Committed to Excellence: An Assessment of the Conditions and Outcomes of Undergraduate Education at the University of Texas at Austin and at Texas A&M University Michael K. McLendon, Ph.D. Professor of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Southern Methodist University December 6, 2012 Supported by: 1 The Texas Coalition for Excellence in Higher Education www.TexasEducationExcellence.org 1 Preface and Acknowledgements This report summarizes the findings of an independent study, conducted in late 2011 and in 2012, of the performance of the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) and of Texas A&M University (Texas A&M) in the realm of undergraduate education. Clearly, no single study can address all of the issues in undergraduate education that warrant thoughtful discussion – nor is the report that follows an effort to do so. For example, because a number of reports published in 2010 and 2011 had already addressed the topics of instructional efficiency and faculty productivity at UT Austin and at Texas A&M, the present study places its focus elsewhere. The availability – and the limitations – of data also helped establish the parameters for the study. Much of the analysis examines the relative performance of UT Austin and of Texas A&M, with a focus on how well the two universities perform as compared to their benchmark peers and to the nation‟s other top public research universities on select indicators of the conditions and outcomes of undergraduate education on the campuses. This particular focus necessitated the use of performance indicators for which reliable, replicable data exist both across the institutions and over time. As a result, and as described in the report, the study made extensive use of data from the U.S. Department of Education‟s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). On many important dimensions, however, comparative data of such a nature do not presently exist. There is indeed much about U.S. higher education, and about the conditions and the performance of its colleges and universities, that only partially can be understood as a result of present data limitations. This factor imposed several conditions on the study. On a number of pertinent questions, such as the quality and the innovativeness of the undergraduate curriculum, the study turned to other forms of information, including a close review of institutional documents and a variety of reports by national professional associations. Consequently, this study relies on a range of data drawn from different sources. This is as it should be; assessments of educational institutions – whether conducted externally or internally to the institution – should strive to use multiple measures and data sources. The project was undertaken and completed during my tenure on the faculty of Vanderbilt University‟s Peabody College of Education and Human Development. I appreciate the support that I received from several graduate students at that institution. As lead analyst, Justin Shepherd provided expert assistance in the organization and analysis of the IPEDS data that underpin the series of institutional comparisons presented in Section Four of the report. 2 2 Likewise, Morrie Swerlick, Ashley Nichols, and Amanda Ochoa collected information found in various sections of the report. Patricia Whatley Stewart provided invaluable editorial assistance. Michael K. McLendon, Ph.D. Professor of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Southern Methodist University 3 3 Executive Summary Public research universities in the United States today face many serious challenges to their continued capacity in fulfilling what certainly is one of the most important and complex missions the nation has ever handed to an educational institution – the charge simultaneously to educate undergraduate and graduate students; to prepare the nation‟s next generation of scholars and scientists; to produce and refine knowledge and research for the betterment of society; to function as the nation‟s infrastructural backbone for science, research and development; to catalyze and contribute to economic growth; and, to serve local, state, and national needs in a variety of highly-specialized ways. For public universities everywhere, maintaining these commitments has become even harder, in part, because of the austere budgetary and fiscal conditions the institutions and their states face. Additionally, there is well-documented and recently growing public concern over such issues as access to and affordability of U.S. higher education. As a result, debate has arisen in some states over the extent to which public research universities today are accomplishing their complex mission – in particular, the critical aspect of educating undergraduate students. For UT Austin and Texas A&M, pressures on the institutions to evidence their performance in the undergraduate educational realm have become heightened in recent years. These exigencies have arisen against the backdrop of a forceful debate in Texas over the extent to which UT Austin and Texas A&M represent a good value for students, taxpayers, citizens, and the state as a whole. The debate is an important one, with crucial implications for the present and future vitality of the universities, as well as Texas itself. This report contains the findings of an independent study that examined many of the conditions and outcomes associated with undergraduate education at UT Austin and at Texas A&M. Specifically, it examines how well the universities perform on such crucial dimensions as academic quality, student racial and ethnic diversity, student retention, graduation rates, pricing, degree productivity, and student success, among others. Overall, the findings indicate that both universities are excelling in many aspects of their undergraduate educational missions and that they remain an excellent value for students and for the state. The findings include the following: Student quality, selectivity, and demand at the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University are outstanding. The universities today boast record numbers of applicants, enjoy high admissions yield rates, and attract among the highest caliber of students in the nation who choose to attend public research universities. Additionally, the academic quality of their undergraduate student bodies has improved relative to peers. 4 4 UT Austin and Texas A&M rank among the very top public research universities nationally in the percent of the undergraduate Hispanic/Latino student enrollment. UT Austin and Texas A&M are among the nation‟s foremost leaders in the number of Bachelor‟s degrees awarded annually. As a result, the universities produce for the state of Texas an enormous volume of “human capital” that is crucial both to the state‟s economic prosperity and to its capacity to cultivate civic awareness and engagement. The six-year graduation rates of UT Austin and Texas A&M are right on par with those of the institutions‟ peers and stand well above the average of other Public Research I universities.1 Additionally, Texas A&M performs above the median of its peers in terms of improvement to its six-year graduation rate over time, while UT Austin is improving at a rate faster than all but three of its peers and well above the average of all Public Research I institutions. By more than 10 percentage points, the six-year graduation rates for Hispanic students at UT Austin and Texas A&M exceed the average rates of graduation of Hispanic students for all Public Research I institutions. Although the four-year graduation rates at both UT Austin and Texas A&M lag behind peer averages, both universities exceed the average of Public Research I institutions and both recently have made noteworthy gains to their four-year graduation rates – gains that exceed those of peers and of other top-tier research institutions. While the state‟s share of the total institutional revenues at the two universities continues to decline, the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University remain a good bargain. Each university charges prices (i.e., the total of tuition and fees) that are competitive with the finest universities of their kind in the United States. UT Austin charges roughly $1,000 less than the average of its peers, while Texas A&M charges roughly $2,000 less than the average of its peers. 5 5 Over the past five years, from 2006 to 2011, the rises in tuition and fees at UT Austin and Texas A&M have been less than the average of the increases seen at the universities‟ peers and at the nation‟s 70 other Public Research I institutions. Indeed, the tuition increases at UT Austin have been the fourth-lowest out of the 12 members that comprise this university‟s peer group, while tuition increases at Texas A&M have been the third-lowest of the 16 institutions that comprise its peer cohort. Seniors at UT Austin and Texas A&M report high levels of engagement in their studies and in other educationally focused activities that a large volume of research over time has shown as being linked to the desired outcomes of college. In many areas, these students report levels of engagement in learning that exceed the averages reported by students attending peer universities, other public research universities, and other types of public schools. Seniors at UT Austin and Texas A&M report very high levels of satisfaction with their undergraduate experience, overall. At exceptionally high levels, seniors at UT Austin and at Texas A&M report they likely would choose to attend their institution, if they could start over again. There is strong evidence that the undergraduate curriculum at UT Austin and at Texas A&M is of very high quality. Moreover, the curricular changes and improvements that are underway at each university will likely enhance the quality of the undergraduate educational experience and improve student learning. In particular, UT Austin and Texas A&M are increasingly leveraging their research resources and infrastructure to support undergraduate learning, a promising development both for students and for the universities.