TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY A BENCHMARKING STUDY USING PEER AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS PREPARED BY

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY A BENCHMARKING STUDY USING PEER AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS PREPARED BY PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. NOVEMBER 2003

Document Prepared by: PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Denver, Colorado Daniel K. Paulien, President Lisa M. Keith, Senior Associate Frank A. Markley, Associate Felicia Gallegos Pettis, Production Assistant Under contract to Barnes, Gromatzky, Kosarek Architects Austin, Texas Acknowledgements to: Texas A&M University Executive Coordination William L. Perry, Vice Provost Project Coordinators Mary E. Miller, Associate Vice President for Administration Thomas M. Woodfin, Coordinator - Campus Master Plan We also want to express our gratitude to those individuals at the peer institutions who expended their time and effort to participate in this benchmarking survey. Without their assistance, this study would not have been possible.

A BENCHMARKING STUDY USING PEER AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS November 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 Campuswide Benchmarking Results...1 Benchmarking Results...2 College and School Level Results...2 SECTION 2.0 OBJECTIVE... 4 SECTION 3.0 PROCESS... 4 3.1 Identification of Institutions and Survey Development...4 3.2 Survey Distribution and Collection of Responses...5 3.3 Benchmarking Defined...6 3.4 Benchmarking Analysis...8 3.5 Assumptions and Conditions Used in This Analysis...8 SECTION 4.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS... 9 4.1 Total FTE...9 4.2 Total Full Time (FT) Faculty...109 4.3 ASF and R&D Expenditures per Full Time Faculty Headcount...11 4.4 College/School Peer Analysis...12 College of Agriculture...13 College of Architecture...15 College of Business...17 College of Education...19 College of Engineering...21 College of Geosciences...23 School of Government...24 College of Liberal Arts...26 College of Science...28 College of Veterinary Medicine...29 4.5 Related Findings Colleges of Liberal Arts and Sciences...31 4.6 Related Benchmarking Findings Campus - Wide Spaces...33...33 University Library...34 APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E COVER LETTER TO PEERS, QUESTIONNAIRE, AND INSTRUCTIONS GLOSSARY OF TERMS COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BY COLLEGE/SCHOOL PER STUDENT FTE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BY COLLEGE/SCHOOL PER FT FACULTY IDENTIFICATION OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES PROGRAMS

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY Section 1.0 A BENCHMARKING STUDY USING PEER AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY prepared by PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. NOVEMBER 2003 Texas A&M University retained Paulien & Associates, Inc. to conduct a peer and comparative analysis using benchmarking techniques. Comparisons with six public universities and nine Dean s Selections peer institutions formed the sample of this study. In each case, the main or flagship campus, as identified from the Vision 2020 report, was selected for comparison. This report compared assignable square feet (ASF) at the college and school level in institutions considered Texas A&M University s peers. FTE enrollment and full time faculty were used to normalize the space data. FTE enrollment, full time faculty headcount, and detailed physical space data by college and school were secured from each of the peer institutions by an electronic spreadsheet. Each of the fifteen institutions were contacted via email and/or telephone and asked to participate in the study. Fourteen of the peer universities provided information for this study, a response rate of 93%. As a note, percentage comparisons between peers and TAMU were calculated as the percent above or below TAMU's stated number. The following represents the key results of the benchmarking analysis. CAMPUSWIDE BENCHMARKING RESULTS On average, the six peer institutions reported 8,560,610 total campus ASF while the nine Dean s Selection peers reported 7,420,739 total ASF. Total campus ASF for TAMU was calculated at 7,827,836 ASF or 9% below the average of peers yet 6% higher than Dean s selection peers. The fourteen peers represented a wide diversity with respect to FTE enrollment. For 12 of the 14 peers, FTE reflects the number of credit hours or units taught for each subject or discipline, regardless of declared major. Ranges varied from a high of 49,005 at Ohio State University to a low of 21,707 at Colorado State University. The average FTE for all 14 peer institutions was 35,670. TAMU, with 38,515 FTE, generated 7% more FTE than the average of all peers combined. ASF/ FTE 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 - ASF/ FTE Comparisons Top 10 All Peers Dean's TAMU When total ASF is standardized by FTE, TAMU s ASF/FTE ratio was 28% lower than the average Top 10 peers (204 vs. 262 ASF/FTE) but 6% higher than the average of Dean s peers (204 vs. 192 ASF/FTE). In direct comparison to all 14 peers, TAMU was 13 ASF/FTE or 6% lower than all peers combined. These results are presented graphically to the left of this text. Peer Groupings PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 1

When total ASF is standardized by full-time faculty, TAMU s ratio was higher than both Top 10 and Dean s Selection peers. TAMU s ASF/Faculty of 4,039 was 1% higher than the Top 10 average of 3,988 ASF/Faculty and 17% higher than the Dean s peer average of 3,354 ASF/Faculty. In total, TAMU had 458 ASF more space per full time faculty than the average of all peers combined. RESEARCH BENCHMARKING RESULTS In this comparative analysis, all research laboratory spaces (academic and administrative) were combined and normalized by the number of full-time faculty, creating total research lab full-time faculty. The range of research laboratory full-time faculty extended from a low of 303 ASF/Faculty at the University of Texas to a high of 844 at the University of Wisconsin. UCLA, with a total of 932 ASF was not included in the overall analysis of research laboratory space due to room use coding of other types of lab spaces into the research lab category. Overall, TAMU was 201 ASF/Faculty higher than both Top 10 and Dean s peer groups, designating 759 ASF/Faculty or 26% more research lab ASF/Faculty as compared to the average of the other 14 peer institutions. When total R&D expenditures (FY 2001) were analyzed, the 14 peer institutions, with an average $184,762 of R&D expenditures per full time faculty, are less productive than TAMU s $229,692 in R&D expenditures per faculty. COLLEGE AND SCHOOL LEVEL RESULTS Each peer institution provided detailed space data at the college and school level. Since no two universities have the same organizational structure and academic departments, data from more than 60 unique colleges and schools were collected from the 14 universities. Colleges and schools that were not direct comparisons to TAMU s programs are found in Appendices C and D. Each college was analyzed for comparability with TAMU s eight colleges and two schools. This summary provides an overview of the results. Detailed findings are described in the main body of the report. Chart No. 1 illustrates graphically the results of the analysis. Each of ten colleges and schools at TAMU as well as the main campus total are listed across the bottom of the graph. The solid line represents the high and low FTE for each program as secured from the peer institutions. The triangle delineates TAMU s ASF for that college or school. FTE 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Chart No. 1 of College/School Summary by FTE Peer High Low Range TAMU Agriculture Architecture Business Education Engineering Geosciences Government / Public Policy Liberal Arts Science Veterinary Medicine Main Campus Total NOTE: Square footage numbers for Chem E. and Wehner building additions are not represented in the graph. PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 2

As an example, for the College of Agriculture, the highest point on the vertical line (1,093 ASF/FTE) was reported by Michigan State University while the lowest point on the vertical line (201 ASF/FTE) was reported by Colorado State University. The College of Agriculture within Texas A&M University was calculated at 362 ASF/FTE, as noted by the triangle in Chart No. 1. Colleges and Schools of Agriculture, Engineering, and Veterinary Medicine have the largest variance in ASF per, suggesting inclusion of other programs and activities within peer colleges. There is also the issue of how on-campus land grant mission functions are incorporated with these colleges. On the other hand, Geosciences, Liberal Arts, and Science are more tightly clustered. The Dwight Look College of Engineering and the Bush School of Government student were calculated to be above peer averages at 11% and 63% respectively. Total FTE for most of TAMU s Colleges and Schools were 10 to 30% below comparable peers. The Colleges of Agriculture (25% below Average), Education (36% less than average), Liberal Arts (32% below average), and Veterinary Medicine (35% below average) were below the average of the square feet per student range when compared to peers. TAMU s Colleges of Architecture, (56% below peers), Business (133% below peers), Science (111% below peers) and Geosciences (41% below average) were considered to be at the lower end of the peer average. Peer Rankings of TAMU Schools and Colleges ASF/ FTE Total Number College/School of Institutions In Analysis Overall Ranking Among Institutions Agriculture 11 6th Architecture 6 5th Business 15 11th Education 14 8th Engineering 14 5th Geosciences 2 2nd Government 6 1st Liberal Arts 5 5th Sciences 3 3rd Veterinary Medicine 9 7th A summary of rankings is provided in the following table. TAMU, along with the other peers in the study, were rank ordered in terms of ASF/ FTE. For the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, a total of eleven institutions (including TAMU) were included in the peer study. TAMU s program ranked fifth among the eleven universities in ASF/ FTE. Detailed comparative analysis by space categories are discussed in the body of the report. PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 3

FT Faculty 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 Chart No 2 of College/School by FT Faculty Headcount Peer High Low Range TAMU 1000 0 Agriculture Architecture Business Education Engineering Geosciences Government / Public Policy Liberal Arts Science Veterinary Medicine Main Campus Total When full time faculty is summarized, the results are mixed: TAMU s programs in Agriculture, Geosciences, Government, Engineering, Liberal Arts, and Science were at or above peer averages. Colleges and Schools where TAMU was at or below peer averages with respect to ASF/Faculty included Architecture, Business, Education, and Veterinary Medicine. The main campus total full time faculty headcount, listed at the far right of the graph, is 11% above the peer average. Peer comparisons of campus classrooms and library spaces were also collected and analyzed in this report. Comparative tables are located in Section 4.4 of this report. Section 2.0 OBJECTIVE In January of 2003, Texas A&M University (TAMU) retained Paulien & Associates, Inc. to conduct five studies Space Needs of Universities Compared with Non- Universities, Benchmarking, Efficiency Measures, Utilization Measures, and Space Needs by College and School. The focal point of this study is Texas A&M University. This report contains peer and comparative analyses using benchmarking techniques with five institutions and nine Dean s Selections institutions to obtain a broader range of values. The objective of this study is to analyze how Texas A&M University s existing space at the college/school level compares to each of the selected peer institutions. Section 3.0 PROCESS 3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONS AND SURVEY DEVELOPMENT At the onset of this study, Texas A&M University identified in its Vision 2020 report six institutions termed the, all of which were ranked in the top 10 of public universities by both U.S. News PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 4

and World Report (Top Public National Universities Doctoral, 2003) and the National Council (NRC). Since four of the six primary institutions are not land grant institutions, a second group of nine institutions, selected from a survey of the Dean s, are being called Dean s Selections. These institutions have characteristics similar to TAMU and were selected to provide a broader range of comparisons. With the exception of the University of Texas at Austin, all the institutions in the second broader group are land grant universities. A list of the institutions is provided in Table No. 1. Once the list of peer institutions was identified, Paulien & Associates, Inc. developed a list of facilities data needed to conduct the benchmarking study. An electronic spreadsheet was developed, along with an explanatory cover letter and detailed instructions. A copy of the peer analysis questionnaire, letter of introduction, and instructions are included in Appendix A. The electronic spreadsheet requested space data in assignable square feet (ASF) at the college, school, unit, or division level by space categories based on room use codes as outlined in the National Center for Education Statistics Postsecondary Education Facilities Inventory and Classification Manual. The questionnaire also queried for total campus ASF as well as pooled/centralized classrooms, residential, university library, athletics, and physical education/recreation spaces. The electronic spreadsheet was customized for each institution by highlighting the specific colleges/schools unique to each university that was selected for this study. Table No. 1 Primary and Additional Peer Institutions and Level of Participation Institution Participation Level Analysis Level Missing Data Source University of California - Berkeley Limited College/School N/A Website/System University of Michigan - Ann Arbor Full College/School N/A Institution University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Full College/School N/A Institution University of California - Los Angeles Limited College/School N/A Website/System University of California - San Diego Nonparticipant N/A All N/A University of Wisconsin - Madison Full College/School N/A Institution Colorado State University-Ft. Collins Full College/School N/A Institution Michigan State University-East Lansing Full College/School N/A Institution North Carolina State University-Raleigh Full College/School N/A Institution Ohio State University-Columbus Full College/School N/A Institution Purdue University-West Lafayette Full College/School N/A Institution Pennsylvania State University-University Park Full College/School N/A Institution University of Florida-Gainesville Limited College/School N/A Website/Institution University of Texas-Austin Full College/School N/A Institution University of Illinois-Urbana Full College/School N/A Institution When available, full time faculty headcount and student full-time equivalent (FTE) data were entered by the consultants to reduce errors and data entry time for each peer institution. It should be noted that FTE was calculated based on the number of credits or units generated in each subject or discipline, regardless of a student s major. For example, a student majoring in engineering who took two English courses would have those student credits stay with the English Department. The Glossary of Terms is included in Appendix B. 3.2 SURVEY DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION OF RESPONSES The consultants organized names, phone numbers, and email contacts for campus representatives at each identified institution. Surveys were sent electronically to higher level administrators (vice chancellors, vice presidents) who were able to make concrete decisions about participation in the study. In some cases, surveys were sent to the University Architect s office or representatives of the physical planning office. To PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 5

maximize the number of positive responses, whenever possible, questionnaires were sent to the person on campus with whom the consultants had previously been acquainted. Respondents were given approximately four weeks to complete the survey. After the survey had been sent to each identified institution, representatives were contacted by phone and by email to verify their willingness to participate in the study. Additional follow-up calls were made by the consultants to clarify questions or concerns regarding the requested data. It is important to note that the consultants agreed to share selected results of this study as an incentive for participation. Initially, all 15 institutions agreed to participate in the study. Eleven of the 15 institutions fully completed the questionnaire as described in the instructions. They are noted in Table No. 1 as providing full participation. Three institutions agreed to participate but did not complete the electronic spreadsheet. Institutions requested that consultants obtain information from their websites. Consultants downloaded facility, FTE and faculty headcount data and proceeded to complete the questionnaire for each institution. These universities are listed in Table No. 1 as providing limited participation. Consultants were unable to locate full time faculty by college for the College of Medicine at UCLA. Several emails and phone calls requesting faculty headcounts proved unsuccessful. In addition, a space planner from the University of California System - of Planning provided limited facilities data for each of the University of California institutions, including total ASF for each room use category, centralized classrooms, library, and athletics. This information was added to the questionnaire. After reviewing the study and initially agreeing to participate, the University of California-San Diego determined it did not have sufficient human resources to complete the questionnaire. They are listed as a non- participant in Table No. 1. Data for Texas A&M University was obtained by the consultants from FTE reports, staffing files and space inventories supplied by the university. Consultants summarized the data files to fit the format of the electronic questionnaire. The data were current as of August 22, 2003. 3.3 BENCHMARKING DEFINED Benchmarking is a tool that has been used in the industry for many years. More recently, extraordinary challenges and the need to develop new ways to demonstrate accountability have forced higher education institutions to begin using many of the same concepts. Definitions of benchmarking vary depending on the focus of the study. Jackson and Lund (2000) describe benchmarking as comparing organizational or industry practices, performance, and process in order to improve the focal organization or business. Schuler (1998) defined benchmarking as a structured approach for looking outside an organization to study and adapt the best outside practices to complement internal operations with new, creative ideas (p. 40). For purposes of this study, benchmarking is defined as making direct comparisons with other similar institutions in order to improve or adapt to best practices. The literature provides three reasons for making such comparisons: Assessment - Provides a context to make better sense of an institution s outcomes and achievements. Innovation Provides new insights into ways of thinking and working. Change Provides a context for promoting institutional change. Table No. 2 provides selected data on each of the peer institutions in this report. This data serves as an initial point of comparison between institutions before moving into the comparative findings of the study. In many instances, these indicators measure the degree of excellence or prominence of a university. The consultants obtained total R&D expenditures and rankings for fiscal year 2001 through online reports from the National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of and PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 6

Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges. Endowment data was obtained from the National Association of College and University Business rs (NACUBO) Endowment Study as reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education for the year ending June 30, 2001. The number of bachelors degrees awarded was obtained from the IPEDS Peer Analysis System, Fall 2000. Full time faculty and FTE enrollment data were self-reported from the questionnaire for institutions that participated fully in the study. Full time faculty and FTE data for the University of California System universities were obtained from representatives of each institution or from the IPEDS Fall Staff Survey, dated November 2002, as posted on their websites. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) collects and documents worldwide academic publication statistics that reflect research performance of more than 112 universities. The database contains counts of publications taken from peer-reviewed journal articles, notes, reviews, and proceedings papers. The ISI currently indexes approximately 5,500 journals in the sciences, 1,800 in the social sciences, and 1,200 in the arts & humanities. For this report, data was secured on the number of peer-reviewed papers written by faculty over a five year period (1998-2002). It is worth noting that TAMU has the highest level of endowment of all colleges and universities in the study. TAMU s FTE of 38,515 is ranked in the middle of all peers in the study and 14% higher than the average Top 10. At the same time, TAMU awarded more bachelors degrees (7,512) than the other institutions in the Top 10 category. Areas where TAMU compares less favorably with the Consensus Top 10 peers involve the number of peer-related papers published by faculty between 1998 and 2002. As evidenced in Table No. 2, TAMU s count of 12,228 publications is below the 19,398 average of Top 10 peers and 11,840 of Dean s peers. The other area involves the total R&D expenditures, where TAMU is 18% below the peer average of Top 10 universities but 40% higher than universities in the Dean s selection of peers. The full time faculty headcount of 1,950 at TAMU is below the average of the Top 10 universities with 2,120 faculty and Dean s Selection peers with 2,260 faculty. Table No. 2 Selected Characteristics of Peer Institutions University 2003 U.S. News Rank (Public Doctoral Univ) 2001 Total R&D Expenditures (Thousands $) 2001 NSF R&D Rank 2001 Endowment Assets (Thousands $) 2002 Total Enrollment (FTE) Full-TIme Faculty Headcount 2000 Bachelors Degrees Awarded 1998-2002 Number of Peer- Reviewed Papers University of California-Berkeley, 1 $ 446,273 13 $ 1,953,443 31,865 1,967 6,169 20,223 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 4 $ 600,523 4 $ 3,469,536 37,904 2,944 5,603 21,674 University of California-Los Angeles 3 $ 693,801 2 $ 1,390,390 33,231 1,812 6,220 22,485 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 5 $ 303,576 31 $ 1,045,750 22,659 1,817 3,387 12,768 University of Wisconsin-Madison 8 $ 604,143 3 $ 1,120,884 35,123 2,060 5,550 19,842 Average $ 529,663 11 $ 1,796,001 32,156 2,120 5,386 19,398 Colorado State University-Ft. Collins Not Ranked $ 161,144 71 $ 103,130 21,707 1,119 3,621 5,555 Michigan State University-East Lansing 31 $ 265,946 37 $ 448,570 38,026 2,647 6,897 9,065 North Carolina State University-Raleigh 41 $ 299,259 32 $ 310,616 29,535 1,671 3,710 8,015 Ohio State University-Columbus 24 $ 390,652 19 $ 1,111,823 49,005 2,587 6,746 14,467 Purdue University-West Lafayette 20 $ 254,917 41 $ 1,217,118 37,169 1,827 5,470 10,533 Pennsylvania State University-University Park 12 $ 458,066 11 $ 750,090 39,246 2,911 8,981 15,280 University of Florida-Gainesville 17 $ 359,312 25 $ 635,143 40,290 3,040 7,654 15,307 University of Illinois-Urbana 10 $ 390,863 18 $ 601,944 39,319 1,826 6,370 13,562 University of Texas-Austin 15 $ 295,104 33 $ 1,463,114 45,356 2,714 7,826 14,780 Average $ 319,474 32 $ 737,950 37,739 2,260 6,364 11,840 Texas A&M University-College Station 25 $ 447,900 12 $ 3,764,843 38,515 1,950 7,512 12,228 PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 7

3.4 BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS The data received from the participating institutions included the overall space available by college/school and by space category. Data requested also included the FTE and the number of full-time faculty. Paulien & Associates compiled the benchmarking data by college/school, normalizing the information by calculating the assigned square feet per FTE and assigned square feet per full-time faculty. Totals may not add to the sum of their parts due to rounding. In order to present this information in a consistent manner, the consultants based the student count on FTE Based on experience, Paulien & Associates believes that comparisons using full-time equivalent students are the most appropriate since they are comparing an equivalent amount of academic instruction rather than the number of majors in a given college or school. Because there is a variance in the number of FTE generated by graduate students at different institutions, and because of the greater complexity of surveying differentiated graduate and undergraduate FTE s, only the total FTE was used in this report. No differentiation between graduate and undergraduate student credit hours to FTE formulas were made in this analysis. The consultants recognize that in many cases full-time graduate students may represent fewer credit hours than FTE for undergraduate students. The consultants asked the participating institutions for full-time faculty which were defined as full-time teaching staff including tenured, tenure track, and non-tenure track professors and instructors who have full-time appointments. 3.5 ASSUMPTIONS AND CONDITIONS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS The information used for this benchmarking study is taken from the responses to the surveys reported to the consultants and from data secured from selected institutions websites. The different colleges and schools that recorded the data may have classified their space differently in their identification of space within the various space categories. Categories of space type or facilities room uses and square footages have been taken directly from the data as sent to the consultants or obtained from web-based resources. In some instances, consultants contacted peer institutions when data seemed out-of-range in a particular space category. Outcomes of these discussions are found in the comparative analysis section of this report. Similarly, faculty headcounts and FTE have been taken from the data as sent. For this study, faculty was defined as full-time faculty that includes tenured, tenure track, and non-tenure track professors and instructors or lecturers who have a full-time appointment. This category did not include part-time adjunct instructors or lecturers. Given this definition, it should be noted that faculty headcount for TAMU in this report does not match faculty headcounts in other studies by Paulien & Associates. FTE for both graduate and undergraduate levels was requested, however, no differentiation between graduate and undergraduate FTE was made in the analysis. For this study, only departmentally controlled classroom space was included in the overall analysis. Centrally scheduled or managed classrooms were analyzed separately. The space categories used in the tables that follow are departmentally assigned classrooms, teaching laboratories, open laboratories, research laboratories, offices, study space, and other. The other category includes assembly and exhibit space, food and lounge facilities, animal quarters, greenhouses, health care facilities, and demonstration areas. The other category does not include residential space. PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 8

Section 4.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS The comparative analysis results and findings presented in the remainder of this report are based solely on data from peer institutions. More specifically, identified deficits and surpluses of space in each of TAMU s colleges and schools are related to peer institution averages. In each of the tables, percentage comparisons between peers and TAMU were calculated as the percent above or below TAMU's stated number. The results of this report are independent of findings of a formal space needs and utilization analysis as prepared by Paulien & Associates in other reports. Since the other reports were generated using normative guidelines and other internal factors, the results are not comparable. 4.1 TOTAL ASF PER STUDENT FTE Before examining the college-by-college peer analysis, a review of the data at the institutional level is warranted. FTE and total ASF data were used to calculate student, thus normalizing the data for comparative purposes. Total ASF data includes not only spaces for academic programs, but also spaces for administrative and student support, library, athletics, and recreation. Due to differences in accounting systems at each university, auxiliary or non-general fund spaces may not be included in the overall totals. Residential space square footages are excluded in this total. Findings for each of the 14 peer institutions are delineated in the following table. For reasons of clarity, the institutions, as defined and named by Texas A&M University, will be commonly referred to as the Top 10 comparison group. All other peer institutions, previously identified as Dean s Selections will be identified as the Dean s comparison group for the remainder of this report. A Glossary of Terms for terminology found in each table is located in Appendix B. Non-Residential Main Campus Total FTE TOTAL ASF Total University of Michigan 328 37,904 12,414,220 14 53 12 n/a 40 80 23 157 University of Wisconsin 312 35,123 10,970,575 12 70 13 8 49 83 24 123 University of California at Berkeley 232 30,803 7,149,445 9 58 6 6 45 64 33 67 University of California - Los Angeles 226 33,231 7,504,100 9 64 4 9 51 84 21 48 University of North Carolina 210 22,659 4,764,711 12 41 8 4 28 63 29 66 262 31,944 8,560,610 11 57 9 7 43 75 26 92 Ohio State University 266 49,005 13,011,119 9 44 7 10 27 62 14 137 Purdue University 221 37,169 8,224,528 6 43 12 2 29 42 10 121 University of Florida 220 40,290 8,871,742 8 49 11 n/a 39 57 11 96 University of Illinois 215 39,319 8,452,723 8 58 16 3 39 61 18 69 Michigan State University 170 38,026 6,463,828 12 35 8 2 25 35 11 77 University of Texas 168 45,356 7,619,102 11 32 7 7 18 52 23 49 Pennsylvania State University 160 39,246 6,267,396 10 40 7 5 28 49 9 52 Colorado State University 155 21,707 3,355,027 10 42 11 6 25 39 11 52 North Carolina State University 153 29,535 4,521,185 8 43 8 8 27 41 9 52 192 37,739 7,420,739 9 43 10 5 29 49 13 78 217 35,670 7,827,836 10 48 9 6 34 58 18 83 204 38,515 7,875,328 8 53 8 7 38 56 0 74 TAMU COMPARED TO TOP 10 (58) 6,571 (685,282) (3) (4) (1) 0 (5) (19) (26) (18) TAMU % COMPARED TO TOP 10 (28%) 17% (9%) (32%) (7%) (18%) 5% (12%) (35%) - (24%) 12 776 454,589 (1) 10 (2) 2 9 7 (13) (4) 6% 2% 6% (8%) 19% (31%) 32% 25% 12% - (5%) (13) 2,845 47,492 (2) 5 (1) 1 4 (2) (18) (9) (6%) 7% 1% (20%) 10% (18%) 18% 12% (4%) - (12%) FTE represents credit hours taught by the departments in each school or college for all institutions except the University of Illinois and Purdue, where FTE is based on credit hours taken by declared majors in each college. While the Top 10 institutions can be considered an aspiration group for TAMU in terms of research and national rankings, Total ASF is somewhat comparable with TAMU (8,560,610 vs. 7,875,328 total ASF). TAMU s total ASF exceeds the Dean s comparison group, with 6% more space over the Dean s peer PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 9

average of 7,420,739 ASF. On average, TAMU had a higher FTE number (38,515 FTE) than both comparison groups. The Top 10 averaged 31,944 FTE while the Dean s list averaged 37,739 FTE, a 17% and 2% difference respectively. On the whole, TAMU had 28% less total campus space per FTE than the Top 10 peer average of 262 ASF/FTE and 6% more total campus space per FTE than the average of the Dean s group at 192 ASF/FTE. Reviewing the detail, TAMU had a higher ASF/FTE in total labs, open labs, and research lab spaces than institutions in both peer groups. Departmental classrooms, teaching labs, and office & conference spaces were slightly under peer averages. In further examination of student by room use categories, there are slight differences between TAMU and Top 10 and Dean s peers. On average, TAMU has 12% less space in research laboratories than Top 10 peers, yet 25% more than Dean s peers. It must be noted that two institutions allocated all laboratory space to only teaching and research laboratories. Due to each institution s unique way of reflecting laboratory space, it is often more relevant to compare total laboratory space. Total laboratory space is about 20% less than TAMU for the Dean s selections, but about 7% more at the Top 10. TAMU is approximately 10% higher than the combined average. 4.2 TOTAL ASF PER FULL TIME (FT) FACULTY The next table normalizes space data by full time faculty instead of FTE. As explained in Table No. 2, TAMU s full time faculty headcount is slightly below the average of both Top 10 and Dean s comparison groups. Since total ASF is comparable to other institutions, full time faculty ranks in the middle of the 14 peers at 4,039 faculty or 1% higher than Top 10 peers (3,988 ASF/Faculty) and 17% higher than the Dean s peers at 3,354 ASF/Faculty. TAMU averaged 759 faculty in research labs, 26% more faculty than the other peers combined at 558 ASF/Faculty. Non-Residential Main Campus Total Faculty Faculty FT Faculty TOTAL ASF Total University of Wisconsin 5,326 2,060 10,970,575 213 1,194 214 137 844 1,409 408 2,102 University of Michigan 4,217 2,944 12,414,220 185 677 158 n/a 519 1,034 296 2,025 University of California - Los Angeles 4,141 1,812 7,504,100 168 1,169 81 157 932 1,548 377 880 University of California at Berkeley 3,635 1,967 7,149,445 137 912 100 101 711 1,005 525 1,057 University of North Carolina 2,622 1,817 4,764,711 146 506 99 55 352 792 358 821 3,988 2,120 8,560,610 170 892 130 112 671 1,157 393 1,377 Ohio State University 5,029 2,587 13,011,119 161 828 126 191 511 1,179 257 2,605 University of Illinois 4,629 1,826 8,452,723 182 1,256 347 69 840 1,314 396 1,481 Purdue University 4,502 1,827 8,224,528 129 867 243 37 587 849 204 2,452 Colorado State University 2,998 1,119 3,355,027 201 819 221 115 483 765 205 1,009 University of Florida 2,918 3,040 8,871,742 108 653 141 n/a 512 749 142 1,266 University of Texas 2,807 2,714 7,619,102 182 538 114 122 303 874 391 823 North Carolina State University 2,707 1,670 4,521,185 136 758 135 143 480 724 163 927 Michigan State University 2,442 2,647 6,463,828 178 509 121 25 363 498 152 1,105 Pennsylvania State University 2,153 2,911 6,267,396 134 543 98 67 379 657 123 696 3,354 2,260 7,420,739 157 752 172 96 495 845 226 1,374 3,581 2,210 7,827,836 161 802 157 101 558 957 285 1,375 4,039 1,950 7,875,328 165 1,055 151 145 759 1,096 0 1,465 TAMU COMPARED TO TOP 10 51 (170) (685,282) (5) 163 21 33 88 (61) (393) 88 TAMU % COMPARED TO TOP 10 1% (9%) (9%) (3%) 15% 14% 23% 12% (6%) - 6% 685 (310) 454,589 8 302 (21) 49 264 251 (226) 91 17% (16%) 6% 5% 29% (14%) 34% 35% 23% - 6% 458 (260) 47,492 4 253 (6) 44 201 139 (285) 90 11% (13%) 1% 2% 24% (4%) 30% 26% 13% - 6% PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 10

4.3 RESEARCH ASF AND R&D EXPENDITURES PER FULL TIME FACULTY HEADCOUNT Since Texas A&M University has a research focused mission, it was determined that all research laboratory spaces on campus should be analyzed for each of the peer institutions. For clarity, peer institutions that reported administrative or other organizational research spaces (i.e., centers, institutes) on the main campus were included in the ASF numbers. laboratory space data from UCLA were omitted from the analysis since all labs (teaching, open, and research) on campus were combined in their on-line database. For information purposes, UCLA reported 2,243,368 ASF of laboratory space. Michigan State University reported research lab space for academic programs only. Total research laboratory ASF is reported in the middle column of the table. The analysis indicates that TAMU has more total research lab space (1,480,170 ASF) than the average of the Top 10 peers (1,325,704 ASF) and Dean s peers (1,079,142 ASF). In looking at research lab faculty, TAMU ranks fifth among all peers with 26% more research lab space per faculty than both peer groups combined. Academic R & D Expenditures Main Campus Total Laboratory ASF per Faculty FT Faculty Total Laboratory ASF R&D $ per Faculty Total R&D Expenditures University of California at Berkeley 711 1,967 1,397,753 $ 226,880 $ 446,273,000 University of Michigan 519 2,944 1,527,542 $ 203,982 $ 600,523,000 University of North Carolina 352 1,817 639,611 $ 167,075 $ 303,576,000 University of Wisconsin 844 2,060 1,737,910 $ 293,288 $ 604,143,000 606 2,197 1,325,704 $ 222,806 $ 488,628,750 Colorado State University 483 1,119 540,664 $ 144,007 $ 161,144,000 Michigan State University 363 2,647 960,260 $ 100,471 $ 265,946,000 North Carolina State University 480 1,670 801,672 $ 179,197 $ 299,259,000 Ohio State University 511 2,587 1,322,190 $ 151,006 $ 390,652,000 Pennsylvania State University 379 2,911 1,103,617 $ 157,357 $ 458,066,000 Purdue University 587 1,827 1,072,726 $ 139,528 $ 254,917,000 University of Florida 512 3,040 1,556,804 $ 118,195 $ 359,312,000 University of Illinois 840 1,826 1,533,207 $ 214,054 $ 390,863,000 University of Texas 303 2,714 821,142 $ 108,734 $ 295,104,000 495 2,260 1,079,142 $ 145,839 $ 319,473,667 558 2,210 1,193,078 $ 184,762 $ 394,541,357 759 1,950 1,480,170 $ 229,692 $ 447,900,000 TAMU COMPARED TO TOP 10 153 247 154,466 $ 6,886 $ (40,728,750) TAMU % COMPARED TO TOP 10 20% (13%) 10% 3% (9%) 264 310 401,028 $ 83,854 $ 128,426,333 35% (16%) 27% 37% 29% 201 260 287,092 $ 44,930 $ 53,358,643 26% (13%) 19% 20% 12% Total R&D expenditures were analyzed in Table No. 2. A review of R&D expenditures per full time faculty ranges from a low of $100,471 per faculty at Michigan State University to a high of $293,288 at the University of Wisconsin. Top 10 peers had higher average expenditures per faculty ($222,806) than the Dean s peers, which averaged $145,839 per faculty. Overall, TAMU expends 20% more R&D dollars per PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 11

full-time faculty member ($229,692) than compared to the other 14 peer institutions combined, which averaged $184,762 per full time faculty in expenditures. 4.4 COLLEGE/SCHOOL PEER ANALYSIS The main focus of this study disaggregates institutional space data at the college and school level so that specific comparisons relevant to Texas A&M University can be achieved. While no two institutions have identical colleges and schools, there are similarities. In most cases, similarity of disciplines and fields of study within a college or school provided evidence for appropriate classification. Table No. 3 displays the outcome of this task. This analysis compared approximately 60 different unique colleges and schools, however, only colleges and schools relevant to TAMU are contained in this section. The remainder of the colleges and schools are located in the Appendices C and D. Table No. 3 Peer Comparison with TAMU by College/School School/College Colorado State University Michigan State University North Carolina State University - Raleigh Texas A & M Ohio State University University of Illinois - Urbana/Champaign University of Texas - Austin Purdue University Pennsylvania State University - University Park University of Florida University of Michigan University of Wisconsin - Madison University of California - Berkeley Agriculture x x x x x x x x x x x Architecture x x x x x x Business x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Education x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Engineering x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Geosciences x x Government/Public Policy x x x x Liberal Arts x x x x x Science x x x Veterinary Medicine x x x x x x x x x University of California - Los Angeles University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 12

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE Comparisons for Agriculture are often difficult because they can contain different academic mixes. The University of Wisconsin Madison is the only Top 10 comparison institution with a College of Agriculture and Life Sciences like TAMU. Deemed similar in nature, the College of Natural Resources at the University of California- Berkeley was also included in the analysis. However, the College of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan is closely aligned with their College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, and was not included as part of the Top 10 peer group. The only Dean s peer group not to have an agriculture college was the University of Texas Austin. In reviewing programs at the departmental level, other institutions had similar colleges of agriculture. Selected examples included: Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. University of Illinois College of Agriculture, Consumer and Environmental Sciences. Colorado State University The College of Natural Resources was included with the College of Agriculture and Resource Economics. Ohio State University College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences. The School of Natural Resources is also part of the College. Full time faculty headcount numbers were revised from the original data submission based on verification with campus representatives. North Carolina State University - The College of Natural Resources has been included with The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The University of Wisconsin and UC-Berkeley are the only institutions in the Top 10 peer group with Agriculture or Natural Resources programs. Top 10 peers had 30% more FTE in their colleges than TAMU. When room use categories were analyzed against the Top 10, TAMU had less ASF per student in teaching, open and research labs, creating a 80% deficit in total labs. In reviewing R&D expenditures in agricultural sciences from 2000, as reported by the National Science Foundation, TAMU s faculty conduct approximately 62% more research than the University of Wisconsin ($38.6 million vs. $62.3 million in R&D expenditures), with substantially less research space (112 student vs. 261 student). Agriculture FTE TOTAL ASF Total University of Wisconsin 596 1,920 1,143,864 4 310 34 16 261 148 9 125 University of California at Berkeley 348 1,140 397,238 0 162 9 n/a 153 55 18 114 472 1,530 770,551 2 236 21 16 207 101 13 119 Michigan State University 1,093 2,067 2,259,759 5 192 26 2 164 124 5 767 Pennsylvania State University 611 1,771 1,082,204 7 133 11 4 118 103 1 366 University of Illinois 413 2,109 871,533 1 172 20 4 148 106 2 132 Ohio State University 377 1,709 643,859 5 131 16 32 82 69 2 171 University of Florida 351 2,685 943,032 4 189 15 n/a 175 86 2 69 Purdue University 243 2,998 727,369 n/a 116 13 2 100 67 0 60 North Carolina State University 277 4,377 1,210,365 7 113 15 17 81 72 1 83 Colorado State University 201 2,019 404,957 3 65 11 9 45 60 1 71 446 2,467 1,017,885 4 139 16 10 114 86 2 215 451 2,280 968,418 4 158 17 11 133 89 4 196 362 4,429 1,602,623 2 131 12 7 112 88 0 141 TAMU COMPARED TO TOP 10 (110) 2,899 832,072 (0) (105) (9) (9) (95) (13) (13) 22 TAMU % COMPARED TO TOP 10 (30%) 65% 52% (1%) (80%) (74%) (134%) (85%) (15%) - 16% (84) 1,962 584,738 (2) (8) (4) (3) (2) 2 (2) (74) (23%) 44% 36% (103%) (6%) (32%) (47%) (2%) 2% - (52%) (89) 2,149 634,205 (2) (27) (5) (4) (21) (1) (4) (55) (25%) 49% 40% (103%) (21%) (41%) (61%) (19%) (1%) - (39%) FTE represents credit hours taught by the departments in each school or college for all institutions except the University of Illinois and Purdue, where FTE is based on credit hours taken by declared majors in each college. PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 13

On average, Dean s peer institutions had 23% more ASF/FTE than TAMU. Michigan State University had the largest amount of space per FTE, mostly attributed to the abundance of space (2,259,759 total ASF) in the college. This could be due to a large number of programs; including agricultural engineering, construction management, and travel and tourism within the School of Agriculture and Natural Resources. In reviewing space categories, the largest discrepancies exist in departmental classrooms, open and teaching laboratories as well as the other category, where TAMU has between 32% to 103% less space than Dean s peers. When compared to both groups of peers (labeled as combined in the tables) TAMU s 362 FTE for the College of Agriculture is ranked sixth among all peer institutions. This difference can be attributed mainly to lower student numbers in departmental classrooms, open labs, teaching labs and the other category. Faculty Agriculture Faculty FT Faculty TOTAL ASF Total University of Wisconsin 4,185 273 1,143,864 26 2,178 237 111 1,831 1,043 60 878 University of California at Berkeley 1,351 294 397,238 1 626 35 n/a 592 211 71 441 2,768 284 770,551 14 1,402 136 111 1,211 627 66 660 Michigan State University 6,550 345 2,259,759 30 1,150 157 14 980 745 28 4,597 University of Illinois 3,789 230 871,533 6 1,582 186 39 1,357 970 21 1,211 Pennsylvania State University 3,458 313 1,082,204 40 753 63 24 666 585 8 2,071 Purdue University 2,921 249 727,369 n/a 1,398 162 27 1,209 804 2 718 North Carolina State University 2,378 509 1,210,365 63 973 125 148 699 616 11 714 Colorado State University 2,225 182 404,957 36 725 124 103 498 669 11 784 Ohio State University 2,132 302 643,859 26 743 92 184 467 388 9 966 University of Florida 1,546 610 943,032 16 834 65 n/a 769 380 11 305 3,125 343 1,017,885 31 1,020 122 77 830 645 13 1,421 3,054 331 968,418 27 1,096 125 81 907 641 23 1,269 5,040 318 1,602,623 27 1,822 168 95 1,558 1,224 n/a 1,967 TAMU COMPARED TO TOP 10 2,271 34 832,072 13 419 32 (16) 347 597 n/a 1,307 TAMU % COMPARED TO TOP 10 45% 11% 52% 49% 23% 19% (17%) 22% 49% n/a 66% 1,915 (25) 584,738 (4) 802 46 18 728 579 n/a 546 38% (8%) 36% (13%) 44% 28% 19% 47% 47% n/a 28% 1,986 (13) 634,205 0 726 43 14 651 583 n/a 698 39% (4%) 40% 2% 40% 26% 15% 42% 48% n/a 35% Turning attention to faculty, TAMU exceeded Top 10 peers by 45% and Dean s peers by 38%. TAMU s 5,040 faculty is 1,986 ASF or 39% greater than all peers combined. The second highest overall ASF/Faculty ratio, as compared to combined peer averages, provides TAMU with more space in all categories. It should be noted that the TAMU Agriculture space includes College Station facilities for their land grant affiliates. This includes the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (TAES) and Texas Cooperative Extension (TCE). The existing space includes 120,688 ASF for TAES and 76,851 ASF for TCE. PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 14

COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE Overall, five institutions were used as comparisons with Texas A&M University s College of Architecture. Two Top 10 comparison peer institutions and three of the Dean s peer institutions had similar Colleges of Architecture as TAMU. An additional four universities had architecture programs combined with their art programs, but after further review, were not included in this analysis due to lack of comparability. These programs are reviewed later in the study. The University of Florida s architecture program is in the College of Design, Construction and Planning, which represents a larger enrollment than the other four peers. Architecture FTE TOTAL ASF Total University of California at Berkeley 138 823 113,460 n/a 77 n/a 71 7 43 n/a 17 University of Michigan 119 620 73,796 12 75 63 n/a 12 28 n/a 3 128 722 93,628 12 76 63 71 9 36 n/a 10 University of Texas 180 512 92,342 7 94 18 74 1 53 1 26 Ohio State University 102 598 61,200 4 51 3 35 13 35 2 9 University of Florida 38 1,415 53,258 2 23 21 n/a 2 11 n/a 1 107 842 68,933 4 56 14 55 5 33 2 12 115 794 78,811 6 64 26 60 7 34 2 11 74 1,501 110,894 3 43 10 29 4 24 n/a 4 TAMU COMPARED TO TOP 10 (54) 779 17,266 (9) (33) (53) (42) (5) (12) n/a (6) TAMU % COMPARED TO TOP 10 (73%) 52% 16% (342%) (78%) (513%) (147%) (149%) (48%) n/a (141%) (33) 659 41,961 (2) (13) (4) (26) (1) (9) n/a (8) (45%) 44% 38% (60%) (31%) (36%) (91%) (39%) (35%) n/a (190%) (41) 707 32,083 (4) (21) (16) (31) (3) (10) n/a (7) (56%) 47% 29% (133%) (50%) (153%) (109%) (94%) (40%) n/a (166%) FTE represents credit hours taught by the departments in each school or college for all institutions except the University of Illinois and Purdue, where FTE is based on credit hours taken by declared majors in each college. TAMU had a greater amount of space (ASF) than both Top 10 and Dean s peer institution averages. Top 10 universities had an average of 93,628 total ASF while Dean s peers averaged 68,933 total ASF, as compared to TAMU s program of 110,894 total ASF. However, when total ASF is normalized by FTE, Top 10 peers had about twice as much space than TAMU, while Dean s peer institutions reported a 45% difference. These large differences are due in part to TAMU s College of Architecture s large student enrollment of 1,501 FTE, as compared to peers. Architecture is laboratory intensive as evidenced by the data from peer universities. Half of the architectural space is in some type of laboratory. In looking at the total laboratory space, TAMU has 50% less FTE in total labs than both peer groups combined. The largest overall difference can be found in the teaching laboratories category, where TAMU is 153% below all other peer universities combined. It should be noted that universities differ on whether to code design studios as teaching laboratories or open laboratories since they usually have both aspects in their use. PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 15

Faculty Architecture Faculty FT Faculty TOTAL ASF Total University of Michigan 1,942 38 73,796 201 1,228 1,029 n/a 199 461 n/a 52 University of California at Berkeley 1,554 73 113,460 n/a 872 n/a 796 75 488 n/a 195 1,748 56 93,628 201 1,050 1,029 796 137 475 n/a 123 Ohio State University 1,974 31 61,200 77 987 49 680 258 682 45 183 University of Texas 1,620 57 92,342 59 847 165 669 12 473 9 232 University of Florida 701 76 53,258 45 420 390 n/a 29 213 n/a 23 1,432 55 68,933 60 751 201 675 100 456 27 146 1,558 55 78,811 95 871 408 715 115 464 27 137 1,260 88 110,894 46 728 175 491 62 416 n/a 71 TAMU COMPARED TO TOP 10 (488) 33 17,266 (155) (322) (854) (305) (75) (59) n/a (52) TAMU % COMPARED TO TOP 10 (39%) 37% 16% (334%) (44%) (487%) (62%) (123%) (14%) n/a (74%) (172) 33 41,961 (14) (24) (26) (184) (38) (40) n/a (75) (14%) 38% 38% (30%) (3%) (15%) (38%) (62%) (10%) n/a (107%) (298) 33 32,083 (49) (143) (233) (224) (53) (48) n/a (66) (24%) 38% 29% (105%) (20%) (133%) (46%) (87%) (12%) n/a (94%) TAMU exceeds peer averages on total ASF (110,894) and full time faculty headcount of 88 is the largest among all peers. As a result, TAMU s College of Architecture is below Top 10 peers by 488 ASF/Faculty or 39% and 172 ASF/Faculty or 14% when compared to Dean s peers. These differences are also reflected among the various room use categories. PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 16