insert tab here agenda · 2006. 1. 23. · o ut system overview of trends: illustrates global...
TRANSCRIPT
INSERT TAB HERE
Agenda
INSERT TAB HERE
Agenda Item 1
1
Agenda Item 1 Contents page I. Introduction: Retreat Purpose and Scope 3 II. Impact, Needs, and Issues:
A. Critical Global Trends 5 B. Critical State Trends and Issues 8 C. Critical Higher Education Trends 12
III. Setting Priorities and Roles:
A. Critical UT System Issues summary and analysis 13 B. Cross-Cutting Issues, Gaps, and Initiatives 19
2
Prepared by the Office of Institutional Planning and Accountability 3 December 2005
Planning Notes I. Introduction The Task Force charge (Supplemental Materials, p. 35) is to:
Think boldly; not to assume everything will remain the same. Produce a concise, timely, and meaningful written statement of the Board’s strategic
direction over the next 5 to 10 years, including specific benchmarks. Align this new strategic statement with projected academic, health care, research,
and capital needs and investments and, also, with the state’s Closing the Gaps goals and any other comprehensive plan for higher education.
Address planning assumptions (external and internal trends), key themes and priorities, goals, alignment with investments (budgeting, capital planning), and benchmarks to measure progress.
Build on the ideas discussed at the Academic and Health Affairs Board retreats last fall on ideas and issues raised by UT System institutions in the Compacts or other institutional planning documents, and by the System Administration.
Consult with broader groups of people including all Regents, Presidents, members of the Faculty Advisory Council, Student Advisory Council, Employee Advisory Council, Council of Academic Institutions, Council of Health Institutions, representatives of the Chancellor’s Council, higher education policy leaders and staff in Texas and Washington.
Consult with outside experts to gain perspective on the UT System’s opportunities, challenges, and position in the national higher education environment.
Purpose of retreat:
Consider the most critical trends, issues, and cross-cutting themes that will influence the UT System’s progress over the next ten years. (see pp. 6-12)
Identify critical areas where we can and must focus, get aligned, and improve. (see pp. 13-32)
Articulate the key, highest priority directions, goals, and priorities for the UT System
Create a plan that is ours: an agreed-upon conceptual framework, and a dynamic document, that are aligned with our cycles of planning – compacts, institutional strategic planning, System and Board initiatives
Explain how this road map will guide our work in the coming year and influence activities and decision making at Board, System, and institution levels
Planning steps (See Planning Schedule, Supplemental Materials, p. 37):
1. The issues – where are we now? (environmental scans; critical issues interviews) 2. Goals and priorities – how far do we need to go? What are the critical big themes
and directions for the UT System to pursue? (discussion and planning framework: what are System goals?)
4
3. Strategy and roles – how do we get there? What are the roles for the Board, System administration, institution presidents? (discussion now, and following the retreat)
4. Metrics – how do we know when we get there? (Compacts, accountability, other Board, System, institution reports)
Planning framework (Supplemental Materials, p. 39):
This document illustrates the relationship among planning at the Board, System, and institution levels.
As the planning process moves forward, this framework will be filled in and updated to show more clearly and specifically how planning among UT System institutions will advance and be aligned with the overall System plan.
The UT System Mission Statement (Supplemental Materials, p. 45):
This document is provided as an illustration of the point from which we begin. It does not serve as a strategic vision or plan.
The purpose of the retreat is not to revise the mission statement although that may be one outcome of the planning process.
5
II. Critical Trends
Background readings are provided in the briefing book to summarize global, national, and state trends and scientific, economic, education, and demographic indicators.
Retreat participants are encouraged to peruse these materials, considering the question: “Among these trends, which will have the most significant influence our vision for the UT System in 2015?
These trends can be examined from a variety of internal, external, and sector-specific perspectives.
Highlights of these trends appears on the following pages (pp. 6-12); the readings and references include more complete summaries
A. Global trends o UT System overview of trends: illustrates global trends that will have
an impact on Texas higher education and economics (Supplemental Materials, pp. 47-52).
o “It’s a Flat World, After All,” Tom Friedman: the profound technology and economic changes that are fueling global competition for intellectual talent Supplemental Materials, pp. 53-62).
o Good to Great in the Social Sectors, Jim Collins: describes results of research on leadership, achievement of and measurements of excellence and success in the social sectors, that differ from the business model success described in Collins earlier work on Good to Great and Built to Last Supplemental Materials, pp. 63-83).
B. State trends o State economic indicators: illustrates the gap between Texas and other
states, in areas where the UT System can add value (Supplemental Materials, pp. 85-86).
o “Texas Demographics and Their Effects Upon Public and Higher Education: 2005 Report:” projections are for Texas to lose ground in educational level, education of workforce, average income (Supplemental Materials, pp. 87-144).
o “Closing the Gaps: Taking the Next Steps,” Raymund Paredes (Supplemental Materials, pp. 145-154).
o Fall 2005 Revised Closing the Gaps Statewide Goals (Supplemental Materials, pp. 155-156).
C. Higher education trends o Survey of higher education, The Economist: states that U.S. higher
education remains the best in the world, but documents efforts of competitors in Europe and Asia, who are catching up (Supplemental Materials, pp. 157-172).
o “Ferment and Change: Higher Education in 2015,” Daniel Yankelovich: highlights critical trends that will affect higher education including life cycles and aging; population; science and technology
6
vulnerability; understanding of cultures and languages; and commitment to social mobility (Supplemental Materials, pp. 173-182).
o “Academic Medical Centers and Medical Research,” Jordan J. Cohen: suggests new directions for focus of and organization of medical research (Supplemental Materials, pp. 183-188).
o “Fostering Innovation and Discovery in Biomedical Research,” Thomas R. Cech: suggests new orientation to interdisciplinary research (Supplemental Materials, pp. 189-192).
7
Critical Global Trends
Population growth: aging baby boomers; increasing youth
Increasing diversity
Changing life cycle: multiple careers, longer life expectancy, active seniors
Increasing health care needs
Integrated global economy and need to understand other cultures
Spread of technology
Competition in science, technology, business
Role of education in social and economic mobility
Losing Ground in Science and Technology
The World is Flat, Tom Friedman America is losing ground in science and technology, the result of 10 forces: 1. 11/9/1989 -- fall of Berlin Wall; 2. 8/9/1995 – day Netscape went public (compounded with laying of fiber-optic
cable across the oceans) and benefited countries that could not invest in it); 3. Y2K and development of “Workflow” software and middle ware that connects
computers worldwide; 4. outsourcing; 5. offshoring; 6. open-sourcing; 7. insourcing; 8. supply-chaining; 9. “Informing” – a new form of collaboration, like Google, Yahoo, and other search
engines; 10. wireless access and voice over Internet protocol so you can do voice, data, etc.
anywhere from any device. … America is not really ready for this.
8
Critical State Trends and Issues
State Science, Innovation, and Economic Development Indicators
The Washington Advisory Group suggested the UT System consider its positioning on a number of science, engineering, and innovation indicators that they track to analyze the competitiveness of states and institutions.
These comparisons illustrate the gaps between Texas’s and California’s performance. These gaps point to the opportunity the UT System has to offer a solution for Texas, to improve
the scientific and technology workforce, business development, and the economy of the state.
TX Rank
CA Rank
Milken Institute, State Technology and Science Index - March 2004. This index is intended to identify the states that are more likely to bolster their economy through technology and science investments and business developments. It considers many factors separately, including technology concentration, science and technology workforce, human capital investment, risk capital and infrastructure, R&D inputs, and more, compiled into an overall index rating.
23 1 Overall Milken index rating. Texas has lost ground in this index; it was ranked 14 in 2002. Massachusetts ranked number in both years. California was ranked 3 in 2002, and 2 in 2004. Other states whose rankings increased from 2002 to 2004: Minnesota (up from 10 to 8); Rhode Island (up from 21 to 11), and New Mexico (from 20 to 14).
Technology Administration, Office of Technology Policy, State Science and
Technology Indicators, Fourth Edition. This study uses 38 metrics to describe the science and technology infrastructure of individual states.
27 7 Industry-performed R&D per $1,000 of GSP [Gross State Product] 32 23 University-performed R&D per $1,000 of GSP 10 2 Amount of Venture Capital Funds Invested per $1,000 of GSP 24 7 Average Annual Number of SBIR Awards per 10,000 Businesses 34 22 Number of Business Incubators per 10,000 Business Establishments 38 3 Net Formations of High-technology Establishments per 10,000 Businesses 17 2 Average Annual Number of U.S. Patents Issued per 10,000 Businesses 16 1 Number of Technology Fast 500 Companies per 10,000 Businesses 14 8 Computer Specialists Employed per 10,000 Civilian Workers 25 16 Life and Physical Scientists Employed per 10,000 Civilian Workers 10 8 Engineers Employed per 10,000 Civilian Workers 22 6 Persons with a Recent Ph.D. in Science or Engineering per 10,000 Civilian Workers 20 6 Percent of Employment in High-technology NAICS Codes 27 14 Science and Engineering Graduate Students as a Percent of the 18-24 Population
9
TX
Rank CA
Rank Progressive Policy Institute, The 2002 State New Economy Index. This
index was created in 1999 to measure the degree to which state economies were structured and operated according to the tenets of the New Economy. In 2002, the index was updated and now looks at 21 economic indicators to measure differences and assess states' progress as they adapt to the new economic order. The indicators focus on knowledge jobs, globalization, economic dynamism, and the digital economy, innovation capacity, and economic development strategies.
14 3 Overall score 12 9 Information Technology Jobs as a share of total jobs 12 5 Managerial, Professional, and Technical employees as a share of total workforce 43 28 Workforce Education (educational attainment of workforce, measured by degrees
held) 5 3 Gazelle Jobs (companies with annual sales revenue that grew 20% or more for 4
years) 7 8 Job Churning (number of new start-ups and business failures as a share of all
establishments) 16 3 Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) (value and number of IPOs as a share of GSP) 17 4 High-Tech Jobs (electronics, manufacturing, information technology, biomedical as
share of total employment) 30 10 Scientists and Engineers (as percentage of workforce) 15 5 Patents (issued to companies or individuals per 1,000 workers) 21 8 Industry Investment in R&D (as percentage of GSP) 14 2 Venture Capital (as percentage of GSP) National Science Foundation, Research and Development Expenditures 3 1 Academic Federal-funded R&D Expenditures FY 2003 3 1 Total Academic-Performed R&D Expenditures FY 2003 4 1 Total U.S. R&D Expenditures 2002 6 1 Total Industry-Performed R&D Expenditures FY 2001
THECB Commission Paredes has noted that California generates $2.95 billion in federal research
expenditures, compared with $1.22 billion in Texas.
10
Critical State Trends and Issues State Demographic, Educational, and Workforce Trends
State demographic, educational, and workforce trends are fairly well known and understood, but
provide a critical context for the UT System’s consideration of future opportunities and challenges.
A big and fast-growing state: 2nd largest, after California; 2nd 2000 to 2004 in
numbers of people; 4th fastest growing state, in terms of percent of population
change 2000 to 2004, and proportion of growth has increased (was eighth for 1990
to 2000).
Regional growth clusters: population change 2000 to 2004 was greatest in regions
around the Metroplex, Houston, Austin, and South Texas.
State will have a Hispanic majority by 2040: 60 percent of population growth is
attributable to Hispanic residents 1990 – 2000.
Population is getting younger: median age in 2000 was 32.3; compared with 35.3
nationally.
Median Anglo household income in 1999 was $47,162; $29,873 for Hispanics.
Population is getting poorer: average household income will decline from $54,441
in 2000 to $47,883 (2000 $s).
11
Critical State Trends and Issues State educational trends– the pipeline
Of 100 Texas ninth graders:
62 graduate from high school on time (among 14 lowest in the country).
32 directly enter college (lowest in country, together with 4 other states).
19 persist to the sophomore year (third lowest country).
11 graduate within 150% time (approximately, 6 years) (among 4 lowest states).
24% of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher (among the 19 lowest
states).
Although the Hispanic population is growing faster than other groups, Hispanic
enrollments are falling short. In fall 2005, enrollments (310,574) were 30,000
lower than the statewide goal, which would double the total number of Hispanic
college students by 2015. An annual increase of 24,000 would be needed to reach
the statewide goal.
Population of Texas is becoming less educated, and minority groups will be less
educated than whites:
Ranked 45 by percent of high school graduates, 2000.
Ranked 27 by percent of college graduates in 2000.
In 2000, 30% of Anglos had a degree; 48.8% will in 2040.
In 2000, 8.9% of Hispanics had a degree; in 2040, 18.0% will.
Workforce is becoming less educated: by 2040, 12.9% of labor force is project to
have a bachelor’s degree, a decline from 18.2% in 2000.
4.4% of the workforce will have a graduate/professional degree in 2040, down from
5.3 in 2000.
12
Higher Education Trends
Growth and diversity. Nationally, but not in Texas, 2009 is likely to be last year
(of a 20-year cycle) in which the number of new high school graduates increases.
Dips will not occur evenly across ethnic and racial groups, as they have in the past,
because of the large projected increase in members of minority groups, particularly
Latinos.
Feminization. Female students outnumber males at every level in higher
education, and the gap is continuing.
Funding. All states face potential deficits by 2013, and will have difficulty funding
services. Funding for higher education will not increase as much as for other state
needs.
Research. New cross-disciplinary fields require collaboration, leadership, and
structures to manage increasing complexity.
Technology and modalities of teaching. In 2004, 1 million U. S. students took
on-line courses. Enrollments in for profit and virtual institutions are exploding.
Flexible course schedules and modes of instruction, new ways of organizing
curricula, and easing transfer among institutions are emerging.
Value-added. Defining the role, return on investment, productivity, and value-
added of public university systems.
Globalization. Brings opportunity for partnerships but also increased competition.
Educated workforce declining. If the current trend in education gaps continue,
the proportion of the workforce with less than high school diploma will increase,
and the proportion with a higher level of education will decline.
13
III. UT System Critical Issues, Goals, and Directions A. Critical Issues Interviews
Purpose. The charge to the UT System Board of Regents Planning Task Force
emphasized broad consultation to ensure that it identifies and focuses on the most critical issues facing the UT System and institutions over the coming decade.
Scope. The task force commissioned personal interviews with: all members of the
UT System Board of Regents, each UT System institution president, UT System Administration officials, selected members of the Chancellor’s Council Executive Committee, higher education policy staff in Texas and in Washington, DC, and leaders in Texas health and media organizations. In addition, members of the UT System Student, Faculty, and Employee Advisory Councils (SAC, FAC, EAC) were briefed, and each received a personal written request for a response. These interviews and council surveys were conducted in August – December 2005. The summary attached here includes responses collected through November 30, 2005. (Additional interviews with media and health sector leaders continue in December/January.)
Interview Methodology. Telephone or in-person interviews were scheduled with
each individual participating. SAC, FAC, and EAC members received an email query. In advance, each group received a customized variant the following question to consider:
As you look ahead five to ten years, what do you consider to be the top two to three key issues or priorities that your institution will face? More broadly, what are the top issues that the UT System as a whole will encounter?
Different views. There are a number of ways that the responses can be viewed and
analyzed. We choose to illustrate several key points: o Respondents were generally considered about a number of issues –
there were rarely “single-issue” responses. o However, the pattern of emphasis on issues varied by group. These
variations are displayed in the tables and graphs, below. o In several areas, there are significant discrepancies in emphasis by
group. We note these on p. 44-45.
14
Views by group. Standing out, among the variations in areas of emphasis by
group, are:
Group Issues mentioned most often
Board of Regents Mission clarity/differentiation; targeted areas of excellence, funding; structure and governance of higher education in Texas; Board level accountability and benchmarks
Academic Presidents Growth; resources facilities expansion, state support, strengthening research productivity; System distinctiveness; System messages
Health Presidents Health institution quality; un- and underinsured patients and reimbursements; collaborations, System messages
UT System Administration Allocation of resources; structure of funding; role and organization of Board; federal policy and funding issues; access/quality.
Faculty Advisory Council Growth; diversity; faculty recruitment
Employee Advisory Council Staff training, recruiting, retention; compensation; benefits
Student Advisory Council Institution issues (diversity, collaborations, research); cost/affordability
Chancellor’s Council Quality; state support; System messages
Texas Policy Leaders Cost/affordability; structure and governance of higher education in Texas; K-16 alignment
National Associations Cost/affordability; federal policy and funding issues; accountability and evaluation
National policy staff and Congressional leaders
Cost/affordability; accountability and evaluation
Some Noteworthy Discrepancies Academic presidents and the Faculty Advisory Council emphasized resource issues more strongly than other groups.
System administration officials emphasized institution issues less strongly than other groups.
Except for health presidents and System officials, other groups did not emphasize health institution issues.
The Board of Regents, the Student Advisory Council, Texas and Washington-based policy leaders emphasized student issues more strongly than did other groups.
The Employee Advisory Council emphasized operational issues, particularly related to compensation and training, more than other groups.
The Chancellor’s Council emphasized communication and System messages, and state issues, more strongly than did other groups.
System administrative officials emphasized governance and leadership and federal issues more than other groups did.
The Board of Regents and national policy staff emphasized accountability and evaluation more than others did.
15
UT System Critical Issues: Summary Patterns
Response Overview UT System Critical Issues Interviews Response Overview
# items
% all items
Resources/Financial Planning 97 21.7% Institution Issues 89 19.9% Students 65 14.5% Operations 48 10.7% Health Issues 36 8.1% State Issues 34 7.6% Communication 21 4.7% Governance and Leadership 18 4.0% System 15 3.4% Accountability and Evaluation 13 2.9% Federal Issues 11 2.5% Total coded items 447 Total respondents 89
Responses by Group Highlights indicate areas of emphasis with greatest differences among groups
Number of Respondents
(10) (9) (6) (7) (14) (8) (18) (4) (5) (5) (3)
Board of
Regents
Academic Presidents
Health Presidents
System Admin
Chanc. Council
Faculty Adv
Council
Employee Adv
Council
Student Adv
Council
Texas Policy
Leaders
D.C. Policy
Leaders
Higher Ed
Assoc.Resources / Financial Plng 17.2% 43.5% 22.2% 23.7% 24.5% 38.1% 7.5% 22.2% 11.4% 9.4% 12.5%
Institution Issues 26.6% 18.8% 22.2% 2.6% 30.6% 23.8% 15.1% 33.3% 17.1% 15.6% 18.8%
Students 14.1% 7.2% 4.4% 10.5% 6.1% 9.5% 7.5% 33.3% 25.7% 46.9% 28.1%Operations 7.8% 5.8% 2.2% 0.0% 2.0% 9.5% 50.9% 11.1% 11.4% 3.1% 6.3% Health Issues 3.1% 0.0% 37.8% 18.4% 8.2% 9.5% 5.7% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% State Issues 9.4% 8.7% 0.0% 2.6% 12.2% 4.8% 1.9% 0.0% 20.0% 12.5% 6.3% Communication 7.8% 5.8% 6.7% 2.6% 12.2% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Governance and Leadership 7.8% 2.9% 2.2% 18.4% 0.0% 4.8% 1.9% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0%
System 0.0% 5.8% 2.2% 7.9% 4.1% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% Accountability and Evaluation 6.3% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 12.5% 9.4%
Federal Issues 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.8% Total Responses 64 69 45 38 49 21 53 9 35 32 32
16
External advisors. In addition, the task force consulted with several experts in higher education, research, health research and education. Their observations were combined with the critical issues interview results to produce 13 critical issue areas. Separately, they provide a valuable window on the perception of the System from the outside looking in.
How We Are Viewed Externally
• Huge potential economic impact on state, especially in science and engineering
workforce
• Huge potential to engage and add value for Hispanic students, contribute to
education, health care, business, and civic leadership pipeline
• Potential to leverage resources across institutions, particularly academic and
health research linkages
• System, with large size and proportional reach – a leader inside the state,
expected to take the lead in new and sometimes risky initiatives
• Viewed as having more potential to exert leadership nationally and globally
• Large endowment provides flexibility
• System is continually trying to improve; very unusual in higher education
• Mission differentiation is not clear among institutions, and mission focus is
unclear at many institutions
• Challenged to identify, recruit, and retain faculty and administrative leadership
• Diffusion of resources through lack of strategic statewide planning and effects of
political decision making
17
Critical Issues and Themes
1. Funding and resources
2. Educational pipeline, diversity, alignment, student success
3. Strategic planning and governance
4. Mission focus and selective excellence
5. Value-added, efficiency, use of technology
6. Economic and science/engineering impact of System
7. Health issues
8. System messages
9. Globalization and competition for talent
10. Collaborations and partnerships
11. Interdisciplinary programs and research
12. Leadership development
13. Measurement systems and accountability
Cross-cutting issues, themes, and priorities. When the internal ideas, external advice, System initiatives, and mission statement are considered, a group of 13 critical thematic areas emerged. By integrating these sources, it is possible to illustrate where areas of emphasis match or diverge from the System’s current mission statement and current initiatives. See pp. 19-32, below.
18
DR
AFT
12
07 0
5
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f Te
xas
Syst
em
Boar
d of
Reg
ents
Cro
ss-C
utt
ing
Issu
es a
nd
Them
es f
or P
lan
nin
g D
ecem
ber
2005
Fu
ndi
ng
and
reso
urc
es
Criti
cal I
ssue
s Em
phas
is
Exte
rnal
adv
isor
s St
ate
emph
asis
(in
terv
iew
s)
UT
Syst
em
Initi
ativ
es
2004
Ret
reat
Act
ion
Item
s Ac
adem
ic A
ffairs
in it
alic
s H
ealth
Aff
airs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd S
trat
egic
Th
emes
20%
+
All m
entio
ned
som
e as
pect
but
th
is w
as le
ss
emph
asiz
ed b
y ex
tern
al
resp
onde
nts
Cost
s/
affo
rdab
ility
Gro
wth
Stru
ctur
e of
fu
ndin
g
Fina
ncia
l pl
anni
ng
Faci
litie
s ex
pans
ion
(TRBs
, PU
F)
Hea
lth
reim
burs
emen
ts;
un-
and
unde
rinsu
red
Alum
ni s
uppo
rt
Phila
nthr
opy
Mus
t re
ly o
n m
ultip
le a
nd
alte
rnat
e so
urce
s of
sup
port
U
nlik
e m
any
othe
r pu
blic
re
sear
ch
univ
ersi
ties,
The
U
T Sy
stem
has
a
larg
e en
dow
men
t th
at o
ffer
s op
port
uniti
es.
The
sta
te
has
limite
d re
sour
ces,
ne
ed t
o lo
ok a
t co
st
cont
ainm
ent
and
real
istic
pl
ans
THEC
B:
Pl
an f
or
grea
t en
rollm
ent
grow
th,
but
with
out
grea
tly
incr
ease
d re
sour
ces
Dev
elop
men
t be
nchm
arki
ng
Cap
ital
plan
ning
sc
enar
ios
Fin
anci
al
scen
ario
bu
ildin
g
Cl
osin
g th
e G
aps
targ
ets
beco
me
de fa
cto
perf
orm
ance
targ
ets;
lag
in fu
ndin
g fo
rmul
a m
eans
cam
puse
s fu
nd g
row
th
from
exi
stin
g re
sour
ces
for
2 ye
ars.
May
ne
ed S
yste
m p
lan
to d
efin
e ca
paci
ty
St
rate
gic
phila
nthr
opy
to s
hape
dire
ctio
n of
cam
puse
s; p
resi
dent
s ne
ed to
be
able
to
iden
tify
spec
ific
topi
cs a
nd p
roje
cts
that
w
ould
furt
her
inst
itutio
nal m
issi
on
TR
Bs fo
r ke
y ca
mpu
s fa
cilit
ies
re
nece
ssar
y to
dea
l with
gro
wth
; re
side
nce
halls
to tr
ansf
orm
com
mut
er in
stitu
tions
, en
hanc
e st
uden
t cul
ture
and
com
mitm
ent
to d
egre
e pr
ogra
ms;
TRB
s m
ost n
eede
d fo
r ex
pens
ive
scie
nce
and
engi
neer
ing
faci
litie
s
Reg
enta
l sup
port
for
res
ourc
es t
o re
crui
t an
d re
tain
tal
ente
d sc
ient
ists
/res
earc
hers
Supp
ort
for
incr
ease
in n
umbe
r of
med
ical
st
uden
t po
sitio
ns a
nd m
edic
al r
esid
ency
po
sitio
ns
Su
ppor
t m
odifi
catio
n of
Sta
te F
undi
ng
Form
ula
to b
ette
r ba
lanc
e fu
nds
for
rese
arch
and
infr
astr
uctu
re w
ith
enro
llmen
t S
uppo
rt u
se o
f PU
F, T
RBs
, and
oth
er
mec
hani
sms
to f
und
addi
tiona
l res
earc
h fa
culti
es a
nd t
o re
crui
t an
d re
tain
ou
tsta
ndin
g in
divi
dual
s to
Tex
as
Mis
sion
sta
tem
ent:
Crea
te a
nd s
usta
in p
hysi
cal
envi
ronm
ents
tha
t en
hanc
e an
d co
mpl
emen
t ed
ucat
iona
l goa
ls,
incl
udin
g ap
prop
riate
cla
ssro
oms,
lib
rarie
s, la
bora
torie
s, h
ospi
tals
, cl
inic
s, c
ompu
ter
and
adva
nced
te
chno
logi
cal f
acili
ties,
as
wel
l as
univ
ersi
ty c
ente
rs, m
useu
ms,
pe
rfor
man
ce f
acili
ties,
ath
letic
sp
aces
, and
oth
er r
esou
rces
co
nsis
tent
with
inst
itutio
nal
obje
ctiv
es;
En
cour
age
publ
ic a
nd p
rivat
e-se
ctor
sup
port
of
high
er
educ
atio
n th
roug
h in
tera
ctio
n an
d in
volv
emen
t w
ith a
lum
ni,
elec
ted
offic
ials
, civ
ic, b
usin
ess,
co
mm
unity
and
edu
catio
nal
lead
ers,
and
the
gen
eral
pub
lic.
19
Edu
cati
onal
pip
elin
e, d
iver
sity
, alig
nm
ent,
stu
den
t su
cces
s Cr
itica
l Iss
ues
Emph
asis
Exte
rnal
adv
isor
s St
ate
emph
asis
(in
terv
iew
s)
UT
Syst
em
Initi
ativ
es
2004
Ret
reat
Act
ion
Item
s Ac
adem
ic A
ffairs
in it
alic
s H
ealth
Aff
airs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd S
trat
egic
Th
emes
10%
Al
l gro
ups
men
tione
d so
me
aspe
ct
Acce
ss/
qual
ity
Dem
ogra
phic
tr
ends
D
iver
sity
K-
16 a
lignm
ent
K-16
pr
epar
atio
n fo
r he
alth
car
eers
To
p 10
%
Adm
issi
ons
requ
irem
ents
Bui
ld p
ipel
ine
for
His
pani
c st
uden
ts
and
com
mun
ity,
part
icul
arly
re
crui
ting
stud
ents
to
scie
nce,
en
gine
erin
g, a
nd
heal
th s
cien
ces
Dem
ogra
phic
s of
stu
dent
s A
cces
sibi
lity
Aff
orda
bilit
y G
radu
atio
n ra
tes/
time
to
degr
ee
Tui
tion
incr
ease
s,
rela
ted
to
finan
cial
aid
ne
eds
K-1
6 al
ignm
ent
and
prep
arat
ion
2-
to 4
-yea
r co
llege
tr
ansi
tions
T
op 1
0%
THEC
B:
M
ust
addr
ess
colle
ge
read
ines
s in
co
ntex
t of
en
rollm
ent
grow
th a
nd
pipe
line
issu
es
Im
prov
e al
ignm
ent
with
co
mm
unity
co
llege
s
Gra
duat
ion
Rat
es
Adm
issi
ons
stan
dard
s
G
row
th in
enr
ollm
ent –
UT
Syst
em
has
abso
rbed
50%
of s
tate
gr
owth
; m
ost d
iffic
ult i
ssue
is
bala
ncin
g gr
owth
with
qua
lity
Syst
em t
hem
e:
Im
prov
ing
stud
ent
succ
ess
Mis
sion
sta
tem
ent:
To p
rovi
de s
uper
ior,
acc
essi
ble,
af
ford
able
inst
ruct
ion
and
lear
ning
opp
ortu
nitie
s to
un
derg
radu
ate,
gra
duat
e, a
nd
prof
essi
onal
sch
ool s
tude
nts
from
a w
ide
rang
e of
soc
ial,
ethn
ic, c
ultu
ral,
and
econ
omic
ba
ckgr
ound
s, t
here
by p
repa
ring
educ
ated
, pro
duct
ive
citiz
ens
who
can
mee
t th
e rig
orou
s ch
alle
nges
of
an in
crea
sing
ly
dive
rse
soci
ety
and
an e
ver-
chan
ging
glo
bal c
omm
unity
20
DR
AFT
12
07 0
5
Stra
tegi
c pl
ann
ing
and
gove
rnan
ce
Criti
cal I
ssue
s Em
phas
is
Exte
rnal
adv
isor
s St
ate
emph
asis
(in
terv
iew
s)
UT
Syst
em
Initi
ativ
es
2004
Ret
reat
Act
ion
Item
s Ac
adem
ic A
ffairs
in it
alic
s H
ealth
Aff
airs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd S
trat
egic
Th
emes
8%
Gro
wth
St
ruct
ure
/ go
vern
ance
Pl
anni
ng
proc
esse
s Sy
stem
di
stin
ctiv
enes
s
Mis
sion
di
ffer
entia
tion
and
reso
urce
al
loca
tion
deci
sion
s –
pers
onal
ly a
nd
legi
slat
ivel
y dr
iven
dec
isio
ns.
Em
ergi
ng
chal
leng
e of
go
vern
ance
and
go
vern
ance
st
ruct
ures
. T
he B
oard
and
Sy
stem
sho
uld
set
a st
rate
gic
dire
ctio
n, h
elp
clar
ify u
niqu
e m
issi
ons.
Fo
cus
on p
lann
ing,
po
licy,
rep
ortin
g –
the
larg
e is
sues
. L
arge
siz
e is
di
stin
ctiv
e –
prop
ortio
nal
reac
h in
the
st
ate.
The
Sy
stem
has
, and
ca
n ha
ve, a
n ex
trao
rdin
ary
impa
ct o
n po
licy
and
futu
re.
Map
sta
te n
eeds
to
hig
her
educ
atio
n pr
ogra
ms
Rol
e of
Boa
rd a
s “a
ir tr
affic
co
ntro
ller”
ba
lanc
ing
need
s ac
ross
sys
tem
D
oes
the
THEC
B pr
oces
s se
rve
the
UT
Syst
em
wel
l?
THEC
B:
St
ate
mus
t do
m
ore
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng f
or
high
er
educ
atio
n
Boa
rd s
trat
egic
pl
anni
ng
Sys
tem
pla
nnin
g fr
amew
ork
Com
pact
s I
nstit
utio
n lo
ng-
rang
e pl
anni
ng
Alig
nmen
t
21
Mis
sion
foc
us
and
sele
ctiv
e ex
celle
nce
Cr
itica
l Iss
ues
Emph
asis
Ex
tern
al a
dvis
ors
Stat
e em
phas
is
(inte
rvie
ws)
U
T Sy
stem
In
itiat
ives
20
04 R
etre
at A
ctio
n It
ems
Acad
emic
Affa
irs in
ital
ics
Hea
lth A
ffai
rs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd S
trat
egic
Th
emes
5 %
M
issi
on c
larit
y Ce
nter
s of
ex
celle
nce
Alig
nmen
t w
ith
reso
urce
s
U
T Au
stin
and
the
he
alth
sci
ence
ce
nter
s di
stin
guis
h th
e U
T Sy
stem
fr
om o
ther
sy
stem
s. Th
e qu
ality
and
she
er
num
bers
of
free
-st
andi
ng h
ealth
in
stitu
tions
eve
n di
stin
guis
h it
from
th
e U
C Sy
stem
w
here
a n
umbe
r of
res
earc
h ca
mpu
ses
have
m
edic
al s
choo
ls.
The
Calif
orni
a M
aste
r Pl
an is
stil
l be
st e
xam
ple
of
this
di
ffer
entia
tion.
Inst
itutio
ns s
houl
d be
firs
t cl
ass
at
wha
t th
ey d
o, b
ut
mis
sion
s sh
ould
be
app
ropr
iate
to
cam
pus
(som
e,
focu
s on
med
ical
an
d tr
ansl
atio
nal
rese
arch
for
ex
ampl
e)
W
hat
is t
he
uniq
uene
ss o
f
Nee
d m
issi
on
diff
eren
tiatio
n –
can’
t af
ford
for
in
stitu
tions
to
be
all t
hing
s to
all
peop
le
Nee
d m
issi
on
focu
s R
ole
of r
egio
nal
cam
puse
s Q
ualit
y of
UT
Aust
in
THEC
B
Look
for
di
ffer
ent
mod
els
of
exce
llenc
e
Stat
e su
ppor
t fo
r ad
ditio
nal
rese
arch
ca
mpu
ses
is
unce
rtai
n
Gro
wth
in r
esea
rch
best
sho
rt-
hand
indi
cato
r of
impr
oved
[a
cade
mic
qua
lity]
; fa
culty
en
gage
d in
res
earc
h be
tter
ver
sed
in s
ubje
cts,
can
intr
oduc
e cu
ttin
g ed
ge to
stu
dent
s
To in
crea
se r
esea
rch;
ide
ntify
ar
eas
with
crit
ical
mas
s of
facu
lty;
build
bet
ter
func
tiona
lity
for
colla
bora
tions
, im
prov
e re
sear
ch
infr
astr
uctu
re (
tech
nolo
gy tr
ansf
er
capa
bilit
y)
In
crea
sing
res
earc
h
22
DR
AFT
12
07 0
5
Mis
sion
foc
us
and
sele
ctiv
e ex
celle
nce
Cr
itica
l Iss
ues
Emph
asis
Ex
tern
al a
dvis
ors
Stat
e em
phas
is
(inte
rvie
ws)
U
T Sy
stem
In
itiat
ives
20
04 R
etre
at A
ctio
n It
ems
Acad
emic
Affa
irs in
ital
ics
Hea
lth A
ffai
rs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd S
trat
egic
Th
emes
each
cam
pus?
Conc
entr
ate
reso
urce
s –
not
ever
y ca
mpu
s sh
ould
att
empt
to
exce
l at
ever
y th
ing;
mos
t do
n’t
need
PhD
or
exte
nsiv
e re
sear
ch
Res
ourc
e al
loca
tion
is r
eally
an
issu
e of
m
issi
on
diff
eren
tiatio
n
Mus
t ha
ve
stre
ngth
s in
bas
ic
scie
nces
and
lib
eral
art
s –
can’
t sa
crifi
ce t
he
hum
aniti
es
23
Val
ue-
adde
d, e
ffic
ien
cy, u
se o
f te
chn
olog
y Cr
itica
l Iss
ues
Emph
asis
Ex
tern
al a
dvis
ors
Stat
e em
phas
is
(inte
rvie
ws)
U
T Sy
stem
In
itiat
ives
20
04 R
etre
at A
ctio
n It
ems
Acad
emic
Affa
irs in
ital
ics
Hea
lth A
ffai
rs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd S
trat
egic
Th
emes
8 %
Va
lue
of t
he
UT
Syst
em
Effic
ienc
y U
se o
f te
chno
logy
in
teac
hing
U
se o
f te
chno
logy
for
ef
ficie
ncie
s
The
rol
e an
d va
lue-
adde
d of
a p
ublic
un
iver
sity
sys
tem
. T
his
syst
em is
one
of
few
tha
t ar
e ge
nera
lly n
ot
defe
nsiv
e. O
ther
sy
stem
s ar
e us
ually
un
will
ing
to a
dmit
they
nee
d to
im
prov
e; s
he g
ets
the
sens
e th
at t
he
UT
Syst
em is
co
ntin
ually
look
ing
for
way
s to
im
prov
e. T
his
is
very
unu
sual
.
Fac
ilitie
s pl
anni
ng –
use
te
chno
logy
to
impr
ove
effic
ienc
y of
sc
hedu
ling;
use
te
chno
logy
to
leve
rage
tig
ht
reso
urce
s T
echn
olog
y to
tr
ansf
orm
ed
ucat
ion;
new
m
odes
of
deliv
ery
THEC
B:
Ef
ficie
ncy,
use
of
tec
hnol
ogy,
an
d co
nsid
erat
ion
of
new
and
fle
xibl
e m
odel
s to
del
iver
pr
ogra
ms
is
cruc
ial
UT
Syst
em
Adm
inis
trat
ion
valu
e-ad
ded
initi
ativ
e
Alig
ning
res
ourc
e de
velo
pmen
t an
d in
vest
men
ts
24
DR
AFT
12
07 0
5
Econ
omic
an
d sc
ien
ce/e
ngi
nee
rin
g im
pact
of
Syst
em
Criti
cal I
ssue
s Em
phas
is
Exte
rnal
adv
isor
s St
ate
emph
asis
(in
terv
iew
s)
UT
Syst
em
Initi
ativ
es
2004
Ret
reat
Act
ion
Item
s Ac
adem
ic A
ffairs
in it
alic
s H
ealth
Aff
airs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd S
trat
egic
Th
emes
5%
Hea
lth/
scie
nce
educ
atio
n Res
earc
h pr
oduc
tivity
Ec
onom
ic
impa
ct
K-16
pip
elin
e to
pro
fess
ions
Eco
nom
ic im
pact
, es
peci
ally
sci
ence
an
d en
gine
erin
g w
orkf
orce
(us
e na
tiona
l ind
icat
ors
to s
how
gap
in
scie
nce/
engi
neer
ing
indi
cato
rs w
ith
othe
r st
ates
) T
exas
sha
res
natio
nal n
eed
to
trai
n m
ore
scie
ntis
ts a
nd
engi
neer
s
H
ighe
r ed
ucat
ion
role
an
d im
pact
on
wor
kfor
ce a
nd
job
crea
tion
Reg
iona
l foc
us
and
criti
cal
need
s m
atch
ed
with
are
as o
f w
orkf
orce
sh
orta
ges
THEC
B:
Mus
t em
phas
ize
basi
c as
wel
l as
appl
ied
rese
arch
Task
for
ce o
n Pu
blic
Hea
lth
reco
mm
enda
tions
Expl
ore
way
s to
cre
ate
vent
ure
capi
tal f
unds
Expl
ore
oppo
rtun
ities
to
mak
e U
T sc
ienc
e pr
oduc
ts m
ore
acce
ssib
le
and
tran
spar
ent
to t
hose
who
m
ight
com
mer
cial
ize
them
Eval
uate
cam
pus
tech
nolo
gy
tran
sfer
cap
acity
Look
for
res
ourc
es t
o su
ppor
t in
cuba
tor
prog
ram
s
Them
es:
M
akin
g a
posi
tive
impa
ct o
n th
e ec
onom
y an
d on
soc
iety
Impr
ovin
g he
alth
car
e M
issi
on:
To
ren
der
serv
ice
to t
he p
ublic
th
at p
rodu
ces
econ
omic
, te
chni
cal,
soci
al, c
ultu
ral,
and
educ
atio
nal b
enef
its t
hrou
gh
inte
ract
ions
with
indi
vidu
als
and
with
loca
l, Te
xas,
nat
iona
l, an
d in
tern
atio
nal o
rgan
izat
ions
and
co
mm
uniti
es;
To
pro
vide
exc
elle
nt, a
ffor
dabl
e,
and
com
pass
iona
te p
atie
nt c
are
thro
ugh
hosp
itals
and
clin
ics
that
are
of
cent
ral i
mpo
rtan
ce t
o pr
ogra
ms
of t
each
ing,
sc
hola
rshi
p, r
esea
rch,
and
se
rvic
e as
soci
ated
with
med
icin
e an
d re
late
d he
alth
sci
ence
s;
To
ser
ve a
s a
lead
er o
f hi
gher
ed
ucat
ion
in T
exas
and
to
enco
urag
e th
e su
ppor
t an
d de
velo
pmen
t of
a s
uper
ior,
se
amle
ss s
yste
m o
f ed
ucat
ion
– fr
om p
re-k
inde
rgar
ten
thro
ugh
adva
nced
pos
t-gr
adua
te
prog
ram
s, a
nd e
ncom
pass
ing
life-
long
lear
ning
and
con
tinui
ng
educ
atio
n.
NO
T em
phas
ized
IN
IN
TERV
IEW
S
From
Mis
sion
sta
tem
ent:
To
enr
ich
and
expa
nd t
he a
ppre
ciat
ion
and
pres
erva
tion
of o
ur c
ivili
zatio
n th
roug
h th
e ar
ts, s
chol
arly
end
eavo
rs, a
nd
prog
ram
s an
d ev
ents
whi
ch d
emon
stra
te t
he in
telle
ctua
l, ph
ysic
al, a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce s
kills
and
acc
ompl
ishm
ents
of
indi
vidu
als
and
grou
ps;
25
Hea
lth
Iss
ues
Cr
itica
l Iss
ues
Emph
asis
Ex
tern
al a
dvis
ors
Stat
e em
phas
is
(inte
rvie
ws)
U
T Sy
stem
Ini
tiativ
es
2004
Ret
reat
Act
ion
Item
s Ac
adem
ic A
ffairs
in it
alic
s H
ealth
Aff
airs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd S
trat
egic
Th
emes
5%
Hea
lth/
scie
nce
educ
atio
n U
n, u
nder
-in
sure
d pa
tient
s G
ME
Cro
ss-d
isci
plin
ary
rese
arch
Ta
sk f
orce
on
Publ
ic H
ealth
Mis
sion
:
To p
rovi
de
exce
llent,
af
ford
able
, an
d
com
pas
sionat
e pat
ient
care
th
rough h
osp
ital
s an
d c
linic
s th
at a
re o
f ce
ntr
al
import
ance
to p
rogra
ms
of
teac
hin
g,
schola
rship
, re
sear
ch,
and s
ervi
ce
asso
ciat
ed w
ith m
edic
ine
and r
elat
ed h
ealth s
cien
ces
26
DR
AFT
12
07 0
5
Syst
em M
essa
ges
Criti
cal I
ssue
s Em
phas
is
Exte
rnal
adv
isor
s St
ate
emph
asis
(in
terv
iew
s)
UT
Syst
em I
nitia
tives
20
04 R
etre
at A
ctio
n It
ems
Acad
emic
Affa
irs in
ital
ics
Hea
lth A
ffai
rs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd S
trat
egic
Th
emes
5%
Mis
sion
:
Enco
ura
ge
public
and
pri
vate
-sec
tor
support
of
hig
her
educa
tion t
hro
ugh
inte
ract
ion a
nd invo
lvem
ent
with a
lum
ni, e
lect
ed
offic
ials
, ci
vic,
busi
nes
s,
com
munity
and e
duca
tional
le
ader
s, a
nd t
he
gen
eral
public
27
Glo
baliz
atio
n a
nd
com
peti
tion
for
tal
ent
Criti
cal I
ssue
s Em
phas
is
Exte
rnal
adv
isor
s St
ate
emph
asis
(in
terv
iew
s)
UT
Syst
em I
nitia
tives
2004
Ret
reat
Act
ion
Item
s Ac
adem
ic A
ffairs
in it
alic
s H
ealth
Aff
airs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd S
trat
egic
Th
emes
2 %
In
ter-
natio
naliz
atio
n Co
mpe
titio
n Co
mpe
titio
n fo
r ta
lent
in
heal
th
inst
itutio
ns
Rec
ruiti
ng a
nd
reta
inin
g fa
culty
an
d gr
ad s
tude
nts
(lead
ersh
ip,
inte
rnat
iona
l site
s an
d pa
rtne
rshi
ps)
Inc
reas
ed
com
petit
iven
ess
– re
gion
, sta
te,
natio
n, g
loba
l G
loba
lizat
ion
brin
gs
oppo
rtun
ity for
pa
rtne
rshi
ps b
ut
also
incr
ease
d co
mpe
titio
n, i.
e.,
raid
ing
tale
nted
st
uden
ts a
nd
facu
lty
Tal
ent
iden
tific
atio
n D
evel
op p
lans
to
“gro
w y
our
own”
fa
culty
, get
the
m
invo
lved
in
acad
emie
s, t
ask
forc
es, c
omm
ittee
s D
o no
t se
e hi
gher
ed
ucat
ion
inst
itutio
ns m
akin
g ra
dica
l cha
nges
in
natu
re o
f fa
culty
ap
poin
tmen
ts;
use
post
ten
ure
revi
ew
THEC
B
Texa
s sh
ares
na
tiona
l ne
ed t
o tr
ain
mor
e sc
ient
ists
an
d en
gine
ers
STAR
S in
vest
men
ts in
ne
w f
acul
ty
Su
ppor
t fo
r hi
gh q
ualit
y gr
adua
te
stud
ents
, hea
lth b
enef
it is
sues
, st
ipen
ds
H
iring
hig
h-qu
ality
new
facu
lty is
ke
y ta
sk fo
r ev
ery
cam
pus;
mos
t ca
mpu
ses
expe
ct in
crea
sed
retir
emen
ts a
s cu
rren
t fac
ulty
age
.
Nee
d ne
w fa
culty
to d
evel
op a
nd
sust
ain
rese
arch
and
gra
duat
e pr
ogra
ms,
and
to d
eal w
ith
enro
llmen
t gro
wth
.
Mis
sion
:
Attr
act
and
supp
ort
serio
us a
nd
prom
isin
g st
uden
ts f
rom
man
y cu
lture
s w
ho a
re d
edic
ated
to
the
purs
uit
of b
road
, gen
eral
ed
ucat
iona
l exp
erie
nces
, in
com
bina
tion
with
the
pur
suit
of
area
s of
per
sona
l, pr
ofes
sion
al,
or s
peci
al in
tere
st
Ac
quire
, ret
ain,
and
nou
rish
a hi
gh-q
ualit
y, d
edic
ated
, div
erse
fa
culty
of
com
pete
nce,
di
stin
ctio
n, a
nd u
ncom
prom
isin
g in
tegr
ity
28
DR
AFT
12
07 0
5
Col
labo
rati
ons
and
part
ner
ship
s Cr
itica
l Iss
ues
Emph
asis
Ex
tern
al a
dvis
ors
Stat
e em
phas
is
(inte
rvie
ws)
U
T Sy
stem
Ini
tiativ
es
2004
Ret
reat
Act
ion
Item
s Ac
adem
ic A
ffairs
in it
alic
s H
ealth
Aff
airs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd
Stra
tegi
c Th
emes
2 %
C
ross
-inst
itutio
n co
llabo
ratio
ns –
en
cour
age
stro
ngly
, but
ca
nnot
be
forc
ed
from
top
dow
n C
onsi
der
cent
ers
that
brin
g to
geth
er
com
mun
ity
colle
ges,
un
iver
sitie
s, lo
cal
busi
ness
es,
gove
rnm
ent
in
Texa
s, e
ven
inte
rnat
iona
lly
Dev
elop
ac
adem
ic
and
rese
arch
pr
ogra
ms
acro
ss
syst
ems
in
Texa
s TH
ECB:
C
onso
lidat
ion
of c
ampu
ses
is u
nlik
ely;
fo
ster
ing
of
muc
h m
ore
colla
bora
tion
and
form
al
regi
onal
pa
rtne
rshi
ps
shou
ld b
e em
phas
ized
LAN
L, S
andi
a
Fun
ding
for
re
sear
ch
colla
bora
tions
Sup
port
col
labo
ratio
ns;
will
ingn
ess
to
cons
ider
new
con
figur
atio
ns a
nd
mod
ifica
tion
of R
egen
ts r
ules
(a
ppoi
ntm
ents
, pro
mot
ions
, fin
ance
s,
orga
niza
tiona
l req
uire
men
ts)
Inc
reas
ing
rese
arch
M
axim
izin
g in
tuiti
onal
sy
nerg
y th
roug
h co
llabo
ratio
ns
29
Inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y pr
ogra
ms
and
rese
arch
Cr
itica
l Iss
ues
Emph
asis
Exte
rnal
adv
isor
s St
ate
emph
asis
(in
terv
iew
s)
UT
Syst
em I
nitia
tives
20
04 R
etre
at A
ctio
n It
ems
Acad
emic
Affa
irs in
ital
ics
Hea
lth A
ffai
rs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd
Stra
tegi
c Th
emes
< 2
%
Hea
lth
rese
arch
En
viro
nmen
t fo
r re
sear
ch
Maj
or
grou
ndbr
eaki
ng
disc
over
ies
at t
he
inte
rfac
e of
man
y di
scip
lines
D
evel
op
inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y,
colla
bora
tive
grou
ps
Int
erdi
scip
linar
ity
and
mod
ality
of
teac
hing
--
muc
h lip
ser
vice
is p
aid
to c
uttin
g ac
ross
ac
adem
ic s
ilos,
but
lit
tle r
eal a
ctio
n
S
TARS
inve
stm
ents
Inc
reas
ing
rese
arch
M
issi
on:
To
eng
age
in h
igh-
qual
ity,
inno
vativ
e re
sear
ch t
hat
enta
ils t
he d
isco
very
, di
ssem
inat
ion,
and
ap
plic
atio
n of
kno
wle
dge
30
DR
AFT
12
07 0
5
Lead
ersh
ip d
evel
opm
ent
Criti
cal I
ssue
s Em
phas
is
(% o
f re
spon
ses)
Exte
rnal
adv
isor
s St
ate
emph
asis
(in
terv
iew
s)
UT
Syst
em I
nitia
tives
20
04 R
etre
at A
ctio
n It
ems
Acad
emic
Affa
irs in
ital
ics
Hea
lth A
ffai
rs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd
Stra
tegi
c Th
emes
< 2
%
Cam
pus
lead
ersh
ip
Cul
tivat
ion
of
lead
ersh
ip –
the
re
is a
lack
of
lead
ersh
ip a
nd
lead
ersh
ip
groo
min
g in
hig
her
educ
atio
n na
tiona
lly
Nee
ded
at t
he
inst
itutio
n, c
olle
ge,
depa
rtm
ent
leve
l N
eed
lead
ers
who
th
ink
of w
hole
in
stitu
tion,
not
in
divi
dual
de
part
men
ts.
Indi
vidu
al h
ealth
in
stitu
tions
le
ader
ship
de
velo
pmen
t in
itiat
ives
Mon
itor
dive
rsity
am
ong
stud
ents
, fa
culty
, sta
ff, a
s pa
rt o
f le
ader
ship
ev
alua
tion
of e
ach
inst
itutio
n (h
ealth
)
Mis
sion
:
Rec
ruit
and
appr
opria
tely
re
cogn
ize
exem
plar
y ad
min
istr
ator
s an
d st
aff
mem
bers
who
pro
vide
le
ader
ship
and
sup
port
of
the
educ
atio
nal e
nter
pris
e in
an
ener
getic
, cre
ativ
e,
carin
g, a
nd r
espo
nsib
le
man
ner
NO
T em
phas
ized
IN
IN
TERVI
EWS
Mis
sion
: T
o cu
ltiva
te in
stu
dent
s th
e et
hica
l and
mor
al v
alue
s th
at a
re t
he b
asis
of
a hu
man
e so
cial
ord
er
31
Mea
sure
men
t sy
stem
s an
d ac
cou
nta
bilit
y Cr
itica
l Iss
ues
Emph
asis
Ex
tern
al a
dvis
ors
Stat
e em
phas
is
(inte
rvie
ws)
U
T Sy
stem
Ini
tiativ
es
2004
Ret
reat
Act
ion
Item
s Ac
adem
ic A
ffairs
in it
alic
s H
ealth
Aff
airs
UT
Syst
em M
issi
on a
nd
Stra
tegi
c Th
emes
< 2
%
Acco
unta
bilit
y Ev
alua
tion
Mea
sure
men
t sy
stem
s to
ass
ess
inst
itutio
nal
stre
ngth
s R
egen
tal
asse
ssm
ent
of t
he
curr
ent
stre
ngth
s of
eac
h ca
mpu
s:
need
qua
ntita
tive
and
qual
itativ
e m
easu
res
Pub
lic w
ill e
xpec
t al
ignm
ent
with
lo
cal a
nd s
tate
ne
eds
Nee
d le
ss
cons
trai
nts
by
loca
l, st
ate,
fed
eral
go
vern
men
t
Sta
te
acco
unta
bilit
y w
ill in
crea
se
Mus
t m
ake
case
for
su
ppor
t ba
sed
on r
etur
n on
in
vest
men
t J
ustif
y in
do
llar
term
s w
hy h
ighe
r ed
ucat
ion
need
s ad
ditio
nal
reso
urce
s TH
ECB
Ac
coun
tabi
lity
requ
irem
ents
w
ill in
crea
se
Ass
urin
g in
tegr
ity a
nd
publ
ic t
rust
32
INSERT TAB HERE
Agenda Item 2
INSERT TAB HERE
Executive Session
INSERT TAB HERE
Supplemental Materials
INSERT SUB-TAB HERE
S.I. Introduction
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM
http://www.utsystem.edu/bor/
James R. Huffines, Chairman 201 West Seventh Street, Suite 820 Austin, Texas 78701-2981 (512) 499-4402 Fax: (512) 499-4425 Email: [email protected]
May 13, 2005 TO: Executive Vice Chancellor Shine
Executive Vice Chancellor Sullivan Executive Vice Chancellor Kelley Associate Vice Chancellor Malandra Counsel and Secretary Frederick
FROM : James R. Huffines SUBJECT: Task Force on the U. T. System Board of Regents Planning I write to seek your participation, working with Vice-Chairman Cyndi Taylor Krier and me, on the U. T. System Board of Regents’ Task Force on Planning as discussed at the Board’s May 12 meeting. The Board of Regents has a critical responsibility to establish a planning framework for the U. T. System. Its role is to articulate an overall vision for the System as a whole, and to oversee the alignment of this vision with System and institution plans, activities, investments, and results. Our most recent planning document was approved in December 2000, but we will be working in an environment of accelerating local, national, and global change – in demographics, our economy, and in education. So, it is time now for the Board to reassess its vision for the next 5 to 10 years and develop an updated, integrated, strategic framework that will inform its deliberations and decision making. Over the past three years, the Board, the System, and the 15 U. T. System institutions have created a strong platform for this initiative. We already know quite a bit about our goals and how to measure our progress through: the System’s comprehensive accountability reports, institutional Compacts, institutional strategic or long-range plans, centers of excellence, presidential work plans, the Washington Advisory Group report, the Capital Planning Task Force report on “Assessing the Need for Capital Required to Close the Gaps at U. T. System Academic Institutions,” the Academic and Health Affairs retreats, and the recent economic impact study of the U. T. System.
35
U. T. System Officers May 13, 2005 Page 2 I would like to build on all of this preparation, as we to step back and articulate the Board’s strategic direction for the next 5 to 10 years. By Spring 2006, I expect to complete this work, to guide and support stronger clarity of purpose, focus, alignment, and discipline. It will be a document that we can use to frame agendas, evaluate proposals, assess performance, and make decisions. The Task Force’s specific charge is as follows: Produce a concise, timely, and meaningful written statement of the Board’s
strategic direction over the next 5 to 10 years, including specific benchmarks. Align the statement with projected academic, health care, research, and capital
needs and investments, and also align the statement with the state’s Closing the Gaps goals and any other comprehensive plan for higher education.
Address planning assumptions (external and internal trends), key themes and
priorities, goals, alignment with investments (budgeting, capital planning), and benchmarks to measure progress.
Build on the ideas discussed at the Academic and Health Affairs Board retreats
last fall on ideas and issues raised by U. T. System institutions in the Compacts or other institutional planning documents, and by the System Administration.
Consult with broader groups of people including the Faculty Advisory Council,
Student Advisory Council, Employee Advisory Council, Council of Academic Institutions, Council of Health Institutions, representatives of the Chancellor’s Council, and others as appropriate during review of the issues are most likely to present opportunities and challenges to us over the next 5 to 10 years.
Invite outside experts, as needed, to meet with the Task Force or the Board in
the coming months. Produce a preliminary outline of the new plan to be available for discussion at
the Board’s December 2005 retreat. Vice-Chairman Cyndi Taylor Krier and I will co-chair this task force. Dr. Malandra and her office will provide staff assistance. Thank you for your service on this vital committee. JRH/cf cc: Members, U. T. System Board of Regents
Chancellor Mark G. Yudof Presidents, U. T. System Institutions U. T. System Officers
36
UT System Office of Institutional Planning and Accountability 11.28.05
UT System Board of Regents Task Force on Planning Schedule
Phase I: Planning Agenda and Issues Identification June 13, 2005 Organizational meeting – scope; goals; schedule; roles and
assignments
July 26, 2005 Outline sections; environmental scan; preliminary discussion of critical issues and contacts
August –November, 2005 Critical issues interviews: Board members, presidents, System executives, FAC, SAC, EAC, Chancellor’s Council, education policy leaders in Texas and Washington
September 28, 2005 Discussion with Washington Advisory Group, Thomas Cech
October 11, 2005 October 24, 2005
Attend THECB conference for governing boards Discussion with Raymund Paredes
November 15, 2005 Discussion with Alceste Pappas; review of critical issues summaries
December 14, 2005 Discussion with Jordan Cohen; agenda development for retreat
December 2005 Disseminate critical issues summary
Phase II: Clarification of Issues and Planning Priorities January 12, 2006 Planning retreat with presidents: critical issues and strategic
directions for the UT System
February 16, 2006 Align with campus plans; pursue issues; draft and circulate outline; continue consultations; assembe feedback
Phase III: Develop Recommendations and Prepare Report March 13, 2006 Draft report and communications plan
April 11, 2006 Complete and circulate report internally
Phase IV: Communicate, Implement, and Assess Results of Plan May 11, 2006 Present report to Board; implement communications plan
May 16, 2006 Final task force meeting
Fall 2006 Academic Affairs Retreat
Health Affairs Retreat
May 2007 First-year update and assessment of progress on plan
37
38
UT System Strategic Planning Framework May 2005
The University of Texas System Strategic Planning Framework Proposal for 2005-06
Overview The UT System has a set of interrelated planning responsibilities for the Board, System support for institutions, System Administration operations, and individual institutional plans. Over the past decade, leaders of The University of Texas System have developed planning documents approximately every five years. Since 2002, the System’s administration and Board have begun to add new elements, change the System’s planning framework, and introduce new planning processes. UT System institutions are being asked to plan more proactively and consistently through the Compact Process, the UT System’s accountability framework establishes expectations for performance in certain high-priority areas, and presidents and officers now submit annual work plans that are also expected to align with these big goals. It is time once again take a more comprehensive, integrated, and strategic approach to planning. Our vision is that by the end of the 2005-2006, each primary unit of the UT System – Board of Regents, System Administration, and UT System institutions will either have a strategic plan in place, or a commitment to update or develop one on a specific schedule. These plans will align with System-wide goals and priorities, but will provide considerable flexibility in format and content to reflect the distinctive missions of each unit. These plans will, moreover, align with the System’s accountability framework and review of executive work plans, so that progress on key priorities is tracked, analyzed, and communicated widely to inform future improvement efforts. The table on p. xx illustrates the interrelationships and timing of these efforts. Background 1995 - 1999. The University of Texas System Long Range Plan and Strategic Initiatives for the period 1995-1999 outlined goals and initiatives for students, faculty, patient care, community service, and organizational efficiency. Its viewpoint was System-wide, but it also included short highlights from each institution’s plan that aligned with the broad goals and initiatives. It is the longest and most specific of the most recent plans, although it does not outline expected outcomes. In 1998, the System-wide mission statement embedded in this plan was updated. 2000 - 2004. In December 2000, The University of Texas Board of Regents adopted its new long-range plan, Service to Texas in the New Century. This plan lays out a vision for System leadership and directions to 2030, and reflects the System’s commitment to address Closing the Gaps, the State of Texas master plan for higher education. It provides examples from many institutions, but does not document this alignment consistently, nor does it delineate expected outcomes in great detail. 2004 - present. In December 2002, the Board of Regents endorsed a new framework for accountability, linked to the themes and priorities laid out in the long-range plan and mission statement. In March 2004, the Board endorsed the System-wide mission statement originally written in 1998 and also approved a new mission statement for System Administration. Each institution completed its first Compact in August 2004. The Current Picture
The UT System strives to exert creative and proactive leadership and foster alignment on significant education, research, and health care issues, and to use the System’s convening and leveraging power to enhance institutional efforts. In doing so, it aims for high operational performance, reducing time spent on mandates and oversight, and increasing focus on leveraging resources and expertise within System administration and in support of UT System institutions.
39
UT System Strategic Planning Framework May 2005
More specifically, the UT System’s strategic focus, directly or indirectly, is on these themes:
Improving student success Increasing research Improving quality of health care Making a positive impact on the economy
and on society (economic impact; tech transfer)
Maximizing institutional synergy through collaborations
Aligning resource development and investments
Assuring integrity and public trust
Adding Value: All priorities, strategies, tactics, on behalf of institutions AND on behalf of the System should add value to the big goals, above. Planning Framework The System addresses these (and many more specific goals and priorities) through an interrelated set of planning responsibilities:
1. Institutional planning. Support the planning process of UT System institutions and foster alignment among goals, budget, and resource decisions. The content of these plans emanates from the individual campuses, with support from the offices of Academic and Health Affairs. In addition to their compacts, each institution will be asked to specify a timeframe in which it will develop an updated long-range plan. This timeframe should be aligned with institution needs, including the timeframe for SACS accreditation reviews. The plans will be shared with System officers and the Board of Regents, who will evaluate the fit between institution and System strategic themes and priorities, and recommend adjustments, as appropriate. The intent is not to usurp primacy of institutions, but to clarify alignment and support of broad goals. 2. System planning. Develop a planning framework and alignment for the goals and priorities for the System as a whole and for each System administration office. The UT System Administration must fulfill certain legal responsibilities. In addition, it seeks to focus System office work on those areas that add value to UT System institutions. Its priorities, delineated in its mission statement, reflect this two-way responsibility; examples are provided below. Currently, many offices do their own planning, and have an impact on System-wide planning, but we do not have a mechanism to integrate and align office planning and priorities. The UT System Administration should have a plan (not necessarily a formal compact or lengthy written report). In 2005-06, they will be developed in a strategic plan that will outline how these goals will be implemented over the next three to five years.
3. Board planning. Update the Board’s statement of strategic vision. The Board of Regents has responsibility to delineate the big, long-range goals, priorities, and areas of emphasis for the UT System. Its most recent plan (2000) outlines areas of emphasis which are still significant in some ways, and many of its priorities are being addressed by the System and institutions. However, the plan as a whole is not being used as actively as a robust plan should be.
By elaborating on and prioritizing work at each level the System can develop a more robust and functional planning framework. Over the past two years, the UT System has begun to refocus and fill in
40
UT System Strategic Planning Framework May 2005
this planning framework (see table on p. xx). The Board of Regents accepted its first accountability and performance report in March 2004, and its second report in February 2005. Institutional compacts were completed, for the first time, in August 2004 and will be updated annually. The March 2004 Washington Advisory Group report recommended steps to enhance the research presence of eight UT System academic institutions. Health Affairs studies address high priorities including enhancements in graduate medical education, public health, and indigent care. Each UT System president and officer submits an annual work plan to the Chancellor; the Chancellor submits a work plan to the Board of Regents. While the System need not undertake a conventional or mechanical strategic planning process, we recommend focused attention and development of updated plans, aligned with the System’s current goals and priorities, on three interrelated levels: institutional planning, System planning, and Board of Regents planning. By the end of the 2005-2006, each primary unit of the UT System – Board of Regents, System Administration, and UT System institutions – will either have a strategic plan in place, or a commitment to update or develop one on a specific schedule. These plans will align with System-wide goals and priorities, but will provide considerable flexibility in format and content to reflect the distinctive missions of each unit. The plans will, moreover, align with the System’s accountability framework and review of executive work plans, so that progress on key priorities is tracked, analyzed, and communicated widely to inform future improvement efforts (see diagram, p. xx). Timeline Brief Board on framework and timeline May 2005 Board meeting. Develop outline during spring and summer 2005. Implement planning discussions in fall and winter 2005-06. Complete System Administration and Board plans by spring 2006 Complete institution plans in alignment with accreditation cycle.
41
UT
Syst
em S
trat
egic
Pla
nnin
g Fr
amew
ork
May
200
5
U. T
. Sys
tem
Str
ateg
ic P
lan
nin
g Fr
amew
ork
and
Tim
etab
le
Big
Goa
ls:
In
crea
sing
stu
dent
suc
cess
(pe
rsis
tenc
e, g
radu
atio
n, le
arni
ng o
utco
mes
)
Incr
easi
ng r
esea
rch
prod
uctiv
ity (
facu
lty r
ecru
iting
, pr
ofes
sion
al d
evel
opm
ent,
in
fras
truc
ture
dev
elop
men
t)
Im
prov
ing
qual
ity o
f he
alth
car
e, h
ealth
pro
fess
ion
educ
atio
n an
d ou
tcom
es f
or p
atie
nts
M
akin
g a
posi
tive
impa
ct o
n th
e ec
onom
y (e
cono
mic
impa
ct;
tech
nolo
gy t
rans
fer)
Max
imiz
ing
inst
itutio
nal s
yner
gy t
hrou
gh c
olla
bora
tions
Alig
ning
res
ourc
e de
velo
pmen
t an
d in
vest
men
ts
As
surin
g in
tegr
ity a
nd p
ublic
tru
st
Sy
stem
Pla
nn
ing
Act
ivit
ies
Inst
itu
tion
Pla
nn
ing
Act
ivit
ies
Pla
nn
ing
Act
ivit
ies
and
Doc
um
ents
Boa
rd o
f R
egen
ts
Lon
g R
ange
Pla
n:
“Ser
vice
to
Texa
s in
th
e N
ew C
entu
ry”
UT
Syst
em
Mis
sion
St
ate-
men
t
Syst
em
Adm
inis
trat
ion
M
issi
on S
tate
men
t
UT
Syst
em
Acc
oun
tabi
lity
and
Per
form
ance
R
epor
t
Com
pact
s
Hea
lth
In
stit
uti
on
Stra
tegi
c P
lan
s A
cade
mic
In
stit
uti
on
Stra
tegi
c P
lan
s an
d R
elat
ed A
ctiv
itie
s
SAC
S A
ccre
dita
tion
D
ate
of O
n-C
ampu
s R
evie
w
(pre
para
tion
beg
ins
18
-24
m
onth
s in
adv
ance
)
2000
-203
0 Ap
prov
ed
Feb.
200
4 Ap
prov
ed
Feb.
200
4 5
year
tre
nds;
an
nual
upd
ates
2-
year
hor
izon
; an
nual
upd
ates
5-
10 y
ear
horiz
on;
perio
dic
upda
tes
5-10
yea
r ho
rizon
; pe
riodi
c up
date
s 10
yea
r cy
cle
Cyc
le /
sc
hed
ule
20
04-0
5 H
ealth
Aff
airs
Ret
reat
Ac
adem
ic A
ffai
rs R
etre
at
Ret
reat
s on
: M
issi
on s
tate
men
t ro
ll-ou
t
Augu
st 2
004
Off
icer
wor
k pl
ans
2nd e
ditio
n U
pdat
e by
Au
gust
Tr
ack
key
benc
hmar
ks
Nee
ded
in 2
005-
06
UTM
B to
200
5
UTH
SC-S
an A
nton
io
to 2
005
U
THSC
-Hou
ston
Pres
iden
ts’ S
elec
t Co
mm
ittee
(U
TA,
UTE
P, U
TT)
Com
mis
sion
Rep
orts
: U
T Au
stin
U
TB/T
SC
UTE
P U
TT
UTM
DAC
C (S
prin
g 20
05)
2005
-06
Boar
d pl
anni
ng a
ctiv
ities
Ret
reat
Upd
ate
plan
Syst
em a
nd S
yste
m
offic
e st
rate
gic
plan
ning
Va
lue-
adde
d an
alys
is
Upd
ate
and
calib
rate
with
Sta
te
repo
rt
Dra
fts
due
May
1
Dis
cuss
at
join
t bu
dget
//co
mpa
ct
mee
tings
Co
mpl
ete
by
Augu
st
UTH
SC-S
an A
nton
io
plan
ning
pro
cess
, co
mpl
eted
Jan
200
6
2-3
plan
ning
pr
ojec
ts
UTE
P 4.
06
2006
-07
Hea
lth A
ffai
rs R
etre
at?
Acad
emic
Aff
airs
Ret
reat
?
“ “
UTH
C-Ty
ler
to 2
007
2-3
plan
ning
pr
ojec
ts
UTA
Spr
ing
07
UTP
A Sp
ring
07
2007
-08
“ “
2-
3 pl
anni
ng
proj
ects
U
T Au
stin
Spr
ing
08
UTB
/TSC
U
THSC
–Hou
ston
U
TMB
4.08
U
THSC
-San
Ant
onio
Spr
ing
08
2008
-09
“ “
2-
3 pl
anni
ng
proj
ects
U
TD
UTS
WM
C
20
09-1
0
“
“ U
TSW
MC
to 2
010
+in
co
urse
adj
ustm
ents
U
TMD
ACC
to 2
010
+
in c
ours
e ad
just
men
ts
U
TSA
Sprin
g 10
U
THSC
-Hou
ston
3.1
0 U
TT S
prin
g 10
2010
-11
UTP
B 12
.10
42
UT
Syst
em S
trat
egic
Pla
nnin
g Fr
amew
ork
May
200
5
UT
Sys
tem
6
heal
th in
stitu
tions
9
acad
emic
inst
itutio
nsS
yste
m a
dmin
istra
tion
Boa
rd o
f Reg
ents
Ser
vice
to T
exas
Ope
ratio
ns
A
re w
e
doin
g th
ings
th
e rig
ht w
ay?
Fina
nces
Are
we
sp
endi
ng o
ur re
sour
ces
the
right
way
?
“Eve
ryon
e is
acc
ount
able
, all
of th
e tim
e.”
Sta
te A
udito
r
Per
form
ance
Are
we
doin
g th
e rig
ht th
ing?
H
ow w
ell a
re w
e do
ing?
Sta
te L
eade
rshi
p
LBB
Stud
ents
, pat
ient
s, c
itize
ns, c
omm
uniti
es
43
44
The University of Texas System Mission Statement
The mission of The University of Texas System is to provide high-quality educational opportunities for the enhancement of the human resources of Texas, the nation, and the world through intellectual and personal growth.
This comprehensive mission statement applies to the varied elements and complexities of a large group of academic and health institutions. Individually, these institutions have distinct missions, histories, cultures, goals, programs, and challenges. Collectively, these institutions share a common vision and a fundamental commitment to enhance the lives of individuals and to advance a free society. Through one or more of its individual institutions, The University of Texas System seeks:
◊ To provide superior, accessible, affordable instruction and learning opportunities to undergraduate, graduate, and professional school students from a wide range of social, ethnic, cultural, and economic backgrounds, thereby preparing educated, productive citizens who can meet the rigorous challenges of an increasingly diverse society and an ever-changing global community;
◊ To cultivate in students the ethical and moral values that are the basis of a humane social order;
◊ To engage in high-quality, innovative research that entails the discovery, dissemination, and application of knowledge;
◊ To render service to the public that produces economic, technical, social, cultural, and educational benefits through interactions with individuals and with local, Texas, national, and international organizations and communities;
◊ To provide excellent, affordable, and compassionate patient care through hospitals and clinics that are of central importance to programs of teaching, scholarship, research, and service associated with medicine and related health sciences;
◊ To enrich and expand the appreciation and preservation of our civilization through the arts, scholarly endeavors, and programs and events which demonstrate the intellectual, physical, and performance skills and accomplishments of individuals and groups;
◊ To serve as a leader of higher education in Texas and to encourage the support and development of a superior, seamless system of education – from pre-kindergarten through advanced post-graduate programs, and encompassing life-long learning and continuing education.
To accomplish its mission, The University of Texas System must:
◊ Attract and support serious and promising students from many cultures who are dedicated to the pursuit of broad, general educational experiences, in combination with the pursuit of areas of personal, professional, or special interest;
◊ Acquire, retain, and nourish a high-quality, dedicated, diverse faculty of competence, distinction, and uncompromising integrity;
◊ Recruit and appropriately recognize exemplary administrators and staff members who provide leadership and support of the educational enterprise in an energetic, creative, caring, and responsible manner.
◊ Create and sustain physical environments that enhance and complement educational goals, including appropriate classrooms, libraries, laboratories, hospitals, clinics, computer and advanced technological facilities, as well as university centers, museums, performance facilities, athletic spaces, and other resources consistent with institutional objectives;
◊ Encourage public and private-sector support of higher education through interaction and involvement with alumni, elected officials, civic, business, community and educational leaders, and the general public.
45
46
INSERT SUB-TAB HERE
S.II.A. Global Trends
The University of Texas System Office of Institutional Planning and Accountability
Trends Affecting Higher Education
September 2005
International Economics and Geopolitics Income gaps. Internationally, the gap between “haves” and “have-nots” is growing. The divide between
rural areas and cities is also growing. In the U.S., intergenerational mobility is no longer increasing. These trends may be weaker in the United States than in other parts of the world, but will have a growing impact on domestic education and business.
Changing leadership and conflict. While the United States may sustain its position as an economic,
education, philanthropic, and military leader, the European Community and China will become even stronger economically. Increasing demands for energy, compounded by turbulence across Islamic countries, and military conflict, economic destabilization, and health crises across much of Africa, will present security and health challenges for decades to come.
International students. Foreign enrollments in U. S. postsecondary institutions are at their lowest level
since 1971; major graduate programs report a drop of 6 percent in foreign enrollments, with sharpest drops among students from India, China, and Japan. China and India are rapidly building their own higher education infrastructure.
Market Competition It’s A Flat World, After All – technology-fueled convergence. In his latest vision of the future, Tom
Friedman writes that the world is in the midst of a convergence of new players, on a new playing field, developing new processes for horizontal collaboration that is the most important force shaping global economies and politics in the early 21st century. Global competition for knowledge work is accelerating as a result of 10 politically and technology- driven forces (1. 11/9/1989 -- fall of Berlin Wall; 2. 8/9/1995 – day Netscape went public (compounded with laying of fiber-optic cable across the oceans) and benefited countries that could not invest in it); 3. Y2K and development of “Workflow” software and middle ware that connects computers worldwide; 4. outsourcing; 5. offshoring; 6. open-sourcing; 7. insourcing; 8. supply-chaining; 9. “Informing” – a new form of collaboration, like Google, Yahoo, and other search engines; 10. wireless access and voice over Internet protocol so you can do voice, data, etc. anywhere from any device. … America is not really ready for this.
Political and economic convergence. Three billion more people have entered “into the game,” as China,
India, Russia, Eastern European, Latin American, and Central America as their economies and political systems opened up during the 1990s. Leaders in India and China want to race us to the top. Nothing guarantees that Americans or Western Europe will continue leading the way.
Ambition, numbers, and education gaps. We face a “quiet crisis” eating away at America’s scientific
and engineering base: 1. an ambition gap -- “the entitlement we need to get rid of is our sense of entitlement”; 2. a numbers gap -- we are not producing enough engineers and scientists, and fewer are coming to be trained here; 3. an education gap – business can find better skilled and more productive workers (not just cheaper labor) elsewhere.
Resources. Higher education cannot count on increases in public funding from state or federal sources;
new ways of funding capital and program growth will be necessary. For profit and virtual institutions. Traditional institutions are losing their monopoly on higher
education. The industry is becoming deregulated. For profits and distance education universities are dwarfing enrollments in traditional schools abroad, in some cases for considerably less than the cost of traditional instruction. The University of Phoenix enrolls 200,000 students, and will expand to 500,000 by 2010. It has used automated processes to address the challenges of geographic growth across 37 states. Forty percent of admissions decisions are made without human intervention; the rest are
47
The University of Texas System Office of Institutional Planning and Accountability
handled by admissions officers working from home. By FY 2006, it will have a fully automated degree audit process for students to use if they meet all requirements for graduation.
International credit transfer. Global students will want to move their learning credits across all boundaries. The first country that recognizes this and allows easy transfer will capture a large chunk of future learners.
Security. Response to security issues has had a negative impact on US institutions’ ability to attract
leading international students and researchers. Leading academic, science and engineering associations are renewing a call for the U.S. government to accelerate its effort to reform the visa process for international students, scholars, and researchers.
Demographics
Growth in population has led to growth in attendees. This is a very long-term trend. In 1900, 4
percent of the population attended college; in 1999, 43 percent did. In 1900, 2.7 percent of 25 –year-olds completed four or more years of college; in 1999, it was 23.6, a ten-fold increase. College enrollments are expected to continue to rise by 15 to 20 percent through 2014, in every demographic segment.
Diversity. One in seven Americans is Hispanic in 2005, and the proportion is likely to increase, since the
growth rate in the most recent one-year period was more than three times that of the total population. Aging of the population. In the U.S. and throughout the developed world, fertility rates are low, often at
record lows. Because of low fertility and sustained low mortality, the populations of the U.S. and European countries are aging. This shift in age structure will mean increasing use of health care. There is also evidence that the Baby Boom will seek additional education in retirement, not for purposes of enhancing productivity but as consumption good. Some universities are already planning retirement communities near their campuses to anticipate this trend.
California as model for future trends. Within the next 25 years, about a quarter of all Americans will
be residing in what will be the three most populous states, California, Texas, and Florida. Other big gainers will be North Carolina and Georgia… The population growth and shifts are posing headaches in all of those states. But nowhere are the problems more pronounced - or familiar - than in California. There, planning has been in fits and starts… It needs to take place recognizing that we're not in an era of big government in which we're going to see large projects, or large sums of money, from the federal government.
Higher education enrollment trends. Texas ranks low nationally in proportion of students graduating
from high school and going on to college. Because of population growth in the state, there will be more than 16 million undergraduates by 2010 and nearly 17 million by 2014. Enrollment in two-year colleges is projected to grow to 7.2 million by 2010 and 7.4 million by 2014. Undergraduate enrollment at four-year institutions is expected to rise to nearly 9 million in 2010 and 9.2 million by 2014.
Age. Between 2000 and 2001, 46 percent of adults participated in some type of adult education, other than
full-time college attendance (it was 22 percent in 1965). Demands for continuing education by professional and other skilled groups is likely to increase as more adults choose or are forced to change careers. The desire for continuing education, including degree programs, is likely to keep growing over the next 10+ years, for work-related and personal enrichment purposes.
Gender. Girls do better than boys in K-12 school. Over the past five years, the proportion of female
students has grown to exceed male students on many college campuses. Women will continue to outpace men in enrollments, according to the projections. By 2010, men will be outnumbered, 9.4 million to 6.8 million. And by 2014, the gender gap will widen by some 200,000 more. The numbers will grow, but the proportion will continues to be small of women entering and staying in many science and engineering fields.
48
The University of Texas System Office of Institutional Planning and Accountability
Texas Demographic Trends and Higher Education Texas population growth. Texas is among the states that will experience the biggest growth in 18- 24-
year old populations. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board estimates that by 2015, higher education institutions will enroll over 1.5 million students, or 630,000 additional students, based on current trends.
Dilution of growth in Texas higher ed. Poor graduation rates dilute the impact of higher education.
Steve Murdock projects that by 2040, only about 13 percent of the Texas labor force will have a bachelor’s degree. In 2000, Texas was 27th in the nation in proportion of people holding college degrees (23.2 percent); the national average was 24.4 percent. Enrollment in college has increased numerically, but so has the population. Yet, as Texas depends less on energy for jobs, income, and industry growth, the need for education in new fields will increase.
Texas diversity. In Texas, by 2040, 44.5 percent of public university students will be Hispanic, up from
21.3 percent in 2000. Enrollment of Black students will decrease from 10.3 to 8.1 percent, and of White students from 81.5 to 32.3 percent. Students labeling themselves as “other” will increase from 6.9 percent to 15.1 percent.
Higher Education Trends Balancing access, affordability, and quality. An overriding question in Texas and other fast-growing
states like Texas is how to accommodate growth, strengthen the quality of academic, research, and health profession programs while also strengthening access to and success at universities for students who are economically challenged, or from underrepresented ethnic/racial groups? Resources and facilities may not keep up with demand. Community colleges may be expected to expand their capacity to accommodate much of this growth.
Affordability. Tuition will continue to rise. How can we ensure that increasing numbers (and proportion)
of economically disadvantaged students prepare for, apply to, matriculate at, and graduate from college? The concern will continue that higher tuition will keep some students from attending, and will force others to attend part time, reducing their chances of completing a degree. Public institutions will begin to use price sensitivity as part of their analysis of affordability. Nationally, access to college is still related to some extent to economic status and class.
UT System affordability policy and practice. Students at UT System campuses rarely pay the “sticker
price” for higher education; most pay an average of 30 percent less than the full amount of resident undergraduate tuition and fees. The UT System operates on the principle is that no student be denied educational opportunity because of financial need, while ensuring that educational services are of the highest quality. At least 20 percent of new tuition is set aside for financial aid.
Seamless transfers. The trend will continue for students to attend more than one college before they
graduate. Over the past two decades, 59 percent of postsecondary students (based on a 2005 US Dept. of Ed survey) transferred colleges or were enrolled simultaneously. 28 percent of four-year public college students attended two institutions, 13 percent attended three institutions.
K-16 pathways. Reducing the numbers of high school drop outs, particularly among minority groups, and
increasing the number of students prepared to attend college are major policy issues that will continue into the next decade.
Teacher education. Recruiting, training, and retaining effective teachers, particularly in math and
science and to work with high-risk students, will be high-priority issues for the coming decade. Preparing sufficient numbers of teachers in science and math is critical to ensuring American workforce, business, and scientific competitiveness.
Student success—retention and graduation rates. Nationally, only 55 percent of students who start
college complete a degree within six years; only 41 percent of African American or Hispanic students.
49
The University of Texas System Office of Institutional Planning and Accountability
Preparation for college and ability to maintain continuous enrollment appear to be key factors in timely degree completion.
Comparatively less success nationally among Hispanic students. According to a recent study
supported by the Lumina Foundation, Latinos are less likely to graduate from high school or receive a GED than any other group (86.4 vs. 92.3 percent), making them less prepared for college. Twenty-two percent of Latino students who go on to college enroll in four-year institutions, and just 23 percent receive four-year degrees within eight years of high school graduation (compared with 41 percent attendance, and 47 percent eight-year graduation rates among White students).
Distance education. In 2004, nearly one million students took on-line courses, 50 percent more than in
2002. Support for e-learning will be needed: an adequate and reliable technical infrastructure; instructors and students who have technical skills to use tools; redesign of courses to incorporate e-learning into pedagogy.
Use of technology for continuous access to learning. Information technology will transform the
traditional pattern of learning. The old goal was site-based, standardized curriculum to impart knowledge and learning. The new goal is endlessly customized programs to transmit competencies and skills, any time, any where.
Learning outcomes. The debate about the merits and pitfalls of high-stakes testing in K-12 education will
continue and will continue to prompt some to consider testing at the college level. Although it is unlikely that the federal government will mandate standardized testing for public higher education, it is likely that through the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2005-6, and changes in regional accreditation standards, emphasis will increase on using tests, student portfolios, and other ways to means to assess what college graduates have learned and their preparation for employment.
Professionalization of the curriculum. Roughly one-third of baccalaureate degrees were awarded in the
liberal arts and science in 1999, down from 50 percent in 1970. Employers will continue to voice concerns about graduates’ preparation in oral and written communication, numeracy, critical thinking, and team work.
Graduate education. Graduation education will play a continued critical role in producing future
scientists, engineers, and professors for the next generations of college students. This is the “century of biology.” Research and advanced training will be transformed as connections across engineering, life sciences, mathematics and other fields are reflected in research and curricula. Recruiting the best talent from diverse groups will continue to be a challenge as long as the pipeline of minority students continues to leak. And, recruiting the best international talent will be compromised by continued security issues and increasing competition from research institutions in Europe, India, and soon, China.
Expectations/Value/Accountability
Cost of attendance. Tuition will continue to rise. Affordability will continue to be a major issue and public
pressure will increase to hold rates down. The concern will continue that higher tuition will keep some students from attending, and will force others to attend part time, reducing their chances of completing a degree. Public institutions will begin to use price sensitivity as part of their analysis of affordability.
Accountability. At the state and federal level, accountability will continue to be defined, at least in part,
as keeping tuition as low as possible. Performance measurement and assessment, and demonstrations of efficiency, i.e., easy credit transfer among institutions, will continue to be top issues. Traditional structures may be changed, i.e., with new, flexible charters with states in exchange for more accountability.
Private benefit. Over a 20 year period, the benefit of college was estimated at more than $2 million in
2003; compared with $1 million in 1977, and is expected to continue to increase. The difference in median entry-level wage for a college vs. high school education was $26,900 annually in 2003 dollars. (Mercatus Center for the U. S. House of Representatives March 1, 2004). The gap in income grew from 31% in 1979 to 66% in 1997 between college and non-college educated people.
50
The University of Texas System Office of Institutional Planning and Accountability
Economic impact and public benefit. Institutions will need to show how they leverage the investment in higher education into jobs. (In FY 2004, the UT System collectively made a $12.8 billion impact on the Texas economy, generating 215,700 jobs. For every dollar in initial spending, an average of 44 additional cents was spent within host regions. Of this, UT System health institutions were estimated to add $7.7 billion and 112,200 jobs to the Texas economy; 60 percent of the total UT System economic impact.)
Impact of technology transfer. Research universities and health centers will continue to make a
significant impact on regional economies through transfer of discoveries into the marketplace. Expansion will require institutional systems and policies to support the development of complex partnerships, and laws and public policies that favor technology transfer.
Health and Health Institutions
Fiscal constraints will continue, brought about by escalating health-care costs, unsponsored care, cost of
technology, decreased reimbursement for clinical services. Sustainability of correctional managed care. The proportion of Medicare and indigent care in the
payer mix will increase over coming 4-5 years; managed care and commercial sources will decline Workforce shortage, particularly in nursing, but also physicians and non-heath care professionals (information technology, laboratory technicians, etc.) caused by declining enrollments, aging and retiring workforce, and an older and sicker population requiring more nurses.
Increased demand and capacity limitations for services for an aging population. Emerging health threats. Bioterrorism; obesity, mental health challenges; exploding health care costs;
highest rate of uninsured patients; rapid population growth; low immunization rate; challenges of border region; sharp health disparities; substance abuse. (Texas is at the 50th percentile of the national average in per capita public health expenditures; a goal would be to move the state to 75% of the national average by 2010.
Science and Technology
New cross-disciplinary research fields. Biological sciences, medicine, mathematics, and engineering –
new scientific fields will continue to raise critical policy issues, cloning and stem-cell research. Science workforce. Proposals and initiatives will continue to address the weakening of science/technology
education and the workforce. For example, the Association of American Universities recommends a comprehensive, multi-agency national defense education initiative be developed aimed at stemming national educational deficiencies and encouraging more U.S. students to study in critical fields of knowledge. AAU recommends that the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation – the federal agencies with primary responsibility for national security and scientific research and education – play a central role in the coordination of this initiative working closely with the Department of Education and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Ways of Doing Business Integrated global economy. Outsourcing is not limited to manufacturing and help centers. High value-
added services like education, tax preparation, medical diagnostics, and legal services are already going to India – could U.S. universities outsource research? Data collection?
Wireless access is on the rise; the market is likely to go over $200 million n the next three years; 79
percent of campuses have wireless networks. The convergence of wireless devices is speeding up, and eventually the U.S. will have to adopt global standards. Powerlines will be the way that people will get access into their houses; the rural-urban divide will disappear. Students are expecting more technical support for a range of devices they bring to and use on campus. Should campuses have “computer health insurance” plans for students?
51
The University of Texas System Office of Institutional Planning and Accountability
Collaborative research partnerships (government/university; business/university; university/university) will increase and become increasingly complex.
Compliance and legal issues, fueled by attention to corporate ethics, will continue to have a high profile:
hyperregulation; crisis management; real estate and construction; employment flexibility and faculty tenure and rank; entrepreneurial activities.
Human Resources Aging faculty. While the national population is aging as a whole, factors specific to academe magnify the
trend. Ten years have passed since Congress ended mandatory retirement. Many professors hired during the great expansion of academe in the 1960s and 70s are now reaching their golden years. And, because many people are living longer, and need financial resources to do so comfortably, more and more professors are delaying retirement, some of them indefinitely.”
Part-time faculty will be recruited increasingly to teach where numbers or background of regular faculty
do not match demand.
Fiscal and Capital Resources
Cost of doing business will increase; so will search for ways to save money. The cost of doing
business in U.S. higher education will continue to increase faster than the rest of the economy; the building boom will slow (money won’t go as far; state support will slacken); energy efficiency will return to the forefront as one way to control costs in new and aging buildings; sustainable and green design will become more cost-effective.
State and federal funding. State and federal funding for public higher education is likely to continue to
decline relative to funding of other major obligations. Financial aid. Increases have slowed in federal research funding; the amount available may actually be
cut in the 2006 budget. Institutions will compete even more for dwindling funds. Private philanthropy will be an increasingly important and strategic source of funding as state and
federal resources decline. Competition for private giving will increase; large campaigns will be announced by increasing numbers of campuses. Will contributions keep up with the need? They increased 3.4 percent in 2004, when most half of the $24.4 billion raised came directly from individuals, representing a 9.7 percent increase from the previous year. Alumni giving, the traditional base of higher education giving, increased only 2 percent, but gifts from individuals other than alumni shot up by 21.5 percent.
Debt financing. Tuition Revenue Bonds (TRBs) comprise approximately 10 percent of the UT System’s
five-year, $4.9 billion Capital Improvement Program and Permanent University Fund debt program have the highest possible credit ratings from each of the three major national rating agencies. The ability to utilize TRBs, and for the state to reimburse TRB debt service, will play a critical role in the ability of public universities in Texas to maintain their credit worthiness and to provide the capacity to expand facilities to meet growing demand.
Facility expansion. Based on demographic projections, the UT System estimates that by 2030, enrollment
in UT System academic institutions (except UT Austin) will increase by approximately 79,000 students by 2015 and by at least 116,000 students by 2030, if THECB enrollment targets to “close the gaps” are met. On average, each student will require 145 gross square feet of E&G space; the resulting space deficit is estimated at between 18 million to 27 million square feet of new E&G space by 2030, at a cost of $4 billion to as much as $7 billion.
IT investments. Spending on technology has begun to slow; productivity promises have arrived and
technology may not be able to contribute much more to efficiency of educational delivery; public institutions cannot continue to pour money into hardware.
52
April 3, 2005
It's a Flat World, After All By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
n 1492 Christopher Columbus set sail for India, going west. He had the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria. He never did find India, but he called the people he met ''Indians'' and came home and reported to his king and queen: ''The world is round.'' I set off for India 512 years later. I knew just which direction I was going. I went east. I had Lufthansa business class, and I came home and reported only to my wife and only in a whisper: ''The world is flat.''
And therein lies a tale of technology and geoeconomics that is fundamentally reshaping our lives -- much, much more quickly than many people realize. It all happened while we were sleeping, or rather while we were focused on 9/11, the dot-com bust and Enron -- which even prompted some to wonder whether globalization was over. Actually, just the opposite was true, which is why it's time to wake up and prepare ourselves for this flat world, because others already are, and there is no time to waste.
I wish I could say I saw it all coming. Alas, I encountered the flattening of the world quite by accident. It was in late February of last year, and I was visiting the Indian high-tech capital, Bangalore,
working on a documentary for the Discovery Times channel about outsourcing. In short order, I interviewed Indian entrepreneurs who wanted to prepare my taxes from Bangalore, read my X-rays from Bangalore, trace my lost luggage from Bangalore and write my new software from Bangalore. The longer I was there, the more upset I became -- upset at the realization that while I had been off covering the 9/11 wars, globalization had entered a whole new phase, and I had missed it. I guess the eureka moment came on a visit to the campus of Infosys Technologies, one of the crown jewels of the Indian outsourcing and software industry. Nandan Nilekani, the Infosys C.E.O., was showing me his global video-conference room, pointing with pride to a wall-size flat-screen TV, which he said was the biggest in Asia. Infosys, he explained, could hold a virtual meeting of the key players from its entire global supply chain for any project at any time on that supersize screen. So its American designers could be on the screen speaking with their Indian software writers and their Asian manufacturers all at once. That's what globalization is all about today, Nilekani said. Above the screen there were eight clocks that pretty well summed up the Infosys workday: 24/7/365. The clocks were labeled U.S. West, U.S. East, G.M.T., India, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia.
''Outsourcing is just one dimension of a much more fundamental thing happening today in the world,'' Nilekani explained. ''What happened over the last years is that there was a massive investment in technology, especially in the bubble era, when hundreds of millions of dollars were invested in putting broadband connectivity around the world, undersea cables, all those things.'' At the same time, he added, computers became cheaper and dispersed all over the world, and there was an explosion of e-mail software, search engines like Google
53
and proprietary software that can chop up any piece of work and send one part to Boston, one part to Bangalore and one part to Beijing, making it easy for anyone to do remote development. When all of these things suddenly came together around 2000, Nilekani said, they ''created a platform where intellectual work, intellectual capital, could be delivered from anywhere. It could be disaggregated, delivered, distributed, produced and put back together again -- and this gave a whole new degree of freedom to the way we do work, especially work of an intellectual nature. And what you are seeing in Bangalore today is really the culmination of all these things coming together.''
At one point, summing up the implications of all this, Nilekani uttered a phrase that rang in my ear. He said to me, ''Tom, the playing field is being leveled.'' He meant that countries like India were now able to compete equally for global knowledge work as never before -- and that America had better get ready for this. As I left the Infosys campus that evening and bounced along the potholed road back to Bangalore, I kept chewing on that phrase: ''The playing field is being leveled.''
''What Nandan is saying,'' I thought, ''is that the playing field is being flattened. Flattened? Flattened? My God, he's telling me the world is flat!''
Here I was in Bangalore -- more than 500 years after Columbus sailed over the horizon, looking for a shorter route to India using the rudimentary navigational technologies of his day, and returned safely to prove definitively that the world was round -- and one of India's smartest engineers, trained at his country's top technical institute and backed by the most modern technologies of his day, was telling me that the world was flat, as flat as that screen on which he can host a meeting of his whole global supply chain. Even more interesting, he was citing this development as a new milestone in human progress and a great opportunity for India and the world -- the fact that we had made our world flat!
This has been building for a long time. Globalization 1.0 (1492 to 1800) shrank the world from a size large to a size medium, and the dynamic force in that era was countries globalizing for resources and imperial conquest. Globalization 2.0 (1800 to 2000) shrank the world from a size medium to a size small, and it was spearheaded by companies globalizing for markets and labor. Globalization 3.0 (which started around 2000) is shrinking the world from a size small to a size tiny and flattening the playing field at the same time. And while the dynamic force in Globalization 1.0 was countries globalizing and the dynamic force in Globalization 2.0 was companies globalizing, the dynamic force in Globalization 3.0 -- the thing that gives it its unique character -- is individuals and small groups globalizing. Individuals must, and can, now ask: where do I fit into the global competition and opportunities of the day, and how can I, on my own, collaborate with others globally? But Globalization 3.0 not only differs from the previous eras in how it is shrinking and flattening the world and in how it is empowering individuals. It is also different in that Globalization 1.0 and 2.0 were driven primarily by European and American companies and countries. But going forward, this will be less and less true. Globalization 3.0 is not only going to be driven more by individuals but also by a much more diverse -- non-Western, nonwhite -- group of individuals. In Globalization 3.0, you are going to see every color of the human rainbow take part.
54
''Today, the most profound thing to me is the fact that a 14-year-old in Romania or Bangalore or the Soviet Union or Vietnam has all the information, all the tools, all the software easily available to apply knowledge however they want,'' said Marc Andreessen, a co-founder of Netscape and creator of the first commercial Internet browser. ''That is why I am sure the next Napster is going to come out of left field. As bioscience becomes more computational and less about wet labs and as all the genomic data becomes easily available on the Internet, at some point you will be able to design vaccines on your laptop.''
Andreessen is touching on the most exciting part of Globalization 3.0 and the flattening of the world: the fact that we are now in the process of connecting all the knowledge pools in the world together. We've tasted some of the downsides of that in the way that Osama bin Laden has connected terrorist knowledge pools together through his Qaeda network, not to mention the work of teenage hackers spinning off more and more lethal computer viruses that affect us all. But the upside is that by connecting all these knowledge pools we are on the cusp of an incredible new era of innovation, an era that will be driven from left field and right field, from West and East and from North and South. Only 30 years ago, if you had a choice of being born a B student in Boston or a genius in Bangalore or Beijing, you probably would have chosen Boston, because a genius in Beijing or Bangalore could not really take advantage of his or her talent. They could not plug and play globally. Not anymore. Not when the world is flat, and anyone with smarts, access to Google and a cheap wireless laptop can join the innovation fray.
When the world is flat, you can innovate without having to emigrate. This is going to get interesting. We are about to see creative destruction on steroids.
ow did the world get flattened, and how did it happen so fast?
It was a result of 10 events and forces that all came together during the 1990's and converged right around the year 2000. Let me go through them briefly. The first event was 11/9. That's right -- not 9/11, but 11/9. Nov. 9, 1989, is the day the Berlin Wall came down, which was critically important because it allowed us to think of the world as a single space. ''The Berlin Wall was not only a symbol of keeping people inside Germany; it was a way of preventing a kind of global view of our future,'' the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen said. And the wall went down just as the windows went up -- the breakthrough Microsoft Windows 3.0 operating system, which helped to flatten the playing field even more by creating a global computer interface, shipped six months after the wall fell.
The second key date was 8/9. Aug. 9, 1995, is the day Netscape went public, which did two important things. First, it brought the Internet alive by giving us the browser to display images and data stored on Web sites. Second, the Netscape stock offering triggered the dot-com boom, which triggered the dot-com bubble, which triggered the massive overinvestment of billions of dollars in fiber-optic telecommunications cable. That overinvestment, by companies like Global Crossing, resulted in the willy-nilly creation of a global undersea-underground fiber network, which in turn drove down the cost of transmitting voices, data and images to practically zero, which in turn accidentally made Boston, Bangalore and Beijing next-door neighbors overnight. In sum, what the Netscape revolution did was bring
55
people-to-people connectivity to a whole new level. Suddenly more people could connect with more other people from more different places in more different ways than ever before.
No country accidentally benefited more from the Netscape moment than India. ''India had no resources and no infrastructure,'' said Dinakar Singh, one of the most respected hedge-fund managers on Wall Street, whose parents earned doctoral degrees in biochemistry from the University of Delhi before emigrating to America. ''It produced people with quality and by quantity. But many of them rotted on the docks of India like vegetables. Only a relative few could get on ships and get out. Not anymore, because we built this ocean crosser, called fiber-optic cable. For decades you had to leave India to be a professional. Now you can plug into the world from India. You don't have to go to Yale and go to work for Goldman Sachs.'' India could never have afforded to pay for the bandwidth to connect brainy India with high-tech America, so American shareholders paid for it. Yes, crazy overinvestment can be good. The overinvestment in railroads turned out to be a great boon for the American economy. ''But the railroad overinvestment was confined to your own country and so, too, were the benefits,'' Singh said. In the case of the digital railroads, ''it was the foreigners who benefited.'' India got a free ride.
The first time this became apparent was when thousands of Indian engineers were enlisted to fix the Y2K -- the year 2000 -- computer bugs for companies from all over the world. (Y2K should be a national holiday in India. Call it ''Indian Interdependence Day,'' says Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign-policy analyst at Johns Hopkins.) The fact that the Y2K work could be outsourced to Indians was made possible by the first two flatteners, along with a third, which I call ''workflow.'' Workflow is shorthand for all the software applications, standards and electronic transmission pipes, like middleware, that connected all those computers and fiber-optic cable. To put it another way, if the Netscape moment connected people to people like never before, what the workflow revolution did was connect applications to applications so that people all over the world could work together in manipulating and shaping words, data and images on computers like never before.
Indeed, this breakthrough in people-to-people and application-to-application connectivity produced, in short order, six more flatteners -- six new ways in which individuals and companies could collaborate on work and share knowledge. One was ''outsourcing.'' When my software applications could connect seamlessly with all of your applications, it meant that all kinds of work -- from accounting to software-writing -- could be digitized, disaggregated and shifted to any place in the world where it could be done better and cheaper. The second was ''offshoring.'' I send my whole factory from Canton, Ohio, to Canton, China. The third was ''open-sourcing.'' I write the next operating system, Linux, using engineers collaborating together online and working for free. The fourth was ''insourcing.'' I let a company like UPS come inside my company and take over my whole logistics operation -- everything from filling my orders online to delivering my goods to repairing them for customers when they break. (People have no idea what UPS really does today. You'd be amazed!). The fifth was ''supply-chaining.'' This is Wal-Mart's specialty. I create a global supply chain down to the last atom of efficiency so that if I sell an item in Arkansas, another is immediately made in China. (If Wal-Mart were a country, it would be China's eighth-largest trading partner.) The
56
last new form of collaboration I call ''informing'' -- this is Google, Yahoo and MSN Search, which now allow anyone to collaborate with, and mine, unlimited data all by themselves.
So the first three flatteners created the new platform for collaboration, and the next six are the new forms of collaboration that flattened the world even more. The 10th flattener I call ''the steroids,'' and these are wireless access and voice over Internet protocol (VoIP). What the steroids do is turbocharge all these new forms of collaboration, so you can now do any one of them, from anywhere, with any device.
The world got flat when all 10 of these flatteners converged around the year 2000. This created a global, Web-enabled playing field that allows for multiple forms of collaboration on research and work in real time, without regard to geography, distance or, in the near future, even language. ''It is the creation of this platform, with these unique attributes, that is the truly important sustainable breakthrough that made what you call the flattening of the world possible,'' said Craig Mundie, the chief technical officer of Microsoft.
No, not everyone has access yet to this platform, but it is open now to more people in more places on more days in more ways than anything like it in history. Wherever you look today -- whether it is the world of journalism, with bloggers bringing down Dan Rather; the world of software, with the Linux code writers working in online forums for free to challenge Microsoft; or the world of business, where Indian and Chinese innovators are competing against and working with some of the most advanced Western multinationals -- hierarchies are being flattened and value is being created less and less within vertical silos and more and more through horizontal collaboration within companies, between companies and among individuals.
Do you recall ''the IT revolution'' that the business press has been pushing for the last 20 years? Sorry to tell you this, but that was just the prologue. The last 20 years were about forging, sharpening and distributing all the new tools to collaborate and connect. Now the real information revolution is about to begin as all the complementarities among these collaborative tools start to converge. One of those who first called this moment by its real name was Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard C.E.O., who in 2004 began to declare in her public speeches that the dot-com boom and bust were just ''the end of the beginning.'' The last 25 years in technology, Fiorina said, have just been ''the warm-up act.'' Now we are going into the main event, she said, ''and by the main event, I mean an era in which technology will truly transform every aspect of business, of government, of society, of life.''
s if this flattening wasn't enough, another convergence coincidentally occurred during the 1990's that was equally important. Some three billion people who were out of the game walked, and often ran, onto the playing field. I am talking about the people of China, India, Russia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Central Asia. Their economies and political systems all opened up during the course of the 1990's so that their people were increasingly free to join the free market. And when did these three billion people converge with the new playing field and the new business processes? Right when it was being flattened, right when millions of them could compete and collaborate more equally, more horizontally and with cheaper and more readily available tools. Indeed, thanks to the flattening of the world, many
57
of these new entrants didn't even have to leave home to participate. Thanks to the 10 flatteners, the playing field came to them!
It is this convergence -- of new players, on a new playing field, developing new processes for horizontal collaboration -- that I believe is the most important force shaping global economics and politics in the early 21st century. Sure, not all three billion can collaborate and compete. In fact, for most people the world is not yet flat at all. But even if we're talking about only 10 percent, that's 300 million people -- about twice the size of the American work force. And be advised: the Indians and Chinese are not racing us to the bottom. They are racing us to the top. What China's leaders really want is that the next generation of underwear and airplane wings not just be ''made in China'' but also be ''designed in China.'' And that is where things are heading. So in 30 years we will have gone from ''sold in China'' to ''made in China'' to ''designed in China'' to ''dreamed up in China'' -- or from China as collaborator with the worldwide manufacturers on nothing to China as a low-cost, high-quality, hyperefficient collaborator with worldwide manufacturers on everything. Ditto India. Said Craig Barrett, the C.E.O. of Intel, ''You don't bring three billion people into the world economy overnight without huge consequences, especially from three societies'' -- like India, China and Russia -- ''with rich educational heritages.''
That is why there is nothing that guarantees that Americans or Western Europeans will continue leading the way. These new players are stepping onto the playing field legacy free, meaning that many of them were so far behind that they can leap right into the new technologies without having to worry about all the sunken costs of old systems. It means that they can move very fast to adopt new, state-of-the-art technologies, which is why there are already more cellphones in use in China today than there are people in America.
If you want to appreciate the sort of challenge we are facing, let me share with you two conversations. One was with some of the Microsoft officials who were involved in setting up Microsoft's research center in Beijing, Microsoft Research Asia, which opened in 1998 -- after Microsoft sent teams to Chinese universities to administer I.Q. tests in order to recruit the best brains from China's 1.3 billion people. Out of the 2,000 top Chinese engineering and science students tested, Microsoft hired 20. They have a saying at Microsoft about their Asia center, which captures the intensity of competition it takes to win a job there and explains why it is already the most productive research team at Microsoft: ''Remember, in China, when you are one in a million, there are 1,300 other people just like you.''
The other is a conversation I had with Rajesh Rao, a young Indian entrepreneur who started an electronic-game company from Bangalore, which today owns the rights to Charlie Chaplin's image for mobile computer games. ''We can't relax,'' Rao said. ''I think in the case of the United States that is what happened a bit. Please look at me: I am from India. We have been at a very different level before in terms of technology and business. But once we saw we had an infrastructure that made the world a small place, we promptly tried to make the best use of it. We saw there were so many things we could do. We went ahead, and today what we are seeing is a result of that. There is no time to rest. That is gone. There are dozens of people who are doing the same thing you are doing, and they are trying to do it better. It is like water in a tray: you shake it, and it will find the path of least resistance. That is what is
58
going to happen to so many jobs -- they will go to that corner of the world where there is the least resistance and the most opportunity. If there is a skilled person in Timbuktu, he will get work if he knows how to access the rest of the world, which is quite easy today. You can make a Web site and have an e-mail address and you are up and running. And if you are able to demonstrate your work, using the same infrastructure, and if people are comfortable giving work to you and if you are diligent and clean in your transactions, then you are in business.''
Instead of complaining about outsourcing, Rao said, Americans and Western Europeans would ''be better off thinking about how you can raise your bar and raise yourselves into doing something better. Americans have consistently led in innovation over the last century. Americans whining -- we have never seen that before.''
ao is right. And it is time we got focused. As a person who grew up during the cold war, I'll always remember driving down the highway and listening to the radio, when suddenly the music would stop and a grim-voiced announcer would come on the air and say: ''This is a test. This station is conducting a test of the Emergency Broadcast System.'' And then there would be a 20-second high-pitched siren sound. Fortunately, we never had to live through a moment in the cold war when the announcer came on and said, ''This is a not a test.''
That, however, is exactly what I want to say here: ''This is not a test.''
The long-term opportunities and challenges that the flattening of the world puts before the United States are profound. Therefore, our ability to get by doing things the way we've been doing them -- which is to say not always enriching our secret sauce -- will not suffice any more. ''For a country as wealthy we are, it is amazing how little we are doing to enhance our natural competitiveness,'' says Dinakar Singh, the Indian-American hedge-fund manager. ''We are in a world that has a system that now allows convergence among many billions of people, and we had better step back and figure out what it means. It would be a nice coincidence if all the things that were true before were still true now, but there are quite a few things you actually need to do differently. You need to have a much more thoughtful national discussion.''
If this moment has any parallel in recent American history, it is the height of the cold war, around 1957, when the Soviet Union leapt ahead of America in the space race by putting up the Sputnik satellite. The main challenge then came from those who wanted to put up walls; the main challenge to America today comes from the fact that all the walls are being taken down and many other people can now compete and collaborate with us much more directly. The main challenge in that world was from those practicing extreme Communism, namely Russia, China and North Korea. The main challenge to America today is from those practicing extreme capitalism, namely China, India and South Korea. The main objective in that era was building a strong state, and the main objective in this era is building strong individuals.
Meeting the challenges of flatism requires as comprehensive, energetic and focused a response as did meeting the challenge of Communism. It requires a president who can summon the nation to work harder, get smarter, attract more young women and men to
59
science and engineering and build the broadband infrastructure, portable pensions and health care that will help every American become more employable in an age in which no one can guarantee you lifetime employment.
We have been slow to rise to the challenge of flatism, in contrast to Communism, maybe because flatism doesn't involve ICBM missiles aimed at our cities. Indeed, the hot line, which used to connect the Kremlin with the White House, has been replaced by the help line, which connects everyone in America to call centers in Bangalore. While the other end of the hot line might have had Leonid Brezhnev threatening nuclear war, the other end of the help line just has a soft voice eager to help you sort out your AOL bill or collaborate with you on a new piece of software. No, that voice has none of the menace of Nikita Khrushchev pounding a shoe on the table at the United Nations, and it has none of the sinister snarl of the bad guys in ''From Russia With Love.'' No, that voice on the help line just has a friendly Indian lilt that masks any sense of threat or challenge. It simply says: ''Hello, my name is Rajiv. Can I help you?''
No, Rajiv, actually you can't. When it comes to responding to the challenges of the flat world, there is no help line we can call. We have to dig into ourselves. We in America have all the basic economic and educational tools to do that. But we have not been improving those tools as much as we should. That is why we are in what Shirley Ann Jackson, the 2004 president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, calls a ''quiet crisis'' -- one that is slowly eating away at America's scientific and engineering base.
''If left unchecked,'' said Jackson, the first African-American woman to earn a Ph.D. in physics from M.I.T., ''this could challenge our pre-eminence and capacity to innovate.'' And it is our ability to constantly innovate new products, services and companies that has been the source of America's horn of plenty and steadily widening middle class for the last two centuries. This quiet crisis is a product of three gaps now plaguing American society. The first is an ''ambition gap.'' Compared with the young, energetic Indians and Chinese, too many Americans have gotten too lazy. As David Rothkopf, a former official in the Clinton Commerce Department, puts it, ''The real entitlement we need to get rid of is our sense of entitlement.'' Second, we have a serious numbers gap building. We are not producing enough engineers and scientists. We used to make up for that by importing them from India and China, but in a flat world, where people can now stay home and compete with us, and in a post-9/11 world, where we are insanely keeping out many of the first-round intellectual draft choices in the world for exaggerated security reasons, we can no longer cover the gap. That's a key reason companies are looking abroad. The numbers are not here. And finally we are developing an education gap. Here is the dirty little secret that no C.E.O. wants to tell you: they are not just outsourcing to save on salary. They are doing it because they can often get better-skilled and more productive people than their American workers.
These are some of the reasons that Bill Gates, the Microsoft chairman, warned the governors' conference in a Feb. 26 speech that American high-school education is ''obsolete.'' As Gates put it: ''When I compare our high schools to what I see when I'm traveling abroad, I am terrified for our work force of tomorrow. In math and science, our fourth graders are among
60
the top students in the world. By eighth grade, they're in the middle of the pack. By 12th grade, U.S. students are scoring near the bottom of all industrialized nations. . . . The percentage of a population with a college degree is important, but so are sheer numbers. In 2001, India graduated almost a million more students from college than the United States did. China graduates twice as many students with bachelor's degrees as the U.S., and they have six times as many graduates majoring in engineering. In the international competition to have the biggest and best supply of knowledge workers, America is falling behind.''
We need to get going immediately. It takes 15 years to train a good engineer, because, ladies and gentlemen, this really is rocket science. So parents, throw away the Game Boy, turn off the television and get your kids to work. There is no sugar-coating this: in a flat world, every individual is going to have to run a little faster if he or she wants to advance his or her standard of living. When I was growing up, my parents used to say to me, ''Tom, finish your dinner -- people in China are starving.'' But after sailing to the edges of the flat world for a year, I am now telling my own daughters, ''Girls, finish your homework -- people in China and India are starving for your jobs.''
I repeat, this is not a test. This is the beginning of a crisis that won't remain quiet for long. And as the Stanford economist Paul Romer so rightly says, ''A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.''
Thomas L. Friedman is the author of ''The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century,'' to be published this week by Farrar, Straus & Giroux and from which this article is adapted. His column appears on the Op-Ed page of The Times, and his television documentary ''Does Europe Hate Us?'' will be shown on the Discovery Channel on April 7 at 8 p.m.
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
INSERT SUB-TAB HERE
S.II.B. State Trends
State Innovation and Economic Development Indicators Principals of The Washington Advisory Group have emphasized the significant impact that higher education generally, and The University of Texas System specifically, can and should make on the economic well being and future of the State of Texas. This contribution should, in their view, help explain the critical role of state and public support of the UT System and its member institutions because. Without strong higher education science and engineering education and research programs, progress on these indicators will be difficult to achieve, and Texas risks losing more ground to other states. The WAG focused on a several somewhat overlapping groups of national indicators that illustrate how, in most respects, Texas lags behind many other states in terms of innovation, the science work force, and more. In their view,these differences clearly illustrate the distance between the state’s current status and its potential for growth and improvement in preparation of scientists and engineers, science and technology transfer, and business innovation. Generally, when trends are displayed in actual numbers, Texas ranks higher because of its size – for example, it ranked 3 in total academic R&D expenditures, and 4 in total R&D expenditures. However, when indicators are framed as ratios, its rankings are much lower – 23 in university R&D performed per $1,000 of GSP.
The Washington Advisory Group State Science, Innovation, and Economic Development Indicators
Texas Rank
Calif. Rank
Milken Institute, State Technology and Science Index - March 2004. This index is intended to identify the states that are more likely to bolster their economy through technology and science investments and business developments. It considers many factors separately, including technology concentration, science and technology workforce, human capital investment, risk capital and infrastructure, R&D inputs, and more. These are compiled into an overall index rating.
23 1 Overall Milken index rating. Texas has lost ground in this index; it was ranked 14 in 2002. Massachusetts ranked number in both years. California was ranked 3 in 2002, and 2 in 2004. Other states whose rankings increased from 2002 to 2004: Minnesota (up from 10 to 8); Rhode Island (up from 21 to 11), and New Mexico (from 20 to 14).
Technology Administration, Office of Technology Policy, State Science and Technology
Indicators, Fourth Edition This study uses 38 metrics to describe the science and technology infrastructure of individual states.
27 7 Industry-performed R&D per $1,000 of GSP [Gross State Product] 32 23 University-performed R&D per $1,000 of GSP 10 2 Amount of Venture Capital Funds Invested per $1,000 of GSP 24 7 Average Annual Number of SBIR Awards per 10,000 Businesses 34 22 Number of Business Incubators per 10,000 Business Establishments 38 3 Net Formations of High-technology Establishments per 10,000 Businesses 17 2 Average Annual Number of U.S. Patents Issued per 10,000 Businesses 16 1 Number of Technology Fast 500 Companies per 10,000 Businesses 14 8 Computer Specialists Employed per 10,000 Civilian Workers 25 16 Life and Physical Scientists Employed per 10,000 Civilian Workers 10 8 Engineers Employed per 10,000 Civilian Workers 22 6 Persons with a Recent Ph.D. in Science or Engineering per 10,000 Civilian Workers 20 6 Percent of Employment in High-technology NAICS Codes 27 14 Science and Engineering Graduate Students as a Percent of the 18-24 Population
85
Texas Rank
Calif. Rank
Progressive Policy Institute, The 2002 State New Economy Index. This index was created
in 1999 to measure the degree to which state economies were structured and operated according to the tenets of the New Economy. In 2002, the index was updated and now looks at 21 economic indicators to measure differences and assess states' progress as they adapt to the new economic order. The indicators focus on knowledge jobs, globalization, economic dynamism, and the digital economy, innovation capacity, and economic development strategies.
14 3 Overall score 12 9 Information Technology Jobs as a share of total jobs 12 5 Managerial, Professional, and Technical employees as a share of total workforce 43 28 Workforce Education (educational attainment of workforce, measured by degrees held) 5 3 Gazelle Jobs (companies with annual sales revenue that grew 20% or more for 4 years) 7 8 Job Churning (number of new start-ups and business failures as a share of all establishments) 16 3 Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) (value and number of IPOs as a share of GSP) 17 4 High-Tech Jobs (electronics, manufacturing, information technology, biomedical as share of total
employment) 30 10 Scientists and Engineers (as percentage of workforce) 15 5 Patents (issued to companies or individuals per 1,000 workers) 21 8 Industry Investment in R&D (as percentage of GSP) 14 2 Venture Capital (as percentage of GSP) National Science Foundation, Research and Development Expenditures 3 1 Academic Federal-funded R&D Expenditures FY 2003 3 1 Total Academic-Performed R&D Expenditures FY 2003 4 1 Total U.S. R&D Expenditures 2002 6 1 Total Industry-Performed R&D Expenditures FY 2001
Reinforcing the gaps these data reveal, THECB Commission Paredes has noted that California generates $2.95 billion in federal research expenditures, compared with $1.22 billion in Texas. And, Texas postsecondary institutions met only 35.7 percent of the state’s Closing the Gaps undergraduate technology degree target for 2005. Texas Emerging Technology Fund Priorities. In Texas, the Governor’s Emerging Technology Fund will help universities form partnerships with the private sector to bolster research capabilities and help start up companies transfer ideas to the marketplace. The Governor’s Blueprint for Economic Clusters brought business, government, community, and education sectors together to lay out strategies to improve in particular industries statewide and in particular regions. Cluster analysis and initiatives focus on six key areas:
advanced technologies and manufacturing; aerospace and defense; biotechnology and life sciences; energy; information and computer technology; and petroleum refining and chemical products.
For each cluster, groups have outlined specific market segments, needs, and strategies, in such areas as infrastructure development, workforce education, technology transfer, funding, and more.
86
State Demographic Trends These population trends are often cited and well known. They provide key context for the changes in scope and responsibilities of higher education in Texas.
2nd fastest growing state, 2000 to 2004 in numbers of people 4th fastest growing state, in terms of percent of population change 2000 to 2004, and proportion of growth has increased (was eighth for 1990 to 2000).
2nd largest state in population, between California and New York. Regional population change 2000 to 2004 was greatest in regions around the Metroplex, Houston, Austin, and South Texas.
3 in number of Anglos, 2 in number of Blacks and Hispanics. 60 percent of population growth is attributable to Hispanic residents 1990 – 2000. Median age in 2000 was 32.3; compared with 35.3 nationally. Median Anglo household income in 1999 was $47,162; $29,873 for Hispanics. Average household income will decline from $54,441 in 2000 to $47,883 (2000 $s). Ranked 45 by percent of high school graduates, 2000. Ranked 27 by percent of college graduates in 2000. In 2000, 30% of Anglos had a degree; 48.8% will in 2040. In 2000, 8.9% of Hispanics had a degree; in 2040, 18.0% will. By 2040, 12.9% of labor force is project to have a bachelor’s degree, a decline from 18.2% in 2000.
4.4% of the workforce will have a graduate/professional degree in 2040, down from 5.3 in 2000.
State Educational Trends The inevitably of demographic changes and their impact on the education pipeline in Texas was among the most often cited critical issue for the U. T. System. The educational pipeline. From a national perspective, Texas is ranked low on many indicators of educational access, progress, and success. From ninth grade to college graduation, is next to last (tied with New Mexico and Nevada) in numbers of students it loses in this pipeline. Of 100 Texas ninth graders:
62 graduate from high school on time (among 14 lowest in the country). 32 directly enter college (lowest in country, together with 4 other states). 19 persist to the sophomore year (third lowest country). 11 graduate within 150% time (approximately, 6 years) (among 4 lowest states). 24% of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher (among the 19 lowest states).
Texas higher education enrollment trends. Enrollment in Texas postsecondary institutions is going up, but much too slowly, according to THECB Commissioner Raymund Paredes. 67% of Texas postsecondary enrollment is in two-year colleges. Economically disadvantaged students are less likely to enroll in higher education. Enrollment in fall 2005 increased only 1.6 percent over the previous year, as reported by the THECB in October 2005.
At this rate, the state will not close the gaps in enrollment, as required by its master plan for higher education which targets 5.7 percent of the total state population by 2015.
Although the Hispanic population is growing faster than other groups, Hispanic enrollments are falling short. In fall 2005, enrollments (310,574) were 30,000 lower than the statewide goal, which would double the total number of Hispanic college students by 2015. An annual increase of 24,000 would be needed to reach the statewide goal.
87
Critical National Higher Education Trends Enrollment. These demographic issues are prevailing nationally, as well.
2009 is likely to be last year (of a 20-year cycle) in which the number of new high school graduates increases.
The College Board predicts that dips will not occur evenly across ethnic and racial groups, as they have in the past, because of the large projected increase in members of minority groups, particularly Latinos.
Nationally, if the current trend in education gaps continue, the proportion of the workforce with less than a high school diploma will increase, and the proportion with a higher level of education will decline.
Funding.
All states face potential deficits by 2013, and will have difficulty funding services. Tax revenue is not projected to grow as fast as the economy (less capital gains income; declining sales tax revenues because of increase in services and Internet business).
Spending will increase for Medicaid. Federal grants to state and local governments will decrease. These changes will create resource imbalances: Texas is projected to be among the 10 states with the largest fiscal shortfall as a percent of revenue.
Funding for higher education will not increase as much as for other state needs.
88
I n recent years, NCHEMS staff havebeen deeply involved in a variety ofprojects expressly designed to more
closely link higher education with themost critical needs of states and theircitizens. These projects include closecollaboration with the National Centerfor Public Policy and Higher Education(NCPPHE) on the development of thestate-by-state report card on highereducation (Measuring Up 2000 and2002), and intense involvement with aseries of states that have systematicallygone about the business of identifyingkey state priorities and revising policiesand state/higher education relationships in ways designed to foster improved performance. Among these states areNorth Dakota, Kentucky, Tennessee,and West Virginia. A collaborativeproject with the Education Commissionof the States (ECS) and NCPPHEensures that we will have similarlydeep involvement with at least fourmore states—and the number continuesto grow.
In the process of this work we’velearned a lot about both the formulation
and implementation of sound statepolicy. To date, however, the lessonslearned (sometimes painfully) areknown only to those of us who weredirectly involved in the learning experiences. Most of these lessonshave not been reduced to principles of good practice or otherwise docu-mented in ways that can help policymakers and analysts apply these lessons themselves.
Happily, the Ford Foundation has seenfit to provide NCHEMS with grantfunding that will allow (and force) usto synthesize what we’ve learned inour field work and reduce these lessonsto concepts that can be reviewed andtested by both academics and otherpractitioners of policy development andimplementation. We are extraordinarilyfortunate to be joined in this under-taking by colleagues at the Centerfor Higher Education Policy Studies(CHEPS) at the University of Twente,the Netherlands. CHEPS arguably hasthe largest faculty of Public Policy spe-cializing in higher education anywherein the world. They have studied highereducation issues in many countries andbring a broad set of experiences to thecollaborative endeavor. It is a verysymbiotic relationship; the CHEPSstaff bring theory and academic rigoras well as their experiences to theproject while NCHEMS brings con-ceptual skills and the experiences ofhaving been directly involved in theformulation and implementation ofpolicy.
As a result of the activities within thisproject, we will be producing:
• Conceptual views of the components of key higher education policies (finance, etc.).
• Documented principles of goodpractice in formulating andimplementing policies designedto systematically address keystate/county priorities.
• Tools for assessing theenvironment for policymakingand the conditions necessary forsuccessful initiatives.
• Case studies and other materialsexpressly designed for use in academic programs of public policy and in training seminars for practicing policy analysts.
This project—because of both its substance and the involvement of colleagues from around the world—is one of the most exciting activitiesin which NCHEMS has been involvedfor a long time.
Throughout, we will be emphasizing thecentral role of information in policy-making and the importance of policyintegration—arguing, for example, forlinking decisions about needs forimproved participation in the stateswith those dealing with institutionalfunding, tuition policy, and financialaid policy. An example of the creativeuse of information to draw attention to aset of linked policy issues can be foundon the NCHEMS National InformationCenter Website (www.higheredinfo.org)under the Special Analyses heading. Ifyou haven’t spent time exploring thissite, I encourage you to do so. It’s fullof information useful to policy analystswith widely varying interests and needs.
The main article in this issue illustratesusing data and information providedby the Center to identify, within states,the stages of the educational pipelinethat warrant the most policy attention.
Dennis JonesNCHEMS President
Vol. 20 - May 2003
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
NCHEMS
From the President
89
While there has been much written about dropout fromhigh school and student retention in college as separatephenomena, little conceptual or empirical work examineshow the two fit together. Thinking about this matter istimely for at least two reasons. First, the reform move-ment in standards-based education for K-12 educationis beginning to foster significant discussions about thetransition between high school and college in manystates—a policy agenda usually termed “K-16.” Stateslike Maryland, Kentucky, Oregon, and Oklahoma arecurrently heavily engaged in policy initiatives under thisbanner, aimed primarily at creating seamless transitionsbetween high school and postsecondary study throughbetter alignment of academic standards, dual enrollment,and advanced placement.
Second, state and national leaders also have a renewedinterest in enhancing educational attainment, not just froman educational perspective, but as a key social asset.Partly stimulated by such publications as Measuring Up(National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education,2000, 2002), governors and other policymakers areincreasingly viewing high levels of “educational capital”as key to the economic development of their states andthe quality of life of their citizens. High levels of attain-ment are related to higher incomes for individuals andthus to tax revenues and economic activity. Populationswith high levels of attainment also make fewer demandson expensive social services like welfare and corrections,while they indirectly save public resources throughimproved health and better lifestyle choices. Perhapsmost important, better educated individuals are able tonegotiate increasingly complex decisions about health care,personal finance, and retirement—choices that were oncemade for them by government or their employers.
Policy Objectives and Alternatives. Viewed from thestandpoint of educational capital, a principal policyobjective for any polity is to increase the number ofindividuals with high levels of relevant knowledge andskill among its citizens. Note first that this is a “stock”question, not simply a matter of high levels of production.Polities may experience increases in the number of
postsecondary degree winners but still be fallingbehind with respect to educational capital if theirgeneral populations are growing faster because they are experiencing net out-migration of educated citizens,or if growth is occurring disproportionately among particular groups. Note second that “high levels of relevant knowledge and skill” is not necessarily the sameas “high levels of educational (postsecondary) attain-ment.” For purposes of this paper, we use educationalattainment as a proxy for educational capital, but wereturn to this issue at the end of the paper to call forbetter direct measures of population ability levels.
Given this overall policy objective, moreover, there aretwo quite different avenues to accomplish it. The one thathas received the most attention—and the one we addresshere—is creating an effective “pipeline” for educationalattainment through an articulated system of schools andpostsecondary institutions within a particular state orpolity. Policymakers invest in schools and colleges becausethey expect that doing so will ultimately increase theirstock of educated citizens. But we know that populationmobility affects the pipeline at every stage. Potentialstudents may choose to attend college in another state.And after they finish, they may or may not come back.If they complete their baccalaureate studies in the statewhere they went to high school, enhanced opportunitiesassociated with collegiate attainment mean they have awider geographic choice of employment. This leads tothe second principal policy avenue to enhance educationalcapital: importing talent directly by creating an economyand quality of life that attracts people with high levels ofeducational attainment. Colorado, for instance, has highlevels of educational capital in terms of the collegiateattainment of its population, but is only a middling per-former with respect to the productivity of its educationalpipeline (see Figure 1). Both public policy and jobmarkets in particular occupations can thus considerablyinfluence the stock of educational capital in a state,independent of the effectiveness of its own educationalpipeline (Turner, Bound, Groen, and Kezdi 2001). Butmost observers agree that the most direct and reliablepolicy lever available to increase population levels of
Conceptualizing andResearching the
Educational Pipeline
90
educational attainment remains a productive, high-qualityeducational system.
Stages in the Educational Pipeline. From a conceptualstandpoint, a given polity’s educational pipeline can beconceived in terms of a series of successive transitions,each of which can be approximated using available statistics:
• Graduation from High School. Although mostchildren in the U.S. attend school through themiddle grades, we know that increasing numbers do not complete high school by the time they are nineteen. A first key transition measure istherefore the proportion of ninth graders in highschool who promptly attain a high school degree.
• Entry into Postsecondary Education. Unlike secondary school attendance, attending college is an elective decision. Rates of entry into post-secondary education are thus conditioned not onlyby such matters as postsecondary capacity andstudent preparation levels, but also by culturallyconditioned choices and perceived costs versus benefits. A second key transition measure is thus the proportion of recent high school graduates whoenter postsecondary education.
• Persistence in Postsecondary Education. We knowthat fewer than half of those entering postsecondaryeducation as first-time, full-time students in the U.S.complete a baccalaureate degree at the institutionthey entered within six years. Research also tells usthat, in general, the greatest point of attrition inpostsecondary enrollment is the first year of college(Tinto 1987). A third key transition measure istherefore the proportion of entering first-yearpostsecondary students who enroll for a secondyear of study.
• Completing Postsecondary Education. Althoughexperiencing some amount of college does result in economic benefit, we know that possession of a baccalaureate credential clearly delineatespopulations with respect to income (Carnevale andRose 1998). Thus a fourth key transition measure is the proportion of students enrolled in college who promptly earn a degree.
• Entering the Workforce. Because the principalpolicy objective in building an educational pipelineis to enhance the stock of educational capital, afinal consideration is the ultimate impact of suchinvestments on the workforce. A final key outcomemeasure is therefore the proportion of individualswith a college credential in the young working-agepopulation (aged 25-44).
Figure 1 presents one way to operationalize these conceptsusing available national cross-sectional data for states in theU.S. Proceeding from left to right, the table begins withan index of 100 for ninth grade enrollments and presentsindex scores constructed using these data by state for a) high school students graduating four years later, b) highschool graduates entering college, c) college startersreturning for their sophomore year, and d) college entrantscompleting a baccalaureate programs within six years.(Full definitions and data sources for each of these measuresare provided at the end of this article.) The table’s finalcolumn displays the resulting “educational capital” index,calculated in terms of the proportion of each state’s youngadult population with a baccalaureate degree.
Figure 2 presents most of these data in a somewhat different way, emphasizing the proportion of a givenstarting group of ninth graders lost at every transition pointin the educational pipeline. A number of conclusions areapparent from even a casual inspection of these data.First, differences among the overall yields of the educa-tional pipelines of different states vary widely. The highestoverall performers (Massachusetts and Iowa) are almostfive times as productive as the lowest performer (Alaska).And this is not just a phenomenon driven by a few extremecases: the average overall yield of the top quartile is abouttwice that of the bottom quartile. Second, states with thesame overall yield vary greatly in how they get there.Georgia, Oklahoma and Arkansas, for instance, are quiteclose in overall yield. Yet Georgia loses half its cohort ofninth graders before they graduate from high school, whileboth Oklahoma and Arkansas graduate well over 70% oftheir starting ninth graders—within a few percentage pointson this statistic of the top performer, Massachusetts. Topperformers, of course, tend to do well on all transitions.But it is clear that different states are, for one reason oranother, able to exert quite different degrees of policyleverage on each of these key transition points.
Figure 3 juxtaposes each state’s ability to produce collegegraduates—its educational pipeline results—against aneducational capital index. The influence of the economy is found at all levels of pipeline success. Note the verydifferent educational capital indices of Massachusettsversus Iowa, or Colorado versus Michigan, or Georgiaversus Arkansas. Both states in each of these pairingshave essentially the same degree production rates, butsubstantially different proportions of young adults holdingbaccalaureate or more advanced degrees. While thisanalysis does not directly account for migration amongcollege graduates, it suggests that states can yield a rela-tively high number of graduates who in turn migrate toother states with more vibrant economies (and vice versa).
Figure 4 displays the measures used to generate theeducational pipeline results and the original data sources.
91
Points of Leverage for Policy. While demographic andeconomic factors will undoubtedly have a lot to do withthe leverage that states and polities can exert to improvetransition rates at each stage of the pipeline, specificpolicy areas that can positively influence these rates can be identified conceptually (and, to some extent, havebeen sustained by research).
• High School Graduation. Policy areas that canpositively influence the conversion of large numbersof early high school students into graduates include:
3 Strategies to improve foundation skills throughrigorous course-taking in early grades—togetherwith early childhood intervention programs—targeted at ensuring that typical gaps in achieve-ment between low and high socio-economicstatus (SES) children that begin to occur in themid-elementary grades do not develop.
3 Parental, employer, and community involvementstrategies designed to reinforce the message thatgraduation from high school is important.
3 Financial equalization policies to ensure thatlow-income (high dropout) school districts havesufficient resources to mount challenging anddiverse curricula and appropriate support services.
• Entry into College. Policy areas that can positivelyinfluence college access by high school graduatesinclude:
3 Affordability strategies such as low levels ofpublic college tuition in relation to the medianincome of the state’s poorest citizens and heavyinvestment in need-based financial aid that can be utilized by students enrolled in both public and independent institutions.
3 Structural aspects of a state’s higher educationsystem such as the existence of a high capacityopen-entry two-year college system with readygeographic access to transfer institutions, oroptions that can speed the transition from highschool to college like dual enrollment oradvanced placement.
3 Rigorous high school course-taking and betteralignment between high school exit standards and college entrance or placement requirements.
• Persistence and Graduation from College. Policyareas that are likely to be of importance in promotingthe collegiate portion of the educational pipelineinclude:
3 First-year programs, learning communities, andacademic support programs tailored to the needsof individual learners.
3 “Intensive” enrollment in foundation courseworkin the student’s first years of college study(Adelman 1999).
3 Schedule responsive to the needs of students.
3 Continuing attention to affordability throughlow tuition, need-based aid, and especially theavoidance of high debt burden.
3 Effective transfer arrangements between two-yearand four-year institutions that allow students toprogress without loss of time or academic credit.
To at least some extent, these are things that polities caninfluence through policy. But up to now in the U.S.,different policy choices have been made in differentregions of the pipeline. Positive changes in the perform-ances of most states on Measuring Up between 2000 and 2002, for example, were noticeable in the area ofPreparation, but were generally negligible in Access andProgress (NCPPHE 2002). While not true of all states, thissurely reflects the substantial, deliberate, and sustainedpolicy attention given to K-12 improvement in many states.
Some Cautions About Attainment. In this paper, educational capital has been operationalized in terms ofeducational attainment. But it is important to emphasizethat levels of educational attainment are only proxies forthe underlying variable of interest: the actual stock ofknowledge and abilities possessed by graduates.
Certainly, the assumption of high correlations betweencredentials and abilities is a reasonable one. Incomes trackwell with attainment levels, as do job classifications. Butdoubts about the actual quality of the credentials awardedare both widespread and growing. In K-12, this has beenmanifest in the increasing incidence of competency-basedexit testing for high school graduates. In postsecondaryeducation there is a growing movement to credentialgraduates in various professional and technical fields.Publications like Measuring Up 2002, meanwhile, arecalling for the eventual establishment of a collegiateequivalent of the National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP), and propose intermediate steps toassess collegiate learning that rely on existing measures.
More immediately, the traditional correspondencebetween levels of enrollment and levels of learning arebeginning to blur. Many high school students now takeAP courses or are enrolling directly in college throughdual-enrollment programs. Meanwhile, steadily risingnumbers of students enter postsecondary education only to take a full load of remedial courses that are high schoollevel at best. Such overlaps between the various stages ofthe educational pipeline mean that it is no longer safe toassume that students who are behaviorally at a particular
4 • NCHEMS News • May 200392
stage represent equivalent levels of academic achievement.At the same time, the traditional linear pipeline based onreasonably prompt and successive stages of enrollment atincreasingly higher levels is less prevalent than it oncewas. Aggressive action in adult literacy in some states is increasing the number of GEDs among older popu-lations, rendering them ready for further technical orpostsecondary study. And postsecondary study itself isincreasingly characterized by longer times to degree anda growing trend toward stop-out and re-entry. Badlyneeded, therefore, is information about the achievementpipeline—data that would reflect the acquisition ofknowledge and skills at or above standard levels forbenchmarks like graduation from high school, “grade 14,”and graduation from college. In the absence of suchinformation, leveraging the traditional pipeline of credential-based attainment remains the best availableoption for valuing the educational capital within a state or polity. But it is important for both policymakers andanalysts to keep these increasingly salient caveats in mind.
Conclusions. This brief conceptual and empirical treatment of the educational pipeline suggests a number of conclusions:
• If the policy objective is to increase the stock ofeducational capital in a given polity, looking at the ladder of educational attainment as a singlelongitudinal phenomenon, composed of key transition points in both secondary and post-secondary education, can pay substantial dividendsfor policy.
• Examined in “pipeline” terms, the fifty U.S. statesexhibit strikingly varied patterns of attainment.Different states perform differently at differentstages, and changes in performance historically cor-respond to both changes in policy and to particularfeatures of each state’s approach to educationalorganization and delivery. This suggests stronglythat policy matters and that different kinds ofpolicies used in combination will have the greatestimpact.
• Stocks of educational capital can be increased inways other than just increasing throughput in theeducational pipeline. Geographic mobility meansthat polities that are able to create and maintainvital economies will attract college graduates,while the lack of such opportunities may meanthat those with a productive pipeline will simplylose their graduates through out-migration.
• Earned credentials are only a proxy for actuallevels of advanced knowledge and skill. Directmeasures of the latter are increasingly in demandand should be pursued. Growing overlaps betweenparticular stages in the traditional educational
pipeline meanwhile complicate the analysis ofstudent progression and underline the need forsolid and widespread measures of academicachievement.
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity,Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment.Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research andImprovement, U.S. Department of Education, 1999.
Carnevale, A. P. and Rose, S. J. Education for What? The New Office Economy. Princeton, NJ: EducationalTesting Service (ETS), 1998.
National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education.Measuring Up: The State-by State Report Card forHigher Education. San Jose, CA: National Center forPublic Policy in Higher Education, 2000, 2002.
Tinto, V. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes andCures of Student Attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Turner, S. E.; Bound, J.; Groen, J; and Kezdi, G. Trade in University Training: Cross-State Variation in theProduction and Use of College-Educated Labor. NBER Working Paper #8555, 2001.www.papers.nber.org/papers/W8555
DATA SOURCES
Public High School Graduation Rates: Tom Mortenson,Postsecondary Opportunity—9th graders graduating fromhigh school four years later, 2000—number of public highschool graduates divided by the number of 9th gradersfour years earlier. (NCES Common Core Data)
College-Going Rates: Tom Mortenson, PostsecondaryOpportunity and National Center for Education Statistics,IPEDS Residency and Migration File—number of fallfirst-time freshmen enrolling anywhere in the U.S. dividedby the total number of high school graduates, 2000.
First-Year Retention Rates: ACT Institutional Survey,2001—two-year and four-year colleges. Percent of fallfull-time, first-time freshmen enrolling the following fallsemester.
Graduation Rates: NCES, IPEDS Graduation RateSurvey, 2000—percent of full-time associate andbaccalaureate students graduating with 150 percent of time. (3 years and 6 years)
NCHEMS News • May 20•93
Figure 1Of 100 Graduate from Directly Are Still Graduate Percent of Population
Ninth Graders, High School Enter Enrolled Their Within 25-44 with Bachelor’sState How Many... On Time? College? Sophomore Year? 150% Time? Degree or Higher, 2000Massachusetts 100 75 52 41 28 38.8Iowa 100 83 54 37 28 25.0Pennsylvania 100 75 46 36 27 26.7New Hampshire 100 74 44 34 27 30.1Rhode Island 100 70 46 37 26 28.5Connecticut 100 77 48 37 26 34.9Minnesota 100 84 53 38 25 31.7New Jersey 100 86 55 40 24 34.1North Dakota 100 84 58 42 24 26.4Maine 100 77 42 31 23 23.5Nebraska 100 84 50 38 22 27.6Wisconsin 100 78 45 33 22 25.4South Dakota 100 74 47 31 22 24.8Kansas 100 74 50 32 22 28.9Vermont 100 79 36 28 21 29.9Indiana 100 68 41 30 21 22.1Virginia 100 74 39 30 20 32.1Delaware 100 61 36 28 19 27.7Illinois 100 71 43 29 19 30.1Missouri 100 73 39 27 18 25.0New York 100 59 37 28 18 31.0Colorado 100 71 37 26 18 34.1Wyoming 100 75 39 NA 18 21.6Michigan 100 69 40 28 18 24.2North Carolina 100 59 38 28 18 25.4Maryland 100 73 40 30 18 33.8Ohio 100 70 39 28 17 24.2California 100 69 33 22 17 26.7Montana 100 78 42 28 17 25.5Utah 100 84 32 21 16 25.8Washington 100 71 32 22 16 28.5West Virginia 100 75 39 27 15 16.6Oregon 100 67 34 23 15 25.8Florida 100 55 32 23 14 23.5Arizona 100 59 30 18 14 23.4South Carolina 100 51 34 23 14 21.8Idaho 100 77 34 23 14 22.0Tennessee 100 55 34 23 14 22.1Alabama 100 59 34 23 13 21.3Kentucky 100 66 39 25 13 19.4Hawaii 100 64 38 22 13 27.3Mississippi 100 56 36 23 13 17.8Arkansas 100 74 39 26 12 18.2Louisiana 100 56 33 22 12 19.8Oklahoma 100 73 36 23 12 21.3Georgia 100 52 32 21 12 26.9New Mexico 100 60 36 22 11 21.2Texas 100 62 32 19 11 24.0Nevada 100 69 28 19 11 17.6Alaska 100 62 28 NA 6 22.2United States 100 67 38 26 18 26.7
6 • NCHEMS News • May 200394
2517
2526
3123
1614
1623
1622
2626
2132
2639
2927
4130
2531
4127
3031
2216
2925
3345
4149
2345
4134
3644
2644
2748
4038
3138
2329
2930
2429
3031
2635
343327
2443
2735
242934
2133
3628
2033
3136
3652
3936
3323
3017
4221
252726
2035
2337
212529
4135
2325
1917
2022
2831
3518
2722
2529
142019
1724
201919
2122
202222
1626
1616
2420
1715
20212121
2626
2327
2124
2024
2217
21
Figure 2Of 100 9th Graders—Loss at Each Stage of Transition (2000)
282827272626252424232222222221212019191818181818181817171716161515141414141413131313121212121111116
NCHEMS News • May 2003 • 7
MassachusettsIowa
PennsylvaniaNew Hampshire
Rhode IslandConnecticut
MinnesotaNew Jersey
North DakotaMaine
NebraskaWisconsin
South DakotaKansas
VermontIndianaVirginia
DelawareIllinois
MissouriNew YorkColoradoWyomingMichigan
North CarolinaMaryland
OhioCaliforniaMontana
UtahWashington
West VirginiaOregonFlorida
ArizonaSouth Carolina
IdahoTennessee
AlabamaKentucky
HawaiiMississippi
ArkansasLouisianaOklahoma
GeorgiaNew Mexico
TexasNevadaAlaska
9th to 12th gradeCollege
Graduates
High School Graduate to College College Entrance to Graduation
0 20 40 60 80 100
95
40
30
20
100 7.5 15 22.5 30
EducationalCapitalPercent ofPopulation 25-44with a Bachelor’sDegree or Higher,2000
Figure 3States’ Ability to Produce Graduates vs.
Ability to Keep and Attract Graduates
8 • NCHEMS News • May 2003
Student PipelineOf 100 9th Graders, the number: Graduating from High School Within 4 Years, Going Directly to College,Returning Their Second Year, and Completing College Within 150 Percent of Degree Time.
RegressionLine
MA
COMD
NY
WA
HIGA
TX
AK
NV
NM OK AL
LAAR MS
KY
WV
WYSC
TNID
AZFL
OR UTCAMTOH MI
NCMO
US
INME
SDWI ND PA
IA
RI
NH
MN
NJCT
VT
DE
IL
NEKS
VA
96
Figure 4Student Pipeline Sources, 2000
AL 58.9 58.0 19,207 8,147 70.2 29.8 48.5 73.7 21.9 46.2AK 62.3 44.3 1,648 29 98.3 1.7 NA NA 33.0 22.3AZ 59.3 50.0 14,453 9,422 60.5 39.5 48.0 71.7 47.6 49.6AR 73.6 52.9 11,895 3,943 75.1 24.9 55.0 70.3 20.2 34.7CA 68.7 47.7 85,943 73,424 53.9 46.1 47.6 84.3 43.0 58.7CO 70.5 52.8 21,126 3,228 86.7 13.3 46.8 74.9 38.4 50.9CT 77.0 62.2 16,159 3,454 82.4 17.6 47.8 82.8 23.7 59.7DE 60.7 59.9 4,588 979 82.4 17.6 47.8 82.6 12.9 61.3FL 55.2 57.5 41,688 32,555 56.2 43.8 62.7 78.8 35.8 53.4GA 52.3 60.4 29,219 12,004 70.9 29.1 55.0 72.7 26.6 41.1HI 64.2 59.8 2,630 3,588 42.3 57.7 43.9 72.6 22.9 45.8ID 76.9 44.8 4,545 2,824 61.7 38.3 NA 67.1 42.5 37.2IL 71.1 59.8 42,378 24,710 63.2 36.8 51.6 76.1 25.2 56.0IN 68.2 60.0 38,034 4,683 89.0 11.0 46.1 76.9 26.6 54.2IA 83.0 64.5 17,407 9,780 64.0 36.0 48.2 81.2 36.7 61.2KS 74.4 67.5 13,263 8,997 59.6 40.4 50.6 72.8 35.1 48.3KY 65.8 58.7 17,744 7,709 69.7 30.3 51.4 70.8 21.4 39.3LA 56.2 59.2 24,714 4,373 85.0 15.0 42.8 69.1 45.3 34.5ME 76.6 54.3 5,778 980 85.5 14.5 62.9 76.3 49.9 56.7MD 73.3 54.7 17,774 8,981 66.4 33.6 57.7 82.5 13.3 60.6MA 74.8 69.0 41,105 9,988 80.5 19.5 57.6 83.6 19.5 63.4MI 68.7 58.7 39,762 15,708 71.7 28.3 49.3 77.6 18.2 56.1MN 83.7 63.9 23,300 14,065 62.4 37.6 55.3 79.7 35.3 53.9MS 56.0 63.4 8,642 10,908 44.2 55.8 57.9 74.2 26.9 45.7MO 73.0 53.4 24,626 9,135 72.9 27.1 53.9 75.1 40.6 50.0MT 78.1 54.4 4,902 778 86.3 13.7 NA 66.6 34.4 40.0NE 83.8 59.3 10,325 3,117 76.8 23.2 52.4 75.6 41.0 46.4NV 68.8 40.3 4,207 1,372 75.4 24.6 49.3 75.3 31.7 41.3NH 73.9 59.0 7,727 931 89.2 10.8 66.7 80.2 43.5 64.2NJ 86.1 63.6 22,109 13,085 62.8 37.2 59.8 81.1 15.3 59.7NM 60.3 58.9 6,128 4,198 59.3 40.7 52.1 68.6 19.6 39.5NY 58.6 63.9 84,414 23,739 78.1 21.9 62.6 78.3 28.3 54.9NC 58.7 65.4 35,833 14,631 71.0 29.0 51.0 80.4 21.4 57.2ND 84.1 69.4 5,232 2,098 71.4 28.6 NA 72.6 30.7 44.2OH 69.6 56.1 55,209 14,329 79.4 20.6 55.5 75.2 21.1 50.9OK 72.8 49.7 14,056 6,310 69.0 31.0 46.8 71.0 22.3 37.6OR 67.4 51.1 11,126 5,573 66.6 33.4 39.9 78.9 23.1 51.7PA 74.9 61.5 71,972 19,204 78.9 21.1 60.8 82.2 45.9 62.3RI 69.5 65.9 10,076 1,747 85.2 14.8 NA 80.9 11.0 65.4SC 51.0 66.3 16,823 8,626 66.1 33.9 52.5 77.4 17.2 53.0SD 74.2 64.0 5,192 964 84.3 15.7 NA 65.1 63.8 43.5TN 54.8 62.2 22,909 10,336 68.9 31.1 54.3 72.8 23.8 46.8TX 61.9 52.5 64,582 47,832 57.5 42.5 40.8 74.0 15.8 46.4UT 83.9 38.1 13,429 3,368 79.9 20.1 39.6 72.8 38.8 52.3VT 78.7 45.3 5,100 21 99.6 0.4 NA 77.3 39.2 60.0VA 73.9 53.1 32,774 7,556 81.3 18.7 54.8 81.8 21.9 58.7WA 70.8 44.6 16,033 9,303 63.3 36.7 48.6 83.1 30.0 60.4WV 74.8 52.4 11,476 1,035 91.7 8.3 51.8 71.8 42.4 38.5WI 78.0 57.2 28,865 8,513 77.2 22.8 49.6 80.5 34.5 54.5WY 75.0 52.2 1,274 2,145 37.3 62.7 55.2 76.0 43.6 52.1US 67.1 56.7 1,135,919 494,425 69.7 30.3 54.1 74.1 30.0 53.0
First-Time F
reshm
en 1 Y
r.
from HS—
2-Yr. C
olleges
(NCES, IPEDS 20
00)
NCHEMS News • May 2003 • 9
STATEGrad
uation
Rate (%
), 4-Yr.
Colleges
—After
6 Yrs.
(2000
IPEDS GRS)
Graduat
ion Rate
(%), 2
-Yr.
Colleges
—After
3 Yrs.
(2000
IPEDS GRS)
% Freshm
en at 4
-Yr. Colle
ges
Returnin
g Thei
r Soph
omore
Year
(ACT 2001)
% Freshm
en at 2
-Yr. Colle
ges
Returnin
g Thei
r Soph
omore
Year
(ACT 2001)
% Two-Y
ear
% Four-YearFirst
-Time Fres
hmen
1 Yr.
from HS—
4-Yr. C
olleges
(NCES, IPEDS 20
00)
College-
Going R
ate (%
), 2000
(NCES)HS Graduat
ion Rate
(%)—
9th Grad
ers Grad
uating
4 Yrs.
Later,
2000 (N
CES)
97
Higher Education Information Website
The National Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis, created by NCHEMS, is the only comprehensive state-level data and information infrastructure for higher education policymaking. The website:
• Provides a broad coverage of state and county level data and information regarding the preparationfor college, the transition from high school to college, college participation and completion, thebenefits of higher education, employment, higher education finance, and other useful information.
• Enables policymakers and analysts to quickly and easily compare their states to others across the U.S.and, where possible, analyze data by county so they can identify problem areas within their borders.
• Provides access to textual information that helps the user interpret the data and apply the informationin the context of policymaking.
www.higheredinfo.org
Data
VT
NH
ME
RIMACT
NJ
DEMD
WA
OR
ID
MT
WY
NV
CA
UT
AZ
CO
NM
KS
OK
MO
AR
TXLA
MS
IL
ND
SD
MN
WI
IANE
MI
INOH
WV
PA
NY
VA
KY
NCTN
ALGA
SC
FL
AK
HI
14.8 to 21.5%21.6 to 23.5%23.6 to 26.6%26.7 to 33.2%
Source: US Census Bureau
US Avg. = 24.4%
Adults with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher25 and Older with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher - 2000
• Click on any state for county-level data.
Graph Map Policy Implications DefinitionsDataMap
Copyright © 2002 The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. All Rights Reserved
Benefits: Adults with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
Policy Questions Supporting InfoSpecial Analyses Data & MapsHome About Us Contact Us
Choose Submeasure: For the Year:
State Rankings County Rankings About This Measure25 and Older with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 2000How is Your
State Doing?
Also See:Measuring Up:The State-By-State Report Card
Preparation
Participation
Affordability
Student Learning
Completion
Benefits
Employment
Finance
Crosscutting Info
10 • NCHEMS News • May 200398
NCHEMS News • May 2003 • 11
Name ________________________________________________________ Title _____________________________________________
Institution _____________________________________________________ Department _______________________________________
City _________________________________ State _______________ Zip ______________ Email_____________________________
Return to: NCHEMS Publications, P.O. Box 9752, Boulder, CO 80301-9752 Federal ID #74-1894594
Please send me _______ copies at $50.00 $__________
Less $5.00 for NCHEMS members) $ __________
Shipping Fee ($6.00 per Toolkit) $ __________
TOTAL $ __________
Please send me information about NCHEMS Membership.
Payment enclosed (please make checks payable to NCHEMS)
Charge institutional purchase order # _________________ (enclose with order form)
Credit card: Visa MasterCard American Express
Account No.________________________________ Exp. Date_____/_____
Signature________________________________________________
The Toolkit includes:
The Technical Manual: designed for use bytechnical personnel who will be conductingthe data audit and associated analyses;administrators who want more in-depthinformation about the data audit may alsobe interested in this document.
The Administrative Rationale: designed foradministrators who need to know the basicpremise and general overview of the dataaudit process in order to champion it oncampus.
A CD-ROM which contains the completeTechnical Manual, including all data elementlists and the standard reporting templatesfor the Data Audit and Analysis.
A 3-ring binder containing the manualsand the CD-ROM. The Technical Manual is presented in a 3-ring binder to enablethe standard templates to be easily copiedand used.
The Data Audit and Analysis Toolkit is intended to help those responsible for planningand implementing first-year programs and services better understand the studentexperience during this critical period.
The idea for the Toolkit grew out of a strong conviction that colleges and universities typically "don't knowwhat they know" about the first year of college. Most institutions have a lot of data about first year students.
But these data are frequently collected by different offices for different purposes and are not usually harnessed inmeaningful ways by faculty and staff to paint a comprehensive picture of what is happening to first year students.
The Toolkit provides a process by which institutions can identify and use information resources to enhance theexperiences and outcomes of first-year students.
All colleges and universities should consider conducting a data audit with regard to the first year of college inorder to accurately assess the implementation and impact of the first year on students, faculty, and staff. If aninstitution chooses, data audits can be expanded to includethe entire institution and data about students at all levels.
The Data Audit and Analysis Project was a joint effort of thePolicy Center on the First Year of College, located at BrevardCollege, NC, and the National Center for Higher EducationManagement Systems (NCHEMS), and was generouslysupported by grants from The Atlantic Philanthropies andThe Pew Charitable Trusts.
Mike Siegel, Research Associate, Policy Center on the First Year of College Co-coordinator of project
Karen Paulson, Senior Associate,NCHEMS Co-coordinator of project and leadauthor
A Data Audit and Analysis Toolkit To Support Assessment of the First College Year
NCHEMS Publications, P.O. Box 9752, Boulder, CO 80301-9752 Call: 303-497-0390 Fax: 303-497-0338 www.nchems.org
A Data Audit and Analysis Toolkit To SupportAssessment of the First College Year
99
NCHEMS Membership BenefitsMembership provides your institution with access to NCHEMS products and services at a considerable savings. Members receive a 10 percent discount on:
• All publications, including Questionnaires and Analysis Services for the Student Outcomes Information Services (SOIS), the Comprehensive AlumniAssessment Survey (CAAS), and the Institutional Performance Survey (IPS)service.
• All standard non-customized Information Services reports.
NCHEMS Membership FormName of Organization as you wish it to be listed on the NCHEMS Membership Roster: ___________________________________________
Your Liaison Officer to NCHEMS:
Name__________________________________________________________________
Position________________________________________________________________
Address_____________________________________________________________
City_______________________________ State___________ Zip________________
Phone______________________________ Fax_______________________________
Email__________________________________________________________________
Membership Fee: $300(one-year membership from date of enrollment)
I wish to subscribe to the NCHEMS Membership Program. A check or purchase orderis enclosed for our annual membership fee. The individual designated as the NCHEMSLiaison Officer will represent our organization with respect to the NCHEMSMembership Program.
Date____________________ Signature______________________________________(Authorized Official)
Return to: NCHEMS President’s Office, P.O. Box 9752, Boulder, CO 80301-9752Phone: (303) 497-0301 Fax: (303) 497-0338
Federal ID # 74-1894594
Who is Eligible forNCHEMS
Membership Programand
How It Works
All institutions, state agenciesof higher education, andsystems offices are eligiblefor NCHEMS membership.Each campus in a systemmust join in order to realizethe membership benefits.
The key to the NCHEMSnetwork is your own liaisonofficer. Each member organi-zation appoints an individualwho coordinates communica-tion with NCHEMS. Thisindividual can also serve asthe hub of your own internalnetwork of department chairs,deans, administrators, andexecutives.
Because the NCHEMSSubscribing MembershipProgram provides benefits notjust for one individual but foryour entire organization, yourliaison officer can ensure thatfull use is made of discountson NCHEMS publications,products, and services. Theliaison officer is also a vitallink in communicating yourinstitution’s needs and interests to NCHEMS.
National Center for Higher Education Management SystemsP.O. Box 9752 • Boulder, Colorado 80301-9752
NON-PROFITORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGEP A I D
BOULDER, COPERMIT NO. 22
100
The TThe TThe TThe TThe Teeeeexxxxxas Higher Educationas Higher Educationas Higher Educationas Higher Educationas Higher EducationCoorCoorCoorCoorCoordinating Boardinating Boardinating Boardinating Boardinating Boarddddd
pr pr pr pr presentsesentsesentsesentsesents
In association with
NNNNNooooovvvvvember 8, 2005ember 8, 2005ember 8, 2005ember 8, 2005ember 8, 20051:30 - 2:45 PM CT1:30 - 2:45 PM CT1:30 - 2:45 PM CT1:30 - 2:45 PM CT1:30 - 2:45 PM CT
TTTTTeeeeexxxxxas Demogas Demogas Demogas Demogas Demogrrrrraphicsaphicsaphicsaphicsaphicsand Their Efand Their Efand Their Efand Their Efand Their Effffffects Uects Uects Uects Uects Uponponponponpon
Public and Higher Education:Public and Higher Education:Public and Higher Education:Public and Higher Education:Public and Higher Education:2005 R2005 R2005 R2005 R2005 Reporeporeporeporeporttttt
PPPPParararararticipant Pticipant Pticipant Pticipant Pticipant Pacacacacackkkkkeeeeettttt
TTTTTeeeeexxxxxas Demogas Demogas Demogas Demogas Demogrrrrraphicsaphicsaphicsaphicsaphicsand Their Efand Their Efand Their Efand Their Efand Their Effffffects Uects Uects Uects Uects Uponponponponpon
Public and Higher Education:Public and Higher Education:Public and Higher Education:Public and Higher Education:Public and Higher Education:2005 R2005 R2005 R2005 R2005 Reporeporeporeporeporttttt
NNNNNooooovvvvvember 8, 2005ember 8, 2005ember 8, 2005ember 8, 2005ember 8, 20051:30 - 2:45 PM CT1:30 - 2:45 PM CT1:30 - 2:45 PM CT1:30 - 2:45 PM CT1:30 - 2:45 PM CT
101
“Texas Demographics and Their Effects Upon Public and Higher Education” 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Agenda ........................................................................................................................... 3
Presenters and Moderator .............................................................................................. 4
Steve Murdock’s Presentation Materials .......................................................................... 5
Raymund Paredes’ Presentation Materials .................................................................... 36
Upcoming STARLINK Programs ................................................................................... 43
Evaluation Form ............................................................................................................ 44
102
“Texas Demographics and Their Effects Upon Public and Higher Education” 3
AGENDA
Introduction.............................................................................................. ...........David GardnerAssociate Commissioner, THECB
Current Texas Demagraphics ........................................................................... Steve MurdockTexas State Demographer
K-12 Perspective .............................................................................................. Shirley Neeley Commissioner of Education, Texas Education Association
Higher Education Perspective .................................................................... Raymund Paredes Commissioner of Higher Education, THECB
General Discussion ........................................................................................................ Panel
Close ............................................................................................................... David Gardner
103
“Texas Demographics and Their Effects Upon Public and Higher Education” 4
Dr. Steve Murdock holds the Lutcher Brown Distinguished Chair inManagement Science and Statistics at the University of Texas, San Antonio.Dr. Murdock, who was appointed the official state demographer of Texas byGovernor Rick Perry, holds a doctorate in demography and sociology fromthe University of Kentucky. He is the author of 10 books and more than 150articles and technical reports on the implications of current and future demo-graphic and socioeconomic change.Institute for Demographic and Socioeconomic ResearchOffice of the State Demographer, Texas State Data CenterThe University of Texas at San Antonio6900 North Loop 1604 WestSan Antonio, Texas 78249-0704(210) 459-6530; [email protected]
Dr. Shirley J. Neeley was named the Texas commissioner of education onJan. 12, 2004 by Governor Rick Perry. As commissioner, she serves as thehead of the Texas Education Agency, which oversees 1,037 school districtsand about 200 charter schools. A former elementary school teacher, assis-tant principal and principal, Dr. Neeley served as superintendent of GalenaPark Independent School District, Texas’ largest exemplary district from2002-2004.William Travis Building1701 N. Congress AvenueAustin, Texas, 78701(512) 463-9734; [email protected]
Dr. Raymund A. Paredes is the Commissioner of Higher Educationat the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Dr. Paredes spentmost of his academic career at UCLA as an English professor andadministrator. Prior to joining the Coordinating Board, he was VicePresident for Programs at the Hispanic Scholarship Fund (HSF) where hewas responsible for scholarship and outreach programs.P.O. Box 12788Austin, TX 78701-2788(512) 427-6101; [email protected]
Dr. David Gardner, Associate Commissioner, Texas Higher EducationCoordinating Board (Moderator)
PRESENTERS
(512) 427-6155; [email protected]
104
STEVE MURDOCK’S PRESENTATION MATERIALS
5
The Population of Texas: Historical Patterns and Future Trends
Affecting Education
bySteve H. Murdock
Institute for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research
College of BusinessThe University of Texas at San Antonio
Major Demographic Trends Affecting the Future
• Change in Rates and Sources of Population Growth
• Increase in the Non-Anglo Population• Aging of the Population
105
6
Total Population Change
Total Population and Percent Population Change in Texas and the United States, 1850-2004
Total Population Percent Change
Year* Texas U.S. Texas U.S. 1850 212,592 23,191,876 --- ---1860 604,215 31,443,321 184.2 35.61870 818,579 39,818,449 35.5 26.61880 1,591,749 50,155,783 94.5 26.01890 2,235,527 62,947,714 40.4 25.51900 3,048,710 75,994,575 36.4 20.71910 3,896,542 91,972,266 27.8 21.01920 4,663,228 105,710,620 19.7 14.91930 5,824,715 122,775,046 24.9 16.11940 6,414,824 131,669,275 10.1 7.21950 7,711,194 150,697,361 20.2 14.51960 9,579,677 179,323,175 24.2 19.01970 11,196,730 203,302,031 16.9 13.41980 14,229,191 226,545,805 27.1 11.41990 16,986,510 248,709,873 19.4 9.82000 20,851,820 281,421,906 22.8 13.22004 22,490,022 293,655,404 7.9 4.3 * All values for the decennial dates are for the indicated census year.
Values for 2004 are as estimated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.Source: Derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census Estimates for dates
indicated by the Texas State Data Center, University of Texasat San Antonio
Total Population Percent Change Year* Texas U.S. Texas U.S.
2004 22,490,022 293,655,404 7.9 4.3 * All values for the decennial dates are for the indicated census year.
Values for 2004 are as estimated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.Source: Derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census Estimates for dates
indicated by the Texas State Data Center, University of Texasat San Antonio
106
7
Total Population and Components of Population Change in Texas, 1950-2004
Percent Change
Due to Numerical Natural Net Percent Natural Net
Year* Population Change Increase Migration Change Increase Migration
1950 7,711,194 — — — — — — 1960 9,579,677 1,868,483 1,754,652 113,831 24.23 93.91 6.091970 11,196,730 1,617,053 1,402,683 214,370 16.88 86.74 13.261980 14,229,191 3,032,461 1,260,794 1,771,667 27.08 41.58 58.421990 16,986,510 2,757,319 1,815,670 941,649 19.38 65.85 34.152000 20,851,820 3,865,310 1,919,281 1,946,029 22.76 49.65 50.352004 22,490,022 1,638,202 930,519 707,683 7.86 56.80 43.20
* All values for the decennial dates are for the indicated census year. Value for 2004 is as estimated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Source: Derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census Estimates for dates indicated by the Texas State Data Center, University of Texas at San Antonio
Due to Numerical Natural Net Percent Natural Net
Year* Population Change Increase Migration Change Increase Migration
2004 22,490,022 1,638,202 930,519 707,683 7.86 56.80 43.20
* All values for the decennial dates are for the indicated census year. Value for 2004 is as estimated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Source: Derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census Estimates for dates indicated by the Texas State Data Center, University of Texas at San Antonio
Ten Fastest Growing States in Numerical Terms in the United States, 1990-2000
Percent
Numerical Population1990 2000 Change Change
State Population* Population* 1990-2000 1990-2000
California 29,760,021 33,871,648 4,111,627 13.8
Texas 16,986,510 20,851,820 3,865,310 22.8Florida 12,937,926 15,982,378 3,044,452 23.5Georgia 6,478,216 8,186,453 1,708,237 26.4Arizona 3,665,228 5,130,632 1,465,404 40.0
North Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4Washington 4,866,692 5,894,121 1,027,429 21.1Colorado 3,294,394 4,301,261 1,006,867 30.6Illinois 11,430,602 12,419,293 988,691 8.6New York 17,990,455 18,976,457 986,002 5.5
* Population values are decennial census counts for April 1 of the year indicated
Percent
* Population values are decennial census counts for April 1 of the year indicated
107
8
Ten Fastest Growing States in Numerical Terms in the United States, 2000-2004
Numerical Percent
2000 2004 Change ChangeState Population* Population* 2000-2004 2000-2004
California 33,871,648 35,893,799 2,022,151 6.0
Texas 20,851,820 22,490,022 1,638,202 7.9
Florida 15,982,378 17,397,161 1,414,783 8.9 Georgia 8,186,453 8,829,383 642,930 7.9
Arizona 5,130,632 5,743,834 613,202 12.0 Nort h Carolina 8,049,313 8,541,221 491,908 6.1
Virg inia 7,078,515 7,459,827 381,312 5.4 Nevada 1,998,257 2,334,771 336,514 16.8
W ash ington 5,894,121 6,203,788 309,667 5.3 Colorado 4,301,261 4,601,403 300,142 7.0
* Population values are decennial census counts for April 1 for 2000 andestimates for July 1 for 2004.
Source: Der ived from U.S. Bureau of the Census Est imates for dates indicated by the Texas State Data Center, University of Texas at San Antonio
Numerical Percent
California 33,871,648 35,893,799 2,022,151 6.0
Texas 20,851,820 22,490,022 1,638,202 7.9
Florida 15,982,378 17,397,161 1,414,783 8.9 Georgia 8,186,453 8,829,383 642,930 7.9
Arizona 5,130,632 5,743,834 613,202 12.0 Nort h Carolina 8,049,313 8,541,221 491,908 6.1
Virg inia 7,078,515 7,459,827 381,312 5.4 Nevada 1,998,257 2,334,771 336,514 16.8
W ash ington 5,894,121 6,203,788 309,667 5.3 Colorado 4,301,261 4,601,403 300,142 7.0
* Population values are decennial census counts for April 1 for 2000 andestimates for July 1 for 2004.
Source: Der ived from U.S. Bureau of the Census Est imates for dates indicated by the Texas State Data Center, University of Texas at San Antonio
Ten Fastest Growing States in Percentage Terms in the United States, 1990-2000
PercentNumerical Population
1990 2000 Change ChangeState Population* Population* 1990-2000 1990-2000
Nevada 1,201,833 1,998,257 796,424 66.3
Arizona 3,665,228 5,130,632 1,465,404 40.0Colorado 3,294,394 4,301,261 1,006,867 30.6Utah 1,722,850 2,233,169 510,319 29.6Idaho 1,006,749 1,293,953 287,204 28.5
Georgia 6,478,216 8,186,453 1,708,237 26.4Florida 12,937,926 15,982,378 3,044,452 23.5Texas 16,986,510 20,851,820 3,865,310 22.8North Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4
Washington 4,866,692 5,894,121 1,027,429 21.1 * Population values are decennial census counts for April 1 of the year indicated
Percent
108
9
Ten Fastest Growing States in Percentage Terms in the United States, 2000-2004
PercentNumerical Populat ion
2000 2004 Change ChangeSt ate Population* Population* 2000- 2004 2000-2004
Nevada 1,998,257 2,334,771 336,514 16.8
Arizona 5,130,632 5,743,834 613,202 12.0
Flor ida 15,982,378 17,397,161 1,414,783 8.9
Texas 20,851,820 22,490,022 1,638,202 7.9
G eorgia 8,186,453 8,829,383 642,930 7.9
Idaho 1,293,953 1,393,262 99,309 7.7
Ut ah 2,233,169 2,389,039 155,870 7.0
Colorado 4,301,261 4,601,403 300,142 7.0
North Car olina 8,049,313 8,541,221 491,908 6.1
Califor nia 33,871,648 35,893,799 2,022,151 6.0 * Population values ar e decennial census counts for Apr il 1 for 2000 and
est imat es for July 1 for 2004.
Source: Derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census Estimates for dates indicatedby the Texas Stat e Data Center, University of Texas at San Antonio
Nevada 1,998,257 2,334,771 336,514 16.8
Arizona 5,130,632 5,743,834 613,202 12.0
Flor ida 15,982,378 17,397,161 1,414,783 8.9
Texas 20,851,820 22,490,022 1,638,202 7.9
G eorgia 8,186,453 8,829,383 642,930 7.9
Idaho 1,293,953 1,393,262 99,309 7.7
Ut ah 2,233,169 2,389,039 155,870 7.0
Colorado 4,301,261 4,601,403 300,142 7.0
North Car olina 8,049,313 8,541,221 491,908 6.1
Califor nia 33,871,648 35,893,799 2,022,151 6.0 * Population values ar e decennial census counts for Apr il 1 for 2000 and
est imat es for July 1 for 2004.
Source: Derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census Estimates for dates indicatedby the Texas Stat e Data Center, University of Texas at San Antonio
Ten Largest States in United States by Population Size in 2000 Ranked by Population Size in 2000
Numerical Percent
1990 2000 Change ChangeState Population* Population* 1990-2000 1990-2000
California 29,760,021 33,871,648 4,111,627 13.8Texas 16,986,510 20,851,820 3,865,310 22.8
New York 17,990,455 18,976,457 986,002 5.5Florida 12,937,926 15,982,378 3,044,452 23.5Illinois 11,430,602 12,419,293 988,691 8.6Pennsylvania 11,881,643 12,281,054 399,411 3.4
Ohio 10,847,115 11,353,140 506,025 4.7Michigan 9,295,297 9,938,444 643,147 6.9New Jersey 7,730,188 8,414,350 684,162 8.9Georgia 6,478,216 8,186,453 1,708,237 26.4
* Population values are decennial census counts for April 1 of the year indicated
Numerical Percent
109
10
Ten Largest States in United States by Population Size in 2000 Ranked by Population Size in 2004
Numerical Percent
2000 2004 Change ChangeSt ate Population* Population* 2000-2004 2000-2004
Califor nia 33,871,648 35,893,799 2,022,151 6.0 Texas 20,851,820 22,490,022 1,638,202 7.9
New York 18,976,457 19,227,088 250,631 1.3 Flor ida 15,982,378 17,397,161 1,414,783 8.9
Illinois 12,419,293 12,713,634 294,341 2.4 Pennsylvania 12,281,054 12,406,292 125,238 1.0
O hio 11,353,140 11,459,011 105,871 0.9 Mic higan 9,938,444 10,112,620 174,176 1.8
G eorgia 8,186,453 8,829,383 642,930 7.9
New Jersey 8,414,350 8,698,879 284,529 3.4
* Population v alues are 2000 census counts for Apr il 1, 2000, 2004 values areJuly 1, 2004 est imates, both from the U.S. Bureau of the Census
Source: Derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census Estimates for dates indicatedby the Texas Stat e Data Center, University of Texas at San Antonio
Numerical Percent
Califor nia 33,871,648 35,893,799 2,022,151 6.0 Texas 20,851,820 22,490,022 1,638,202 7.9
New York 18,976,457 19,227,088 250,631 1.3 Flor ida 15,982,378 17,397,161 1,414,783 8.9
Illinois 12,419,293 12,713,634 294,341 2.4 Pennsylvania 12,281,054 12,406,292 125,238 1.0
O hio 11,353,140 11,459,011 105,871 0.9 Mic higan 9,938,444 10,112,620 174,176 1.8
G eorgia 8,186,453 8,829,383 642,930 7.9
New Jersey 8,414,350 8,698,879 284,529 3.4
* Population v alues are 2000 census counts for Apr il 1, 2000, 2004 values areJuly 1, 2004 est imates, both from the U.S. Bureau of the Census
Source: Derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census Estimates for dates indicatedby the Texas Stat e Data Center, University of Texas at San Antonio
Population Change by Components of Change in The State and Selected Metropolitan
Areas, 1990-2000 and 2000-2004 Dallas - Houston – Austin - San Antonio Ft Worth- Baytown - Round Rock State of Metropolitan Arlington Sugarland Metropolitan Texas Area Metropolitan Metropolitan Area Area 1990-2000 Numerical Change 3,865,485 303,958 1,172,250 948,174 403,536 Natural Increase 1,922,044 150,894 505,595 500,630 112,314 Domestic Migration 1,166,570 111,518 472,931 210,530 260,833 International Migration 776,871 41,546 193,724 237,014 30,389 2000-2004 Numerical Change 1,638,202 142,347 538,712 465,036 162,508 Natural Increase 930,519 70,302 267,470 238,579 66,852 Domestic Migration 149,679 49,934 74,881 49,000 55,700 International Migration 558,004 22,111 196,361 177,457 39,956
110
11
Population Change by Components of Change in The State and Selected Metropolitan
Areas, 1990-2000 and 2000-2004 Dallas - Houston – Austin - San Antonio Ft Worth Baytown - Round Rock State of Metropolitan Metropolitan Sugarland Metropolitan Texas Area Area Metropolitan Area Area 1990-2000 Numerical Change 3,865,485 303,958 1,172,250 948,174 403,536 Percent Natural Increase 49.7 49.6 43.2 52.8 27.9 Percent Domestic Migration 30.2 36.7 40.3 22.2 64.6 Percent International Migration 20.1 13.7 16.5 25.0 7.5 2000-2004 Numerical Change 1,638,202 142,347 538,712 465,036 162,508 Percent Natural Increase 56.58 49.4 49.6 51.3 41.1 Percent Domestic Migration 9.1 35.1 13.9 10.5 34.3 Percent International Migration 34.1 15.5 36.5 38.2 24.6
Population Change in Texas Counties, 1990-2000
Source: Texas State Data Center
Percent Change 2000-2003
< 0.0% (n=68)0.0 - 9.9% (n=61)10.0 - 21.9% (n=66)22.0 - 86.2% (n=59)
111
12
Percent Change 2000-2004
< 0.0% (n=103)0.0 - 1.9% (n=39)2.0 - 5.4% (n=51)5.5 - 35.2% (n=61)
Population Change in Texas Counties, 2000-2004
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2004 County Estimates
Racial/Ethnic Change in Texas
112
13
Texas Rank Among States on Selected Characteristics of Race/Ethnicity Groups
Texas Texas ComparisonGroup Value Rank Areas
By Size in 2000
Anglo 11,074,716 3 California; 17.0 millionNew York; 12.5 million
Black 2,421,653 2 New York; 2.9 million
Hispanic 6,669,666 2 California; 11.0 million
Other 685,785 4 California; 4.2 millionNew York; 1.2 millionHawaii; 733,000
Texas Texas Comparison
Group Value Rank Areas
By Numerical Change, 1990-2000
Anglo 783,036 2 Florida; 1.1 million
Black 445,293 3 Florida; 665,000Georgia; 627,000
Hispanic 2,329,761 2 California; 3.3 million
Other 307,220 3 California; 1.2 millionNew York; 493,000
Texas Rank Among States on Selected Characteristics of Race/Ethnicity Groups
113
14
Anglo Population For States in the United States in 1990 and 2000 Ranked by Total
Population Size in 20001990 2000 Numerical PercentAnglo Anglo Change Change
State Population Population 1990-2000 1990-2000
California 17,029,126 16,393,491 -635,635 -3.73Texas 10,291,680 11,074,716 783,036 7.61New York 12,460,189 11,921,371 -538,818 -4.32Florida 9,475,326 10,568,868 1,093,542 11.54Illinois 8,550,208 8,514,486 -35,722 -0.42Pennsylvania 10,422,058 10,373,049 -49,009 -0.47Ohio 9,444,622 9,604,550 159,928 1.69Michigan 7,649,951 7,906,629 256,678 3.36New Jersey 5,718,966 5,625,346 -93,620 -1.64Georgia 4,543,425 5,170,762 627,337 13.81
Numerical Change in Population by Race/Ethnicity in Texas for 1980-1990 and 1990-2000
941,383
283,818
1,354,081
178,037
783,036
445,293
2,329,761
307,220
Anglo Black Hispanic Other0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
1980-1990 1990-2000
114
15
Percent Change in Population by Race/Ethnicity for 1980-1990 and 1990-2000 in Texas
10.07 7.61
16.7722.53
45.35
53.68
88.78
81.15
1980-1990 1990-20000
20
40
60
80
100Percent Change
Anglo Black Hispanic Other
Proportion of Net Population Change Attributable to Each Race/Ethnicity Group in
Texas for 1980-1990 and 1990-2000
34.14
20.26
10.29 11.52
49.11
60.27
6.46 7.95
1980-1990 1990-20000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Anglo Black Hispanic Other
115
16
Major Changes in Population Composition
(Characteristics)• Age
Median Age in the United States and Texas, 1900-2000
22.924.1
25.326.5
2930.1 29.5
28.130
32.935.3
18.720.2
2223.7
26.827.9 27 26.4
28
30.832.3
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000
10
20
30
40Median Age
United States Texas
116
17
Percent of Texas Population by Age Groupand Ethnicity, 2000
39.541.6
45.0 45.043.1 44.4
47.8
53.057.2
60.263.5
66.4 67.1
72.6
44.041.3
38.0 38.440.5
38.635.3
30.526.7
24.2 22.4 20.6 20.316.7
< 5 ye
ars
5 to 9
years
10 to
14 ye
ars
15 to
19 ye
ars
20 to
24 ye
ars
25 to
29 ye
ars
30 to
34 ye
ars
35 to
39 ye
ars
40 to
44 ye
ars
45 to
49 ye
ars
50 to
54 ye
ars
55 to
59 ye
ars
60 to
64 ye
ars
65 +
years
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0Percent
Anglo Hispanic
Percent of Texas Population by Age Groupand Ethnicity, 2040*
* Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
17.7 19.3 19.9 20.3 19.8 19.3 19.4 20.5 20.6 21.925.3 26.5 27.2
39.8
69.967.8 66.5 65.5 66.0 66.8 66.4
64.3 62.660.6
56.7 55.252.3
37.1
< 5 ye
ars
5 to 9
years
10 to
14 ye
ars
15 to
19 ye
ars
20 to
24 ye
ars
25 to
29 ye
ars
30 to
34 ye
ars
35 to
39 ye
ars
40 to
44 ye
ars
45 to
49 ye
ars
50 to
54 ye
ars
55 to
59 ye
ars
60 to
64 ye
ars
65 + ye
ars0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0Percent
Anglo Hispanic
117
18
PROJECTIONS
Year Anglo Black Hispanic Other Total
2000 11,074,716 2,421,653 6,669,666 685,785 20,851,820
Assuming Rates of Zero Net Migration
2010 11,331,893 2,627,284 8,060,578 783,204 22,802,9592020 11,381,151 2,771,391 9,336,524 841,641 24,330,7072030 11,171,425 2,823,276 10,576,281 878,111 25,449,0932040 10,733,074 2,796,626 11,662,262 893,139 26,085,101
Assuming Rates of Net Migration Equal to One-Half of 1990-2000
2010 11,533,980 2,754,737 9,080,466 961,460 24,330,6432020 11,796,479 3,052,412 11,882,993 1,273,908 28,005,7922030 11,789,292 3,268,611 15,140,088 1,632,588 31,830,5792040 11,525,083 3,403,176 18,804,297 2,028,603 35,761,159
Assuming Rates of Net Migration Equal to 1990-2000
2010 11,740,016 2,888,449 10,252,219 1,177,909 26,058,5932020 12,227,555 3,361,702 15,226,371 1,921,057 32,736,6852030 12,442,104 3,783,657 21,871,382 3,020,447 41,117,5902040 12,376,303 4,140,670 30,604,621 4,585,895 51,707,489
Assuming Rates of Net Migration Equal to 2000-2002
2010 11,587,971 2,826,849 9,877,268 1,117,442 25,409,5302020 11,908,234 3,217,037 14,090,715 1,726,191 30,942,1772030 11,960,333 3,539,340 19,449,030 2,569,996 37,518,6992040 11,749,690 3,786,341 26,153,290 3,698,715 45,388,036
Year Anglo Black Hispanic Other Total
Population in Texas by Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projections of the Population in Texas by Race/Ethnicity from 2010 to 2040
118
19
Year Anglo Black Hispanic Other Total
Assuming Rates of Zero Net Migration
2000-2010 2.3 8.5 20.9 14.2 9.42010-2020 0.4 5.5 15.8 7.5 6.72020-2030 -1.8 1.9 13.3 4.3 4.62030-2040 -3.9 -0.9 10.3 1.7 2.52000-2040 -3.1 15.5 74.9 30.2 25.1
Assuming Rates of Net Migration Equal to One-Half of 1990-2000
2000-2010 4.1 13.8 36.1 40.2 16.72010-2020 2.3 10.8 30.9 32.5 15.12020-2030 -0.1 7.1 27.4 28.2 13.72030-2040 -2.2 4.1 24.2 24.3 12.32000-2040 4.1 40.5 181.9 195.8 71.5
Assuming Rates of Net Migration Equal to 1990-2000
2000-2010 6.0 19.3 53.7 71.8 25.02010-2020 4.2 16.4 48.5 63.1 25.62020-2030 1.8 12.6 43.6 57.2 25.62030-2040 -0.5 9.4 39.9 51.8 25.82000-2040 11.8 71.0 358.9 568.7 148.0
Assuming Rates of Net Migration Equal to 2000-2002
2000-2010 4.6 16.7 48.1 62.9 21.92010-2020 2.8 13.8 42.7 54.5 21.82020-2030 0.4 10.0 38.0 48.9 21.32030-2040 -1.8 7.0 34.5 43.9 21.02000-2040 6.1 56.4 292.1 439.3 117.7
Percent Change for Selected Time Periods for Projected Population in Texas by Racial/Ethnic Status Under Alternative
Assumptions of Migration Scenarios
Y ear Anglo B lack Hispanic O ther
2000 53 .1 11.6 32.0 3 .3
Assuming Rates o f Zero Net M ig ration
2010 49 .8 11.5 35.3 3 .42020 46 .7 11.4 38.4 3 .52030 43 .8 11.1 41.6 3 .52040 41 .2 10.7 44.7 3 .4
As suming Ra tes o f Ne t M ig ration E qua l to O ne-Ha lf o f 1 990-2000
2010 47 .4 11.3 37.3 4 .02020 42 .2 10.9 42.4 4 .52030 37 .0 10.3 47.6 5 .12040 32 .2 9 .5 52.6 5 .7
Assuming Rates o f Ne t M igration E qua l to 1990-2000
2010 45 .1 11.1 39.3 4 .52020 37 .3 10.3 46.5 5 .92030 30 .3 9 .2 53.2 7 .32040 23 .9 8 .0 59.2 8 .9
Assuming Rates o f Ne t M igration E qua l to 2000-2002 2010 45 .6 11.1 38.9 4 .42020 38 .5 10.4 45.5 5 .62030 32 .0 9 .4 51.8 6 .82040 26 .0 8 .3 57.6 8 .1
Y ear Anglo B lack Hispanic O ther
2000 53 .1 11.6 32.0 3 .3
Assuming Rates o f Zero Net M ig ration
As suming Ra tes o f Ne t M ig ration E qua l to O ne-Ha lf o f 1 990-2000
Assuming Rates o f Ne t M igration E qua l to 1990-2000
Percent of Population in Texas by Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projections of the Percent of the Population in Texas
by Race/Ethnicity from 2010 to 2040
119
20
Percent of the Projections of the Population by Race/Ethnicity and Age Groups in Texas from 2000-2040
Under Alternative Migration Scenarios
AgeGroup Anglo Black Hispanic Other Total
All Scenarios
2000<18 23.0 31.7 35.8 26.1 28.218-24 8.8 11.2 13.2 11.2 10.625-44 30.1 32.1 31.8 37.7 31.145-64 24.4 17.7 14.0 20.1 20.265+ 13.7 7.3 5.2 4.9 9.9
Assuming Rates of Zero Net Migration
2020<18 20.1 24.8 32.0 21.2 25.218-24 8.2 10.2 11.1 9.1 9.625-44 24.7 29.3 26.9 24.0 26.145-64 27.4 25.0 21.5 29.9 24.965+ 19.6 10.7 8.5 15.8 14.2
2040<18 17.4 19.9 27.5 16.8 22.218-24 7.6 8.8 10.0 6.5 8.725-44 24.1 27.6 27.1 23.7 25.945-64 24.9 26.5 20.6 22.1 23.065+ 26.0 17.2 14.8 30.9 20.2
(Continued)
AgeGroup Anglo Black Hispanic Other Total
All Scenarios
2000<18 23.0 31.7 35.8 26.1 28.218-24 8.8 11.2 13.2 11.2 10.625-44 30.1 32.1 31.8 37.7 31.145-64 24.4 17.7 14.0 20.1 20.265+ 13.7 7.3 5.2 4.9 9.9
Assuming Rates of Zero Net Migration
2020<18 20.1 24.8 32.0 21.2 25.218-24 8.2 10.2 11.1 9.1 9.625-44 24.7 29.3 26.9 24.0 26.145-64 27.4 25.0 21.5 29.9 24.965+ 19.6 10.7 8.5 15.8 14.2
2040<18 17.4 19.9 27.5 16.8 22.218-24 7.6 8.8 10.0 6.5 8.725-44 24.1 27.6 27.1 23.7 25.945-64 24.9 26.5 20.6 22.1 23.065+ 26.0 17.2 14.8 30.9 20.2
(Continued)
Projected Percent of Net Change Attributable to Each Race/Ethnicity Group for 2000-2040*
*Using U.S. Census count for 2000 and Texas State Data Center 1.0 population projection scenario for 2040.
Anglo4.2%
Black5.6%
Hispanic77.6%
Other12.6%
120
21
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Median Household Income in 1999 in Texas by Age of Householder
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
<25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Age of Householder
Thousands
121
22
Median Household Income In 1999 in Texas by Race/Ethnicity of Householder
$47,162
$29,305 $29,873
$50,049
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Anglo Black Hispanic Asian
Educational Attainment in 2000 in Texas for Persons 25+ Years
of Age By Race/Ethnicity
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
< High School
High School
Some College
College or More
HispanicBlackAngloAsian
Percent
122
23
States Ranked by Percent High School Graduates +in the Population 25 Years of Age or Older, 2000
88.3
87.9
87.9
87.7
87.4
87.2
87.1
86.9
86.6
86.4
75.7
80.4
Alaska(1)
Minnesota (3)
Wyoming (3)
Utah (4)
New Hampshire (5)
Montana (6)
Washington (7)
Colorado (8)
Nebraska (9)
Vermont (10)
Texas (45)
United States
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Percent
States Ranked by Percent College Graduates +
in the Population 25 Years of Age or Older, 2000
39.1
33.2
32.7
31.4
31.4
29.8
29.5
29.4
28.7
27.7
23.2
24.4
District of Columbia (1)
Massachusetts (2)
Colorado (3)
Connecticut (5)
Maryland (5)
New Jersey (6)
Virginia (7)
Vermont (8)
New Hampshire (9)
Washington (10)
Texas (27)
United States
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Percent
123
24
EDUCATION
Educational Attainment Characteristics of the Population in Texas by Race/Ethnicity, 1990-2000
PercentRacial/ High PercentEthnic School CollegeGroup Graduates Graduates
1990
Anglo 81.5 25.2Black 66.2 12.0Hispanic 44.6 7.3Total 72.1 20.3
2000
Anglo 87.2 30.0Black 75.8 15.3Hispanic 49.3 8.9Total 75.7 23.2
Percent Change
Anglo 7.0 19.0Black 14.5 27.5Hispanic 10.5 21.9Total 5.0 14.3
1990
Anglo 81.5 25.2Black 66.2 12.0Hispanic 44.6 7.3Total 72.1 20.3
2000
Anglo 87.2 30.0Black 75.8 15.3Hispanic 49.3 8.9Total 75.7 23.2
Percent Change
Anglo 7.0 19.0Black 14.5 27.5Hispanic 10.5 21.9Total 5.0 14.3
124
25
Public Community College and University Enrollment Rates (Per 100 Persons Ages 18 to 35)
in Texas by Race/Ethnicity, 1990 and 2000
Year Anglo Black Hispanic Other Total
Community College
1990 6.3 4.1 4.4 5.6 5.52000 6.5 5.2 4.8 6.8 5.7
Public University
1990 7.4 4.0 3.5 10.0 6.02000 7.5 4.7 3.3 10.3 5.7
Enrollment in Public Elementary and Secondary
Schools in Texas for all Scenarios, 2000-2040
44
4
5
6
7
44
55
5
4 4 4 4 4
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Years
2
3
4
5
6
7
8Millions
0.0 Scenario 0.5 Scenario 1.0 Scenario Census Count
125
26
Enrollment in Public Community Colleges andPublic Universities in Texas, 2000-2040*
* Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
371
445495
581
677
421
510
589
710
849
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Years
0
200
400
600
800
1,000Thousands
Public Community Colleges Public Universities
Projected Percent of Public Elementary and Secondary Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projections for 2040*
* Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
43.2
19.9
14.4
8.3
39.5
66.3
2.95.5
2000 2040Projection Year
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Percent
Anglo Black Hispanic Other
126
27
Projected Percent of Public Community College Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projections for 2040*
* Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
54.7
25.7
11.18.1
29.5
56.0
4.7
10.2
2000 2040Projection Year
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Percent
Anglo Black Hispanic Other
Projected Percent of Public University Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projections for 2040*
* Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
61.5
32.3
10.38.1
21.3
44.5
6.9
15.1
2000 2040Projection Year
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Percent
Anglo Black Hispanic Other
127
28
186.8
119.9
48.5
183.0
188.1
64.7
101.9
69.9
Bilingual/ESL
Economically Disadvantaged
Gifted and Talented
Immigrants
Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
Special Education
Title I
Career and Technology Education
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0
Percent Change in Enrollment in Selected Elementary and Secondary School Programs
in Texas, 2000 to 2040*
Percent Change
*Projections are for the 1.0 Scenario
Percent Change in Public Community College Enrollment, Public University Enrollment, Students with Financial Need Unmet by Household Resources, and State Financial
Assistance Expenditures for Public Higher Education in Texas, 2000-2040*
*Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
101.6
82.5
105.4
206.7
Public Community College Enrollment
Public University Enrollment
Students with Financial Need
Unmet
State Financial Assistance
Expenditures
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
Percent Change
128
29
Ethnic Diversity of the Population, Householders,
and Labor Force in Texas, 2000 and 2040*
* Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
53.1%
11.6%32.0%
3.3%
61.4%
11.4% 24.2%
3.0%
58.4%
10.7% 27.5%
3.4%
24.2%7.9%
59.1%
8.8%
29.0%9.0%
52.8%
9.2%
25.2%7.9%
58.7%
8.2%
Anglo Black Hispanic Other
2000 Population
2040 Population
2000 Householders
2040 Householders
2000 Civilian Labor Force
2040 Civilian Labor Force
Ethnic Diversity of the Population Enrolled in Elementary and Secondary Schools and
Colleges in Texas, 2000 and 2040*
* Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
43.2%
14.4%
39.5%
2.9%
58.0%
10.7% 25.6%
5.7%
19.9%8.3%
66.3%
5.5%
28.7%8.1%
50.9%12.3%
Anglo Black Hispanic Other
2000 Public Elementaryand Secondary
2040 Public Elementaryand Secondary
2000 Public Collegesand Universities
2040 Public Collegesand Universities
129
30
Ethnic Diversity of Household Income and Consumer Expenditures in Texas, 2000 and 2040*
* Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
71.2%
8.2%17.3%
3.3%
66.4%
8.7%21.9%
3.0%
38.2%7.4%
42.8%
11.6%
31.9%7.1%
51.7%
9.3%
Anglo Black Hispanic Other
2000 AggregateHousehold Income
2040 AggregateHousehold Income
2000 Consumer Expenditures
2040 Consumer Expenditures
State Tax Revenues in Texas Proportioned by Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projections to 2040* Assuming 2000 Decile Tax Rates
*Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
38.2%7.4%
42.8%11.6%
Anglo Black Hispanic Other
2040* Projected Tax Revenues
71.2%
8.2%
17.3%3.3%
2000 Tax Revenues
130
31
Projected Percent of Labor Force by Educational Attainment in Texas, 2000 and 2040
* Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
18.8
29 28.7
18.2
5.3
30.128.7
23.9
12.9
4.4
No High School Diploma
High School Graduate
Some College
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate/Prof.Degree
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Percent
2000 2040
Average Household Income in Texas, 2000-2040*
(in 2000 Dollars)
* Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
$54,441
$52,639
$50,903
$49,326$47,883
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
131
32
Projected Percent of Households in Poverty by Family Type in Texas, 2000 and 2040
* Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
11.4
7.5
15.0
26.7
18.9
14.415.4
11.8
17.0
30.0
18.916.6
Family Households
Married Couple
Male Householder
Female Householder
Nonfamily Households
Total Households
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Percent in Poverty
2000 2040
Average Annual Household Income in Texas and the United Statesby Educational Attainment of Householder in 2000*
*From Census 2000 Public Use Microdata Sample (1% File)
$30,412
$42,271
$52,552
$80,950
$102,410
$32,473
$44,068
$54,467
$80,327
$104,294
Less ThanHigh School
High SchoolGraduate
Some College or Associate Degree
Bachelor'sDegree
Graduate/ProfessionalDegree
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Average Income
Texas United States
132
33
Percent of Persons 25 Years of Age or Older by Level of Educational
Attainment and Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projected to 2040* Assuming 1990-2000 Trends in Educational Attainment Rates
*Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
12.7
25.7
31.6
30.0
24.0
29.9
30.6
15.5
50.7
22.0
18.4
8.9
21.0
16.1
20.6
42.3
2.2
16.6
33.4
47.8
4.3
25.6
40.5
29.6
32.1
25.8
24.1
18.0
13.4
7.6
11.0
68.0
< High School
High School
Some Coll/Assoc
Bachelor's +
< High School
High School
Some Coll/Assoc.
Bachelor's +
< High School
High School
Some Coll/Assoc
Bachelor's +
< High School
High School
Some Coll/Assoc
Bachelor's +
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Percent
2000 2040
Black
Hispanic
Other
Anglo
Aggregate Income and Consumer Expenditures for Population 25 Years of Age or Older in Texas in 2000 and Projected Under
Alternative Educational Attainment Assumptions for 2040*
*Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
$251
$621
$765
$938
$210
$528
$629
$752
2000Base Values
2040 Assuming2000 Attainment
Differentials
2040 Assuming1990-2000 Trends
in Differentials
2040 AssumingAnglo Trends
Apply to all Groups
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
Billions
Aggregate Income Consumer Expenditures
133
34
State Tax Revenues in Texas for 2000 and Projected for 2040(in 2000 Dollars) Assuming 2000 Rates, 1990-2000 Rates of Closure
Between Anglo-Black and Anglo-Hispanic Household Incomes, and Anglo Income Levels for All Race/Ethnicity Groups*
*Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
$29,510,942,468
$68,026,247,958$74,812,045,501
$89,667,827,701
2000 AggregateHousehold Income
2040 Assuming2000 Income Differentials
2040 Assuming1990-2000 Closure
in Differentials
2040 AssumingAnglo Incomesfor all Groups
$0
$10,000,000,000
$20,000,000,000
$30,000,000,000
$40,000,000,000
$50,000,000,000
$60,000,000,000
$70,000,000,000
$80,000,000,000
$90,000,000,000
$100,000,000,000
Tax Revenues
Prison Population and Prison Costs for Population 25 Years
of Age or Older in Texas in 2000 and Projected Under
Alternative Educational Attainment Assumptions for 2040*
*Projections are shown for the 1.0 scenario
126,515
341,068
227,969
134,539$1.9
$5.1
$3.4
$2.0
2000Base Values
2040 Assuming2000 Attainment
Differentials
2040 Assuming1990-2000 Trends
in Differentials
2040 AssumingAnglo Trends
Apply to all Groups
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000Prison Population
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0 Costs (Billions)
Prison Population Prison Costs
134
35
The mark of a truly educated man is to be moved deeply by statistics.
George Bernard Shaw
Steve MurdockTexas State Data Center
Phone 210 – 458 - 6530Fax 210 – 458 - 6540Website txsdc.utsa.edu
135
RAYMUND PAREDES’ PRESENTATION MATERIALS
36
THECB 7/2005
Close the Gaps in Close the Gaps in ParticipationParticipation
By 2015, close the gaps in By 2015, close the gaps in enrollment rates across Texas to enrollment rates across Texas to add 630,000 more students.add 630,000 more students.
126.0 percent of the overall 2005 target was reached in 2004, including 126.6 percent of the African-American target, 70.1 percent of the Hispanic target, and 289.9 percent of theWhite target.
THECB 7/2005
Participation Since 2000 Participation Since 2000 207,498 Increase207,498 Increase
0100200300400500600
2000 2005 2010 2015
Thou
sand
s Target Actual
207,498
136
37
THECB 7/2005
Growth of Hispanic students in South Texas region is a Concern
Metroplex(3,936)
Upper East(393)
3.4%
-.2%
10.2% 11.9%
7.0%7.0%
6.0%
1.2%
4.7%2.1%
South Texas(-255)
Gulf Coast(2,985)
THECB 7/2005
67% of growth is in the67% of growth is in theTwoTwo--Year CollegesYear Colleges
Preliminary Preliminary Total Total
Change Change From ‘04From ‘04
Percent Percent ChangeChange
Public UniversitiesPublic Universities 486,582486,582 4,0934,093 .85.85
Public TwoPublic Two--Year Year CollegesColleges 570,180570,180 12,80712,807 2.32.3
All HealthAll Health--RelatedRelated 18,44218,442 682682 3.83.8
Independent Col. Independent Col. & Univ.& Univ. 117,404117,404 1,5521,552 1.31.3
Total*Total* 1,192,2431,192,243 19,13419,134 1.61.6*Career College data not included.
137
38
THECB 7/2005
TwoTwo--year colleges enroll an increasing year colleges enroll an increasing proportion of higher education studentsproportion of higher education students
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Thou
sand
s UniversitiesTwo-Year Colleges
THECB 7/2005
2005 Hispanic Target Remains a 2005 Hispanic Target Remains a ChallengeChallenge
29,791
71,94560,765
30,661
020,00040,00060,00080,000
100,000
White Hispanic African-American
2004 Progress To Reach 2005 Target
138
39
THECB 7/2005
Economically Disadvantaged Students Economically Disadvantaged Students are Less Likely to Enroll in Higher are Less Likely to Enroll in Higher
EducationEducation
60%48% 47%
67% 66%
41%40%35%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
White Black Hispanic Asian
Non Economically DisadvantagedEconomically Disadvantaged
THECB 7/2005
Close the Gaps in Close the Gaps in SuccessSuccess
By 2015, award 210,000 undergraduate By 2015, award 210,000 undergraduate degrees, certificates and other degrees, certificates and other identifiable student successes from high identifiable student successes from high quality programs.quality programs.
131 percent of the 2005 target was reached in 2004 including 76.7 percent of the bachelor’s target, 105.6 percent of the Hispanic target, 183.0 percent of the African-American target, and 35.7 percent of the technology degree target.
139
40
THECB 7/2005
23,275 more Bachelor’s, Associate’s 23,275 more Bachelor’s, Associate’s and Certificate awarded in 2004and Certificate awarded in 2004
0
20
40
60
2000 2005 2010 2015
Thou
sand
s
Target Actual
23,275
THECB 7/2005
Associate Degrees awarded Associate Degrees awarded exceeds targetexceeds target
2,927
8,1139,653
02,0004,0006,0008,000
10,00012,00014,000
Bachelor's Associate's
2004 Progress To Reach 2005 Target
140
41
THECB 7/2005
Hispanic Bachelor’s, Associate’s, and Hispanic Bachelor’s, Associate’s, and Certificates have surpassed 2005 targetCertificates have surpassed 2005 target
8,573 7,917
3,308
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
White* Hispanic African-Amer.
2004 Progress To Reach 2005 Target
* Not targeted in the Plan.
THECB 7/2005
Close the Gaps in Close the Gaps in ExcellenceExcellence
By 2015, substantially increase the By 2015, substantially increase the number of nationally recognized number of nationally recognized programs or services at colleges and programs or services at colleges and universities in Texas.universities in Texas.
100 percent of the institutions have chosen at least one program to raise to a nationally recognized level of excellence.
141
42
THECB 7/2005
UCUC--Berkeley Has More National Academy Berkeley Has More National Academy Members Than All Texas InstitutionsMembers Than All Texas Institutions
110Texas Tech University110UT at Arlington
22166Texas A&M University15114Rice University
574413UT at Austin
20374129UC-Berkeley1318446Texas Higher Ed Total
422UT at Dallas101UTHSC Houston202Southern Methodist University303Baylor College of Medicine
1073University of Houston15015UT Med Cntr-Dallas
TotalEngineeringScience
THECB 7/2005
Texas Dropped from 3rd to 5th Texas Dropped from 3rd to 5th Federal Science and Engineering Obligations Federal Science and Engineering Obligations
to Colleges and Universitiesto Colleges and Universities
1,745
1,1621,368 1,347 1,300
2,950
9398469939621,275
2,317
0500
1,000
1,500
2,0002,5003,000
California
New York
Maryland
PennsylvaniaTexas
Massachusetts
Mill
ions
2002 1998
(Constant 1998 Dollars)
142
“Texas Demographics and Their Effects Upon Public and Higher Education” 43uU
UPCOMING PROGRAMS (All times are central)
Nov. 16, 2005 “Pedagogy 202 for Distance Learning: Measuring What Matters”1:30 – 3:00 pm
Dec. 1, 2005 “Teaching Adults: A Practical Guide for Educators”1:30 – 2:30 pm*
Feb. 24, 2006 “New Standards for the New Student?”1:00 – 2:00 pm
March 2, 2006 “Annual Carl D. Perkins Grant RFQ Update” (Will be a webcast only)TBA
April 6, 2006 “Motivating Students from Day One to Graduation”1:30 – 2:30 pm*
April 18, 2006 Developmental Education Teaching Strategies (working title)1:30 – 2:30 PM
*Indicates a 30 minute audioconference will follow the program.
“NEW LEADERSHIP SERIES FOR STARLINK MEMBERS ONLY”
This series is for both students and faculty, which can be used as part of your campus leadershiptraining. Produced by the Society of Success and Leadership.
Nov. 15, 2005 Jake Steinfeld: “I’ve seen a lot of famous people naked, and they’ve got nothing6:00 – 7:00 pm on you!”
Nov. 29, 2006 Dr. Stephen Covey on Leadership6:00 – 7:00 pm
Jan. 31, 2006 Jack Canfield on Success6:00 – 7:00 pm
Check our website for special faculty development programs delivered online every month atwww.starlinktraining.org.
143
“Texas Demographics and Their Effects Upon Public and Higher Education” 44
EVALUATE “TEXAS DEMOGRAPHICS...: 2005 REPORT”On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest, rate the videoconference in terms of its value to you.
Excellent Poor
Timeliness of topic 5 4 3 2 1
Program’s format 5 4 3 2 1
Moderator 5 4 3 2 1
Panelists or Instructor 5 4 3 2 1
Handouts 5 4 3 2 1
Technical quality 5 4 3 2 1
Overall evaluation of program 5 4 3 2 1
Local site activities were held? _____YES _____NO
1. Institution name:________________________________________________
2. My current position is: (circle one)
a. Faculty c. Classified Staff
b. Administrator/Professional Staff d. Other___________________
3. What did you like most about the videoconference?
4. What could have been done to make it more valuable to you?
5. What topics would you like to see addressed in future videoconferences?
Return to: STARLINK, 9596 Walnut St., Dallas, TX 75243.
144
TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD Raymund Paredes Commissioner of Higher Education
Remarks to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating BoardOctober 27, 2005
At the October 27, 2005, Board meeting Commissioner Paredes made the following recommendations for the Board to consider regarding the development of a Closing the Gaps action plan.
CLOSING THE GAPS: TAKING THE
NEXT STEPS
This morning I would like to talk about where we are in Texas in
relation to achieving the goals of Closing the Gaps. You have already had
some indication from David Gardner that we are not doing well in one
particular area and I want to talk about what we might do next in all the
areas in which we have established goals. As I’ve said before, Closing the
Gaps is one of the great initiatives in American higher education, a plan
that is bold and holds great promise for Texas. As such, it has attracted
attention and admiration from every part of the country. But for all its
admirable qualities, as a document, Closing the Gaps is short on a range of
precise strategies for achieving its lofty goals related to participation in college, student
academic success, institutional excellence and federal research support. The original work of
the Closing the Gaps project was to establish a great vision for higher education in Texas and to
chart a general path towards its goals. It is time now to provide definition for our vision, to
enact specific strategies to move us aggressively forward. It is not too much to say that the
well‐being of Texas is heavily dependent on what we do as a higher education community.
While we have formidable challenges before us, it is important to
note that significant progress towards the goals of Closing the Gaps has
already been made. The goal related to federal research support is already
within our grasp ten years before the goal was intended to be reached. My
colleagues are now prepared to ask the Board to set a more ambitious goal
that aims for a higher percentage of total federal research support that
comes to Texas and would also help us to close the gap in federal research dollars between
California and Texas. Currently, Texas receives approximately 41 percent as much federal
The original work of the Closing the Gaps project was to establish a great vision for higher education in Texas and to chart a general path towards its goals. It is time now to provide definition for our vision, to enact specific strategies to move us aggressively forward.
While we have formidable challenges before us, it is important to note that significant progress towards the goals of Closing the Gaps has already been made.
145
research support as California, $1.22 billion compared to $2.95 billion for California. In terms of
our participation goal, the major accomplishment has been the adoption of the Recommended
High School Program which will, as it begins to take effect, dramatically increase college
readiness among high school graduates in Texas. The establishment of now 200 GO Centers in
high schools and other institutions around the state, which offer academic counseling and
financial aid information, has certainly expanded college awareness. And the establishment of
a higher education accountability system in the state aligned with Closing the Gaps goals helps
all of us in higher education keep our eyes fixed on the challenges ahead.
As I’ve suggested, it is time to both readjust and sharpen our strategies for achieving the
goals of Closing the Gaps. Over the past 16 months, in the time that I have been at the
Coordinating Board, the staff at the Board has been involved in a thorough review of our own
activities, as well as an extensive review of both literature and practice related to Closing the
Gaps, both inside Texas and around the country. I would like to offer for your consideration a
strategic overview of our plans for achieving the goals of Closing the Gaps, with a brief
description of some of the specific practices we propose to implement.
Our participation strategy is based on the principle that achieving our goals is only
possible through strong partnerships among the P‐12 sector, higher education and other sectors
such as business, faith‐based groups and community organizations. Furthermore, we must
recognize that education occurs in a context of socio‐economic, cultural and health factors.
Hungry children are not as likely to learn as well as well‐fed children; education is infinitely
more difficult without economic stability in both communities and families, so partnerships are
key.
As I have noted, a strong partnership between higher education and P‐12 is
fundamental, but we need to look at broader issues as well.
Last week I met with Texas Health Commissioner Eduardo Sanchez to discuss how we
can expand distribution of materials that advise families how to create intellectually rich
environments for their infants and toddlers. When I spoke with Commissioner Sanchez, I
mentioned to him an article that I had read in the New York Times this past summer that has
haunted me ever since. The article was about the importance of early childhood education and
146
it referred to a study that found that, by the time they are 4 years old, children from poor
families have heard 30 million fewer words than children raised in professional families. Thirty
million words. Imagine the ramifications of that for cognitive development. That is why it is so
important to emphasize “P” in P‐12 partnerships. The more research that is done on childhood
development, the more we realize that many children fall behind very early in their lives and
never have an ample chance to catch up. I used to cite a study that was done in the late 1980s
that concluded if children are not reading at grade level by the 3rd grade they have only a 10
percent chance of going to college. These more recent studies demonstrate that your
educational fate is frequently sealed even before that.
In terms of our participation with P‐12, our primary, long‐term goal
in higher education should be to create college‐going cultures in every
school in Texas, meaning appropriate curricular and extracurricular
activities at every grade level.
We can achieve this through several methods. We need to expand
the presence of local and regional P‐16 councils and we need to establish
vertical teams in key disciplines‐‐ language arts, math, science and social
studies‐‐ in which faculty from the different segments work together to promote college
readiness and college awareness.
In terms of our participation with P‐12, our primary, long‐term goal in higher education should be to create college‐going cultures in every school in Texas, meaning appropriate curricular and extracurricular activities at every grade level.
We need to expand and refine GO Centers and staff them through partnerships with
colleges and use work‐study students as peer tutors, counselors and mentors who can help
young people think more directly about going to college.
We need to expand the use of computer‐based academic counseling and supplementary
instruction. One of our challenges, and I will mention this again, is how we work at scale. Once
again the data you received from David Gardner this morning underscore what our challenge
is. Our numbers of enrolled college students are going up but, particularly in relation to the
Latino population, they are not going up as quickly as they should. They are going up in
absolute terms but in relation to the growth of the Hispanic community, we are falling farther
and farther behind. We need to work at a scale that can get us to our goals; clearly, one of the
ways we can work at scale is to take a closer look at computer‐based programs that could help
3 147
us work at a level not feasible through sheer human intervention. For example, we are not
going to see a significant increase in the number of academic counselors available in high
schools and middle schools. Consequently, we have to look at alternatives to traditional modes
of advising young people and families about going to college.
We need to promote the idea of applying to college as a condition of high school
graduation. Here in Austin, we have a successful partnership between Austin Community
College and the Austin Independent School District which requires just that and has led to a
dramatic increase in college awareness in local schools and in a clear increase in applications to
Austin Community College. That is a useful model we can apply around the state.
Our second major activity, this for the mid‐term, is to align high
school exit standards with rigorous college‐readiness standards. Our
current Coordinating Board college readiness standards are not consistent
with high school exit standards and, frankly, we have to revisit them
because they are not high enough. Data based on our current college
readiness standards indicate that approximately half of all high school
graduates entering college require some kind of remediation or
developmental education. The reality is that the figures are much higher
than that. We have data from the American College Testing service which
indicate that only 1 out of 6 high school graduates in Texas is prepared to
do rigorous college work across the board. I have seen other studies that show college‐
readiness numbers even lower than that. We thus need to take a look at our college readiness
standards and align them in some way with high school exit standards. It’s not fair and it is
certainly not sound educational policy that students and parents, when students graduate from
high school, have a distorted notion of how well‐prepared they are to do college work. They
are “A” and “B” students in high school and suddenly they go to college and are “C” students.
We need to make sure that the expectations and the standards are consistent.
Our third major activity related to the participation goal is to improve the rigor of the senior year in high school.
Our second major activity, this for the mid‐term, is to align high school exit standards with rigorous college‐readiness standards.
Our third major activity related to the participation goal is to improve the rigor of the
senior year in high school. We need to work on this at both ends of the continuum. For
students who are performing at the low end, we can use the senior year in high school to get
them more college‐ready. At the high end, we can expand AP courses and dual credit courses
4 148
not only to make good students even more college ready but also to accelerate them towards
degrees and free up the spaces we need to accommodate all the students we hope to bring into
higher education over the next 10 years. We can do some of this through some fairly simple
devices. For example, as I have mentioned several times over the past several months, there are
selective institutions around the country, both public and private, that let their applicants know
that one of the conditions of admission is a rigorous high school course of study in the senior
year with grades equivalent to the ones that got them admitted in the first place. These selective
institutions inform applicants that, if their senior year courses are not rigorous and their grade
point averages are not sustained, admission can be rescinded once final high school transcripts
are received. We could start to do this at our selective institutions like UT‐Austin and Texas
A&M University‐College Station. I believe that if we put a policy like this in place it would
send a message to students that they cannot take the senior year off. This would help us not
only in terms of college readiness but it would also send an important message to young people
that learning and hard work are things they have to do during the entire course of their lives.
As I indicated, the first principle related to Participation and
Success is “partnerships are key.” And, as I said a moment ago, the
second is we have to find ways to work at scale in a way that will help us
achieve the goals of Closing the Gaps. In terms of meeting our goals related
to student academic success, our basic principles are these: first, that
college success, like college readiness, begins well before college; second,
that if a two‐ or four‐year institution admits a student, it will do
everything it can to make sure that student completes a program of study.
In regard to early intervention, we are going to encourage
institutions to improve college‐readiness by developing bridge programs
and partnerships with high schools. There are strong examples all around
the country of bridge programs between the junior and senior year in high
school and between the senior year in high school and the first year in
college. These could have a dramatic effect on improving college success
rates. These can be intensive programs in one discipline or integrated
programs in several disciplines simultaneously; both can work very
effectively in getting students college ready. We have looked at examples of these kinds of
In regard to early intervention, we are going to encourage institutions to improve college‐readiness by developing bridge programs and partnerships with high schools.
In terms of meeting our goals related to student academic success, our basic principles are these: first, that college success, like college readiness, begins well before college; second, that if a two‐ or four‐year institution admits a student, it will do everything it can to make sure that student completes a program of study.
5 149
programs all over the country. Sometimes they are called academic boot camps and they can
sometimes include 4‐, 5‐ or 6‐week residency programs on a college campus. They work. They
are also expensive but they are less expensive than dealing with developmental education
needs once students arrive on a college campus, whether it is a two‐ or four‐year institution.
We need developmental education to be dramatically rethought
and strengthened. One of the things that is very clear working with TEA
is that the folks there recognize that the initiatives they have to
dramatically improve college readiness in Texas are long term projects. It
is going to be a 15‐ to 25‐year challenge for all of us. So the developmental education challenges
are not going away anytime soon. We need to recognize that it is going to be part of the core
mission of virtually all of our two‐year institutions and the core mission of many of our four‐
year institutions. We have to take a look at new innovative approaches. On South Padre Island
a couple of weeks ago, we had a meeting of community college leaders and there was a
presentation by Professor Henry Levin of Teachers College at Columbia University. He talked
about his accelerated schools model which has worked very effectively in elementary and
middle schools and I happen to believe would work effectively in colleges and universities. The
basic principle is when students are not well prepared to do college work, the solution is not to
go slow, not to remediate but to accelerate. There is a growing body of cognitive research that
suggests under‐prepared students need to be sped up, not slowed down. We also need better
evaluation of academic skills. There is a recent study that was done at the national level that
demonstrated in relation to Hispanic students that under‐preparation in the basic areas of
reading, writing and critical thinking is typically underestimated. The study concluded that the
strong remediation course or program that makes the most difference for Latino students is a
course in reading, writing and critical thinking. It is a bigger predictor of academic success
even when the need for remediation seems to be more severe in either math or science. We
need to take a close look at issues like these and make sure we are providing exactly the kind of
academic support students need. The PUENTE program, which is a high school and
community college program developed in other parts of the country, is a model we should take
a look at and think of implementing broadly here in Texas. We need better research on
developmental education. We need better specialists in developmental education who can lead
us in devising innovative programs for under‐prepared students at all points in the pipeline. If
you look at the state of developmental education around the country it is generally weak and
We need developmental education to be dramatically rethought and strengthened.
6 150
the quality of research associated with it also weak. Finally, we need to expand accountability
standards that measure how well institutions, both two‐ and four‐year, are doing in terms of
addressing the developmental education needs of their students.
Another part of our academic and success strategy was highlighted by the data you
heard this morning. As community colleges continue to enroll an
increasing number of students in higher education, we are going to have
to work on making sure that there is a much higher rate of transfer
between two‐ and four‐year institutions. The work that two‐year
institutions do in terms of vocational education, certification programs,
etc. is critical and is very well done in many places around the state. But
one of our needs in terms of meeting the goals of Closing the Gaps is to
dramatically increase transfer rates. That is going to require much more
cooperation than currently exists broadly between four‐ and two‐year institutions. We do have
examples of good cooperation: Victoria College and the University of Houston at Victoria,
Blinn College and Texas A&M University. But we need to expand such models across the state.
As community colleges continue to enroll an increasing number of students in higher education, we are going to have to work on making sure that there is a much higher rate of transfer between two‐ and four‐year institutions.
Finally, we need to address realistically the financial aid challenges
that we face. We need more financial aid in Texas and we are going to ask
members of the Board to help us actively engage members of the
Legislature in understanding how critically important this issue is.
Particularly outright grant money. Particularly financial aid that is targeted to the unmet need
in community colleges. We also recognize that as we ask for more financial aid for our students
we need to expect more of the students who receive financial aid. Students need to understand
that if Texas makes an investment in them, they have an obligation to graduate in a timely
manner. Although we hope we can significantly increase financial aid in Texas, particularly
outright grants, we also recognize that we will likely not have enough money to meet demand
and consequently we are now taking a look at financial aid programs that contain a component
of need plus merit. We want our students to recognize that if they receive financial aid, our
expectations will be high.
Finally, we need to address realistically the financial aid challenges that we face.
7 151
In terms of our third goal related to the academic excellence of
institutions, the basic principle on which we will proceed is that the
foundation of academic excellence at any level is strong undergraduate
education. We have to make sure that institutions don’t pursue graduate
academic excellence at the expense of undergraduate education. Graduate
education, whether at the master’s level or doctorate level, can significantly
enhance the quality of an institution. But we shouldn’t accept the
proposition that any public institution in Texas will seek to expand its graduate program
offerings without giving adequate attention to the excellence of its undergraduate offerings. We
also need to recognize different models of educational excellence for Texas. For example, we
might want to define the “urban university” as a category of excellence. Such an institution
would have an array of undergraduate and both masters and doctoral programs attuned to the
needs of a particular metropolitan area with an emphasis at the graduate level on professional
education accessible to working adults. Wayne State University in Detroit is an example of this
kind of institution with 13,000 graduate students, of whom only 1,600 are Ph.D. students. We
should look at models like San Francisco State which offers extensive and excellent
undergraduate programs and excellent masters degree programs. Evergreen State College in
Washington places a strong emphasis on undergraduate education and offers a limited number
of programs at the master’s level. We need to take a look at institutions like the College of
William and Mary in Virginia, a public institution that has developed an extraordinary
reputation for undergraduate education, equivalent in quality to private institutions like
Amherst, Wesleyan and Colorado College. The New College in Florida, which describes itself
as the honors college of Florida, is another model of excellence we might wish to promote. We
certainly have some small regional universities that could be beacons of
undergraduate educational excellence in Texas. I have already talked a bit
about how we can do graduate education differently. We need to make
sure that as we expand graduate education that we don’t focus solely on
developing doctoral programs when master’s programs are perfectly
adequate. We should also consider regional collaborative models so that,
instead of thinking of every institution in a region having a broad array of
graduate (especially doctoral) programs, that we encourage institutions to jointly create
extensive opportunities for graduate education in a given region. There is opportunity for
In terms of our third goal related to the academic excellence of institutions, the basic principle on which we will proceed is that the foundation of academic excellence at any level is strong undergraduate education.
We need to make sure that as we expand graduate education that we don’t focus solely on developing doctoral programs when master’s programs are perfectly adequate.
8 152
cooperation according to this kind of model in metropolitan areas like Dallas and Houston and
regions such as South Texas.
In regard to research goals–a topic that I have already talked about
briefly–I suggest that our basic principle should be to focus on a balance
between basic and applied research. One without the other is inadequate.
There has been a tendency recently in Texas to focus primarily on applied
research and we need to recognize that applied research exists on the
foundation of basic research.
We need to align the research agendas of our universities more closely with the
initiatives that have come out of the Governor’s office: Emerging Technology, the Industry
Clusters. We need to make sure that there is strong, viable and healthy partnership between
business interests and higher education in Texas.
Finally I would like to say that it is important to look at some of the
larger contextual issues influencing the implementation of Closing the Gaps.
We need to look very closely at the way education will change over the
next 10 or 15 years. If we look at the fact that we are trying to enroll
630,000 more students in Texas over the next 10 years, how are we going to
accommodate those students? It might be that 10 years from now every
student in every four or two‐year institution in the state will be required to
take a certain number of on‐line courses. There is a growing body of
evidence that suggests that those courses are not only cost effective but
perfectly adequate to the needs of the students. Think about your own families, your own
children, your grandchildren, who do a great deal, perhaps most, of their informal learning in
front of a computer screen. We need to look at those different models of pedagogies, different
models of instruction that are cost effective and allow us to significantly expand capacity. We
need to be more creative and more diligent in the way we use available facilities. I was at a
meeting last week in which there was a great deal of discussion of how the K‐12 educational
model is antiquated. It was pointed out, for example, that the reason schools are in session for
only 9 months out of the year is because, in the middle of the 19th century, young people had to
go into fields and harvest crops with their families during the summer. It turns out the reason
In regard to research goals . . . I suggest that our basic principle should be to focus on a balance between basic and applied research.
We need to look very closely at the way education will change over the next 10 or 15 years. . . . It might be that 10 years from now every student in every four or 2‐year institution in the state will be required to take a certain number of on‐line courses.
9 153
that there is a bell system in public schools, every 50 or 45 minutes, is because the idea was to
get children ready to work in factories where bells constantly made people aware of lunch
breaks or rest periods or moving from one part of the assembly line to another. We still use
bells today despite the fact we know longer have a manufacturing economy but an information
economy. Higher education is antiquated in some ways as well. We keep talking about all the
non‐traditional students we have, yet we still maintain a traditional academic calendar. We
need to make sure that we get more efficient use of our campuses in the summer, in the evening
and on weekends. We are going to have to look at our funding strategies. We have already
made some movements in that direction. We are going to have to take a fresh look at our
formulas. We are going to have to look at other means of funding higher education in Texas
and make sure we are doing as well as we can in using dollars effectively.
We have to address some other larger questions. We have to look
at Texas higher education in the context of national and international
issues. Higher education around the country seems to be poised on the
edge of a crisis. Some of it has to do with financial aid. Some of it has to
do with a lack of consensus of what the goal of higher education is. Is the
goal of higher education simply job training? There are some people who
say that job training is irrelevant to the purpose of higher education and
we should focus on enlightenment, developing well‐rounded individuals.
We need to have a discussion once again about that issue and make sure
all of us understand what we are trying to achieve.
Higher education around the country seems to be poised on the edge of a crisis. . . . Some of it has to do with a lack of consensus of what the goal of higher education is. . . . We need to have a discussion once again about that issue and make sure all of us understand what we are trying to achieve.
I believe that we need to make some very significant decisions about where we are going
and what we can achieve in higher education over the next couple of years. A major goal
among the staff at the Coordinating Board is to educate as fully as possible leaders in the
Legislature, leaders in the business community, members of governing boards about what we
need to do achieve the goals of Closing the Gaps. I feel very strongly if we do not make
significant progress in understanding all the issues involved in achieving the goals of Closing the
Gaps by the next legislative session, including dealing frankly with the challenge of financial
aid, that the widespread enthusiasm we currently have for achieving the goals of Closing the
Gaps will turn to cynicism. And Texas can’t afford to let that happen.
10 154
OCTOBER 2005
Closing the Gaps Goals and Targets Summary All proposed target and goal revisions are in bold. Closing the Gaps in Participation Revised Goal: By 2015, close the gaps in participation rates to add 630,000 more students. Revised Targets:
• Increase the overall Texas higher education participation rate from 5.0 percent in 2000 to 5.6 percent by 2010 and to 5.7 percent by 2015.
• Increase the higher education participation rate for the African-American population of Texas from 4.6 percent in 2000 to 5.6 percent by 2010, and to 5.7 percent by 2015.
• Increase the higher education participation rate for the Hispanic population of Texas from 3.7 percent in 2000 to 4.8 percent by 2010, and to 5.7 percent by 2015.
• Increase the higher education participation rate for the White population of Texas from 5.1 percent in 2000 to 5.7 percent by 2010, and to 5.7 percent by 2015.
Closing the Gaps in Success Revised Goal: By 2015, award 210,000 undergraduate degrees, certificates and other identifiable student successes from high quality programs. Revised Targets:
• Increase the overall number of students completing bachelor’s degrees, associate’s degrees and certificates to 176,000 by 2010; and to 210,000 by 2015.
• Increase the number of students completing bachelor’s degrees to 87,000 by 2010, and to 104,000 by 2015.
• Increase the number of students completing associate’s degrees to 43,400 by 2010; and to 55,500 by 2015.
• Increase the number of students completing doctoral degrees to 2,900 by 2010, and to 3,300 by 2015.
• Increase the number of African-American students completing bachelor’s degrees, associate’s degrees and certificates to 19,800 by 2010; and to 24,300 by 2015.
• Increase the number of Hispanic students completing bachelor’s degrees, associate’s degrees and certificates; to 50,000 by 2010; and to 67,000 by 2015.
• Increase by 50 percent the number of students who achieve identifiable successes other than with certificates and degrees by 2015. Exceed the average performance of the 10 most populous states in workforce education provided by community and technical colleges.
155
OCTOBER 2005 Closing the Gaps in Success: Allied Health and Nursing Revised target: Increase the number of students completing allied health and nursing bachelor’s and associate’s degrees and certificates to 20,300 by 2010; and to 26,100 by 2015.
Closing the Gaps in Success: Teacher Education Revised targets for All Teacher Certification Routes:
• Increase the number of teachers initially certified through all teacher certification routes to 34,600 by 2010; and to 44,700 by 2015.
• Increase the number of math and science teachers certified through all teacher certification routes to 6,500 by 2015.
Closing the Gaps in Research Revised Goal and Target: By 2015, increase the level of federal science and engineering research and development obligations to Texas institutions to 6.5 percent of obligations to higher education institutions across the nation.
• Increase federal science and engineering obligations to Texas universities and health-related institutions from 5.6 percent of the obligations in 2000 (or $1.1 billion in 1998 constant dollars) to 6.2 percent in 2010, and to 6.5 percent of obligations to higher education by 2015.
• Increase research expenditures by Texas public universities and health-related institutions from $1.45 billion to $3 billion by 2015 (approximate 5 percent increase per year).
156
INSERT SUB-TAB HERE
S.II.C. Higher Education Trends
Republication, copying or redistribution by any means is expressly prohibited without the prior written permission of The Economist
The brainsbusinessA survey of higher education
September 10th 2005
Mass higher education is forcing universities to become more diverse,more global and much more competitive, says Adrian Wooldridge
The second reason is the rise of theknowledge economy. The world is in thegrips of a �soft revolution� in whichknowledge is replacing physical resourcesas the main driver of economic growth.The OECD calculates that between 1985and 1997 the contribution of knowledge-based industries to total value added in-creased from 51% to 59% in Germany andfrom 45% to 51% in Britain. The best compa-nies are now devoting at least a third oftheir investment to knowledge-intensiveintangibles such as R&D, licensing andmarketing. Universities are among themost important engines of the knowledgeeconomy. Not only do they produce thebrain workers who man it, they also pro-vide much of its backbone, from labora-tories to libraries to computer networks.
The third factor is globalisation. Thedeath of distance is transforming acade-mia just as radically as it is transformingbusiness. The number of people fromOECD countries studying abroad has dou-bled over the past 20 years, to 1.9m; univer-sities are opening campuses all around theworld; and a growing number of countriesare trying to turn higher education into anexport industry.
The fourth is competition. Traditionaluniversities are being forced to competefor students and research grants, and priv-ate companies are trying to break into asector which they regard as �the newhealth care�. The World Bank calculatesthat global spending on higher education
Secrets of successAmerica’s system of higher education is thebest in the world. That is because there is nosystem. Page 6
Head in the cloudsEurope hopes to become the world’s pre-eminent knowledge-based economy. Notlikely. Page 9
A world of opportunityDeveloping countries see the point of universities. Page 14
Wandering scholarsFor students, higher education is becominga borderless world. Page 16
Higher Ed IncUniversities have become much more businesslike, but they are still doing the sameold things. Page 19
The best is yet to comeA more market-oriented system of highereducation can do much better than the state-dominated model. Page 20
The Economist September 10th 2005 A survey of higher education 1
1
The brains business
FOR those of a certain age and educa-tional background, it is hard to think of
higher education without thinking of an-cient institutions. Some universities are ofa venerable age�the University of Bolo-gna was founded in 1088, the University ofOxford in 1096�and many of them have astrong sense of tradition. The truly oldones make the most of their pedigrees, andthose of a more recent vintage work hardto create an aura of antiquity.
And yet these tradition-loving (or -cre-ating) institutions are currently enduring athunderstorm of changes so fundamentalthat some say the very idea of the univer-sity is being challenged. Universities areexperimenting with new ways of funding(most notably through student fees), forg-ing partnerships with private companiesand engaging in mergers and acquisitions.Such changes are tugging at the ivy’s roots.
This is happening for four reasons. The�rst is the democratisation of higher edu-cation��massi�cation�, in the language ofthe educational profession. In the richworld, massi�cation has been going on forsome time. The proportion of adults withhigher educational quali�cations in theOECD countries almost doubled between1975 and 2000, from 22% to 41%. But mostof the rich countries are still struggling todigest this huge growth in numbers. Andnow massi�cation is spreading to the de-veloping world. China doubled its studentpopulation in the late 1990s, and India istrying to follow suit.
Also in this section
www.economist.com/audio
An audio interview with the author is at
www.economist.com/surveys
A list of sources can be found online
AcknowledgmentsParticular thanks are due to Philip Altbach, the director ofthe Centre for International Higher Education at BostonCollege, for sharing his unrivalled knowledge of highereducation around the world.The author is also grateful to the following institutions fortheir help and advice: the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; the World Bank; the FordFoundation International Fellowship Programme; and theInstitute of International Education.
www.economist.com/highereducation
Past articles on higher education are at
2 A survey of higher education The Economist September 10th 2005
2 amounts to $300 billion a year, or 1% ofglobal economic output. There are morethan 80m students worldwide, and 3.5mpeople are employed to teach them or lookafter them.
Enemies of promiseAll this sounds as though a golden age foruniversities has arrived. But inside acade-mia, particularly in Europe, it does not feellike it. Academics complain about �the de-cline of the donnish dominion� (the title ofa book by A.H. Halsey, a sociologist), andadministrators are locked in bad-temperedexchanges with the politicians who fundthem. What has gone wrong?
The biggest problem is the role of thestate. If more and more governments areembracing massi�cation, few of them arewilling to draw the appropriate conclusionfrom their enthusiasm: that they should ei-ther provide the requisite funds (as theScandinavian countries do) or allow uni-versities to charge realistic fees. Many gov-ernments have tried to square the circlethrough tighter management, but manage-ment cannot make up for lack of resources.
So in all too much of the academicworld, the writer Kingsley Amis’s famousdictum that more means worse is comingto pass. Academic salaries are decliningwhen measured against similar jobs else-where, and buildings and libraries are de-teriorating. In mega-institutions such asthe University of Rome (180,000 stu-dents), the National University of Mexico(200,000-plus), and Turkey’s AnadoluUniversity (530,000), individual attentionto students is bound to take a back seat.
The innate conservatism of the aca-demic profession does not help. The mod-ern university was born in a very di�erentworld from the current one, a world whereonly a tiny minority of the populationwent into higher education, yet many aca-demics have been reluctant to make anyallowances for massi�cation. Italian uni-versities, for instance, still insist that all stu-dents undergo a viva voce examination bya full professor, lasting an average of about�ve minutes.
What, if anything, can be done?Techno-utopians believe that higher edu-cation is ripe for revolution. The univer-sity, they say, is a hopelessly antiquatedinstitution, wedded to outdated practicessuch as tenure and lectures, and incapableof serving a new world of mass audiencesand just-in-time information. �Thirtyyears from now the big university cam-puses will be relics,� says Peter Drucker, aveteran management guru. �I consider the
American research university of the past40 years to be a failure.� Fortunately, in hisview, help is on the way in the form of in-ternet tuition and for-pro�t universities.
Cultural conservatives, on the otherhand, believe that the best way forward isbackward. The two ruling principles ofmodern higher-education policy�democ-racy and utility�are �degradations of theacademic dogma�, to borrow a phrasefrom the late Robert Nisbet, another sociol-ogist. They think it is foolish to wastehigher education on people who wouldrather study �Seinfeld� than Socrates, anddisingenuous to confuse the pursuit oftruth with the pursuit of pro�t.
The conservative argument falls at the�rst hurdle: practicality. Higher educationis rapidly going the way of secondary edu-cation: it is becoming a universal aspira-tion. The techno-utopian position is super-�cially more attractive. The internet willsurely in�uence teaching, and for-pro�tcompanies are bound to shake up a mori-bund marketplace. But there are limits.
A few years ago a report by Coopers &Lybrand crowed that online educationcould eliminate the two biggest costs fromhigher education: �The �rst is the need forbricks and mortar; traditional campusesare not necessary. The second is full-timefaculty. [Online] learning involves only asmall number of professors, but has the
potential to reach a huge market of stu-dents.� That is nonsense. The humantouch is much more vital to higher educa-tion than is high technology. Education isnot just about transmitting a body of facts,which the internet does pretty well. It isabout learning to argue and reason, whichis best done in a community of scholars.
This survey will argue that the most sig-ni�cant development in higher educationis the emergence of a super-league ofglobal universities. This is revolutionary inthe sense that these institutions regard thewhole world as their stage, but also evolu-tionary in that they are still wedded to theideal of a community of scholars whocombine teaching with research.
The problem for policymakers is howto create a system of higher education thatbalances the twin demands of excellenceand mass access, that makes room forglobal elite universities while also cateringfor large numbers of average students, thatexploits the opportunities provided bynew technology while also recognisingthat education requires a human touch.
As it happens, we already possess asuccessful model of how to organisehigher education: America’s. That countryhas almost a monopoly on the world’sbest universities (see table 1), but also pro-vides access to higher education for thebulk of those who deserve it. The successof American higher education is not just aresult of money (though that helps); it isthe result of organisation. American uni-versities are much less dependent on thestate than are their competitors abroad.They derive their income from a wide va-riety of sources, from fee-paying studentsto nostalgic alumni, from hard-headedbusinessmen to generous philanthropists.And they come in a wide variety of shapesand sizes, from Princeton and Yale to Kala-mazoo community college.
This survey will o�er two pieces of ad-vice for countries that are trying to createsuccessful higher-education systems, bethey newcomers such as India and Chinaor failed old hands such as Germany andItaly. First: diversify your sources of in-come. The bargain with the state hasturned out to be a pact with the devil. Sec-ond: let a thousand academic �owersbloom. Universities, including for-pro�tones, should have to compete for custom-ers. A sophisticated economy needs awide variety of universities pursuing awide variety of missions. These two prin-ciples reinforce each other: the more thatthe state’s role contracts, the more educa-tional variety will �ourish. 7
America rulesThe world’s top universities*
1 Harvard University America
2 Stanford University America
3 University of Cambridge Britain
4 University of California (Berkeley) America
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology America
6 California Institute of Technology America
7 Princeton University America
8 University of Oxford Britain
9 Columbia University America
10 University of Chicago America
11 Yale University America
12 Cornell University America
13 University of California (San Diego) America
14 Tokyo University Japan
15 University of Pennsylvania America
16 University of California (Los Angeles) America
17 University of California (San Francisco) America
18 University of Wisconsin (Madison) America
19 University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) America
20 University of Washington (Seattle) America
1
*Ranked by a mixture of indicators of academic and research
performance, including Nobel prizes and articles in
respected publicationsSource: Jiao Tong University, Shanghai
1
The Economist September 10th 2005 A survey of higher education 3
IT IS all too easy to mock American acade-mia. Every week produces a mind-bog-
gling example of intolerance or wackiness.Consider the twin stories of LawrenceSummers, one of the world’s most distin-guished economists, and Ward Churchill,an obscure professor of ethnic studies,which unfolded in parallel earlier thisyear. Mr Summers was almost forced to re-sign as president of Harvard University be-cause he had dared to engage in intellec-tual speculation by arguing, in an informalseminar, that discrimination might not bethe only reason why women are under-represented in the higher reaches of sci-ence and mathematics. Mr Churchill man-aged to keep his job at the University ofBoulder, Colorado, despite a charge sheetincluding plagiarism, physical intimida-tion and lying about his ethnicity.
With such colourful headlines, it is easyto lose sight of the real story: that Americahas the best system of higher education inthe world. The Institute of Higher Educa-tion at Shanghai’s Jiao Tong Universityranks the world’s universities on a series ofobjective criteria such as the number ofNobel prizes and articles in prestigiousjournals. Seventeen of the top 20 universi-ties in that list are American (see table 1,previous page); indeed, so are 35 of the top50. American universities currently em-ploy 70% of the world’s Nobel prize-win-ners. They produce about 30% of theworld’s output of articles on science andengineering, according to a survey con-ducted in 2001, and 44% of the most fre-quently cited articles.
At the same time, a larger proportion ofthe population goes on to higher educa-tion in America than almost anywhereelse, with about a third of college-agedpeople getting �rst degrees and about athird of those continuing to get advanceddegrees. Non-traditional students also dobetter than in most other countries. Themajority of undergraduates are female; athird come from racial minorities; andmore than 40% are aged 25 or over. About20% come from families with incomes at orbelow the poverty line. Half attend part-time, and 80% of students work to helpsupport themselves.
Why is America so successful? Wealth
clearly has something to do with it. Amer-ica spends more than twice as much perstudent as the OECD average (about$22,000 versus $10,000 in 2001), andalumni and philanthropists routinelyshower universities with gold. Historyalso plays a part. Americans have alwayshad a passion for higher education. ThePuritans established Harvard College in1636, just two decades after they �rst ar-rived in New England.
The main reason for America’s success,however, lies in organisation. This is some-thing other countries can copy. But theywill not �nd it easy�particularly if they aredeveloping countries that are bent onstate-driven modernisation.
The �rst principle is that the federalgovernment plays a limited part. Americadoes not have a central plan for its univer-sities. It does not treat its academics as civilservants, as do France and Germany. In-stead, universities have a wide range of pa-trons, from state governments to religiousbodies, from fee-paying students to gener-ous philanthropists. The academic land-scape has been shaped by rich benefactorssuch as Ezra Cornell, Cornelius Vanderbilt,Johns Hopkins and John D. Rockefeller.And the tradition of philanthropy sur-vives to this day: in �scal 2004, private do-nors gave $24.4 billion to universities.
Limited government does not mean in-di�erent government. The federal govern-ment has repeatedly stepped in to turbo-charge higher education. The Morrill LandGrant Act of 1862 created land-grant uni-versities across the country. The statespoured money into community colleges.The GI Bill of 1946 brought universitieswithin the reach of everyone. The federalgovernment continues to pour billions ofdollars into science and research.
The second principle is competition.Universities compete for everything, fromstudents to professors to basketball stars.Professors compete for federal researchgrants. Students compete for college bursa-ries or research fellowships. This meansthat successful institutions cannot rest ontheir laurels.
The third principle is that it is all right tobe useful. Bertrand Russell once expressedastonishment at the worldly concerns heencountered at the University of Wiscon-sin: �When any farmer’s turnips go wrong,they send a professor to investigate the fail-ure scienti�cally.� America has always re-garded universities as more than ivorytowers. Henry Steele Commager, a 20th-century American historian, noted of theaverage 19th-century American that �edu-cation was his religion��provided that it�be practical and pay dividends�.
This emphasis on �paying dividends�remains a prominent feature of academicculture. America has pioneered the art offorging links between academia and in-dustry. American universities earn morethan $1 billion a year in royalties and li-cence fees. More than 170 universities have�business incubators� of some sort, anddozens operate their own venture funds.
Nothing quite like itThere is no shortage of things to marvel atin America’s higher-education system,from its robustness in the face of externalshocks to its overall excellence. No countrybut America explores such a wide range ofsubjects (including some dubious onessuch as GBLT�gay, lesbian, bisexual andtransgender studies). However, what par-ticularly stands out is the system’s �exibil-ity and its sheer diversity.
For a demonstration of its �exibility,
Secrets of success
America’s system of higher education is the best in the world. That is because there is no system
Larry Summers committed heresy
1
4 A survey of higher education The Economist September 10th 2005
2 consider New York University. NYU usedto be a commuter school with little moneyand even less prestige. In the mid-1970s, itwas so close to bankruptcy that it had tosell o� its largest campus, in the Bronx. Buttoday it is �ush with money from fund-raising, �hot� with would-be undergradu-ates across the country, and famous for re-cruiting academic superstars. The Shang-hai world ranking puts it at number 32.
The academic superstars certainlyhelped, but two other things proved evenmore useful. The �rst was NYU’s ability toturn its location in downtown Manhattaninto an asset. Lots of universities have �neeconomics departments, but having thestock exchange nearby adds something ex-tra. The second was the university’s abilityto spot market niches.
What made all this possible was thefact that power is concentrated in thehands of the central administration. Mostuniversities in other countries distributepower among the professors; Americanuniversities have established a counterbal-ance to the power of the faculty in the per-son of a president, which allows some ofthem to act more like entrepreneurial �rmsthan lethargic academic bodies.
The American system’s diversity has al-lowed it to combine excellence with accessby providing a wide range of di�erenttypes of institutions. Only about 100 ofAmerica’s 3,200 higher-education institu-tions are research universities. Many of therest are community colleges that producelittle research and o�er only two-yearcourses. But able students can progressfrom a humble two-year college to a presti-gious research university.
To be fair, one reason why America’sbest universities are so good is that theyhave borrowed liberally from abroad�particularly from the British residentialuniversities that grew up in Oxford andCambridge in the Middle Ages, and fromWilhelm von Humboldt’s German re-search university in the early 19th century.
Serpents in paradiseBut America’s academic paradise har-bours plenty of serpents. The political cor-rectness that has plagued Mr Summers isjust one example of a deeper problem:America’s growing inclination to abandonthe very principles that have made it aworld leader.
Ross Douthat has recently created a stirwith his exposé of Ivy League education,�Privilege: Harvard and the Education ofthe Ruling Class�. High-school studentscompete furiously to get into Ivy League
universities such as Harvard, but MrDouthat, who graduated from there onlythree years ago, argues that they are sel-dom stretched when they arrive. A fewprofessors try to provide overviews of bigsubjects, but many stick with their pet sub-jects regardless of what undergraduatesneed to learn. Mr Douthat wanted to pick acomprehensive list of classes in his chosensubjects, history and literature, but endedup with a weird mish-mash taught by �un-engaged professors and overburdenedteaching assistants�. Looking back on hisexperience, he feels cheated.
He is not alone. In many ways, under-graduates are the stepchildren of Ameri-can higher education. Most academics paymore attention to research than to teach-ing, and most universities continue to ne-glect their core curriculums in the name ofacademic choice.
From time to time, universities try toimprove the lot of the undergraduate, asMr Summers is currently doing at Harvard:reforming the core curriculum, taminggrade in�ation and asking professors toconcentrate on teaching rather than self-promotion. But reformers are �ghting inhostile territory. The biggest rewards in ac-ademic life are reserved for research ratherthan teaching, not least because research iseasier to evaluate; and most students arewilling to put up with indi�erent teachingso long as they get those vital diplomas.
Complaints about the neglect of under-graduate education are as old as the re-search university, but the past few yearshave produced a host of new criticisms of
American universities. The �rst is that uni-versities are no longer as devoted to free in-quiry as they ought to be. The persecutionof Mr Summers for the sin of intellectualrumination is symptomatic of a wider pro-blem. At a time when America’s big politi-cal parties are deeply divided over pro-found questions, from the meaning of�life� to the ethics of pre-emptive war, uni-versity professors are overwhelmingly onthe side of one political party. Only about10% of tenured professors say they vote Re-publican. The liberal majority has repeat-edly shown that it is willing to crush dis-sent on anything from speech codes to thechoice of subjects worth studying.
There are signs that scientists, too, areturning against free and open inquiry,though for commercial rather than ideo-logical reasons. Corporate sponsors are at-taching strings to their donations in orderto prevent competitors from free-riding ontheir research, such as forcing scientists todelay publication or even blank out cru-cial passages from published papers.When Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceuticalgiant, agreed to invest $25m in Berkeley’sCollege of Natural Resources, for example,it stipulated that it should get a �rst look atmuch of the research carried out by theplant and microbial biology department.
The second criticism is that America’suniversities are pricing themselves out ofthe range of ordinary Americans. Between1971-72 and 2002-03, annual tuition costs,in constant 2002 dollars, rose from $840 to$1,735 at public two-year colleges and from$7,966 to $18,273 at private four-year col-
New York University: from underdog to top dog
1
The Economist September 10th 2005 A survey of higher education 5
2 leges. True, the federal government spendsover $100 billion a year on student aid,and elite universities make every e�ort tosubsidise poorer students. One study ofadmissions to selective colleges showsthat, in 2001-02, students with a medianfamily income paid only 34% of the�sticker� price.
Still, the sheer relentlessness of aca-demic in�ation is worrisome. Elite col-leges have little incentive to compete onprice; indeed, they tend to compete byadding expensive accoutrements, such asstar professors or state-of-the-art gyms,thus pushing up the cost of education stillfurther. And the public universities thatplayed such a valiant role in providingopportunities to underprivileged studentsare being forced to raise their prices,thanks to the continual squeeze on publicfunding. The average cost of tuition at pub-lic universities rose by 10.5% last year, fourtimes the rate of in�ation.
The dramatic rise in the price of Ameri-can higher education puts a heavy burdenon middle-class families who are too richto qualify for special treatment. It alsosends negative signals to poorer parentswho may be unaware of all the subsidiesavailable. Deborah Wadsworth, an opin-ion pollster, points out that universitiesmay be courting a popular backlash.Americans increasingly regard universi-ties as the gatekeepers to good jobs, butthey also see them as prohibitively expen-sive. The result is a steady erosion of publicadmiration for these formerly much-es-teemed institutions.
This points to a third criticism: that uni-versities are becoming bastions of privi-lege rather than instruments of social mo-
bility. From the 1930s onwards, America’sgreat universities did much to realise theAmerican creed of equality of opportu-nity. James Bryant Conant, Harvard’s pres-ident from 1933 to 1953, opened up scholar-ships to academic merit, and the vastpost-war expansion of higher educationextended Conant’s meritocratic principleto millions of students. �Flagship� publicuniversities such as Michigan, Texas andBerkeley, California, provided world-classeducation for next to nothing.
Meritocracy in retreatBut the march of academic meritocracyhas now slowed to a crawl, and, on somefronts, has even turned into a retreat. Wil-liam Bowen of Princeton University andtwo colleagues, in a study of admissions toelite universities, found that in the 11 uni-versities for which they had the best data,students from the top income quartile in-creased their share of places from 39% in1976 to 50% in 1995. Students from the bot-tom income quartile also increased theirshare very slightly: the squeeze came inthe middle.
Mr Summers points out that Harvardnow o�ers free tuition to students whosefamilies earn less than $40,000 a year, andgreatly reduced fees to students from fam-ilies earning $40,000-60,000. Other eliteuniversities have followed suit. Yet at thesame time those universities give priorityto athletes, people applying early (who of-ten come from privileged backgrounds)and the children of alumni (�legacies�).Duke University encourages the o�springof wealthy parents to apply early and con-siders their applications sympathetically.
The real threat to meritocracy, how-
ever, comes not from within the universi-ties but from society at large. One conse-quence of the squeeze on funding forpublic universities, created by Americans’reluctance to pay taxes, has been an aca-demic brain drain to the more socially ex-clusive private universities. In 1987, sevenof the 26 top-rated universities in the USNews & World Report rankings were publicinstitutions; by 2002, the number hadfallen to just four.
The biggest risk to American highereducation is the erosion of the competitiveprinciple. The man often cited as the archi-tect of American academia’s current suc-cess is Vannevar Bush, who was director ofthe o�ce of scienti�c research and de-velopment during the second world war.After the war he insisted that researchgrants be allocated to universities on thebasis of open competition and peer re-view. But in the 1980s universities beganundermining this principle by lobbyingtheir local congressmen for direct appro-priations. In 2003, the amount of moneyfrom the federal research budget awardedon a non-competitive basis topped $2 bil-lion, up from $1 billion in 2000.
American academia’s merits still out-weigh its faults. Many American under-graduates are savvy enough to get a �rst-class education. Many academics resist thetemptation to censor ideological minor-ities. The vast bulk of research grants are al-located on the basis of merit. Yet Americanuniversities are acquiring a growing cata-logue of bad habits that could one dayleave them vulnerable to competitors fromother parts of the world�though probablynot from Europe, which has overwhelm-ing academic problems of its own. 7
THERE are few things European leaderslike better than talking about their
plans for turning Europe into the world’smost competitive �knowledge-basedeconomy� by the end of this decade. Theaim was �rst laid out at the EU’s summit inLisbon in March 2000 and has been re-peated with hypnotic fervour ever since.
To grasp the full absurdity of this ambi-tion, it is worth visiting the Humboldt Uni-versity in Berlin. Walk into the main foyer,stroll up the steps to the �rst �oor past a slo-
gan by a former student engraved in goldon the wall (�Philosophers have simply in-terpreted the world; the point is to changeit�) and study the portraits of the Nobelprize-winners that line the walls. Therewere eight in 1900-09, six in 1910-19, fourin 1920-29, six in 1930-39, one in 1940-49and four in 1950-56. The roll of honour in-cludes luminaries such as TheodorMommsen, Max Planck, Albert Einsteinand Werner Heisenberg. But after 1956 theNobel prizes suddenly stop.
The list of Nobel prize-winners actuallyunderstates the university’s past glories. Inthe 19th century, it not only nurtured suchworld-class intellectuals as Hegel andFichte, it also pioneered a new sort of edu-cational institution�the research univer-sity. And the drying-up of Nobel prizes in1956 is not the only indication of the uni-versity’s current plight. It occupies 95thplace on the Shanghai list, next to the Uni-versity of Utah. The buildings are drab, lec-tures and classes are overcrowded, and
Head in the clouds
Europe hopes to become the world’s pre-eminent knowledge-based economy. Not likely
1
6 A survey of higher education The Economist September 10th 2005
2 some of the best professors have left. Apologists might retort that Humboldt
is still recovering from its time on thewrong side of the Berlin Wall. Yet Hum-boldt’s problems are replicated across thewhole of Germany, west as well as east.The highest-placed German university inthe Shanghai rankings is the TechnicalUniversity of Munich, at 45. The ratio ofstudents to teachers at German universi-ties is depressingly high. For some lectures,a thousand or more students pile into thehall. The only count on which Germanuniversities still lead the world is the age ofits students at graduation, 26 on average.
Their biggest problem is the dead handof the state. The German government�both regional and central�tries to micro-manage every aspect of academic life,from whom universities employ to whomthey can teach. The state has progressivelystarved universities of funds, not least be-cause it has forbidden them from chargingfees. It has also snu�ed out academic com-petition. Universities have little power topick their pupils and even less to attractstar professors.
Belatedly, the Germans are beginningto recognise that their system is dysfunc-tional, not least because some of thebrightest German students are voting withtheir feet and going abroad to study. Thegovernment is trying hard to encourageforeign students to come to Germany,though its success may have more to dowith the fact that higher education is freeto both domestic and foreign studentsthan with the quality of the education pur-veyed. The government is also trying tomake its universities more competitive by
creating a German Ivy League. Further-more, Germany’s Constitutional Courthas ruled against the federal government’sban on tuition charges, opening the wayfor universities to increase their revenues(and prompting protests from tens of thou-sands of students). But these reforms areonly a beginning. German states con-trolled by the left are likely to continue toresist fees, and even the more conservativeones will charge only a nominal amount.
Universities are a mess across Europe.European countries spend only 1.1% oftheir GDP on higher education, comparedwith 2.7% in the United States. Americanuniversities have between two and �vetimes as much to spend per student asEuropean universities, which translatesinto smaller classes, better professors andhigher-quality research. The EuropeanCommission estimates that 400,000 EU-born scienti�c researchers are now work-ing in the United States. Most have noplans to return. Europe produces only aquarter of the American number of pat-ents per million people. It needs to ask it-self not whether it can overtake the UnitedStates as the world’s top knowledge econ-omy by 2010, but how it can avoid beingovertaken by China and other Asian tigers.
The basic problems with the universi-ties are the same across Europe: too muchstate control and too little freedom to man-age their own a�airs. Governments haveforced universities to educate huge armiesof students on the cheap, and have de-prived them of the two freedoms that theyneed to compete in the international mar-ketplace: to select their students and to paytheir professors the market rate for the job.
Still, the Europeans are taking a coupleof practical steps to improve their troubleduniversities. The Bologna Declaration,signed in 1999, is intended to produce asingle European higher educational�space� by introducing a combination ofcomparable quali�cations and transfera-ble credits. Various EU initiatives are alsoencouraging young people to study inother European countries: the Erasmusprogramme, for example, has alreadybene�ted more than one million students.This combination of increased transpa-rency and enhanced mobility is bound topromote competition among universities.
But this is all too little, too late. Therehas been little or no progress on introduc-ing realistic fees, freeing universities fromgovernment control or concentrating re-search in elite universities. To understandhow far most European countries still haveto go�and how di�cult it will be to get
there�Britain o�ers some useful pointers.Britain is a marked exception to the
European pattern of complacency and de-cline. It has two universities in the top tenof the Shanghai rankings, Cambridge atnumber three and Oxford at number eight,and four in the top 30, a far better showingthan any other European country. It alsohas one of the highest graduation rates inthe OECD, with more than 30% of the rele-vant age group completing university orcollege, up from only 14% in the mid-1980s.
Half rightBritain’s academics were aghast whenMargaret Thatcher set about shaking upthe universities in the early 1980s. Oxfordeven denied an honorary degree to thecountry’s �rst female prime minister, anold alumnus. But the long-term e�ect ofher policies, which have been continuedand in some ways intensi�ed under La-bour since 1997, has been to leave Britishuniversities in a much better state thantheir continental rivals.
British universities have won a mea-sure of freedom to charge tuition fees: theamount they can charge is set to triple to£3,000 next year. They are also learninghow to raise money from both privatebusiness and alumni. If the most conspicu-ous �gure on British campuses in the 1960swas the radical sociologist, the most con-spicuous �gure today is the academic en-
Have the Germans lost the knack?
2A good investmentPremium for higher education on earnings from employment, 25-64-year-olds, 2002 Upper secondary education=100
Source: OECD
Shorter vocational education
Full-length university education and advanced research programmes
100 125125 150150 175175 200200
UnitedStates
France
Britain
Germany
Italy
South Korea
MalesFemales
1
The Economist September 10th 2005 A survey of higher education 7
2 trepreneur. But Britain’s universities stillsu�er from two vexatious problems.
The �rst is government meddling. Thegovernment’s determination to improveacademic productivity is creating a Stalin-ist bureaucracy of �academic auditors�who cannot distinguish between make-work articles and genuine research, and itsdesire to open up access to higher educa-tion is creating a second Stalinist bureauc-racy in the O�ce for Fair Access.
The second problem is a relentless �-nancial squeeze. Successive governmentshave trumpeted improvements in pro-ductivity, which is supposedly rising by 1%a year. But too often this is just a synonymfor the erosion of quality. In the 1990s,spending per student fell by more than athird, and the student-teacher ratio dou-bled from 9:1 to 18:1. Academic salarieshave been falling by about 2% a year in realterms for two decades, and the army ofpart-time lecturers has grown ever bigger.
Half the universities are running de�cits. This is undermining the country’s abil-
ity to support world-class universities.Some of the �nest scholars have been lostto foreign competitors. Just as damaging,
the universities are being forced to eat intotheir capital. Oxford is currently runningan operating de�cit of £20m a year and anaccumulated de�cit on teaching and re-search of £95m. This is because the Trea-sury pays only about half of the estimatedaverage of £18,600 a year it costs to teach anOxford undergraduate, so the universityand its colleges have to make up the di�er-ence from their own resources. The newtop-up fees will help, but not enough tosolve the university’s problems.
The British government has led conti-nental Europe in reforming its universities.It has established a system of studentloans, and has crossed an importantthreshold in conceding the principle of�variable fees�. But the sort of managedmarket it has created, in which the govern-ment regulates what universities can selland how much they can charge for it, is anunsatisfactory half-way house. It shouldnow set the universities free. 7
3Money talksTotal expenditure per student on higher
education, excluding R&D, $PPP, ’000
Source: OECD
0 5 10 15 20
United States
Denmark
Australia
Britain
France
Germany
Spain
Mexico
ACROSS the developing world, highereducation is coming in from the cold.
Gone are the days when it was purely aluxury for the elite. Governments are rap-idly expanding their higher-education sys-tems, with China probably witnessing thebiggest expansion of student numbers inhistory. They are trying to create centres ofexcellence and throwing open the sector toprivate entrepreneurs.
The main reason for this �urry of activ-ity is the dramatic growth in the supply ofpotential students. Secondary school en-rolment rates have grown rapidly acrossthe developing world. But there has alsobeen a revolution in economic thinking.Not so long ago the World Bank pooh-poohed spending on higher education asboth economically ine�cient and sociallyregressive. Now many development econ-omists are warming to higher education,pointing to the demand for graduates�asdemonstrated by their wage premium�and to the positive e�ect of university-based research on the economy.
Nobody doubts the di�culty of build-ing decent universities in the developingworld. In most countries the legacy ofcolonialism has been compounded by thelegacy of anti-colonialism. Colonialism
meant that universities concentrated onproducing a tiny group of elite adminis-trators, and anti-colonialism tightenedtheir bonds with government.
Public spending on universities in de-veloping countries is highly regressive. InLatin America the professional classes,who account for 15% of the population,take up nearly half of all university places.In Rwanda, 15% of the total education bud-get is spent on the 0.2% of students who at-tend universities. Most universities in thedeveloping world are also hopelesslybadly managed.
But there are a few bright spots on thehorizon. Some universities in poorer coun-tries have been doing world-class re-search. The botany department of the Uni-versity of Sao Paulo, for example, was �rstto crack the genetic code of a bacteriumcalled Xylella fastidiosa, which has beenlaying waste to vineyards in southern Cali-fornia. This work attracted global fundingas well as attention from, among others,America’s Department of Agriculture andthe American Vineyard Foundation.
A second bright spot is that good man-agement can produce striking improve-ments. Uganda’s Makerere University,which in the late 1980s was on the verge of
bankruptcy, has increased its studentnumbers �vefold and is investing in its in-frastructure. It has introduced fees for 80%of its students, and now generates a thirdof its revenue from a variety of commer-cial ventures such as a bakery and an in-house consultancy.
A third cause for cheer is the prolifera-tion of di�erent kinds of universities. Afew years ago most universities in the de-veloping world were much the same: de-signed for the elite and dominated by thestate. Now there is more variety. The big-gest change is the emergence of a for-pro�tsector that concentrates on subjects suchas accounting and computer skills, and of-ten pioneers educational innovation.
What are the prospects that the goodnews will outweigh the bad? To answerthis question, it is worth looking moreclosely at the two countries that are cur-rently conducting the world’s biggest ex-periments in the �massi�cation� of highereducation: India and China.
India’s higher-education system hasplenty of inherited handicaps. Some ofthem are left over from colonialism andsome from anti-colonialism; some arisefrom poor management and political con-fusion. B.S. Baswan, the country’s secre-
A world of opportunity
Developing countries see the point of higher education
1
8 A survey of higher education The Economist September 10th 2005
2 tary for secondary and higher education,notes that his sector lacks a clear politicalconstituency. Yet the problem is deeperthan that: the government does not havethe resources to fund the expansion itwants, but cannot summon up the politi-cal courage to start charging students re-alistic fees. The result is that India oftenseems to take one step back for every twosteps forward.
Undoubtedly, though, it is making ad-vances. The number of people attendinguniversities almost doubled in the 1990s,from 4.9m to 9.4m. The price of this hasbeen a decline in overall quality. That said,India has two valuable things going for it.One is its collection of elite institutions.For decades, India has been pouring re-sources into the All India Institute of Medi-cal Sciences, the Indian Institute of Sciencein Bangalore and, above all, the Indian In-stitutes of Technology. These institutionstake their pick from an army of candidatesevery year, with 180,000 hopefuls takingthe screening test for around 3,500 placesin the seven IITs. They provide a highly in-tensive education, with all students andoften professors too living on campus.And they produce a stream of highly edu-cated people who help to set professionalstandards. �They are a class apart, like Ox-ford and Cambridge,� says P.V. Indiresan,an expert on universities.
These elite institutions help to keep In-dia plugged into the global knowledgeeconomy. R.S. Sirohi, the former directorof IIT Delhi, explains that he used to givehis sta� long sabbaticals in western uni-versities, and that about a third of themspend time in America every summer. Hisinstitute receives sponsorship for researchfrom multinationals such as Sun Microsys-tems, Cisco, Volvo and Ford. Granted, theelite institutions produce many peoplewho get brain-drained away, but they alsokeep many bright people from emigrating,and may even attract émigrés back if In-dia’s economy keeps booming. It is ac-cepted wisdom in India that the brighteststudents go to the IITs and the second-bestto American universities.
India’s other big advantage is a more re-cent development: a booming private sec-tor. This being India, the sector is plaguedby scandal. In February, India’s SupremeCourt ordered the closure of nearly 100private universities because of qualityconcerns. Still, the best private colleges aredoing admirable work, responding to un-met demand for technical and managerialeducation, often in highly creative ways,correcting India’s bias towards theoretical
education, and encouraging entrepreneursto pour millions into a sector that hastraditionally been starved of funds.
Vinay Rai, a telecoms and steel mag-nate, is just such an entrepreneur. Rai Uni-versity bills itself as �India’s best privateuniversity�, with 16 campuses across thecountry. Mr Rai wants the university to �lla gap in the market, and sees huge demandfor education in practical subjects such asmanagement, media, accounting and tou-rism. But he is interested in more than justtapping a booming market, pointing outthat half his students are on scholarships.He wants to shift from training obedientclerks towards training self-starting entre-preneurs. He waxes lyrical about the�beautiful model� of higher education heencountered in America at the Massachu-setts Institute of Technology.
The contrast between Rai University’smain campus in Delhi and that of Jawa-harlal Nehru University, one of India’smost distinguished public universities, isstriking. Rai University is spick and spanwhereas JNU is sprawling and untidy. Raiis full of computers, whereas JNU is reso-lutely low-tech. Rai’s students are deter-mined to take part in the global economy,whereas JNU is plastered with signs prot-esting against the evils of capitalism.
A growing band of successful privatecompanies are pioneering the democrati-sation of technical education. NIIT, a com-puter-training company, has 40 whollyowned centres and more than 1,000 fran-chised operations, and is expanding toAmerica and Britain. It has also estab-lished a research-and-development de-
partment to discover the most e�ectiveteaching methods. One of its cleverestideas was to give illiterate children free ac-cess to computers in order to see how eas-ily they could master them. It has also es-tablished links with Citibank to enablestudents to take out loans to pay fees. Thecompany has become such a brand namethat some advertisements in the matrimo-nial pages of the Times of India specifygraduates of NIIT.
China enrols the marketIn higher education, as in so much else,China is visibly pulling ahead of India.The Chinese are engaged in the biggest uni-versity expansion in history. In the 1980s,only 2-3% of school-leavers went to univer-sity. In 2003, the �gure was 17%. The water-shed year was 1999, when the number ofstudents enrolled jumped by almost half.The expansion at the doctoral level is evenfaster than for undergraduates: in 1999-2003, nearly 12 times as many doctorateswere awarded as in 1982-89 (see chart 4,next page). And there is more to come: thenumber of new doctoral students jumpedfrom 14,500 in 1998 to 48,700 in 2003.
The Chinese are determined to create asuper-league of universities to rival thebest in the world. The central governmentis investing heavily in chosen universities,such as Peking, Tsinghua and Fudan, o�er-ing higher salaries and more researchfunding. The state governments are doinglikewise. It is no accident that the mostwidely used annual ranking of the world’sresearch universities, the Shanghai index,is produced by a Chinese university.
Peking pulls them in
1
The Economist September 10th 2005 A survey of higher education 9
2 What lies behind all this is a gigantic ex-ercise in technology transfer. The Chineseare trying to recreate the best western uni-versities at home in order to compete inmore sophisticated industries. They havestocked up with foreign PhDs: in some de-
partments of the University of Peking, athird of the faculty members have Ameri-can doctorates. They are using joint ven-tures with foreign universities in much thesame way as Chinese companies use jointventures with foreign companies.
The Chinese have no qualms about us-ing market mechanisms to achieve thistechnology transfer. Tuition charges nowmake up 26% of the earnings of public uni-versities, nearly twice the level in 1998;many professors are paid according to thenumber of students they attract; andChina is creating a parallel system of priv-ate universities alongside the public ones.For example, the University of Peking hasmore applicants than places, so it hascreated a parallel university that chargeshigher fees and accepts slightly less ablestudents. Links between universities andindustry are commonplace. The majorityof doctorates earned in China between1992 and 2003 were in practical subjects,
which attract the brightest students: engi-neering (38% of the total), natural sciences(22%) and medicine (15%).
But will China achieve its academicambitions? The trouble is that investmentwill not do the trick without broader cul-tural changes. Rui Yang, a professor at Aus-tralia’s Monash University, points out thatacademic corruption is rife. The powerfulacademies that distribute much of the re-search funding are prey to both politicalfavouritism and lobbying. Plagiarism iscommonplace. Many academics use agood part of their research funding for per-sonal rather than academic ends.
The country’s authoritarianism willalso prove a limiting factor, a�ecting notonly the humanities but the sciences aswell. For example, Chinese scientists sup-pressed information on SARS because itcontradicted the o�cial line. A world-classuniversity without freedom of thought isstill a contradiction in terms. 7
4Passport to successDoctoral degrees awarded in China, ’000
Source: OECD
0
5
10
15
20
1982 85 89 91 93 95 97 99 2001 03
nil
BILL CLINTON tells a nice story aboutthe �rst time he set eyes on Oxford Uni-
versity. He was dropped o� at his collegeat 11pm on a rainy October night, togetherwith three other Rhodes scholars. One ofthem was Robert Reich, his future laboursecretary, who is exceedingly short. Thefour Americans walked into the college’smain quadrangle, a splendid 17th-centuryedi�ce, and marvelled about the wealth ofhistory facing them. But they were imme-diately brought down to earth by the headporter, Douglas Millin, who complainedthat he had been promised four Yanks, buthad been sent only three and a half.
In Mr Clinton’s student days, interna-tional education was still the preserve of asmall elite of potential superstars. Today itis undergoing the same process of �massi-�cation� that has reshaped domestichigher-education policy. The number offoreign students in the OECD (see chart 5)has doubled over the past 20 years, to 1.5m.
What is driving this solid growth? Thetwo most obvious things are the magneticpower of the world’s top universities andthe under-supply of university places inthe developing world. The world’s bright-est students�and particularly its brightestgraduate students�want to study at the
world’s best universities. Half the world’sstudents live in developing countrieswhere the supply of university places can-not keep up with the demand. Two of thebiggest exporters of students in absolutenumbers are China (with 10% of all thosestudying abroad) and India (with 4%).
In recent years several other thingshave speeded this growth even further.One is competition for talent. A growingnumber of rich countries are rejiggingboth their education and their immigra-tion policies in order to attract highly qual-i�ed workers. A second is competition forthe tuition fees that foreign students haveto pay, which is particularly �erce fromcountries that will not allow their univer-sities to charge realistic fees to home-grown students. Oxford has recently dou-bled the proportion of its overseas stu-dents, to 15%; at the London School ofEconomics, 75% of graduate students arefrom abroad. A third factor is the EU’s pol-icy of sponsoring student mobility withinthe Union so as to create a European iden-tity among the young.
Several countries�most notably Aus-tralia and New Zealand�are trying to turneducation into an export industry. Foreignstudents are triply valuable. They pay fees
to universities, spend money on things likefood and lodging, and may even end upstaying on permanently. What better wayto shift your economy from its traditionalreliance on primary production?
For the past 50 years America has ef-fortlessly dominated the market for inter-
Wandering scholars
For students, higher education is becoming a borderless world
5Academic honeypotsForeign students in tertiary education by country
of study, 2002, % of total
Source: OECD
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
United States
Britain
Germany
Australia
France
Japan
Belgium
Italy
Spain
Switzerland
Other OECD
Non-OECD
Total:1.9m
10 A survey of higher education The Economist September 10th 2005
2 national students, who have brought bothdirect and indirect bene�ts. Not only arethey contributing some $13 billion a yearto America’s GDP, they are also supplyingbrainpower for its research machine andenergy for its entrepreneurial economy.But now America’s leadership is underchallenge. The Institute of InternationalEducation reports that the number of for-eign students on American campuses de-clined by 2.4% in 2003-04, the �rst time thenumber has gone down in 30 years. For-eign applications to American graduateschools fell by 28% last year, and actual en-rolment dropped by 6%.
Coming after decades of steadygrowth, these �gures sent shock wavesthrough the academic system. ManyAmerican universities initially blamed thetightening of visa rules after September11th 2001 and lobbied furiously for reform.Visa policy clearly played a part, but in factAmerica has been losing market shareamong international students since 1997.The biggest reason for that is foreign com-petition. In 2002-04 the number of foreignstudents increased by 21% in Britain, 23% inGermany and 28% in France. A growingnumber of European countries are o�eringAmerican-style degree programmestaught in English. Germany has the addedattraction of dispensing university educa-tion free to foreigners as well as to domes-tic students. Universities in the developingworld, too, are expanding rapidly, and of-ten a booming domestic job market standsready to absorb the resulting graduates.
Yet it would be a mistake to equateAmerica’s loss of its quasi-monopoly inthe supply of higher education to foreign-ers with long-term decline. For one thing,
the market is likely to continue to grow rap-idly as Asia produces its own mass middleclass. For another, American universitiesare well placed to operate in the globalmarket for student talent. In the past,American universities have been at theirbest when competing for faculty or do-mestic students. Why should foreign stu-dents be any di�erent?
Brain circulationThe spectacle of so many bright peoplefrom poor countries upping sticks for therich world raises questions of social jus-tice, in part because they contribute bothmoney and brainpower to their host coun-try while they are studying and in part be-cause so many of them end up staying per-manently. Some people see the develop-ment as a kind of neo-colonialism of themind. But there is no guarantee that allthese bright people would have prosperedif they had stayed at home. The combinednet worth of Indian IIT graduates in Amer-ica is reportedly $30 billion. But would allthose brilliant Indians have become sorich if they had stayed in India? �Betterbrain drain than brain in the drain,� wasthe much-quoted verdict of the late RajivGandhi, an Indian prime minister.
Perhaps what is going on is not so mucha �brain drain� as �brain circulation�. Thegovernments of many developing coun-tries encourage bright students to goabroad, often using scholarships as in-ducements, as part of a general policy of�capacity-building� so they can plug them-selves into the latest thinking in the West.
Few highly skilled migrants cut theirlinks with their home countries com-pletely. Most keep in touch, sending remit-tances (and, if they are successful, venturecapital), circulating ideas and connections,and even returning home as successful en-trepreneurs. A growing number of Indianand Chinese students go home after a spell
abroad to take advantage of the hot labourmarkets in Shanghai or Mumbai. And agrowing number of expatriate business-men invest back home.
Increasingly, developing countries en-courage foreign universities to come tothem, rather than sending their studentsabroad. Singapore has established close re-lations with 15 partners, including suchelite institutions as Stanford, Cornell andDuke Medical School. Dubai has estab-lished a �knowledge village� with 13 for-eign universities, and Qatar an �educa-tional city� with four, largely for thebene�t of Middle Easterners who want awestern education but think they may nolonger be welcome in America.
Some developing countries are evenestablishing themselves as educationalmiddlemen: importers as well as export-ers of talent. China not only sends themost students abroad but is also one of theleading hosts in the Asian region. Between1998 and 2002 the number of interna-tional students in the country doubled,from 43,000 to 86,000. Malaysia sends lotsof its own students abroad in an e�ort at�capacity-building�, but is also actively re-cruiting students from China and Indone-sia, and increasingly from Pakistan andother Islamic countries.
The problem with equity arises not somuch between the rich and the poor worldbut within the developing world. As a rule,only the developing world’s elites attendforeign universities. The Ford Foundationis devoting huge resources to putting thisinjustice right: in 2000 it provided $280mover 12 years�its biggest-ever grant�for ascholarship programme to send disad-vantaged people from poor countries toleading universities abroad. Douglas Mil-lin is, alas, no longer with us. But if the FordFoundation has its way, his successors willhave to deal with people from consider-ably farther a�eld than Hope, Arkansas. 7
6Brain gainStock of highly skilled immigrants, m
Source: OECD
0 2.01.51.00.5
United States
Canada
Australia
Britain
Germany
France
Spain
Switzerland
Netherlands
Sweden
8.2
Thoroughly international Berkeley
1
The Economist September 10th 2005 A survey of higher education 11
THE University of Phoenix’s Hohokamcampus looks more like a corporate
headquarters than a regular university.There is none of the cheerful mess that youassociate with student life. The windowsare made from black re�ecting glass, thecorridors are neat and hushed, the grasshas been recently cut, there is plenty ofparking space for everybody, and securityguards in golf carts make sure all the carsare on legitimate business. The universityis conveniently close to a couple of motor-ways, and ten minutes from the airport.
But the campus does not just look like acorporate headquarters; it is one. The Uni-versity of Phoenix is America’s largest for-pro�t university (and indeed America’slargest university, full stop), with 280,000students, 239 campuses and various o�-shoots around the world, including somein China and India. The Hohokam campushouses the corporate headquarters of theApollo Group, the company that owns theuniversity, along with the group’s cor-porate university.
The University of Phoenix was thebrainchild of John Sperling, a Cambridge-educated economist turned entrepreneur.When he was teaching in San Jose StateUniversity in the early 1970s, Mr Sperlingnoticed that adult students got scant atten-tion from universities designed to teachpeople aged 18-22. That, he felt, was notonly unfair but also unwise: in the neweconomy, workers might have to keep go-ing back to university to update or im-prove their skills.
The University of Phoenix is designedto cater for the needs of working adults,who make up 95% of its students. The em-phasis is on practical subjects, such asbusiness and technology, that will helpthem with their careers, and on �tting inwith busy schedules. One of the univer-sity’s golden rules is that there should beplenty of parking, and that studentsshould be able to get from their cars to theirclassrooms in �ve minutes. In the early1990s it became the �rst university to o�erdegrees online, and the internet is now in-tegral to all its teaching.
But in designing a university for work-ing adults, Mr Sperling also introducedtwo other far-reaching innovations. The
�rst was to concentrate power in the orga-nisation. In traditional universities aca-demics are semi-independent contractorswho devote as much time as possible totheir own research. In Phoenix they aresimply employees. It is the university, notthe teachers, that owns the curriculum.Todd Nelson, the company’s boss, claimsthat this has allowed the university to be-come a �learning organisation�: it is con-stantly improving its ability to teach bymeasuring performance and disseminat-ing successful techniques. The only re-search it cares about is the sort that im-proves teaching.
The second innovation is to turn highereducation into a business. The cost of ayear’s education at Phoenix, at $9,000, isnot particularly high for a private univer-sity, but the business ethos is unusuallypervasive. Mr Nelson cheerfully talksabout �the education industry�, andboasts that enrolment is currently growingat 25% a year. The Apollo Group spent astaggering $383m on marketing last year.
Dollars and degreesIt is hard to imagine what von Humboldt,with his belief in research for its own sake,would make of the University of Phoenix.But for many people it is a vision of the fu-ture. Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize-win-ning economist, regards the triumph of thefor-pro�t sector as inevitable, because uni-versities �are run by faculty, and the fac-ulty is interested in its own welfare.�
For-pro�t universities are �nding agrowing number of market niches, par-ticularly in America. Strayer University,one of the University of Phoenix’s biggestcompetitors, concentrates on telecom-munications and business administration.Concord Law School, owned by Kaplan,which in turn is owned by the WashingtonPost, boasts one of the largest law-schoolenrolments in the country. All of its teach-ing is online. Cardean University, thebrainchild of Michael Milken, o�ers on-line business education, including MBAs.
The Apollo Group’s corporate univer-sity marks another big educationalchange. The number of corporate universi-ties, which provide education for their par-ent companies, has grown from 400 in the
mid-1980s to more than 2,000 today.Some of these institutions, such as the Mc-Donald’s Hamburger University, do notdeserve the name, but others, such asthose set up by Microsoft and Schwab, aremore serious. A growing number of cor-porate universities are awarding degrees inconjunction with traditional universities.
For-pro�t universities are only the mostdramatic example of a more general trend:the changing balance of power betweenthe state and the market. For much of the20th century the state steadily tightened itsgrip on universities. Now the market is be-ginning to get its own back.
The old-fashioned public universitiesare becoming ever more promiscuous intheir pursuit of income. In America, �pub-lic university � is fast becoming a �gure ofspeech. At the University of Virginia, theshare of the operating budget coming fromthe state declined from about 28% in 1985to 8% in 2004. As one university presidentput it, his university has evolved from be-ing a �state institution� to being �state-sup-ported�, then �state-assisted�, next �state-located� and now �state-annoyed�.
In other countries too, public universi-ties are becoming more entrepreneurial.Increasingly they are starting to chargefees, usually in combination with studentloans. They are also transforming them-selves into competitive commercial opera-tions when it comes to attracting fee-pay-ing foreign students or winning contractswith business. At the same time, new non-pro�t private universities are springing up.These have long been common in Amer-ica, Japan and South Korea, but used to berare elsewhere. In Portugal, private univer-sities and colleges have grown from al-most nothing two decades ago to accountfor two-thirds of all higher-education insti-tutions and 40% of all students. All in all,private funding has grown faster than pub-lic funding in seven of the eight OECD
countries for which data are available.Another eye-catching change is the rise
of the internet as a way of delivering tu-ition. The internet has all sorts of advan-tages, from lowering costs to opening upmarkets. MIT has struck up an innovativealliance with two Singaporean universi-ties that allows Singaporean students to
Higher Ed Inc
Universities have become much more businesslike, but they are still doing the same old things
1
12 A survey of higher education The Economist September 10th 2005
2 take part �virtually � in MIT lectures. TheVirtual University of Monterrey, Mexico,uses a combination of teleconferencingand the internet to reach more than 70,000students all over Latin America.
But for all the new technology and the�marketisation� of higher education, it isstriking how little has changed. Traditionaluniversities are raising money not so thatthey can do radically new things but sothat they can continue to do the same oldthings. For-pro�t universities are undoubt-edly doing an excellent job in �lling marketniches, particularly for technical educa-
tion, but their position in the academic hi-erarchy remains humble.
The internet is producing equally mod-est results. However good it is for transmit-ting information or reinforcing learning, e-learning is no substitute for bricks-and-mortar universities. The e-learning bubbleof the late 1990s burst with shockingspeed. Fathom, a joint venture establishedby Columbia and 13 other universities, li-braries and museums, closed down afterraising revenues of only $700,000 in twoand a half years. Caliber, the WhartonSchool’s e-partner, �led for bankruptcy.
Temple University abandoned VirtualTemple without o�ering a single course.NYU Online has also pulled the plug.
New technologies generally promptheady predictions that they will revolu-tionise higher education. Thomas Edisonforecast that motion pictures would re-place campus lectures; others have madeeven grander claims for radio or television.David Noble, a historian, compares the in-ternet craze with the fashion for corre-spondence schools that bubbled up in theearly 20th century. By 1919, more than 70American universities had launched cor-respondence courses, competing againstsome 300 private correspondence schools.But the bubble eventually burst, partly be-cause of poor teaching and high drop-outrates but mainly because the human di-mension was missing.
None of this is to say that the idea of theuniversity is carved in gothic stone. It is in-deed changing, but by evolution ratherthan revolution. And the most importantrecent development in the world of highereducation has been the creation of a super-league of global universities that are nowengaged in a battle for intellectual talentand academic prestige. 7
The way we learn now?
WILLIAM JAMES had good reason tobe nervous when he turned up, back
in 1869, to be examined for his Harvardmedical degree: he had spent most of theprevious three years abroad. But as luckwould have it, his examiner turned out tobe Oliver Wendell Holmes, an old familyfriend. Dr Holmes asked the candidate asingle question and, when young Williamanswered it correctly, drew the event to aclose: �That’s enough! If you know that,you must know everything. Now tell me,how is your dear old father?�
For at least its �rst 200 years, Harvardwas a �nishing school for Boston’s�or atmost New England’s�elite. Eliots andLowells held leadership positions continu-ously for more than two centuries, andCabots and Lodges kept appearing on theschool rolls in various permutations. Butstarting in the late 19th century, Harvardgradually transformed itself into a na-tional university. Now the university is un-dergoing another dramatic transforma-
tion: from a national to a global university.This is not to say that Harvard is losing
its American roots entirely. America is,after all, the world’s greatest marketplacefor higher education, and Harvard’s veryAmericanness is part of its attraction. Allthe same, the university is increasingly op-erating in a global labour market. Facultysearches are always worldwide; in somedepartments 40% of PhD students comefrom abroad; and the graduate and profes-sional schools are truly multinational.
Harvard is not alone. The great univer-sities of the 19th century were shaped bynationalism; the great universities of todayare being shaped by globalisation. Theworld’s higher-education system isincreasingly dominated by a superleagueof world-class universities competingwith each other for talent and prestige.
There is nothing new about globalismin higher education, of course. Medievalscholars communicated in Latin and oftenstudied at several universities in di�erent
countries. But for a long time many aca-demics felt that their principal loyalty wasto their university or college rather than totheir discipline. Universities were mainlyschools for national bureaucrats and semi-naries for nationalist ideas.
Today there are fewer restraints on uni-versities’ natural inclination towards inter-nationalism. The top universities are citi-zens of an international academicmarketplace with one global academiccurrency, one global labour force and,increasingly, one global language, English.They are also increasingly citizens of aglobal economy, sending their best gradu-ates to work for multinational companies.The creation of global universities wasspearheaded by the Americans; noweverybody else is trying to get in on the act.The current vice-chancellor of Oxford,John Hood, hails from New Zealand, andhis counterpart at Cambridge, Alison Rich-ard, spent 30 years teaching at Yale.
Global universities do not have to have
The best is yet to come
A more market-oriented system of higher education can do much better than the state-dominated model
1
The Economist September 10th 2005 A survey of higher education 13
2 a physical presence abroad to be worthy ofthe name. Some of the world’s best univer-sities have been reluctant to set up cam-puses abroad, and some of the most en-thusiastic o�shorers, such as WebsterUniversity, which runs seven overseascampuses from its headquarters in Mis-souri, are hardly global in the sense of hav-ing world-class faculty and the pick of theworld’s graduate students. However, agrowing number of the world’s top univer-sities are getting more enthusiastic abouto�shoring.
It pays to be world-classThe most obvious reason for the rise of theglobal university is science’s appetite formoney and manpower. MIT’s Lincoln Lab-oratory, for example, employs nearly2,400 people and spends $450m a year onresearch. Access to global labour marketsis needed to put together �rst-rate teams ofresearchers. But policymakers have alsobegun to realise that world-class universi-ties produce a disproportionately largeshare of cutting-edge ideas and research.Look at the University of Chicago’s impacton economics, and hence on economicpolicy. Of the 55 economists who havewon the Nobel prize since 1969, when eco-nomics was added to the roster, nine wereteaching at the University of Chicagowhen they were awarded their prizes, andanother 14 either trained at Chicago or hadpreviously taught there.
World-class universities can also pro-duce outsize economic bene�ts. The best-known example of this is Stanford, whichhelped to incubate Google, Yahoo!, Cisco,Sun Microsystems and many other world-changing �rms. But there are plenty of oth-ers. The University of Texas at Austin hashelped to create a high-technology clusterthat employs around 100,000 people insome 1,700 companies. In 2000, the eightresearch universities in Boston provided a$7.4 billion boost to the region’s economy,generated 264 new patents and granted280 licences to private enterprises.
Top universities are a valuable asset inthe global war for talent too. America’sgreat research universities enable it to re-cruit more foreign PhD students than therest of the OECD put together. And a strik-ing number of these people stay put: in1998-2001, about two-thirds of foreignerswho earned American doctorates in sci-ence and engineering said they had ��rmplans� to stay, up from 57% in 1994-97.
The bene�ts of having global universi-ties are now so clear that governmentsaround the world are obsessed with pro-
ducing �Ivy Leagues�. The British are intro-ducing fees in part because they want theirbest universities to be able to competewith the best American ones. The GermanSocial Democratic Party�traditionally abastion of egalitarianism�has produced aplan to create German equivalents of Har-vard, Princeton and Stanford. And the Chi-nese are hard at work trying to buildworld-class universities. Today �excel-lence� is taking over from �expansion� asthe mantra of higher education.
But this academic revolution has onlyjust begun, particularly in continental Eu-rope. How can you create world-class uni-versities if your academics are civil ser-vants trapped in a national labour market?Only 2% of French academics are foreign-born. The comparable �gure in Switzer-land, which is much more successful atproducing top universities, is 25%. Only 7%of newly hired professors in major Ameri-can universities are alumni of the institu-tions where they teach. In France the �gureis 50% and in Spain 95%. And how can youhave world-class universities withoutproper resources? Hardly any continentalEuropean universities employ profes-sional fund-raisers. Most do not even keepin touch with their alumni.
The new global universities are shakingup everything from academic funding toimmigration laws. But they also manage tomix a large measure of conservatism withtheir radicalism. For the most part, they are
still the children of the century-old mar-riage between the German research uni-versity and the British residential univer-sity. Most of them still try to combineteaching with research.
Over the past century, there have beenvarious attempts to unbundle the two. TheChinese and Russians created pure re-search institutes. The French trained theirelites in grandes écoles�professionalschools that did not emphasise research.But for the most part these alternativeshave failed.
A striking number of research universi-ties have also preserved the idea of the ac-ademic village. A handful of hermitsapart, most scholars prefer to live in a com-munity of scholars in which academic andsocial life are melded together, preferablyin beautiful surroundings. James Watson’saccount of a walk in Cambridge after heand Francis Crick discovered the doublehelix of DNA makes the point perfectly:
I slowly walked toward the Clare Bridge,staring up at the gothic pinnacles of theKing’s College Chapel that stood out sharplyagainst the spring sky. I brie�y stopped andlooked over the perfect Georgian features ofthe recently cleaned Gibbs Building, think-ing that much of our success was due to thelong, uneventful periods when we walkedamong the colleges or unobtrusively readthe new books that came into He�er’s Book-store.
European universities these days aregiven to nostalgia. Professors reminisceabout an age when public money wasplentiful, governments left them aloneand academics were part of the rulingclass. Students remember when the gov-ernment picked up the tab for tuition andliving costs. And almost everybody com-plains that quality has declined.
In reality, though, that golden age wasnever quite as wonderful as it is now madeout to be. The public universities werenever as democratic or egalitarian as theyseemed. The justi�cation of o�ering freehigher education is that nobody should bedenied it on cost grounds. But in practicethe children of the privileged have longbeen much more likely to get into univer-sity than the children of the poor. The re-sult was perverse: in the name of equality,all taxpayers were forced to subsidise theprivileged.
These public universities often spicedde-facto elitism with anti-business snob-bery. Many universities were not just re-luctant to be �knowledge factories�; theywere antagonistic to the capitalist econ-omy. Oxford and Cambridge long resistedThe way they used to learn
O�er to readersReprints of this survey are available at a price of£2.50 plus postage and packing. A minimum order of �ve copies is required. Send orders to:
The Economist Shop15 Regent Street, London SW1Y 4LR
Tel +44 (0)20 7839 1937
Fax +44 (0)20 7839 1921e-mail: [email protected]
Corporate o�erFor corporate orders of 500 or more andcustomisation options, please contact the Rightsand Syndication Department on:Tel +44 (0)20 7830 7000Fax +44 (0)20 7830 7135or e-mail: [email protected]
14 A survey of higher education The Economist September 10th 2005
Previous surveys and a list of forthcoming
surveys can be found online
2
www.economist.com/surveys
the study of practical subjects such as busi-ness or engineering; instead, they special-ised in turning the sons of businessmeninto educated gentlemen. This anti-busi-ness bias reached its apogee in the 1960s,when many of the current generation ofdons got their jobs.
In the long run, the universities’ dealwith the state proved to be a bargain withthe devil. In the days when universitieswere restricted to elites, the bargainworked well enough for the few; hence thenostalgia. But the moment that academiaembarked on massi�cation, this gentle-manly bargain broke down. Universitieswere forced to do more with less becausethe government faced lots of competingdemands for funds. And academics wereincreasingly treated like other public ser-vants�and held accountable for their useof public money.
The more market-oriented model ofhigher education that has been pioneeredin the United States, and is graduallyspreading to much of the rest of the world,has four big advantages over the publicmodel. First, it is better at combining equ-ity with excellence. America sends ahigher proportion of poor school-leaversto college than, say, Germany, which justi-�es its free universities by claiming they of-fer universal access. Second, it is better atproducing a diverse system that stretchesfrom the Ivy League to community col-leges. Governments can engineer di�eren-tiation in higher education, but state-spon-sored di�erentiation tends to degenerateinto academic apartheid. Third, the marketmodel is much more sustainable than thepublic-sector model. Putting all your eggsin one basket is never very sensible; it isparticularly silly if you belong to an elitistinstitution that comes low in the peckingorder for public resources. Fourth, servingmany masters gives universities muchmore control over their own destiny thanbeing beholden to a single patron.
That is not to say that the transition to amore market-oriented system will be easy.Countries will have to solve the problemof social justice by allowing students toborrow against their future incomes. Theywill also have to cope with a host of newproblems that come along with newly lib-erated markets. How do you prevent theerosion of the intellectual commons (forexample, by companies preventing �their�scholars from publishing commerciallysensitive material)? How do you regulateforeign universities? How do you dealwith di�erences in national standards?How do you prevent outright cheating,
such as selling degrees? These are seriousproblems. But they pose far less of a threatto universities than the slow starvationthat accompanies public funding.
Empires of the mindThere are two other big reasons to be op-timistic about universities. The �rst is theway they are increasingly regarded as theengines of the knowledge economy. Thismeans that all sorts of people�from gov-ernments to companies to students�havea big incentive to keep investing in them.The second is that universities�particu-larly global research universities�haveachieved such striking successes in ad-vancing knowledge. To be sure, their re-cent record in the humanities has been de-cidedly mixed; but the sciences have neverbeen healthier. For the people who aremapping the genome or looking for a curefor cancer, arguably the golden age of theuniversity is now.
Noel Annan, the very embodiment ofthe British academic establishment, oncesaid that universities �exist to cultivate theintellect. Everything else is secondary.�The most precious gift that universities cano�er is to live and work among books andlaboratories, he argued; and the most im-portant lesson they can teach is how to usethe intellect:
A university is dead if the dons cannot insome way communicate to the students thestruggle�and the disappointments as wellas the triumphs of that struggle�to produceout of the chaos of human experience somegrain of order won by the intellect.
Three cheers to that. There are plenty ofjusti�cations for the revolution that is
sweeping through higher education, mostnotably in the United States. It is giving stu-dents more control over where they geteducated. It is giving millions of young-sters a chance to spend their formativeyears abroad. It is throwing up collegesthat can teach managerial and technicalskills. It is reconnecting academics withthe wider knowledge economy. But themost important justi�cation of all is that itis freeing resources for intellectual activity.It is �lling libraries with books. It is stock-ing laboratories with equipment. And it isgiving more researchers than ever before achance to produce order out of chaos.
Von Humboldt’s university with itsemphasis on research was one of the trans-formative institutions of the 19th century.The emerging global university is set to beone of the transformative institutions ofthe current era. All it needs is to be allowedto �ourish. 7
Wanted: 21st-century Humboldts
Future surveys
Countries and regionsJapan October 8thCanada November 19thItaly November 26thSaudi Arabia December 17th
Business, �nance and economics and ideasThe world economy September 24thIT October 22ndMicro�nance November 5thThe evolution of man December 24th
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i14/14b00601.htm
From the issue dated November 25, 2005
Ferment and Change: Higher Education in 2015
By DANIEL YANKELOVICH
What will higher education look like 10 years from now if it is highly responsive to the demands of society? What external forces will reshape colleges and universities by 2015, if allowed to do so? What forms might the changes assume?
Realistically speaking, higher education may not be very responsive to the larger society over the next decade. It has too many constituencies to satisfy, too many traditions, too many constraints weighing on it to lend it the flexibility — or the political will — to adapt rapidly to the outside world. Nevertheless, the questions should be considered because they raise the sorts of issues, opportunities, and challenges that college leaders must confront now and in the future.
Five trends, if they encounter little friction or resistance, will radically transform higher education in the coming years. Those five trends, converging with one another, are certainly not the only forces pressuring colleges. But unlike some of the others — such as the impact of technology on teaching and research — they are not yet receiving ample attention. And, taken together, they pose an enormous challenge that, if neglected, will mean serious trouble for higher education and the United States. Conversely, the more effectively colleges respond to such trends, the better off they and our nation will be.
Trend 1: Changing life cycles as our nation's population ages. The demographic facts are familiar, but quite dramatic: While life expectancy in the United States in 1900 was a mere 47 years, people in the 21st century are expected to live to be almost 90 — a whopping extra 40 years of life. Hardly any facet of our existence will be unaffected by that sweeping change.
To understand its impact on higher education, we must look at what living longer portends for different stages of the life cycle. The phrase "our aging population" conjures up images of vast numbers of old people, without highlighting the effect of greater longevity on people of other ages.
We know, for example, that when life expectancy was short, children moved to adult responsibilities without prolonged adolescence. In the 1950s it was expected that marriage, child raising, and jobs and careers would take place quickly after age 21, and that retirement and old age would occur by age 65. Today, with so many more years of life to juggle, we are prolonging the younger life stages and adding new ones at the older end.
173
Of particular relevance to colleges is the stage between the ages of 18 and 30. The old pattern of attending college from 18 to 22 and then going directly to a job, career, marriage, child rearing, and "settling down" is evaporating before our eyes. Students are stretching out their higher education. Three-quarters of today's college students are nontraditional in some way — they delay enrollment after high school, attend college part time, or are considered financially independent. Many are already working, and more than a quarter are parents.
We are rapidly moving away from the rigid sequencing and separation of schooling and jobs toward a new pattern in which higher education spreads out over about a 12-year period and is more closely integrated with work. This is not just prolonged adolescence. It is in many ways a new phase of life, in which young people experiment with relationships and career choices to find the best fit with their practical needs and with their self-expressive goals. They are not ready to settle down until their 30s, to the bewilderment of many parents.
It is difficult for young people to make sound career-life choices without testing them in the "real world" of practical experience. Our culture provides ample opportunities to test choices — what to buy, where to live, and even sexual-mating choices. But the long-established practice of sequencing education first and work later forces young people to make fateful life choices before they are equipped to do so, or worse, to postpone making them until it is too late.
Employers and colleges are not designed to accommodate the longer life stage between adolescence and settling down, especially in light of the ever-changing character of today's knowledge economy. Preparation for work is now divided between "education," the task assigned to schools and colleges, and "training," the task assigned to the workplace or to professional trainers. Yet that distinction is often artificial and inefficient. A great deal of training goes on in education, but it is poorly done because it is divorced from the workplace, and a great deal of education goes into training that is also poorly done because it is divorced from colleges. If higher education were totally responsive to the demands of the larger society, in 10 years we would see many more efforts to integrate higher education, training, and work.
A second life stage that higher education should also deal with, and one that can potentially help solve some of its fiscal and faculty problems, is that of people from ages 55 to 75. That stage was previously split between work and retirement. Yet today many Americans are stopping work earlier in life and changing the definition of retirement. Retirement — and especially early retirement — no longer means total withdrawal from work but rather an opportunity to find forms of fulfillment that one's job did not provide. Older adults are looking for personal fulfillment and the chance to "give something back." They look beyond their jobs while still in reasonably good health, with mortgages paid off and empty nests in view. As they seek to build bridges to new life opportunities, many turn to higher education. For some older Americans, it is nostalgia for their college years that attracts them. For others, it is the chance to overcome a perceived deficit in their education. People who concentrated on one field — say, engineering or premed — want to make up for what they missed.
174
College development offices are well aware of that unsatisfied appetite and point to a variety of "extension" programs, designed in part to win the financial support of their larger communities. But by and large, the two parties — the retirees or early retirees and the higher-education institutions — have not yet connected in ways that meet the needs of either side. For example, the typical undergraduate curriculum is a poor fit for older Americans, and the graduate curriculum is an even poorer one. So are the organization and timing of courses, the credit system, and virtually every aspect of higher education that is now geared to young people at the start of their work lives rather than those nearing the end.
To expand its outreach, higher education will want to strengthen existing programs for the growing numbers of adults who wish to add new areas of competence. Colleges have a strong economic incentive to be more creative over the next decade in matching the needs of older adults with more-suitable materials and more-convenient timetables. If they don't seize the opportunity, they risk losing a significant new source of revenues.
Moreover, the opportunities for higher education are not merely financial; they engage its deepest values. Many faculty members are ambivalent about the practical job-related purposes they serve. They recognize that most young people come to their institutions to develop the skills and credentials that will permit them to make a good living. But many professors hate the idea because it diminishes their calling. Their self-image rejects any "vocational" connotation. Scholars in the humanities and social sciences are particularly discomforted. Because the practical relevance of their fields is sometimes in question, their own role and future in higher education have become problematic.
Potentially, the existence of millions of well-heeled and eager older Americans who hunger for the illumination that they believe higher education holds for them is like manna from heaven — if faculty members learn how to respond to those desires properly. One can envision that, by 2015, historians, sociologists, philosophers, and literature professors could be gaining immense personal gratification, as well as remuneration, by dividing their time between teaching young people and engaging in dialogue with older students who bring their own rich life experience to bear.
Trend 2: America's growing vulnerability in science and technology. To an extraordinary degree, our nation's fate depends on maintaining our world leadership in science and technology. Our superpower status is tied to it. Productivity gains that our economy needs to improve our standard of living and competitiveness depend on it. The appeal of our colleges to the rest of the world flows largely from it.
Yet, for a variety of reasons, young people in the Western industrialized nations, especially in the United States, are not flocking to study science and technology like their counterparts in other countries. In Japan, 66 percent of undergraduates receive their degrees in science and engineering, and in China, 59 percent receive such degrees. That compares with only 32 percent in the United States. Higher education must work to overcome obstacles that now discourage students from pursuing science and technology careers.
175
Many of those obstacles are cultural and include outdated curricula, a lack of qualified teachers, the difficulty of the subject matter, and, in particular, negative stereotypes instead of a genuine familiarity with the work of science and scientists. In an Australian study, young people were asked to draw pictures of scientists and to describe them. The pictures uniformly depict scientists as men with eccentric hair wearing white coats. The students characterize scientists as cranks and geeks, picturing them as locked into their laboratories and never having any fun. An American study found that schoolchildren stereotyped scientists as socially inept, eccentric, and mad.
Higher education by itself cannot, of course, overcome such cultural stereotypes. Government policy, popular culture, and news-media coverage of science all need to work toward that purpose. Yet colleges are strategically positioned to influence student career choices at the very moment that students make those choices and are most open to new possibilities.
Current higher-education practices, however, may actually be counterproductive in attracting students to science and technology. Many college courses are designed to winnow people out, not to draw them in. Science prides itself on being a meritocracy that attracts the best and only the best, where "best" is often defined in terms of mathematical ability. It may be true that mathematical ability shows up early and can be readily measured, but higher math is a smaller component of success in science and technology than is generally assumed. In addition, colleges often make undergraduate courses too tough for students whose high-school experience leaves them poorly prepared for rigorous work in science and technology. There are also financial constraints, as it costs colleges more to educate science and technology students than those in other fields.
That screening-out process is the opposite of what the nation needs. A vast and growing literature on what can and should be done recommends such efforts as improving the quality of math and science teaching in the K-12 years, revising the science curriculum to put more emphasis on general concepts and less on detailed factual information, easing the transition from high-school to college courses in science and technology, and setting standards for scientific knowledge at every academic level.
In addition, higher education can make science and technology far more appealing to students. The history of science is a story of curiosity, challenge, discovery, entrepreneurship, recognition, fame, fortune, and collegiality. At their peak, the institutes and laboratories that coalesced around charismatic figures like Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, Ernest Lawrence, and Robert Oppenheimer lent drama, ferment, creativity and self-expression to the pursuit of science. A physicist follower of Oppenheimer, David Bohm, wrote a book illuminating the importance of dialogue in scientific discovery. The picture that Bohm paints is the opposite of the stereotype of the scientist as loner, isolated in his fun-challenged laboratory. It is a picture of the kind of stimulation and social interaction that appeals to youth.
Colleges must become far more proficient at framing the appeal of science and technology to their students if our nation is to remain a world leader in 2015. Although many institutions
176
have become adept at presenting themselves in an advantageous light, the science faculty is rarely involved. But it is the science faculty that must prepare the lectures and special programs, books, articles, and courses that can demonstrate how exciting careers in science and technology can be.
Some countries have developed what they call science "narratives" to capture the excitement and compelling character of scientific endeavor. We have an abundance of such narratives — for example, Richard P. Feynman's account of his investigation of the Challenger space-shuttle explosion and his scientific sleuthing that helped reveal its cause. We need more such narratives at every stage of education in the United States.
Trend 3: The need to understand other cultures and languages. The half-century following the end of World War II lulled our nation into complacency about our ability to deal with other countries and cultures. Recent events, however, have driven home how important it is that we learn to see the world from the perspective of others, not just from a distinctively American vantage point. China and India are becoming economic powerhouses to whom we are financially indebted. In no small measure our difficulty in battling the insurgency in Iraq is because we don't speak the language. We make one cultural mistake after another. Even Western Europe has turned from reliable friend and supporter to mistrustful ally.
Most important, we find ourselves in the early stage of an ideological struggle with radical Islam. Even though they are a small minority of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, Islamic fundamentalists have gained popularity among Muslims by making us a scapegoat — and we do not understand Islamic culture well enough to prevent it. We don't even know whether we are engaged in a clash of civilizations, a religious war, a military battle, or a political/economic/diplomatic struggle.
With each passing year it grows more obvious that colleges must prepare Americans to deal more competently with people from other parts of the globe. It's not that educated Americans must become cultural experts. That is neither practical nor desirable: Experts cannot meet the threat. Instead, our whole culture must become less ethnocentric, less patronizing, less ignorant of others, less Manichaean in judging other cultures, and more at home with the rest of the world.
Higher education can do a lot to meet that important challenge. Change will probably start at the undergraduate level. During the cold war, the disciplines cooperated with each other in the interest of understanding the varied aspects of particular regions, nations, and clusters of nations. Programs of area studies gained a certain momentum. Knowledge, teaching, and research about a region like Latin America was integrated, not compartmentalized. Economists learned about the culture, diplomats learned about building institutions and political movements, and students acquired new language skills.
But when the cold war ended, the specialized disciplines regained the upper hand, and area studies lost out. Ironically, today, at the moment when area studies are most badly needed, the internal pull within higher education toward specialization and separatism exercises the
177
most influence. Some argue that globalization reduces the importance of regional and local differences and that the English language has gained unchallengeable ascendancy. But there is no evidence that globalization is having such effects. The world remains fractionalized, even polarized. Ethnic, racial, national, and religious divisions may be growing even more important, not less.
If colleges are responsive, we will see many more area-study courses by 2015. New programs will spring up that study all facets of other cultures, especially Islam, in ways that enhance our understanding of how those cultures see the world. Language courses will be re-examined for their practicality in communicating colloquial spoken language.
Responsiveness at the graduate level would mean expansions of Ph.D. programs and schools of international studies. Revised curricula would examine our political, cultural, diplomatic, and economic ability to respond effectively to the interests of other nations as they themselves define those interests.
Without the kind of broad-based understanding that only higher education can provide, this nation will suffer crippling setbacks in the culture wars with Islam and other parts of the world. Cultural isolation and ignorance will inevitably undermine our efforts at world leadership. Colleges cannot by themselves achieve the all-important shift in American attitudes that the new global situation demands — doing so is a task for the whole culture. But higher education's role is indispensable.
Trend 4: Increasing challenges to higher education's commitment to social mobility. Our nation's core values of equality and freedom pull us in opposite directions. The more equal we become, the less freedom people have to break out of the pack. The freer people are to pursue their own path, the less equality there is. Every viable political culture struggles to find a way to reconcile and balance those two core social values.
In our culture we accept large inequalities as long as genuine equality of opportunity prevails. That is why access to higher education is a passionate concern of our political life — it is the principal mechanism for making America's unwritten social compact work. A number of recent developments, however, threaten to undermine that strategy. One is the startling increase in the cost of higher education and the inability of financial aid to keep pace — which damages low-income students' access to college. Another obstacle is the continuing failure of our K-12 system to prepare students from low-income and minority backgrounds for the rigors of higher education.
The obstacles that poverty and race pose have persisted for a long time. But in the emerging world economy they assume a new urgency. To an extent that would have been incomprehensible to earlier generations of American workers, the current practice of outsourcing jobs extends our domestic labor market to China, India, Mexico, Taiwan, and South Korea. Freer trade, modern communication technology, and the entrepreneurial vitality of those nations make it ever more difficult for unskilled American workers to earn middle-class incomes.
178
Thus while our society offers fewer and fewer well-paid unskilled jobs, it also places obstacles in the path of those seeking the skills to succeed in higher-level careers. That strikes at the heart of core American values. We cannot drift mindlessly toward creating an oppressed, insecure, anxiety-ridden, wage-stagnant American work force.
When practical solutions are proposed, all eyes turn toward colleges — both two-year and four-year. The key issues are affordability and developing new competencies, and they are closely linked.
Colleges are unlikely to find ways to reduce their costs substantially. In the new global economy, the imperative that they maintain and improve the quality of their education, so that they can provide American workers with important new skills, will not come cheaply. Moreover, the stakes are so great that the focus will be on achieving results rather than reducing costs.
So where will the money come from to pay the tuitions of students from disadvantaged backgrounds? Most parents, especially in the lowest sectors of the income scale, can't afford to pay more for higher education. Living from paycheck to paycheck, they have insufficient means to make the needed investments. Nor can local communities give much help; the demands on them are already too burdensome. And state support per student is moving down, down, down and unlikely to reverse direction. The federal government may be the ultimate resource, but higher education does best when it can draw upon multiple sources of support.
Yet two other possibilities are promising: the students themselves and their employers. As more and more students find part-time and full-time work, they may be able to use their own earnings or call on their employers for financial support to help them develop the skills they need for their jobs. Employers are sympathetic to higher education, especially for their own employees. By 2015 new contractual arrangements may emerge that encourage employers to pay for employees to gain new competencies through higher education. Such arrangements might, for example, also require employees to agree to reimburse their employers for financial assistance if they do not stay at the job for a reasonable period of time.
As such an integration of work and higher education unfolds, we are also likely to see better integration of high schools and colleges. Hilary Pennington, co-founder of Jobs for the Future, notes that the transition between them has grown "shockingly inefficient" and that "it is time to reinvent the relationship" between high school and higher education. Better integration will help deal with a wide range of problems such as remediation, poor student motivation, and the steeply rising costs of higher education. In all likelihood, individual state governments will take the lead in experiments designed to reinvent the relationship, with support from the federal government in the form of seed money and flexibility in applying regulations.
Trend 5: Public support for other ways of knowing. However frustrating for science-minded Americans the popularity of the intelligent-design concept may be, it signals a trend that colleges must heed. The issue is not really the scientific status of evolution — whether
179
natural selection is a theory or proven fact. That form of framing reflects a widespread semantic misunderstanding between scientists and the public relating to the word "theory." For average Americans, "theory" means "unproven." When they hear scientists refer to evolution as a theory, they falsely assume that it means that scientists themselves acknowledge that little hard evidence exists for its validity.
The issue is far broader than semantics, evolution, or even scientific knowledge. It concerns the nature of truth — how we arrive at it, and how we recognize it. In higher education, the organization of knowledge and pursuit of truth has grown increasingly specialized and systematic. The advantages are self-evident in the explosion of knowledge and the spectacular success of the scientific enterprise.
And yet doubt creeps in. The logic of the Enlightenment that informed the founding of our nation assumed that as science gained ground, other ways of knowing and finding truth — particularly religious belief — would lose ground. But in our American culture, that has not happened. While higher education has grown more scientific in its quest for knowledge, the American people at large have grown more religious, more fretful about moral "truths," and more polarized in their struggle to find political and existential truth.
The public believes that science does not have, and cannot have, all the answers, and that other ways of knowing are also legitimate and important. Scientists acknowledge that they do not have all the answers and that the success of science is due, at least in part, to its selectivity. Science concerns itself with aspects of reality that can be measured and are knowable though its methods. Prudently, it refrains — or at least, should refrain — from judging the truth of religious or spiritual beliefs. It has little to say about what makes life meaningful.
In other words, science gains its power from its self-imposed limitations. Scientific progress deals with subjects that lend themselves to quantification, experimentation, and verification. That leaves out vast domains of knowledge and truth. Colleges have long recognized that there are ways of knowing other than science; humanities departments institutionalize that conviction. In recent years, however, the success of specialized knowledge has come partly at the expense of the humanities, and nonscientific ways of knowing have lost status and credibility.
The philosopher Hannah Arendt has argued that some categories of truth will not yield to scientific inquiry but must be pursued through dialogue. In dialogue issues are thrashed out from a variety of points of view that need not be deeply grounded in factual knowledge. But such methods of pursuing knowledge have little standing or legitimacy in higher education. And yet, for many of the emotion-laden moral, political, and religious controversies that pervade our cultural lives, a disciplined form of dialogic discourse is better suited to truth seeking than are the specialized methods of gathering knowledge that now dominate higher education.
180
At the heart of this fifth trend is the public's growing suspicion that the nation has lost its way and must now rediscover the path of truth. For all its power and cogency, there is little that science and conventional academic knowledge can do to light this path.
We are living through a particularly difficult chapter of the ancient town-gown struggle. In higher education, the liberal arts, philosophy, and the humanities — the nonscientific ways of truth seeking — have been put on the defensive. While still valued as high culture, they have lost ground as ways of knowing and finding truth. But in our popular culture, it is science that is suspect, and its "probabilities" are less respected than among the cognoscenti.
Americans hunger for religious ways of truth seeking, especially with regard to moral values. By seeming to oppose or even ridicule that yearning, higher education pits itself against mainstream America. Unless it takes a less cocksure and more open-minded approach to the issue of multiple ways of knowing, higher education could easily become more embattled, more isolated, and more politicized.
As the home base of specialized knowledge, higher education may have to do a great deal more in coming decades to recognize, respect, codify, and clarify the strengths and limitations of nonscientific ways of knowing vis-à-vis scientific knowledge. At the very least, colleges may want to think about designing curricula at differing levels of sophistication to guide students through the thickets of various truth-seeking paths — provided that faculty members can be found who are sufficiently disinterested and knowledgeable to design such courses. Doing so will increase the larger society's respect for academic knowledge. And, in light of the nation's hunger for nonscientific ways of truth seeking, it would not be surprising to see by 2015 the humanities revitalized, with an infusion of new energy and self-confidence.
Pressured by powerful trends such as those that I've discussed, higher education has entered a new era of ferment and change. But it is an era that also offers enhanced importance and opportunity for colleges and universities.
Daniel Yankelovich is founder and chairman of three organizations: Viewpoint Learning Inc., a company that develops specialized dialogues to resolve gridlocked public-policy issues; Public Agenda, a nonprofit policy-research organization; and DYG Inc., a market- and social-research firm.
http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 52, Issue 14, Page B6
Copyright © 2005 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
INSERT SUB-TAB HERE
Sources
Science and Engineering Indicators: Sources & Resources Milken Institute: www.milkeninstitute.org/index.taf
State Technology and Science Index: Enduring Lessons for the Intangible Economy, March 2004: www.milkeninstitute.org/pdf/state_tech_sci_index04.pdf
Technology Administration Office of Technology Policy: www.technology.gov/OTPolicy/default.htm
The Dynamics of Technology-based Economic Development: State Science & Technology Indicators (Fourth Edition), March 2004: www.technology.gov/Reports.htm
TOC: www.technology.gov/reports/TechPolicy/StateIndicators/2004/Sect1_Contents_Intro.pdf
Metric Descriptions: www.technology.gov/reports/TechPolicy/StateIndicators/2004/Sect2_Metric_Descriptions.pdf
State Profiles: www.technology.gov/reports/TechPolicy/StateIndicators/2004/Sect3_State_Profiles.pdf
Time Series: www.technology.gov/reports/TechPolicy/StateIndicators/2004/Sect4_Time_Series.pdf
Appendix: www.technology.gov/reports/TechPolicy/StateIndicators/2004/Sect5_Appendix.pdf
Progressive Policy Institute: www.neweconomyindex.org/
The 2002 State New Economy Index: www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/index.html National Science Foundation: http://www.nsf.gov/
Science and Engineering Statistics: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ ◦ Academic Research and Development Expenditures:
www.nsf.gov/statistics/pubseri.cfm?TopID=2&SubID=3&SeriID=19 ◦ Academic Research and Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2003:
www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05320/pdfstart.htm ◦ Detailed Statistical Tables: www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05320/tables.htm ◦ Table 16: www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05320/pdf/table16.pdf
Science and Engineering State Profiles: www.nsf.gov/statistics/pubseri.cfm?TopID=8&SubID=17&SeriID=18#recentpub
◦ Science and Engineering State Profiles: 2001-2003: www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05301/
◦ State science and engineering profiles and R&D patterns: 2001-03: www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05301/tables/summary.xls
National Patterns of Research and Development Resources: www.nsf.gov/statistics/pubseri.cfm?TopID=8&SubID=44&SeriID=4#recentpub
◦ National Patterns of Research Development Resources: 2003: www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05308/htmstart.htm
◦ Detailed Statistical Tables: www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05308/appb.htm ◦ Table B-17: www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05308/pdf/tabb17.pdf
Texas Emerging Technology Fund: http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/ecodev/etf/index_html/view Texas Industry Clusters: http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/initiatives/Industry_Cluster
193
Texas Demographic Trends: Steve Murdock, “The Population of Texas: Historical Patterns and Future Trends Affecting Education,” inTexas Demographics and Their Effects upon Public and Higher Education: 2005 Report, November 2005. Pipeline Trends: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, NCHEMS News, Vol. 20, May 2003. Enrollment Trends: College Board, October 2005, http://www.insidehighereducaiton.com/news/2w005/10/31/collegeboard The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Policy Alert: Income of U. S. Workforce Projected to Decline If Education Doesn’t Improve, Nov., 2005, p. 6. National funding. NCHEMS News, Vol. 22, June 2005. Raymund Paredes, “Close the Gaps in Participation,” inTexas Demographics and Their Effects upon Public and Higher Education: 2005 Report, November 2005.
194