passage rate
7.9/1
90.7%
91.2%
96.3%
NY
77%
11.4/1
90.9%
93.7%
97.5%
NY
77%
7.6/1
93.2%
95.8%
88.5%
CA
67%
7.5/1
90.6%
95.1%
96.4%
IL
89%
8.0/1
93.2%
95.4%
96.2%
NY
77%
9.0/1
93.1%
93.8%
95.5%
NY
77%
10.9/1
97.3%
96.0%
91.8%
VA
79%
10.3/1
83.6%
91.2%
94.2%
NY
77%
11.6/1
72.6%
82.6%
86.8%
CA
67%
12.8/1
70.7%
85.8%
94.8%
NY
77%
25 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT 
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Darden: The most recent ranking of 12th is the highest for Darden since 2008.
Student quality at Darden has been increasing, but is still noticeably lower than top
ten ranked institutions, as is selectivity. Corporate recruiters’ assessments also
appear to be lagging compared to other top institutions.
US News & World Report 2014 Business School Ranking
Score
Peer Recruiter Assessment Assessment Average Average Accept (out of 5.0) (out of 5.0) UG GPA GMAT Score rate
4.8
4.5
3.67
724
11.5%
4.8
4.6
3.69
729
7.1%
4.8
4.6
3.60
718
20.0%
4.7
4.4
3.53
710
15.6%
4.7
4.4
3.69
708
22.9%
4.7
4.4
3.52
720
23.0%
4.6
4.1
3.61
715
13.8%
4.5
4.2
3.50
715
20.8%
4.3
4.0
3.49
717
20.4%
4.2
3.9
3.51
720
15.7%
4.3
4.0
3.42
690
27.5%
4.2
3.9
3.45
703
26.6%
4.2
4.1
3.55
717
21.3%
4.1
3.8
3.56
704
22.6%
4.3
3.9
3.40
703
40.6%
School
Rank
Harvard University
Stanford University
University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
Northwestern University (Kellogg)
University of Chicago (Booth)
University of California: Berkeley (Haas)
Columbia University
Dartmouth College (Tuck)
New York University (Stern)
Duke University (Fuqua)
University of Virginia (Darden)
Yale University
University of California: Los Angeles (Anderson)
University of Michigan (Ross)
1
1
3
4
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
14
School
Rank
Harvard University
Stanford University
University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
Northwestern University (Kellogg)
University of Chicago (Booth)
University of California: Berkeley (Haas)
Columbia University
Dartmouth College (Tuck)
New York University (Stern)
Duke University (Fuqua)
University of Virginia (Darden)
Yale University
University of California: Los Angeles (Anderson)
University of Michigan (Ross)
Average starting salary and Grads Employed 3 OOS Total full‐
bonus (in employed at mos after Tuition time thou)
graduation grad
and Fees enrollment
1
$142.5
77.4%
89.3% $63,300
1,824
1
$140.5
71.3%
87.8% $57,300
803
3
$138.3
79.7%
91.7% $62,000
1,685
4
$139.0
84.5%
94.4% $58,200
816
4
$134.0
76.9%
91.7% $56,800
1,161
6
$135.7
84.1%
92.3% $56,900
1,161
7
$133.8
74.4%
92.7% $56,300
490
8
$134.9
77.0%
91.6% $60,900
1,274
9
$138.7
85.8%
92.9% $60,500
549
10
$133.9
79.5%
90.5% $55,200
780
11
$136.5
86.5%
91.7% $54,900
874
12
$131.9
81.5%
90.9% $53,900
637
13
$121.6
66.5%
85.5% $56,500
494
14
$121.9
71.9%
86.5% $54,500
737
14
$134.4
74.3%
81.4% $55,200
992
100
100
99
97
97
96
93
91
90
87
86
85
84
82
82
26 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT 
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 From within UVA: Consistent with the distinctions of undergraduate education, both
Law and Darden place a very high emphasis on teaching while, at the same time, a
number of their faculty are leading scholars in their fields, in some cases world-class

Both benefit from collaborations with scholars and graduate departments in related
fields at UVA

The student experience at both, as well as in the School of Medicine, is a strength to
build on
o UVA's Medical School is ranked 26th in research and 18th in primary care.
UVA's ranking in research has slowly dropped from a ranking as high as 22nd,
largely due to decreased NIH funding and amount of funding per faculty. At
the same time, UVA has shown steady to positive increase in peer and
residency director assessments and noticeable increases in student quality
and selectivity in recent years.
Other Distinctions
UVA occupies, as it always has, a unique place in higher education as the first institution
founded to adapt longstanding traditions in liberal education to the conditions of a
democracy dependent upon an educated, active citizenry equipped with useful knowledge.
UVA’s unusual “mid” size and “human scale” creates opportunity for exceptional, even oneof-a-kind teaching and learning, but also means it faces both the threats of being too small
(especially in research) and too large (especially in the educational experience).

UVA freshmen rate the importance of wanting to go to a school about the size of their
chosen college as more important than those freshmen at other large publics,
including those at more selective universities. (2010 CIRP Freshmen Survey)
27 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Local Community
Job opportunities, services, and quality of life in the Charlottesville community are very
important to UVA’s ability to recruit and retain faculty and senior administrators.

The Charlottesville community is seen as both a significant asset and liability; UVA is
thought not to be fully exploiting the advantages of its location (notably the proximity
to Washington, DC, and northern Virginia)

A university needs to think seriously about the social pieces it needs to put in place to
make hiring possible — whether that’s Asian markets or African-American barber
shops — what social community they need to create. Universities can’t recruit
without having strong ties to their community.”

The characterizations of UVA’s relationship with the local community that we heard
range widely, but most people expressed a need for renewed outreach and new
investments
28 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Leadership
Observers note that UVA has been hit with budget cuts but also seems to be resting on its
laurels — that it is still of high quality but has been comparatively complacent at a time when
other universities, both leading and lower-tier, have been highly aggressive in every facet of
institution-building.

“UVA is not as well positioned as it was 15 years ago. Budget cuts have taken a toll.
The narrative out of Richmond is not uplifting. What is the value proposition for
higher education in the Commonwealth? Over 15 years, leading officials in
Richmond have squandered one of the best higher education systems. It’s
remarkable it’s as good as it is. They’re living on the razor’s edge.”

“There’s a sense they’re riding on 200-year-old laurels. A number of others have
surpassed them.”
UVA is not associated strongly with innovations or a culture of innovation, and many thoughtleaders described UVA as risk-averse.

“It’s a wonderful place—that doesn’t feel as driven as others.”
Relative to other institutions, UVA largely missed the recent growth wave in federal research
funding.

“They’ve had a little bump recently in their research profile but before that had seven
years where they didn’t move up at all — while others doubled their federal funding.”

“They don’t have the horsepower of Illinois or Wisconsin. In fact I’ll bet that the
recent AAU admittees—BU, Irvine, Emory, and Santa Barbara—bring in as much
federal money as UVA.”

Over the last four full years, UVA has had a 24% decrease in the total amount of NIH
awards and 35% decrease in the total amount of NSF awards. The comparison
schools have had more modest declines to slight increases in NIH funding; however,
many have had more significant declines in NSF funding.
29 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 NIH Funding
2012 Awards
University of Virginia
313
University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill
829
University of California: Los Angeles
815
University of California: Berkeley
328
University of Michigan
1054
New York University
494
University of Chicago
405
Duke University
763
Vanderbilt University
763
2012 Funding
$120,410,783
$377,641,180
$367,216,676
$118,610,088
$458,491,303
$212,416,998
$186,624,901
$355,648,391
$329,043,070
# of Awards Amount Change Change since '09 since '09
‐24%
‐25%
12%
9%
‐8%
‐7%
1%
4%
0%
1%
18%
28%
‐17%
‐13%
4%
‐4%
5%
8%
NSF Funding
2012 awards
University of Virginia
61
University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill
76
University of California: Los Angeles
107
University of California: Berkeley
103
University of Michigan
209
University of Southern California
89
New York University
54
University of Chicago
90
Duke University
91
Vanderbilt University
51
# of Awards Amount Change since Change since 2012 Funding '09
'09
$16,310,812
‐35%
‐23%
$27,399,326
‐7%
‐13%
$30,096,447
‐20%
‐53%
$30,685,057
‐32%
‐73%
$50,836,050
‐16%
‐51%
$34,974,100
‐9%
‐16%
$14,095,322
2%
‐38%
$24,512,077
‐16%
‐44%
$23,492,836
‐9%
‐54%
$15,614,038
4%
‐31%
In looking at domestic rankings for both undergraduate and graduate programs, UVA is
typically ranked around the middle of their peer institutions. However, global or
international rankings consistently rank UVA far behind competitive peers. This is primarily
due to the fact that international rankings rely heavily on research and funding towards
research.
30 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Best Colleges Rankings (US News)
UG National Universities
Top Public Schools
Best Value Schools (Publics)
Undergraduate Business
High School Counselor Rankings
Best Value Schools
Undergraduate Engineering
UVA UNC UCLA UC: Berk UMich NYU USC U of Chi Duke Vand
24 30
24
21
29 32 24
4
8 17
2
5
2
1
4
4
1
5
7
3
3
5 11
22 29
22
17
29 29 29
17 11 11
29 17
38
11
9 16
34
20
3
7
23
20 34
Best Grad School Rankings (US News)
Law
English
Business
Nursing
Medicine ‐ Primary Care
Clinical Psychology
History
Education
Online Nursing
Psychology
Medicine ‐ Research
Computer Science
Economics
Sociology
Politcal Science
Engineering
Physics
Chemistry
Public Affairs
Biological Sciences
Math
Speech‐Language Pathology
Statistics
Earth Sciences
Clinical Psychology (School Psyc)
UVA UNC UCLA UC: Berk UMich NYU USC U of Chi Duke Vand
7 31
17
9
9
6 18
4 11 15
10 15
10
1
13 20 36
8 10 26
12 20
14
7
14 10 26
6 11 30
15
4
21
6 21 41
7 15
18
1
11
8 74 74
39 44 31
18
2
1
11
26
18
6 14
20 11
9
1
7 18 46
4 14 24
22 37
8
12
11 17 17
1
24
69
26 12
2
2
4 30 40
21 21 30
26 22
13
8 21 31
8
8 14
28 20
14
1
13 28 20
35 27 58
30 32
15
5
13 11 48
1 19 36
35
6
9
1
4 16 39
6 14 31
36 13
10
6
4 15 54
12 10 36
38 79
16
3
9
9
28 36
40 36
19
5
11 40 52
7 30 57
45 13
16
1
16 67 53
13 45 49
46 23
23
6
12
6
6
23 16
46 24
24
2
20 56 46
13 13 32
46 30
8
2
8 10 51
6 24 51
52 11
52
3
58 10
27
2
17
6 10
63 52
17
3
9
25
17 45
104
31 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Academic World Ranking of University World Universities '12 ‐ Rankings '12 ‐ Shanghai Jiao Times Higher Tong University Education
University of California: Berkeley
4
9
University of Chicago
9
10
University of California: Los Angeles
12
13
University of Michigan
22
20
New York University
27
41
Duke University
36
23
University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill
41
42
University of Southern California
46
56
Vanderbilt University
50
106
University of Virginia
101‐150
118
Other indicators: “The faculty in arts and sciences at Virginia are of variable quality. There
are some very good faculty, a few good departments.”

“When you start looking hard at many of the science departments they’re actually
languishing in the 30s and 40s rather than the 20s where you’d have thought them
to be. The quality of the research standing of the departments is not where it should
be.”

“I worry that the UVA medical school will expand, they won’t keep getting great
scholar-teachers in the college, and the college will become secondary to the medical
enterprise.”
32 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 NRC Rankings*
# of
Program
Programs R
R
Ranked
95th
5th
S
S 5th 95th
RA
RA
SS
SS
D
5th
95th
5th
95th
D 5th
95th
Religious Studies
40
1
11
16
26
19
31
9
20
25
32
Spanish, Italian & Portuguese
60
3
14
14
40
14
28
3
34
56
60
Kinesiology
41
5
34
13
27
14
30
22
31
24
37
Physiology
63
5
34
6
30
12
46
29
57
45
59
Microbiology
74
7
24
4
30
9
42
29
65
16
44
Biomedical Engineering
74
9
21
7
28
9
40
31
63
40
65
German Language & Literature
29
10
24
25
29
15
25
23
29
12
25
Astronomy
33
11
25
11
27
11
28
14
32
21
32
Systems Engineering
72
11
41
18
43
14
45
41
58
66
72
122
15
63
25
89
27
96
21
102
21
64
Neuroscience
94
16
55
9
44
15
73
4
42
15
46
French Language & Literature
43
18
31
29
38
29
37
24
38
12
27
English Language & Literature
119
18
53
33
69
26
53
11
57
100
113
Chemical Engineering
106
19
38
24
60
14
54
13
68
11
36
Psychology
236
20
71
19
54
22
65
57
137
95
165
Nursing
52
21
39
9
25
18
40
2
18
9
24
Anthropology
82
23
52
55
71
75
81
19
47
23
42
130
25
63
39
94
41
109
89
117
58
106
Cell Biology
Civil Engineering
33 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 # of
Program
Programs R
R
Ranked
95th
5th
S
S 5th 95th
RA
RA
SS
SS
D
5th
95th
5th
95th
D 5th
95th
Environmental Sciences
140
26
55
35
87
22
71
107
129
45
88
Politics
105
28
53
66
83
63
79
61
85
74
91
Genetics
159
28
57
17
63
25
96
4
72
57
111
Biology
120
28
61
26
67
26
78
32
111
17
51
Pharmacology
116
28
81
3
39
4
50
11
82
86
108
Engineering
127
29
57
37
82
29
97
8
41
78
112
History of Art
58
30
49
43
55
32
44
42
56
46
56
Philosophy
90
30
50
46
62
50
72
69
84
22
44
Economics
117
32
64
55
76
43
63
83
106
63
96
History
137
34
56
58
90
65
101
44
99
101
121
83
34
58
47
74
31
71
6
50
69
77
Computer Science
126
35
65
36
74
21
76
25
87
25
59
Electrical Engineering
136
37
73
18
60
16
68
52
105
10
52
Biophysics
159
37
85
12
59
16
90
13
90
36
77
Chemistry
178
39
96
56
107
40
105
32
124
95
155
Mathematics
127
44
76
40
71
41
74
21
84
63
93
Biochemistry & Molecular
Mechanical & Aerospace
Materials Science &
Engineering
34 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 # of
Program
Programs R
R
Ranked
95th
5th
S
S 5th 95th
RA
RA
SS
SS
D
5th
95th
5th
95th
D 5th
95th
Statistics
61
48
60
32
48
23
41
40
59
3
16
Sociology
118
55
91
89
111
65
103
94
108
103
116
Engineering Physics
161
60
114
49
128
19
109
32
117
147
155
Physics
161
61
112
42
110
39
118
10
102
118
146
*NRC ranking methodology:
Rankings are given in ranges to reflect the inherent uncertainty associated with establishing ordered quality rankings of
graduate programs. The study committee identified characteristics that, when appropriately weighted for their relative
importance in contributing to a high-quality program, would serve as a basis for ranking programs. The study offers ranges of
rankings for overall program quality that derive from two methods: survey-based (S Rankings) and regression-based (R
Rankings).
-S Rankings (survey-based rankings) are based on how faculty weighted—or assigned importance to—20 characteristics that the
study committee determined to be factors contributing to program quality. The weights of characteristics vary by field based on
faculty survey responses in each of those fields. Programs in a field rank higher if they demonstrate strength in the
characteristics carrying greater weights.
-R Rankings (regression-based rankings) depend on the weights calculated from faculty ratings of a sample of programs in their
field. These ratings were related, through a multiple regression and principal components analysis, to the 20 characteristics that
the committee had determined to be factors of program quality. The resulting weights were then applied to data corresponding
to those characteristics for each of the programs in the field.
35 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 -Programs are also ranked on three “dimensional measures” of program quality—on faculty research activity (RA), on student
support and outcomes (SS), and on faculty and student diversity (D). These rankings are based on specific subsets of
characteristics relating to each of the dimensional measures, with the weights of the characteristics normalized (i.e., recalculated to add to one).
-For every program variable, two random values are generated—one for the data value and one for the weight. The product of
these summed across the 20 variables is then used to calculate a rating, which is compared with other program ratings to get a
ranking. The uncertainty in program rankings is quantified, in part, by calculating the S Ranking and R Ranking, respectively, of a
given program 500 times, each time with a different and randomly selected half-sample of respondents. The resulting 500
rankings are numerically ordered and the lowest and highest five percent are excluded. The 5th and 95th percentile rankings in
the ordered list of 500 define the range of rankings shown in the table.
36 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT 
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 There are only a couple interdisciplinary programs ranked – Center for Global Health
and Biophysics, neither of which has been ranked particularly favorably.
o In the 2013 University Global Health Impact Report Card done by the
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, UVA ranked 44th out of 54 ranked
Global Health programs.
School
Rank
Duke University
Vanderbilt University
University of California: Berkeley
University of Michigan
University of California: Los Angeles
University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill
University of Chicago
New York University
University of Southern California
University of Virginia

7
8
14
19
23
25
35
40
43
44
UVA’s association with Thomas Jefferson’s vision for faculty-student interaction and
educating active citizens is an asset; at the same time, the continual evocation of
Jefferson’s name prompts skepticism that the institution is focused sufficiently on
the present day
o According to the First and Fourth Year Survey, students report that their
experiences at UVA have made them much better prepared for a role in civic
life.
37 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Much better prepared for role in civic life
First‐year Fourth‐year
Academic experiences at UVA
36%
58%
Co‐curricular experiences at UVA
48%
67%
Overall experiences at UVA
57%
76%

From within UVA: Basic science at the School of Medicine was once excellent but
now is suffering from funding competition, leadership neglect, and, consequently, low
morale

Many faculty fear that UVA is becoming a short-term stop for their top colleagues, a
place to get tenure and then move on, and that the greats retiring from the UVA
faculty are not being replaced quickly enough, if at all.
o According to salary wage data provided by UVA, most faculty members at UVA
are paid well below faculty at other similar public and private institutions.

The only schools and departments at UVA where wages for professors
rank above the 75th percentile are Law (mean at UVA is
$231,600/$222,500 (full professors/all professors) vs. overall mean
of $211,400/$195,400) and Public Policy ($220,046/$164,400 vs.
overall mean of $173,800/$138,100).

Other program or school wages that rank at or above the 60th
percentile for full professors are French Language, Systems
Engineering, and Nursing.

All other programs or schools rank below the 60th percentile.
38 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT 
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Among the public universities in the competitive peer set, financial support and
funding from sources such as individuals, foundations, corporations, and other
organizations are far behind at UVA by more than $50 million. However, the total
financial support covers a larger percentage of institutional expenditures at UVA
which are the lowest among all competitive peers - by nearly $800 million. (from
Council for Aid to Education)
University of Virginia
University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill
University of California: Berkeley
University of California: Los Angeles
University of Michigan
Duke University
New York University
University of Chicago
University of Southern California
Vanderbilt University
Total Support 2010 ‐ 2011
(Not including deferred)
$216,162,000
$274,946,000
$283,347,000
$415,330,000
$270,352,000
$349,658,000
$337,852,000
$216,748,000
$402,411,000
$119,440,000
Institutional Expenditures
$952,000,000
$1,732,350,000
$1,731,788,000
$2,735,991,000
$3,010,138,000
$2,090,834,000
$3,692,235,000
$1,840,754,000
$2,660,214,000
$1,552,454,000
% Inst. Exp covered by Total Support
23%
16%
16%
15%
9%
17%
9%
12%
15%
8%
39 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Strategy, Planning, Execution, and Morale
UVA has not articulated clearly its overarching strategies, nor has it executed effectively on
the plans it has developed.
UVA has operated recently as a largely top-down but decentralized institution, leaving a
relatively weak culture of lower-level authority but creating the possibility that strong central
leadership could galvanize a sense of shared purpose among the leaders who have
developed in the various units.
Many perceive that UVA’s current administrative leadership—in part in reaction to pressures
from its board—is protecting more than inspiring and challenging the faculty.
Faculty and administrative leaders see UVA as only infrequently coming together as one
community, while perceiving that the shared culture of the community may be its greatest
asset.

Likewise, programmatic initiatives and fundraising have tended to focus on specific
initiatives as opposed to expressions of university-wide direction and priority

The new budget model is seen as likely, unless handled with great skill, to lead to
further decentralization and separateness
Those faculty and administrative leaders today evidence, on the one hand, demoralization in
the face of recent cuts, losses, and controversy and, on the other, great present and latent
energy in light of opportunities and deep regard and affection for the institution.

Many of them see UVA at a decisive, even make-or-break, moment
40 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Governance and Last Summer’s Upheaval
Though governance was not included in this assessment, the thought-leaders interviewed
almost unanimously volunteered the observation that flaws in how UVA is governed
represent a significant threat to the University, at least on par with the most pressing
financial and competitive threats.
UVA is allowing to slip away the opportunity created by last summer’s leadership crisis to
assert in a very public way what it stands for and where it is headed

Observers see UVA’s problems as both unique and representative of the problems
faced by many universities, and are anxious to see how UVA responds, including in
this strategic planning effort

“Even with the best of planning, governance is always a concern, but with the
pressures on UVA the tensions are exacerbated and the need for a clear strategy is
even greater.”

“Virginia is not going to have a world-class university by providing single-digit support
of its budget or exercising control over its in- and out-of-state tuition – they’re kidding
themselves if they think this will work. “

“They’ve taken a terrible rap out there and they haven’t done much to repair it.”

“Today, public university leaders must understand that they can’t just deal with their
states in terms of politics and getting money, but instead must be public figures.
They must explain what benefits derive from the fact that their university is national
and international as well as for the state. Being able to articulate this when the
whole world is paying attention is an opportunity.”

“It’s unbelievable to me that an institution of UVA’s history and stature went through
this kind of turmoil and is still going through it. Of course this is not going to destroy
the institution, but it most certainly will undermine it. I see it as a colossal failure of
governance. There’s a lot of blame to pass around, but this should not have
happened. And I suspect it happened in part because there was no coherent,
overarching strategy for the future of the university.”

“Everybody’s doing some soul-searching about public institutions. UVA is a part of
this – but it looks like it’s headed in the wrong direction, not the least of which
41 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 because it doesn’t have a supportive state. Virginia once had one of the finest
systems of public higher education, but it looks like the state is letting that advantage
slip away.”

“Virginia’s system of boards is crazy, too much churning politically. It’s a design flaw.
Maybe time has come that board composition and appointments should change. As
a start, perhaps the University should be able to appoint some of its own board
members.”

“Governance has to be public trust – we should have no elected or politically
appointed trustees. It’s like mixing oil and water. Trustees have to have experience
with universities, understand research, and appreciate the value of the research
enterprise and what it’s meant for our nation.”

“But there are also serious governance issues regarding finances and ideology. They
must work more closely with the governor and pay much more attention to state
relations. Higher education does best when it works with enlightened business
leaders.”

“It also must get the political appointees off the board. It’s not good when the
university has no control over who gets on its board. You simply can’t build and
sustain a great university without a great board.”
42 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT IV.
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 IMPLICATIONS FOR STRATEGY
UVA’s Core Assets and Differentiation
It would place UVA at a competitive disadvantage to set a strategy that merely emulates
either the largest research-driven universities or the institutions that teach, or seek to teach,
the largest numbers of students

“It won’t be at all easy for them to compete in big science, and engineering can’t be
top notch, because of their size. They won’t get the oversized NIH and NSF grants.”
Instead, UVA would gain the greatest advantage through a strategy rooted in a bold
recommitment to its counter-trending greatness as a collegiate research university —
focused on students’ academic-residential experience, extensive interaction with teaching
faculty, and development of leadership qualities, skills, and motivation

“In faculty recruitment, a university needs, first, to have a sense of its priorities, its
strategic vision, and, second, to be aware of its own particular values. UVA is still Mr.
Jefferson’s university. Classics will have a place. Astronomy and physics. UVA’s
leaders should spend time in an imagining exercise, asking, what should be the most
salient features of Jefferson’s university in the 21st century?”
43 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Leadership in Teaching and Learning
UVA would do well to embrace and lead the significant changes happening in pedagogy and
the student experience—in ways that build on UVA’s distinctive strengths and institutional
values:

Prioritize interaction between undergraduate students and faculty
o Can UVA be a leader in developing alternatives for how teaching faculty are
funded, hired, and promoted?

Taking PhD students who aren’t getting placed, training them
extensively, and hiring them as faculty fellows

Take the lead in considering new delivery mechanisms, schedules, etc.
o And, some would say even more importantly, rethinking:

The content of an undergraduate education today (curriculum) (“We
are focused too much on questions about delivery.”)

The path students take to develop “useful knowledge” (advising,
experiential learning, etc.)
In particular, UVA could claim leadership development — notably, the preparation of
imaginative, scientifically literate, globally educated, public-service-oriented future leaders —
as a major institutional focus and reason for continued investment in residential education

UVA might make leadership potential the core criterion for undergraduate admissions
and the basis of intentional student recruitment and marketing efforts
o Consider increasing the percentage of out-of-state students admitted, in order
to attract more of these future leaders to Virginia

Publicize and hire more UVA teachers and advisors who are themselves leaders, of
various kinds
UVA would distinguish itself if it could deliver this robust collegial experience to all, not just
some, of its students.
UVA must invest further in the residential experience it provides if it is to be competitive —
and fully realize its claim of a contemporary Academical Village.
44 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT 
University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 “I would strongly encourage UVA to strengthen its collegiate structure, to provide
something in the residential campus experience that is unique, pedagogically sound,
and leads to intellectual development that would be impossible online or in a large
anonymous urban university.”
Since there is little advantage to a university that delivers a premier undergraduate
experience to be known as a “value,” it would make sense for UVA to charge what the
market indicates it is worth in-state and out-of-state

UVA freshmen rate the current economy’s effect on their choice of college to be less
strong than those attending a large public of normal selectivity, as reported in the
2010 CIRP Freshmen Survey.
UVA could take the lead in the study of contemporary higher education, including pedagogy
and curricular content and also adaptations in administrative leadership and governance in
the current environment.
45 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Research, Scholarship, and Collaboration
UVA would gain the greatest advantage if it were to be positioned as a research institution
but not aspiring to become a research-driven institution.

Position UVA as a research partner, resource, convener

Give particular attention to inter-institutional partnerships, taking advantage of the
complementary strengths of other universities and institutions
o “UVA may find its future hinges not on what it does alone but through
partnering in-state and regionally—with Duke, Hopkins, Maryland. The 20th
century model that each institution builds spires won’t be the most effective
way going forward.”

Position UVA as helping claim national leadership for the state of Virginia, building on
the dramatically increased assets of Northern Virginia in particular to position the
state as a leader in selected realms—including higher education—and on key issues
o “How much does UVA have going on in northern Virginia? Too little. Virginia
Tech is moving there big time. George Mason could become a competitor.
Maryland already is.”
Reinvest in UVA’s historic (and relatively inexpensive) areas of leadership in the humanities
and social sciences, while also sustaining strong offerings in the sciences.
Focus graduate program resources even further on programs of national prominence.

That said, the size of the graduate programs on which UVA focuses will be critical to
its faculty recruitment efforts
The Health Sciences strategy needs realistic revision, both in terms of emphasis on clinical
trials when the patient population is not adequate and in terms of its broad focus on three
central concerns (cardiovascular, cancer, and neuroscience) which are probably too broad
for an excellent but smaller medical school.

“The real threat is an over-extension of biomedical spending and construction based
on anticipation that the gravy train will continue—which is unlikely.”
46 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Increasingly use basic science faculty in the School of Medicine to teach basic sciences in
the College, as clinical teaching is taking over from faculty lectures in SOM.
Put a much stronger premium on collaboration across departments, program, and schools.

“UVA has to be very focused and careful – it can waste lot of money – and there are
serious dangers in trying to become a truly comprehensive research university, which
it isn’t now. Competition with giant state universities and leading privates is very
risky. UVA has been successful not by saying yes but by saying no. It can’t be all
things to all people. Say no to student growth and academically weaker students, say
no to graduate programs that don’t fit the model, but also be opportunistic. Play to
and leverage current strengths and build new ones very selectively. It also means
eliminating weak programs at the graduate level and even the undergraduate level.
In a nutshell it would be better for UVA to have a dozen top programs than 40 or 50
so-so programs.”

“The days are over when a university can build real academic strength and
leadership by focusing on single departments. If you think of ways to organize – the
depth of knowledge that is necessary for effective collaboration – it is a very deep
challenge. But if I had to put a bet on critical areas – they’d be the neurosciences,
bioengineering, cognitive science, and computer science. Here collaboration between
the medical school and academic departments is critical. I know UVA has a medical
school on campus and that’s an advantage at least in theory. But just having the
medical school on campus is not a panacea. They must do a better job of
collaboration with their university counterparts. The University will have to be more
deliberate about setting up interdisciplinary programs. Joint appointments must be
made.”

“It’s not just a matter of being interdisciplinary, nor is it just societal problems. It’s
starting with the key questions. Mind-brain development, versus just neuroscience.
Understanding the creative process through the work of literary scholars, artists, and
computer scientists.”

“The STEM areas are critical as are the health sciences. But UVA can’t do it all. It
has to be sufficiently strong in a limited number of fields. Focused strength in a few
47 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 areas should be the goal. Now I think of UVA’s strength in the humanities and social
sciences, less so the sciences. So selective excellence is the right strategy for the
future.”

“One answer might be collaboration with the other very good publics in UVA’s back
yard -- Virginia Tech, Chapel Hill, Maryland. How do you build on the relationships you
already have, provide more opportunities for faculty and students, eliminate
duplication, build complementary strengths, keep costs down, and give students
more experiences? UVA must be asking these questions.”

That said, make a point of continuing to value the work of the individual, as teacher
or scholar
48 Art & Science Group WORKING DRAFT University of Virginia Strategic Assessment Parts 1 and 2 Revitalizing the Culture
UVA will thrive not as a defensive academic culture nor with a corporate culture, but rather
with a proud and vital academic culture.
Reassert the importance of scholarly inquiry — the fact that discovery and innovation come
not from re-studying what we already know but from following curiosity about what we don’t
know.

“Universities should seek revenue not just to have more money to spend but to free
people to be arcane, to seek after the Golden Fleece, to tell us something about the
human condition.”
Re-value UVA’s unusually civil, personal culture.
Communicate the value of what goes on at UVA and in public higher education more
effectively and more aggressively — make external communication more a part of the UVA
culture, and take a lead in the state and national conversations on the value of higher
education in the U.S. today.
Stand up as what one interviewee characterized as “the public intellectual” of our time:
“This role is different from conducting research or preparing students for employment,
though it’s related to those purposes. Great institutions, going back to Thomas Jefferson,
were created to be bastions of argument and protective for people who stand up and say, no
matter what directs the politics, our policy and discourse must be based on deep thought,
on economics and science; we must have meaningful political conversations. What other
institution in society can champion those values?”
49 Art & Science Group