The Michigan Almanac March 2021

The Michigan Almanac is a publication of the U-M Office of Budget and Planning, created with valuable assistance by staff members from many offices and units across campus.

Tammy Bimer Associate Vice Provost and Executive Director Office of Budget and Planning

Lee Katterman Editor Office of Budget and Planning

Nondiscrimination Policy Statement The University of Michigan, as an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer, complies with all applicable federal and state laws regarding nondiscrimination and affirmative action. The University of Michigan is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all persons and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight, or veteran status in employment, educational programs and activities, and admissions. Inquiries or complaints may be addressed to the Senior Director for Institutional Equity, and Title IX/Section 504/ADA Coordinator, Office of Institutional Equity, 2072 Administrative Services Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1432, 734-763-0235, TTY 734-647-1388. For other University of Michigan information call 734-764-1817.

Copyright 2021, Regents of the University of Michigan Jordan B. Acker, Huntington Woods Michael J. Behm, Grand Blanc Mark J. Bernstein, Ann Arbor Paul W. Brown, Ann Arbor Sarah Hubbard, Okemos Denise Ilitch, Bingham Farms Ron Weiser, Ann Arbor Katherine E. White, Ann Arbor Mark S. Schlissel, ex officio

Table of Contents

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 1 Overview of the University ...... 3 1.1 School/College Origins ...... 3 1.2.1 Student Enrollment, Fall 1841-2019 ...... 4 1.2.2 Student Enrollment by Level, Fall 1960-2019 ...... 5 1.3 Composition of U-M Ann Arbor Campus Community, Fall 2020 ...... 6 1.4.1 Operating Revenues for the Ann Arbor Campus (including the U-M Health System), Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020 ...... 7 1.4.2 Operating Revenues for the Ann Arbor Campus (including the U-M Health System), by Percent, FY2010-2020 ...... 7

Chapter 2 Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment ...... 9 2.1.1 Applications/Admission-Offers/Enrollment for New First-Year Students, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 10 2.1.2 Applications/Admission-Offers/Enrollment for New Undergradute Transfer Students, Fall 2010-2020 .... 11 2.2.1 Selectivity Rates for Undergraduate First-Year and Transfer Students, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 12 2.2.2 Yield Rates for Undergraduate First-Year and Transfer Students, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 12 2.3.1 GPA and Standardized Test Scores of New First-Year Students, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020 ...... 13 2.3.2 SAT Math and Critical Reading Scores (25th to 75th Percentiles) for New First-Year Undergraduate Students at U-M and Peer Institutions, Fall 2019 ...... 14 2.3.3 SAT Math and Critical Reading Scores (25th to 75th Percentiles) for New First-Year Undergraduate Students at U-M and Public Big Ten Universities, Fall 2019 ...... 15 2.3.4 Average College GPA of New Undergraduate Transfer Students, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020 ...... 16 2.3.5 New Undergraduate Transfer Students by Class Level at Entry, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020 ...... 16 2.4.1 Total Undergraduate and New First-Year Student Enrollment, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 17 2.4.2 Undergraduate Enrollment by School and College, 2016-2020 ...... 18 2.4.3 Undergraduate Student Fall Enrollment 10-Year Trend by School and College, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 19 2.5.1 Geographic Origin of Undergraduate Students by Headcount and Percent, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 20 2.5.2 Geographic Origin of New First-Years, U-M and Public Big Ten and Peer Institutions, by Percent, Fall 2018 ...... 21 2.5.3 U-M Undergraduate Student Enrollment from the State of Michigan by County, Fall 2020 ...... 22 2.5.4 U-M Undergraduate Student Enrollment by State, Fall 2020 ...... 23

Chapter 3 Undergraduate Students: Affordability ...... 25 3.1 Undergraduate Tuition and Required Fees, per Semester, 2020-21 ...... 26 3.2.1 Total Cost of Attendance Before Financial Aid, In-State Students U-M and AAU Public Universities, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020 ...... 27 3.2.2 Total Cost of Attendance Before Financial Aid, Out-of-State Students, U-M and AAU Public and Private Universities, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020 ...... 27 3.3.1 Typical Net Cost of Attendance for In-State First-Years by Family Income Level, FY2011-2021 ...... 28 3.3.2 Dollar Change in Average Net Cost of Attendance for New First-Years Receiving Aid, at U-M and Peers, FY2016-18 ...... 29 3.4 Total U-M Expenditures for Undergraduate Student Grant and Scholarship Aid, by In-State/Out-of-State Status with Annual Percentage Increases, FY2010-2020 ...... 30 3.5.1 Average Per Student Need-based Grant Aid, Adjusted for Inflation, by Source for New First-Years at U-M, FY2009 and FY2019 ...... 31 3.5.2 Average Per Student Need-based Grant Aid by Source for New First-Years Who Received Grants, U-M and AAU Public Universities, FY2019 ...... 32 3.6.1 Family Income Distribution for First-Year and All Undergraduate Students, Adjusted for Inflation, by In-State and Out-of-State Status, Fall 2009 and Fall 2019 ...... 33 3.6.2 Pell Grant Recipients as Percent of Undergraduate Student Body, U-M and AAU Institutions, 2018-19 ...... 34 3.6.3 Number and Percentage of In-State/Out-of-State U-M Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grants, 2010-2020 ...... 35

Table of Contents (17th Edition) i

3.6.4 Number and Percentage of Undergraduate Students Receiving Aid, by Type, 2019-20 ...... 36 3.6.5 Total Financial Aid Awarded and Average Total Award per Student Receiving Aid, 2019-20 ...... 36 3.7 Weekly Hours of Paid Work by U-M Undergraduate Students, 2009-2019 ...... 37 3.8 Average Student Loan Debt Burden at Graduation for All, In-State and Out-of-State U-M Undergraduate Students, 2019-20 ...... 38

Chapter 4 Undergraduate Student Success ...... 41 4.1 Graduation Rates for U-M and AAU Public and Private Universities, First-Years Cohorts Starting Fall 2002-2012 ...... 42 4.2 Average Retention Rates of New Full-Time First-Years at U-M and Peer Schools, 2008-2018 ...... 43 4.3 Responses of U-M Seniors to Survey Questions about Satisfaction with Academics, Course Availability and Advising, 2009-2019 ...... 44

Chapter 5 Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students ...... 47 5.1.1 Graduate Academic and Professional Student Enrollment by Level, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 49 5.1.2 Graduate Academic and Professional Student Enrollment as Percent of Total Enrollment for U-M and AAU Public and Private Universities, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 50 5.1.3 U-M Graduate Academic and Professional Student Enrollment as Percent of Total Enrollment, with Headcount, for Selected Years from 1960 to 2020 ...... 51 5.1.4 U-M Graduate Academic and Professional Student Enrollment by School/College and Degree Sought, Fall 2020 ...... 52 5.2.1 Graduate Academic and Professional Degree Tuition and Required Fees, per Semester, 2020-2021 .... 53 5.2.2 Graduate Academic Student Tuition and Required Fees, Adjusted for Inflation, per Semester, FY2001-2021 ...... 54 5.2.3 Graduate Professional Student Tuition and Required Fees, Adjusted for Inflation, In-State per Semester, FY2001-2021 ...... 55 5.2.4 Graduate Professional Student Tuition and Required Fees, Adjusted for Inflation, Out-of-State per Semester, FY2001-2021 ...... 55 5.3.1 Graduate Master's, Academic Doctorate, and Professional Doctorate Degrees Awarded for U-M, Peers and Big Ten Universities, 2018-19 ...... 56 5.3.2 Ph.D. Degrees Awarded by Discipline Group for U-M, Peers and Big Ten Universities, 2018-19 ...... 57 5.3.3 Academic Master’s Degrees Awarded by Discipline Group for U-M, Peers and Big Ten Universities, 2018-19 ...... 58 5.3.4 Professional Degrees Awarded by Program for U-M, Peers and Big Ten Universities, 2018-19 ...... 59 5.4.1 Academic Doctoral Completion Rates by Discipline Group, Enrollment Cohorts from 2005-14 ...... 60 5.4.2 Academic Master’s Completion Rates by Discipline Group, Enrollment Cohorts from 2016-19 ...... 61 5.5.1 Funding Support for Rackham Ph.D. Students, 2019-20 ...... 62 5.5.2 Funding Support for Rackham Master’s Students, 2019-20 ...... 63 5.6.1 Academic Doctoral Students Self-reported Cumulative Undergraduate and Graduate Debt at Graduation, by Discipline Group for Domestic Students, FY2009-2019 ...... 64 5.6.2 Graduate Professional Students Self-reported Debt at Graduation, by Program, 2009-2019 ...... 65 5.7 Placement outcomes for U-M Ph.D. Students, by Discipline Group, FY2006-19 ...... 66 5.8.1 Geographic Origins of U-M Ph.D. Recipients, Headcount and Percent, by Discipline Group, FY2009-2019 ...... 68 5.8.2 Geographic Destinations of U-M Ph.D. Recipients, Headcount and Percent, by Discipline Group, FY2009-2019 ...... 69 5.9.1 Pass Rates for Four States’ Bar (Law) Examinations by U-M Law School Graduates, 2014-2018 ...... 70 5.9.2 Pass Rates for U.S. Medical Licensing Examination by U-M Medical Students, 2015-2019 ...... 70 5.9.3 Pass Rates for Northeast Regional Board Examination by U-M D.D.S. Students, 2015-2019 ...... 71 5.9.4 Pass Rates for North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination by U-M Doctor of Pharmacy Graduates, 2015-2019 ...... 71

Chapter 6 Faculty & Staff ...... 73 6.1.1 Academic Workforce, Headcount by Title, Fall 2020 ...... 74 6.1.2 Academic Workforce, Full-Time Equivalents by Title, Fall 2020 ...... 74 6.1.3 Academic Workforce by Full-Time Equivalents, 2010-2020 ...... 75 6.1.4 Detail for “All Other Academic Workforce,” by FTEs, 2010-2020 ...... 75 6.2.1 Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty, Headcount by Title, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 76 6.2.2 New Hires and Departures of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty; Annual Net Change and Cumulative Change, 2010-2020 ...... 77 6.2.3 Age Distribution of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020 ...... 78

Table of Contents (17th Edition) ii

6.3.1 Faculty Distribution by Discipline Groups, Fall 2020 ...... 79 6.3.2 Current Faculty Members Elected to the National Academies, by Discipline, September 2020 ...... 80 6.4 Average Faculty Salaries by Rank for U-M and Peer Groups, Adjusted for Inflation, 2009-19 ...... 81 6.5.1 Headcount of Regular Staff, Fall 210-2020 ...... 82 6.5.2 Age Distribution of Staff, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020 ...... 83

Chapter 7 Diversity ...... 85 7.1.1 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of the Ann Arbor Campus Community, Fall 2020 ...... 86 7.1.2 Sex Distribution of the Ann Arbor Campus Community, Fall 2020 ...... 87 7.2.1 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of Undergraduate Students, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 88 7.2.2 Sex Distribution of Undergraduate Students, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 89 7.3 U-M First-Years by Family Income and by In-State/Out-of-State Status, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 90 7.4 Student Responses to “I feel that I belong at this campus,” 2009-2019 ...... 91 7.5.1 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of Graduate and Professional Students, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 92 7.5.2 Sex Distribution of Graduate and Professional Students, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 93 7.5.3 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of Graduate Academic Students by Broad Discipline, Fall 2010-2020 ... 94 7.5.4 Sex Distribution of Graduate Academic Students by Broad Discipline, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 95 7.5.5 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of Graduate Professional Students by Program, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 96 7.5.6 Sex Distribution of Graduate Professional Students by Program, Fall 2010-2020 ...... 97

Chapter 8 Teaching & Learning ...... 99 8.1.1 Instructional Workforce by Job Group and Headcount, Fall 2020 ...... 100 8.1.2 Instructional Workforce by Job Group and Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs), Fall 2020 ...... 100 8.2 Undergraduate Student-Faculty Ratios for U-M and Peers, plus Averages for AAU Public, Private and Big Ten Institutions, Fall 2019...... 101 8.3 Student Participation in Michigan Learning Communities, 2019-20 ...... 102 8.4.1 Student Participation in Study Abroad for Credit, by Level, FY2015-2019 ...... 103 8.4.2 Top Ten Education Abroad Destinations, by Country and Student Count, 2018-19...... 104 8.4.3 Self-Reported Learning Gains of Seniors in Understanding Global Issues from Time of Initial U-M Enrollment compared to Senior Year, 2009-2019 ...... 105 8.5 Self-Reported Satisfaction of Seniors with Instructional Quality and Faculty, 2009-2019 ...... 106 8.6.1 Graduating Seniors in 2018-19 Who Report Engaged Learning Experiences While at the U-M ...... 107 8.6.2 Self-Reported Satisfaction of Seniors with the Opportunities for Research or Creative Activity Experiences, 2009-2019 ...... 107 8.7 Self-Reported Learning Gains of Seniors from Time of Initial U-M Enrollment Compared to Senior Year, 2019 ...... 108

Chapter 9 Research & Technology Transfer ...... 111 9.1.1 Total Research Expenditures, Adjusted for Inflation, 1980-2020 ...... 112 9.1.2 Research Expenditures by Major Funding Source, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020 ...... 113 9.1.3 Direct Research Expenditures by Discipline, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020 ...... 114 9.1.4 Sponsored Research Expenditures by Type, FY2020 ...... 115 9.1.5 Sponsored Research Indirect Cost Recovery by Source, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020 ...... 116 9.2 Research Workforce by Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs), Fall 2020 ...... 117 9.3 University R&D Expenditures, U-M and Other Leading Institutions, FY2014-18 ...... 118 9.4.1 Invention Reporting, Licensing and U.S. Patent Activity at the U-M, FY2010-2020 ...... 119 9.4.2 Revenues from Royalties and Equity Sales, FY2010-2020 ...... 120 9.4.3 Formation of Start-up Companies that Utilize U-M Technology, FY2010-2020 ...... 121 9.5 Counts of U-M faculty, staff and students involved in federal research on the Ann Arbor campus who then took positions at other institutions or companies, summed by state for 2002-2015 ...... 122

Chapter 10 Finances & Fundraising ...... 125 10.1.1 Breakout of General Fund Budget for the Ann Arbor campus, FY2021 ...... 126 10.1.2 Revenue and Expenditure Budget Summary for Ann Arbor Campus, FY2011-21 ...... 126 10.1.3 Revenue and Expenditure Budget Summary for Ann Arbor Campus, by Funds of FY2011-21 ...... 127 10.2 Relative Contributions to the University’s General Fund by State Appropriations, Tuition and Fees, and Other Revenues, FY2011-21 ...... 128 10.3 FY2002 State Appropriation Adjusted for Inflation and Projected Forward to Maintain Constant Value, Compared to Enacted Annual State Appropriations, FY2002-2021 ...... 129

Table of Contents (17th Edition) iii

10.4.1 State of Michigan Appropriations to the U-M Ann Arbor Campus per Student, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2011-2021 ...... 130 10.4.2 State Appropriations per Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) Student to the U-M and AAU Public Institutions, FY2018 ...... 131 10.5 Private Gifts to the University, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2009-2019 ...... 132 10.6.1 Total Value of U-M Endowment, Ann Arbor Campus, Adjusted for Inflation, 2010-2020 ...... 133 10.6.2 Market Value of Endowment, U-M and Peers, 2018 ...... 134

Chapter 11 Space & Sustainability ...... 137 11.1 Total Facilities Space on the Ann Arbor Campus (excluding U-M Health System), by General Fund and all Other Funds, FY2010-2020 ...... 138 11.2.1 Ann Arbor Campus Space, by Room Type, FY2010-2020 ...... 139 11.2.2 Ann Arbor Campus Space, by Function, FY22010-2020 ...... 140 11.3 Age of Ann Arbor Campus General Fund Space, by 10-year Increments through FY2020 ...... 141 11.4 U-M General Fund Renovation and New Construction Expenditures, Adjusted for Inflation, and Depreciation of the U-M Physical Plant, FY2010-2020 ...... 142 11.5 Ratio of General Fund Infrastructure Renovation Costs to Total Replacement Costs, FY2010-2020 .... 143 11.6.1 Building Energy Use, Total and per Square Foot per Person, FY2009-2019 ...... 144 11.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Total and Percent of Emissions by Energy Generation Source, FY2009-2019 ...... 145 11.6.3 Waste, Total and Percent Recycled, FY2009-2019 ...... 146 11.6.4 Paper Purchased by Percent Recycled Content, FY2009-2019 ...... 147

Chapter 12 Academic & Reputational Rankings ...... 149 12.1.1 U.S, News & World Report Rankings for National Undergraduate Universities, U-M and Peers, 2016-2020 ...... 150 12.1.2 U.S. News & World Report Rankings of U-M Top Ten Graduate Programs, 2020 ...... 151 12.1.3 U.S. News & World Report Rankings of Best Global Universities, U-M and Peers, 2015-2019...... 153 12.2.1 Times Higher Education (London) World University Rankings, U-M and Peers, 2016-2020 ...... 154 12.2.2 Times Higher Education (London) World Reputation Rankings, U-M and Peers, 2015-2019 ...... 155 12.3 QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) World University Rankings, U-M and Peers, 2016-2020 ...... 156 12.4 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), U-M and Peers, 2016-2020 ...... 157 12.5 National Research Council Graduate Program Assessment, U-M and Selected Peers, 2005-06 ...... 158 12.6 Washington Monthly National University Rankings, U-M and Peers, 2016-2020 ...... 159 12.7 America’s Top Colleges, Forbes, 2015-2019 ...... 160 12.8 Center for World University Rankings (CWUR), 2016-2020 ...... 161 12.9 Kiplinger's Best Value Public Colleges, U-M, Public Peer/Big Ten Universities, 2015-2019 ...... 162 12.10 MONEY's Best Colleges, U-M, Public Peer and Public Big Ten Universities, 2016-2020 ...... 163 12.11 WSJ/Times Higher Ed US College Rankings, U-M and Peers, 2016-2020 ...... 164

Appendices ...... 167 Appendix A: Peer Groups ...... 168 Appendix B: U-M Graduate Academic Programs by Broad Disciplinary Categories (Rackham Divisions) ...... 170 Appendix C: Graduate and Professional Degree Programs at the University of Michigan ...... 171 Appendix D: U-M Ann Arbor Information Summary ...... 172 Appendix E: Glossary ...... 173 Appendix E: Photography Captions and Credits ...... 175

Table of Contents (17th Edition) iv

Introduction

The Michigan Almanac provides a consolidated source of data and commentary as a window into the characteristics and operations of the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor campus. This document includes sections on student admissions and enrollment, costs of attendance, student achievement, faculty and staff statistics, diversity indicators for all parts of the campus community, teaching and learning activities, research and technology transfer, budget, development, space, sustainability, and academic rankings. The Almanac has been prepared with several different audiences in mind. Members of the University administration, faculty, and staff who manage or monitor any of the institution’s programs should find this a useful source of information. Others who have interests in U-M, such as the state’s legislators and government officials in Lansing and Washington, prospective and current students and their families, donors, other higher education institutions, and the media, will also find information of value in this document. The Almanac aims to present a balanced and factual picture of all facets of the institution. It applauds the University's successes, but also strives to be objective about areas that need improvement. The data has been collected from public sources, and, when possible, from readily accessible reports, so that the charts and tables in the Almanac can be replicated. Furthermore, the Almanac website provides links to data files that underpin the charts. The U-M Health System is excluded from Almanac data and charts, except in rare instances. Reporting on the U-M Flint and Dearborn campuses is also left out of this document. When relevant data is available, the Almanac compares the U-M to its peer institutions, either as individual peer universities or to groups of universities with similar characteristics. The membership of these comparison groups is listed in Appendix A. This is the sixteenth edition of the Michigan Almanac. All charts that have been updated since the previous edition, which was published in October 2020, are marked with a star: . Questions regarding the Almanac and its contents can be directed to [email protected].

NOTE: The coronavirus pandemic has had detrimental effects on the University of Michigan, as it has on the rest of the world. Although the students, faculty and staff have demonstrated remarkable resiliency since early 2020, please bear in mind the possibility that unexpected values when viewing charts comparing 2019-20 with previous years.

Introduction (17th Edition) 1

2 Chapter 1 Overview of the University

The University of Michigan is guided by “a larger sense of grand total of nearly $9.3 billion. According to the latest purpose,” to borrow a phrase used by former U-M president, national data, in FY2018 the U-M spent $1.53 billion on Harold Shapiro. His words referred to the University’s research – more than any other U.S. public university. commitment to provide the educational programs that society demands, to generate new knowledge for the benefit of all, and to serve as a thoughtful critic of society so that it may 1.1 School/College Origins continually better itself. University of Michigan Est. 1817 First Dean The U-M's mission statement reinforces these ideals, which School/College are to serve the people of Michigan and the world through Appointed preeminence in creating, communicating, preserving and Medical School 1850 applying knowledge, art, and academic values, and in Law School 1859 developing leaders and citizens who will challenge the present and enrich the future. College of Literature, Science & the Arts 1875 School of Dentistry 1875 Founded in 1817 as the Catholepistemiad or University of Michigania, it was officially renamed in 1821 as the College of Pharmacy 1876 University of Michigan. Originally located in Detroit, the College of Engineering 1895 institution’s home moved to Ann Arbor in 1837. One of the Horace H. Rackham 1912 original buildings on the Ann Arbor campus still stands and School of Graduate Studies is used today as the President’s house. School of Education 1921 The first Ann Arbor classes were taught in 1841, at which Stephen M. Ross School of Business 1924 point the U-M had two professors and six students. The first School of Music, Theatre & Dance 1927 commencement was held in 1845 to recognize the graduation 1 of 11 men. Women were first admitted in 1870. School of Environment & Sustainability 1927 Taubman College of Architecture 1931 The University has grown to include 19 schools and colleges & Urban Planning (table at right), covering the liberal arts and sciences as well as most professions. Student enrollment surpassed 1,000 by School of Nursing 1941 1865, 10,000 in 1936, and 40,000 in 2006. The fall 2020 School of Public Health 1941 enrollment of undergraduate, graduate and professional School of Social Work 1951 students was 47,907. Typically, the U-M provides campus School of Information 1969 housing to 9,500 undergraduate students in 24 residence halls and apartment buildings (fewer during the pandemic). Penny W. Stamps School of Art & Design 1974 School of Kinesiology 1984 Based on the Fall 2020 count, the U-M has 3,202 tenured or on a tenure-track faculty. Lecturers, clinical faculty, research Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy 1995 professors, librarians, and archivists add 4,465 to the Ann 1 New name as of July 1, 2017. Previously called the School of Natural Arbor campus academic staff. All other staff total 15,972. Resources & Environment. (Another 4,145 students have paid appointments as graduate student instructors and research assistants; these individuals For More Information are counted with students in chart 1.3). History of U-M (historyofum.umich.edu) The FY2020 operating revenues from the state appropriation, Bentley Historical Library (bentley.umich.edu) tuition, research grants and contracts, gifts and other sources reached $4.3 billion for the Ann Arbor campus. The U-M Office of Budget and Planning – Campus Statistics Health System revenues added almost $5.0 billion for a (obp.umich.edu/campus-statistics/)

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Charts in Chapter 1 1.1 School/College Origins. 1.2.1 Student Enrollment, Fall 1841-2020. 1.2.2 Student Enrollment by Level, Fall 1960-2020. 1.3 Composition of U-M Ann Arbor Campus Community, Fall 2020. 1.4.1 Operating Revenues for the Ann Arbor Campus (including U-M Health System), Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020. 1.4.2 Operating Revenues for the Ann Arbor Campus (including U-M Health System) by Percent, FY2010-2020.

Chapter 1 – Overview of the University (17th Edition) 3 Since World War II ended, enrollment has more than doubled from 19,176 in 1946 to 48,090 in 2020. 1.2.1 Student Enrollment, Fall 1841-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Statistical Reference Book (1966); U-M Office of the Registrar An enrollment headcount based on a fall count is available The enrollment valley in the early 1940s followed by a rapid starting in 1841 and continuing about every five years to rise and peak in the late 1940s parallels the U.S. involvement 1929. The first class in 1841 consisted of six undergraduates. in World War II followed by the the war’s end and the Graduate student enrollment began during the 1840s, and the passage of the GI Bill. The subsequent enrollment valley – first graduate degree (a Master of Arts) was conferred in reaching its low point in 1985 – synchronizes fairly closely 1849, followed by the first M.D. degree in 1851. Total with the end of the post-World War II baby boom’s prime enrollment is reported unless records provide an accurate college years. accounting of the separate undergraduate and graduate student population.

Chapter 1 – Overview of the University (17th Edition) 4

Undergraduate enrollment has risen fairly steadily since 1960, with a few periods of decline. Graduate and professional enrollment reached an initial peak in 1975, underwent a period of decline through about 2000, and only returned to the 1975 level again in 2007. 1.2.2 Student Enrollment by Level, Fall 1960-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Office of the Registrar University of Michigan undergraduate student enrollment has risen nearly every year since 1960. The Fall 2020 enrollment is 2.2 times larger than the Fall 1960 enrollment. The undergraduate increase from last fall is 63 students (0.2%).

Graduate student enrollment growth has not grown with the same consistence as for undergraduates, although the current Fall enrollment is 1.8 times larger than for Fall 1960. Graduate enrollment declined by 246 students since last fall (-1.5%). These changes from last fall are largely attributed to the disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

Chapter 1 – Overview of the University (17th Edition) 5

The University community includes 47,907 students and 7,292 faculty members. 1.3 Composition of U-M Ann Arbor Campus Community1, Fall 2020.

SOURCE: U-M Office of the Registrar; U-M Human Resources Data Sets Undergraduate Students ...... 31,329 The total faculty count includes tenured & tenure-track Graduate Students ...... 13,862 faculty, lecturers, clinical faculty, research faculty and other Professional Students ...... 2,716 academic (not-on-track faculty, adjunct and visiting faculty Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty ...... 3,202 adjunct and visiting research faculty, and emeritus faculty). Lecturers ...... 989 In this chart, the staff count includes regular staff, clinical Clinical Faculty ...... 2,247 interns and professional specialists. Students who also have Research Faculty ...... 854 supplemental staff appointments as graduate student Other Academic ...... 375 instructors, graduate student research assistants, and graduate Research Fellows/Post-Doctoral Fellows ...... 1,156 student staff assistants are included in student counts. Staff ...... 15,972 The professional student count includes students enrolled in Ann Arbor Campus Total1 ...... 72,702 the MD, DDS, JD, PharmD and DNP programs. The graduate student count includes all other graduate students. See Appendix C for details.

1 Excludes the U-M Health System (see Appendix E for definition).

Chapter 1 – Overview of the University (17th Edition) 6

Revenues (adjusted for inflation2) for the Ann Arbor campus and U-M Health System combined increased from $6.19 billion in FY2010 to $8.98 billion in FY2020. The state appropriation in inflation-adjusted dollars declined from $376 million in FY2010 to $287 million in FY2020. 1.4.1 Operating Revenues for the Ann Arbor Campus (including the U-M Health System), Adjusted for Inflation2, FY2010-2020.

1.4.2 Operating Revenues for the Ann Arbor Campus (including the U-M Health System), by Percent, FY2010-2020.

SOURCE: University of Michigan Audited Financial Reports “Net student tuition/fees” is calculated by subtracting student scholarships from total tuition and fees for the fiscal year.

2 Based on 2020 U.S. Consumer Price Index. exclude from PDF

Chapter 1 – Overview of the University (17th Edition) 7

8 Chapter 2 Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment

Goals The Office of Undergraduate Admissions has described U-M students as “bright and inquisitive, coming from a diverse Access is a central priority for the University admissions and range of backgrounds, and driven to succeed.” These enrollment process. The goal is to enable qualified students students are attracted to the University of Michigan for to attend regardless of socioeconomic background. For many numerous reasons, including the institution’s reputation, years, the U-M has provided financial aid packages that meet the quality of its faculty and academic programs, and the full cost of attendance to admitted in-state students with campus atmosphere. demonstrated need. Recently the University added a new program – the Go Blue Guarantee – that pledges to provide The U-M offers some 250 academic programs for the full cost of tuition to all admitted, in-state students whose undergraduates, opportunities for international study, more family income is less than $65,000 and family assets are less than 1,600 student clubs to join, and 27 NCAA Division I than $50,000 (see Chapter 3). teams to cheer on. No other public university spends more on research, making it possible even for undergraduate students The University also seeks to enhance the student learning to have hands-on research experiences. The cosmopolitan experience by improving the student-faculty ratio, campus community and college town atmosphere make it encouraging international experiences, supporting academic one of the most interesting places in the country. multicultural initiatives, keeping pace with instructional technology and facilities, and expanding undergraduate The University actively pursues students from the state of engaged learning opportunities (see Chapter 8). Michigan, the nation and around the globe. In fall 2020, the U-M enrolled undergraduate students from all 83 Michigan Overview counties, all 50 states, and 91 countries. Fifty-three percent This chapter details application, admission and enrollment of undergraduates are from the state of Michigan. The trends for first-time undergraduates and new transfer diverse origins, backgrounds and experiences found in every students. entering class contribute to the varied interests and Student interest in the University continues to grow. characteristics of the student body. Applications from first-time first-year students have more For More Information than doubled since 2010, although the 2020 application Office of Undergraduate Admissions count was only slightly higher than last year. As a highly (admissions.umich.edu) selective institution, U-M offers admission to fewer than half of those who apply. The number of newly enrolling first Enrollment and Degree Reports, Office of the Registrar years has been fairly level over the last decade; new (ro.umich.edu/reports) enrollees have increased by only a few hundred. Office of Budget and Planning (see Campus Statistics) Undergraduate students who enroll in the U-M have (obp.umich.edu) excellent grade point averages and standardized test scores.

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Charts in Chapter 2 2.1.1 Applications, Admission offers, and Enrollment for New First-Year Students, Fall 2010-2020. 2.1.2 Applications, Admission offers, and Enrollment for New Undergraduate Transfer Students, Fall 2010-2020. 2.2.1 Selectivity Rates for Undergraduate First-Year and Transfer Students, Fall 2010-2020. 2.2.2 Yield Rates for New First-Year and Undergraduate Transfer Students, Fall 2010-2020. 2.3.1 GPA and Standardized Test Scores of New First-Year Students, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020. 2.3.2 SAT Math and Critical Reading Scores for New First-Year Undergraduate Students at U-M and Peer Institutions, Fall 2019. 2.3.3 SAT Math and Critical Reading Scores for New First-Year Undergraduate Students at U-M and Public Big Ten Universities, Fall 2019. 2.3.4 Average College GPA of New Undergraduate Transfer Students, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020. 2.3.5 New Undergraduate Transfer Students by Class Level at Entry, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020. 2.4.1 Total Undergraduate and New First-Year Student Enrollment, Fall 2010-2020. 2.4.2 Undergraduate Student Fall Enrollment by School and College, 2016-20. 2.4.3 Undergraduate Student Fall Enrollment 10-Year Trend by School and College, 2010-2020. 2.5.1 Geographic Origin of Undergraduate Students by Headcount and Percent, Fall 2010-2020. 2.5.2 Geographic Origin of New First-Years, U-M, Public Big Ten and Peer Institutions, by Percent, Fall 2018. 2.5.3 U-M Ann Arbor Campus Undergraduate Student Enrollment from the State of Michigan by County, Fall 2020. 2.5.4 U-M Ann Arbor Campus Undergraduate Student Enrollment by State, Fall 2020.

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 9 U-M first-year undergraduate applications have doubled since 2010, although the total has plateaued in the last few years. Enrollment has increased only 6 percent over the same time frame. 2.1.1 Applications, Admission Offers, and Enrollment for New First-Year Students, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets Over the last decade, new first-year undergraduate application totals for the University of Michigan have trended upward at a fairly rapid rate through the Fall 2018 enrollment period. This growth is largely attributed to the adoption of the Common Application, which makes it simpler for students to include the University of Michigan on the list of institutions they want to consider. Importantly, the U-M has continued to enroll highly qualied students even as the number of applications has grown and in spite of a decline in the number of high school graduates from Michigan high schools and from most states across the nation.

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 10

U-M transfer applications and enrollment have increased compared to ten years ago. 2.1.2 Applications, Admission Offers, and Enrollment for New Undergraduate Transfer Students, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets Over the last decade, undergraduate transfer application totals for the University of Michigan have trended upward, although much more slowly than have new first-years applications. Nonetheless, new transfer enrollment has increased by 44 percent over 2010.

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 11

The trend in selectivity rates is mainly influenced by changes in application numbers, although the decline in high school populations in Michigan also has an impact. 2.2.1 Selectivity Rates for New Undergraduate First-Year and Transfer Students, Fall 2010-2020.

Lower percentage means more selective in choosing among applicants

2.2.2 Yield Rates for New Undergraduate First-Year and Transfer Students, Fall 2020-2020.

Higher percentage means greater success in attracting desired students

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets The U-M sets annual targets for entering first-year and that admission offers stem from a broad range of factors, undergraduate students. The class-size target and a prediction not just high school grads and test scores. of how many admitted applicants will enroll influence the In chart 2.2.2, a high percentage indicates the school is number of admissions offers. Tuning admissions selectivity successful in convincing the sought-after students to enroll to produce desired enrollment levels is something of an art, here instead of other schools. Yield is lower for out-of-state informed by data and experience. Selectivity is the ratio of students (dotted green curve) compared to in-state students admission offers to total applications. Yield is the ratio of (dotted red curve) likely due to the U-M commitment to enrollment numbers to admission offers. providing financial aid to in-state students and relatively In chart 2.2.1, a lower percentage indicates greater greater competition the University faces for out-of-state selectivity, an indicator of student quality. What the chart students. does not show is the high quality of a majority of applicants,

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 12

The academic preparation of first-time first-year students entering the U-M, already high, is improving, as indicated by the grade point averages and standardized test scores of the Fall 2020 first-year undergraduate students compared to their 2010 counterparts. 2.3.1 GPA1 and Standardized Test Scores of New First-Year Undergraduate Students, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020.

SOURCE: Freshman Profile Reports, U-M Office of Admissions; Student Admissions Data Set Data on new U-M first-year students confirms that students U-M applicants must submit a score for the SAT or the ACT enrolling in the U-M have experienced a high level of (and some submit scores for both tests). The reported scores academic success in high school. Furthermore, the level of for Fall 2020 first-year undergraduate students come from a academic achievement of new first-years has increased, as relatively new version of the SAT. The SAT results reported indicated by comparing percentile rankings of high school for Fall 2010 first-years combine the scores from the Verbal grade point averages (GPA) and standardized test scores of and Math tests given that year. the Fall 2010 and 2020 first-years classes.

The University of Michigan calculates each student's high school GPA on a 4.0 scale after eliminating any weighting from the applicant’s high school transcript. In 2010, the GPA was calculated based on academic subjects only in grades 9 to 11. In 2020, the GPA was calculated for all subjects taken in grades 9 to 11.

1 A grade point average was not recorded in admissions data for every newly enrolled first-years.

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 13

Scores by U-M first-year undergraduate on the Math and Reading sections of the SAT fall near the middle of range of SAT scores for first-years at peer universities. 2.3.2 SAT Math and Critical Reading Scores (25th to 75th Percentiles) for New First-Year Undergraduate Students at U-M and Peer Institutions2, Fall 2019. Chicago (1,726 first years)

MIT (1,102) Math 25th – 75th Percentile Range Stanford (1,6987)

Columbia (1,465) Critical Reading 25th – 75th Percentile Range Yale (1,550)

Private Universities in Italics Harvard (1,649) Public Universities in Roman Johns Hopkins (1,475)

Pennsylvania (2,400)

Cornell (3,189)

Northwestern (2,006)

USC (3,168)

UCLA (5,920)

MICHIGAN (6,830)

NYU (5,752)

UC-Berkeley (6,455)

Virginia (3,920)

North Carolina (4,182)

Wisconsin (7,550)

Texas (8,170)

Maryland (4,279)

Illinois (7,665)

Washington (6,992)

Ohio State (7,716)

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) The universities chosen for comparison are those that the time first-year undergraduate enrollment for fall 2019 is in U-M considers as academic peers2. The schools have been parentheses after the school name. Although only about one- ordered by the sum of the 75th percentile SAT Critical half of Fall 2017 U-M first-years submitted SAT scores Reading and Math scores for the institution’s fall 2019 new (while about 75% submit ACT scores), the SAT score is the first-year students (the most recent year for which data is only measure available for many of these peer institutions. available for U-M peer institutions). Each institution’s full-

2 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 14

New U-M first-year undergraduate student scores on the combned Math and Reading sections of the SAT equal those of comparable students at University of Wisconsin and are higher than all other Big Ten public institutions. 2.3.3 SAT Math and Critical Reading Scores (25th to 75th Percentiles) for New First-Year Undergradute Students at Public Big Ten Universities, Fall 2019. MICHIGAN (6,830) Math 25th – 75th Percentile Range Wisconsin (7,550) Minnesota (6,278) Critical Reading 25th – 75th Percentile Range Maryland (4,279) Illinois (7,665) Ohio State (7,716) Purdue (8,195) Rutgers (7,315) Indiana (8,291) Nebraska (4,775) Iowa (4,986) Michigan State (8,801) Penn State (8,465)

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) The school list is ordered by the sum of the 75th percentile SAT Math and Critical Reading scores for the institution’s fall 2019 new full-time first-time students. Each institution’s full-time new first-years enrollment for fall 2019 is in parentheses after the school name.

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 15

Undergraduate degree-seeking transfer students enter with slightly higher grade point averages today than 10 years ago. 2.3.4 Average College GPA of New Undergraduate Transfer Students3, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020.

3 A grade point average was not recorded in admissions data for every undergraduate transfer student.

2.3.5 New Undergraduate Degree-Seeking Transfer Students by Class Level at Enrollment, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets About 94 percent of new transfer students for Fall 2020 entered with sophomore or junior academic standing.

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 16

Total undergraduate enrollment in 2020 is 16 percent higher than in 2010. The size of the 2020 class of first-year undergraduates is 6 percent higher than its 2010 counterpart. 2.4.1 Total Undergraduate and New First-Year Student Enrollment, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets

.

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 17

Fifteen4 of the 19 U-M Schools and Colleges administer undergraduate programs, which enrolled 31,329 students for Fall 2020. 2.4.2 Undergraduate Student Fall Enrollment Headcount by School and College, 2016-20.

School/College 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Taubman College of Architecture & Urban Planning 145 162 184 184 177 Penny W. Stamps School of Art & Design 535 540 582 603 616 Stephen M. Ross School of Business 1,733 2,330 2,385 2,404 2,377 School of Dentistry (Dental Hygiene) 111 110 102 86 83 School of Education 113 118 130 139 126 College of Engineering 6,231 6,442 6,648 6,779 6,841 School for Environment & Sustainability 4 - - - - 1 School of Information 206 252 313 322 295 School of Kinesiology 947 973 965 997 1,003 College of Literature, Science and the Arts 17,216 17,075 17,149 17,837 17,796 Medical School 5 30 25 28 25 34 School of Music, Theatre & Dance 820 825 808 834 837 School of Nursing 706 672 630 642 678 College of Pharmacy 33 41 56 74 91 School of Public Health 6 - 95 172 170 204 Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy 114 150 154 161 163 School of Art and Design / School of Music, Theatre 15 11 12 9 7 and Dance Joint Program

Grand Total, Undergraduate Students 28,983 29,821 30,318 31,266 31,329 SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets

4 The School for Environment & Sustainability does not accept new undergraduate students but allows students to return to an undergraduate program if enrolled in one in the past when the school offered such programs. 5 The Medical School launched an undergraduate non-degree program in Fall 2015. 6 The School of Public Health launched an undergraduate degree program in Fall 2017.

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 18

Fifteen of the 19 U-M Schools and Colleges administer undergraduate programs, which enrolled 31,329 students for Fall 2020. 2.4.3 Undergraduate Student Fall Enrollment 10-Year Trend by School and College, 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets Enrollment counts are excluded from this chart for students Pharm.D. program without holding a bachelor's degree and in the Medical School MedPrep non-degree program and for were counted as undergraduate students prior to Fall 2017 SEAS undergraduate readmits and students who started the instead of graduate-professional students.

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 19

More than half of U-M undergraduate students are from the state of Michigan. 2.5.1 Geographic Origin of Undergraduate Students by Headcount and Percent, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets A student’s geographic origin is defined according to the a significant percentage of the state's high school graduates address used in the application for admission. The compared to many other Michigan public universities and geographic origin of a student is similar, but not identical, to colleges. residency status, which is used to determine tuition to be The counts in this chart include a small number of students paid. enrolled in the Pharm.D. program who were classified as The distribution of in-state and out-of-state students among undergraduate students, a practice that ended with Fall 2017. undergraduates is partially dependent on the size of each high school graduating class in Michigan, which is on the decline. In 2008, the number of Michigan public high school graduates peaked at 117,4877. By 2030, the total number of public high school graduates has been projected to drop to 8 100,430 , about 17 percent below the 2008 peak. In spite of the drop in Michigan high school graduates, the U-M enrolls

7 Student Pathways Aggregate for High Schools (HS Graduation Year 2010-11), Center for Educational Performance and Information, www.michigan.gov/cepi. 8 Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates, 2020, www.knocking.wiche.edu, Michigan Projection.

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 20

Michigan enrolls a higher fraction of out-of-state/international new first-year undergraduate students compared to most of its public university peers. In large part this is because U-M’s primary competitors for these students are selective private universities. 2.5.2 Geographic Origin of New First-Years Students, U-M and Public Big Ten and Peer Institutions6, by Percent, Fall 2018.

U MICHIGAN

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) IPEDS collects geographic origin data only for new first- time first-year students.

A list of the “official” public peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 21

The majority of in-state undergraduate students are from Southeastern Michigan. 2.5.3 U-M Ann Arbor Campus Undergraduate Student Enrollment from the State of Michigan by County, Fall 2020.

Key to Size of Student Cohort from a County

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 22

After Michigan, the states of New York, Illinois and California are home to the largest number of U-M undergraduate students. 2.5.4 U-M Ann Arbor Campus Undergraduate Student Enrollment by State, Fall 2020.

Key to Size of Student Cohort from a State

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets

Chapter 2 – Undergraduate Students: Admissions & Enrollment (17th Edition) 23

24 Chapter 3 Undergraduate Students: Affordability

Goals loans, and work study employment. In acknowledgment of The University of Michigan has a longstanding commitment real concern over the nation’s rising student loan debt, the to provide financial aid to undergraduates that meets the full University has worked hard to provide students with more demonstrated need of admitted, in-state students to pay for and larger grants, which do not need to be repaid, and to tuition, room and board, textbooks and incidentals. Starting reduce their reliance on loans. with the Winter 2018 term, the U-M launched the "Go Blue In 2019-20, 71 percent of in-state and 50 percent of out-of- Guarantee," which pledges the University to provide aid that state students received some type of aid. The average student at a minimum covers four years of tuition for any admitted loan debt for in-state students who graduated in 2019-20 was in-state student whose family income is below $65,000 and $22,462. with assets less than $50,000.

Overview For More Information The University has worked very hard in recent years to minimize tuition increases. It has been able to reduce the net Office of Financial Aid (finaid.umich.edu/) cost of attendance for undergraduate students with financial Go Blue Guarantee (goblueguarantee.umich.edu/) need (despite dramatic declines in state support) by making sizeable and growing investments in financial aid, funded U-M Affordability Guide for In-State Students through a combination of aggressive cost containment and (admissions.umich.edu/costs-aid/michigan-residents/) generous philanthropic contributions. Furthermore, student Cost Cutting and Budget Update support was the highest priority for the recent, record- (publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-issues/cost-cutting- breaking Victors for Michigan fundraising campaign. budget-update/) The University has seen to it that the central financial aid budget has grown to more than keep pace with tuition increases; the budgeted about for student aid has increased 12 percent per year over the last decade. Aid packages combine need- and merit-based grants and scholarships,

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Charts in Chapter 3 3.1 Undergraduate Tuition and Required Fees, per Semester, 2020-21. 3.2.1 Total Cost of Attendance Before Financial Aid, In-State Students, U-M and AAU Public Universities, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020 3.2.2 Total Cost of Attendance Before Financial Aid, Out-of-State Students, U-M and AAU Public and Private Universities, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020. 3.3.1 Typical Net Cost of Attendance for New U-M First-Years by Family Income Level, FY2011-2021. 3.3.2 Dollar Change in Average Net Cost of Attendance for New First-Years Receiving Aid, at U-M and Peers, FY2016-2018. 3.4 Total U-M Expenditures for Undergraduate Student Grant and Scholarship Aid, by In-State/Out-of-State Status, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020. 3.5.1 Average Grant and Scholarship Aid by Source, Adjusted for Inflation, for New First-Years at U-M, FY2009 and FY2019. 3.5.2 Average Institutional Grant or Scholarship Compared to the Average State Grant and Scholarship Aid for New First-Years, U-M and AAU Public Universities, FY2019. 3.6.1 Family Income Distribution for New First-Years and All Undergraduates, by In-State and Out-of-State Status, Fall 2009 & Fall 2019. 3.6.2 Pell Grant Recipients as Percent of Undergraduate Student Body, U-M and AAU Institutions, 2018-19. 3.6.3 Number and Percentage of In-State/Out-of-State U-M Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grants, 2010-2020. 3.6.4 Number and Percentage of Undergraduate Students Receiving Aid, by Type, 2019-20. 3.6.5 Total Financial Aid Awarded and Average Total Award per Student Receiving Aid, 2019-20. 3.7 Weekly Hours of Paid Work by U-M Undergraduate Students, 2009-2019. 3.8 Average Student Loan Debt Burden at Graduation for All, In-State and Out-of-State U-M Undergraduate Students, 2019-20.

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 25 Tuition and fees for in-state, first-time, first-year undergraduates start at $7,974 per semester in the College of Literature, Science & the Arts, Penny W. Stamps School of Art & Design, Taubman School of Architecture & Urban Planning, and the School of Nursing. In-state first-years entering the College of Engineering pay the highest per-semester rate of $8,525. 3.1 Undergraduate Tuition and Required Fees, per Semester, 2020-21. Per semester School/College Program In-State Out-of-State

Taubman College of Architecture Lower Division $7,974 $26,133 & Urban Planning Upper Division $8,974 $27,964 Lower Division $7,974 $26,133 Penny W. Stamps School of Art & Design Upper Division $8,974 $27,964 Lower Division $8,451 $26,573 Stephen M. Ross School of Business Upper Division $10,649 $29,730 Lower Division $8,120 $26,286 School of Dentistry (Dental Hygiene) Upper Division $9,127 $28,123

School of Education Upper Division $8,974 $27,964

Lower Division $8,525 $26,286 College of Engineering Upper Division $10,980 $29,492

School of Information Upper Division $8,974 $27,964

Lower Division $8,408 $27,778 School of Kinesiology Upper Division $9,633 $30,334 Lower Division $7,974 $26,133 College of Literature, Science & the Arts Upper Division $8,974 $27,964

Medical School Upper Division $8,974 $27,397

Lower Division $8,288 $26,480 School of Music, Theatre & Dance Upper Division $9,286 $28,309 Lower Division $7,974 $26,133 School of Nursing Upper Division $8,974 $27,964 College of Pharmacy Upper Division $8,974 $27,964

School of Public Health1 Upper Division $8,974 $27,964

Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy Upper Division $8,974 $27,964

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets Tuition and fees contribute to paying for the cost of Part of this year's increase is due to a new fee of $50 per term instruction, financial aid, academic advising, libraries, for COVID-19 expenses. computing centers, and other student support services. Students who have completed fewer than 55 credits toward Tuition rates vary by school and college in part because the program completion pay the Lower Division tuition rates. delivery costs for programs vary or because the demand for Those who have completed 55 credits or more pay Upper certain programs is greater than for others. Division rates. Tuition and required fees increased by 2.5 percent compared to 2019-20 for In-State undergraduate students. Out-of-State undergraduates saw increases of 2.1 percent over last year.

1 The School of Public Health first offered undergraduate programs in September 2018.

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 26 Over the last decade, the “sticker price” for in-state U-M students has grown more slowly than the comparable average for in-state students at AAU public universities. 3.2.1 Total Cost of Attendance Before Financial Aid, In-State Students, U-M and AAU Public Universities, Adjusted for Inflation2, FY2010-2020.

+0.98% +1.16%

3.2.2 Total Cost of Attendance Before Financial Aid, Out-of-State Students, U-M and AAU Public and Private Universities, Adjusted for Inflation2, FY2010-2020.

+1.68%

+1.80%

+1.32%

SOURCE (both charts): Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) The total cost of attendance (excluding financial aid expenses. The net cost of attendance will vary depending on contributions) for incoming first-years is a benchmark figure financial aid provided, as well as the differences in that includes Regentally-approved tuition and required fees transportation requirements and housing choices. and room and board, plus reasonable estimates for the costs The percentage above each double-headed arrow is the of books and supplies, transportation, and miscellaneous compound annual growth rate.

2 Based on 2020 U.S. Consumer Price Index.

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 27 Today's typical in-state students with family incomes up to $100,000 pay less to attend U-M than than their counterparts did in 2010-11. 3.3.1 Typical Net Cost of Attendance3 for In-State First-Years by Family Income Level, Before Merit Aid, Adjusted for Inflation4, Academic Year 2011-2021.

SOURCE: U-M Sample Financial Aid Packages, Office of Financial Aid Students from in-state families in the lowest income brackets The dotted line labeled “Sticker Price” is the cost of are not required to pay anything out-of-pocket to attend the attendance before taking into account any grants, loans or University of Michigan. The $2,500 net cost for the under scholarships that may be available to reduce the out-of- $40,000 group represents the amount of Work Study pocket costs. earnings made available to these students, meaning a student Merit-based scholarship aid is not reflected in the cost of who accepts a Work Study job can see a net cost of zero. In attendance data presented here. Merit grants reduce the need addition, Work Study opportunities are offered now to all to take loans or to participate in Work Study as part of a students whose family income is $120,000 or less. student’s Expected Family Contribution.

3 The projected cost of attendance calculation considers Work Study to be a cost to the student, although it can be covered through a Work Study job. The net cost of attendance also accounts for the tax credits typically available to families with annual incomes in the $20,000 to $100,000 range. The net cost does not consider any reduction in loan amounts that were made possible through the award of merit-based scholarships. 4 Inflation adjustment based on Employer Cost Index for 2018.

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 28 From FY2016 to FY2018, the average net cost of attendance (or net price) for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who received grants and/or scholarship aid increased about $750 at the U-M, similar to many of its peer universities5. 3.3.2 Dollar Change in Average Net Cost of Attendance for First-Years Receiving Aid, at U-M and Peers5, FY2016-2018.

Private Universities Public Universities

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) In FY2018, the average net cost of attendance (full cost minus financial aid) for U-M first-time, full-time in-state undergraduate students who received grant or scholarship aid increased to $16,856, an increase of $749 compared to $16,107 in FY2016. Since the calculation is based only on students receiving aid, a school’s net price rises or falls depending on how its aid budget is spread over qualifying students.

5 A list of the peer public and private institutions, as well as all public and private AAU schools used to compute the averages shown, is published in Appendix A.

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 29 In the 2019-20 academic year, the U-M provided $282.5 million in grants and scholarships from university funds to undergraduate students. 3.4 Total U-M Expenditures for Undergraduate Student Grant and Scholarship Aid, by In-State/Out-of- State Status, Adjusted for Inflation6, with Annual Percentage Increases, FY2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Financial Aid Data This chart shows the amount of financial aid paid to undergraduates from institutional funds as both need-based grants and merit-based scholarships. The value above each column is the percentage increase in expenditures for grant and scholarship aid from the previous year.

Fundraising provides an important component of the institution’s financial aid resources, and about 20 percent of the U-M endowment is now dedicated to financial aid.

6 Inflation based on 2020 U.S. Consumer Price Index.

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 30 Between FY2009 and FY2019, U-M increased the inflation-adjusted, average U-M grant and scholarship aid to new undergraduate students by $6,693. At the same time, when adjusted for inflation, the average grant and scholarship aid from the federal government decreased by $438 and the average state grant and scholarship aid decreased by $509. 3.5.1 Average Grant/Scholarship Aid by Funding Source, Adjusted for Inflation7, for Undergraduate First-Years at U-M, FY2009 and FY2019.

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) On average, the inflation-adjusted, grant and scholarship aid from the U-M to a first-time full-time undergraduate student was 61 percent higher in FY2019 than in FY2009. Conversely, when adjusted for inflation, the average grant and scholarship aid from the State of Michigan is 34 percent smaller now compared to a decade ago, and federal grant and scholarship aid, adjusted for inflation, is 7 percent smaller.

7 Based on 2019 U.S. Consumer Price Index.

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 31 The University of Michigan provides the second-highest average institutional grant/scholarship aid of all AAU public institutions. However, average state grant/scholarship aid to U-M students is lowest of all AAU public universities. 3.5.2 Average Institutional Grant or Scholarship Compared to the Average State Grant and Scholarship Aid8 for First-Year Undergradutes, U-M and AAU Public Universities, FY2019.

U MICHIGAN

U MICHIGAN

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Only one AAU public university – University of Virginia, at $20,701 per student – provides larger average institutional grant and scholarship aid to first-time first-year undergraduate students. U-M's average institutional grant/scholarship aid to first-years is $17,962.

The average State of Michigan grant/scholarship to U-M students is smaller than the comparable average state aid provided to any other AAU public university.

8 The average aid calculation is based only on students who receive such aid.

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 32 The percentage of in-state irst-years and of all undergraduate students from families with an annual income of $50,000 or less is larger now than a decade ago. 3.6.1 Family Income Distribution for First-Year and All Undergraduate Students, by In-State and Out-of-State Status, Fall 2009 & Fall 2019.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education Family income is based on data reported by families on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), an online form that college students must complete to be considered for financial aid.

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 33 The U-M enrolls a lower percentage of students eligible for Pell Grants compared to most other AAU public universities, and similar to the levels at most private AAU universities. 3.6.2 Pell Grant Recipients as Percent of Undergraduate Student Body, U-M and AAU Institutions, 2018-19. Percent of undergrads Percent of undergrads

with Pell grants with Pell grants AAU Privates (average) 16% New York University 19% AAU Publics (average, excluding U-M) 24% Princeton University 19% University of Maryland 18% University of California-Irvine 40% University of Minnesota 18% University of California-Davis 37% Massachusetts Institute of Technology 18% University of California-San Diego 37% Northwestern University 18% University of California-Santa Barbara 36% University of Rochester 18% Stony Brook University (SUNY) 35% Yale University 18% University of California-Santa Cruz 35% Brandeis University 17% University at Buffalo (SUNY) 33% Cornell University 17% University of California-Los Angeles 32% Dartmouth University 17% Rutgers University 29% Stanford University 17% University of Arizona 29% UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 16% University of California-Berkeley 27% Purdue University 16% University of Florida 26% University of Colorado 16% University of Oregon 26% Boston University 16% University of Utah 26% Vanderbilt University 16% Columbia University 25% University of Pittsburgh 15% Pennsylvania State University 23% Rice University 15% University of Texas at Austin 23% Georgia Institute of Technology 14% University of Illinois 23% University of Wisconsin 14% University of North Carolina 23% California Institute of Technology 14% Michigan State University 22% Carnegie Mellon University 14% Texas A & M University 22% Duke University 14% Iowa State University 21% Johns Hopkins University 14% Ohio State University 21% University of Virginia 13% University of Kansas 21% Brown University 13% University of Missouri 21% Case Western Reserve University 13% University of Washington 21% University of Pennsylvania 13% University of Southern California 21% Washington University 13% University of Iowa 20% Harvard University 12% Indiana University 19% Tulane University of Louisiana 11% Emory University 19% University of Chicago 11% SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) The Federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private to low-income undergraduate students to promote access to a university data are shaded in blue. college education. Pell Grants, unlike loans, do not need to be repaid. The maximum Pell Grant for the 2018-19 academic year was $6,095, which then may be adjusted for each recipient according to financial need, cost to attend school, and status as a full-time/part-time and full-year/part- year student.

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 34 Many more U-M undergraduate students receive Pell grants now compared to a decade ago. The percentage of the undergraduate population supported by a Pell Grant has also increased compared to 2010. 3.6.3 Number and Percentage of In-State/Out-of-State U-M Undergraduate Students Receiving Pell Grants, 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Office of Financial Aid Pell grants are need-based awards made to students based on the student's family income, as reported on the Free

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), an online form that college students must complete to be considered for financial aid. The percentage is based on the number of students who received a Pell Grant during the academic year divided by total fall undergraduate enrollment.

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 35 Seventy-one percent of in-state undergraduate students receive some kind of financial aid, and 46 percent of in-state undergraduates receive need-based grants. 3.6.4 Number and Percentage of Undergraduate Students Receiving Aid, by Type, 2019-20.

In-State8 Out-of-State8 Aid Type (16,653)9 (14,613)9

Need-based Grant Aid 7,630 (46%) 4,029 (28%)

Merit-based Scholarship Aid 8,975 (54%) 4,352 (30%)

Work Study 2,008 (12%) 1,022 (7%)

Loans 5,637 (34%) 3,892 (27%)

Any Type of Aid 11,875 (71%) 7,330 (50%)

3.6.5 Total Financial Aid Awarded and Average Total Award per Student Receiving Aid, 2019-20.

Aid Awarded In-State8 Out-of-State8

Total Aid Awarded from all Sources $222,622,118 $270,435,736

Average Total Award per Student $18,747 $36,894 Receiving Any Type of Aid

Source: U-M Office of Financial Aid In reviewing these charts, please note: a) many students receive multiple types of aid, b) many merit-based scholarships also have a need-based component in their criteria, c) the loan data includes all student loans, whether included in a student’s financial aid package or as a supplemental loan.

8 Tuition residency status 9 Fall 2019 enrollment

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 36 Just over half of U-M undergraduate students work for pay while in school; of those who do, most work 10 hours a week or less during the academic year. 3.7 Weekly Hours of Paid Work by U-M Undergraduate Students10, 2009-2019.

SOURCE: University of Michigan Asks You (UMAY) undergraduate survey According to student reports, the time devoted to work for pay has has been fairly consisten over the last decaade.

While some U-M students help finance their education through work for pay during the academic year, it’s important that this not impede students’ progress toward completion of their degree programs.

10 Percentage distributions exclude students who did not respond.

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 37 More than half of in-state undergraduate students in the 2020 graduating class completed their degrees without incurring student loan debt. 3.8 Average Student Loan Debt Burden at Graduation for All, In-State and Out-of-State U-M Undergraduate Students, 2019-20.

2019-20 Graduating In-State11 Out-of-State11

Class (7,624)12 (4,059)12 (3,565)12

Average Loan Burden $25,753 $22,462 $31,251

Number of Graduates with Loans 2,804 1,754 1,050

37% 43% 29% Percent of Graduates with Loans of all of in-state of out-of-state undergraduates graduates graduates

SOURCE: U-M Financial Aid Data Thirty-seven percent of the 2019-20 undergraduate class In interpreting loan burden figures, it is important to graduated with debt. The average loan burden for in-state distinguish between “packaged” loans and “supplemental” student graduates was $22,462 and for out-of-state students loans. Students who apply for financial aid at U-M are was $31,251. Compared to the previous year’s graduating automatically considered for low-interest federal loans, class, the average debt burden at graduation increased by which are awarded as part of financial aid packages. $456 for in-state students and decreased by $1,249 for out- Supplemental loans, which are offered both by the federal of-state students. The percentage of students, overall and by government and private lenders, are available to all students, in-state or out-of-state status, remained the same as last year. regardless of whether they are eligible for financial aid.

11 Tuition residency status 12 Counts from 2019-20 graduating class

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 38

Chapter 3 – Undergraduate Students: Affordability (17th Edition) 39

40 Chapter 4 Undergraduate Student Success

Goals the average of public Association of American Universities (AAU) member institutions, and nearly equal to the average The University of Michigan prepares its students to become of AAU private universities. These high rates reflect U-M’s leaders in the 21st century. The U-M’s academic and extra- ability to recruit excellent, well-prepared students and deliver curricular programs have been developed and implemented high-quality education in a supportive environment. so that each student can complete a meaningful degree program in a reasonable time frame, and thereby advance his Undergraduates who transfer to the U-M complete their or her career and personal goals. degree programs at high rates as well. Between 85 and 90 percent of transfer students graduate within four to six years Overview after enrollment. The University takes a number of steps to facilitate students’ timely progress to degree completion. This includes U-M undergraduates are surveyed regularly and report very providing sufficient course offerings, excellent advising and positive opinions of the University as a whole and of their mentoring, as well as ensuring that in-state students who individual academic programs. demonstrate financial need receive sufficient financial aid. In addition to graduate school or employment, University of Out-of-state students also benefit from these resources, Michigan students are increasingly interested in becoming including access to limited financial assistance. entrepreneurs, with a growing number of students launching Each U-M undergraduate school or college has developed business ventures even before graduation. initiatives to help students address impediments to successful For more information completion of a degree. The academic units monitor student performance in key courses and require additional academic Additional data on undergraduate demographics can be advising for students who need more support. In addition, all found in Chapter 2 on admissions and enrollment and in students may take advantage of academic support services Chapter 7 on diversity. Information about undergraduate and programs, such as departmental tutoring, study skills costs and financial aid is in Chapter 3. workshops, mentoring, and programs offered by the Sweetland Writing Center and the Science Learning Center. This chapter includes data on graduation rates by freshman Most Popular Undergraduate Degrees, 2019-20 cohort, retention rates (percentage of first-time, first-year • Computer Science (10.4% of degrees granted) students who return to continue school the following fall), • Business (7.0%) and survey data related to student satisfaction with the U-M • Economics (6.8%) academic experience. • Psychology (4.7%) More than 96 percent of freshman complete their first year of • Biopsychology, Cognition course work and return the following fall. And better than and Neuroscience (3.8%) three-quarters of Michigan undergraduate students complete their first degree within four years of enrolling as freshmen. After six years, about 90 percent of undergraduates earn a degree. University of Michigan students’ six-year completion rates are now 10 percentage points higher than

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Charts in Chapter 4 4.1 Graduation Rates for U-M, AAU Public and AAU Private Universities for Freshman Cohorts Starting Fall 2002-2012. 4.2 Average Retention Rates of Full-Time New Freshman at U-M and Peer Schools, 2008-2018. 4.3 Responses of U-M Seniors to Survey Questions about Satisfaction with Academics, Course Availability and Advising, 2009-2019.

Chapter 4 – Undergraduate Student Success (16th Edition) 41 U-M graduation rates are far higher than the average rates for AAU public universities and comparable to the average 6-year rates for AAU private universities. 4.1 Graduation Rates for U-M, AAU Public and AAU Private Universities1 for Freshman Cohorts Starting Fall 2002-2012.

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS); U-M Office of the Registrar Degree Reports This chart shows the fractions of new freshman cohorts that Graduation rates for U-M undergraduate students have have graduated with a bachelor’s degree in four, five and six generally increased over time. Note: The trends for U-M are years. The bottom axis represents the year each freshman not as smooth as the nation-wide averages for AAU Publics cohort started college. Comparative data from Association of and Privates. American Universities (AAU) institutions1 is displayed for

2002 through 2012 cohorts. (AAU schools used to compute the averages is based on members in the sixth year since the cohort entered college.)

1 A list of public and private Association of American Universities (AAU) member institutions is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 4 – Undergraduate Student Success (16th Edition) 42

A high percentage of U-M’s new freshman successfully complete their first year of school and return the following year, at rates similar to its peer institutions. 4.2 Average Retention Rates of Full-Time New Freshman at U-M and Peer Schools, 2008-2018.

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) In the United States, about one-third of new college freshman do not return to their school the following fall for sophomore year. There are many reasons why, from academic challenges or financial difficulties to dissatisfaction with the school or loneliness. Research into freshman retention also shows that students who are the most successful in high school are most likely to return for sophomore year, which suggests that finding the right fit for a student is an important consideration.

As this chart shows, the U-M and its peers do a very good job of supporting new freshman, whether that is through financial aid, student services, or academic support. Average retention rates for public and private member schools of the Associaiton of American Universities2 (AAU) is also shown. All of U-M peer schools are AAU members.

2 A list of public and private Association of American Universities (AAU) member institutions is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 4 – Undergraduate Student Success (16th Edition) 43

Seniors have expressed a high level of satisfaction with their U-M academic experience over several measures. 4.3 Responses of U-M Graduating Seniors to Survey Questions about Satisfaction with Academics, Course Availability, and Advising, 2009-2019.

How satisfied are you with your overall academic experience? Percent Satisfied 85% 90% 89% 90% 90% 93% 91% How satisfied are you with your ability to get into a major that you want? 91% 93% 94% 96% 96% 97% 96% How satisfied are you with availability of courses needed for graduation? 84% 84% 84% 88% 87% 88% 84% How satisfied are you with availability of courses for general education requirements? 86% 84% 85% 87% 84% 86% 82% How satisfied are you with advising by faculty on academic matters? 84% 82% 82% 84% 84% 84% 79% How satisfied are you with advising by departmental staff on academic matters? 84% 81% 82% 81% 84% 83% 79%

SOURCE: U-M Asks You (UMAY) undergraduate survey The percentage to the right of each bar is the fraction of students who replied "Very Satisfied," Satisfied," and "Somewhat Satisfied" (the segments shaded in blue) for the particular question and year.

Chapter 4 – Undergraduate Student Success (16th Edition) 44

Chapter 4 – Undergraduate Student Success (16th Edition) 45

46 Chapter 5 Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students

Goals The Rackham Graduate School collects data on the number of entering graduate students who complete Ph.D. programs. The University of Michigan offers a rigorous and remarkably Overall, 78 percent of the students who enrolled in such broad array of graduate and professional degree programs programs between 2005 and 2014 received a Ph.D. The rates that stand among the very best in the country. The University vary somewhat by discipline. attracts outstanding students to graduate study and prepares them to make lasting contributions to society. Post-graduation plans vary along disciplinary lines. Ph.D. Interdisciplinary study and joint degrees are a special graduates in the humanities and the arts often find academic strength of the University. The vibrant community of positions soon after graduation. Graduates in the biological, graduate and professional students on campus is highly physical and social sciences frequently take a postdoctoral diverse in citizenship, demographic background, and training position before moving to other employment. intellectual perspective. Industry positions attract a large number of graduates from engineering and the physical sciences. U-M’s international Overview students tend to remain in the U.S. after graduation, likely The Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies reflecting the types and number of opportunities available in oversees graduate academic education in partnership with the this country for those holding advanced degrees. schools and colleges. In fall 2020, the University enrolled 8,858 students in doctoral, master's, and graduate-level In several professions, prospective practitioners must pass certificate programs offered by Rackham and the schools and one or more examinations before becoming a licensed colleges. In addition to earning degrees and certificates, member of his or her chosen field; U-M students in graduate students contribute significantly to research, medicine, law, dentistry, and pharmacy have high pass rates. scholarship and teaching activity on campus. The research For more information enterprise at the U-M benefits enormously from the talent Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies and intelligence of these students. (rackham.umich.edu) Another 7,720 students enrolled in fall 2020 in professional and non-Rackham graduate degree programs in medicine, U-M Graduate Program Information law, business, public health, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing, (rackham.umich.edu/programs-of-study) information, engineering, social work and architecture and Office of Budget and Planning – Campus Statistics urban planning. The schools and colleges administer these (obp.umich.edu) degree programs in keeping with each profession’s requirements and standards. Reports about the gender and racial/ethnic diversity of graduate students are in Chapter 8. The tuition paid by graduate and professional students varies considerably depending on the program. Nearly all Ph.D. students and about half of academic master's students receive financial support.

Professional degree programs are generally more costly than other graduate programs. A large fraction of the students in professional degree programs complete their degrees with loans to repay.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 47 Chart updated since the January 2020 edition.

Charts in Chapter 5 5.1.1 Graduate Academic and Professional Student Enrollment by Level, Fall 2010-2020. 5.1.2 Graduate Academic and Professional Student Enrollment by Percent of Total Enrollment for U-M and AAU Public and Private Universities, Fall 2010-2020. 5.1.3 U-M Graduate Academic and Professional Student Enrollment Headcount, with Percent of Total Enrollment, for Selected Years from 1960 to 2020. 5.1.4 U-M Graduate Academic and Professional Student Enrollment by School/College and Degree Sought, Fall 2020. 5.2.1 Graduate Academic and Professional Degree Tuition and Required Fees, per Semester, 2020-2021. 5.2.2 Graduate Academic Student Tuition and Required Fees, Adjusted for Inflation, per Semester, FY2001-FY2021. 5.2.3 Graduate Professional Student Tuition and Required Fees, Adjusted for Inflation, In-State per Semester, FY20001-FY2021. 5.2.4 Graduate Professional Student Tuition and Required Fees, Adjusted for Inflation, Out-of-State per Semester, FY2001-FY2021. 5.3.1 Graduate Master’s, Academic Doctoral and Professional Doctoral Degrees Awarded for U-M, Peers and Big Ten Universities, 2018-19. 5.3.2 Ph.D. Degrees Awarded by Discipline Group for U-M, Peers and Big Ten Universities, 2018-19. 5.3.3 Master’s Degrees Awarded by Discipline Group for U-M, Peers and Big Ten Universities, 2018-19. 5.3.4 Professional Degrees Awarded by Program for U-M, Peers and Big Ten Universities, 2018-19. 5.4.1 Academic Doctoral Completion Rates by Discipline Group, Enrollment Cohorts from 2005-2014. 5.4.2 Academic Master’s Completion Rates by Discipline Group, Enrollment Cohorts from 2016-2019. 5.5.1 Funding Support for Rackham Ph.D. Students, 2019-20 5.5.2 Funding Support for Rackham Master’s Students, 2019-20. 5.6.1 Self-reported Cumulative Undergraduate and Graduate Debt by U-M Ph.D. students at Graduation, by Discipline Group for Domestic Students, FY2009-2019. 5.6.2 Graduate Professional Students’ Self-Reported Debt at Graduation, by Program, 2009-2019. 5.7 Placement outcomes for U-M Ph.D. Students, by Discipline Group, FY2007-2020. 5.8.1 Geographic Origins of U-M Graduate Academic Degree Recipients, Headcount and Percent, by Discipline Group, FY2009-2019. 5.8.2 Geographic Destinations of U-M Graduate Academic Degree Recipients, Headcount and Percent, by Discipline Group, FY2009-2019. 5.9.1 Pass Rates for Four States’ Bar (Law) Examinations by U-M Law School Graduates, 2015-2019. 5.9.2 Pass Rates for U.S. Medical Licensing Examination by U-M Medical Students, 2015-2019. 5.9.3 Pass Rates for Northeast Regional Board Examination by U-M D.D.S. Students, 2015-2019. 5.9.4 Pass Rates for NAPLEX by U-M Doctor of Pharmacy graduates, 2015-2019.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 48 Total graduate and professional student enrollment is 11 percent higher now compared to 10 years ago. 5.1.1 Graduate Academic and Professional1 Student Enrollment by Level, Fall 2010-2020.

Total 14,937 15,348 15,470 15,449 15,239 15,339 15,754 16,181 16,398 16,824 16,578 SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets Total University of Michigan graduate and professional student enrollment has increased to 16,578 in Fall 2020 from

14,937 in Fall 2010.

1 A list of graduate academic and professional degrees is in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 49 Graduate and professional students comprise more than one-third of the total student enrollment. 5.1.2 Graduate Academic and Professional2 Student Enrollment by Percent of Total Enrollment for U-M and AAU Public and Private Universities3, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Total University of Michigan student enrollment – undergraduate and graduate – has increased to 47,907 for fall

2020 from 41,924 in fall 2010, while the total graduate enrollment – academic and professional – increased to 16,578 from 14,937.

The average percentages reported for AAU Private and Public Universities are based on the combined enrollment of graduate academic and professional students compared to the total student enrollment at all levels – undergraduate, graduate and professional. (Note: AAU school counts as reported to IPEDS are lagged by one-to-two years from U-M data.)

2 A list of graduate academic and professional degrees is in Appendix C. 3 A list of Association of American Universities (AAU) member institutions is published in Appendix A.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 50 While the total number of graduate and professional students has grown from 8,916 in 1960 to 16,578 in 2020, the fraction of the total student body on the Ann Arbor campus that they represent has varied by less than five percent. 5.1.3 U-M Graduate Academic and Professional Student Enrollment Headcount, with Percent of Total Enrollment, for Selected Years from 1960 to 2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets In the chart, the number inside each column represents the total enrollment of graduate academic and professional students in the fall of that year. Over the last 50 years, Ann Arbor campus enrollment increased by about one graduate student for every two additional undergraduates.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 51 The largest academic doctoral enrollment at U-M is in the College of Literature, Science & the Arts. The largest master's program is the M.B.A. in the Stephen M. Ross School of Business. 5.1.4 U-M Graduate Academic and Professional Student Enrollment by School/College and Degree Sought, Fall 2020.

Graduate Academic Other Graduate Professional College/School (Rackham) (Non-Rackham) Master’s Doctor's Master's Doctor’s Doctor’s Taubman College of Architecture & Urban 81 40 282 - - Planning Penny W. Stamps School of Art & Design 17 - - - - Stephen M. Ross School of Business 2 76 1,710 - - School of Dentistry 102 13 - - 471 School of Education 193 117 - - - College of Engineering 1,296 1,708 361 3 - School for Environment & Sustainability 437 36 - - - Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate 96 237 - - - Studies School of Information - 113 873 - - School of Kinesiology 57 36 - - - Law School - - 21 2 1,004 College of Literature, Science & the Arts 518 2,138 - - - Medical School 131 601 44 - 688 School of Music, Theatre & Dance 14 118 134 - - School of Nursing - 13 282 - 154 College of Pharmacy 6 87 - - 332 School of Public Health 140 229 533 1 - Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy 206 - - - - School of Social Work - - 751 - - Joint Programs by two Schools/Colleges - - 74 - -

Grand Total, Graduate Students 3,296 5,562 5,065 6 2,649 SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets The professional doctor’s degrees include M.D., J.D., D.D.S, Pharm.D., and D.N.P. (Doctor of Nursing Practice).

The Joint Program (last row of table) is offered by the

School of Information and the School of Public Health.

Students enrolled in a non-degree-seeking program are listed in either "Rackham-Master's" or "Other-Master's," depending on the nature of the non-degree program.

A complete list of graduate academic (Rackham), other graduate, and professional programs offered by the University of Michigan is found in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 52 Graduate academic and professional tuition and required fees vary by program. 5.2.1 Graduate Academic and Professional Degree Tuition and Required Fees, per Semester, 2020-2021. Graduate Academic (Rackham) Professional or Non-Rackham per semester per semester School/College Out-of- Out-of- Program In-State Program In-State State State Taubman College of Architecture M.S./M.U.P. $16,075 $23,424 M.Arch. $16,075 $24,459 & Urban Planning Ph.D. Candidate $6,763 $6,763 Penny W. Stamps School of Art & M.F.A. $12,622 $25,272 Design Stephen M. Ross School of M.A./Pre-candidate $12,903 $25,541 M.B.A. $33,238 $35,738 Business Ph.D. Candidate $7,061 $7,061 M.Acc. $24,714 $27,214 D.D.S. M.S. $9,420 $15,894 $16,637 $22,723 (D1-D3)4 School of Dentistry 4 Pre-candidate $13,943 $25,360 D.D.S. 4 $14,611 $22,723 Ph.D. Candidate $6,735 $6,735 (D4) M.A./Pre-candidate $12,622 $25,272 School of Education Ph.D. Candidate $6,826 $6,826 M.S./Pre-candidate $14,073 $26,263 M.Eng. $14,455 $26,694 College of Engineering Ph.D. Candidate $8,086 $8,086 D.Eng. $9,812 $9,812 School of Environment & M.S./Pre-candidate $12,225 $23,992 Sustainability Ph.D. Candidate $6,614 $6,614 Pre-candidate $12,386 $24,774 School of Information M.S.I. $12,386 $24,774 Ph.D. Candidate $6,698 $6,698 Pre-candidate $13,436 $27,067 School of Kinesiology Ph.D. Candidate $6,698 $6,698 Law School J.D. $32,054 $33,554 M.A./M.S./ $12,386 $24,774 College of Literature, Science, Pre-candidate & the Arts Ph.D. Candidate $6,698 $6,698 M.S./Pre-candidate $12,409 $24,825 M.H.P.E. $9,117 $9,940 Medical School 4 Ph.D. Candidate $6,841 $6,841 M.D. $13,930 $20,080 M.A./M.F.A./ $12,622 $25,272 Pre-candidate M.M./ School of Music, Theatre & Dance $12,947 $25,598 D.Mus.Arts Candidate $8,278 $8,278 Spec.M. Ph.D. Candidate $6,826 $6,826 M.S./Pre-candidate $12,764 $25,557 School of Nursing D.N.P. $12,764 $25,557 Ph.D. Candidate $6,826 $6,826 M.S./Pre-candidate $12,386 $24,774 College of Pharmacy Pharm.D. $16,463 $19,335 Ph.D. Candidate $6,698 $6,698 M.S./Pre-candidate $15,357 $25,228 School of Public Health M.P.H. $15,357 $25,228 Ph.D. Candidate $6,820 $6,820 Gerald R. Ford School of M.P.P./M.P.A. $14,950 $25,497 Public Policy M.A./M.S./ $12,386 $24,774 Rackham Interdepartmental Pre-candidate Programs Ph.D. Candidate $6,698 $6,698

School of Social Work M.S.W. $14,816 $23,601

SOURCE: U-M Office of Budget and Planning These are the published rates, although many students programs are not listed above. The Registrar’s Office posts receive financial aid. Unless otherwise indicated, students tuition and fees for these programs: usually attend school for two semesters per academic year. ro.umich.edu/tuition-residency/tuition-fees. Some additional specialized degrees and joint degree

4 For D.D.S. and M.D. students, an academic year consists of three semesters. Other programs consist of two academic semesters per year.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 53 The inflation-adjusted tuition and required fees (“sticker price”) increased by 51 percent from FY2001 to FY2021 for both in-state and out-of-state Ph.D. pre-candidacy students. However, more than 90 percent of Ph.D. students receive tuition stipends or other financial support. (See chart 5.5.1.) 5.2.2 Graduate Academic (Rackham) Student Tuition and Required Fees, Adjusted for Inflation5, per Semester, FY2001-2021.

SOURCE: UM Office of Budget and Planning The chart represents tuition and required fees for the typical graduate academic (Rackham) student, as represented by those enrolled in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts. Rates can vary for students enrolled in other graduate academic programs. (See chart 5.2.1)

Effective Fall 2010, tuition and required fees paid by Ph.D. candidates declined by $1,165 per year, adjusted for inflation (dotted line). This reduction occurred at the same time that the U-M instituted a continuous enrollment policy for Ph.D. students. The policy calls for these students to register every fall and winter semester until they complete their degrees, unless they are on approved leaves of absence. The policy is designed to improve the likelihood that students will complete their Ph.D. degrees, without imposing any new financial burden on students or graduate program budgets.

5 Based on the FY2021 U.S. Consumer Price Index (as estimated by the U-M Research Seminar in Quantitative Economics).

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 54 The inflation-adjusted tuition and required fees for the M.B.A. declined slightly this year compared to last, although both the M.B.A. and Law degrees overall increased at a faster pace over the last 20 years than for other graduate degrees offered by the U-M. 5.2.3 Graduate Professional and Non-Rackham Student Tuition and Required Fees, Adjusted for Inflation6, In-State per Semester, FY2001-2021.

5.2.4 Graduate Professional and Non-Rackham Student Tuition and Required Fees, Adjusted for Inflation6, Out-of-State per Semester, FY2001-2021.

SOURCE: UM Office of Budget and Planning † D.D.S. students, starting Fall 2011, and M.D. students, starting Fall 2020, pay tuition three times per year instead of two, with the per-semester rates adjusted downward to be comparable with previous annual totals. 6 Based on FY 2021 U.S. Consumer Price Index (as estimated by the U-M Research Seminar in Quantitative Economics).

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 55 The U-M awards more graduate academic and professional degrees combined than any other Big Ten institution, and is among the top ten of it’s peer universities. 5.3.1 Graduate Master’s, Academic Doctoral and Professional Doctoral Degrees Awarded, Headcount for U-M, Peers and Big Ten Universities, 2018-19.

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) The University of Michigan grants the academic doctorates of Ph.D. and D.Mus.Arts and the professional doctorates of

M.D., J.D., D.D.S., Pharm.D., and D.N.P.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 56 The U-M produces a large number of Ph.D. graduates in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). 5.3.2 Ph.D. Degrees Awarded, Headcount (top) and Percent (bottom), by Discipline Group7 for U-M, Peers and Big Ten Universities, 2018-19.

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) In the life sciences, physical sciences and engineering – also To keep the comparisons consistent between U-M and the known as STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and other schools included here, we assigned all degree awards mathematics) – U-M awarded 566 such Ph.D. degrees in for Charts 5.3.2, 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 at peer and Big Ten 2018-19. The number of graduates in STEM fields is universities to the same academic disciplines and important because labor analyses often indicate that the professional categories the U-M uses, even if other schools American workforce needs to add many STEM professionals categorize the programs differently on their campuses. in the coming years.

7 A list of disciplines assigned to each group is found in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 57 Half of U-M’s Master’s degrees are in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). 5.3.3 Academic Master’s Degrees Awarded, Headcount (top) and Percent (bottom), by Discipline Group8 for U-M, Peers and Big Ten Universities, 2018-19.

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) In the life sciences, physical sciences and engineering – also known as STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) – 2,397 U-M students graduated with master's degrees during 2018-19. To keep the comparisons consistent between U-M and the other schools included here, we assigned all degree awards for Charts 5.3.2, 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 at peer and Big Ten universities to the same academic disciplines and professional categories the U-M uses, even if other schools categorize the programs differently on their campuses.

8 A list of disciplines assigned to each group is found in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 58 The U-M grants a large number of professional degrees compared to many peer universities. 5.3.4 Professional Degrees Awarded by Program for U-M, Peers and Big Ten Universities, 2018-19.

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) The U-M awards degrees in five professional programs:

Law, Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, and Nursing Practice (D.N.P.).

To keep the comparisons consistent between U-M and the other schools included here, we assigned all degree awards for Charts 5.3.2, 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 at peer and Big Ten universities to the same academic disciplines and professional categories the U-M uses, even if other schools categorize the programs differently on their campuses.

9 Includes professional degrees U-M does not offer, such as in Veterinary Medicine, Optometry, and Communication Disorders.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 59 The profile of U-M doctoral student graduation rates in recent years is fairly consistent across the disciplines. Overall, 78 percent of students who enrolled in a doctoral program on the Ann Arbor campus between Spring term 2005 and Winter term 2015 have graduated with a Ph.D. 5.4.1 Academic Doctoral Completion Rates by Discipline Group10, Enrollment Cohorts 2005-2014.

SOURCE: Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies This chart examines a range of doctoral entry cohorts and shows the counts and percentages of each cohort that have completed their degrees or are still enrolled as of September 2020.

10 A list of disciplines assigned to each group is found in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 60 Of students who enrolled in U-M academic Master’s programs on the Ann Arbor campus at least two years ago, 88% have completed their degrees. 5.4.2 Academic Master’s Completion Rates by Discipline Group11, Enrollment Cohorts 2016-19

SOURCE: Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies U-M master’s programs usually require about two years to complete, so the average in the headline does not take into account the completion counts for the master's students who first enrolled in the Fall 2019 term.

11 A list of disciplines assigned to each group is found in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 61 Ninety-eight percent of Rackham graduate students pursuing Ph.D. degrees receive financial support from the University. 5.5.1 Funding Support for Rackham Ph.D. Students12, 2019-20.

In all fields of study, a large fraction of academic Ph.D. students receives both tuition grants and a stipend to help cover living expenses. In many cases, students competed successfully for external funding and did not need additional financial support. Stipends may be paid as part of an appointment as a Graduate Student Instructor (GSI), Graduate Student Research Assistant (GSRA), Graduate Student Staff Assistant (GSSA), or as a fellowship.

SOURCE: Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies Percentages might not sum to 100% due to rounding.

12 A list of disciplines assigned to each group is found in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 62 Financial support provided to Rackham students pursuing master’s degrees varies by field of study. 5.5.2 Funding Support for Rackham Master’s Students13, 2019-20.

The five categories of support (No Support, and covering 1%-25%, 26%-50%, 51%-75%, 76%- 100% of costs) represent the fraction of the total calculated cost of attendance provided as tuition grants and stipends to students enrolled in master's programs. Loans that master's students may acquire are not included in these calculations.

SOURCE: Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies Percentages might not sum to 100% due to rounding.

13 A list of disciplines assigned to each group is found in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 63 Three-fifths of U-M Ph.D. students graduate without any student loan debt. 5.6.1 Self-reported Cumulative Undergraduate and Graduate Debt by U-M Ph.D. students at Graduation, by Discipline Group14 for Domestic Students, FY2009-2019.

% % % % % % 1 8 5 0 4 7 51 % 47 % 50% 55% 58% 60 % 47 % 51 % 51 % 52 % 52 % 39 % 48 % 46% 43% 61% 57 % 67 % 67 % 67 % 68 % 72 % 69 % 68 % 72 % 72% 75% 75 % 49 % 55 % 47 % 55 % 5 55 % 60 % 60% 60% 5 50 % 5 5 5 59 % 5 Percent of Ph.D. Graduates without debt SOURCE: NSF/NIH/USED/USDA/NEH/NASA, Survey of Earned Doctorates Fewer than half (39% over the time period shown) of The issue of student debt remains important to the University University of Michigan Ph.D. students graduate with of Michigan and higher education overall. Student loan debt student-loan debt that was acquired over the course of their presents a serious challenge to scholars just starting their undergraduate and graduate careers. The aggregate averages careers, especially for the small number of students who of Ph.D. graduates with debt by discipline groups vary: Life have accumulated student loan debt that exceeds $100,000. Sciences (44%), Physical Sciences & Engineering (30%),

Social Sciences (48%), Humanities & the Arts (50%).

14 A list of the disciplines assigned to each category is in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 64 After adjusting for inflation15, the level of student loan debt for U-M graduates of professional degree programs in medicine, law and dentistry is high, but somewhat variable year-to-year. 5.6.2 Graduate Professional Students’ Self-reported Debt at Graduation, by Program, 2009-19.

SOURCE: School’s Dean or Financial Aid Office The debt acquired by professional students is a matter of national concern. For instance, the likelihood of incurring sizeable debt to attend a professional school may contribute to the relatively small proportion of under-represented minorities enrolled in these programs at the University (see Chart 8.6.1).

15 Based on the FY2019 U.S. Consumer Price Index.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 65 A large fraction of Ph.D. graduates in the physical sciences and engineering go into private or non-profit sector jobs. Ph.D. graduates in the other discipline groups tend to move more toward higher education positions. 5.7 Placement Outcomes for U-M Ph.D. Students, by Discipline Group16, FY2007-2020.

More than half of academic Ph.D. graduates in the biological and health sciences enter post-doctoral training during the first year following graduation. As time since graduation passes, more graduates move into academic positions in higher education or take jobs in industry, government or the non-profit sector.

About the same number of academic Ph.D. graduates in the physical sciences and engineering initially take a position outside of academia as enter post-doctoral training. At five or more years after graduation, graduates are more likely to be employed in industry, government or the non-profit sector, or entering academic positions.

SOURCE: Survey of Academic Departments by Rackham Graduate School Blue shades represent higher education positions, reds Note: These charts indicate a fairly large percentage of indicate post-doctoral or other post-graduate training, greens graduates whose plans are unknown compared to past years. are positions outside of higher education, and the grays Presumably, this is due in part to disruption of careers due to represent unknown activity or not currently employed. the coronavirus pandemic.

16 A list of disciplines assigned to each group is found in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 66 5.7 Placement outcomes for U-M Ph.D. Students, by Discipline Group17, FY2007-2020 (continued).

About a third of academic Ph.D. graduates in the social sciences enter a higher education position during the first year following graduation, with about two-thirds of these on the tenure-track. By five years after graduation, nearly half of U-M’s social science Ph.D. graduates have tenure- track positions, and another 20 percent hold non-tenure-track positions at a college or university.

Ph.D. graduates in the humanities and arts are less likely to pursue postdoctoral training than their counterparts in other disciplines. About one- fifth of humanities and arts Ph.D. graduates are on the tenure track initially, and the fraction doubles by ten years post-graduation.

SOURCE: Survey of Academic Departments by Rackham Graduate School Blue shades represent higher education positions, reds Note: These charts indicate a fairly large percentage of indicate post-doctoral or other post-graduate training, greens graduates whose plans are unknown compared to past years. are positions outside of higher education, and the grays Presumably, this is due in part to disruption of careers due to represent unknown activity or not currently employed. the coronavirus pandemic.

16 A list of disciplines assigned to each group is found in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 67 U-M Ph.D. programs are attractive to students from all geographic locales. 5.8.1 Geographic Origins of U-M Ph.D. Recipients, Headcount (top) and Percent (bottom) by Discipline Group18, FY2009-2019.

SOURCE: NSF/NIH/USED/USDA/NEH/NASA, Survey of Earned Doctorates The large number of international students enrolled in For the decade displayed here, international students make physical science and engineering Ph.D. programs is not a up 49 percent of total enrollment in U-M physical science surprise, given the attractiveness of these kinds of programs. and engineering Ph.D. programs.

18 A list of disciplines assigned to each group is found in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 68 A comparison of geographic origins (5.8.1) and destinations (below) of U-M Ph.D. students illustrates that a large proportion of international students remain in the U.S. after graduation. 5.8.2 Geographic Destinations of U-M Ph.D. Recipients, Headcount (top) and Percent (bottom) by Discipline Group19, FY2009-2019.

SOURCE: NSF/NIH/USED/USDA/NEH/NASA, Survey of Earned Doctorates

19 A list of disciplines assigned to each group is found in Appendix C.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 69 U-M law, medicine, dentistry and pharmacy professional students pass their licensing exams at very high rates. 5.9.1 Pass Rates for Four States’ Bar (Law) Examinations by U-M Law School Graduates, 2015-2019.

SOURCE: Registrar, U-M Law School

5.9.2 Pass Rates for U.S. Medical Licensing Examination by U-M Medical Students, 2014-2018.

SOURCE: Registrar, Medical School The U.S. Medical Licensing Examination is administered by The rates are computed based on the first-time students take the National Board of Medical Examiners in several parts: each test. U-M medical students pass these exams at equal or Step I exam at the end of the second year of medical school, higher rates than the national averages. and both Step 2 exams (CK=Clinical Knowledge, CS=Clinical Skills) during the fourth year of medical school.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 70 U-M law, medicine, dentistry and pharmacy professional students pass their licensing exams at very high rates. (cont.)

5.9.3 Pass Rates for National Board Dental Examination (NBDE) by U-M D.D.S. Students, 2015-2019.

SOURCE: School of Dentistry National Board Dental Examination is now given in two The rates are computed based on the first-time students take parts at different points in the student's academic career with each test. each part testing different subject areas.

5.9.4 Pass Rates for North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) by U-M Doctor of Pharmacy Graduates, 2015-2019.

SOURCE: College of Pharmacy The rates are computed based on the first-time students take each test.

Chapter 5 – Graduate Academic & Professional Degree Students (17th Edition) 71

72 Chapter 6 Faculty & Staff

Goals U-M faculty members are primarily involved in teaching, A great university is defined in large part by its outstanding research and scholarship. However, the faculty also have faculty. The University of Michigan attracts faculty members service responsibilities to the university and broader with commitments to both teaching and research excellence, academic community and society at large, as well as as shown by the high quality of the graduating students and administrative duties and an important role in setting the superior research and scholarship by the faculty. academic policies for admissions, the granting of degrees, Likewise, the University seeks the highest level of and the content of the curriculum. performance and productivity from its staff members in Staff members play key roles in the efficient and productive support of the institution’s academics, research and service. operation of nearly all facets of the University. They are Overview involved in the conduct and administration of research; provide academic, housing and other services for students; The faculty headcount in fall 2020 at the University of handle financial operations of the institution; manage the Michigan was 7,667 and the full-time-equivalent (FTE) total physical and digital infrastructure of the campus; and was 6,565. Instructional appointments comprise 3,586 FTEs, monitor the many federal, state and professional compliance and another 2,979 FTEs are individuals with clinical, rules the institution must follow. research and other titles who are primarily involved in health care, research, and related scholarly activities. For More Information Although statistics can hardly capture the full scope of the HR Data Requests and Standard Reports faculty’s activities and accomplishments, a summary of some (hr.umich.edu/working-u-m/management-administration/hr- of the awards and honors earned by faculty members reports-data-services/hr-data-requests-standard-reports) provides a glimpse into their successes. The U-M is proud of Office of Budget and Planning - Campus Statistics the sizeable cadres of faculty who have been elected to the (obp.umich.edu) National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Medicine and American Other chapters provide information related to faculty Academy of Arts and Sciences. In addition, many faculty activity, including indicators of the teaching workload members have been awarded a MacArthur Foundation (Chapter 8) and research activity (Chapter 9). The quality of Fellowship (aka “genius” awards), Emmy and Grammy the faculty influences the U-M’s placement in many national awards, National Medal of Art, and countless other honors and international rankings (Chapter 12). Diversity indicators bestowed by scholarly and professional societies. In 2018, for the faculty, staff and students are reported in Chapter 7. Gérard Mourou, emeritus professor in electrical engineering and computer science, received a Nobel Prize in Physics for “groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics.”

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Charts in Chapter 6 6.1.1 Academic Workforce, Headcount by Title, Fall 2020 6.1.2 Academic Workforce, Full-Time Equivalents by Title, Fall 2020. 6.1.3 Academic Workforce by Full-Time Equivalents, 2010-2020. 6.1.4 Detail for “Other Academic,” by Full-Time Equivalents, 2010-2020. 6.2.1 Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty, Headcount by Title, Fall 2010-2020. 6.2.2 New Hires and Departures of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty; Annual Net Change and Cumulative Change, 2010-2020. 6.2.3 Age Distribution of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty, Fall 2010 and 2020. 6.3.1 Faculty Distribution by Discipline Groups, Fall 2020. 6.3.2 Current Faculty Members Elected to the National Academies, by Discipline, September 2020. 6.4 Average Faculty Salaries by Rank for U-M and Peer Groups, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2009-2019. 6.5.1 Headcount of Regular Staff, Fall 2010-2020. 6.5.2 Age Distribution of Staff, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020.

Chapter 6 – Faculty & Staff (17th Edition) 73 More than half of the academic workforce (tenured/tenure-track faculty and lecturers) is involved in instruction, whether measured by headcount or full-time equivalents. 6.1.1 Academic Workforce, Headcount by Title, Fall 2020.

6.1.2 Academic Workforce, Full-Time Equivalents by Title, Fall 2020.

SOURCE: U-M Human Resources Data The total academic workforce is 7,667 by headcount and and primary faculty include individuals involved in research, 6,565 by full-time equivalents (FTEs), based on data mentoring of graduate students and research fellows, and collected on November 1 each year. The difference is due to those who serve as librarians, curators, and archivists. several factors: some individuals hold a fractional academic “Other Academic” includes not-on-tenure-track faculty, appointment and a fractional staff appointment, for instance, or may work part-time at the University and have a second supplemental instructional faculty (adjunct/visiting), supplemental research faculty (adjunct/visiting), and position with another employer. emeritus faculty. Tenured and tenure-track faculty members and lecturers Graduate students with supplemental appointments handle the majority of instructional activities. Clinical (GSI/GSRE/GSSA) who are involved in instruction or faculty members also play a role in instruction. Research research are not included in the above charts.

Chapter 6 – Faculty & Staff (17th Edition) 74 Tenured/tenure-track faculty numbers have grown by 285 FTE between 2010 and 2020, and the FTE of clinical faculty (see 6.1.4) has increased by 737 over the same period. 6.1.3 Academic Workforce by Full-Time Equivalents, 2010-2020.

6.1.4 Detail for “Other Academic,” by Full-Time Equivalents, 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Human Resources Data The academic group growing most rapidly is clinical faculty. Health System. Counts are recorded as of November 1 of The bulk of this group is comprised of faculty-physicians each year. who teach and provide clinical care throughout the U-M

Chapter 6 – Faculty & Staff (17th Edition) 75 The total tenured and tenure-track faculty headcount has increased from 2,922 in Fall 2010 to 3,202 in Fall 2020, an increase of 280. 6.2.1 Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty, Headcount by Title, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Human Resources Data Growing the faculty ranks has been a priority over the last decade in efforts to support emerging research opportunities, enhance the student learning experience and increase the proportion of small classes offered. Three focused initiatives have been launched toward these goals. The Interdisciplinary Junior Faculty Initiative added 98 new faculty members, the Faculty Expansion Initiative added 50 positions, and the Small class Initiative added 86 positions.

Chapter 6 – Faculty & Staff (17th Edition) 76 Tenured and tenure-track faculty have shown a year-to-year net increase in nine of the last ten years. 6.2.2 New Hires and Departures of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty; Annual Net Change and Cumulative Change, 2010-2020.

2 5 6 7 8 9 Nov. 1 3 4 10 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 20

Count 20 20 20 201 201 20 20 20 20 20 20

Net Change from Previous 61 46 30 -8 45 35 41 13 7 9 Year SOURCE: U-M Human Resources Data The hiring and departure decisions reported above occurred during the academic year leading up to November 1 of the year on the chart. Departures include faculty members who retire, move into non-tenure-track assignments, or who leave the University for other positions.

Chapter 6 – Faculty & Staff (17th Edition) 77 In 2010, 22 percent of faculty members were age 60 and older; today the comparable fraction is 29 percent. 6.2.3 Age Distribution of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty, Fall 2010 and 2020.

SOURCE: U-M Human Resources Data

Chapter 6 – Faculty & Staff (17th Edition) 78 Tenured and tenure-track faculty members are spread broadly across the academic disciplines. Outside of the tenure-track nearly 55 percent of regular faculty members are in medicine. 6.3.1 Faculty Distribution by Discipline Groups1, Fall 2020.

SOURCE: U-M Human Resources Data “All Other Faculty” includes clinical instructional faculty, research faculty, librarians, archivists, curators, and not-on- track regular faculty.

In addition to the categorization by disciplines shown above, 266 members of the regular faculty hold positions (such as some librarians) or are primarily affiliated with units (such as the Residential College) that do not fit neatly into a discipline. Of these, two are tenured or tenure-track faculty, 104 are lecturers and 160 hold other faculty positions.

1 A list of disciplines assigned to each group is found in Appendix C.

Chapter 6 – Faculty & Staff (17th Edition) 79 185 active and retired U-M faculty members have been elected to one or more of the National Academies. 6.3.2 U-M Faculty Members of the National Academies, by Discipline, December 2020.

Source: National Academies of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Medicine2, American Academy of Arts and Sciences Membership in a National Academy is considered to be one of the highest honors bestowed upon scientists, engineers and scholars in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original scholarship and research.

Through the Academies, U-M faculty members serve as a source for independent, unbiased expertise on challenging issues facing the nation and the world. Their advice and insights help shape policies, inform public opinion and advance the pursuit of science, engineering and medicine. Election to these prestigious societies is through nomination and selection by existing members in recognition of extraordinary achievements and commitment to service.

2 In 2015, the Institute of Medicine was renamed the National Academy of Medicine.

Chapter 6 – Faculty & Staff (17th Edition) 80 The salaries of U-M faculty members (excluding medical faculty) are competitive with their public university peers, and lag their private university peers. 6.4 Average Faculty Salaries by Rank for U-M3 and Peer Groups4, Adjusted for Inflation5, FY2009-2019.

SOURCE: American Association of University Professors The current average annual salary of full professors at the University of Michigan is $48,500 less than the average of full professors at private peer institutions, and $4,900 more than the average of full professors at public peers. U-M associate professors currently earn $25,600 less than their private university counterparts and $10,200 more than associate professors at public peers. Assistant professors at the U-M currently earn $24,400 below those at private peer universities and $2,000 less than at public peers. All comparisons exclude medical school faculty.

3 Faculty from the U-M and peer institution medical schools are not included in the data. 4 A list of the “official” peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A. 5 Based on FY2019 U.S. Consumer Price Index as of November 2018.

Chapter 6 – Faculty & Staff (17th Edition) 81 The rate of growth in total Ann Arbor campus staff6 is low, increasing at an average of 1.6 percent annually over the last decade. 6.5.1 Headcount of Regular Staff, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Human Resources Data Headcount for each fiscal year is based on appointment data as of November 1. “Regular Staff” primarily hold full-time appointments, but this headcount also includes individuals with part-time positions. Furthermore, regular staff excludes those with appointments in the "supplemental" staff categories, as well as graduate student instructors, graduate student research assistants, graduate staff assistants, research fellows, and non-faculty staff from U-M Health System.

6 Staff counts exclude individuals whose primary appointment is in a faculty position.

Chapter 6 – Faculty & Staff (17th Edition) 82 In 2010, 10 percent of the Ann Arbor campus non-Health System regular staff8 was older than age 60. Today that group represents 12 percent of the staff population. 6.5.2 Age Distribution of Staff, Fall 2010 and Fall 2020.

SOURCE: U-M Human Resources Data

8 The regular staff category excludes individuals whose primary appointment is in a faculty position, or in a temporary staff position.

Chapter 6 – Faculty & Staff (17th Edition) 83

84 Chapter 7 Diversity

Goals The University regularly administers a survey of undergraduate students known as UMAY (University of The University of Michigan is a firm proponent of the Michigan Asks You). One question asks students to report educational value provided by a diverse and inclusive their "sense of belonging" on the Ann Arbor campus. Data campus community. Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from this question for several past surveys are summarized in in 2003 on the admissions lawsuits1 and the approval of this chapter. Proposal 2 in 2006 by State of Michigan voters limits the University’s actions to promote diversity on campus, the U-M remains committed to fostering racial, ethnic, gender and socio-economic diversity at the institution by all possible For more information legal means. Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) website (diversity.umich.edu) Overview Most charts in this chapter show the changing demographic Office of Budget and Planning - Diversity composition of the campus community over time. These (obp.umich.edu/campus-statistics/diversity/) charts offer a summary overview of each of our campus constituencies along several measures of diversity.

Starting in 2010, the federal requirements for reporting student race/ethnicity changed in order to provide a somewhat more complete profile of the higher education community. Universities are now required to ask whether non-Hispanic/non-Latino individuals have two or more race/ethnic affiliations. The U-M also collects data to further classify students who select two or more races. If at least one race selected is an under-represented minority (URM), the student is indicated as “Two or More URM.” Otherwise, multi-race individuals are categorized as “Two or More Non- URM.”

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Charts in Chapter 7 7.1.1 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of the Ann Arbor Campus Community, Fall 2020. 7.1.2 Sex Distribution of the Ann Arbor Campus Community, Fall 2020. 7.2.1 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of Undergraduate Students, Fall 2010-2020. 7.2.2 Sex Distribution of Undergraduate Students, Fall 2010-2020. 7.3 U-M Undergraduate by Family Income and In-State/Out-of-State Status, Fall 2009-2019. 7.4 Student Responses to “I feel that I belong at this campus,” 2009-2019. 7.5.1 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of Graduate and Professional Students, Fall 2010-2020. 7.5.2 Sex Distribution of Graduate and Professional Students, Fall 2010-2020. 7.5.3 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of Graduate Academic Students by Broad Discipline, Fall 2010-2020. 7.5.4 Sex Distribution of Graduate Academic Students by Broad Discipline, Fall 2010-2020. 7.5.5 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of Graduate Professional Students by Program, Fall 2010-2020. 7.5.6 Sex Distribution of Graduate Professional Students by Program, Fall 2010-2020.

1 Summary of Supreme Court Decisions in Admissions Cases, Jonathan Alger, U-M Assistant General Counsel, June 23, 2003, (diversity.umich.edu/admissions/overview/cases-summary.html)

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 85 About 26 percent of the campus community is an ethnic or racial minority and 11 percent is international. 7.1.1 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of the Ann Arbor Campus Community, Fall 2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets; U-M Human Resources Data Sets (excludes U-M Health System) Numbers in parentheses are the category headcounts; staff and All Campus counts exclude Health System staff.

“Clinical/Research/Other” includes clinical and research faculty, all supplemental faculty, not on track faculty, emeritus faculty and research fellows. “All Faculty” excludes research fellows (post-docs).

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 86 The student body is 50 percent female, the faculty is 45 percent female, and the staff is 61 percent female. 7.1.2 Sex Distribution of the Ann Arbor Campus Community, Fall 2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets; U-M Human Resources Data Sets (excludes U-M Health System) Numbers in parentheses are the category headcounts; staff and All Campus counts exclude Health System staff. Numbers within the columns are subset headcounts. Category definitions are the same as for chart 7.1.1.

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 87 Total undergraduate enrollment has increased 16 percent since 2010, and the composition of the race/ethnicity profile of undergraduate students has shifted to include somewhat more minority representation every year since. 7.2.1 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of Undergraduate Students, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets Data for students who identify as Native Hawaiian or Other “Two or More URM” represents non-Hispanic/non-Latino Pacific Islander, Two or More Under-Represented Minority students who identified two or more ethnicities and at least (URM), or Two or More non-URM are only available for one of the ethnicities included Black or African American, 2010 and later, following a change in federal requirements Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or American for collecting race and ethnicity data from students. Indian or Alaska Native.

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 88 There is little change in the breakdown by sex of undergraduate students during the last decade, which has been split nearly 50-50. 7.2.2 Sex Distribution of Undergraduate Students, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets During the last decade, the proportion of female undergraduates was highest in Fall 2020 at 50.38% and highest for males in Fall 2012 at 51.24%. Nationally, the gender split for undergraduate students at 4-year, degree- granting colleges and universities is about 55 percent female and 44 percent male.2

2 Based on count of fall 2017 undergraduate enrollment at U.S. 4-year institutions, National Center for Education Statistics.

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 89 The fraction of U-M in-state undergraduates from families with annual incomes of $50,000 or less is 1.1 percent higher compared to 10 years ago. 7.3 U-M Undergraduates by Family Income and In-State/Out-of-State Status, Fall 2009-2019.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education Family income is based on data reported on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), the online form that college students must complete to be considered for financial aid.

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 90

Eighty to ninety percent of all undergraduate students say they feel a sense of belonging on the U-M campus. 7.4 Undergraduate Student Responses to “I feel that I belong at this campus,” 2009-2019.

SOURCE: U-M Asks You (UMAY) undergraduate survey

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 91

Racial or ethnic minorities currently comprise about one-quarter of graduate and professional students. International students account nearly 26 percent of the graduate and professional student population. 7.5.1 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of Graduate and Professional3 Students, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets. Data for students who identify as Native Hawaiian or Other URM in the legend stands for “under-represented minority.” Pacific Islander, Two or More Under-Represented Minority “Two or More URM” represents non-Hispanic/non-Latino (URM), or Two or More non-URM are only available for students who identified two or more ethnicities and at least 2010 and later, following a change in federal requirements one of the ethnicities included Black or African American, for collecting race and ethnicity data from students. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or American Indian or Alaska Native.

3 A list of U-M graduate and professional degree programs is published in Appendix C.

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 92

Females have averaged about 47 percent of the total graduate and professional student population for the last decade, although the percentage has risen from 46 percent in 2010 to 50.1 percent in 2020. 7.5.2 Sex Distribution of Graduate and Professional4 Students, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets

4 A list of U-M professional degree programs is published in Appendix C.

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 93

The fraction of students pursuing academic Master’s and Ph.D. degrees who self-identify as an under-represented minority has increased over the last decade. 7.5.3 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of Graduate Academic Students by Broad Discipline5, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets. At the University of Michigan, graduate academic students URM in the legend stands for “under-represented minority.” are defined as those who are enrolled in graduate programs “Two or More URM” represents non-Hispanic/non-Latino administered by the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate students who identified two or more ethnicities and at least Studies. one of the ethnicities included Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or American Data for students who identify as Native Hawaiian or Other Indian or Alaska Native. “Two or More Non-URM” Pacific Islander, Two or More Under-Represented Minority represents individuals selecting more than one ethnicity, (URM), or Two or More non-URM are only available for none of which are under-represented minorities. 2010 and later, following a change in federal requirements for collecting race and ethnicity data from students.

5 A list of the disciplines assigned to each category is published in Appendix B.

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 94

About three-quarters of graduate students enrolled in the physical sciences or engineering are male, although the fraction who are female is growing. In other disciplines, there is somewhat more balance between sexes. 7.5.4 Sex Distribution of Graduate Academic Students by Broad Discipline6, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets. At the University of Michigan, graduate academic students are defined as those who are enrolled in graduate programs administered by the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies.

6 A list of disciplines assigned to each category is published in Appendix B.

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 95

Under-represented minority students make up about 14 percent of U-M’s professional and other degree programs enrollment. 7.5.5 Race and Ethnicity Distribution of Students in Selected Graduate Programs7, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets This chart summarizes data for selected graduate degree URM in the legend stands for “under-represented minority.” programs that are administered by individual schools and “Two or More URM” represents non-Hispanic/non-Latino colleges, not the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate students who identified two or more ethnicities and at least Studies. U-M awards five professional degrees (M.D., J.D., one of the ethnicities included Black or African American, D.D.S., Pharm.D., and D.N.P.) as well as a number of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or American “non-Rackham” degrees in Public Health, Architecture, Indian or Alaska Native. “Two or More Non-URM” Engineering, Information, Music, among a few other jointly represents individuals selecting more than one ethnicity, sponsored degree programs. The “Other” category combines none of which are under-represented minorities. all non-Rackham degrees except for M.D., J.D., and M.B.A.

Data for students who identify as Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander, Two or More Under-Represented Minority (URM), or Two or More non-URM are only available for 2010 and later, following a change in federal requirements for collecting race and ethnicity data from students.

7 A list of U-M professional and non-Rackham degree programs is published in Appendix C

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 96

In recent years, about one-third of MBA students are female, while more than 50 percent of MD and Law students are female. 7.5.6 Sex Distribution of Students in Selected Graduate Programs 8, Fall 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Student Data Sets This chart summarizes data for selected graduate degree programs that are administered by individual schools and colleges, not the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies. U-M awards five professional degrees (M.D., J.D., D.D.S., Pharm.D., and D.N.P.) as well as a number of “non- Rackham” degrees in Public Health, Architecture, Engineering, Information, Music, among a few other jointly sponsored degree programs. The “Other” category combines all non-Rackham degrees except for M.D., J.D., and M.B.A.

8 A list of U-M professional and non-Rackham degree programs is published in Appendix C.

Chapter 7 – Diversity (17th Edition) 97

98 Chapter 8 Teaching & Learning

Goals The University offers undergraduate students the opportunity to participate in focused “learning communities,” each The University of Michigan provides rich academic and organized around intellectual interests, such as international social settings to help students find the right combination of issues, research, or civic engagement. These give students courses and extra-curricular activities to meet their individual the opportunity to live, interact and learn with a close-knit needs. Michigan offers an array of opportunities to explore group that includes faculty and staff. new intellectual territory, understand our global community, and learn through hands-on research and service projects. Global engagement is an area of special emphasis as a focus Faculty members bring tremendous depth to the classroom of unique learning opportunities. The Global Michigan web and other interactions with students as they share the latest in portal helps students find and pursue the kind of deep, research and scholarship. cultural understanding that comes through shared experiences among students and faculty from different Overview countries and cultures. Instruction of students is a shared activity involving tenured and tenure-track faculty (3,202), lecturers (989), clinical- The University regularly administers a survey of track faculty (2,247), other instructional faculty (243), and undergraduate students known as UMAY (University of graduate student instructors (2,146), based on the November Michigan Asks You). UMAY asks students to report about 2020 count of faculty and staff. their satisfaction with academic programs, their sense of knowledge gain, and their opportunities to learn outside of The learning and teaching environment at the University has the classroom. Data from several past surveys are been developed – and is regularly modified – to provide summarized in this chapter. students with the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century. For More Information Michigan Learning Communities (lsa.umich.edu/mlc) The institution must certainly support the development of all of the traditional capabilities – the ability to speak and write Global Michigan (global.umich.edu) clearly, reason critically and quantitatively, gain competence in a student’s discipline of choice, and engage with the arts Engaged Michigan (engaged.umich.edu) and humanities. Students must also have the confidence to innovate and take risks, develop skills for group work, work effectively with individuals from diverse backgrounds and cultures, and have command of new information technologies.

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Charts in Chapter 8 8.1.1 Instructional Workforce Headcount by Job Group, Fall 2020. 8.1.2 Instructional Workforce Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) by Job Group, Fall 2020. 8.2 Undergraduate Student-Faculty Ratios for U-M, Peers, and Averages for AAU Public, Private and Big Ten Institutions, Fall 2019. 8.3 Student Participation in Michigan Learning Communities, 2019-20. 8.4.1 Student Participation in Education Abroad, FY2015-2019. 8.4.2 Top Ten Education Abroad Destinations, Student Count by Country, 2018-19. 8.4.3 Self-Reported Learning Gains of Graduating Seniors in Understanding Global Issues from Time of Initial U-M Enrollment compared to Senior Year, 2009-2019. 8.5 Self-Reported Satisfaction of Seniors with Instructional Quality and Access to the Faculty, 2009-2019. 8.6.1 Graduating Seniors in 2018-19 Who Report Engaged Learning Experiences While at the U-M. 8.6.2 Self-Reported Satisfaction of Graduating Seniors with the Opportunities for Research or Creative Activity Experiences, 2009-2019. 8.7 Self-Reported Learning Gains of Graduating Seniors from Time of Initial U-M Enrollment Compared to Senior Year, 2019.

Chapter 8 – Teaching & Learning (17th Edition) 99 Tenured and tenure-track faculty members have the primary responsibility for instruction, while often working closely with lecturers, graduate student instructors and other instructional faculty. 8.1.1 Instructional Workforce Headcount by Job Group, Fall 2020.

8.1.2 Instructional Workforce Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) by Job Group, Fall 2020.

SOURCE: U-M Human Resources Data "Other Instructional Faculty" includes not-on-track regular lecturers. This chart does not include research-track faculty faculty, supplemental instructional faculty, and adjunct and emeritus faculty.

Chapter 8 – Teaching & Learning (17th Edition) 100 U-M’s ratio of undergraduate students-to-faculty is better than the averages of AAU public and Big Ten institutions. 8.2 Undergraduate Student-Faculty Ratios for U-M and Peers1, plus Averages for AAU Public, Private and Big Ten Institutions, Fall 2019.

Key Blue bars – private universities Yellow bars – public universities

* Peer Institutions † Big Ten Institutions

SOURCE: U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges, 2021 Edition All of the universities in the chart are AAU member institutions. (See Appendix A for complete member list.)

The AAU public and private institution averages and the Big Ten institution averages are based on all respective member institutions, not just those in the chart.

1 A list of the peers used for comparison on this page is published in Appendix A.

Chapter 8 – Teaching & Learning (17th Edition) 101 Michigan students take advantage of many opportunities to join communities of common intellectual interest to enhance their educational experiences. 8.3 Student Participation in Michigan Learning Communities, 2019-20.

Program First-years Sophomores Juniors Seniors TOTAL HEALTH SCIENCES SCHOLARS PROGRAM: For students 117 27 5 1 150 seeking to explore the health sciences. LIVING ARTS: Brings together students in engineering, the 72 16 1 2 92 arts, and other fields to explore creativity and innovation. LLOYD HALL SCHOLARS PROGRAM: For students to pursue creative expression through writing, the visual arts, and cultural 94 23 9 5 131 and social involvement. MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SCHOLARS PROGRAM: For students interested in community service, civic 120 49 5 2 176 engagement, and social justice. MICHIGAN RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY SCHOLARS: For students interested in a research partnership with a faculty 115 36 3 2 156 member and a small, diverse, and supportive residential community. WOMEN IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESIDENCE PROGRAM: For students with interests in the sciences, 103 37 4 1 145 technology, engineering, mathematics, and health fields. GLOBAL SCHOLARS PROGRAM: Prepares students to be interculturally competent global citizens, champions for - 52 40 39 131 meaningful change, and innovative leaders of tomorrow.

HONORS PROGRAMS: Offers special LSA (2018-19 count) 458 520 578 517 2,073 academic challenge to highly motivated students, personalized advising, Engineering - 19 67 180 266 research opportunities, close faculty contact and optional housing. Nursing - 11 12 9 32 Pharmacy - - 2 6 8 RESIDENTIAL COLLEGE: A small four-year program with an emphasis on languages, writing, and the arts. Students live 197 178 154 182 711 together in the RC residence hall their first two years. COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES PROGRAM: This program provides small enriched courses, academic advising and 634 565 998 871 3,068 academic support and tutoring. UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM: Students participate in research, working with ~1,300 faculty from all academic fields. UNIVERSITY MENTORSHIP PROGRAM: For first-year students interested in being in a small peer group connected 210 12 7 10 239 with both student and faculty/staff mentors during their first semester. TRANSFER CONNECTIONS: For transfer students interested in being in a small peer group connected with current U-M - 106 77 7 190 students who were also transfer students. SOURCE: Program Offices Michigan Learning Communities are generally self-selected attention of a small college environment with the resources groups of students and faculty, often from diverse of a large research university. In some communities, the backgrounds, drawn together by shared goals and common members live in the same residence hall during the academic intellectual interests. These program combine the personal year.

Chapter 8 – Teaching & Learning (17th Edition) 102 The number of Michigan students involved in study abroad for academic credit or in co- curricular programs continue to grow. 8.4.1 Student Participation in Education Abroad, AY2015-19.

SOURCE: "Education Abroad at the University of Michigan, Academic Year 2018-2019 Report," U-M Global Engagement. The growth in student participation in education abroad places the U-M among the nation's leaders. In another report by the Institute of International Education, the U-M ranked fourth nationally1 among universities in the number of students involved in education abroad during 2017-18.

The phrase “education abroad” refers to students who received academic credit for educational programs they attended abroad, or participated in research, internship, volunteer service, work opportunities, and conferences and professional meetings abroad as not-for-credit activities. The counts in the chart encompass both undergraduate- and graduate-level programs.

1 https://opendoorsdata.org/data/us-study-abroad/leading-institutions-by-institutional-type/

Chapter 8 – Teaching & Learning (17th Edition) 103 U-M students travel to nearly 140 countries for international experiences. 8.4.2 Top Ten Education Abroad Destinations, Student Count by Country, 2018-19.

United Kingdom (420) Canada (223) Germany (281) France (330) Italy (365) Spain (620) China (317) Japan (224) Israel (248)

South Africa (233)

SOURCE: Education Abroad at the University of Michigan, Academic Year 2016-2017 Report Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of students who visited that country at least once during the academic year. During academic year 2018-19, U-M students spent time in 137 countries for educational and co-curricular experiences.

Chapter 8 – Teaching & Learning (17th Edition) 104 By the time they reach their senior year, many undergraduates report involvement in and a greater understanding of global or international topics. 8.4.3 Self-Reported Learning Gains of Graduating Seniors in Understanding Global Issues from

Time of Initial U-M Enrollment compared to Senior Year, 2009-2019. Change in Good, Very Good, and Excellent

+34%

+51%

+51%

+40%

+42%

+44%

+39%

+41%

+43%

SOURCE: U-M Asks You (UMAY) undergraduate survey The percentage to the right of each bar is the change in the fractions of seniors who replied “Excellent,” “Very Good,” and “Good” (the segments in shades of blue) comparing their learning gains from the time of initial enrollment compared to senior year.

Chapter 8 – Teaching & Learning (17th Edition) 105 Seniors express high levels of satisfaction with the quality of instruction they have received, the availability of small classes and in their contact with faculty members beyond the classroom and laboratory. 8.5 Self-Reported Satisfaction of Graduating Seniors in regards to Instructional Quality and Access to the Faculty, 2009-2019.

Sum of Good, Very Good, and Excellent How satisfied are you with the quality of faculty instruction? 92%

90%

91%

92%

91%

91%

91%

92%

92%

How satisfied are you with access to small classes? 76%

80%

77%

80%

77%

81%

82%

83%

80%

How satisfied are you with access to faculty outside of class? 88%

92%

88%

90%

90%

91%

92%

92%

90%

SOURCE: U-M Asks You (UMAY) undergraduate survey The percentage to the right of each bar is the fraction of "Somewhat Satisfied" (the segments shaded in blue) for students who replied "Very Satisfied," Satisfied," and the particular question and year.

Chapter 8 – Teaching & Learning (17th Edition) 106 Nearly all seniors participate in learning activities outside the traditional classroom while at Michigan. 8.6.1 Graduating Seniors in 2018-19 Who Report Engaged Learning Experiences While at the U-M.

SOURCE: Engaged Learning Census (ELC)

8.6.2 Self-Reported Satisfaction of Graduating Seniors in regards to the Opportunities for Research or Creative Activity Experiences, 2009-2019. Sum of Good, Very Good, and Excellent 79%

86%

80%

80%

82%

90%

84%

79%

78%

SOURCE: U-M Asks You (UMAY) undergraduate survey Chart 8.6.1 reports the responses of graduating seniors to the Chart 8.6.2 show the levels of satisfaction that seniors report Engaged Learning Census (ELC), a seven-item questionnaire through the U-M Asks You (UMAY) survey regarding the asking about participation in high-impact engaged learning opportunities to participate in a research project or other experiences. This survey was originally called the Graduate creative activity, usually with a faculty member. The Exit Census Survey. percentage to the right of each bar is the fraction of students who replied "Very Satisfied," Satisfied," and "Somewhat Satisfied" (the segments shaded in blue) for the particular year.

Chapter 8 – Teaching & Learning (17th Edition) 107 Students report gains in their academic skills and knowledge between the time they started at Michigan and their senior year. 8.7 Self-Reported Learning Gains of Graduating Seniors from Time of Initial U-M Enrollment Compared to Senior Year, 2019.

Change in Analytical and Thinking Skills Good or Higher

+29%

Ability to be Clear and Effective When Writing

+25%

Understanding of a Specific Field of Study

+52%

Quantitative Skills (Mathematical and Statistical)

+8%

SOURCE: U-M Asks You (UMAY) undergraduate survey The percentage to the right of each bar is the difference between “When started” and “Now” for the sum of the responses “Excellent,” “Very Good,” and “Good” (the segments in shades of blue).

Chapter 8 – Teaching & Learning (17th Edition) 108

Chapter 8 – Teaching & Learning (17th Edition) 109

110 Chapter 9 Research & Technology Transfer

Goals to file patents and negotiate licensing agreements that benefit Excellence in research and scholarly activity is one of several the University's industry partners and fund additional central tenets of the University of Michigan’s mission. The research and development work on campus. In certain broad scope, overall size, and emphasis on interdisciplinary instances, U-M faculty members establish companies to approaches of the U-M’s research program contributes to its develop their inventions, thanks in part to an emerging standing as one of the world’s leading research institutions. campus culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. As such, the faculty attracts generous financial support from In addition, U-M wishes to promote partnerships that involve the public and private sectors. academia, government and industry. Toward this goal, the The University expects that research discoveries by many University designates funds to interdisciplinary teams whose faculty members will contribute to the development of work has potential for broad societal impact. innovative products and processes. The U-M places a high U-M graduates also demonstrate success in starting priority on supporting this kind of activity through the Office companies. For instance, TechCrunch, an online publisher of of Technology Transfer and the Business Engagement news about the technology industry, reported in May 2019 Center. that 76 University of Michigan alumni have launched startup Overview companies that received $1M or more in funding over the previous year1. Only UC-Berkeley and UCLA had more of Total research expenditures by the University from all its alumni obtaining similar levels of startup funds. sources (external and University funds) exceeded $1.6 billion in FY 2020. Furthermore, U-M ranks second highest in the For More Information nation for total research spending among all universities, and U-M Office of Research (research.umich.edu) highest in this category among public universities (based on FY2018 figures, which are the latest available). Sixty-six Office of Technology Transfer (techtransfer.umich.edu) percent of U-M's research spending is provided by outside Business Engagement Center (bec.umich.edu) sources, with the largest share of research funding from the federal government. The University’s largest fraction of grant-supported work occurs in the biomedical and clinical sciences. The U-M Medical School alone regularly attracts more than $400 million each year in research grants. Some research is of special interest to the private sector. The Office of Technology Transfer works with faculty inventors

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Charts in Chapter 9 9.1.1 Total Research Expenditures, Adjusted for Inflation, 1980-2020. 9.1.2 Research Expenditures by Major Funding Source, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020. 9.1.3 Direct Research Expenditures by Discipline, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020. 9.1.4 Sponsored Research Expenditures by Type, FY2020. 9.1.5 Sponsored Research Indirect Cost Recovery by Source, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2010-2020. 9.2 Sponsored Research Workforce by Full-Time Equivalents, Fall 2020 9.3 University R&D Expenditures, U-M and Other Leading Institutions, FY2014-2018. 9.4.1 Invention Reporting, Licensing and U.S. Patent Activity at the U-M, FY2010-2020. 9.4.2 Revenues from Royalties and Equity Sales, FY2010-2020. 9.4.3 Formation of Start-up Companies that Utilize U-M Technology, FY2010-2020. 9.5 Counts of U-M faculty, staff and students involved in federal research on the Ann Arbor campus who then took positions at other institutions or companies, summed by state for 2002-2015

1 “Which public US universities graduate the most funded founders?”, TechCrunch, May 25, 2019.

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 111 The inflation-adjusted decline in total U-M research expenditures from FY2019 to FY2020 is largely attributed to the reduction in research activity on campus during the last half of FY2020 due to the pandemic. Even so, U-M continues to spend more on research each year than any other public university in the United States. 9.1.1 Total Research Expenditures, Adjusted for Inflation2, 1980-2020.

(A)

SOURCE: U-M Volume of Research (UMOR); American Association for the Advancement of Science Historical Trends in Federal R&D The trend in University of Michigan research expenditures (adjusted for inflation, black line) largely mirrors the total federal non-defense R&D spending (red line) through FY2006. The increase in FY2007 – indicated as (A) – is an artifact of a change how U-M calculates research spending3.

Likewise, the lack of growth from FY2011 to FY2015 in both total federal non-defense R&D and U-M research expenditures largely reflects the depletion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds combined with overall decline in growth of federal funding of research.

2 Based on 2020 U.S. Consumer Price Index as estimated by the U-M Research Seminar on Quantitative Economics (RSQE). 3 Starting in FY2007, research support originating from the U-M faculty medical group practice was included as research expenditures. Previously this was reported with clinical activity.

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 112

As the federal budget allocated to non-defense R&D spending stalled in the later part of this decade, the U-M has made an effort to grow research support from internal and non-federal sources. 9.1.2 Research Expenditures by Major Funding Source, Adjusted for Inflation4, FY2010-2020.

Source: U-M Financial Operations

4 Based on 2020 U.S. Consumer Price Index.

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 113

Direct research expenditures on the U-M campus is greater today compared to 10 years ago even though the growth trend has not be up for every year-to-year iinterval. 9.1.3 Direct Research Expenditures by Discipline from federal and non-federal sources, Adjusted for Inflation5, FY2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Financial Data Direct expenditures cover salaries and benefits of researchers, whether faculty, staff or students, as well as equipment and supplies, research-related travel and other expenses tied to specific projects. Overhead expenditures are presented in chart 9.1.5.

5 Based on 2020 U.S. Consumer Price Index.

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 114

About 45 percent of the total annual sponsored research expenditures on the Ann Arbor campus goes to salaries and benefits for faculty, staff and graduate students. 9.1.4 Sponsored Research Expenditures by Type, FY2020.

SOURCE: U-M Financial Operations The FY2020 total externally funded research expenditures rate for research funded by the Federal government or for the Ann Arbor campus was $1.066 billion, a decrease of industry is 56 percent for on-campus research and 26 percent $23 million from the previous year. Salaries and benefits is for off-campus research. largest cost component. The indirect cost recovery rates charged to non-federal Indirect costs (IDC) are the costs of University operations sponsors, such as foundations, State of Michigan agencies, that are not assigned to a particular project, such as the costs and private companies, vary according to the sponsor's for general research administration, utilities use in research policies or through negotiations with the sponsor. In such space, and other services that contribute broadly to the situations, the recovery rate may not cover the actual operation of the University’s research enterprise. expenses incurred by the U-M to support some of these projects. For FY2020, 27 percent of the total research expenditures went to pay for indirect costs; however, the actual indirect cost recovery rate varies for each project based on the type of research activity and the sponsor. The indirect cost recovery

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 115

Federal sponsored projects provide nearly 90 percent of indirect cost recovery funds used to cover a portion of overhead costs of conducting research. 9.1.5 Sponsored Research Indirect Cost Recovery by Source, Adjusted for Inflation6, FY2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Financial Data Overhead spending covers items such as utilities, administration, and general maintenance of research facilities – known as “indirect” costs – that supports the entire research enterprise

6 Based on 2020 U.S. Consumer Price Index.

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 116

A fall 2020 snapshot of personnel paid under sponsored projects shows that grants and contracts fund the full-time equivalent of 3,510 faculty members, post-docs, staff and students. 9.2 Sponsored Research Workforce by Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs), Fall 2020.

SOURCE: U-M Human Resources Data Many tenured and tenure-track faculty members play key roles in sponsored research activity. Research faculty members, post-doctoral fellows, graduate (and some undergraduate) students and a subset of the staff also contribute in major ways to the research enterprise.

The Fall 2020 total represents an decrease of 1,234 FTEs (3.5 percent) supported on sponsored projects compared to Fall 2019. The large decrease was due to the fact that many sponsored research projects were on hiatus due to the coronavirus pandemic. This FTE total does not include faculty, staff, and student involvement in research and scholarship whose activities are paid for by the General Fund.

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 117

U-M spends more on research than any other U.S. public university and second most among all universities. 9.3 University R&D Expenditures, U-M and Other Leading Institutions, FY2014-18.

Institution7 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Johns Hopkins8 $2,242M $2,306M $2,431M $2,562M $2,661M

MICHIGAN $1,349M $1,369M $1,436M $1,530M $1,601M

UC San Francisco $1,084M $1,127M $1,294M $1,409M $1,596M

Pennsylvania $828M $864M $1,296M $1,374M $1,442M

Washington $1,176M $1,181M $1,278M $1,348M $1,414M

UCLA $948M $1,021M $1,038M $1,077M $1,318M

UC San Diego $1,067M $1,101M $1,087M $1,133M $1,265M

Wisconsin $1,109M $1,069M $1,158M $1,193M $1,206M

Harvard $934M $1,014M $1,077M $1,123M $1,173M

Duke $1,037M $1,037M $1,056M $1,127M $1,168M

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Higher Education Research and Development Survey The U-M has been the nation’s leading public university in The list above is ordered by total research expenditures for total research spending for the past five years. Total FY2018. Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; expenditures include research spending from government private university data are shaded in blue. sources, non-government sources, and the institution’s own budget.

7 Starting in FY2010, the NSF ranked institutions by geographically separate campuses, each headed by a campus-level president or chancellor. Prior to that, some institutions were ranked by the aggregate R&D expenditures for all campuses in a multi-campus university or state system. 8 Johns Hopkins University expenditures include those by the Applied Physics Laboratory. In FY2018, APL R&D expenditures totaled $1.521M, 57% of JHU’s total for the year.

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 118

Since Fiscal Year 2010, U-M faculty, staff and students have reported 4,642 inventions, have engaged in 1,805 licensing agreements, and have been issued 1,527 U.S. patents. 9.4.1 Invention Reporting, Licensing and U.S. Patent Activity at the U-M, FY2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Office of Technology Transfer Invention reports are descriptions of discoveries made by U-M faculty, staff and students with the potential to be further developed into new products or processes. Patents protect intellectual property that shows some promise for future development and application. License and option agreements are legal arrangements with companies (some of which have U-M faculty involvement) that allow the firms to use University-owned technology in products or processes being developed for the market.

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 119

Over the last decade, U-M discoveries have generated $261 million in revenues. The inventors and University share these revenues, with the U-M’s portion devoted to ongoing research and development. 9.4.2 Revenues from Royalties and Equity Sales, FY2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Office of Technology Transfer Revenues from licensing agreements support technology transfer operations as well as provide valuable resources for investment in research, education, and innovation.

Royalties are periodic payments by a licensee to the University of Michigan in order to have continued access to U-M-owned intellectual property. Equity sales include transfers of stock or cash payments by a licensee to the U-M. Royalty revenues reached an all-time high in FY2015. Nearly $75 million of that total comes from a new royalty agreement connected to a drug that was developed at U-M to help patients with Gaucher disease.

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 120

Since Fiscal Year 2011, 162 new companies based on U-M discoveries have been launched. 9.4.3 Formation of Start-up Companies that Utilize U-M Technology, FY2011-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Office of Technology Transfer While much of the new technology developed at the U-M is Medical Group and its FDA-cleared thermal monitoring licensed to existing companies for use in new products and technology. processes, some inventions become the basis of new In 2011, the U-M opened the Venture Accelerator at the enterprises. Often this occurs when the U-M inventors wish North Campus Research Complex. The Venture Accelerator to have hands-on involvement in the further development of provides laboratory and office space, as well as business the technology. services, to startup companies emerging from the pipeline of Several U-M start-ups have reached a level of success such new ventures at U-M Tech Transfer. that larger firms have acquired them. For example, two Porfolio of U-M start-ups: medical device start-ups – HandyLab and Accuri Cytometers techtransfer.umich.edu/for-startups/portfolio-companies/ – were acquired by Becton Dickinson in 2009 and 2011, respectively. Arbor Networks, which provides internet protection tools, was purchased in 2010 by Tektronix Communications. Health Media, developer of health support programs, was acquired in 2008 by Johnson & Johnson. In October 2012, Compendia Bioscience, which has developed an oncology database that drug companies utilize in drug discovery work, was acquired by Life Technologies Corp. And in April 2018, Boston Scientific, a major company in the medical devices sector, bought U-M start-up Securus

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 121

Federally funded research projects at the University of Michigan have served as feeders of highly trained personnel who later moved to jobs in all 50 states. 9.5 Counts of U-M faculty, staff and students involved in federal research on the Ann Arbor campus who then took positions at other institutions or companies, summed by state for 2002-2015.

Source: Institute for Research on Innovation & Science10, University of Michigan Thousands of faculty, staff and students participate in The Institute for Research on Innovation and Science (IRIS) research projects funded by the federal government every is national consortium of more than 30 research universities year. This graphic represents the flow of people and ideas that conduct about $22.6 billion in R&D (~31% of the into the economy by showing how many research-trained national total). These schools granted nearly 15,000 University of Michigan faculty, postdoctoral researchers, doctorates in 2016, about 27% of the nation's total. IRIS staff and students paid on federal research have taken jobs in collects detailed administrative data from its members to other locations across the country. Most who leave U-M are produce an IRB-approved data repository that can support concentrated in the state of Michigan. The top three research and reporting that aids our ability to understand, geographic destinations for U-M trained researchers who explain and improve the public value of research and leave the state of Michigan are, in order, California, New training. For more information about IRIS, see York, and Illinois. iris.isr.umich.edu.

10 This graphic was created in conjunction with data from the U.S. Census Bureau, DRB Decision #CBDRB-FY2018-411.

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 122

Chapter 9 – Research & Technology Transfer (17th Edition) 123

124

Chapter 10 Finances & Fundraising

Goals than $65,000 who are admitted to the University. (Such students are also eligible for additional aid, as are many other The University budget is built to reflect the institution’s students, whether in-state or out-of-state.) commitments to academic excellence and affordability. Cost containment along with strategic investments in financial aid, In November 2013, the University launched its most recent faculty, and research are critical to these goals. Fundraising major fundraising campaign - Victors for Michigan - with a activity supports critical operational needs as well as goal of $4 billion. The campaign surpassed its goal and strategic investments to manage growth and minimize closed December 31, 2018 after raising $5.28 billion with exposure to risks. more than 398,000 donors having made 2.4 million gifts. Overview The University manages its endowment to meet donors’ Since 2001, U-M has become increasingly reliant on tuition, expectations that their gifts will provide support to the research grants, fundraising, and other sources of revenue to University in perpetuity. The objective is to maintain and offset a declining share of revenue from state appropriations. enhance the value of endowment gifts and to secure their While the state appropriation for FY2021 was $322.9 future purchasing power. million, when compared to 2002 funding levels adjusted for For More Information inflation there is widening funding gap (now at $274 Go Blue Guarantee million). Furthermore, the increase in cost for in-state (goblueguarantee.umich.edu) students without need has also been modest, essentially equal to the rate of inflation. Cost Cutting & Budget Update (publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-issues/cost-cutting- In FY2020 and FY2021, the State budget was severely budget-update/) strained due to pandemic-related economic pull-back. As a result, the State passed a supplemental budget late in FY2020 U-M Endowment Q&A that reduced the U-M's appropriation by $38.8 million, from (publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-issues/university-of- the original allocation of $325.5 million to $286.7 million michigan-endowment/) This put severe strain on the University budget leading to a hiring freeze and other steps to curb spending. Leaders & Best/Giving at Michigan (leadersandbest.umich.edu/) Starting in January 2018, the U-M offered the "Go Blue Guarantee," which pledges to fund four years of tuition for in-state undergraduate students with a family income less

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Charts in Chapter 10 10.1.1 Breakout of General Fund Budget for the Ann Arbor campus, FY2021. 10.1.2 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Budget Summary for Ann Arbor Campus, FY2011-2021. 10.1.3 Breakdown by Funds of Revenue and Expenditure Budget Summary for Ann Arbor Campus, FY2011-2021. 10.2 Contributions to the University’s General Fund by State Appropriations, Tuition and Fees, and Other Revenues, FY1970-2021. 10.3 FY2002 State Appropriation Adjusted for Inflation and Projected Forward to Maintain Constant Value, Compared to Enacted Annual State Appropriations, FY2002-2021. 10.4.1 State of Michigan Appropriation to the U-M Ann Arbor Campus per Full-Time-Equivalent Student, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2011-2021. 10.4.2 State Appropriations per Full Time Equivalent Student to the U-M and AAU Institutions, FY2018. 10.5 Private Gifts to the University, Adjusted for Inflation, FY2009-2019. 10.6.1 Total Value of U-M Endowment, Ann Arbor Campus, Adjusted for Inflation, 2010-2020 10.6.2 Market Value of Endowment, U-M and Peers, 2018.

Chapter 10 – Finances & Fundraising (17th Edition) 125

Two-thirds of the U-M’s annual General Fund budget directly supports academic activities. 10.1.1 Breakout of General Fund Budget for the Ann Arbor campus, FY2021. 66.8 9.4 13.1 10.8 66.8 cents of each dollar for academic cents cent cents cents activities: Instruction, Academic s Advising, Libraries, Museums. 9.4 cents for administrative services: Admissions, Budgeting and Accounting, Central Human Resources, Central Information Technology, Legal Services. 13.1 cents for facilities and risk management: Plant Operations, Utilities, Insurance, Public Safety. 10.8 cents for centrally awarded financial aid. SOURCE: Office of Budget and Planning Note: total may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 10.1.2 General Fund Budgeted Revenue and Expenditure Summary for Ann Arbor Campus, FY2011-2021. Revenue 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Budgets State 315,148 268,803 273,057 279,109 295,174 299,431 308,639 314,589 320,782 325,532 325,532 Appropriation Tuition and Fees 1,015,952 1,090,340 1,156,647 1,217,808 1,277,842 1,308,819 1,395,166 1,490,041 1,597,254 1,694,487 1,702,208 Indirect Cost 212,467 218,291 211,616 219,303 213,874 215,799 226,543 239,050 253,195 277,117 264,054 Recovery Other Revenue 9,678 9,603 7,820 7,920 8,020 9,700 9,595 10,095 9,845 10,745 8,245 Total Revenues 1,553,245 1,587,037 1,649,140 1,724,140 1,794,910 1,833,749 1,939,943 2,053,775 2,181,076 2,307,881 2,300,039

Expenditure Budgets by Unit Schools and 890,861 910,684 959,038 994,968 1,018,185 1,037,508 1,092,817 1,166,701 1,252,248 1,330,899 1,290,121 Colleges University 59,543 60,468 62,000 63,995 66,003 67,841 69,059 71,685 75,789 79,680 79,451 Academic Units Research Units 4,314 4,969 4,943 4,779 3,326 3,719 4,114 2,913 5,549 6,394 5,903 Academic 81,860 62,991 63,548 69,073 79,912 78,215 98,783 97,319 86,158 86,602 109,720 Program Support Capital Renewal 2,507 16,566 30,300 41,894 44,905 46.064 47,693 49,128 49,766 50,670 51,327 Fund Executive Officer 240,365 245,712 248,989 256,646 259,499 265,767 275,801 292,000 302,512 315,414 314,460 and Service Units North Campus Research 15,324 20,342 6,888 12,298 14,403 16,462 15,006 16,103 16,717 16,572 15,728 Complex Financial Aid 126,056 134,255 144,768 161,170 183,444 195,627 212,295 231,436 262,117 286,926 300,842 University Items 132,416 131,050 128,665 119,318 125,232 122,545 124,376 126,490 130,220 134,723 132,487 Total 1,553,245 1,587,037 1,649,140 1,724,140 1,794,910 1,833,749 1,939,943 2,053,775 2,181,076 2.307,881 2,300,038 Expenditures Table entries are dollars in thousands. SOURCE: U-M Office of Budget and Planning Revenues have grown over the last decade from tuition and The State of Michigan did not enact the FY2020 and FY2021 indirect cost recovery – until the coronavirus arrived. Tuition budgets at the time the Board of Regents authorized each growth has stemmed primarily from increases in out-of-state year's budget. The state appropriation values in the table and graduate program rates, while indirect costs increase as reflect the U-M budget as approved by the Regents. The state externally funded research grows. In the most recent year, appropriations as approved by the State of Michigan did not there was a small increase in tuition so that financial aid match the budgeted amounts in these two years. In charts could be increased, but some parts of budget were smaller 10.3, 10.4 and 10.4, the actual state appropriations for FY20 than last year. and FY21 were used.

Chapter 10 – Finances & Fundraising (17th Edition) 126

In addition to the General Fund, the U-M Ann Arbor operating budget projects revenues and expenditures for three additional funds: Designated, Expendable Restricted, and Auxiliary Activities. 10.1.3 Breakdown by Funds of Budgeted Revenue and Expenditure Summary for Ann Arbor Campus, FY2011-2021. Revenue 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Budgets General 1,553,245 1,587,037 1,649,140 1,724,140 1,794,910 1,833,749 1,939,943 2,053,775 2,181,076 2,307,881 2,300,038 Designated 136,270 137,490 137,540 143,190 172,489 195,081 196,170 201,890 217,515 232,028 195,653 Expendable 1,053,733 1,110,109 1,094,334 1,097,197 1.054.926 1,157,947 1,204,451 1,269,565 1,315,880 1,398,915 1,268,003 Restricted Auxiliary 2,838,824 2,932,963 3,198,411 3,406,856 3,593,864 3,867,754 4,132,188 4,891,134 5,232,564 5,669,783 5,259,348 Activities Total Revenues 5,582,073 5,767,599 6,079,425 6,371,383 6,616,189 7,054,531 7,472,752 8,416,364 8,947,035 9,608,607 9,023,042

Expenditure

Budgets General 1,553,245 1,587,037 1,649,140 1,724,140 1,794,910 1,833,749 1,939,943 2,053,775 2,181,076 2,307,881 2,300,038 Designated 136,270 137,490 137,540 143,190 172,489 195,081 196,170 201,890 217,515 232,028 195,653 Expendable 1,053,733 1,110,109 1,094,334 1,097,197 1.054.926 1,147,647 1,189,451 1,254,565 1,300,880 1,383,915 1,254,503 Restricted Auxiliary 2,773,513 3,015,247 3,239,005 3,495,268 3,638,271 3,937,359 4,062,275 4,845,345 5,292,120 5,730,165 5,275,252 Activities Total 5,516,761 5,849,883 6,120,019 6,459,795 6,660,596 7,113,836 7,387,839 8,355,576 8,991,590 9,653,988 9,025,447 Expenditures Table entries are dollars in thousands. SOURCE: U-M Office of Budget and Planning, U-M Office of Financial Analysis The total budget of the University of Michigan Ann Arbor is The Expendable Restricted Fund includes spending for allocated to a wide range of activities, including instruction, research and other sponsored activities, such as research, research, administration, health care, student financial aid, financial aid, instruction, etc., with the funds originating student housing and athletics, among others. The revenue from the federal government, other governmental units, non- and expenditure budgets are divided into four main funds, federal agencies, foundations and charitable organizations, which track broad campus activity groups. gifts, and endowment distributions. These funds are restricted and may only be used for expenditures relating to The General Fund is used for operating purposes to support the specific purposes as stated by the sponsor or donor. instruction, research, and public service; academic and other student services; operation and maintenance of the The Auxiliary Activities Fund supports activities that charge university’s physical plant; and university-funded financial customers for goods and services provided. Auxiliary units aid. Revenues for the General Fund come from State of include the U-M Hospital and Health Centers, student Michigan appropriations, student tuition and fees, indirect housing, intercollegiate and varsity athletics, and parking. cost recovery tied to sponsored grants and contracts, and other income. (See Table 10.1.2 for a breakdown of General Fund revenues and expenditures.) The Designated Fund is similar to the General Fund in that both support the academic mission of the university, although the Designated Fund revenue sources differ substantially from those for General Fund. The major sources of income in the Designated Fund are departmental revenue for continuing education (non-degree granting), conferences and seminars, royalty income, endowment distribution from unrestricted endowments, publishing of teaching and research data, unrestricted gifts (President only), and investment income from the University Investment Pool for cash held in this fund.

Chapter 10 – Finances & Fundraising (17th Edition) 127

The state appropriation’s budgeted share of the General Fund has declined dramatically since 1970. 10.2 Contributions to the University’s General Fund Budget by State Appropriations, Tuition and Fees, and Other Revenues1, FY1970-2021.

SOURCE: U-M Office of Budget and Planning The U-M's General Fund budget projected a State of Michigan appropriation for FY2021 of $325.5 million, representing no increase from last year and about 14 percent of the General Fund revenues for the coming year. (In fact, the State appropriation as enacted was $2.76 million less, or $322.8 million.) In FY1970, the State appropriation represented 64 percent of the Ann Arbor campus General Fund budget. By contrast, tuition and required fees for FY2021 will be 74 percent of the General Fund; in FY1970, tuition was 26 percent of the General Fund. The crossover year was FY1991, when the State appropriation and tuition provided 45 percent of the General Fund budgeted revenues.

1 Prior to FY1969, indirect cost recovery was not included in the General Fund.

Chapter 10 – Finances & Fundraising (17th Edition) 128 The gap between the purchasing power for the FY2002 state appropriation projected to the current year and the actual state appropriation for FY2021 has grown to $269.4 million. 10.3 FY2002 State Appropriation Adjusted for Inflation and Projected Forward to Maintain Constant Value, Compared to Enacted Annual State Appropriations, FY2002-2021.

SOURCE: U-M Office of Budget and Planning In inflation-adjusted dollars, the state appropriation for the Ann Arbor campus peaked at $363.56 million in FY2002. Factoring in inflation2, the 2021 state appropriation for the Ann Arbor campus needed to be $592 million to equal the purchasing power of the 2002 appropriation. The actual FY2021 state appropriation by the State of Michigan was $322.9 million. NOTE: The FY2020 State appropriation was reduced mid- year, which is the reason for the drop for that year in the red line. The State budget was adjusted due to a decline in State tax revenue caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

2 Based on the estimated Employer Cost Index for 2021 as projected by the U-M Research Seminar for Quantitative Economics.

Chapter 10 – Finances & Fundraising (17th Edition) 129

State support per student, when adjusted for inflation, is 31% lower than a decade ago. 10.4.1 State of Michigan Appropriation to the U-M Ann Arbor Campus per Full-Time-Equivalent Student, Adjusted for Inflation3, FY2011-2021.

SOURCE: U-M Office of the Registrar, U-M Office of Budget and Planning This chart is based on the simple calculation. The State of Michigan appropriation to the Ann Arbor campus as passed for each year is adjusted for inflation. These amounts are divided by the offical fall semester full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment. FTE enrollment is calculated using the formula: count of part-time students divided by 3 plus the count of full-time students. The decline in appropriation per FTE student between FY2011 and FY2012 is primarily due to a 16.6 percent drop in the inflation-adjusted state appropriation to the U-M over those two years. The drop from FY2019 to FY2020 resulted from a State budget change of –$38.8 million to the original state appropriation because of the coronavirus pandemic. The inflation-adjusted change in appropriation for all other two-year pairs over the decade varied from a 4.7 percent decline (FY2010 to FY2011) to a 3.4 percent increase (FY2014 toFY2015).

3 Based on the estimated Employer Cost Index for 2021 as projected by the U-M Research Seminar for Quantitative Economics.

Chapter 10 – Finances & Fundraising (17th Edition) 130

About 85% of AAU public universities receive more state support per student than the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. 10.4.2 State Appropriation per Full Time Equivalent Student to the U-M and AAU Public Institutions, based on FY 2018 Appropriation and Fall 2018 Enrollment.

U MICHIGAN

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) The calculation of full-time equivalent (FTE) students for each school is based on IPEDS methodology. State appropriations for three AAU institutions – Pennsylvania State University, University of Colorado-Boulder and University of Pittsburgh – are not available in IPEDS for FY2018. Note: These values are not adjusted for inflation, which is why the U-M value above does not match the FY2018 inflation-adjusted value in 10.4.1.

Chapter 10 – Finances & Fundraising (17th Edition) 131

Gifts are an important source of revenue that supports many current and future academic activities, student financial aid, and campus facilities. 10.5 Private Gifts to the University, Adjusted for Inflation4, FY2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Financial Statement This chart shows the total private gifts to the University of Michigan for operation activities.

A new major fundraising campaign, Victors for Michigan, was officially concluded on December 31, 20185 having raised $5.28 billion from 2.4 million gifts from more than 398,000 donors. (Donations often decline somewhat in the year or so following the conclusion of a major fundraising campaign like Victors for Michigan.)

4 Based on 20120 U.S. Consumer Price Index 5 “Victors for Michigan final results show $5.28 billion total,” The University Record, Feb. 5, 2019.

Chapter 10 – Finances & Fundraising (17th Edition) 132

The total value of the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor endowment has grown steady over the past decade. 10.6.1 Total Value of U-M Endowment, Ann Arbor Campus, Adjusted for Inflation6, 2010-20.

SOURCE: U-M Accounting Operations The University of Michigan’s endowment is essential to sustaining academic quality. Endowment funds are invested for the long-term, and earnings from those investments provide a guaranteed source of income to support in perpetuity professorships, student scholarships, innovative programs and learning opportunities. Donors who contribute to the endowment do so because they want to support the University and positively impact U-M students and academic programs now and in the future. The value of the endowment funds shown in the chart is the value on June 30 of each year.

6 Based on 2020 U.S. Consumer Price Index as estimated by U-M Research Seminar on Quantitative Economics.

Chapter 10 – Finances & Fundraising (17th Edition) 133

The U-M has the largest endowment among its public university peers. 10.6.2 Market Value7 of Endowment, U-M and Peers, 2018.

SOURCE: 2018 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments The U-M endowment market value increased by 8.8 percent, to $11.90B the end of FY2018 from $10.94B at the end of

FY2017. The value of North American college and university endowment funds increased an average of 8.2 percent during the 2017-18 budget year8, according to an annual survey of 802 institutions and higher education foundations by Commonfund and the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue.

7 The change in market value does NOT represent the rate of return for the institution’s investments. Rather, the change in the market value of an endowment from FY 2017 to FY 2018 reflects the net impact of withdrawals to fund institutional operations and capital expenses; the payment of endowment management and investment fees; additions from donor gifts and other contributions; and investment gains or losses. 2018 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments. 8 “Endowments Returns Slow; Survey Offers Peek at Spending,” Inside Higher Ed., January 31, 2019.

Chapter 10 – Finances & Fundraising (17th Edition) 134

Chapter 10 – Finances & Fundraising (17th Edition) 135

136

Chapter 11 Space & Sustainability

Goals Planet Blue is the campus sustainability initiative, which includes educational, research, operational and community Campus space must support the academic and research engagement programs. In 2015, the University became a missions of the University. To accomplish this requires signatory to the American Campuses Act on Climate Pledge, comprehensive usage policies, monitoring and capital joining more than 200 universities and colleges committing planning to ensure that space is managed strategically, to take “significant action to reduce greenhouse gas thoughtfully, and with institutional needs in mind. emissions, increase campus sustainability and incorporate The U-M has also established sustainability goals, such as environmental sustainability in academic curricula.” 1. In for greenhouse gas emissions, carbon output of university summer 2016, the U-M was one of eight institutions to vehicles, and production of waste. receive the Sustainability Award in Facilities Management2 by a national organization of physical plant administrators. Overview In early 2019, the U-M launched the President's Commission The physical plant of the University of Michigan Ann Arbor 3 campus is extensive. The campus includes some 600 on Carbon Neutrality , a 17-member body that will "develop buildings with more than 2,000 classrooms and instructional recommendations for reducing the U-M's carbon emissions laboratories. The U-M is responsible for nearly 30 miles of to levels that are environmentally sustainable." Recently, the U-M reported on the progress the institution is making roads and 5 million square feet of sidewalks, steps and 4 plazas. More than 16,000 trees and countless gardens toward its 2025 sustainability goals. These included a wind- populate the campus, as well as at least 13 million square power purchase agreement with DTE Energy, increases in feet of turf. Some 200 miles of fiber optic cable weaves composting across campus, and continuing reduction in through the campus, supporting many enterprise-level data application of chemicals to campus grounds. centers, and thousands of servers, computers, and tablets. Space utilization guidelines have been established for For More Information classrooms, food service, research activities, and offices. Space Planning and Utilization (provost.umich.edu/space/) Effective space management contributes to efficiency and cost containment, while also prioritizes efforts to offer Planet Blue (sustainability.umich.edu/) smaller class sizes. U-M sustainability education, research, and campus operations

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Charts in Chapter 11 11.1 Total Facilities Space on the Ann Arbor Campus, by General Fund and All Other Funds, FY 2010-2020. 11.2.1 Ann Arbor Campus Space, by Room Type, FY2010-2020. 11.2.2 Ann Arbor Campus Space, by Function, FY2010-2020. 11.3 Age of Ann Arbor Campus General Fund Space, by 10-year Increments through FY2020 11.4 U-M General Fund Renovation and New Construction Expenditures, Adjusted for Inflation, and Depreciation of the U-M Physical Plant, FY2010-2020. 11.5 Ratio of General Fund Infrastructure Renovation Costs to Total Replacement Costs, FY2010-2020. 11.6.1 Building Energy Use, Total and Per Square Foot Per Person, FY2009-2019. 11.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Total and Percent of Emissions by Energy Generation Source, FY2009-2019. 11.6.3 Waste, Total and Percent Recycled, FY2009-2019. 11.6.4 Paper Purchased by Percent Recycled Content, FY2009-2019.

1 “University takes the American Campuses Act on Climate Pledge,” University Record, Nov. 20, 2015. 2 “U-M wins national award for campus sustainability excellence,” University Record, July 25, 2016. 3 "University launches Commission on Carbon Neutrality," University Record, February 4, 2019. 4 "OCS highlights progress toward 2025 sustainability goals," University Record, January 22, 2020.

Chapter 11 – Space & Sustainability (17th Edition) 137 Ann Arbor campus space is about equally divided in being supported by the General Fund and by other funds. Compared to 2010, the General Fund now supports an additional 584,000 square feet, a 7.1% increase in the U-M's total space5. 11.1 Total Facilities Space on the Ann Arbor Campus, by General Fund and All Other Funds, FY 2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Annual Space Management Survey Reports Ann Arbor campus space5 supported by the General Fund is mainly used for teaching, research, student services, support of the campus physical plant, and administration. All Other Funds space is primarily comprised of the hospitals and health system, residence halls, parking structures and varsity athletic facilities. These space categories are labeled “net assignable,” which means they exclude common areas, such as hallways, staircases and lobbies.

5 In this chart, Ann Arbor campus excludes the non-Medical-School portion of the Health System and the North Campus Research Complex.

Chapter 11 – Space & Sustainability (17th Edition) 138

Ann Arbor campus space has increased by 1.5 million net assignable square feet over the last decade at an annual growth rate of about 0.8 percent. 11.2.1 Ann Arbor Campus Space, by Room Type, FY2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Office of Space Analysis Neither this chart nor 11.2.2 includes the space assigned to Parking encompasses central computing and the U-M Health System or the North Campus Research telecommunications rooms, parking structures and garages Complex. (but not surface lots), health care space that is not part of the U-M Health System, housing for research animals, media Space that is either not in use or being remodeled is in the production facilities, and storage. unclassified category; campus facilities and buildings move into and out of this category from year-to-year. General use Net assignable space excludes hallways, restrooms, space covers rooms used for performances, exhibitions, food elevators, and custodial areas. service, recreation, lounges, and meeting rooms. Plant &

Chapter 11 – Space & Sustainability (17th Edition) 139

All types of space are needed to support the University’s mission. 11.2.2 Ann Arbor Campus Space, by Function, FY2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Office of Space Analysis Neither this chart nor 11.2.1 includes the space assigned to community relations, student clubs and organizations, as the U-M Health System or the North Campus Research well as University space leased to private entities or operated Complex. under a management agreement with an outside entity (i.e. food service in the student unions). The need for parking and Space in the unclassified category is either not in use or the growth in athletic facilities have driven this category to being remodeled. Plant and Operations includes space used grow the most over the decade displayed. in the operation and maintenance of the University’s physical plant, its heating/cooling and other utilities services, central Administration combines space used by central functions, information technology services, and some special service departmental functions, and student administration and operations, such as printing services. student services. About 5/6 of the space in the Parking, Athletics, Other Net assignable space excludes hallways, restrooms, category is used by parking and athletics. The remainder elevators, and custodial areas. supports activities such as development, government and

Chapter 11 – Space & Sustainability (17th Edition) 140

About 53 percent of the General Fund building space on the Ann Arbor campus was first put into service within the last 50 years. 11.3 Age of Ann Arbor Campus General Fund Space, by 10-year Increments through FY2020.

SOURCE: U-M Space Data Set The General Fund building space for the Ann Arbor campus6 Buildings associated with auxiliary activities (e.g., U-M and nearby areas totals 15.22 million gross square feet. hospitals and clinics , student residence halls and athletic Buildings on campus that are more than 100 years old facilities) are not included in this chart because these include the President’s House, Newberry Hall, Tappan Hall, facilities are not supported by the General Fund. Also, this the Detroit Observatory, Burnham House, and two barns at chart does not include the North Campus Research Complex, Matthaei Botanical Gardens; the 100-year-old structures a group of buildings acquired by the University in 2009. contribute about 850,000 gross square feet to the campus total.

The last 20 years saw a large increase in new construction on campus tied to several U-M initiatives. During this period, the U-M campus added the Biomedical Sciences Research Building, Undergraduate Science Building, Palmer Commons, Computer Science Building, and the Ross School of Business building.

6 This chart excludes the non-Medical School parts of Michigan Medicine and the North Campus Research Complex.

Chapter 11 – Space & Sustainability (17th Edition) 141

The University tries to maintain a balance between adding new space and renovating existing space on campus. 11.4 U-M General Fund Renovation and New Construction Expenditures, Adjusted for Inflation7, and Depreciation of the U-M Physical Plant, FY2010-2020.

SOURCE: U-M Office of Financial Analysis The FY2010 new construction/renovation expenditure totals do not include the 2010 purchase of North Campus Research Complex (NCRC) for $108M. However, expenditures for subsequent renovation to NCRC space is included.

7 Based on 2019 Building Cost Index, Engineering News-Record.

Chapter 11 – Space & Sustainability (17th Edition) 142

The overall condition of General Fund buildings on the Ann Arbor campus has remained consistent. The U-M continues to monitor building condition by identifying and prioritizing infrastructure needs. 11.5 Ratio of General Fund Infrastructure Renovation Costs to Total Replacement Costs, FY2010-2020.

Ratio of 0.2 – 0.3 = Fair RATIO KEY 0.00 = New or newly renovated building 1.00 = Renovation costs equal replacement costs

Ratio of 0.1 – 0.2 = Good

Ratio < 0.1 = Excellent

SOURCE: U-M Office of Financial Analysis The facilities condition ratio is an indicator of building condition that divides the cost of needed building renovations by the cost to replace those structures. The ratio maximum of 1.0 indicates that the cost of renovating the existing facilities equals their total replacement. A ratio of 0 would mean no renovations are necessary; that is, the facilities are all new or newly renovated. A ratio of 0.2-0.3 is generally considered Fair, 0.1-0.2 is considered Good, and below 0.1 is considered Excellent.

Chapter 11 – Space & Sustainability (17th Edition) 143

The growth in total energy use by buildings on campus is larger today compared to a decade ago because space at the U-M has been growing. At the same time, energy use per square foot per person has declined over the last several years. 11.6.1 Building Energy Use, Total and Per Square Foot Per Person, FY2009-2019.

SOURCE: U-M Utilities and Plant Engineering This chart shows how new and refurbished space is more energy efficient than the space it replaces.

Chapter 11 – Space & Sustainability (17th Edition) 144

Total greenhouse gas emissions from campus buildings and vehicles have remained stable over the past several years. 11.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Total and Percent of Emissions by Energy Generation Source, FY2009-2019.

SOURCE: U-M Utilities and Plant Engineering The level of greenhouse gas emissions is influenced by two factors: total energy usage and the energy provider.

University-generated energy is highly optimized for efficient production and to limit greenhouse gas production. However, much of the purchased electricity consumed on campus is generated by coal-fired plants, which produces relatively high levels of greenhouse gases. Even so, natural gas is becoming more competitive with coal as a fuel source, and as the U-M’s external energy providers shift toward natural gas, greenhouse gas emissions have leveled off.

Chapter 11 – Space & Sustainability (17th Edition) 145

The waste being recycled at the University of Michigan has approached 20,000 tons in the most recent fiscal years. 11.6.3 Waste, Total and Percent Recycled/Diverted from Landfill, FY2009-2019.

SOURCE: U-M Waste Management The percentages in the red columns indicate the percentage of total waste that was recycled. Total waste tends to track the overall space in use, which is increasing. However, the amount of waste that is recycled is also growing. In fall of 2020, the U-M Office of Campus Sustainability8 introduced "Where to Throw," a web application that allows the user to enter an item's description and find out the best method of reuse, recycle, composting, or, if necessary, disposal. See ocs.umich.edu/resources/where-to-throw/.

8 ‘Where to Throw’ search tool eases campus waste disposal decisions, The University Record, Oct. 15, 2020.

Chapter 11 – Space & Sustainability (17th Edition) 146

Both the total amount of paper purchased by the University and the the fraction of the total that is made with recycled content has, in general, improved over the last decade. 11.6.4 Paper Purchased by Percent Recycled Content, FY2009-2019.

SOURCE: U-M Office of Campus Sustainability

Chapter 11 – Space & Sustainability (17th Edition) 147

148 Chapter 12 Academic & Reputational Lists

The publication of university and college rankings has grown increasingly popular since U.S. News & World Report released the results of its first reputational survey of U.S. universities in 1983. While some rankings today remain a compilation of opinions, most rankings (USN&WR included) now blend opinion survey results and quantitative data. The ranking sponsors sort and organize the data and opinions by different methods and create ordered lists of institutions.

Ranking lists are now part of the public conversation about higher education, and they have an influence on some policymakers, prospective students, and donors. The U-M, however, avoids using these lists to guide decision-making about academic programs or spending priorities. Even so, the institution does monitor its placement on these lists, keeps an eye on the methodologies applied, and provides accurate data to the list keepers. In this chapter you will find many of the best-known rankings, with U-M’s position alongside those of schools it considers as peers. In the end, however, what matters most in choosing a school is finding a match between a student's particular interests, abilities, and ambitions with the specific programs, approaches and opportunities offered by a particular school.

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Charts in Chapter 12 12.1.1 U.S. News & World Report Rankings of National Undergraduate Universities, U-M and Peers, 2016-2020. 12.1.2 U.S. News & World Report Rankings of U-M Top Ten Graduate Programs, 2020. 12.1.3 U.S. News & World Report Rankings of Best Global Universities, U-M and Peers, 2016-2020. 12.2.1 Times Higher Education World University Rankings, U-M and Peers, 2016-2020. 12.2.2 Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings, U-M and Peers, 2015-2019. 12.3 QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) World University Rankings, U-M and Peers, 2016-2020. 12.4 Academic Ranking of World Universities, U-M and Peers, 2016-2020. 12.5 National Research Council Graduate Program Assessment Results, U-M and Selected Peers, 2005-06. 12.6 Washington Monthly National University Rankings, U-M and Peers, 2016-2020. 12.7 America’s Top Colleges (Forbes), U-M and Peers, 2015-2019. 12.8 Center for World University Rankings, U-M and Peers, 2016-2020. 12.9 Kiplinger's Best Value Public Colleges (In-State Students), U-M, Public Peer and Public Big Ten Universities, 2015-2019. 12.10 MONEY's Best Colleges, U-M, Peer and Big Ten Universities, 2016-2020. 12.11 Wall Street Journal - Times Higher Education U.S. College Rankings, U-M and Peer Universities, 2016-2020.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 149 The U-M is one of the nation’s leading public universities, according to the methodology used by U.S. News & World Report to produce its ordered list. 12.1.1 U.S. News & World Report Rankings of National Undergraduate Universities, U-M and Peers1, 2016-2020. 2020 University 2016 2017 2018 2019 All Public Harvard University 2 2 2 2 2 -- Columbia University 5 5 3 3 3 -- Massachusetts Institute of Technology 7 5 3 3 3 -- Yale University 3 3 3 3 3 -- Stanford University 5 5 7 6 6 -- University of Chicago 3 3 3 6 6 -- University of Pennsylvania 8 8 8 6 6 -- Northwestern University 12 11 10 9 9 -- Johns Hopkins University 10 11 10 10 9 -- Cornell University 15 14 16 17 18 -- University of California-Los Angeles 24 21 19 20 20 1 University of California-Berkeley 20 21 22 22 22 2 MICHIGAN 27 28 27 25 24 3 University of Southern California 23 21 22 22 24 -- University of Virginia 24 25 25 28 26 4 University of North Carolina 30 30 30 29 28 5 New York University 36 30 30 29 30 -- University of Wisconsin 44 46 49 46 42 13 University of Texas 56 56 49 48 42 13 University of Illinois 44 52 46 48 47 15 Ohio State University 54 54 56 54 53 17 University of Maryland 60 61 63 64 58 19 University of Washington 54 56 59 62 58 19

Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue. SOURCE: U.S. News & World Report, America’s Best Colleges (2017-2021 Editions) The U.S. News & World Report (USN&WR) system for average spending per student on instruction, research and creating an ordered list of 389 national universities (that is, student services (10%); student selectivity (7%); bachelor's universities that offer a full range of undergraduate majors, graduates indebtedness (5%); and the rate at which living as well as master's and Ph.D. programs, and emphasize alumni donate to the institution (3%). Additional detail on faculty research) is based on indicators chosen by USN&WR how these items are used to calculate the rankings can be to reflect the academic quality of each institution. found on the USN&WR web site or the annual rankings publication. The current indicators (and their contribution to the overall ranking) include: a survey of administrators at peer The U-M consistently appears in the top five of public institutions (20%); rate that new first-year students return for universities according USN&WR methodology. Michigan a second year (4.4%); six-year graduation rates (17.6%); receives high marks for freshman retention, graduation rate, graduation rate performance (8%); factors that influence the percentage of freshmen in the top 10 percent of their high student social mobility (5%); faculty resources (20%); school graduating classes, and its academic reputation.

1 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 150 102 U-M graduate programs are listed in the top ten in their fields by U.S. News & World Report. Only UC-Berkeley and Stanford have more top-ten listed graduate programs. 12.1.2 U.S. News & World Report Rankings of U-M Top Ten Graduate Programs, 2020. GRADUATE PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMS Business 12 Medicine Law 9 Accounting 6 Primary Care 5 Clinical Training 6 Entrepreneurship 7 Anesthesiology 6 Commercial Law 7 Executive M.B.A. 10 Family Medicine 6 Criminal Law 10 Finance 9 Internal Medicine 6 International Law 7 International 7 Obstetrics-Gynecology 10 Management 4 Radiology 8 Nursing Marketing 3 Surgery 5 Master's 9 Nonprofit 7 DNP Nurse Practitioner–Adult/ 6 Part-time M.B.A. 6 Public Health 4 Gerontology, Primary Care Production/Operations 3 Healthcare Management 1 DNP Nurse Practitioner Family 7 Supply Chain/Logistics 10 Master's Nurse 9 Social Work 1 Practitioner/Family Clinical Psychology 10 Master's Nurse 6 Pharmacy 3 Practitioner/Ped., Prim. Care Nursing Midwifery 2

GRADUATE PROGRAMS in Engineering, Sciences, Education, Information Engineering 4 Sciences Education 8 Aerospace Engineering 5 Algebra/Number Theory 7 Curriculum & Instruction 4 Biomedical Engineering 9 Analytical Chemistry 4 Education Policy 6 Civil Engineering 7 Artificial Intelligence 9 Educational Psychology 2 Computer Engineering 6 Computer Science-Systems 9 Elem. Teacher Education 2 Electrical Engineering 6 Discr. Math/Combinations 4 Higher Education Admin. 1 Environmental Engineering 3 Earth Sciences 10 Secondary Teacher Education 4 Industrial Engineering 2 Ecology/Evol. Biology 6 Materials Engineering 7 Elem. Part./Fields/String Th. 10 Library & Info. Studies 5 Mechanical Engineering 5 Geochemistry 8 Archives & Preservation 1 Nuclear Engineering 1 Geology 5 Digital Librarianship 8 Organic Chemistry 10 Health Librarianship 4 Paleontology 4 Information Systems 1 SOURCE: U.S. News & World Report, America’s Best Grad Schools (2021 Edition) U.S. News & World Report publishes rankings of more than Rankings of programs in the sciences, social sciences, other 1,200 graduate programs offered by U.S. universities. health fields, the humanities and the arts are conducted Programs in business, education, engineering, law, and periodically; in 2018, USN&WR updated public affairs, the medicine are evaluated and scored each year based on sciences and mathematics, and social work. All other surveys of administrators, academics and professionals as programs listed on this and the following page were ranked well as data that reflect the quality of a program’s faculty, prior to 2018 and republished here and on the next page. students and research.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 151 12.1.2 U.S. News & World Report Rankings of U-M Top-Ten Graduate Programs, 2020 (continued). GRADUATE PROGRAMS in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Public Policy Economics Sociology 1 Psychology 3 International Economics 8 Economic Sociology 6 Behavioral Neuroscience 1 Labor Economics 6 Historical Sociology 3 Cognitive Psychology 8 Econometrics 9 Sex & Gender 7 Developmental Psychology 2 Industrial Organization 9 Social Stratification 4 Experimental Psychology 1 Public Finance 4 Sociology of Population 4 Social Psychology 2

Political Science 4 History 6 Public Policy 8 American Politics 5 Asian History 5 Environ. Policy & Mgmt. 5 Comparative Politics 6 European History 6 Health Policy & Management 3 International Politics 5 Latin American History 5 Public Policy Analysis 2 Political Methodology 5 Modern U.S. History 5 Social Policy 1 Political Theory 7 English 8 Fine Arts 8 Medieval/Renaissance Lit. 7 SOURCE: U.S. News & World Report, America’s Best Grad Schools (2021 Edition)

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 152 The University is a top-20 institution globally according to list of global universities published by U.S. News & World Report. The U-M’s position on this global list is consistently higher than on the USN&WR list limited to U.S. universities. 12.1.3 U.S. News & World Report Rankings of Best Global Universities, U-M and Peers2, 2016-2020. University 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Harvard University 1 1 1 1 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2 2 2 2 2 Stanford University 3 3 3 3 3 University of California-Berkeley 4 4 4 4 4 Columbia University 9 8 8 7 6 University of Washington 11 10 10 10 8 Johns Hopkins University 11 10 11 11 10 Yale University 14 10 12 12 11 University of California-Los Angeles 10 13 13 14 13 University of Pennsylvania 17 19 16 16 14 University of Chicago 13 14 14 13 15 University of California-San Francisco 16 15 15 15 15 University of Michigan 17 17 18 17 17 Cornell University 22 23 23 23 22 Northwestern University 25 24 24 24 24 New York University 27 28 28 28 29 University of North Carolina 32 34 32 33 36 University of Texas 30 32 36 34 38 University of Wisconsin 29 31 35 37 41 Ohio State University 43 46 46 45 45 University of Illinois 47 51 54 59 60 University of Maryland 40 50 51 51 60 University of Southern California 53 62 62 69 70 University of Virginia 99 107 111 107 109

Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue. SOURCE: U.S. News & World Report, 2017-2021 Editions Five years ago, U.S. News & World Report added a global university comparison to its stable of rankings. This list of

1,500 institutions concentrates “specifically on schools' academic research and reputation overall and not on their separate undergraduate or graduate programs,” according to the publisher. For the global ranking, U.S. News starts with data from the Thomson Reuters InCitesTM database, such as reputation survey results, which represent 25% of a school’s ranking score. Other items in the formula include adjusted counts of published scholarly papers, books and conference proceedings (15%); several different counts of citations of published materials (50%); and counts of international collaborations (10%).

2 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 153 The University is a top-25 institution globally according to the Times Higher Education ordered list. 12.2.1 Times Higher Education (London) World University Rankings, U-M and Peers3, 2016-2020. University 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Stanford University 3 3 3 4 2 Harvard University 6 6 6 7 3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5 5 4 5 5 University of California-Berkeley 10 18 15 13 7 Yale University 12 12 8 8 8 University of Chicago 10 9 10 9 10 Johns Hopkins University 17 13 12 12 12 University of Pennsylvania 13 10 12 11 13 University of California-Los Angeles 14 15 17 17 15 Columbia University 16 14 16 16 17 Cornell University 19 19 19 19 19 University of Michigan 21 21 20 21 22 Northwestern University 20 20 25 22 24 New York University 32 27 27 29 26 University of Washington 25 25 28 26 29 University of Texas 50 49 39 38 44 University of Illinois 36 37 50 48 48 University of Wisconsin 45 43 43 51 49 University of Southern California 60 66 66 62 53 University of North Carolina 56 56 56 54 56 Ohio State University 72 70 71 70 80 University of Maryland 67 69 82 91 90 University of Virginia 121 113 107 107 117

Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue. SOURCE: Times Higher Education Times Higher Education publishes two separate ordered lists The World University Rankings shown on this page employ based on two different methodologies. The World University 13 performance indicators in five groups: Teaching (worth Rankings (above) judges nearly 1,400 institutions on their 30% of the overall ranking score), Research (30%), Citations teaching, research, citations, international outlook, and (30%), International outlook (7.5%), and Industry income knowledge transfer. The World Reputation Rankings (see (2.5%). chart 12.2.2) is based on the results of an international, invitation-only survey sent to tens of thousands of experienced academics from around the world.

3 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 154 The U-M is listed 15th in the world according to the most recent Times Higher Education list based on academic reputation. 12.2.2 Times Higher Education (London) World Reputation Rankings, U-M and Peers4, 2015-2019.

University 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Harvard University 1 1 1 1 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4 2 2 2 2 Stanford University 5 3 3 3 3 University of California-Berkeley 6 6 6 6 6 Yale University 8 8 8 8 8 University of California-Los Angeles 13 13 13 9 9 University of Chicago 11 11 12 9 10 Columbia University 10 9 12 12 13 University of Michigan 19 14 15 15 15 Johns Hopkins University 18 22 21 21 16 University of Pennsylvania 23 16 19 16 20 Cornell University 20 17 23 18 22 New York University 20 25 25 26 26 University of Washington 33 29 34 28 28 University of Texas 46 34 32 36 31 Northwestern University 47 30 31 37 33 University of Illinois 30 30 36 32 34 University of Wisconsin -- -- 32 33 36 University of North Carolina 61-70 51-60 50 51-60 50 Ohio State University 81-90 51-60 61-70 61-70 61-70 University of Southern California 61-70 61-70 71-80 61-70 61-70 University of Maryland 91-100 51-60 71-80 71-80 61-70 University of Virginia ------

Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue. SOURCE: Times Higher Education The World Reputation Rankings (above) are based on subjective judgments collected from an invitation-only survey returned by more than 11,000 academics from around the world for the 2019 edition, distributed to reflect the demographics of world scholarship.

The survey asks each respondent to name no more than 10 universities that he or she considers to be the “best.” The top 100 schools in the list are assembled based on the frequency that each institution is included on the respondent’s lists of best institutions in their fields.

4 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 155 Michigan regularly scores highly based on the QS methodology, which attributes 80 percent of the score to academic reputation, citation frequency of faculty publications, and the student-faculty ratio. 12.3 QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) World University Rankings, U-M and Peers5, 2016-2020. University 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1 1 1 1 1 Stanford University 2 2 2 2 2 Harvard University 3 3 3 3 3 University of Chicago 10 9 9 9 9 University of Pennsylvania 18 19 19 15 16 Yale University 15 16 15 17 17 Cornell University 16 14 14 14 18 Columbia University 20 18 16 18 19 MICHIGAN 23 21 20 21 21 Johns Hopkins University 17 17 21 24 25 Northwestern University 26 28 34 31 29 University of California-Berkeley 28 27 27 28 30 New York University 46 52 43 39 35 University of California-Los Angeles 31 33 32 35 36 University of Wisconsin 54 55 53 56 65 University of Texas 67 67 63 65 71 University of Washington 59 61 66 68 72 University of Illinois 66 69 71 75 82 University of North Carolina 78 80 83 90 95 Ohio State University 88 86 89 101 108 University of Southern California 136 132 115 129 121 University of Maryland 131 129 126 136 152 University of Virginia 172 173 192 192 217

Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue. SOURCE: QS Intelligence Unit The QS World University Rankings evaluates more than 1,000 universities in the world, ranking the top 400. A school’s rank is based on an amalgamation of six indicators obtained through a global survey and data collected about each institution. The six components and the weight provided to the overall score are: Academic reputation based on the survey (40% of score); Employer reputation based on the survey (10%); Citations per faculty member according to the SciVerse Scopus database (20%); Student-Faculty ratio (20%); Proportion of international students (5%); and Proportion of international scholars and scientists on the faculty. U-M is the highest ranked U.S. public university, according to QS.

5 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 156 The U-M consistently appears among the top universities worldwide and in the top 25 of U.S. universities according to the ordered list published by ShanghaiRanking. 12.4 Academic Ranking of World Universities, U-M and Peers6, 2016-2020. University 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Harvard University 1 1 1 1 1 Stanford University 2 2 2 2 2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5 4 4 4 4 University of California-Berkeley 3 5 5 5 5 Columbia University 9 8 8 8 7 University of Chicago 10 10 10 10 10 University of California-Los Angeles 12 12 11 11 11 Cornell University 13 14 12 13 12 Yale University 11 11 12 11 13 Johns Hopkins University 16 18 18 16 15 University of Washington 15 13 14 14 16 University of Pennsylvania 18 17 16 17 19 MICHIGAN 23 24 27 20 22 New York University 29 29 32 30 27 Northwestern University 26 22 25 29 30 University of North Carolina 35 33 30 33 30 University of Wisconsin 28 28 28 27 32 University of Texas 44 51 40 45 41 University of Illinois 30 37 41 38 45 University of Maryland 52 53 51 46 53 University of Southern California 49 54 60 55 61 Ohio State University 79 80 94 100 101-150 University of Virginia 151-200 151-200 151-200 151-200 151-200

Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue. SOURCE: ShanghaiRanking Consultancy The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) is indexed in Science Citation Index-Expanded and Social based on six numerical elements (listed with the percent Sciences Citation Index (20%), and per capita academic weight of the element in parentheses): the number of alumni performance of an institution (10%), determined by adding winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10%), number of the weighted scores of all of the other indicators and dividing faculty winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20%), the sum by the number of full-time equivalent academic number of highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject staff. The most recent list ranks 1,000 institutions. categories according to Thomson Scientific (20%), number The University of Michigan ranking in particular reflects of articles published in journals of Nature and Science over the most recent five-year period (20%), number of articles high scores on the elements that measure citations of articles by U-M faculty across all disciplines.

6 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 157 A large proportion of University of Michigan graduate programs received high marks from the National Research Council assessment. 12.5 National Research Council Graduate Program Assessment, U-M and Selected Peers, 2005-06. Number of Percent of Programs where best Percent of Programs where best University Programs S (survey) Ranking was in R (Direct) Ranking was in Ranked Top half Top quartile Top half Top quartile University of Wisconsin 78 90% 77% 95% 74% University of Minnesota 69 77% 51% 80% 55% MICHIGAN 65 98% 82% 100% 92% Cornell University 61 90% 69% 95% 80% University of California-Los 59 93% 76% 93% 85% Angeles University of Washington 59 93% 76% 95% 75% University of Illinois 58 91% 62% 91% 79% Harvard University 52 100% 100% 100% 100% University of California-Berkeley 52 100% 94% 100% 98% University of North Carolina 51 86% 67% 100% 76% Yale University 49 100% 80% 100% 82% Columbia University 47 94% 81% 96% 74% Stanford University 47 100% 94% 100% 91% Indiana University 44 80% 48% 91% 57% Average of All AAU Institutions 42 86% 61% 89% 64% University of Pennsylvania 41 100% 90% 100% 85% University of Virginia 38 76% 42% 95% 55% University of Chicago 37 95% 78% 95% 86% Northwestern University 31 97% 84% 97% 90%

Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue. SOURCE: National Research Council The National Research Council (NRC) Assessment of U.S. The S-ranking is based on a national survey of faculty Research-Doctorate Programs was undertaken to provide members who were asked to weigh programs on measures universities with benchmarking data that they could use to such as number of faculty, number of publications, citations, improve program quality, and to provide prospective and other quantifiable measures. students and the public with information about the nation’s Using another approach, the R-ranking is based on asking doctoral programs. randomly selected faculty members in each discipline to rate The data used for the assessment was collected from 5,004 programs from a sample provided. A regression analysis of doctoral programs at 212 universities for the academic year these ratings provided different program rankings. 2005-06. The data include characteristics of the faculty, such All of the programs at each school were counted as “in” or as their publications, citations, grants, and diversity; “out” of the top half or the top quartile of the rankings. The characteristics of the students, such as their GRE scores, percent of each school’s programs to satisfy these two financial support, publications, and diversity; and indicators is reported in the table. Furthermore, when the characteristics of the programs, such as number of Ph.D. percentage of programs was at least one standard deviation degrees granted over five years, time to degree completion, better than the average of all AAU institutions, the percentage of students who complete graduate programs, and percentage is displayed in a green rectangle. placement of students after graduation.

The methodology to arrive at a program’s rank is complex and elicited criticism from the higher education community when first made public. Following revisions to the original 2010 report, a final version was released in 2011.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 158 The scope of U-M’s research program and high number of Ph.D. degree recipients have the most influence on the University’s position in the Washington Monthly ordered list, which focuses on universities’ contributions to society. 12.6 Washington Monthly National University Rankings, U-M and Peers7, 2016-2020. University 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Stanford University 1 1 2 1 1 Harvard University 2 2 1 2 2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2 3 3 3 3 Yale University 13 10 5 4 4 University of Pennsylvania 5 7 13 6 7 University of California-Los Angeles 8 15 9 12 11 Columbia University 23 16 14 13 14 University of Washington 14 8 15 19 16 University of California-Berkeley 7 14 18 20 17 University of Illinois 33 35 32 17 18 University of North Carolina 20 23 16 22 19 University of Wisconsin 28 26 22 23 21 University of Chicago 92 51 38 37 24 Cornell University 27 32 31 25 25 University of Virginia 54 36 40 52 28 MICHIGAN 21 37 25 26 29 Northwestern University 99 59 33 32 30 University of Maryland 56 70 49 45 50 University of Southern California 46 63 60 64 53 Johns Hopkins University 47 56 62 56 54 University of Texas 70 51 75 61 77 Ohio State University 69 119 105 95 98 New York University 174 168 147 107 109

Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue. SOURCE: Washington Monthly Washington Monthly lists schools (389 institutions in 2020) expenditures with the number of bachelor’s degree recipients based on their contributions to the public good in three broad who continue their education and earn Ph.D degrees. categories: Social Mobility, Research, and Service, each The Service component weighs a school’s success at providing one-third of a school’s score. encouraging its students to give something back to the The Social Mobility component attempts to measure an country. Service is based on factors such as the rate by which institution’s success at recruiting and graduating low-income students and alumni serve in the Peace Corps, ROTC, and students. It looks at the percentage of students receiving Pell work study-funded community service projects, the rate of Grants and predicts the likelihood that these students will staff members involved in community service and the graduate based on SAT scores and graduation rates of past number of academic courses that incorporate a service Pell Grant recipients. feature. The Research component attempts to measure the eventual contribution of a school’s graduates to cutting-edge scholarship by combining a school’s total research

7 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 159 Michigan performs well according to the “return on investment” metrics that are the focus of Forbes’ America’s Top Colleges list. 12.7 America’s Top Colleges (Forbes), U-M and Peers8, 2015-2019. University 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Harvard University 6 4 1 1 1 Stanford University 3 1 2 3 2 Yale University 5 6 5 2 3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 10 5 5 4 4 University of Pennsylvania 12 11 7 7 6 Cornell University 25 29 15 13 11 University of California-Berkeley 35 40 29 14 13 Columbia University 15 16 14 15 14 University of Chicago 20 20 16 18 16 Northwestern University 16 15 28 20 17 MICHIGAN 41 44 38 22 20 Johns Hopkins University 62 66 30 25 22 University of Southern California 71 65 44 30 30 University of Virginia 36 36 40 34 33 New York University 77 77 52 48 35 University of California-Los Angeles 45 46 48 46 38 University of North Carolina 49 47 68 47 45 University of Maryland 93 82 72 61 63 University of Washington 76 75 79 72 64 University of Illinois 68 72 69 56 68 University of Wisconsin 69 69 87 75 69 University of Texas 82 93 91 74 76 Ohio State University 155 160 131 122 121

Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue. SOURCE: Forbes America’s Top Colleges is a ranking of 650 colleges and The components of the rankings can vary somewhat from universities (in 2019) that Forbes and the Washington, D.C.- year-to-year. The breakdown described here applies only to based Center for College Affordability and Productivity the 2018 rankings, which includes alumni salary (20%), (CCAP) have produced since 2008. The distinction that student debt (20%), the student experience (20%), Forbes' Forbes make about its list is the focus on how well colleges American Leaders list (15%), graduation rates (12.5%), and and universities succeed at yielding successful graduates. Put academic success (12.5%). bluntly, America’s Top Colleges attempts to rank institutions by the return on investment of time and money to attend a school.

8 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 160 The U-M is listed among the top 20 universities according to an international list based on measures of faculty and alumni achievements. 12.8 Center for World University Rankings, U-M and Peers9, 2016-2020. University 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Harvard University 1 1 1 1 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3 3 3 2 2 Stanford University 2 2 2 3 3 Columbia University 6 6 8 6 6 University of Pennsylvania 14 14 13 9 8 University of Chicago 8 8 10 10 9 Yale University 10 10 11 12 10 University of California-Berkeley 7 7 6 8 12 Cornell University 12 12 14 14 13 Johns Hopkins University 16 16 16 18 15 MICHIGAN 19 22 18 17 16 Northwestern University 21 17 23 15 17 University of California-Los Angeles 15 15 15 16 18 University of Illinois 34 36 32 20 22 University of Washington 27 25 19 19 23 New York University 22 19 25 26 25 University of Wisconsin 25 26 27 25 26 University of Texas 32 30 31 31 33 University of North Carolina 38 38 33 36 40 University of Southern California 44 45 51 44 51 Ohio State University 46 48 40 54 58 University of Virginia 40 40 79 53 64 University of Maryland 68 80 47 99 76

Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue. SOURCE: Center for World University Rankings The Center for World University Rankings (CWUR) The faculty quality factor is based on a weighted count of foregoes any opinion surveys, relying on data about quality prestigious awards received by an institution’s faculty of education, alumni employment, faculty awards and members, from Nobel Prizes to the many other major, if less publications, among other factors. The 2019 list ranked 2000 well-known, international awards (e.g. Draper Prize, Kyoto institutions. Prize, Fields Medal). The education quality measure is based on a weighted Other factors that go into the ranking calculation include a measure of alumni who have won major international count of research publications in major journals, the awards, prizes, and medals. Almuni employment is a frequency that papers are cited by others, and a count of weighted count of alumni who have held CEO positions at international patent filings. the world's top companies.

9 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 161 The U-M is listed sixth among U.S. public universities and colleges as a good value for students. 12.9 Kiplinger's Best Value Public Colleges (In-State Students), U-M, Public Peer10 and Public Big Ten Universities, 2015-2019.

University 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 University of North Carolina † 1 1 1 1 1 University of California-Berkeley † 4 4 3 5 3 University of Virginia † 2 3 2 3 4 University of Washington † 11 9 12 7 5 MICHIGAN * 6 5 5 4 6 University of California-Los Angeles † 5 6 6 6 7 University of Texas † 14 13 13 8 8 University of Maryland †* 9 11 8 10 10 University of Wisconsin †* 8 8 11 13 11 Purdue University * 27 19 34 15 13 Indiana University * 40 44 55 33 24 University of Illinois †* 36 26 16 30 26 University of Minnesota * 32 25 20 23 28 Ohio State University †* 15 17 22 25 29 Pennsylvania State University * 56 49 44 51 36 University of Iowa * 86 57 79 55 42 Rutgers University * 43 47 33 34 50 Michigan State University * 50 40 38 40 53 University of Nebraska * 68 75 81 83 88

† indicates a U-M peer university; * indicates a Big Ten university. SOURCE: Kiplinger's Personal Finance The “best value” rankings published by Kiplinger’s Personal Cost indicators include the total cost of attendance (tuition, Finance starts with a pool of about 1,200 public and private fees, room and board, books), the amounts of need-based four-year universities and colleges that it obtains from grants, non-need-based aid, the percentage of students who Peterson’s, an educational data company and guide borrow to finance their educations, and the average student publisher. Criteria that indicate a school’s “academic debt at graduation. quality” and cost to students is used to rank schools, with 55 The public university rankings above is based on Kiplinger’s percent of the ranking on “quality criteria” and the remainder calculations for in-state students. Kiplinger’s also publishes on “cost criteria.” In the end, Kiplinger’s provides a list of rankings for out-of-state students attending public the top 400 public and private schools, as well as three universities (to offer a way to compare to private separate lists of the top 50 private universities, top 50 liberal universities); those rankings are not included here. arts colleges, and top 100 public universities.

Academic quality indicators include the admission rate (percentage of applicants offered admission) and “yield” (percentage of those admitted who enroll) for each school, SAT and ACT scores of enrolled students, four-year graduate rate, freshman retention rate, and student-to-faculty ratio.

10 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 162 MONEY's latest ordered list places the U-M first among U.S. public universities and colleges, and fourth overall. 12.10 MONEY's Best Colleges, U-M and Peer11 Universities, 2016-2020. University 2017 2018 2015 2019 2020 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 8 6 3 7 1 Stanford University 5 5 1 6 2 University of Michigan 3 9 18 8 4 University of Virginia 11 10 17 10 6 Yale University 14 15 21 17 17 Harvard University 10 16 6 14 14 University of California-Berkeley 4 7 9 11 17 University of California-Los Angeles 5 4 26 4 19 University of Washington 13 19 56 22 20 University of Illinois 22 25 75 20 22 University of Wisconsin 45 48 116 46 28 University of Texas 31 27 82 28 29 University of Pennsylvania 27 14 12 32 30 University of North Carolina 60 58 46 52 43 Columbia University 21 56 28 81 44 Cornell University 59 92 34 91 49 Northwestern University 103 86 89 62 53 University of Chicago 54 37 127 77 65 Johns Hopkins University 131 105 85 125 91 Ohio State University 102 120 134 152 102 University of Southern California 116 113 n/a 131 156 University of Maryland 20 28 54 43 168 New York University 210 198 n/a 206 281

Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue. SOURCE: MONEY MONEY Magazine's methodology evaluated 739 schools for the 2020 list on 27 factors across three categories: quality of education (such as graduation rate, economic and academic profile of the student body, and student-faculty ratio); affordability (such as net price of earning a degree, student and parent debt at graduation, the ability to repay debt, and the risk of student loan default) and outcomes (such as PayScale.com earnings reports by alumni, and the percentage of alumni who are working six years after starting college in a good-paying job).

11 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 163 U-M ranks first among public universities in the most recent ranking of U.S. universities launched five years ago. 12.11 Wall Street Journal - Times Higher Education U.S. College Rankings, U-M and Peer12 Universities, 2016-2020. University 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Harvard University 2 1 1 1 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3 3 2 2 2 Yale University 6 6 3 3 3 Stanford University 1 3 6 7 4 Cornell University 8 10 11 9 9 Northwestern University 10 15 13 11 10 Johns Hopkins University 13 17 21 12 11 University of Pennsylvania 4 8 10 4 13 University of Chicago 14 11 14 14 14 Columbia University 5 2 4 15 15 University of Southern California 17 15 17 18 19 University of Michigan 22 27 28 27 23 University of California-Los Angeles 28 25 25 25 26 New York University 26 29 27 31 27 University of North Carolina 30 33 37 33 33 University of California-Berkeley 35 40 33 34 34 University of Illinois 45 48 47 47 43 University of Washington 75 89 60 42 45 University of Virginia 50 56 51 50 51 University of Texas 52 56 62 61 61 University of Wisconsin 63 71 66 67 65 University of Maryland 96 82 81 75 77 Ohio State University 68 69 94 86 100

Data for public universities are shaded in yellow; private university data are shaded in blue. SOURCE: Wall Street Journal Data used for creating this ordered list comes from two with teachers and students, and other topics (20%), surveys conducted by Times Higher Education – one of graduation rates (11%), the school's academic reputation students and one of academic leaders and professors. Other (10%), a mystery calculation related to salary after inputs come from U.S. Department of Education datasets, the graduation and loan repayment success (19%), and campus federal College Scorecard, Bureau of Economic Analysis demographics (10%). data, and academic citations data provided by Elsevier.

A school's placement on the list is weighted according to the following factors: Budget resources per student (11%), the number of faculty per student (11%), the count of research articles published per student (8%), interpretations of student responses to survey questions about engagement, interactions

12 A list of peers used for comparison on this page is found in Appendix A.

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 164

Chapter 12 – Academic & Reputational Lists (17th Edition) 165

166 Appendices

Appendix A: Peer Groups Appendix B: U-M Graduate Academic Programs Grouped by Broad Disciplinary Categories Appendix C: U-M Graduate Academic, Other, and Professional Degree Programs Appendix D: U-M Ann Arbor Information Summary Appendix E: Glossary Appendix F: Photograph Captions and Credits

Chart updated since the October 2020 edition.

Appendices (17th Edition) 167

Appendix A: Peer Groups The University of Michigan uses several groups of similar institutions of higher education for purposes of comparison. Here are descriptions and member lists of three peer groups referenced in the Michigan Almanac. Private institutions are shown in italics. 1) Official Peers (list developed by U-M officials) • Columbia University in the City of New York • University of Chicago • Cornell University • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Harvard University • University of Maryland-College Park • Johns Hopkins University • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill • Massachusetts Institute of Technology • University of Pennsylvania • New York University • University of Southern California • Northwestern University • University of Texas at Austin • Ohio State University • University of Virginia-Main Campus • Stanford University • University of Washington-Seattle Campus • University of California-Berkeley • University of Wisconsin-Madison • University of California-Los Angeles • Yale University • University of California-San Francisco (added 2020)

2) Association of American Universities (AAU) is a nonprofit association of the leading public and private research universities in the U.S. and Canada, listed with the year the school became a member in parenthesis. The Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE), a constituent group of the AAU, is comprised of the institutional research officers from each university. • Boston University (2012) • University of California-Santa Barbara (1985) • Brandeis University (1985) • University of California-Santa Cruz (2019) • Brown University (1933) • University of Chicago (1900) • California Institute of Technology (2934) • University of Colorado, Boulder (1966) • Carnegie Mellon University (1982) • University of Florida (1985) • Case Western Reserve University (1969) • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1908) • Columbia University in the City of New York (1900) • University of Iowa (1909) • Cornell University (1900) • University of Kansas (1909) • Dartmouth College (2019) • University of Maryland at College Park (1969) • Duke University (1983) • University of Michigan (1900) • Emory University (1995) • University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (1908) • Georgia Institute of Technology (2010) • University of Missouri, Columbia (1908) • Harvard University (1900) • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1922) • Indiana University (1909) • University of Oregon (1969) • Iowa State University (1958) • University of Pennsylvania (1900) • Johns Hopkins University (1900) • University of Pittsburgh (1974) • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1934) • University of Rochester (1941) • Michigan State University (1964) • University of Southern California (1969) • New York University (1950) • University of Texas at Austin (1929) • Northwestern University (1917) • University of Utah (2019) • Ohio State University (1916) • University of Virginia (1904) • Pennsylvania State University • University of Washington (1950) • Princeton University (1900) • University of Wisconsin-Madison (1900) • Purdue University (1958) • Vanderbilt University (1950) • Rice University (1985) • Washington University in St Louis (1923) • Rutgers University-New Brunswick (1989) • Yale University (1900) • Stanford University (1900) Canadian university AAU members (not included in • Stony Brook University – SUNY (2001) comparison groups in this publication) • Texas A & M University (2001) • Tulane University of Louisiana (1958) • McGill University (1926) • University at Buffalo – SUNY (1989) • University of Toronto (1926) • University of Arizona (1985) Non-AAU affiliates of AAUDE • University of California-Berkeley (1900) • University of California-Davis (1996) • Syracuse University • University of California-Irvine (1996) • University of Nebraska-Lincoln • University of California-Los Angeles (1974)

• University of California-San Diego (1982)

Appendices (17th Edition) 168 3) The Big Ten, an athletic conference formed in 1896 by seven public and private universities. The Big Ten membership is currently 14, listed with the year the school joined the conference in parenthesis. (Northwestern University, in italics, is the only private institution now in the Big Ten. The University of Chicago, also private, was a charter member, but left the conference in 1946.) • Indiana University (1899) • University of Illinois (1896) • Michigan State University (1949) • University of Iowa (1899) • Northwestern University (1896) • University of Maryland (2014) • Ohio State University (1912) • University of Michigan (1896) • Pennsylvania State University (1990) • University of Minnesota (1896) • Purdue University (1896) • University of Nebraska (2011) • Rutgers University (2014) • University of Wisconsin (1896)

Appendices (17th Edition) 169 Appendix B: U-M Graduate Academic Programs1 Grouped by Broad Disciplinary Categories (Rackham Divisions2)

Biological & Health Science / Life Sciences (Rackham Division 1) • Agriculture • Health & Health Care Research • Nutritional Science • Bioinformatics • Health Services Organization and • Oral Health Sciences • Biology (Cellular, Molecular, Policy (Endodontics, Orthodontics, Developmental, Neural, • Human Genetics Periodontics, Prosthodontics, etc.) Chemical, Evolutionary, etc.) • Immunology • Pathology • Biomaterials • Industrial Health/Industrial • Pharmaceutical Sciences • Biostatistics Ecology • Pharmacology • Chemistry • Kinesiology • Pharmacy • Clinical Research • Landscape Architecture • Physiology • Ecology • Microbiology & Immunology • Spatial Analysis • Environmental Health Science • Natural Resources/Conservation • Sustainable Systems • Epidemiological Science • Neuroscience • Toxicology • Genetic Counseling • Nursing

Physical Sciences & Engineering (Rackham Division 2) • Applied Mechanics • Design Science • Radiological Sciences • Applied Physics • Engineering (Aerospace, • Nuclear Science • Applied Statistics Bio/Biomedical, Chemical, Civil, • Oceanography: Physical • Astronomy/Astrophysics Electrical, Environmental, • Physics • Atmospheric, Oceanic & Space Financial, Industrial & Operations, • Robotics Sciences Mechanical, Nuclear, Marine, etc.) • Scientific Computing • Biophysics • Geology • Science, Technology & Public • Chemistry • Macromolecular Science Policy • Complex Systems • Materials Science • Space & Planetary Physics • Computer Science & Engineering • Mathematics • Statistics • Construction Engineering & • Mineralogy • Sustainable Systems Management • Naval Architecture • Transportation & Logistics

Social Sciences (Rackham Division 3) • Anthropology • Education/Higher Education • Information & Library Studies • Area Ethnic, Cultural, Gender and • Education & Psychology • Political Science Group Studies • Educational Studies • Psychology • Asian Studies • Health Behavior & Health • Public Administration • Business Administration Education • Public Policy • Cognitive Science/Neuroscience • Health Service Organization & • Sociology • Communication Studies Policy • Urban & Regional Planning • Culture and Cognition • Health Services Research • Economics • History

Humanities & the Arts (Rackham Division 4) • American Culture • Creative Writing • Music (Composition, Education, • Architecture • Dance Musicology, Performance, Theory, • Art • Film Studies etc.) • English Language and Literature • History of Art • Philosophy • Foreign Languages and Literatures • Judaic Studies • Screen Arts and Cultures • Classical Art & Archaeology • Linguistics • Theatre • Classical Studies • Medical & Biological Illustration • Women's Studies • Comparative Literature • Museum Studies

1 Excludes U-M professional degree programs by the same or similar names. 2 Rackham Divisions are disciplinary groupings established by the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies.

Appendices (17th Edition) 170 Appendix C: Graduate and Professional Degree Programs at the University of Michigan

Graduate Academic Degree Programs (U-M refers to these as "Rackham degrees") One or more U-M School or College offers the listed degrees. • Master of Arts (A.M.) • Master of Public Policy (M.P.P.) • Master of Science (M.S.) • Master of Public Administration (M.P.A.) • Master of Science in Engineering (M.S.E.) • Master of Urban and Regional Planning (M.U.P.) • Master of Fine Arts (M.F.A.) • Doctor of Musical Arts (D.M.A.) • Master of Landscape Architecture (M.L.A.) • Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)

Other Graduate Degree Programs (U-M often refers to these as "Non-Rackham degrees") Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning (TAUP) School of Information • Master of Architecture (M. Arch.) • Master of Science in Information (M.S.I.) • Master of Urban Design (M.U.D.) • Master of Applied Data Science (M.A.D.S.) Ross School of Business School of Music, Theatre & Dance • Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) • Master of Music (M.M.) • Master of Accounting (M.Acc.) Concentrations areas: Chamber Music; Church Music; • Master of Supply Chain Management (M.S.C.M.) Collaborative Piano; Composition; Conducting: Band/Wind Ensemble, Choral, Orchestral; Early College of Engineering Keyboard Instruments; Improvisation; Keyboard • Master of Engineering (M. Eng.) Instruments; Music Education; Music Education with Concentration areas: Pharmaceutical Engineering, Certification; Performance; Piano Pedagogy and Construction Engineering and Management, Structural Performance; Wind Instruments. Engineering, Integrated Microsystems, Space • Specialist in Music (Spec.M.) Engineering, Manufacturing, Applied Climate, Concentrations areas: Church Music; Automotive Engineering, Energy Systems Ethnomusicology; Music Education; Performance; Engineering, Global Automotive and Manufacturing, School of Public Health Robotics and Autonomous Vehicles • Doctor of Engineering (D. Eng.) • Master of Public Health (M.P.H.) Concentration areas: Manufacturing, Engineering • Master of Health Services Administration (M.H.S.A.) • Doctor of Public Health (D.P.H.) Law School School of Social Work • Master of Comparative Law (M.C.L.) • Master of Laws (L.L.M.) • Master of Social Work (M.S.W.) • Doctor of the Science of Law (S.J.D.) Medical School • Master's in Health Professions Education (M.H.P.E.)

Professional Degree Programs School of Dentistry School of Nursing • Doctor of Dental Surgery (D.D.S.) • Doctor of Nursing Practice (D.N.P.) Law School College of Pharmacy • Juris Doctor (J.D.) • Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) Medical School • Doctor of Medicine (M.D.)

Appendices (17th Edition) 171 Appendix D: U-M Ann Arbor Information Summary

Name of institution: University of Michigan City/State: Ann Arbor, Michigan County: Washtenaw General telephone number: (734) 764-1817 Prospective students should contact the following offices for further information: First-Years/Undergraduates Graduate Students Office of Undergraduate Admissions Graduate Admissions University of Michigan Rackham Graduate School 1220 Student Activities Building University of Michigan 515 E. Jefferson St. 915 E. Washington Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1316 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1070 Phone: (734) 764-7433 Phone: (734) 764-8129 Fax: (734) 936-0740 [email protected] admissions.umich.edu/ rackham.umich.edu/admissions Year founded: 1817 President: Mark S. Schlissel Year assumed office: 2014 Source of control: Public (State) Student body: Coeducational Degrees offered: Bachelor's, Post-bachelor's certificate, Master's, Post-master's certificate, Doctoral, Professional

Number of undergraduate schools/colleges/divisions: 12 Number of graduate schools/colleges/divisions: 19 Academic year calendar: Trimester (limited summer courses available) Institutional accreditation: As an institution, the University of Michigan is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, a regional accreditation agency that accredits degree granting institutions of higher education based in the 19-state North Central region of the United States. An accreditation statement must be published in a unit's bulletin and any other widely distributed advertising and recruitment materials in which accreditation status is relevant and mentioned. Federal law requires that whenever an institution refers to its affiliation with the Commission, it will include the Commission's address and telephone number. The preferred statement is: "The University of Michigan is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2400, Chicago, Illinois 60602- 2504. (800) 621-7440; (312) 263-0456; Fax: (312) 263-7462." Year first accredited: 1913 Most recent accreditation: 2020 (Higher Learning Commission) accreditation.umich.edu/ Next scheduled evaluation: 2029-2030 Carnegie Classification: Doctoral / Research Universities - Extensive Description of campus location: Small city / Population: 119,980 (2019 census estimate) 44 miles from Detroit (nearest large city)

Appendices (17th Edition) 172

Appendix E: Glossary

AAU: American Association of Universities, a nonprofit association of 59 U.S. and two Canadian preeminent public and private research universities. ACT: A standardized test designed to measure high school achievement and aid in the college admissions process. Auxiliary activities: Essentially self-supporting activities primarily intended to furnish services to students, faculty and staff; examples include parking services, health care services to the public, residential services to students, and the athletic program. Common Application: An undergraduate college admission application that students may use to apply to any of 488 member colleges and universities in the United States and various other countries. Its mission is to encourage the use of “holistic admission,” a process that includes subjective factors gleaned from essays and recommendations alongside objective criteria such as class rank and standardized testing. Constant Dollars: An adjustment made to financial values to account for the effects of inflation. Sometimes referred to as “real dollars”. Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshman Survey: An annual survey administered during orientation or registration to entering students. The survey covers a wide range of student characteristics, achievement and activities, educational and career plans and values, attitudes, beliefs and self-concept. Cost of Attendance: Cost of attendance is the estimated full and reasonable cost of completing a full year as a full-time student and typically includes tuition and fees, books and supplies, room and board, personal costs and transportation. See Net Cost of Attendance. Clinical faculty: At the University of Michigan, these non-tenure-track instructional faculty appointments emphasize clinical/practice and teaching skill. Current Dollars: The value of dollars in the year they were received or paid without any adjustment for inflation. Sometimes referred to as “actual dollars”. Emeritus faculty: At the University of Michigan, regular and clinical instructional faculty, research professors, research scientists, librarians, curators, and archivists may, upon officially retiring from the University, be granted an emeritus or emerita title by the Board of Regents. Expected Family Contribution (EFC): An estimate calculated according to a Federal formula of the amount that a student and his or her parents might be expected to contribute toward the costs of a college education. Once a student’s EFC has been determined, the amount of federal, state, and institutional need-based aid the student is eligible to receive is calculated using the following equation: Cost of Attendance (minus) Expected Family Contribution (minus) Other Financial Resources (private scholarships, etc.) (equals) Eligibility for Need-Based Aid. FTE: Full-time equivalent. A unit used to indicate the workload of an employed person or calculate the number of students or faculty members in a comparable or standardized way across institutions. First generation student: An undergraduate student whose parents have not previously attended college at any level. First-Years: An undergraduate student who is attending college for the first time ever. This term is being used by many offices at the U-M, including the Office of Admissions, to replace the term "freshman" and "freshmen." GPA: Grade point average. An indicator of past academic success that is requested as part of a student’s application for admission. General Fund: At the University of Michigan, the General Fund relies largely on student fees and state appropriations and pays for teaching, research, library services, student scholarships, fellowships, and maintenance and operation of physical properties, among other services. Geographic origin: A student’s geographic origin is defined according to the address used in the application for admission. The geographic origin of a student is similar, but not identical, to residency status. Graduate Student Instructor (GSI): They are graduate students who help teach classes. GSIs act in different capacities depending on the class setup and professor preference. They can lead discussion sections, lead lectures, hold extra office hours, or be available for student help and advice. Graduate Student Research Assistant (GSRA): A Graduate Student Research Assistantship (GSRA) is an appointment which may be provided to a student in good standing in a University of Michigan graduate degree program who performs personal research (including thesis or dissertation preparation) or who assists others performing research that is relevant to his or her academic goals.

Appendices (17th Edition) 173

Graduate Student Staff Assistant (GSSA): The GSSA is a graduate student whose employment is a part of a degree requirement or is otherwise considered academically relevant. GSSAs perform administrative, counseling or educational duties other than those of a GSI. Grant Aid: Financial aid provided to students that is typically based on need. Grant, research: See research grant. Indirect costs: Indirect costs are the real costs of University operations that are not readily assignable to a particular project. Officially known as Facilities and Administrative costs, these costs are determined by federal auditors under the guidelines of the Office of Management and Budget. Indirect cost recovery: Payments for overhead costs received from a research sponsor. In-state student: The informal designation of a student who pays the “resident” tuition rate. In broad terms, such students are permanent residents of the State of Michigan as demonstrated by the applicant’s parents and/or the applicant or the applicant’s spouse or partner holding permanent employment in the state. Instructional faculty: Individuals at the University of Michigan involved in student instruction, excluding graduate student instructors. ‘Regular instructional faculty’ includes tenure track faculty, clinical instructional faculty, and lecturers. ‘Supplemental instructional faculty’ includes adjunct instructional faculty, adjunct clinical instructional faculty, and visiting instructional faculty.

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS): A comprehensive research dataset on financial aid provided by the federal government, the states, postsecondary institutions, employers, and private agencies, along with student demographic and enrollment data. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE): A higher education survey administered by the Center for Postsecondary Research in the Indiana University School of Education. NSSE annually collects information at hundreds of four-year colleges and universities about student participation in programs and activities that institutions provide for their learning and personal development. The results provide an estimate of how undergraduates spend their time and what they gain from attending college. Net Cost of Attendance: The net cost of attendance is defined as the sum of tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, and other expenses for a full-time first-year undergraduate minus the sum of need and merit-based grant aid (not including work- study programs or government subsidized loans). See Cost of Attendance. Net Student Tuition/Fees: When used in the context of the University’s operating revenues, this is the determined by subtracting scholarship aid from the tuition and fees paid by students. Out-of-state student: The informal designation of a student who pays the “non-resident” tuition rate. In broad terms, such students are not permanent residents of the State of Michigan as demonstrated by the applicant’s parents and/or the applicant or the applicant’s spouse or partner holding permanent employment in another state or country. Residency status: Residency status determines whether a student pays “in-state” or “out-of-state” tuition. Residency status is similar, but not identical, to geographic origin. SAT: A standardized test designed to measure high school achievement and aid in the college admissions process. Scholarship Aid: Financial aid provided to students, typically based on merit. (In some instances, scholarships may also have a need-based component.) Selectivity: The percentage of applicants offered admission. STEM: An acronym for fields related to science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Technology transfer: The set of activities aimed at turning university research discoveries into products or processes with economic value. Tenured/tenure-track faculty: Instructional faculty members who have either received tenure or who intend to be evaluated for tenure in the future. U-M Health System: For the Michigan Almanac, this phrase refers collectively to the U-M Hospitals and Health Centers, Michigan Health Corporation, Medical School patient care-related activity and the Office of the Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs. This phrase excludes the Medical School, which is included as part of the Ann Arbor campus. NOTE: “Michigan Medicine” is the phrase used to cover U-M Hospitals, Health Centers, the Medical School and Medical Group Practice, Michigan Health Corp., and the Office of the Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs. University of Michigan Asks You (UMAY): The name used at the U-M for its version of the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) survey. The survey, designed to learn about undergraduate student experiences, is administered to all U-M undergraduates at the Ann Arbor campus. Other research institutions to their students administer similar surveys. Yield: The percentage of admitted students who enroll.

Appendices (17th Edition) 174 Appendix E: Photography Captions and Credits

Cover: Following the 2014 October Lunar eclipse, the sun rises turning the sky gold. Photographer: Austin Thomasson Page 2: Escapade, a welcome event for students, is held each September. Photographer: Scott Soderberg Page 8: Campus scenes during pandemic. Photographer: Unknown Page 24: Chemical engineering student. Photographer: Scott Soderberg Page 46: Spring 2016 Commencement. Photographer: Scott Soderberg Page 40: Engineering graduate students test MARLO, a bipedal robot, on the Wave Field, North Campus. Photographer: Daryl Marshke Page 72: Dr. John Wei and Dr. Brent Hollenbeck. Photographer: Martin Vloet Page 84: U-M student teachers at an Ann Arbor middle school. Photographer: Austin Thomason Page 98: U-M student teachers at an Ann Arbor middle school. Photographer: Austin Thomason Page 110: At work in the U-M Herbarium. Photographer: Eric Bronson Page 124: U-M Museum of Art. Photographer: Scott Soderberg Page 136: Overlooking the Law School. Photographer: Scott Soderberg Page 148: Orion sculpture on Central Campus. Photographer: Daryl Marshke Page 166: Pandemic poster.

Photographs by Michigan Photography photography.umich.edu/

Appendices (17th Edition) 175