University of South Alabama Accountability Scorecard

Transcription

1 University of South Alabama Accountability Scorecard The University of South Alabama publishes this annual scorecard as one way to use data to make informed decisions and to monitor progress and success on key priorities outlined in the University s Strategic Plan. This scorecard reports universitylevel data, but all academic and administrative units at USA engage in their own process of strategic planning and assessment that are aligned with the University s Strategic Plan. Units develop a plan, set performance indicators, and subsequently assess the degree to which they are making progress in achieving the goals. For more information about strategic planning and assessment at the University of South Alabama, please contact the Office of Institutional Effectiveness at

2 University of South Alabama Strategic Plan Assessment Results Mission The University of South Alabama, with a global reach and special focus on the Gulf Coast, strives to make a difference in the lives of those it serves through promoting discovery, health, and learning. Goal Key Strategy Goal 1: Maintain and enhance an innovative and vibrant educational environment that supports teaching and promotes learning. Goal 2: Advance the research, discovery, and creative activities of the University. Goal 3: Enrich the quality of student life and the living/learning environment. Institutional Priority Student Success and Access Global Engagement Enhancement of Research and Graduate Education Student Success and Access University- Community Objective To reach an enrollment of 20,000 students within ten years in a fiscally responsible manner while strengthening high academic standards. 1.1: Improve academic success among undergraduate and graduate students and promote student engagement with learning. Page Number : Improve student learning outcomes : Recruit a diverse body of students who are well prepared for college study : Increase innovation, efficiency, and instructional resources for educational programs. 1.5: Provide a welcoming and supportive environment for 35 all members of the University community. 1.6: Recruit, recognize, develop, and retain high quality faculty : Develop and maintain high-quality online and blended courses and programs to accommodate wide-ranging learner needs and experiences. 1.8: Increase the incorporation of global perspectives into the educational environment. 2.1: Increase the opportunity and success for USA faculty, post-doctoral fellows, and students in seeking and carrying out transformative research, discovery, and creative activities. 2.2: Advance entrepreneurial activities that support the development of new technologies. 2.3: Increase the economic and societal impact of discovery produced by USA faculty, post-doctoral fellows, and students on the Gulf Coast region, nationally and internationally. 3.1: Increase student engagement in University activities by providing and promoting quality services and programs. 3.2: Provide a safe, supportive, inclusive, and civil environment for all students that foster a sense of community within the University. 3.3: Support and retain a diverse community of learners to enhance campus life and create opportunities to Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 2 of 86 Table of Contents

3 Goal Goal 4: Deliver high-quality health care programs that enhance the health and wellbeing of the community. Goal 5: Strengthen the financial standing of the University using strategies that recognize and address financial and market realities in higher education. Institutional Priority Engagement Student Success and Access Excellence in Healthcare Student Success and Access Enhancement of Research and Graduate Education Objective develop students as ethical and responsible leaders who make positive impacts in the community. 3.4: Provide quality and accessible facilities to address the growing service and programmatic needs of the University. 3.5: Increase faculty and staff participation with student organizations and activities. 3.6: Increase connections between student and academic groups/activities/programs. 4.1: Achieve exceptional patient quality outcomes for USA Hospitals, Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer Institute in comparison to peer groups. 4.2: Achieve exceptional patient satisfaction in USA Hospitals, Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer Institute. 4.3: Adapt to changes in reimbursement resulting from health care reform as evidenced by USA Hospitals, Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer Institute being financially balanced. 5.1: Reach the target level of student enrollment while balancing revenue generation with the resources necessary to strengthen academic quality. 5.2: Maximize efforts to secure increased State appropriation funding. 5.3: Increase extramural funding from grants and contracts. 5.4: Continue to expand and strengthen the University s fund-raising programs. 5.5: Collaborate with the USA Foundation to increase institutional support. 5.6: Be fiscally prudent and pursue opportunities for gains in efficiency. 6.1: Increase the number and variety of cultural programs and presentations. University- Goal 6: Expand 6.2: Increase the scope and impact of USA public service Community and extend the programs. Engagement cultural, public 6.3: Increase the number of attendees at University service, athletic athletic and cultural events. and economic 6.4: Provide the most accurate, objective, and reliable development data, impact analysis, and projections in the impacts of the University service area. University. University- 6.5: Develop strong partnerships with organizations Community directly involved in regional economic, civic, and Engagement cultural development. Areas shaded in gray are not directly linked to an institutional priority. Page Number Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 3 of 86 Table of Contents

4 Key Strategy: To reach an enrollment of 20,000 students within ten years in a fiscally responsible manner while strengthening high academic standards. Total Headcount 1 Enrollment, Fall Semesters ,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 14,279 14,757 15,007 15,009 14,883 15,311 16, Enrollment includes medical residents. Source: Total Headcount Enrollment by Fall Semester, Institutional Research. Entering Cohort Year USA: Seven-Year Fall Enrollment Trends Race/Ethnicity Total Headcount 1 White Black Gender Enrollment Status All others Male Female PT FT ,064 9,355 2,460 2,249 5,407 8,657 3,666 10, ,522 9,704 2,543 2,275 5,729 8,793 3,588 10, ,776 9,753 2,650 2,373 5,854 8,922 3,576 11, ,769 9,692 2,701 2,376 5,901 8,868 3,397 11, ,636 9,749 2,790 2,097 5,781 8,855 3,176 11, ,065 9,947 3,019 2,099 5,806 9,259 3,037 12, ,805 10,102 3,285 2,418 6,105 9,700 2,883 12,922 % change over six years 12% 8% 34% 8% 13% 12% -21% 24% Full-time student - 12 or more credit hours for undergraduate students and 6 or more credit hours for graduate students 1 Does not include medical residents. Source: Table 3.1 (Headcount) USA Fact Book Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 4 of 86 Key Strategy

5 Key Strategy (Continued) Entering Cohort Year USA: Undergraduate Seven-Year Fall Enrollment Trends % Change % Change from from previous previous year FTE year Total Headcount Credit Hours ,048 9, ,219 % Change from previous year ,408 3% 9,495 4% 142,419 4% ,658 2% 9,682 2% 145,223 2% ,578-1% 9,728 0% 145,923 0% ,315-2% 9,604-1% 144,065-1% ,307 0% 9,577 0% 143,661 0% ,479 2% 9,838 3% 147,563 3% Source: Table 3.1 (Headcount) and 3.12 (FTE/Credit hour) USA Fact Book Entering Cohort Year USA: Graduate Student Seven-Year Fall Enrollment Trends % Change % Change from from Total previous previous Credit Headcount year FTE year Hours % Change from previous year ,016 2,265 22, ,114 3% 2,312 2% 22,945 2% ,118 0% 2,419 5% 23,886 4% ,191 2% 2,561 6% 25,331 6% ,321 4% 2,715 6% 26,605 5% ,758 13% 3,063 13% 30,641 15% ,326 15% 3,507 15% 35,336 15% Source: Table 3.1 (Headcount) and 3.12 (FTE/Credit hour) USA Fact Book Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 5 of 86 Key Strategy

6 Key Strategy (Continued) Undergraduate and Graduate Student Enrollment Trends, % 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% Undegraduate Graduate Source: Table 3.1 (Headcount) USA Fact book Does include medical residents. Entering Cohort Year USA: Undergraduate New Student Seven-Year Fall Enrollment Trends FTFR Freshmen TR Sophomore TR Junior TR Senior TR UnClass TR Total TR Total All , ,164 2, , ,188 3, , ,067 2, , ,102 3, , ,002 2, , , , ,023 % change over six years 28% -40% -19% 13% 6% 300% -18% 9% FTFR=First-Time Freshmen; TR=Transfer Source: OIE Analysis of USA Census file Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 6 of 86 Key Strategy

7 Key Strategy (Continued) Covey College of Allied Health Professions College of Arts and Sciences USA: Fall Enrollment by Headcount for All Students by Division % Change over six years 1,669 1,803 1,898 2,011 2,048 2,123 2,236 34% 4,121 4,147 4,200 4,053 3,917 3,772 3,640-12% College of Education 2,073 2,023 1,898 1,768 1,640 1,643 1,726-17% College of Engineering 1,042 1,189 1,226 1,198 1,230 1,267 1,488 43% College of Medicine % Medical Residents % College of Nursing 2,305 2,556 2,782 3,010 3,175 3,575 3,908 70% Graduate School % Mitchell College of Business 1,857 1,730 1,578 1,559 1,438 1,453 1,483-20% School of Computing % School of Continuing Education and Special Programs % University Total 14,288 14,757 15,007 15,009 14,883 15,311 16,055 12% 1 Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs Source: Tables 3.1 and 3.2 (Headcount) USA Fact Book Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 7 of 86 Key Strategy

8 Key Strategy (Continued) Covey College of Allied Health Professions College of Arts and Sciences USA: Fall Enrollment by Credit Hour for All Students by Division % Change over six years 14,184 14,567 15,845 15,918 17,247 17,545 18,117 28% 81,146 85,157 86,562 86,503 85,932 85,705 88,461 9% College of Education 14,094 13,068 12,685 12,280 11,866 11,717 12,507-11% College of Engineering 5,440 5,566 5,654 5,659 6,075 6,279 7,344 35% College of Medicine % College of Nursing 18,396 18,911 20,527 23,016 23,705 27,096 29,363 60% Graduate School % Mitchell College of Business 15,803 15,147 14,463 13,683 13,197 14,062 14,319-9% School of Computing 5,150 5,851 6,191 6,557 6,143 6,743 6,985 36% School of Continuing Education and Special Programs 5,032 6,588 6,568 6,968 5,802 4,443 5,105 1% University Total 159, , , , , , ,899 15% 1 Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs Source: Table 3.14 (Credit Hour) USA Fact Book Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 8 of 86 Key Strategy

9 Key Strategy (Continued) 600 International Student Fall Enrollment by Level, Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Undergraduate Graduate Includes only non-resident aliens Source: Table 3.11 USA Fact Book International New Student Fall Enrollment by Level, Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Undergraduates Graduates Includes only non-resident aliens Source: OIE analysis of Census file Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 9 of 86 Key Strategy

10 Key Strategy (Continued) 14.0% USA International Student Enrollment Compared to USA Peer Institutions 1 as a Percentage of Total Fall Enrollment by Level, % 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 USA Undergraduate USA Graduate Peers Undergraduate Peers Graduate 1 Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. Data for 2013 and 2014 not yet available for Peer Institutions. Includes only non-resident aliens Source: Table 3.11 USA Fact Book; IPEDS Fall Enrollment by Country: Top 5 Countries, Country 1 # (%) Country 2 # (%) Country 3 # (%) Country 4 # (%) Country 5 # (%) 2009 India 260 (33%) Japan 81 (10%) Saudi Arabia 75 (10%) Nepal 71 (9%) China 28 (4%) 2010 India 229 (30%) Saudi Arabia 153 (20%) Nepal 65 (9%) Japan 63 (8%) China 28 (4%) 2011 Saudi Arabia 215 (33%) India 140 (21%) Nepal 43 (7%) China 35 (5%) Japan 33 (5%) 2012 Saudi Arabia 215 (41%) India 81 (15%) China 33 (6%) Nepal 30 (6%) Canada 21 (4%) 2013 Saudi Arabia 174 (38%) India 95 (21%) China 29 (6%) Nepal 25 (6%) Vietnam Germany 18 (4%) 18 (4%) 2014 Saudi Arabia 243 (36%) India 195 (29%) Kuwait 37 (6%) China 34 (5%) Nepal 22 (3%) Source: Table 3.11 USA Fact Book Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 10 of 86 Key Strategy

11 USA Objective 1.1: Improve academic success among undergraduate and graduate students and promote student engagement with learning. Admission Requirements by Admission Status, Regular Admit Conditional Admit ACT 19 19/ HSGPA / Shading indicates a change in admission requirements. Source: USA Bulletin, First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen 1st Year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 2nd year) 2nd year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 3rd year) 80% 70% 60% 67% 66% 65% 66% 68% 71% 50% 57% 52% 53% 54% 58% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FTFT 1st Year Retention FTFT 2nd Year Retention Source: OIE analysis of IR Persistence Reports ( ) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 11 of 86 Objective 1.1

12 Objective 1.1 (Continued) First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen: 1st Year Retention Rates by Race: Percent of the Fall Cohort Returning for Their 2nd year Entering Cohort Year Black White Other Minority Overall % 68% 67% 67% % 67% 73% 66% % 66% 73% 65% % 67% 67% 66% % 69% 67% 68% % 71% 77% 71% Source: Retention Reports 80% First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen 1st Year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 2nd year): USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1 73% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 70% 60% 50% 67% 66% 65% 66% 68% 71% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% USA Peer Institutions 1 Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. Source: Retention Reports, ; IPEDS Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 12 of 86 Objective 1.1

13 Objective 1.1 (Continued) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% First-time, Full-time Freshmen 1st Year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 2nd year) by College/School 1, % AHP AS BU ED EG NU SoC Overall College/School full names and abbreviations are listed in Appendix A. Source: Persistence Reports 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% First-time, Full-time Freshmen 1st Year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 2nd year) by Academic and Social Experience First year experience Learning communities On campus housing Off campus housing Overall Source: Retention Reports, Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 13 of 86 Objective 1.1

14 Objective 1.1 (Continued) 40% 35% 30% 25% First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen 4- and 6-Year Graduation Rates by Cohort ( ) 20% 15% 37% 38% 37% 33% 37% 10% 5% 14% 17% 14% 14% 15% 0% 4-Year 6-Year Source: USA Fact Book Table 4.9 First-time, Full-time Freshmen 6-Year Graduation Rates by Race, 2007 and 2008 Cohorts 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Black White Other Minority Overall Source: OIE analysis of Graduation data. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 14 of 86 Objective 1.1

15 Objective 1.1 (Continued) First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen 6 Year Graduation Rates USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 42% 43% 44% 45% 37% 38% 37% 33% USA Peer Institutions 1 Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A data are not available. Source: Persistence Reports; IPEDS 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% First-Time Full-Time Freshmen Six Year Graduation Rates by College/School 1 : Overall AHP AS BU ED EG NU SoC Overall College/School full names and abbreviations are listed in Appendix A. 2 Overall includes all students who were initially enrolled in the college/school and graduated from USA. Source: Undergraduate Persistence Report, 2014 Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 15 of 86 Objective 1.1

16 Objective 1.1 (Continued) Students Future Plans - USA Compared to EBI Peer Institutions 1 : Student Activities, Performance 2 Skill USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities I intend to return to this institution next year NA I intend to graduate from this institution NA 1 EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Activities, 2014 Number of Students Participating in First Year Experience Courses and Learning Communities, LC FYE 1,577 1,637 1, ,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1, Source: BANNER Report ZSGR0413 and the Office of Academic Success and Retention Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 16 of 86 Objective 1.1

17 Objective 1.1 (Continued) 120 Number of Instructors Using Team-Based Learning, Pilot Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Source: QEP assessment report Number of Students 1 Enrolled in Team-Based Learning Courses, Years ,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 5,076 1, ,513 1,844 Pilot Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall Duplicate count Source: QEP assessment report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 17 of 86 Objective 1.1

18 Objective 1.1 (Continued) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Percent of Students who were "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with the Following High Impact Practice, Fall % 40% 30% 87% 79% 79% 90% 68% 20% 10% 0% Faculty led research n=110 First year experience n=383 Learning communities n=281 Service learning n=152 Team-based learning n=326 Source: General Student Survey Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 18 of 86 Objective 1.1

19 Objective 1.1 (Continued) Mean Scores of Engagement Indicators - USA First Year Students Compared to NSSE Peer Institutions 1 and Year-to- Year Comparisons, 2013 and First Year Students Engagement Indicators 2 Academic Challenge 2013 USA Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions 2013 Peers USA Year-to-Year Comparisons 2014 Peers USA 2014 USA Higher-Order Learning Reflective and Integrative Learning ** * Learning Strategies *** Quantitative Reasoning Learning Peers Collaborative Learning ** *** Discussions with Diverse Others * * Experiences with Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction ** *** Effective Teaching Practices * * Campus Environment Quality of Interactions Supportive Environment * * *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p< NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Engagement indicators were scored on a 60 point scale where 0 = Never; 20 = Sometimes; 40 = Often; and 60 = Very Often. Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 19 of 86 Objective 1.1

20 Objective 1.1 (Continued) Mean Scores of Engagement Indicators - USA Seniors Compared to NSSE Peer Institutions 1 and Year-to-Year Comparisons, 2013 and Seniors Engagement Indicators 2 Academic Challenge 2013 USA Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions 2013 SE Public 2014 USA 2014 SE Public Year-to-Year Comparisons 2013 USA 2014 USA Higher-Order Learning ** ** Reflective and Integrative Learning ** *** Learning Strategies ** Quantitative Reasoning * ** Learning Peers Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others * *** Experiences with Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices Campus Environment Quality of Interactions Supportive Environment *** *** *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p< NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Engagement indicators were scored on a 60 point scale where 0 = Never; 20 = Sometimes; 40 = Often; and 60 = Very Often. Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 20 of 86 Objective 1.1

21 Objective 1.1 (Continued) College of Arts and Sciences USA Social Work Pass Rates on the LBSW 1, % 80% 71% 78% 71% 60% 70% 67% 40% 20% 33% 0% USA National 1 Licensed Baccalaureate Social Worker Source: USA Department of Social Work Annual Assessment Report Covey College of Allied Health Professions 100% USA Audiology Praxis Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, % 100% 100% 100% 80% 91% 89% 60% 40% 57% 58% 20% 0% USA National Source: USA Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology Annual Assessment Report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 21 of 86 Objective 1.1

22 Objective 1.1 (Continued) 100% USA Cardiorespiratory Care NBRC 1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, % 100% 88% 100% 96% 80% 78% 78% 79% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% USA National 1 NBRC National Board Respiratory Care Source: USA Department of Cardiorespiratory Care Annual Assessment Report USA Occupational Therapy NBCOT 1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, % 100% 96% 88% 91% 80% 82% 84% 85% 60% 40% 20% 0% USA National 1 NBCOT National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy National pass rates are no longer published. Source: USA Department of Occupational Therapy Annual Assessment Report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 22 of 86 Objective 1.1

23 Objective 1.1 (Continued) 100% USA Paramedic NREMT-P 1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, % 77% 77% 72% 76% 60% 65% 76% 40% 50% 50% 20% 0% USA National 1 NREMT-P National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians-Paramedics Source: USA Department of Emergency Medical Services Annual Assessment Report 100% USA Physical Therapy NPTE 1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, % 97% 89% 89% 80% 89% 79% 90% 90% 60% 40% 20% 0% USA National 1 NPTE National Physical Therapy Examination Source: USA Department of Physical Therapy Annual Assessment Report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 23 of 86 Objective 1.1

24 Objective 1.1 (Continued) USA Physician Assistant Studies PANCE 1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, % 100% 94% 92% 89% 95% 80% 94% 91% 93% 94% 93% 60% 40% 20% 0% USA National 1 PANCE Physician Assistant National Certifying Exam Source: USA Department of Physician Assistant Studies Annual Assessment Report USA Speech-Language Pathology Praxis Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, % 100% 96% 100% 100% 80% 86% 86% 86% 90% 60% 40% 20% 0% USA National Source: USA Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology Annual Assessment Report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 24 of 86 Objective 1.1

25 Objective 1.1 (continued) Mitchell College of Business Mitchell College of Business Graduates Performance on ETS Tests in the Major Field of Study: Overall and by Area ( ) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Overall Accounting Economics Management Quan Business Analysis Finance Marketing Legal/Social Information Systems International Issues Source: USA Mitchell College of Business Annual Assessment Report 50% indicates benchmark for success on ETS Tests in Major Field of Study. 100% Mitchell College of Business Graduates Performance on ETS Master's of Business Administration Field Exam ( ) 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Overall Marketing Management Finance Accounting Strategic Management Source: USA Mitchell College of Business Annual Assessment Report 50% indicates benchmark for success on ETS MBA Field Exam. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 25 of 86 Objective 1.1

26 Objective 1.1 (continued) 100% Mitchell College of Business Graduates Performance on Certified Public Accountant Exam ( ) 80% 60% 40% 84% 69% 57% 67% 75% 56% 20% 0% USA National Source: USA Mitchell College of Business Annual Assessment Report Results are not reported when less than 5 students sit for the CPA exam. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 26 of 86 Objective 1.1

27 Objective 1.1 (continued) College of Medicine USA COM Pass Rates on the USMLE 1 Step 1 Compared to National Pass Rates, % 96% 97% 100% 80% 92% 94% 96% 60% 40% 20% 0% USA National 1 United States Medical Licensing Examination Source: USA College of Medical Annual Assessment Report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 27 of 86 Objective 1.1

28 Objective 1.1 (continued) College of Nursing 100% USA CON Pass Rates on the NCLEX-RN 1 Compared to National Pass Rates, % 93% 95% 82% 80% 88% 89% 84% 81% 60% 40% 20% 0% USA National 1 National Council Licensure Examination-RN Source: USA College of Nursing Annual Assessment Report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 28 of 86 Objective 1.1

29 USA Objective 1.2: Improve student learning outcomes Percent of Students Reporting Quite a Bit or Very Much Regarding Institutional Contribution to Their Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Development, 2013 and USA First Year Students Compared to Peers at Southeast Public Institutions and Year-to-Year Comparisons First Year Students Area Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions USA % 2013 Peers % 2014 USA % 2014 Peers % Year-to-Year Comparisons 2013 USA % 2014 USA % Writing clearly and effectively 74 66** ** Speaking clearly and effectively 61 58* * Thinking critically and analytically * Analyzing numerical and statistical information * Acquiring job- or work-related knowledge and skills Working effectively with others Developing or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics * 58 52* Solving complex real-world problems *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p< NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 29 of 86 Objective 1.2

30 Objective 1.2 (Continued) Percent of Students Reporting Quite a Bit or Very Much Regarding Institutional Contribution to Their Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Development, 2013 and USA Seniors Compared to Peers at Southeast Public Institutions and Year-to-Year Comparisons. Seniors Area Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions USA % 2013 Peers % 2014 USA % 2014 Peers % Year-to-Year Comparisons 2013 USA % 2014 USA % Writing clearly and effectively Speaking clearly and effectively 66 70* 60 68** 66 60** Thinking critically and analytically 81 86* Analyzing numerical and statistical information * Acquiring job- or work-related knowledge and skills * 68 63*** Working effectively with others * 70 65* Developing or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics 56 62*** 54 60* Solving complex real-world problems 59 64* 53 63*** 59 53** *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p< NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 30 of 86 Objective 1.2

31 Objective 1.2 (Continued) Percent of Students Reporting Quite a Bit or Very Much Regarding Institutional Contribution to Their Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Development, 2011, 2013, and USA First Year Students Compared to USA Senior Students First Year vs. Seniors Area 2011 % First Year 2011 % Senior % Change 2013 % First Year 2013 % Senior % Change 2014 % First Year 2014 % Senior Writing clearly and effectively Speaking clearly and effectively Thinking critically and analytically Analyzing numerical and statistical information Acquiring job- or work-related knowledge and skills Working effectively with others Developing or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics Solving complex real-world problems % Change Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 31 of 86 Objective 1.2

32 Objective 1.2 (Continued) Contribution to Enhancing Student Skills - USA Compared to EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities 1, Percent 2 Skill USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities Ability to think critically Written communication skills Ability to make presentations to others Ability to work in teams EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 32 of 86 Objective 1.2

33 Objective 1.3: Recruit a diverse body of students who are well prepared for college study. Percent of First-Time Students Enrollment by General Racial Categorization ( Cohorts) 100% 90% 13.4% 14.6% 12.7% 12.0% 15.6% 80% 70% 23.9% 29.1% 24.6% 25.2% 26.7% 60% 50% 40% 30% 62.7% 56.3% 62.7% 62.8% 57.6% 20% 10% 0% White Black Other Minority Source: USA Fact Book Table 2.5 First-Time Students ACT Scores as Compared to State and National Averages by General Racial Categorization ( Cohorts) Entering Other Black White USA Alabama 1 National 1 Cohort Year Minority Mean Composite ACT Scores of high school graduates tested. Source: OIE Analysis of census file and Table 2.3 (ACT Scores) USA Fact Book. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 33 of 86 Objective 1.3

34 Objective 1.3 (Continued) Percent of USA First-time Freshmen Meeting the ACT Benchmarks, % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% English Reading Mathematics Science Information on ACT Benchmarks is listed in Appendix A. Source: OIE analysis of Census data files. Percent of USA First-time Freshmen by Racial Category Meeting the ACT Benchmarks, Racial Category B W O B W O B W O B W O B W O English Reading Mathematics Science Information on ACT Benchmarks is listed Appendix A. Racial categories are listed in Appendix A. Source: OIE analysis of Census data files. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 34 of 86 Objective 1.3

35 USA Objective 1.4: Increase innovation, efficiency and instructional resources for educational programs. Perceptions of Marx Library: Percent of Students Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing, 2014 Percent The Marx library is sufficient for my general needs. (n = 608) 97 The Marx library provides sufficient resources for academic needs. (n = 597) 95 Marx library resources are readily available for my needs. (n = 596) 96 Technology in the Marx library is sufficient. (n = 570) 90 Technology in the Marx library is readily available. (n = 563) 94 The hours of operation of the Marx library are sufficient. (n = 585) 89 The Marx library (online) is sufficient for my general needs. (n = 577) 94 The Marx library (online) provides sufficient resources for academic needs. (n = 578) 93 Marx library (online) resources are readily available for my needs. (n = 581) 95 Source: General Student Survey Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 35 of 86 Objective 1.4

36 USA Objective 1.5: Provide a welcoming and supportive environment for all members of USA the Objective University 1.6: Community Recruit, recognize, develop, and retain high quality faculty. Classroom/Environment - USA Compared to EBI Peer Institutions 1 : Student Climate, Percents 2 Factor USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Climate I feel welcome in class Appropriate and inclusive language is used in class Different views and perspectives are encouraged in class EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 36 of 86 Objective 1.5

37 USA Objective 1.6: Recruit, recognize, develop, and retain high quality faculty. Student to Faculty Ratio, Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Student to faculty ratio 19:1 19:1 20:1 Source: USA Common Data Set Credit Hours Taught by Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty, Total Hours FT Total Hours % FT Total Hours PT Total Hour % PT Total Hour Fall , ,650 76% 38,602 24% Fall , ,804 78% 36,054 22% Fall , ,009 79% 34,952 21% Fall , ,519 77% 40,459 23% 1 Excludes 94 hours taught by staff. Source: BANNER Report: ZSGR4011 Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 37 of 86 Objective 1.6

38 Objective 1.6 (Continued) Distribution of Full-Time Faculty by College/School and Division, Academic Unit Academic Affairs % change # % 2 # % 2 # % College of Arts & Sciences % College of Education % College of Engineering % Mitchell College of Business % School of Computing % School of Continuing Education and Special Programs % University Library % Total % Health Sciences Covey College of Allied Health % College of Medicine % College of Nursing % Total % Mitchell Cancer Institute % Overall % 1 Deans and administrators holding faculty rank are excluded. Librarians holding faculty rank are included. 2 Percent overall number of faculty. 3 College of Medicine includes librarians in the Biomedical Library holding faculty rank. Source: ZPGR0091, Academic Affairs, Allied Health, and the College of Medicine Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 38 of 86 Objective 1.6

39 Objective 1.6 (Continued) Fall USA: Full-Time Faculty Totals, Changes in the Number of Faculty Number of Faculty Percent Change Fall % Fall % Fall % Fall % Fall % Fall % Percent change from % Source: Table 5.1 USA Fact Book (Faculty Count) and OIE analysis of Fact Book data Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 39 of 86 Objective 1.6

40 USA Objective 1.7: Develop and maintain high-quality online and blended courses and programs to accommodate wide-ranging learner needs and experiences. Student Success Rate (Grade of A, B, or C) in Course Sections Taught as Web-Blended (WB), Online (WO), and Traditional, % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 85% 86% 88% 78% 81% 83% 78% 80% 83% 20% 10% 0% Blended Online Traditional Source: ILC. Banner Report ZSGR % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of USA Course Sections Taught as Web-Blended, Online, or Traditional, % 10% 14% 7% 17% Blended Online Traditional 19% 78% 73% 74% Source: ILC, BANNER Report ZSGR0086 Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 40 of 86 Objective 1.7

41 Objective 1.7 (Continued) Percent of Students Stating the Quality of Instruction was "Excellent" or "Good" by Modality, Fall 2014 Traditional (n = 670) 82% Blended (n = 589) 80% Online (n = 640) 75% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: General Student Survey Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 41 of 86 Objective 1.7

42 USA Objective 1.8: Increase the incorporation of global perspectives into the educational environment. Number of Students Studying Abroad, Source: Office of International Education Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 42 of 86 Objective 1.8

43 Objective 1.8 (Continued) Number of Students by Countries Visited, Country Percent Change Rwanda Spain France Germany Costa Rica Dominican Republic United Kingdom Finland Russia Italy Argentina Brazil China Ecuador Mexico Japan Oman Peru Africa Belize Canada Greece Ireland Nepal Saudi Arabia Singapore Total % Three students did not register through the Office of International Education so the country visited was not reported. Source: International Education Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 43 of 86 Objective 1.8

44 Objective 1.8 (Continued) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Students' Level of Satisfaction with Their Study Abroad Experience, Fall % 20% 10% 0% 8% 16% Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied n= 98 Students who had participated in Study Abroad while attending USA rated their level of satisfaction with their experience. Source: General Student Survey 57% 20% Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 44 of 86 Objective 1.8

45 USA Objective 2.1: Increase opportunity and success for USA faculty, post-doctoral fellows, and students in seeking and carrying out transformative research, discovery, and creative activities. 600 Total Number of Grants Submitted and Funded, Total submitted Total funded Source: Research and Economic Development Fiscal Year 2012, 2013 and 2014 Reports Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 45 of 86 Objective 2.1

46 USA Objective 2.2: Advance entrepreneurial activities that support the development of new technologies. USA Entrepreneurial Activity FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Gross Licensing Revenue (in thousands) 2,400 1,852 2,041 2,570 Number of Active Licenses Number of Invention Disclosures Number of Patents Filed Issued Number of New Start-Up Companies Formed Source: Research and Economic Development Fiscal Year 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Reports Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 46 of 86 Objective 2.2

47 USA Objective 3.1: Increase student engagement in University activities by providing and promoting quality services and programs. Student Activities - USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1, Percent 2 Indicator USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities Student activities attended were interesting Student activities attended were enjoyable EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Percent of Students Participating in Co-Curricular Activities and Attending Campus Events 1-10 hours per Week, Fall % 83% 30% 65% 20% 10% 0% Participating in co-curricular activities (n = 330) Attending campus events (n = 415) Source: General Student Survey Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 47 of 86 Objective 3.1

48 Objective 3.1 (Continued) Importance of Offering Student Activities- USA Compared to EBI Peer Institutions 1 : Student Activities, Percent 2 Factor USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities Lectures Special Events Late night program Sporting Events EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment Overall Program Effectiveness - USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1, Percent 2 Factor USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities Would you recommend this college/university to a friend? Has your college experience been a positive experience? EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 48 of 86 Objective 3.1

49 Objective 3.1 (Continued) 20.0% SGA Elections: Overall Voter Participation Rate 15.0% 16.5% 10.0% 9.4% 10.5% 13.1% 5.0% 7.3% 0.0% Primary Election Participation Rate Run-off Election Participation Rate Source: SGA Election Results Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 49 of 86 Objective 3.1

50 USA Objective 3.2: Provide a safe, supportive, inclusive, and civil environment for all students that foster a sense of community within the University Clery Crime Statistics: Offenses Reported Sex Offenses-Forcible Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Auto Theft Source: USA Police Clery Report Co-Curricular Environment - USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1, Percent 2 Factor USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Climate I feel safe walking across campus NA Appropriate and inclusive language is used in student activities (e.g., concerts, lectures, games) 76.0 NA Different views and perspectives are encouraged in student activities/organizations (e.g., meetings, concerts, lectures, games) 77.2 NA 1 EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 50 of 86 Objective 3.2

51 Objective 3.2 (Continued) Peer Relationships - USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1, Percent 2 Indicator EBI Peer Institutions: Student Climate USA I feel accepted by students at this college/university I have made friends at this college/university I feel valued by students at this college/university EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement Contribution to Their Intellectual Growth - USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1, Percent 2 Skill EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities USA Respect for yourself Respect for others EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 51 of 86 Objective 3.2

52 USA Objective 3.3: Support and retain a diverse community of learners to enhance campus life and create opportunities to develop students as ethical and responsible leaders who make positive impacts in the community. 6% Comparisons between USA and Public 4-Year Institutions 1 : African- American Faculty, % 4% 3% 2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.2% 5.3% 5.1% 4.5% 4.6% 4.5% 1% 0% USA Public 4-Year Institutional Research; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from IPEDS. 1 IPEDS Public 4-Year Institutions participating institutions n=724 Source: USA Diversity Plan, Assessment of Progress, ; Comparisons between USA and Public 4-Year Institutions 1 : African-American Administrative/Managerial Staff, % 10% 8% 6% 4% 9.5% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 10.0% 10.3% 8.8% 8.6% 2% 0% USA Public 4-Year 1 IPEDS Public 4-Year Institutions participating institutions n=724 Source: USA Diversity Plan, Assessment of Progress, ; Human Resources; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from IPEDS. In 2011, the Federal Government changed the definition of occupational codes so national counts may be lower. Institutional Research; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from IPEDS. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 52 of 86 Objective 3.3

53 Objective 3.3 (Continued) Comparisons between USA and Public 4-Year Institutions 1 : African-American Student Enrollment, % 20% 15% 10% 5% 19.1% 20.0% 20.8% 11.5% 12.2% 12.0% 0% USA Public 4-Year 1 IPEDS Public 4-Year Institutions participating institutions n=724 Source: USA Diversity Plan, Assessment of Progress, ; Institutional Research; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from NCES. Comparisons between USA and Public 4-Year Institutions 1 : Degrees Awarded to African-Americans, % 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 12.7% 12.9% 12.8% 10.1% 10.1% 10.4% 2% 0% USA Public 4-Year 1 IPEDS Public 4-Year Institutions participating institutions n=724 Source: USA Diversity Plan, Assessment of Progress, ; Institutional Research; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from IPEDS. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 53 of 86 Objective 3.3

54 48% 55% 56% 54% 59% 59% 54% 60% * Objective 3.3 (Continued) Percent of USA Freshmen Compared to NSSE Peer Institutions 1 Freshmen Stating the Institution Contributed to Their Being an Active and Informed Citizen and Understanding People of Diverse Backgrounds, 2013 and % 60% 50% 40% * 30% 20% 10% 0% Active and Informed Citizen Understanding people of diverse backgrounds 2013 USA 2013 SE Public 2014 USA 2014 SE Public *p< NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Percent equals responses: Very much and Quite a bit. Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 54 of 86 Objective 3.3

55 51% 50% 60% 57% 55% 52% 61% 62% *** *** *** Objective 3.3 (Continued) Percent of USA Seniors Compared to NSSE Peer Institutions 1 Seniors Stating the Institution Contributed to Their Being an Active and Informed Citizen and Understanding People of Diverse Backgrounds, 2013 and % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Active and Informed Citizen Understanding people of diverse backgrounds 2013 USA 2013 SE Public 2014 USA 2014 SE Public ***p< NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Percent equals responses: Very much and Quite a bit. Source: National Survey of Student Engagement Impact of Diverse Experiences - USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1, Percent 2 Indicator USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Climate A belief that learning about others who are different from me is valuable A personal commitment to combating discrimination The ability to challenge, when necessary, my biases toward people who are different from me EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 55 of 86 Objective 3.3