IU in Ten Years

#1: About this Blog and the Questions: -----Explanation & Purpose for the site

#2.- 9: Questions for the Panelists: -----These are the questions--listed from last to first--earlier e-mailed to panelists. On the blog, questions are supported by data and added sources of information: summaries, essays, and hyperlinks taking you to other websites.

Several items (postings) are key to understanding certain problems: one isPost #23: Budget 2005-2006, linked at the bottom of the blog (scroll to end) and a short summary of budget assumptions with important numbers.

Several short essays attempt to summarize issues related to the questions; among them: #15----A Simple Look at a Complex Problem;
#14----Tuition, Scholarships, Outsourcing & "Privatization; and #17----Peter Drucker & Distance Learning. They contain opinion intended to stimulate thought.

#10. Interested in School Data? -----Links to sources for Education Articles and Enrollment Data.

#11. Community College Fact Sheet. -----State and National facts.12. Causes for Decreased Summer Enrollment: Current report on IU Summer enrollment with opinion and speculation: Where did they go and why?

#13. Diversity Plan for Indiana University: 2014. -----Links and Power Point detailing goals, methods and costs.

14. Tuition, Scholarships, Outsourcing & "Privatization.------ Essays, links, commentary about the national debate on financing Higher Education.

#15. A Simple Look at a Complex Problem. -----Essay surveying conflicting views on problems in Higher Education. Links on right margin of blog lead to support data.

#16. State Funding of Higher Education: -----Comparisons. Data regarding University financing with links.

#17. Peter Drucker & Distance Learning: Things Will Get Different. -----Brief discussion of Distance Learning and resulting disruption to traditional methods, a phenomenon of the Internet.

#18. The Trouble with Rankings. -----Several sources for University ratings with commentary on validity and utility.

#19. AAU: America's Top Research Universities: Who Are They? -----A listing.20. Association of American Universities (AAU): Crisis in Education. Global challenges to U.S. Leadership in Higher Education.

#21. Summary of Indiana University Foundation Goals for 2010.

#22. Background Information About Students: Generation "Y" , The Millenials. -----Commentary on changing student behavior by generations.

#23. IU Budget Data: Summary.----- Brief excerpts from Annual Financial Report and a link to the full 2005/6 I.U. Budget

On The Right Margin: Members (BOT and Volunteers)

Also LINKS: Click on Title to be taken to Data, Official Publications, Media opinion, Press Articles.

First: Thank you for taking time to participate and for reading this blog.

Second: Links to many official sources are AT THE SIDE or, unpredictably, AT THE END OF THE BLOG: Scroll down and they are clickable: on your right.

Lastly: This blog was created to support a question list to be sent to a panel of volunteers.

Our goal will be to assess opinion as to the state of "IU in Ten Years." A Task Force Committee of the Long Range Planning Committee will use poll results to report to the Board of Trustees. Each volunteer will receive a report of the results; no volunteers name will be associated with answers.A Task Force Committee of the Long Range Planning Committee of the IU BOT is to develop a description of what Indiana University will be like in 2016. A feature of this report will be to aggregate the opinions of a broad group of volunteers of differing expertise where possible in a Delphic manner; all volunteers have in common special their knowledge of Indiana University and the State of Indiana.

The undersigned (Bill Cast and Casey Cox, Trustees) have, with the help of other Trustees and University family, designed a list of questions dealing with issues from College Costs and State Funding to Privatization of Public Universities and Distance (Internet) Learning.

Our intent was to make questions simple and easy to answer, to avoid bias, and also to provide data and informational links for those who may wish to augment their knowledge on a specific issue. For that reason, this blog was created both to centralize the data and to avoid sending long emails that might, if they contain hyperlinks, be trapped in spam filters.

Volunteers (panelists) will be asked to return their answers by email. We repeat: No answers will be reported with reference to the identity of the person who answered the questions. Finally: A paragraph or more of your written comments on any issues will be appreciated.

Thank you for participating.Bill Cast and Casey Cox, Trustees//

Final Question: A series of quick, True/False, answers.

Indiana University is structured as “One University” with its President in residence in Bloomington. University of California is structured as a System of relatively independent campuses with its President living in Oakland; its Chancellors are “Presidents” of their respective campuses
.
Question:
A. In 2016, Indiana University's administrative and degree-granting
structure:

(a) Will be more-like a "one-university" multi-campus model
(b) Will be more-like a system of competing, relatively independent Universities.
(c) Will focus on the missions of each campus without addressing
the system question __________

Which model should IU develop by 2016? _______(System/One University)

In 2016:
a) Student debt (adjusted for inflation) will be higher than now.T/F_____
b) I.U. Faculty salaries will be unchanged/increased relative to peer Universities__________ (data & article below)
c) I.U. graduates will continue to leave the State of Indiana due to lack of employment opportunities. _______T/F
d) Indiana will be recognized as one of the top six U.S., Life Science states.______T/F
e) Significant medical research will be performed at all campuses of Indiana University Medical School. T/F
f) The President of Indiana University will remain in office from 2006._____T/F.
g) Indiana University will have played in the Final Four twice in this decade (2016) ____T/F

Data Points:
National Center for Education Statistics stated that about 50% of
recent college graduates have student loans, with an average student loan debt of $10,000.

HIGH SALARIES AND COST OF LIVING

Many of the nation's top research universities are located in the nation's most expensive cities. The data below shows professors' salaries in 2005-6, adjusted to account for the high cost of living. (Source AAUP)

Institution ----- Ave. Proffessor Salary ---- COL Index --- Adjusted Sal.
U. of Chicago ------ $155,100 ------------------126.9 --------- $122,194
Princeton U. --------$156,800 ------------------130.6 --------- $120,083
Harvard U. ----------$168,700 ------------------141.5 ---------- $119,187
MIT -------------------$140,300 ------------------141.5 -----------$99,122
Cal Tech --------------$147,800 ------------------156.1 -----------$94,679
Georgetown U.-------$132,500 ------------------141.9 -----------$93,380
Stanford U. -----------$156,200 ------------------167.8 -----------$93,072

Link to salary comparisons requires subscription to Chronicle
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i34/34a01402.htm#men_and_women

In Indiana, the average pay for Professors: (Unadjusted COLA, Adjusted to 9 month work year)
Notre Dame------------ $121,200
Indiana Bloomington $104,900
Purdue-------------------$104,300
Ball State----------------$ 73,600

U of Kentucky----------$ 93,400
Ohio State Univ. -------$112,600
Illinois/Champaign ---$116,600
U of Michigan----------$125,600
Wisconsin/Madison --$100,500

From Herald-Times, by Steve Hennefield (an excerpt)

The figures are base salaries and, for most faculty, are for a 10-month work year. Some can earn more by teaching or doing research in the summer.

Supply and demand: . . . Smith, the business school dean, said supply and demand have been driving up salaries for top-producing business professors. Baby Boomers are retiring, creating a demand for new faculty. And the supply lags because business schools have scaled back expensive Ph.D. programs.

"What has happened is we are really faced an incredible run-up in salaries for our top faculty," he said. "Trying to retain them has been a real challenge." Business faculty also can sometimes make more money in the private sector. "There are a lot of investment banks and Wall Street firms that hire faculty," Smith said. "In general, salaries have to be competitive not just with other universities but with the private sector."
Still relatively low

Overall, however, IU's average faculty pay ranks next-to-last in the Big Ten, according to an American Association of University Professors survey.
In the College of Arts and Sciences, IU Bloomington's largest academic unit, pay was a factor but not always the main factor in the departure this year of two dozen faculty, said David Zaret, the interim dean.
"I would say retention rests on three legs: salary, issues of academic quality and qualify of life," he said, adding the IU does well in the latter two categories.

Zaret said the reputation of some departments in the college can help counter problems with low pay.

"Most of our programs are among the top 20 in the country," he said. "The programmatic quality is high; the salary structure is relatively low."
The IU budget for the 2006-07 fiscal year, which began July 1, provides a 4 percent increase for faculty pay. Raises are awarded by merit, with some professors getting big boosts to match or discourage outside offers.
"There are people who got more than 4 percent and a lot of people who didn't get anything close to 4 percent," Theobald said.
Pay increased 2.5 percent for nonfaculty employees in Bloomington. Service and support workers making less than $30,000 got bigger percentage raises under a policy pushed by Herbert, the university president, to increase compensation for the lowest-paid employees.

Peter Kaczmarczyk, president of Local 4730 of the Communications Workers of America, which represents clerical and technical workers, said it's encouraging that the number of full-time staff making less than $25,000 has been cut almost in half in two years. But at the same time, the number making more than $200,000 has grown.

"If IU could find a way to cut out just a few high-priced administrators and redistribute that money to staff salaries they could really make great strides in providing decent pay and wage equity for all IU employees," he said.

IU Bloomington salary facts•
IU has more than 7,500 employees in Bloomington.
• 47 employees make at least $200,000 a year.
• 621 make at least $100,000.
• 430 full-time staff make less than $25,000.
• 1,614 make less than $30,000.
• 18 business faculty and 18 IU administrators, including vice presidents and deans, make at least $200,000.
• 16 athletic department employees make more than $100,000.
• Total paid to the 47 employees who make $200,000 or more: $11.28 million.
• Total paid to the 430 who make less than $25,000: $9.98 million.

Affordability: Indiana, 28.9% of Median Family Income to pay for College, up from 25.6% in 1999 (National Average: 28.5%) Page 123 of link below
http://www.inpathways.net/indicators-in.pdf

Report Card on Indiana Education (2004)
http://www.inpathways.net/inmeasuringup2004.pdf

Indiana Plan for Life Sciences: Strategy
http://lifesciences.iu.edu/strategic/

Question: A. Women outnumber men at Indiana University. In Bloomington student enrollment (about 35,600) is 51.6% female. On Regional Campuses, rations are 60% and more. In 2016, what will be the percentage of female enrollees? ____________.

B. Of students enrolled in spring 2005, 1,433 (4%) were African-Americans, 1,174 (3.2%) were Asian-Americans, 785 (2.2%) were Hispanic, 83 (0.2%) were American Indian, and 28,699 (80%) were white, 3,096 (8.7%) were foreign, and 422 (1.1%) were unknown. In 2016, what will be the percentage of Black_______%, Asian_______%, and Hispanic _________%students?

C. Indiana University’s diversity goal, adopted in 2006, calls for doubling the number of underrepresented minority students by 2014. Will it succeed? _______________

Link to unofficial fact sheet about Indiana University Bloomington:
http://www.answers.com/topic/indiana-university-bloomington-1


Comment: What will be the changing ethnic and gender mix at Indiana University? We have seen a reversal in the male/female ratio since 1990, and a steady growth in ethnic minorities. In Indiana, the greatest population growth has been in Hispanic residents. The answer to enrollment-mix questions will depend on the success of Indiana University’s plan to increase diversity.

Power Point Presention of Indiana’s Diversity Strategy:
http://www.indiana.edu/~trustees/Nelms%20Diversity%20PP%20%2005.04.06.ppt#258,1,A

The figures below show the admissions growth nationally in “under-represented” students for the decade 1990-2001. Note that in all groups, the cohort of women showed the greatest growth, and that among ethnic groups Asians grew by 78%, Blacks by 48%, and Hispanics by 100%. Overall, Indiana ranks 17th in “College by age 19” nationally.

(Apologies for the close printing of these numbers by the blog managers)
Asian

Fall 1990 Fall 1995 Fall 1998* Fall 1999* Fall 2000* Fall 2001*
572,400 * 797,400 * 900,500 * 913,000 * 978,200 * 1,019,000

Men
294,900 *393,300 *433,600 *437,100 *465,900 *480,800
Women
277,500 *404,100 *466,900 *475,800 *512,300 *538,300
Public 4-year
250,600 *329,300 *361,900 *371,400 *381,300 *400,300
Public 2-year
210,300 *308,700 *351,300 *344,700 *389,200 *405,800

Black

Fall 1990 *Fall 1995 *Fall 1998* Fall 1999* Fall 2000* Fall 2001*
1,247,000 *1,473,700 *1,582,900 *1,643,200 *1,730,300 *1,850,400
Men
484,700 *555,900 *584,000 *604,200 *635,300 *672,400
Women
762,300 *917,800 *999,000 *1,038,900 *1,095,000 *1,178,000
Public 4-year
495,100 *572,500 *602,000 *615,300 *627,800 *650,400
Public 2-year
481,400 *588,200 *616,700 *638,100 *691,400 *746,700

Hispanic
Fall 1990 Fall 1995 Fall 1998* Fall 1999 * Fall 2000 * Fall 2001*
782,400 *1,093,800 *1,257,100 *1,319,100 *1,461,800 *1,560,600
Men
353,900 *480,200 *538,600 *563,600 *627,100 *664,200
Women
428,500 *613,700 *718,500 *755,500 *834,700 *896,400
Public 4-year
262,500 *346,800 *381,900 *394,100 *420,000 *439,800
Public 2-year
408,900 *590,300 *675,900 *705,000 *809,200 *869,000

White
Fall 1990 *Fall 1995 *Fall 1998* Fall 1999* Fall 2000* Fall 2001*
10,722,500 *10,311,200 *10,178,800 *10,282,100 *10,462,100 *10,774,500
Men
4,861,000 *4,594,100 *4,499,400 *4,551,100 *4,634,600 *4,762,300
Women
5,861,500 *5,717,200 *5,679,400 *5,731,000 *5,827,500 *6,012,200
Public 4-year
4,605,600 *4,303,300 *4,267,000 *4,293,800 *4,311,200 *4 ,409,000

This link (below) from the Indiana Commission on Higher Education shows the performance characteristics of each public university. The percentage of each under-represented minority completing Core-40 requirements will determine the pool available immediately for admission to four year schools.

Hispanic population in Indiana continues to increase, and projections are for Hispanic graduates (now at 2% of graduates) to increase to 8%. Given linguistic challenges, will a corresponding percentage finish Core 40?


Hispanic Population Growth: 67% of Indiana’s immigration growth:
http://www.inpathways.net/in_immigration_04.pdf

Indiana Commission on Higher Education:
Includes Minority Representation Projections
http://www.inpathways.net/indicators-in.pdf

The State’s overall enrollments are as follows:

STUDENTS
Enrollment:
State:
At public 4-year institutions
193,379
At public 2-year institutions
65,879
At private 4-year institutions
72,223
At private 2-year institutions
7,234
Undergraduate
295,623
Graduate
37,037
Professional
6,055
American Indian
1,246
Asian
5,996
Black
26,176
Hispanic
8,511
White
283,793
Foreign
12,993
Total
338,715
Enrollment highlights:
State:
Women
54.5% (nation: 56.3%)
Full-time
65.8%
Minority
12.4%
Foreign
3.8%
Proportion of enrollment made up of minority students:
State: Nation:
At public 4-year institutions
11.1% 24.9%
At public 2-year institutions
14.0% 34.9%
At private 4-year institutions
13.2% 24.5%
At private 2-year institutions
23.6% 39.4%

Graduation rates are shown below:
Graduation rate at NCAA Division I institutions:
Ball State University
47%
Butler University
66%
Indiana State University
37%
Indiana University at Bloomington
69%
Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne
19%
Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis
21%
Purdue University
64%
University of Evansville
61%
University of Notre Dame
95%
Valparaiso University
73%
National average
57%

Browsing other links on the right margin will yield other relevant data.

Questions:

Will Indiana University’s undergraduate population be larger, the same or smaller in 2016?_________ (Larger/Same/Smaller)

http://factbook.indiana.edu/~urr/factbook/fbook05/students/students17.shtml

By 2016, the rate at which high school graduates will enter college will __________ (increase or decrease) from 60% (current rate) to ____________%.

Indiana ranks 17th nationally in bachelor's degrees/100 H.S. graduates but ranks 49th as a net exporter of bachelor's degrees to other states. The Government Efficiency Commission (see below) found a lower percentage of graduate-students and research relative to Indiana's peer Universities. Will a reversal of these conditions be established by 2016? Exporter of bachelors:_______Yes/No Significant increase (25%) in graduate-students by 2016 ______Yes/No


Report: Higher Education Subcommittee: pp 6,7,8 & appendix graphs
http://www.iue.edu/chancellor/Higher%20Education%20Report%20Vol%20I%20(2).pdf

Students having completed two years of Community College course work (including remediation) will transfer to Indiana University in numbers adequate to maintain or increase the current size of Junior and Senior classes. __________ True/False


Facts: The population of high school students in Indiana will increase for the next four to five years.

Numbers of high school graduates: projection & Ethnicity
http://www.inpathways.net/in-hs-proj.pdf

State Population projection: http://www.stats.indiana.edu/pop_totals_topic_page.html

Indiana College Continuation: http://www.inpathways.net/mortenson_state_data_2002.pdf

More Indiana College Rates: http://www.inpathways.net/ranking%20hs%20to%20college%2050%20states%202002.htm


Additional facts: Indiana high schools have one of the worst drop-out rates in the nation, but the rate at which Indiana’s high school graduates attend college is near 60%. In Indiana, 59% of college students attend a “Research, Doctoral” Institution such as IU Bloomington, Purdue, etc. whereas the national rate is only 31%.

Indiana ranks 47th in the number of college graduates.

The current population of Indiana (Census estimates) is 6.215 million (2005) and is estimated for 2015 to be 6.404 million. The current undergraduate enrollment at Indiana University totals 78,197 of which 29,562 are at IU Bloomington and 21,438 are at IUPUI.

Nationally, 45% of college students attend a two-year college (Community College) while historically, in Indiana the number is only 21%, but Indiana has now built more Community Colleges and their course credits will now be accepted at Indiana's four-year colleges.

Question: In 2016, Indiana University will have followed the paths recently taken by Michigan University and University of Virginia to engage in (higher) market pricing for some educational services coupled with more and larger scholarships to improve access and more directly address need. ____________ Yes/No

In 2016, Indiana University will have outsourced and contracted for most services not related to its core mission of research and education, perhaps including: hotel functions, food services, transportation, maintenance, publishing, and sales of books and supplies. ______Yes/No

Comment:
State financial support for Public Universities has steadily declined over past decades. At the University of Michigan, state support has fallen to about 18% of budget while at University of Virginia it is about 8%. This has been labeled de facto privatization and led to market pricing of some educational services coupled with more and larger scholarships to improve access by addressing need. Indiana University’s state support has fallen from over 50% and is approaching 24%. See the six (6) links discussing so-called "privatization" on the right margin: Privatization in Illinois, Michigan, Virginia and the Miami University of Ohio article:

http://www.miami.muohio.edu/ohioscholarships/

Indiana University’s Ten-Year Budget Projection shows a deficit, a gap between anticipated General Fund Income (Items: State allocation, Tuition, Fees, Research Cost Recovery) and rising expenses. In 2016, Best case (-$50 million), Baseline case (-$100 million), and Worst case (-$350 million) vary according to many assumptions from enrollment to state funding and more.

A. Which case (best, baseline, or worse) will result in 2016? _______

B. Will Indiana University find ways (management, cuts, more state funding, gifts) to out-perform and close the gap? ____Yes/No Perhaps reach its aspirational goal? ________. Yes/No


C. Please rank the following strategies for “closing the gap” in order of preference: (1-7)

Leaner Staffing ______

Outsourcing Services (Contract Food Service, Bookstores)______

Cuts in Academic Programs (those of small enrollment, redundant)______

Increased Tuition, Fees __________

Market-based Tuition linked to expanded Scholarships _______

Increased Fund Raising, IU Foundation _________

Increased Research Funding (NIH, Private Grants) _______

The following are some activities of the University:

a) Teaching at the collegiate level
b) Helping to Improve K-12 Education in Indiana
c) Research in Life Sciences
d) Patent portfolio sharing and development
e) Development of Global Educational Opportunities
f) Economic Development for the State of Indiana
g) Workforce Development
h) Diversity and Representation for Minorities
i) Programs in major athletics
j) Programs in a broad range of athletics
k) Supporting Alumni relations
l) Adult education
m) Supporting philanthropy
n) Civic responsibility and volunteerism
o) Politics
p) Regulating activities of residential students
q) Competing for new Faculty
r) Making College Affordable/ Cost Efficiency

Question: A. List the top six (6) of immediate importance: _____________________(use letters)

B. List the top six (6) critical for the University’s long-term success: _________

C. In 2016, Indiana University will have the greatest success in which ten or less? ___________

Question:

By 2016, the State of Indiana allocation to Indiana University will _______ (increase or decrease) by ______%.

Is the linkage between State Government, Industry, and Public Research Universities enjoyed by states with successful knowledge-based economies recognized and appreciated by most Indiana citizens? ____Yes/No

Background: State financial support for Indiana University has steadily decreased. State government has announced an economic development goal of decreasing dependence upon manufacturing and increasing the state’s knowledge-based economy. Indiana University has committed itself to participate through a Life Sciences initiative that links research on all campuses to the Medical School and to Basic Sciences in Bloomington.

Two items on this blog ("A Simple Look at a Complex Problem" and "State Funding of Higher Education: Comparisons") contain links to data and reports. Also six links (right margin of the blog) discussing "privatization have bearing on this issue.

Question:

A. Indiana University’s ranking in US News & World Reports is 74th among National Universities; In 2016, it will rank as number ___.

B. Is having a higher national ranking among Research Universities important to Indiana University? _______Yes/No

Background: On this blog, a brief opinion essay titled: "The Problem with Rankings" contains links to several sites that provide rankings.

The link below takes you to a synopsis of the U.S. News ranking of Indiana University with comments.

http://www.inpathways.net/IPCNLibrary/ViewBiblio.aspx?aid=1041

You can drown in educational data. Below are some useful and authoritative sites; you will quickly recognize that they disagree by a few percentage points, but in general the following seems true:

1. Nationally, about 70% of public high school students graduate, and 32% are prepared for four-year college. (Indiana is 74%, more or less)

2. For Black and Hispanic students, roughly half graduate and a third of those are college ready. (See Executive Summary: http://www.inpathways.net/hs_grad_rates_03.pdf)

3. Due to low readiness rates, only 9% of college ready applicants are Black and another 9% Hispanic from a population of 18-year olds that are: Black:14% and Hispanic 17%. This mathematically assures under-representation in many colleges.

4. Indiana is a growth state for Hispanics: http://www.inpathways.net/in_immigration_04.pdf

These factors, and more, provide grist for enlightened guesses to prepare for future enrollments. Indiana University can thrive given that it reacts properly to a mix of changes: growth in state population and number of high school grads; growth in Core-40-college-ready grads; growth in Hispanic population; growth in Community Colleges; competition for students from private and for-profit colleges, online learning and a growing need for technical and professional grads.

A great deal will depend on recruiting and enlightened work by I.U.'s Admissions Offices. A great deal will depend on state funding, tuition, and coordination of economic development plans. A surprise in any area can confound what seem obvious projections.


Below is access to many studies and projections regarding Indiana State education.

For example: here is a link to enrollments from 1996 with projections to 2016 in all grades in Indiana:
http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/TRENDS/project.cfm?corp=0000

Comparing Indiana high school data with all 50 states:
http://www.inpathways.net/comparison.pdf

Chances for college by age 19: Indiana is 17 th:
http://www.inpathways.net/chance19.htm

This link from the same study has a graph showing that Indiana's highest enrollments were in the 1970's; we have not recovered despite steady, slow growth.
http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/TRENDS/trends1.cfm?var=enr

Here are high school graduates pursuing college:
http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/TRENDS/trends1.cfm?var=higher

Here is a graph of Core-40 (Honors diploma,) the key to future college enrollment:
http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/TRENDS/core40_sub.cfm?schl=&corp=&year=2004&pub=3&core40=2

Core-40 vs. Regular Grads: Totals
http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/TRENDS/graduate_time.cfm?year=2003&corp=0000

This is the home page of the State of Indiana site holding the above breakdowns. It is full of comparative data: (below)
http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/asap/statesnap3.html

and the State of Indiana Department of Education home page:
http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/asap/stateprofile.html

U.S. Department of Education data for Indiana:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp

Community Colleges account for 45% of U.S. undergraduate enrollment.

This link takes you to national Community College data:
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/

Indiana's Community College system has expanded from 10 to 23 sites and is growing rapidly in enrollment. Founded in 1963, Ivy Tech Community College has become Indiana's second-largest post-secondary institution and now serves more than 102,000 students per year, including adult education and part-time students.

The graduation rate from Ivy Tech Community College is between 18% and 20%. (see link from Ind. Higher Ed. Commission.)

This link to the power point presentation of the Indiana Higher Education Commission shows that Community Colleges have grown so rapidly that they have nearly met, in 2005, the goal projected for 2009. A good report on "Critical Issues . . . Indiana Education."
(Takes a moment to load; requires Microsoft Office; Power Point)
Good breakdown of enrollment, graduation, brain drain, etc.

http://www.che.state.in.us/Powerpoint/Critical%20Education%20Issues%20in%20Indiana,%2003-23-2006.ppt

This is the website for Ivy Tech:
http://www.ivytech.edu/campuses/

Community Colleges account for 45% of all U.S. undergraduates and 45% of first-time freshmen. Breakdown of statistics at the link above.

Summer enrollment still down: Drop blamed on increased internships, Ivy Tech classes
by Michelle Manchir
Indiana Daily Student
Published Thursday, July 6, 2006


Fewer IU students are staying in Bloomington this summer to take classes, according to this year's enrollment figures.Enrollment in both summer sessions has declined for the third year in a row. Summer Session I enrollment is down 2.8 percent from last year, and while the official numbers for Session II will not be released until the end of July, Director of Summer Sessions and Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Leslie Coyne said they are "down a bit," as well."

What's interesting to look at (is) over the last 20 years summer enrollment and credit hours have remained amazingly stable ... until the last four years, in terms of enrollment," Coyne said.Coyne attributed the enrollment decline to two factors.

First, he said more students -- especially arts and science majors -- "feel strongly" that internships are really important in terms of their resumes."They by and large will take those in the summer, usually not connected to credit," he said.

Second, Coyne said Ivy Tech Community College may be creating "significant competition" for students who enroll in IU courses only in the summer and transfer back to Ivy Tech in the fall."We have been a good choice for students who wish to pick up a course or two," Coyne said. "Ivy Tech is now in that business."

According to a press release on Ivy Tech Bloomington's Web site, 1,943 students enrolled for summer classes there, which is more than a 25 percent increase from last summer. The college attributes the increase to its distance education offerings and its new programs, including radiation therapy and elementary education.

Link to the article: July 6
http://bl-ids-website.ads.iu.edu/news/story.php?adid=search&id=36501

The article goes on to say that, among other things that: Targeting of specific sets of courses will be necessary, that students who come to IU are taking a higher credit hour load, and that software problems need to be addressed along with a change in strategy.

This link (also on Right Margin: Indiana Plan for Diversity: Adopted May 2006) is a power point presentation. It may take a few moments to load.

www.indiana.edu/~trustees/Nelms%20Diversity%20PP%20%2005.04.06.ppt#263,3,Visio

The link below contains items (graphs, data, statements) used in Oct. 2005 while planning the diversity statement.

http://www.indiana.edu/~idsa/reports/EducatingAll.ppt

A separate blog post deals with economic pressures and globalization (See Simple View of a Complex Problem-#15 below)

The following discussion supplements links to a range of opinions on tuition increases and the broad topic of the re-emergence of privatization (outsourcing of non-academic services, market adjusted tuition, joint ventures, patent ownership, etc.) Yale once participated in land grant mandates; Cornell was once operated as a public university: links for detail on right margin.

Reduced support of public universities is a national phenomenon; Indiana is only typical. The following is from a 2005 New York Times article:

“At an academic forum last month, John D. Wiley, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said that during the years after World War II, America built the world's greatest system of public higher education. 'We're now in the process of dismantling all that," Dr. Wiley said.'
The share of all public universities' revenues deriving from state and local taxes declined to 64 percent in 2004 from 74 percent in 1991. At many flagship universities, the percentages are far smaller. About 25 percent of the University of Illinois's budget comes from the state. Michigan finances about 18 percent of Ann Arbor's revenues. The taxpayer share of revenues at the University of Virginia is about 8 percent."

"At those levels, we have to ask what it means to be a public institution," said Katharine C. Lyall, an economist and president emeritus of the University of Wisconsin. "America is rapidly privatizing its public colleges and universities, whose mission used to be to serve the public good. But if private donors and corporations are providing much of a university's budget, then they will set the agenda, perhaps in ways the public likes and perhaps not. Public control is slipping away."
Not everyone agrees with the doomsday talk.” (Full NYT article is in link to your right: NYT: Warnings of Privatization.)

Comment: Some would frame the discussion philosophically: Is public education a primary benefit to the state, a public good, or do benefits mainly accrue to the student, a private good? Should those who benefit pay more? The answer would seem to be both, but at a time when state budgets are destroyed by health care costs, it may appear that the wishes of an older, fatter, sicker voting public take preference over funding programs for a younger, non-voting public.

Advocates of privatization argue, as does this article about Michigan’s outsourcing, that money saved can be directed to the core missions of education and research, and that others do the jobs better:

“Almost all of the university officials interviewed for the Mackinac Center study said expertise was their main reason for outsourcing. "’What we are is an educational institution; that's where we have our expertise,’ said David W. Barthelmes, vice chancellor for administration at the University of Michigan-Flint.” (See link for full article: Michigan Outsources)

What about de facto privatization? Non-State funding comes from gifts, public and private grants, tuition and student fees. The most predictable stream of income comes from tuition, and it is tuition that has climbed as state support has declined. In states where legislative pressure or tuition freezes have taken place, those cuts have taken a toll in deferred maintenance and diminished growth of faculty and physical facilities. This has left private sources as ever greater portions of public university support. As one might expect, he who pays the piper soon calls the tune.

In Virginia, this has led both to outsourcing of non-academic functions and to an agreement with government allowing a market approach to tuition. Ironically, private schools have responded most effectively to scholarship needs by creating a market “sticker price” that is heavily discounted both for merit and for shaping incoming class metrics. Often selected students attend private universities for less than public, and sometimes for free. Public universities are looking carefully at a similar model allowing market tuition rates coupled with greater scholarship flexibility for the needy student.

Another factor worth mentioning is the joint venture created between private business and academe through research grants. Without these grants, many university research projects would halt; but, with these grants, according to critics, comes less public ownership. Strong opposition to university management, tuition changes and corporate joint ventures arose at University of California because of these issues.

The New York Times summarizes as follows: “At stake are institutions that carry out much of the country's public-interest research and educate nearly 80 percent of all college students, and whose scientific and technological innovation has been crucial to America's economic dominance. ...The average in-state tuition nationwide for students attending four-year public colleges increased 36 percent from 2000-01 through 2004-05, according to the College Board, while consumer prices over all rose about 11 percent. The Morrill Act of 1862 granted federal land to states to finance the creation of public universities, and one of their core missions ever since has been to provide services that promote the well-being of communities and states. Today, educators using the term "privatization" say universities are being forced to abandon this social compact. In the process, many major public universities are looking more like private ones.”

In summary, advocates say that tuition freezes merely accelerate de facto privatization, and scholarship rigidity causes public universities to lose many excellent students. Tuition increases coupled with appropriate scholarships are quite different from across the board fee increases, they say. That point of view was stated well by President James Garland of Miami University-Ohio, who pointed out that subsidizing grocery stores directly would provide cheap food to wealthy families: “By way of comparison, consider the food stamp program, which in 2004 paid out $27 billion directly to 24 million low-income Americans. Imagine if there were, in its place, a food subsidy program by which the government paid that $27 billion directly to supermarkets. Under such a program needy families would benefit little, because most of the savings would be passed on to customers who didn't need help. That would be an inefficient use of public money."

Students, parents and taxpayers need to understand their shared interest in this debate. (See link to Miami University, Ohio with Public/Private tuition program.)

The following figures were compiled by James C. Palmer of Illinois State University. The statistics show changes in higher-education spending over the past year. Some data may be skewed in states that have biennial budgets; those states are marked with an asterisk.

For a graph showing the increase in enrollments versus the decline in funding go to: http://insidehighered.com/index.php/media/news_documents_and_files/2006/states1

INDIANA*

Indiana U $ 480,015 +2.1%
Purdue U $ 336,953 +2.9%
Ball State U $ 129,070 +2.3%
Ivy Tech State C $ 128,532 +9.4%
Indiana State U, Terre Haute $ 78,929 +1.3%
Vincennes U $ 35,931 +6.5%
U of Southern Indiana $ 34,291 +3.0%
Student financial aid $ 187,640 +11.7%
Other $ 6,120 0.0

Total $1,417,481 +4.2%

Other state totals: Illinois - 1.7%
Iowa +0.7%
Kansas +4.4%
Kentucky +1.3%
Michigan -0.4%
Ohio* +1.6%
Florida was highest at +11.1%; Virginia 10.6%; New Jersey +8.8%;
New York 7.6%

Peter Drucker made these remarks in the mid-1990's, and he was right in that things indeed "got different." Said Drucker:

"Thirty years from now (2025) the big university campuses will be relics. Universities won't survive. It's as large a change as when we first got the printed book."Do you realize that the cost of higher education has risen as fast as the cost of health care? And for the middle-class family, college education for their children is as much of a necessity as is medical care—without it the kids have no future."Such totally uncontrollable expenditures, without any visible improvement in either the content or the quality of education, means that the system is rapidly becoming untenable. Higher education is in deep crisis."

Comment: Not everyone will agree that Distance Learning in the form of Internet, online learning is effective or at least is effective beyond a certain level. Quite a different point may be made that On-line learning does not need be effective to be disruptive to the status quo. As long as it changes with each iteration and until companies who hire students trained by those methods reach a verdict to the contrary, it is a threat to traditional, residential Universities. An optimistic discussion of the Virtual University may be found in the European Journal of Open, Distance & eLearning in the link supplied on your right. A somewhat different view is supplied by David Noble in "Digital Diploma Mills," also in links on your right. Clearly, there is disagreement, but the common constant is change. For now, it seems an open question as to whether Distance Learning will augment the experience of residential students or displace significant numbers to alternative pathways.

This 2004 information is from an article by Goldie Blumenstyk writing in Chronicle of Higher Education.

Since the writing of the article, growth has continued; Phoenix University grew by over 60% two years in a row. An excerpt from the article:

“Politically and financially, the $15.4-billion for-profit higher-education industry is on a roll. The legislative environment is friendly, enrollments and profits continue to grow, and demographic trends suggest strong opportunities for further expansion and profitability. According to Eduventures, for-profit institutions now account for about 8 percent of the 20 million students enrolled at the 6,000 American colleges that are eligible for federal aid. Enrollment in degree-granting institutions is growing, and more for-profit colleges say they are planning to add degree programs over the next few years, which could help them to improve their 8-percent rate of enrollment growth. (For higher education as a whole, the growth rate is 2 percent.) "

About $2 out of every $5 went to for-profit institutions in 2004. Problems are sure to increase with growth as fraud and abuse are being reported and regulators prepare new legislation. Federal legislation has been passed making on-line courses eligible for financial support.

Also from the Chronicle of Higher Education the first paragraph on distance learning:

"Michigan Considers Requiring Online Course for High-School Students"
By DAN CARNEVALE

The Michigan State Board of Education approved a new graduation requirement in December that would make every high-school student in the state take at least one online course before receiving a diploma.
The new requirement appears to be the first of its kind in the nation. Mike Flanagan, the Michigan state superintendent of public instruction, said he proposed the online-course requirement, along with other general requirements, to make sure students were prepared for college and for jobs, which are becoming more technology-focused.

And this item: "EDUCATION COMPANIES PROSPER" ...Eduventures Inc. predicts that revenue for companies that provide postsecondary education will grow at an average rate of 14 percent a year through 2007. Annual revenue, in billions
2001 $10,249
2002 $11,649
2003 $13,455
2004 $15,384
2005 $17,586*
2006 $20,095*
2007 $23,084*
* Projections made in 2004
Note: Figures include publicly traded and privately held companies.
SOURCE: Eduventures Inc.


The use of federal grants and loans by students at for-profit colleges rose at an average annual rate of 32 percent from 2000 through 2004, based on data from the eight biggest publicly traded companies that rely on such aid.

Students' grants and loans at for-profit colleges in 2004, reached $4.3 billion.

The Trouble with Rankings

Much like rankings themselves, the following paragraphs are opinion. I provided a summary of some Internet sources and this link to college rankings. The link will tie you to a college rankings bibliography and commentary that attempts to balance views of various rankings systems.

This is the home page:

http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/rankoversy.htm

Many rankings services are listed at this page:

http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/rankgen.htm

It stands to reason that rankings are of little use without knowing criteria and methodology. For most purposes, only the most focused are personally helpful to but thanks to inter-University competition and for spurring magazine sales, they are widely quoted and many would say, misused.

Shanghai-Jiao University in China provides a respected ranking of the World’s Top 500 Universities in which Indiana University ranks 87th. These rankings are heavily influenced by the number of Nobel Laureates and by the number of awards in fields of study given to graduates and faculty; the other strong measure is publications, especially in science.

From China:
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm

Often quoted, and more volatile, are the rankings of U.S. News where Indiana ranks in the top 30 of Public Universities and about 74th among all universities; our Medical School is ranked at #45 for research based primarily upon the number of faculty engaged in research—a number that is to be increased by the Life Sciences Initiative now underway.

More meaningful is data from the Chronicle of Higher Education dealing with grants for research and size of endowments, two factors which drive program quality and expansion. Indiana University’s Foundation manages over $1 billion in assets and ranks about #50 among Universities and in the top 20 of Public Universities. By comparison, Harvard’s is over $24 billion and University of Michigan’s is nearly $5 billion.

The 2003 report on research grants had Johns Hopkins at $1,244,132,000, and the total for the top ten schools was $7.5 billion. Indiana was about #33 by one measure and #51 for Federal Research Grants that year. Indiana University has since improved its ranking and is focused on continuing to do so. Research dollars tend to be concentrated on a small list of schools: the sum of dollars at the top ten Universities is often as great as the total of the next thirty.

Indiana University has a number of top-ten ranked programs, a statistic that is more meaningful for students entering specific disciplines. The accompanying links and postings will provide access to those lists.

Founding Members of AAU

The Catholic University of America;-- Clark University (dropped out);--Columbia University;-- Cornell University; --Harvard University; --The Johns Hopkins University; --Princeton University; --Stanford University;-- University of California, --Berkeley; --University of Chicago;-- University of Michigan; --University of Pennsylvania; --University of Wisconsin, Madison; --Yale University

Of the original fourteen universities, eleven were private institutions and three were public. By 1909, eight more universities had joined, all of them public, making the composition of the organization half public and half private.

Indiana University joined the AAU in 1906 a few years after its founding. The list is approximately 60 Universities:

American Association of Universities
Members

Brandeis University
Brown University
California Institute of Technology
Carnegie Mellon University
Case Western Reserve University
Columbia University
Cornell University
Duke University
Emory University
Harvard University
Indiana University
Iowa State University
The Johns Hopkins University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
McGill University
Michigan State University
New York University
Northwestern University
The Ohio State University
The Pennsylvania State University
Princeton University
Purdue University
Rice University
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Stanford University
Stony Brook University-
State University of New York
Syracuse University
Texas A&M University
Tulane University
University at Buffalo, The State University of
New York
The University of Arizona
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Davis
University of California, Irvine
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, San Diego
University of California, Santa Barbara
University of Chicago
University of Colorado at Boulder
University of Florida
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
University of Missouri, Columbia
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Oregon
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pittsburgh
University of Rochester
University of Southern California
University of Texas at Austin
University of Toronto
University of Virginia
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Vanderbilt University
Washington University in St. Louis
Yale University

This is a summary from the link on your right from the AAU Report on Education and Innovation. Many of our panel already know of these problems. Below is a short article. For fuller treatment, several of the links on the right column deal with competition and economics. They also have significance for the State of Indiana's economy as we attempt to regain positions in non-commodity industries.

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

National Defense Education and Innovation Initiative

Meeting America’s Economic and Security
Challenges in the 21st century
Century
January 2006

Introduction

The United States has exercised global leadership in economic and security matters for more than 50 years, and the American people have experienced extraordinary security and economic progress as a result. But in this still-young century, the nation faces new challenges to both our security and our prosperity: the danger to our national and homeland security posed by terrorism, the increasing competitive pressure from the growing economies of Asia and elsewhere, and the threat to our economic and national security posed by dependence on Middle East oil. These challenges demand a dramatic, creative response. Yet they come at a time when the continuous innovation that has been the hallmark of America’s economic success and military prowess is threatened at its very foundation. Serious problems in our educational system and a weakening federal commitment to research in the physical sciences and engineering are eroding the nation’s innovative edge, with increasingly evident and alarming results.

Nearly 50 years ago, faced with similar challenges following the launch of
Sputnik by the Soviet Union, America responded by enacting the National
Defense Education Act and by multiplying the nation’s investment in
university-based research. . . . In that spirit, AAU calls on the Administration, Congress, and academia, with the help of the business sector, to implement a 21st Century National Defense Education and Innovation Initiative . . . now, so that it can be fully
in place by 2008 – the 50th anniversary of the National Defense
Education Act (NDEA) of 1958.

Key Recommendations for Universities and Colleges

A. Enhance Research and Innovation

Strengthen the connections between campus-based research and undergraduate education.

Establish interdisciplinary research and education initiatives that create new combinations of faculty, postdocs, and graduate and undergraduate students to address emerging national challenges.

Provide top young scientists and engineers – postdoctoral fellows (postdocs) and junior faculty – with independent research opportunities and funding to encourage novel thinking and research.

B. Cultivate American Talent

Identify and promote best practices and programs in undergraduate STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and foreign language education, especially those that address college freshman attrition and under-representation of minorities and women in STEM fields.

Continue reexamination of doctoral education, particularly in STEM and language disciplines, to develop ways to shorten time
to degree, improve completion rates, and broaden the scope of Ph.D. education.

Continue to establish and build on professional science masters programs that meet specific science and technical managerial
workforce needs identified by the federal government, business, and industry.

Provide more university research experiences for those training to be K-12 math and science teachers, and for current teachers.

Create accelerated teacher certification programs for individuals with STEM, foreign language, or area studies expertise.

Create and sustain stronger partnerships with school districts, state departments of education, and business that focus on training and retraining K-12 teachers to fill the current teacher skills and knowledge gaps in STEM and foreign language education.

C. Attract and Retain Foreign Talent

Continue to work with Congress and the Administration to combat the misperception that international students, scholars, scientists, and engineers are no longer welcome in the U.S. Continue to work with the Departments of State and Homeland Security to improve the visa process so that bona fide international students, scholars, scientists, and engineers can enter the U.S. in a secure, timely, and efficient manner.

Observations in the article (extracted)

The performance of American students in math and science declines as they reach higher grades and is significantly below that of many of our international competitors.

Asia and Europe are expanding their capacity to educate and train scientists and engineers, thereby increasing competition for the best and brightest students. Both have surpassed the U.S. in the number of science and engineering (S & E) doctoral degrees awarded (Figure II).
U.S.students are far less likely to earn undergraduate science or engineering degrees than those in other countries. In a list compiled
by the NSF, the U.S. ranked 16th out of 17 countries in the share of science and engineering degrees among all degrees awarded.
Cultivating Talent From the U.S.
In recent years, American students’ capacity to pursue scientific and technical degrees has declined.

U.S. 4th graders score well among nations in math and science testing but
they fall near the bottom by 12th grade.


This weakness also shows up at the post- secondary level. In 1966, American-born students earned 77 percent of science and engineering (S&E) Ph.D.s awarded in the U.S, while foreign-born students earned 23 percent. In 2000, the comparable numbers had dropped to 61 percent for U.S.-born students and risen to 39 percent for those from abroad.

U.S. universities have a problem with attrition of science and math students – too many of those who begin their undergraduate studies with the intention of majoring in the sciences or math leave these fields for others.

If this trend continues, by the year 2010, the share of the world’s science and engineering Ph.D.s produced by the U.S. will fall to approximately 15 percent, with China overtaking the U.S. in S&E doctoral production
and the European Union producing nearly twice as many S&E Ph.D.s as the U.S.

For the past 30 years, the U.S. has compensated for the tendency of American students to avoid science careers by attracting top students from abroad. In the past, these students have augmented the number of U.S. students. Today, augmentation has become dependency.
The nation cannot be assured that the flow of foreign students will continue. Even if it does, we still face a national security workforce crisis in which these foreign-born students are of little help. U.S. citizens are needed to fill security-related positions in the defense industry, the military, the national laboratories, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, the intelligence agencies, and other federal agencies.
Nearly one-third of the civilian STEM employees in the Department of Defense are eligible to retire right now.

In seven years, that percentage will more than double, with
nearly 70 percent eligible to retire. Moreover, at least 13,000 DOD laboratory scientists are projected to retire within the next decade.

Similar retirements are expected at the Department of Energy and NASA.

This demographic crisis comes at a time when national demand for STEM employees in both the public and private sectors is projected to rise 10 percent by 2010.

Defense industry organizations, including the National Defense
Industrial Association and the Aerospace Industries Association,report
the same trend among their member businesses and express concern
about the increasing need for scientists and engineers who are U.S.
citizens and can receive security clearances.

The Department of Defense is so alarmed about its workforce pipeline
that it has launched its own National Defense Education Act initiative
to educate, train, recruit, and retain U.S. citizens in skills and disciplines
needed to fulfill its national security mission.
15
These include not only science and engineering but also cultural and foreign language studies. It is also important to focus on the under-representation of minorities and women in STEM fields. We must find more effectiveways to attract minorities and women to science and engineering careers. We cannot afford to allow this rich and underutilized reservoir of American talent to go untapped.

Attracting the Best Talent From Abroad

America is fortunate that our colleges and universities have been historically the most desired destination for international students, scientists, and scholars. But because an insufficient number of American students have chosen STEM-related careers, our nation has become overly dependent upon talent from abroad. Nevertheless, while developing
U.S. talent will help restore a proper balance between U.S. and international talent – and is the primary focus of this Initiative – it is essential that America continue to attract and retain the best and brightest from around the world.

The supply of high-quality talent from abroad is at risk,however.Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, restrictive immigration procedures and onerous proposed export control rules have convinced many international students that they are no longer welcome here.

Universities abroad have begun to compete for them effectively. In recent years, the U.S. has seen a decline in the number of international students applying for and enrolling in American graduate programs.

We must do more to ensure that we continue to attract the most talented students, and we must do more to encourage them to remain here after graduation. Likewise, we need to continue to attract and retain the best scientists and engineers from around the world. One of the most important ways of accomplishing these goals is to enact policies that ease the
path of these graduates and professionals to permanent residency and U.S. citizenship.

This combination – insufficient numbers of American students prepared for STEM careers and fewer international students studying and then remaining to work in the United States – represents an ominous trend that has significant implications for America’s competitiveness.

An effective American response to these challenges must employ the teaching and research capacities of our nation’s Universities and colleges.

The Changing Student Population: Milleniums (Generation-Y)

A random list of opinions and studies on the characteristics of different student eras.
Which of these student characteristics, if true, will most change student-faculty dynamics?

1. Baby Boomers: Optimistic, Driven. Regarding Authority: ambivalent. Leadership by consensus. Relationships: personal gratification. Turnoffs: Political incorrectness

2. Generation X: Skeptical, Balanced, Unimpressed by authority. Leadership by competence. Relationships: reluctant to commit. Turnoffs: cliché, hype.

3. Gen-Y: Millenials: Hopeful, determined. Authority: polite. Leadership: pulling together. Relationships: inclusive; appear to conform, but conformity includes tattoos or green hair. Activity: On the go, they expect things to be fast and convenient. Turnoffs: promiscuity. Coddled from birth, parents remain highly involved in their lives. Multitaskers: thrive on variety. Socially: Interested in volunteerism: 93% anticipate volunteering as adults; enjoy the immediate impact.

4. Millenial Attiributes: (7): Conventional, Confident, Special, Sheltered, Pressured, Achieving, Team oriented.

5. Background: Older parents, smaller families, more firstborns (40%), More parental education (a quarter have one parent with 4 year college degree or higher), reduced divorce rate.

6. Experience: 4.5 hours less free play, 2 hours less television, 1 hr 40 min less time talking and eating, 1 hour less in church. ALL PER WEEK

7. Experience: Increases: studying, organized sports

8. 34% of Millenial Generation are Black, Hispanic, Asian or Native American. 89% of them have been on-line.

9. Important Demographic: Millenials: LARGE, 100 million including immigrants. 33% larger than Boomers.

The data below have been taken from various IU publications and other sources thought to be accurate. Questions and assumptions are open to your interpretation. Feel free to challenge any assumptions.

Data Sheet: Summarized Information
More complete data available on hyperlink

Indiana University Budget Summary

Published 2005-2006 Budget link http://newsinfo.iu.edu/pub/libs/images/usr/828_h.pdf

Source of Funds: All Funds: $2,242,389,000
Auxillary 15.4%
Contracts 17.6%
Medical Practice. 5%
Restricted 4.5%
General 57.6%


Breakdown of General Category: 57.6%

State 39.9% (State allocation is 22.9% of All Funds)
Indirect Cost Recovery 4.2%
Other 3.65
Student 52.3% (Student fee/tuition is 30.1% of All Funds)

Use of Funds:

Staff Salary 20%
Academ.Sal. 29%
Scholarship 7%
Library 2.5%
Other 25%

Assumptions for baseline budget:

1. Income: State allocation, no change;
2. Enrollment IUB same, IUPUI +5%; Regional same
3. Fees +5% baseline and best case, worst case +4%;
4. Indirect Cost Recovery 2% baseline (best case 5% ,worst 0%)
(This is Federal reimbursement for research costs)
5. Expense: Salary increase 4.5% yearly; Health 8% annually x 2 years; Retirement 4.5%; Energy +30% year one, +3% year two; General inflation +3%.

GAP Analysis:

From baseline using these assumptions we are $100 million short over 10 years
From Best case -$50 milion
Baseline budget: -$100 million
From Worst case - $350 million
(*note sensitivity of model to tuition changes)

Possible New Spending above baseline:

Faculty salary pressure
Faculty retirement: (55% will retire in 5 years)
New Faculty
Economic Development
Research Support
Scholarship for Top Prospects
Costs of Mission Differentiation
State Funding Questions: Repair and Rhabilitation deficits (now near $100 million)
New buildings, bonding capacity, Capital Projects, Tuition Freezes

STATE OF INDIANA constraints:

Medicaid uses $1 of every $7
K-12 education increased costs
Property Tax Relief
Deferred Maintenance schools and elsewhere
? Balanced state budget/ economy

Student Fee and Tuitition Costs:

Question: Leveling of Regional Campus Growth