2008 WT MG.Qxp
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Download The
August 31, 2015 The Honorable Arne Duncan U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202 Dear Secretary Duncan: As college and university leaders, we appreciate the U.S. Department of Education’s responsiveness to concerns from the higher education community about a post-secondary rating system. Moreover, we support the Department’s recent announcement that it is instead focusing on the development of consumer-focused tools with newly available data. This effort could benefit students and their families, policymakers, and the public by providing them with new comparison tools and additional information on post-secondary institutions. That is why we are writing you about the Student Achievement Measure (SAM), a voluntary web-based tool that allows institutions to show the progress and graduation of significantly more students than the federal graduation rate. We know you share our belief that the most accurate data available should be used in order for these new tools to be effective and meaningful. Federal graduation rates as reported through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) are a key piece of data likely under consideration for the new reporting tool. However, the commonly used federal graduation rate is limited to the success of first-time, full-time college students who graduate from their original institution. This has led to a misrepresentation of institutional performance because the federal rate does not account for the success of all students – particularly those students who attend multiple institutions. This month a report from the National Student Clearinghouse revealed that more than one- third of the 3.8 million first-time, full-time students who entered college in 2008 transferred at least once within six years and nearly half of those students changed institutions multiple times. -
August 31, 2015 the Honorable Arne Duncan U.S. Department Of
August 31, 2015 The Honorable Arne Duncan U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202 Dear Secretary Duncan: As college and university leaders, we appreciate the U.S. Department of Education’s responsiveness to concerns from the higher education community about a post-secondary rating system. Moreover, we support the Department’s recent announcement that it is instead focusing on the development of consumer-focused tools with newly available data. This effort could benefit students and their families, policymakers, and the public by providing them with new comparison tools and additional information on post-secondary institutions. That is why we are writing you about the Student Achievement Measure (SAM), a voluntary web-based tool that allows institutions to show the progress and graduation of significantly more students than the federal graduation rate. We know you share our belief that the most accurate data available should be used in order for these new tools to be effective and meaningful. Federal graduation rates as reported through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) are a key piece of data likely under consideration for the new reporting tool. However, the commonly used federal graduation rate is limited to the success of first-time, full-time college students who graduate from their original institution. This has led to a misrepresentation of institutional performance because the federal rate does not account for the success of all students – particularly those students who attend multiple institutions. This month a report from the National Student Clearinghouse revealed that more than one- third of the 3.8 million first-time, full-time students who entered college in 2008 transferred at least once within six years and nearly half of those students changed institutions multiple times. -
War Eagles: Auburn University's Tradition of Training Soldiers By
War Eagles: Auburn University’s Tradition of Training Soldiers by Daniel Garrison McCall A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Auburn, Alabama May 4, 2014 Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, Army, Auburn University, Specialized Training Program, Summer Camp, Land-grant Copyright 2014 by Daniel McCall Approved by Mark Sheftall, Assistant Professor of History Charles Israel, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of History David Carter, Associate Professor of History Abstract As a land-grant university, Auburn University maintains a tradition of training American soldiers. Its Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) unit was once central to campus life, but in 1969 the university eliminated its mandatory ROTC program. Having offered a remarkable contribution to national defense, as a case study Auburn University Army ROTC embodies an exceptional microcosm for understanding how the United States government has prepared the Army to fight wars requiring mass mobilization. With the old model of cadet training based upon raising a mass army to fight wars in the industrial age and the new model based upon fighting wars with more powerful weaponry but fewer personnel in the modern age of science and technology, examining how these developments within the Army interrelate to the evolution of Auburn University Army ROTC provides an opportunity to consider the significance of how Auburn’s commitment as a land-grant university to supporting ROTC has remained constant, although the centrality of Army ROTC to campus life is dramatically different. ii Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. -
Cole Bennett
Table of Contents Auburn Football . .13-29 History . .133-183 2007 Quick Facts Academics . .14-15 All-Time Results . .133-147 Jordan-Hare Stadium . .16-19 Miscellaneous . .148 Practice Facilities . .19 Yearly Records . .149 General Information Auburn Strength and Conditioning . .20-21 Records vs. All Opponents . .150 Location ....................................................Auburn, Ala. Auburn Sports Medicine . .22-23 Results vs. 2007 Opponents . .151-152 Founded....................................................................1856 Uniquely Auburn . .24-26 Auburn Bowl History . .153 Enrollment ............................................................23,547 The Fable of War Eagle . .27 Lettermen . .154-164 President ..................................................Dr. Jay Gogue Aubie . .28 All-Time Coaching Records . .165 Athletics Director ..........................................Jay Jacobs Auburn’s Symbols . .29 Pat Sullivan, 1971 Heisman . .166 Faculty Representative ....................Marcia Boosinger Bo Jackson, 1985 Heisman . .167 Nickname ..............................................................Tigers 2007 Outlook . .30-38 Zeke Smith, 1958 Outland . .168 Colors ............................Burnt Orange and Navy Blue Tracy Rocker, 1988 Outland/Lombardi . .169 ..........................................................(PMS 172 and 289) Alphabetical Roster . .30-31 Carlos Rogers, 2004 Jim Thorpe . .170 Stadium........................Jordan-Hare Stadium (87,451) Numerical Roster . .32-33 Auburn All-Americans . .171-178 -
August 31, 2015 the Honorable Arne
August 31, 2015 The Honorable Arne Duncan U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202 Dear Secretary Duncan: As college and university leaders, we appreciate the U.S. Department of Education’s responsiveness to concerns from the higher education community about a post-secondary rating system. Moreover, we support the Department’s recent announcement that it is instead focusing on the development of consumer-focused tools with newly available data. This effort could benefit students and their families, policymakers, and the public by providing them with new comparison tools and additional information on post-secondary institutions. That is why we are writing you about the Student Achievement Measure (SAM), a voluntary web-based tool that allows institutions to show the progress and graduation of significantly more students than the federal graduation rate. We know you share our belief that the most accurate data available should be used in order for these new tools to be effective and meaningful. Federal graduation rates as reported through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) are a key piece of data likely under consideration for the new reporting tool. However, the commonly used federal graduation rate is limited to the success of first-time, full-time college students who graduate from their original institution. This has led to a misrepresentation of institutional performance because the federal rate does not account for the success of all students – particularly those students who attend multiple institutions. This month a report from the National Student Clearinghouse revealed that more than one- third of the 3.8 million first-time, full-time students who entered college in 2008 transferred at least once within six years and nearly half of those students changed institutions multiple times. -
2014 Funds Budget
Auburn University Current Funds Budget1 For the Year Ended September 30, 2014 Unrestricted and Restricted (Unaudited) 2014 REVENUES State Appropriations2 242,982,031 Student Fees and Charges 416,078,372 Auxiliary Enterprises 137,119,532 Other Income (Includes Federal Grants, Appropriations and Contracts) 257,767,392 BUDGETED REVENUES 1.053 947.327 EXPENDITURES AND TRANSFERS Instruction 264,351,724 Research 225,049,120 Public Service 53,237,341 Academic Support 36,090,990 Student Services 35,350,357 Institutional Support 68,080,470 Library 15,728,071 Operation and Maintenance of Plant 73,608,794 Scholarships and Fellowships 104, 160,978 Auxiliary Enterprises 137,119,532 Mandatory and Non-Mandatory Transfers 41,169,950 BUDGETED EXPENDITURES AND TRANSFERS 1,053 947.327 1 The University's annual operating budget, as approved by the Board ofTrustees, reflects unrestricted and recurring restricted fund revenues and expenditures on a cash basis and is organized according to revenue source and expenditure function. The annual operating budget is not intended to reflect revenues and expenditures and other changes in net asset~ in the same format presented in the audited financial statements as required by GASB Statement No. 35, Basic Financial Statements and Management's Discussion and Analysisfor Public Colleges and Universities. The prospective financial information included in this Official Statement has been prepared by, and is the responsibility of, the University's management. The University and its management believe that the Current Funds Budget for the year ended September 30, 2013, has been prepared on a reasonable basis, reflecting the best estimates and judgments, and represents, to the best of management's knowledge and opinion, the University's expected course ofaction.