REPORT of the TASK FORCE ON THE FUTURE OF UMASS AMHERST October 3, 2001 OUTLINE OF THE UMASS AMHERST TASK FORCE REPORT I. THE CONTEXT OF THE TASK FORCE REPORT II. A BRIEF HISTORY OF UMASS AMHERST III. CLASSIFICATIONS OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION • The Carnegie Foundation Classification (1994) • The Carnegie Foundation Classification (2000) • The Association of American Universities (AAU) IV. NATIONAL RATINGS OF UMASS AMHERST • US News and World Report • The National Research Council (NRC) • The Association of American Colleges (AAU) • The “Center” at the University of Florida V. FINANCIAL RESOURCES • A Comparison of Fiscal Resources with Peer Institutions • A Comparison of Fiscal Expenditures with Peer Institutions • Investment Decisions and Opportunities • Opportunities for Enhancing Revenue VI. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Part One THE CONTEXT OF THE TASK FORCE REPORT The decade of the nineties was a period of significant change — and at times upheaval – for the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (UMA). On several fronts the campus advanced its position as an important center for teaching, research and service to the public: • The Board of Higher Education selected UMass Amherst in 1997 as the home of the statewide honors college — Commonwealth College. The first class was enrolled in 1999. • For the past two years, UMass Amherst has been named one of the institutions offering the best value for the money in the Kaplan/Newsweek college guide, and this year was also listed as a leading school supporting diversity. • The 1995 National Research Council (NRC) ranking of research doctoral programs placed UMass Amherst in the top 25% nationally in Linguistics, Materials Science, Psychology, Computer Sciences, Chemical Engineering, and Electrical Engineering. U.S. News and World Report also gave high marks to a number of programs, and ranked its schools of Education and Engineering the top 50 nationally. • The steady increase in one-year retention of freshmen students, rising from 75.6% for the group entering in 1990 to 83.5% in 1999. • The increase in mean combined SAT scores of entering freshmen, rising from 1078 in 1994 to 1133 in 1999. • The opening of the Knowles engineering building in 1991; the Mullins Center in 1993; the Conte Polymer Research Center in 1995; the Animal Care Facility and the Computer Science building in 1999; and the anticipated opening of ECS II (Engineering) in 2004 and Phase IA (teaching labs) of the Integrated Sciences Building (ISB) in 2006. • Successful completion of the first-ever Capital Campaign, and growth in annual giving from $10 million annually in 1990 to $25 million in 2000. • The establishment of the Pioneer Valley Life Sciences Initiative with Bay State Medical Center and the City of Springfield, and the overall commitment to the business community of the Pioneer Valley. • The number one ranking, amongst all state agencies, in giving to COMEC. On the other hand, the campus faces many challenges. The campus, during the first six months of the year 2001, has suffered from problems of morale which can be attributed to several factors. (1) Chancellor David Scott’s announcement of his resignation on November 28, 2000. (2) Provost Cora Marrett’s announcement of her resignation on April 12, 2001. (3) Chancellor Scott’s announcement that there would be a $20 million shortfall in the fiscal year 2002 budget, and that such shortfall will require belt tightening by many parts of the campus, including the academic departments and schools. (4) The failure of the search for a Vice Chancellor for Research. (5) The anticipated downturn for the next several years in state support for public higher education as a result of a slower state economy and taxpayer approved state revenue reductions. 2 All of the above have led to expressions of deep concerns by the faculty about the future. University of Massachusetts President William M. Bulger recognized that there is much that needs to be accomplished at UMass Amherst if we are to provide the quality of public education for the citizens of the Commonwealth to which we in the University System aspire. Accordingly, President Bulger, on January 25, 2001, announced the formation of a Task Force to study the future of the Amherst campus with the following memo: The President of the University of Massachusetts and its Board of Trustees share a common belief that the success and stature of the University System depend to a significant degree on the achievements of its campus at Amherst. It is therefore a compelling goal of the President and the Board to support efforts to advance the quality and reputation of the University of Massachusetts Amherst such that it can assume its place nationally among the first rank of University campuses of the 21st century. To achieve this goal, the President is appointing a task force to assess the opportunities and barriers to success and promote more effective functioning of the campus. It is his expectation that the report of this task force will inform and guide the search committee that will be charged with selecting a new Chancellor. MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE Aaron Lazare, M.D., Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Worcester, Chair Grace K. Fey, Chair, University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees Robert S. Karam, Trustee, University of Massachusetts Christy P. Mihos, Trustee, University of Massachusetts Robert Wagner, Provost, University of Massachusetts Lowell Jean F. MacCormack, Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth John Cullinane of Dedham WHY NOW? The reasons for creating a Task Force to study UMA at this time were several-fold: 1. First and foremost, there was the imminent change in leadership at UMA with the resignation of Chancellor David Scott on June 30, 2001 after 8 years at the helm. At times of change in the senior leadership of many organizations, it is both common and sensible to engage in organizational reviews of goals and objectives, successes and failures, strengths and weaknesses, and changes in public expectations and in the marketplace. The findings of such a task force can provide useful knowledge to the search committee in determining appropriate candidates 3 and can provide the candidates with a better idea of the expectations of the President and the Board of Trustees of the University. 2. In addition, it was felt the Task Force might be able to identify for the President certain issues, the resolution of which can enhance the search process. More specifically there was a widespread view, on the campus and off, that the challenges facing UMass Amherst were of a nature, duration and scale that would make it difficult to attract the kind of Chancellor who could set a new course for the campus and mobilize the enthusiasm and support needed to help the institution achieve its potential. There was also a widespread belief that the very existence of interim leadership, irrespective of who fills these positions, contributes to a sense of an institution adrift. (The current interim positions include the Chancellor, Provost, and three of the five vice chancellor positions.) The President and Trustees therefore felt it was imperative to take the steps necessary to create an environment conducive to attracting high-caliber candidates for Chancellor and other leadership positions, and to signal that the period of interim leadership will be as brief as possible. The very presence of the Task Force and its visibility on the campus was hoped to communicate to the UMass Amherst academic community the commitment of the President and his Board of Trustees to the continued growth of the UMA campus. 3. Despite the many accomplishments and growth of the campus in recent years and its increasingly positive public perception, there was a deeply held belief on the part of the President and the Board of Trustees that much more could be accomplished (even with the existing resources) to greatly enhance the quality of education, research and other scholarly activity, and public service. There was the hope that the Task Force could shed some light on opportunities for increased accomplishments. 4. Across the nation, public universities have received smaller portions of their respective state budgets during the past decade than in previous years. This has been attributed to the states’ increasing support to K-12 initiatives, Medicaid, various needs for the elderly, and departments of corrections including the building of new prisons. The most successful public universities have grown during the past decade by diversifying their approaches to and sources of revenue; that is, capitalizing on their vast store of intellectual horsepower to identify and generate new sources of revenue beyond their core state support. The Task Force was expected to explore how UMA has been responding to the opportunities to sustain its core mission through revenue diversification. SOURCES OF DATA FOR THE TASK FORCE The Chair of the Task Force, Aaron Lazare, M.D. interviewed approximately 100 people during the period of January through June 2001. Sixty-five of these interviews were with a single person and 7 were in small groups. He was supported in this effort by Sandra Beling, MPA, who staffed all of the meetings. The interviewees included UMA administrators, all deans, a subcommittee of faculty union representatives, subcommittees 4 of the faculty senate, other faculty, students, alumni, legislators, high school teachers, guidance counselors, university vice presidents, university trustees, and members of the business community. The results of the findings were discussed on several occasions with the rest of the Task Force for guidance and direction. If this report meets any of its intended purposes, it does so in reflection of the Task Force’s collective wisdom and experience. To the extent its’ survey of circumstances inadvertently deduces a conclusion not borne out by deeper analysis, the responsibility falls to the Task Force Chair who was relied upon to be their eyes and ears.