sign in sign up
<<
Home , Duane Nellis, Texas Tech University

2010-2020 Making itPossible... TECHUNIVERSI S trategic Plan T Y

2013-2014 REPORT

CONTENTS

Letter from President M. 2

The 2013 Report Implementing Texas Tech’s 2010-2020 Strategic Plan: “Making it possible...” 4

Background & Report on Progress 4

Progress Toward Goals 5

Priority 1: Increase Enrollment and Promote Student Success 7

Priority 2: Strengthen Academic Quality & Reputation 10

Priority 3: Expand and Enhance Research and Creative Scholarship 12

Priority 4: Further Outreach and Engagement 14

Priority 5: Increase and Maximize Resources 16

Appendices 18

Appendix 1: Priority 1 18

Appendix 2: Priority 2 20

Appendix 3: Priority 3 22

Appendix 4: Priority 4 24

Appendix 5: Priority 5 26

Appendix 6: NSF 28

Appendix 7: Progress Toward AAU Characteristics 29 As continues its path toward becoming more AAU-like, it is essential we address our goals and strategies to ensure a consistent gradual transition. While an important piece in the early stages of our strategic plan was the distinction of becoming a National (NRU) in the state of Texas, now that we have achieved that status, our focuses must be reviewed to meet the ever-changing climate of higher education and adjusted, if necessary, to accommodate future growth. Within the pages of this strategic plan are alterations–some modest, others more grand–to assist Texas Tech in moving forward.

Since receiving NRU status and benefiting nearly $8 million annually from the National Research University Fund, Texas Tech has bolstered its research funding and has dramatically increased its research and academic profiles nationally. Our peers are recognizing Texas Tech’s presence in the research and academic communities. We are accomplishing this through enhanced outreach efforts, including collaborations with other universities, both in the United States and abroad, and through partnerships with industry leaders such as Bayer CropScience

The content of this strategic plan presents a road map toward future successes and offers a brief reflection from where we’ve come. Texas Tech’s sights are set firmly on the future as a national research university, while riding and building upon our past successes.

M. Duane Nellis President, Texas Tech University

2 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY 2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 3 The Dr. Provost and Senior Vice President, 2013-2014 Texas Tech University Report

Implementing Texas Tech’s 2010-2020 Strategic Plan: “Making it possible…”

BACKGROUND & REPORT ON PROGRESS

Texas Tech University (TTU) In 2009, the Legislature not only a distinguished faculty noted for its received official notification in 2012 provided for the creation of the scholarship and creative activity, from the Texas Higher Education NRUF, they also established the and enroll an excellent student Coordinating Board and State Texas Research Incentive Program body. In addition, these schools Auditor’s Office that it had met the (TRIP) to provide additional funding typically appear in the list of top necessary criteria to receive a share for the eight Emerging Research Uni- research universities published by of the state’s National Research Uni- versities (ERU). Since the inception the Center for Measuring University versity Fund (NRUF). Since then the of that program, the legislature has Performance (CMUP), have excellent university has focused on the next set aside $153 million dollars for graduate programs as recognized by phase of Texas Tech’s evolution: use as matching of gifts that support the National Research Council rank- enhancing our position as a great research activities. So far, Texas Tech ings, are characterized as ‘very high teaching and research university University has received over $55 research’ by the Carnegie Foundation while achieving the characteristics million in TRIP matching, more than for the Advancement of Education, of what are generally regarded as any other ERU. and rank well in outlets such as the Tier One universities. U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) Although there is no universally Best Colleges annual rankings. Attaining NRUF status was an agreed-upon set of criteria for what Whereas many institutions regarded extremely important milestone for constitutes a ‘Tier One’ university, as Tier One are not members of the the university. As a result of being this distinction is used to describe Association of American Universities NRUF-certified, TTU now receives schools that award large numbers of (AAU), certainly membership in the approximately $8 million each year doctoral degrees, receive hundreds AAU is a recognized distinction of to enhance the research enterprise. of millions in research dollars, have Tier One institutions.

4 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS

This 2013-2014 update of “Making » Move higher in the National Sci- • Phase II indicators include it possible…” contains tables that ence Foundation’s (NSF) ranking assessment of competitive document the university’s progress of research universities. The most funding from the United States toward its goal of enhancing our recent available data indicates TTU Department of Agriculture, stature as a great national research ranks 64th in earned doctorates state and industrial research university. In addition to these tables (415 institutions ranked); 77th in partners; characteristics of are sets of key strategies and key full time graduate students (among challenges, along with any adjust- 554 institutions); 125th in total advanced doctoral education ments to goals and/or targets. The R&D expenditures (653 ranked) efforts, including number of appendices contain benchmark data and 162 in total federal obligations Ph.D. degrees awarded by comparing TTU to 56 of its national (1,128 ranked). (See Appendix 7.) discipline; number of postdoc- peers and the other seven Emerging toral appointees; and quality Research Universities in Texas, TTU’s » Show improvement in the Asso- and diversity of undergradu- performance in areas monitored by ciation of American Universities’ the National Science Foundation, ate programs. (AAU) performance indices. and CMUP data that provides a comparison with AAU members. » Improve the scope and quality of • Membership in the AAU is graduate programs ranked by the based on a set of indicators As TTU continues to move toward National Research Council. used to assess current and Tier One status, we will be especially potential new members. focused on the following priorities: What are known membership » Move upward in U.S. News and indicators (Phase I and Phase World Report annual rankings » Maintain our designation as a Com- II) constitute the first stage of national universities. In 2014, munity Engaged University, as clas- of membership assessment. sified by the Carnegie Foundation Texas Tech was ranked 88th among Phase I includes assessment for the Advancement of Teaching. public institutions, while ranking of competitively funded 161st overall. federal research support as » Continue efforts that will position defined through the National Texas Tech as a national exem- » Grow National Academy member- Science Foundation (NSF), plar of retention, persistence, ship among faculty. Following the and graduation of students. United States Department addition of three National Academy of Agriculture funding that of Engineering hires in 2013, we » Maintain our national recogni- can be separately identified now have four faculty in a National tion as an institution of higher and reported, and Higher education with an ethnically Education Research and Academy. This would rank TTU diverse student body. Development (HERD) survey 60th among public universities in data system. Also important the latest CMUP figures (2012). » Improve Texas Tech’s current are faculty memberships in the national academies: designation as a High Research » Continue to increase in the number National Academy of Science University by the Carnegie Founda- of doctoral degrees awarded. In tion for the Advancement of Educa- (NAS), National Academy of 2013, 306 doctoral degrees were tion. The institution’s classification Engineering (NAE), Institute conferred, which would rank TTU will be renewed in 2016, when it of Medicine (IOM), and the is anticipated that Texas Tech will National Academies’ National in the top 60 universities for doc- move into the foundation’s highest Research Council (NRC) fac- torates awarded in the 2012 CMUP classification – Very High Research. ulty quality ranking. report figures (2011).

2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 5 In addition to the above bench- rate to 90%, through an aggressive The university continues to pro- marks, Texas Tech University would retention and success campaign. mote and encourage a diverse and greatly enhance its national stature multicultural environment. Of the by improving indicators that reflect TTU is in the process of implement- 33,111 students enrolled in fall student success. ing a wide range of strategies to 2013, record numbers of Hispanic enhance student success. These (6,308) and African-American This past fall TTU had 33,111 initiatives include: (2,044) students were enrolled students enrolled with 5,427 at the and made up 25% of the student graduate level. TTU’s fall freshman » Participating in the nationally rec- population. Additionally, Hispanic student class was one of the most ognized Education Advisory Board’s enrollment accounted for 19% of the total enrollment. academically talented ever, based Student Success Collaborative. upon an average SAT score of 1115 Diversity awards and recognitions and an average ACT score of 25. » Developing a centralized mecha- nism for monitoring retention. recently received by TTU include the Higher Education Excellence in While freshman selectivity has Diversity Award in 2012 and 2013, improved during the past decade, » Implementing continuous moni- the Champion of Diversity Award in more needs to be done to enroll an toring of the effectiveness of advis- 2014 from the American Association even greater share of the best and ing and early intervention actions. for Affirmative Action, and was hon- brightest undergraduate and gradu- ored by the American Association of » Providing academic colleges and ate student talent. TTU’s six-year University Women as one of seven departments predictive analytics graduation rate is 62% and one-year schools that empower women. retention rate is 82%. The univer- as a tool to reduce attrition. sity falls short of the corresponding To reach a broader segment of » Providing new opportunities peer averages of 72% and 88%. nontraditional students and to for residential and distance stu- Texas Tech has recently committed provide convenience to residential dents, through the development, to improving its six-year graduation students, TTU will continue to design and delivery of high qual- rate to 70% and one-year retention expand TTU Worldwide eLearning. ity online and distance degree The university has developed a and certificate programs. number of distinctive, successful online programs, including a grad- Improving financial aid and » uate engineering degree program, scholarship opportunities. which is ranked 20th in the latest U.S. News & World Report rankings » Enhancing student orientation with of online programs. early advising experiences that include improved course selection As a result of a decentralized and best fit major selection. approach to hiring, TTU was able to hire more than 130 faculty » Enhancing student participation members during FY13. These new in active learning opportuni- faculty additions resulted in an ties, including but not limited improved student-to-faculty ratio to internships, service learning, of 20:1 as compared to 24:1 in the undergraduate research, and prior year (IPED Data) and con- study abroad opportunities. tributed to the quality of the TTU faculty. Also of significance was the » Implementing individual devel- hiring of three National Academy opment plans to enhance career of Engineering members, and the preparation for graduate stu- fact that TTU led the nation with dents and postdoctoral scholars. 10 Fulbright Scholars in 2013.

6 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY PRIORITY 1 Increase Enrollment and Promote Student Success

Goals/Source 2012 2013 Target 2013 Actual 2014 Target 2015 Target 2020 Target

Increase Enrollment

Fall Total Enrollment (IPEDS) 32,467 33,330 33,111 34,022 35,000 40,000 Undergraduate Enrollment (IPEDS) 26,481 27,832 27,044 27,700 28,385 32,000 Fall Full-time Student Equivalent (THECB) 28,357 28,924 28,705 29,861 34,000 Fall First-time, Full-time Freshmen (IPEDS) 4,494 4,583 4,725 4,800 4,800 Fall Freshmen Median of 25-75th Percentile R 500-590 R 490-590 R 490-590 R 500-590 R 500-600 R 510-610 SAT Range and ACT (reading and math) M 520-620 M 520-610 M 520-620 M 520-620 M 520-620 M 520-620 (Composite) (IPEDS) 22-27 22-27 22-27 22-27 22-27 22-27 Freshmen in Top 25% of Texas High School 51.9% 52.0% 55.5% 52.3% 52.5% 55.0% Class (THECB) Fall Total Transfer Students from Texas w/ At 6,025 6,166 6,128 6,300 6,500 7,500 least 30 credit hours (THECB) Fall Total Graduate and Law Students (IPEDS) 5,986 6,735 6,067 6,500 7,100 8,000 Promote Student Success

One-year Retention Rate (IPEDS) 81.0% 81.5% 82.0% 82.5% 83.0% 84.0% Two-year Retention Rate (THECB) 70.1% 71.5% 70.7% 71.3% 72.0% 75.0%

Four-Year Graduation Rate (IPEDS) 35.3% 35.0% 33.0% 35.0% 37.0% 40.0% Six-year Graduation Rate (IPEDS) 62.0% 62.6% 59.0% 62.0% 63.0% 65.0% Four-year Graduation Rate for Transfer Students From Texas w/ at least 30 credit 57.9% 58.0% 55.6% 60.0% 70.0% hours (THECB) Master’s Graduation Rate (THECB) 72.0% 72.0% 70.0% 72.0% 75.0% 80.0% Doctoral Graduation Rate (THECB) 62.4% 63.0% 59.8% 62.0% 70.0% 75.0% Total Doctorates Awarded (IPEDS) 254 270 283 310 312 320 Total Degrees Awarded Annually (IPEDS) 6,904 7,000 7,149 7,200 7,280 8,000 Diversity of Student Body Progress Toward Hispanic Serving Institution Status (Undergraduate FTE of 25% Hispanic 18.93% 20.00% 19.04% 21.00% 25.00% students) (IR) Total International Students (IPEDS) 2,148 2,291 2,470 2,860 4,715 Progress Toward State of Texas Diversity State/TTU State/TTU State/TTU State/TTU State/TTU (THECB) African American Multi-racial, one of which is African American 13.3%/6.4% 11.9%/5.3% 13.1%/6.2% 11.9%/6.5% 12.0%/6.0% 12.3%/7.8% Hispanic 44.0%/20.0% 30.1%/17.9% 44.8%/ 20.6% 31.5%/20.7% 32.8%/20.8% 39.6%/27.9% Asian 3.7%/2.7% 6.6%/2.8% 3.9%/2.8% 6.6%/3.0% 6.7%/3.2% 7.0%/4.2%

2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 7 Key Strategies

1. Continue to implement student 3. Establish country and region- 8. Continue developing the disser- success initiatives to improve reten- specific strategies to enhance interna- tation completion fellowship program tion and persistence that include: tional student enrollment. that allows students near the end of their degree programs to work full time on dissertation research, thereby a. Enhancing academic advising 4. Develop strategies to recruit training and resources, the use of facilitating degree completion. TTUISD students to TTU, both predictive analytics, course-level domestic and international. Utilize trend assessments, and college- 9. Grow graduate school endow- our existing presence in Brazil and centered interventions. ments that provide supplements to expand efforts throughout South departmental stipends and to launch a new presidential fellowship program b. Implementing an institution- and Central America, China, India, aimed at attracting the highest caliber wide early alert retention system and Korea. applicants by providing nationally for at-risk student populations. competitive stipends. 5. Seek increased funding for aca- c. Providing opportunities for demic scholarships for undergraduate 10. Continue to expand the efforts undecided and undeclared stu- and graduate students. of TTU Worldwide eLearning in dents to explore a variety of aca- the development of online courses demic majors based on personal 6. Review and assess enrollment for residential and nonresidential interests and career preferences. services as well as academic and students and academic programs at student support. regional sites. d. Supporting special services for the transfer student population. 11. Create a culture of “one-stop- 7. Transition to Recruiter and source” for information and services DegreeWorks platforms in order to 2. Intensify efforts to reach for international students with coor- Hispanic-Serving Institution status by streamline admission and student dination of recruitment, immigration 2020, and increase enrollments that record management of graduate services, admission, retention, and reflect the diversity of the state. students. alumni relations.

Key Challenges

1. Persistence and graduation of and instructional space to accom- 7. Optimizing faculty assignments all students. modate growing enrollment. and workloads to meet increasing enrollment demands and research and scholarly expectations. 2. Need for increased undergradu- 5. Retaining high-performing staff ate merit-based scholarships funds. with key skills that support institu- 8. Faculty participation in recruit- tional priorities. ment, retention, and academic sup- 3. Need for greater institutional port initiatives. resources for graduate student 6. Need for greater administra- support. 9. Implementing a seamless opera- tive structure to assist the faculty tional structure to handle all aspects 4. Funding for facility renovation in the coordination of outreach and of international student recruitment that includes research space, studios, engagement. and enrollment.

8 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY 2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 9 PRIORITY 2 Strengthen Academic Quality & Reputation

Goals/Source 2012 2013 Target 2013 Actual 2014 Target 2015 Target 2020 Target

Increase Enrollment Faculty Receiving Nationally Recognized 7 11 13 13 13 15 Awards (VPR) National Academy Members 1 3 2 5 5 7 (CMUP/Provost’s Offce) Faculty Development Leaves (Provost’s Offce) 36 39 37 70 90

Teaching Excellence Full-time Student Equivalent to Full-time 24:1 21:1 20:1* 19:1 19:1 20:1 Faculty Equivalent FTSE - FTFE (IPEDS) Percent of Undergraduate Classes w/19 or 22.6% 24.0% 24.3% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% Fewer Student (CDS) Percent of Undergraduate Classes w/50 or 25.0% 22.0% 20.3% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% More Students (CDS) International and National Professional 481 N/A 290 TBD TBD Leadership Roles (TTU DigitalMeasures)

Number of Nationally Recognized Programs Nationally Recognized Programs 14 15 16 35 (Provost’s Offce) National Academic Championships, Team 5 7 10 20 (Provost’s Offce)

* Changes in IPEDS reporting catagories require staff who are teaching to be counted as faculty.

Key Strategies

1. Promote, cultivate, and sup- according to both research and clusters associated with strategic port applications for prestigious educational strategic initiatives, research priorities. national faculty awards, fellow- while also addressing student- ships, and scholarships, particularly faculty ratios. 5. Maximize existing strategies those tracked by the Center for Measuring University Performance and implement new approaches for 3. Develop a coherent institu- and the Texas Higher Education retaining high-performing faculty. tional plan and resources to accom- Coordinating Board and codify the modate dual career faculty. list of recognitions that are eligible 6. Track faculty retention rate by for special financial considerations. 4. Continue special faculty department and college and imple- 2. Maximize resources to recruitment initiatives focused on ment a more uniform and system- continue hiring needed faculty outstanding mid-career hires and atic faculty exit interview process.

10 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY 7. Continue to bring faculty salaries 11. Increase support for graduate National Scholarships and Interna- across the board to competitive levels students by exploring additional tional Scholarships and Fellowships with peer and aspirant institutions. fee and tuition waivers as well as that promote and cultivate the enhanced opportunities for univer- application for prestigious national 8. Maximize the utilization of sity fellowships and scholarships. student awards. endowed professorships and chairs.

12. Increase availability and 14. Support the role of the Teach- 9. Develop a staff mentorship awareness for opportunities in ing Academy to facilitate dialogue program. undergraduate research, service about campus teaching excellence

10. Continue the President’s learning, internships and practi- and faculty-student engagement. Leadership Institute and expand cums, and studies abroad. opportunities for faculty and staff 15. Increase the number of nationally development that prepare them for 13. Continue to expand the recognized graduate programs in the administrative leadership positions. services offered by the Office of National Research Council rankings.

Key Challenges

1. Funding to markedly improve 3. Matching endowment scholar- 5. Departmental culture that current salaries while also funding ship agreements with program needs diminishes contributions to scholar- new faculty lines. and priorities. ship, teaching, and outreach and engagement in decisions related to 2. Consistent and rigorous annual 4. Deferred maintenance and facil- faculty assessments to identify fac- promotion and tenure. ulty members deserving of merit and ity allocation that impacts research other productivity based support. and teaching needs.

2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 11 PRIORITY 3 Expand and Enhance Research and Creative Scholarship

Goals/Source 2012 2013 Target 2013 Actual 2014 Target 2015 Target 2020 Target

Increase Enrollment Total Research Expenditures (THECB) $132.54 M $145 M $137.56 M $145 M $152 M $200 M Total Research Expenditures (NSF) $138 M $150 M $143 M $152 M $200 M Restricted Research Expenditures (THECB) $46.1 M $50 M $40.7 M $45 M $50M $65 M Federal Research Expenditures (NSF) $29.97 $40 M $28.8 M $30 M $33 M $70 M Federal & Private Research Expenditures per $55,579 $77,500 $47,995 $55,500 $58,000 $90,000 Faculty Full-yime Equivalent (THECB) NSF Awards (NSF) $5.4 M $18 M $7.2M $10 M $24 M $40 M NIH Awards (NIH) $2.7 M $8 M $3.3 M $4 M $12 M $22M Ph.D. Research Assistantships on Externally 364 400 322 550 800 Funded Awards (VPR) New Invention Disclosures (R&C) 52 54 57.5 68 75 120 Number of New Collaborative Research 2 5 2 5 6 10 Projects between TTU and TTUHSC (VPR) Proposals Submitted (OVPR) 929 1,150 891 930 1,000 1,500 Research Space in Square Feet (Operations) 490,015 520,000 431,406 510,000 550,000 700,000 Post-doctorates (NSF and CMUP) N/A N/A 101 150 200

Scholarly Productivity

Digital Measures* Papers/Publications (Reviewed/Refereed) 1,259 1,327 Papers/Publications (Other) 1,025 952 Creative/Performance (Juried) 269 216 N/A N/A N/A N/A Creative/Performance (Other) 572 641 Books/Book Chapters (Reviewed/Refereed) 99 142 Books/Book Chapters (Other) 89 115 International and National Presentations 1,054 1,166 Web of Science** 1,556 N/A 1,633 N/A N/A N/A Scopus*** 70 N/A 55 N/A N/A N/A

* Data from faculty self-reporting and may not include all faculty. ** Databases: Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Current Chemical Reactions, Index Chemicus *** Database: Social Sciences & Humanities

Key Strategies

1. Increase extramural funding by: b. Enhancing partnerships with c. Utilizing the newly established federal agencies, national International Research and a. Increasing submission of pro- laboratories, corporations, Development Division in the posals to federal agencies and foundations, state agencies, Office of International Affairs extramural sponsors other U.S. universities, and to partner with international international universities institutions and agencies that

12 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY identify future collaborative 2. Increase graduate student facilities” and implementing appro- funding opportunities. support by: priate facility use fees, appropriate staffing, and maintenance funds for d. Expanding college and depart- a. Increasing the number of gradu- service contracts, equipment repair, mental support for proposal ate students and postdoctoral and replacement capitalization. development and post-award scholars that submit fellowship administration applications to external entities 6. Develop a plan for phased-in renovation of space for the varied e. Supporting large multidis- b. Developing mechanisms to components of art, music, theatre, ciplinary, multi-institutional encourage greater inclusion and dance. of research assistantships in research partnerships that pur- externally funded grants and sue major funding opportunities 7. Encourage entrepreneurial contracts to support graduate activity and innovation and students f. Promoting opportunities for continue to develop plans for increased collaborations for the Research Park and its role in c. Continuing to provide insti- research with state and national support of commercialization and tutional funds that support organizations/associations startup incubation. graduate student recruitment through the regional center at and retention Junction and the Llano River 8. Continue to support under- Field Station 3. Enhance recognition of cre- graduate research initiative fund- ative and scholarly work in arts ing through the Center for Active g. Expanding the faculty proposal and humanities. Learning and Undergraduate development program, the young Engagement (CALUE). investigator forum, and the edito- 4. Continue the Creative Arts, rial and proposal review services Humanities, and Social Sciences 9. Promote and support a safety Proposal Stimulus Program culture that emphasizes training h. Actively coordinating central and compliance, including the administration and college 5. Develop a standardized establishment of health and safety support to promote more university policy for managing committees in colleges, centers, or cross-disciplinary and transdis- research instrumentation by maxi- departments as suited to disciplin- ciplinary research mizing and maintaining “shared ary complexity.

Key Challenges

1. Resources for start-up funds 3. Low per capita faculty research 5. Need for uniform policies that for new faculty hires. expenditures. govern use and maintenance of core facilities and shared services. 2. Quantifying and reporting 4. Funding for renovations and indicators of creative and scholarly research laboratory maintenance. 6. Low percentage of faculty sub- work in the humanities and arts. mitting proposals to external entities.

2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 13 PRIORITY 4 Further Outreach and Engagement

Goals/Source 2012 2013 Target 2013 Actual 2014 Target 2015 Target 2020 Target

Increase Enrollment Total non-TTU Attendees and Participants in 174,300 250,000 356,820 300,000 300,000 350,000 TTU Outreach and Engagement Activities K-12 Students and Teachers Participating in 118,002 200,000 172,794 175,000 200,000 250,000 TTU Outreach and Engagement Activities Total Funding Generated by TTU Institutional and Multi-institutional Outreach and $ 40.5 M $ 40.0 M $ 54 M $40M $50M $60 M Engagement Activities (non-TTU sources; may include duplicated sums) Total # of Hours Faculty were Involved in TTU 21,468 47,000 69,822 50,000 51,875 60,000 Outreach and Engagement Activities Total # of Hours Staff were Involved in 91,448 165,000 180,444 170,000 178,000 200,000 Outreach and Engagement Activities Total students involved in Designated Service Learning Courses (may include duplicated 1,165 3,800 863 4,000 5,000 headcount) (IR) Total Student Volunteer Hours TBD TBD (DUESA-OrgSync) Total Non-TTU Partners Involved in TTU 164 750 634 650 750 850 Outreach and Engagement Activities Number of Performances, Exhibitions, 841 819 850 1000 Scholarly, and Educational Outreach Activities

Economic Impact on State and Region State-wide Impact $2.28 B $2.44 B N/A $2.59 B $3.24 B Economic Impact on the $1.92 B $2.05 B N/A $2.17 B $2.73 B Region2 Annual contribution to the Texas workforce by $3.73 B $3.98 B N/A $4.54 B $6.36 B graduates of Texas Tech (TTUS) Total Jobs Created State-wide from TTU Operations, Employees, Research, Students, 21,791 23,260 N/A 24,828 31,596 University-related Visitors and Red Raider Home Football Games Total Household Income Created from TTU Operations, Employees, Research, Students, $916 M $977.65 M N/A $1.04 B $1.30 B University-related Visitors and Red Raider Home Football Games (TTUS)

14 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY Key Strategies

1. Establish a common definition 4. Promote and develop engaged faculty, staff and student recog- and understanding of outreach, scholarship by: nitions such as the Integrated engagement, and international Scholars series, President’s development at TTU that empha- a. Developing a Small Grants Excellence in Diversity and sizes collaboration among institu- Program for faculty and staff to Equity Award, TLPDC Spotlight tions of higher education and encourage and promote engage- Awards and Teaching Academy their larger communities (local, ment and outreach. awards, and other university- regional/state, national, global). wide recognitions. b. Defining and promoting the 2. Develop unified and standard- value of engaged research, 5. Increase and enhance partner- ize communication, both internally international development, ships with TTU System institutions, other institutions, recognized and externally, that highlight TTU’s high quality teaching in the regional teaching sites and centers, community outreach and engage- community and the classroom, and community partners around ment programs as well as faculty, internships, and study abroad. targeted outreach and engagement staff and student engagement activities. activities. c. Increasing credit for engagement in the operating policies regard- 6. Improve national recognition 3. Offer institution-wide faculty, ing promotion and tenure and in engaged scholarship through staff and student awards for faculty evaluation. greater involvement in interna- engagement and encourage col- tional, national, and regional orga- lege and departmental awards for d. Highlighting Engaged Scholars nizations that promote and support engagement. via feature web site and annual engagement in higher education.

Key Challenges

7. Lack of understanding of the service learning and international 14. Departmental attitudes that various types of outreach and/or development. diminish contributions to outreach engagement, for example faculty- and engagement in decisions student engagement, faculty and/ 10. Limited coordination and related to promotion and tenure. or student community outreach, communication about engagement community engagement, institu- efforts across TTU. 15. Limited incentives for students tional outreach and/or engage- to participate in engagement. ment. 11. Lack of reliable means to mea- sure outcomes and impacts. 16. Need to accommodate com- 8. Inadequate means of commu- munity partners’ ability to schedule nicating the value of TTU’s engage- 12. Limitations in identifying suf- ment to distinct constituent groups. ficient and sustainable funding to and provide access to TTU faculty, support major action steps. staff, and students engaging in 9. Limited staff and resources community participation. dedicated to supporting TTU’s 13. Identifying key engagement engagement work, including stakeholders.

2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 15 PRIORITY 5 Increase and Maximize Resources

Goals/Source 2012 2013 Target 2013 Actual 2014 Target 2015 Target 2020 Target

Increase Enrollment Total Student Credit Hours (THECB) 871,311 888,737 870,073 875,000 900,000 950,000 Total Weighted Student Credit Hours (IR) 2.11 M 2.15 M 2.14 M 2.15 M 2.16 M 2.3 M Administrative Cost as % of Operating 6.1% 6.0% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% Budget (THECB) Total Endowment (TTUS) $490 M $511 M $546 M $600 M $660 M $1 B Total Budgeted Revenue (CFO) $677.60 M $723.94 M $723.94 M $783.3 M $783.3 M $800 M Classroom Space Usage Effciency 83 93 83 83 87 90 Score (THECB) Operating Expense per Full-time Equivalent $17,065 $17,406 $17,558 $17,750 $18,000 $19,000 Student (THECB) License/Option Agreements (TTUS) 3 4 9 8 14 20 Gross License Revenue (R&C) $191,000 $225,000 $369,000 $393,000 $500,000 $1.2 M Total Funds Raised Annually (CMUP) $78 M $125 M $ 116 M $125 M $125 M $150 M Total Fall Instructional Faculty 1,413 1,350 1,490 1,500 1,787 Equivalent (IPEDS) Total FTE Staff (IPEDS) 3,142 3,060 3,052 3,280 3,580 Total Headcount Teaching Assistants (THECB) 1,220 1,118 1,456 1,290 1,719

Key Strategies

1. Ensure that courses are coded 4. Target highly productive faculty 7. Adopt a formal university spou- correctly to increase relative weight with a proactive retention program. sal accommodation policy to aid in for maximizing formula funding. recruiting and retaining dual career 5. Market career development faculty members. 2. Clarify and implement an tracks for staff, encouraging the incentivizing budget model that pro- utilization of a pool of staff develop- 8. Expand the use of core facilities vides opportunities for growth and ment funds to enhance staff career for large research instrumentation rewards efficiency and excellence. progression opportunities. serving multiple users.

3. Advocate for competitive ben- 6. Conduct a study for the demand 9. Continue to look for cost effi- efit packages particularly related to and feasibility of childcare programs ciencies within all colleges, depart- insurance coverage for faculty. for faculty, staff, and students. ments and divisions, and for ways

16 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY to reallocate funds from peripheral that directly support the teaching areas to the core missions of teaching and research missions. and research. 12. Work with Human Resources 10. Continue to increase recycling to ensure that faculty members are and sustainability efforts on campus aware of currently underutilized

11. Conduct a comprehensive benefits, such as personal financial review of all levels of research and planning seminars and Employee academic space renovation needs Assistance Programs.

Key Challenges

1. Salary compression for both 5. Maintenance and repair costs faculty and staff. on existing facilities and equipment.

2. The need for a central mecha- 6. A lack of funding through nism for obtaining and aggregating Tuition Revenue Bonds for large specific data related to faculty and construction projects. staff resignations. 7. The need to address staffing to 3. Maximizing the efficient use of support a larger faculty. existing space. 8. Fostering more collaborative 4. Limitations in providing interactions between Institutional proper career planning and oppor- Advancement and Texas Tech tunities for staff. University.

2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 17 18 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY TECH TEXAS Appendix 1 PRIORITY 1 Graduate Student Increase Enrollment Enrollment as a % of First Year 6-Year Total Degrees SAT Range (V,Q) and Promote Student Success Fall Enrollment Total Enrollment1 Retention Rate Graduation Rate Awarded (Annual) or ACT Range

TTU and Peer Institutions Fall 2012 Fall 2012 Fall 2011-Fall 2012 Fall 2006 Cohort FY2012 Fall 2012 73,378 19.07% 80% 59% 19,153 480-610, 490-630 Auburn University 25,134 19.73% 90% 66% 5,939 530-630, 550-650 Clemson University 20,768 20.25% 91% 76% 4,732 550-650, 590-680 40,695 20.95% 91% 74% 11,074 560-640, 560-640 Georgia Institute of Technology 21,557 32.61% 95% 80% 5,288 600-690, 660-760 Indiana University - Bloomington 42,133 23.17% 88% 71% 10,940 510-620, 540-660 30,748 16.90% 86% 70% 6,467 480-630, 520-660 24,378 18.56% 80% 60% 4,819 Louisiana State University - Baton Rouge 30,225 18.52% 83% 59% 6,479 500-610, 530-630 Michigan State University 48,783 23.43% 91% 77% 11,338 430-580, 540-680 Mississippi State University 20,365 19.52% 81% 58% 4,010 470-610, 490-620 North Carolina State University 34,340 27.68% 92% 73% 8,501 530-620, 560-660 - Columbus 56,387 23.64% 92% 78% 15,702 540-650, 610-710 Oklahoma State University - Stillwater 25,708 20.95% 79% 59% 5,391 490-590, 510-620 26,363 17.28% 83% 60% 5,381 470-600, 490-620 Pennsylvania State University - University Park 45,783 14.40% 92% 85% 13,224 530-630, 560-670 - West Lafayette 40,393 22.55% 90% 69% 10,355 510-620, 550-680 - New Brunswick 40,434 21.87% 91% 77% 9,443 520-630, 560-680 Texas A&M University 50,627 20.79% 92% 80% 11,989 520-640, 560-670 Texas Tech University 32,327 19.38% 82% 60% 6,301 490-590, 520-610 The - Tuscaloosa 33,503 16.35% 85% 67% 6,533 500-620, 500-640 The - Knoxville 29,833 29.89% 85% 60% 7,512 530-640, 530-650 The University of Texas - Austin 52,186 23.44% 93% 80% 14,013 550-670, 580-710 40,223 21.52% 80% 60% 8,884 480-600, 490-620 University of Arkansas - Fayetteville 24,537 17.06% 81% 58% 4,590 500-610, 520-630 - Berkeley 35,893 28.19% 96% 91% 11,051 600-720, 650-770 University of California - Los Angeles 39,945 30.05% 96% 90% 11,717 560-690, 610-740 University of Colorado at Boulder 31,945 18.79% 83% 68% 7,723 530-630, 540-650 University of Connecticut - Storrs 25,483 31.22% 93% 81% 7,770 550-650, 580-680 49,913 34.33% 96% 84% 14,760 580-670, 590-690 University of Georgia 34,519 23.93% 94% 80% 9,542 560-650, 560-660 University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 44,520 27.49% 94% 84% 12,172 550-680, 680-790 30,129 26.98% 86% 70% 7,352 470-630, 550-690 University of Kansas - Lawrence 27,135 29.36% 79% 61% 6,911 22-28 28,034 25.71% 81% 58% 6,000 490-610, 500-630 University of Louisville 21,239 25.97% 77% 49% 4,832 490-620, 500-630 University of Maryland - College Park 37,248 28.75% 94% 81% 10,314 580-690, 610-720 University of Massachusetts - Amherst 28,236 22.34% 88% 69% 7,152 530-630, 560-660 Appendix 1 PRIORITY 1 Graduate Student Increase Enrollment Enrollment as a % of First Year 6-Year Total Degrees SAT Range (V,Q) and Promote Student Success Fall Enrollment Total Enrollment1 Retention Rate Graduation Rate Awarded (Annual) or ACT Range

TTU and Peer Institutions continued Fall 2012 Fall 2012 Fall 2011-Fall 2012 Fall 2006 Cohort FY2012 Fall 2012

University of Michigan 43,426 35.57% 97% 90% 12,270 610-700, 650-760 continued 51,853 33.53% 91% 70% 13,177 540-690, 620-740 University of Mississippi - Oxford 18,794 14.55% 81% 59% 3,698 480-600, 480-600 - Columbia 34,704 22.31% 84% 69% 8,047 510-640, 530-650 University of Nebraska - Lincoln 24,207 21.08% 84% 64% 5,139 510-660, 540-680 University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 29,278 36.80% 97% 88% 7,634 590-700, 610-700 - Norman 27,507 23.26% 84% 63% 6,136 510-640, 540-660 24,518 15.13% 85% 68% 5,914 492-610, 501-613 28,769 35.94% 93% 78% 9,145 570-690, 600-690 University of Rhode Island 16,451 18.69% 81% 63% 3,420 470-570, 480-590 University of South Carolina - Columbia 31,288 25.33% 87% 68% 7,161 540-640, 560-650 University of South Florida 41,116 24.30% 90% 51% 10,701 530-630, 540-640 23,907 33.82% 98% 93% 6,447 620-720, 640-740 43,485 32.22% 93% 80% 12,301 510-650, 570-700 University of Wisconsin - Madison 42,269 28.31% 95% 83% 10,005 550-670, 620-740 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 31,087 23.25% 92% 80% 8,068 540-640, 570-680 Washington State University - Pullman 27,679 16.42% 82% 69% 7,155 460-570, 470-600 29,707 23.16% 77% 59% 6,447 470-570, 480-590 Peer Group Average 34,201 24.02% 87.86% 71.05% 8,550 524-638, 554-669 Emerging Research Group

Texas State University - San Marcos 34,225 13.93% 76% 55% 7,036 460-560, 490-580 Texas Tech University 32,467 18.44% 81% 62% 6,904 500-590, 520-620 - University Park 40,747 19.60% 83% 46% 8,203 490-600, 530-640 University of North Texas 37,950 19.39% 76% 48% 9,009 480-600, 500-610 University of Texas - Arlington 33,239 22.50% 72% 40% 9,165 460-580, 490-610 University of Texas - Dallas 19,727 39.02% 85% 63% 5,036 560-680, 600-710 University of Texas - El Paso 22,749 15.53% 72% 35% 4,254 390-490, 420-530 University of Texas - 30,474 14.75% 63% 27% 5,406 450-560, 480-580 Emerging Research Group Average 31,050 21.32% 76.00% 45.86% 6,854 474-583, 504-610

Sources: Information from IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) Data Center, accessed by TTU Institutional Research, January 2014 1 Fall enrollment for grad students, includes first-professional (Law) students 2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN STRATEGIC 2010-2020 19 20 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY TECH TEXAS Appendix 2 PRIORITY 2 Strengthen Academic Ph.Ds Awarded Faculty Receiving Nationally Endowed Professorships and Quality and Reputation Total Doctorates Awarded1 (HB 51) (TX Only)2 Recognized Awards (HB 51)3 Chairs (TX Only)4

TTU and Peer Institutions Fall 2012 Fall 2012 Fall 2011-Fall 2012 Fall 2006 Cohort FY2012 Fall 2012 Arizona State University 545 20 13 52 Auburn University 204 90 4 132 Clemson University 192 94 6 93 Florida State University 429 35 11 61 Georgia Institute of Technology 449 30 23 24 Indiana University - Bloomington 409 39 18 35 Iowa State University 358 49 5 108 Kansas State University 162 106 5 108 Louisiana State University - Baton Rouge 255 71 3 157 Michigan State University 484 28 18 35 Mississippi State University 139 122 5 108 North Carolina State University 395 43 14 47 Ohio State University - Columbus 782 5 24 21 Oklahoma State University - Stillwater 187 96 5 108 Oregon State University 172 99 7 83 Pennsylvania State University - University Park 634 14 26 19 Purdue University - West Lafayette 668 12 24 21 Rutgers the State University of NJ - New Brunswick 407 40 14 47 Texas A&M University 619 15 19 32 343 Texas Tech University 262 68 205* 2 191 118 University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa 190 95 0 530 University of Arizona 445 31 19 32 University of Arkansas - Fayetteville 166 102 8 78 University of California - Berkeley 920 1 31 12 University of California - Los Angeles 728 9 27 17 University of Colorado - Boulder 353 51 12 57 University of Connecticut - Storrs 219 84 5 108 University of Florida 774 6 18 35 University of Georgia 443 32 6 93 University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 794 4 24 21 University of Iowa 432 34 14 47 University of Kansas - Lawrence 299 60 12 57 University of Kentucky 261 69 13 52 University of Louisville 156 109 5 108 University of Maryland - College Park 582 18 17 39 University of Massachusetts - Amherst 258 70 6 93 - Ann Arbor 797 3 47 2 University of Minnesota - Twin Cities 723 10 25 20 Appendix 2 PRIORITY 2 Strengthen Academic Ph.Ds Awarded Faculty Receiving Nationally Endowed Professorships and Quality and Reputation Total Doctorates Awarded1 (HB 51) (TX Only)2 Recognized Awards (HB 51)3 Chairs (TX Only)4

TTU and Peer Institutions continued Fall 2012 Fall 2012 Fall 2011-Fall 2012 Fall 2006 Cohort FY2012 Fall 2012

University of Mississippi - Oxford 101 150 2 191 continued University of Missouri - Columbia 365 48 4 132 University of Nebraska - Lincoln 287 63 7 83 University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 506 24 28 16 University of Oklahoma - Norman 186 97 6 93 University of Oregon 149 114 11 61 University of Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh 519 22 20 29 University of Rhode Island 81 168 4 132 University of South Carolina - Columbia 289 62 9 74 University of South Florida - Tampa 269 67 8 78 University of Tennessee - Knoxville 371 47 9 74 University of Texas - Austin 801 2 22 25 859 University of Virginia 421 37 16 42 University of Washington - Seattle 723 10 43 4 University of Wisconsin - Madison 761 8 31 12 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 414 38 13 52 Washington State University - Pullman 197 92 6 93 West Virginia University 166 102 2 191 Peer Group Average 409 14 Emerging Research Group

Texas State University - San Marcos 25 302 34 2 191 16 Texas Tech University 262 68 205* 2 191 118 University of Houston - University Park 284 64 N/A* 5 108 210 University of North Texas 219 84 174 0 530 23 University of Texas - Arlington 117 139 164 0 530 35 University of Texas - Dallas 158 108 168 4 132 87 University of Texas - El Paso 70 182 59 2 191 61 University of Texas - San Antonio 69 184 67 1 273 46 Emerging Research Group Average 151 124 2 75

*THECB no longer reports this data for Texas Tech and for University of Houston because they have both qualified for NRUF. The TTU count is reported by IR.

Sources: 1 CMUP (Center for Measuring University Performance), “Doctorates Awarded (1998-2011)”, accessed by TTU Institutional Research, January 2014 2 THECB (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board), “National Research University Fund Report, February 2013”, accessed by TTU Institutional Research, January 2014

2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN STRATEGIC 2010-2020 3 CMUP, “Faculty Awards (1999-2011)”, accessed by TTU Institutional Research, January 2014 4 THECB Draft Accountability System, “Endowed Professorships and Chairs”, accessed by TTU Institutional Research, January 2014 21 Appendix 3

6 pace in nly) S O X 898,828 T ( $489,633 Fall 2012 quare Footage esearch S R

D 5 & TE R nly) O X $9,154 T FY2013 $47,995 ( Faculty F Faculty Federal Federal xpenditures per xpenditures per E

D 4 & R nly) O X T FY2013 ( xpenditures Federal Federal E $28,831,100 $277,196,000

3 esearch nly) R O X T FY2013 ( xpenditures E $40,735,021 estricted R 2 6 84 79 63 51 69 41 54 28 92 40 59 65 56 68 12 13 72 27 67 35 50 62 58 43 81 10 25 160 157 105 118 162 140 113 152 125 112 National Rank ppointments A octoral D ost- 42 44 41 58 48 83 204 218 295 364 152 103 261 455 318 617 189 468 300 288 316 133 270 241 625 279 548 368 297 303 135 431 209 646 P 1286 1062 1055 1157 Fall 2011 1 8 2 62 89 26 76 73 39 91 57 14 90 15 32 44 23 30 21 54 81 18 83 35 43 71 59 37 13 118 117 106 114 119 122 194 135 103 107 National Rank xpenditures (x1000) E esearch R 53,633 355,215 163,335 166,350 230,411 655,375 184,096 267,641 169,167 287,841 454,248 226,070 378,154 832,126 162,786 228,814 794,846 578,231 432,306 705,720 149,399 610,565 120,007 707,945 982,357 390,677 253,792 739,931 245,166 545,669 443,893 302,668 372,932 197,438 495,382 181,297 847,419 FY2011 1,279,123 otal T

RIORITY 3 RIORITY TTU and Peer Institutions Arizona State University P Enhance Research Expand and Scholarship and Creative Auburn University Clemson University Florida State University Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Indiana University - Bloomington Iowa State University Kansas State University Louisiana State University - Baton Rouge Louisiana State University - Baton Michigan State University Mississippi State University North Carolina State University Ohio State University - Columbus Oklahoma State University - Stillwater Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University - University Park Purdue University - West Lafayette West Purdue University - Rutgers University - New Brunswick Texas A&M University Texas Texas Tech University Tech Texas University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa Alabama - of University University of Arizona of University University of Arkansas - Fayetteville University of University of California - Berkeley University of California - Los Angeles University of California - Los University of Colorado - Boulder University of Connecticut - Storrs University of Florida University of Georgia University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign University of Iowa University of Kansas - Lawrence University of Kentucky University of Louisville University of Maryland - College Park University of Massachusetts - Amherst University of Massachusetts - University of Michigan - Ann Arbor Ann University of Michigan - University of Minnesota - Twin Cities Twin University of Minnesota -

22 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY Appendix 3 continued

6 pace in nly) S O X T 105,875 489,633 470,514 206,108 326,382 236,515 224,568 222,510 285,263 ( 1,370,906 Fall 2012 quare Footage esearch S R

D 5 & TE R nly) O X T FY2013 $40,485 $47,995 $88,773 $26,913 $71,897 $62,760 $71,821 ( $277,894 $129,321 $106,420 Faculty F Faculty Federal Federal xpenditures per xpenditures per E

D 4 & R nly) O X T FY2013 ( xpenditures Federal Federal E $14,908,100 $28,831,100 $59,267,100 $16,500,100 $30,816,600 $33,919,700 $38,253,200 $29,078,400 $31,446,788 $372,633,000

3 esearch nly) R O X T FY2013 ( xpenditures E $20,944,752 $40,735,021 $61,151,281 $17,748,903 $32,082,256 $43,944,356 $44,057,028 $29,163,969 $36,228,446 estricted R 2 9 78 15 18 80 57 96 49 26 20 86 93 227 129 102 113 101 134 150 109 178 139 128 123 191 159 National Rank ppointments A octoral D ost- 14 74 67 50 30 59 75 93 24 43 74 219 159 878 133 161 818 213 144 304 171 369 643 797 202 184 365 P 1186 Fall 2011 1 3 4 87 85 17 10 99 53 28 72 41 55 233 131 122 105 144 137 145 211 115 171 151 116 167 188 National Rank xpenditures (x1000) E esearch R 33,487 42,475 72,483 93,230 74,069 58,667 79,690 132,164 230,957 235,296 149,399 767,450 189,506 103,019 113,709 899,386 102,630 201,592 394,963 167,456 632,171 292,106 450,058 388,974 166,420 425,113 FY2011 1,148,533 1,111,642 otal T

continued RIORITY 3 RIORITY THECB Draft Accountability System, “Federal Research Expenditures per FTFE (FY2013)”, accessed by TTU Institutional Research, January 2014 Institutional Research, TTU accessed by per FTFE (FY2013)”, “Federal Research Expenditures System, Accountability THECB Draft January 2014 TTU Institutional Research, by accessed “Academic Space Projection Model - Fall 2012”, THECB, NSF (National Science Foundation), “Higher Education R&D Expenditures, ranked by all R&D expenditures, by source of funds: FY 2011”, accessed by TTU Institutional Research, January 2014 TTU Institutional Research, accessed by FY 2011”, by source of funds: ranked by all R&D expenditures, “Higher Education R&D Expenditures, NSF (National Science Foundation), January 2014 TTU Institutional Research, accessed by 2011”, by field: “Doctorate-granting institutions ranked by number of postdoctoral appointees, NSF, January 2014 TTU Institutional Research, accessed by Restricted Research Expenditures”, “Total System, Accountability THECB Draft January 2014 Research, TTU Institutional accessed by “Research Expenditures Summary”, System, Accountability THECB Draft

5 6 1 2 3 4 Emerging Research Group Research Emerging State University - San Marcos Texas TTU and Peer Institutions University of Mississippi - Oxford P Enhance Research Expand and Scholarship and Creative University of Missouri - of Nebraska - Lincoln Texas Tech University Tech Texas University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill University of North Carolina - Chapel University of Oklahoma - Norman University of Oregon University of Houston - University Park University of Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh University of Rhode Island University of South Carolina - Columbia University of North Texas University of North University of South Florida - Tampa University of South Florida - University of Tennessee - Knoxville Tennessee University of University of Texas - Austin - Texas of University University of Texas - Arlington - Texas of University University of Virginia of University University of Washington - Seattle Washington University of University of Texas - Dallas Texas University of University of Wisconsin - Madison University of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Washington State University - Pullman Washington University of Texas - El Paso - El Texas University of West Virginia University Virginia West Peer Group Average Peer University of Texas - San Antonio - San Texas University of Emerging Research Group Average Sources:

2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 23 Appendix 4

PRIORITY 4 Further Outreach and Engagement

Priority 4 of the strategic plan builds Scholarship Across Disciplines, to greater access and data mining, upon the university’s substantial Communities, and Geography,” that and a simplified interface. The history and commitment to was co-hosted with the following Office of Planning and Assessment, outreach and engagement. Texas ESC member institutions of the in concert with the Office of Tech seeks to increase our strategic consortium’s Western Region: the Provost, implemented an and applied role in addressing , State extensive and targeted marketing societal needs and impacting the University, Oregon State University, plan to raise awareness of our lives, businesses, and economic Oklahoma State University, outreach efforts and to increase development of communities Colorado State University, and the the community’s responsiveness across the region, state, and world. University of Alberta. More than to the new instrument. The new 600 administrators, researchers, and improved OEI instrument Texas Tech has an extensive history staff, students and community resulted in a higher response rate with outreach and engagement. partners from across the United and greater accuracy in project During 2011-12, the Faculty Senate States and Canada attended. alignment with institutional goals. and Texas Tech University System The results demonstrated that Board of Regents approved a new In December 2013, Texas Tech Texas Tech is, in fact, actively tenure and promotion policy. The continued its commitment engaged in partnering with its revised policy includes language to measure faculty and staff community and around the world. that addresses the engagement institutional outreach and goal by incorporating a faculty engagement activities. For Going forward, the Office of member’s professional service to the the previous four years, Texas Planning and Assessment and the university, their discipline, and the Tech utilized the Outreach and Office of Institutional Research will community into the consideration Engagement Measurement be collaborating to redesign the for tenure and promotion. Instrument (OEMI), an online outreach and engagement survey to survey designed to assess and further improve the items, enhance Additionally, Texas Tech was increase public understanding of instrument reliability, and increase recognized nationally in 2006 the university’s outreach efforts. the validity of data collected. Our when the Carnegie Foundation In the summer of 2013 Texas Tech goal is to create a comprehensive for the Advancement of Teaching modified the OEMI instrument plan for defining, measuring, and created a new classification of to better measure outreach analyzing the impact Texas Tech “Community Engagement” for and engagement activities and has on local, regional, national higher education institutions. administered the assessment, and international communities. Texas Tech is preparing its 2014 now called the Outreach and While the revised instrument is Carnegie Foundation application Engagement Inventory (OEI). a marked improvement from our for reclassification. The university While most of the data fields previous survey, further progress is also continues its membership remained consistent with the needed to more accurately capture in the Engagement Scholarship OEMI, the new instrument was our institution’s strong investment Consortium (ESC), a group of streamlined and rebranded, aimed in community outreach and 22 North American research at developing greater institutional engagement, as well as to identify institutions focused on increasing participation. Enhancements to the areas in need of change. institutional capacities to serve instrument included immediate their respective communities. feedback for participant records, Texas Tech hosted the 14th Annual linking data to faculty credentials Engagement Conference, themed and annual reports when requested, “Boundary Spanning: Engaged database infrastructure conducive

24 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY 2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 25 Appendix 5 8 nly) tudent O S

X perating $24,856 $17,558 T FY2013 O TE xpense per ( F E

7 nly) O otal T evenue evenue X T FY2013 R Budgeted ( $585,231,677 $1,195,484,180 6

nly) O perating 3.6% 6.3% X O Budget T FY2013 ( Cost as % dministrative of A

5

nly) O otal T tudent eighted X S T FY2013 W ( 2,192,014 Credit Hours 4 ross G $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $31 $16 from $646 $853 $255 $190 $921 $942 evenue 2012 $1,886 $7,124 $9,849 $1,628 $1,133 $2,359 $6,568 $9,849 $1,596 $3,596 $6,381 $2,022 $1,875 $3,735 $3,092 $4,855 $5,993 $1,025 $7,328 icensing $21,392 $15,785 $32,237 R otal L T 3 otal 87 77 83 74 39 28 35 44 75 51 36 26 81 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 407 239 102 114 408 202 102 127 274 319 132 356 187 212 144 167 142 226 203 T 2012 nvention I isclosures D 2

TE F 2,520 2,645 2,624 1,251 3,136 1,151 2,349 1,943 1,944 3,522 1,113 2,568 2,055 1,530 1,888 2,735 1,214 2,057 3,862 1,425 2,088 3,582 2,365 3,081 2,347 1,413 1,403 2,526 2,695 2,873 1,170 3,428 4,576 2,293 2,185 2,621 4,523 Faculty FY2012

2 TE taff F S 7,780 5,712 6,541 3,884 4,521 2,762 7,826 4,263 4,373 5,277 5,571 5,456 3,714 2,911 4,365 8,190 3,269 5,889 3,922 2,532 9,230 7,367 5,821 4,525 2,945 3,891 9,277 7,736 3,538 7,006 4,059 6,066 6,876 8,549 21,899 13,569 12,205 FY2012

2 TE tudent xpense xpense perating per F $33,332 $19,668 $38,685 $25,861 $34,532 $25,769 $47,537 $16,299 $34,439 $34,264 $52,592 $21,277 $26,224 $26,336 $27,714 $33,782 $25,428 $30,527 $27,914 $22,290 $27,030 $31,448 $31,074 $34,079 $16,499 $18,806 $45,378 $38,602 $34,762 $23,630 $44,425 $75,619 $28,829 $42,917 $27,945 $42,495 E S FY2012 O

2 TE tudent evenues evenues per F $17,446 $88,239 $23,064 $29,748 $27,869 $73,942 $13,158 $28,471 $31,843 $50,164 $25,135 $26,029 $25,459 $22,514 $34,754 $19,610 $21,701 $58,031 $24,141 $23,625 $29,865 $33,905 $27,828 $15,133 $20,395 $34,073 $32,240 $30,543 $17,305 $41,002 $35,884 $50,781 $21,748 $32,530 $32,596 S FY2012 $112,836 R 2

ime T TE F tudent 66,224 26,962 23,884 25,742 19,332 26,546 39,762 19,570 35,946 21,593 42,314 27,918 20,907 28,621 43,259 19,055 30,920 69,248 21,237 22,990 47,365 40,313 39,322 44,937 28,961 30,022 27,943 46,261 36,777 21,361 38,537 40,491 29,499 23,907 35,019 47,877 48,738 quivalent) S FY2012 (Full- E 6 76 89 45 84 40 32 55 34 12 99 88 23 25 54 91 62 68 73 137 151 144 156 135 257 114 191 177 185 113 149 160 109 143 131 152 241 ssets Rank 1 A National National (x1000) ndowment 2011 E 514,724 915,924 450,361 772,157 473,748 417,452 525,260 210,101 835,119 612,283 337,460 364,076 346,676 617,632 456,110 411,964 642,626 474,855 682,726 552,351 777,588 447,211 229,562 745,765 982,848 7,834,752 1,619,718 1,718,101 2,120,714 1,276,602 2,001,601 6,328,932 2,937,250 2,640,412 1,295,313 1,132,626 1,044,097

RIORITY 5 RIORITY Resources P Maximize Increase and Arizona State University TTU and Peer Institutions University of Iowa Auburn University University of Kansas - Lawrence Clemson University University of Kentucky Florida State University University of Louisville University of Maryland - College Park Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Indiana University - Bloomington Iowa State University Kansas State University Louisiana State University - Baton Rouge Louisiana State University - Baton Michigan State University Mississippi State University North Carolina State University Ohio State University - Columbus Oklahoma State University - Stillwater Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University - University Park Lafayette West Purdue University - Rutgers University - New Brunswick Texas A&M University Texas Texas Tech University Tech Texas Tuscaloosa Alabama - The University of The University of Tennessee - Knoxville Tennessee The University of The University of Texas - Austin - Texas The University of Arizona of University University of Arkansas - Fayetteville University of University of California - Los Angeles University of California - Los University of Colorado at Boulder University of California - Berkeley University of Connecticut - Storrs University of Florida University of Georgia University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign

26 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY Appendix 5 continued 8 nly) tudent O S

X perating $12,075 $17,558 $19,990 $16,648 $15,395 $23,042 $17,522 $15,569 $17,225 T FY2013 O TE xpense per ( F E

7 nly) O otal T evenue evenue X T FY2013 R Budgeted ( $390,210,710 $585,231,677 $791,779,483 $495,860,589 $481,429,051 $427,080,227 $349,698,578 $446,388,710 $495,959,878 6

nly) O perating 7.1% 6.3% 6.2% 5.9% 8.0% 9.9% 7.7% 8.4% 7.4% X O Budget T FY2013 ( Cost as % dministrative of A

5

nly) O otal T tudent eighted X S T FY2013 W ( 1,528,768 2,192,014 2,457,259 1,808,860 1,816,480 1,468,725 1,069,872 1,461,049 1,725,378 Credit Hours 4 ross G $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A $19 $54 $94 from $190 $219 $322 $630 $128 evenue 2,140 2012 $1,952 $9,524 $2,405 $7,795 $3,994 $1,243 $5,408 $2,199 icensing $52,142 $12,544 $11,524 $43,635 $76,736 $40,840 R otal L T 3 otal 37 12 51 49 14 49 66 26 26 12 27 62 64 49 N/A N/A N/A 169 368 321 265 160 310 177 148 462 373 171 T 2012 nvention I isclosures D 2

TE F 967 731 807 824 934 1,138 1,577 1,325 1,413 1,418 1,316 1,128 6,410 5,085 2,739 1,975 3,517 1,537 1,494 5,266 1,768 1,659 2,292 6,264 5,586 2,759 1,447 2,133 2,571 Faculty FY2012

2 TE taff F S 2,434 3,492 2,004 2,945 3,428 2,419 2,475 2,147 1,577 2,473 1,862 3,723 8,040 3,771 2,567 6,470 1,667 4,317 4,222 5,965 9,744 8,659 4,446 4,040 3,915 6,152 13,083 10,424 10,779 FY2012

2 TE tudent xpense xpense perating $9,480 per F $14,378 $23,905 $16,499 $18,887 $11,843 $12,084 $19,355 $13,702 $13,171 $51,354 $51,976 $15,958 $24,225 $29,111 $56,993 $26,020 $21,453 $20,320 $20,363 $21,171 $40,963 $52,797 $50,291 $27,987 $23,932 $24,447 $32,431 E S FY2012 O

2 TE tudent evenues evenues per F $12,951 $23,811 $10,104 $15,133 $16,189 $11,378 $12,304 $15,387 $11,181 $11,930 $43,617 $15,537 $53,082 $26,805 $61,361 $21,746 $24,985 $24,356 $21,926 $16,392 $83,414 $77,911 $46,200 $26,356 $23,346 $22,224 $36,102 S FY2012 $102,833 R 2

ime T TE F tudent 26,977 27,342 32,622 28,961 33,490 31,723 27,661 17,104 18,348 25,906 46,931 43,279 18,272 30,013 21,477 28,300 22,875 24,042 29,162 15,897 30,503 36,069 24,116 45,210 37,314 31,303 27,363 29,453 32,648 quivalent) S FY2012 (Full- E 8 28 86 30 82 27 17 31 33 93 375 143 124 397 458 221 288 454 146 129 147 416 141 180 122 121 168 ssets Rank 1 A National National (x1000) ndowment 2011 E 80,510 81,760 97,659 119,711 474,855 589,762 110,735 264,239 174,992 469,006 559,516 807,025 845,469 467,211 494,358 349,320 590,551 600,648 722,717 392,001 $237,071 2,503,305 2,260,970 2,527,398 7,441,482 4,760,515 2,154,494 2,066,958 $1,354,595

continued RIORITY 5 RIORITY AUTM (Association of University Technology Managers), “Disclosures: Received (INVDIS)”, provided by TTUS Office of Technology Commercialization, January 2014. Note: Not all institutions report data to AUTM. AUTM. to data report support. and institutional institutions academic support, all public service, Not research, Instruction, Note: Operating expense include: 2014. 2014. January January, TTU Institutional Research, accessed by IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System), Commercialization, Technology of Office TTUS by provided (INVDIS)”, Received “Disclosures: AUTM. to data Managers), report institutions all Not Technology Note: University of 2014. January (Association AUTM Commercialization, Technology of Office TTUS by provided (REIMLG)”, Reimbursed Fees: “Legal + Received” Gross Income: “License AUTM, January 2014 TTU Institutional Research, accessed by WSCH (weighed semester credit hours), based I&O Higher Education Coordinating Board) GIA Formulas Model Initial Run, THECB (Texas Calculated based on January 2014 TTU Institutional Research, accessed by “Administrative Costs”, Accountability System, THECB Draft January 2014 TTU Institutional Research, accessed by “Budgeted Revenue”, Accountability System, THECB Draft January 2014 TTU Institutional Research, accessed by “Operating Expense”, Accountability System, THECB Draft CMUP (Center for Measuring University Performance), “Endowment Assets in Current dollars (1994-2011)”, accessed by TTU Institutional Research, January 2014 TTU Institutional Research, accessed by Assets in Current dollars (1994-2011)”, “Endowment CMUP (Center for Measuring University Performance),

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Resources P Maximize Increase and University of Texas - Arlington - Texas of University - Dallas Texas University of Paso - El Texas University of Antonio - San Texas University of Emerging Research Group Average Emerging Research Group Research Emerging State University - San Marcos Texas University Tech Texas University of Houston - University Park Texas University of North University of Massachusetts - Amherst University of Massachusetts - TTU and Peer Institutions University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Mississippi - Oxford University of Missouri - Columbia University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill University of North Carolina - Chapel University of Oklahoma - Norman University of Oregon University of South Carolina - Columbia University of Pittsburgh University of Rhode Island University of South Florida University of Virginia of University University of Washington of University University of Wisconsin - Madison University of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Washington State University - Pullman Washington West Virginia University Virginia West Peer Group Average Peer Sources:

2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 27 Appendix 6

NSF: NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE & ENGINEERING STATISTICS

Earned Doctorates Full-time Graduate Students Total Federal Obligations Total R&D Expenditures

Data Institutions Institutions Institutions Institutions Rank Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Percentile Year Ranked Ranked Ranked Ranked

2012 64 16.1 415 77 14.6 554 * * * 125 19.8 653

2011 67 17.1 408 68 13 552 162 15.1 1,128 122 14.2 909

2010 72 18 414 46 9 561 153 13.4 1,210 125 17.6 741

2009 87 21.4 419 46 8.9 564 159 14.3 1,177 144 21.1 707

2008 71 17.6 418 52 10 565 156 14.4 1,146 169 25.2 689

2007 73 18.4 411 68 12.7 567 176 15.4 1,207 167 25.6 668

Source: NSF Data (https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site;jsessionid=037A4CB2266B98768B799C60A9FB5008?method=view&fice=3644) *Total Federal Obligation data was not available for year 2012.

28 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY Appendix 7

PROGRESS TOWARD AAU CHARACTERISTICS

Average of AAU Universities* 2012 CMUP Report TTU 2012 TTU 2013 Measure CMUP Report Fiscal Year 0th - 20th 21st - 40th 41st - 60th 61st - 80th 81st - 100th percentile percentile percentile percentile percentile

Total Research x $1000 106,220 137,564 159,445 348,794 496,972 660,285 985,423

Federal Research x $1000 32,680 28,831 97,769 223,268 312,789 410,840 691,354

Endowment Assets x $1000 474,855 546,229 452,033 1,067,765 2,079,068 3,961,227 12,013,456

Annual Giving x $1000 52,342 78,771 64,656 103,577 157,447 253,882 457,949

National Academy Members 1 4 9 23 33 61 167

Faculty Awards 1 5 9 15 20 27 44

Doctorates Awarded 262 306 188 341 437 571 769

Postdoctoral Appointees 101 62 173 328 485 789 1,738

Median SAT 1104 1115 1150 1221 1296 1387 1472

National Merit and Achievement Scholars 8 5 10 31 54 125 225

Source: American Research University Data (http://mup.asu.edu/research_data.html, accessed 7/2014) *All measures exclude McGill University and (because CMUP has no data for these two universities).

2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN 29