reproductions supplied by edrs are the best that can be made … · 2014-06-04 · ed 462 901 title...
TRANSCRIPT
ED 462 901
TITLE
INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROMPUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
DOCUMENT RESUME
HE 034 777
Funding Guidelines Peer Performance Analysis: UniversitySystem of Maryland, Morgan State University.Maryland State Higher Education Commission, Annapolis.2002-01-0089p.
For full text: http://www.mhec.state.md.us.Reports Evaluative (142)MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.Educational Finance; Evaluation Methods; *Financial Support;Higher Education; *Peer Institutions; *Performance BasedAssessment; Resource Allocation; Selection; *Universities*Morgan State University MD; *University of Maryland System
In September 1999, the Maryland Higher Education Commissionadopted a peer-based model for the establishment of funding guidelines forthe University System of Maryland and Morgan State University. The guidelinesare designed to inform the budget process by providing a funding standard anda basis for comparison between institutions. The basic concept is to identifyfunding peers that are similar to Maryland institutions on a variety ofcharacteristics, and then to compare these funding peers to inform resourcequestions and assess performance. Each applicable Maryland institution is toselect 10 performance peers from its list of funding peers. Seventeenmeasures have been identified for the University System of Marylandinstitutions and 14 for Morgan State University. These indicators arecompared with the state's Managing for Results initiative. Marylandinstitutions are expected to perform at or above the level of theirperformance peers on most indicators. This report contains a comprehensiveassessment of the performance of each University System of Marylandinstitution and Morgan State University in comparison with their performancepeers. It includes a discussion of the performance measures, criteria used toassess institutional performance, and issues related to data availability. Inaddition, each institution was given the opportunity to respond to theassessment of its performance, and these responses and comments aresummarized in the analysis section. Three appendixes discuss methodology forselecting performance peers and operational definitions for performanceindicators for the University System and Morgan State University. (SLD)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
1
MARYLAND HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION
FUNDING GUIDELINESPEER PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND
MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
MEIN=
January 2002
U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffide of Educational Research and Improvernent
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
arr.:This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.
1:1 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.
MARYLAND HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION
16 Francis Street, Annapolis, Maryland 21401www.rnhec.state.rnd.us
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
MARYLAND HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION
John J. Oliver, Jr., Chairman
Dorothy Dixon Chaney
Edward 0. Clarke, Jr.
Micah Coleman
Anne Osborn Emery
John L. Green
George S. Malouf, Jr.
David S. Oros
R. Kathleen Perini
Charles B. Saunders, Jr.
Donald J. Slowinski, Sr.
Richard P. Streett, Jr.
Karen R. Johnson, J.D.Secretary of Higher Education
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary i
Background 1
Refining Funding Guidelines . 1
Performance Measures 2
Assessing Institution Performance 2
Data Availability 3
Peer Performance AnalysisBowie State University 11
Coppin State College 15
Frostburg State University 19
Salisbury University 23
Towson University 27
University of Baltimore 31
University of Maryland, Baltimore 35
University of Maryland Baltimore County 39
University of Maryland, College Park 43
University of Maryland Eastern Shore 47
University of Maryland University College 51
Morgan State University 55
AppendicesAppendix A.Appendix BIndicatorsAppendix CIndicators
Methodology for Selecting Performance Peers 61
University System of Maryland Operational Definitions for Performance63
Morgan State University Operational Definitions for Performance73
TablesTable 1. University System of Maryland Performance Measures for FundingGuidelines 5
Table 2. Morgan State University Performance Measures for Funding Guidelines 7
4
Executive Summary
In September 1999, the Maryland Higher Education Commission adopted a peer-based
model for the establishment of funding guidelines for the University System of Maryland
and Morgan State University. The guidelines are designed to inform the budget process
by providing both a funding standard and a basis for comparison between institutions.
The basic concept of the funding guidelines is to identify peer institutions that are similar
to Maryland institutions on a variety of characteristics. These 'funding peers' are
compared to the Maryland institutions to inform resource questions and assess
performance.
Included in the funding guidelines process is an annual performance accountability
component. Each applicable Maryland institution selects 10 "performance peers" from
their list of "funding peers." The Commission, in consultation with representatives from
the University System of Maryland, Morgan State University, the Department of Budget
and Management and the Department of Legislative Services, identified a set of
comprehensive, outcome-oriented performance measures to compare Maryland
institutions against their performance peers. There are 17 measures for USM institutions
and 14 for Morgan. These indicators are consistent with the State's Managing for Results
(MFR) initiative and include indicators for which data are currently available. In some
instances, institutions added specific indicators that were more reflective of the
institution's role and mission.
Maryland institutions are expected to perform at or above their performance peers on
most indicators. Furthermore, Commission staff assessed the institution's performance
within the context of the State's MFR initiative. Commission staff examined trend data
and benchmarks for indicators that are comparable to the peer performance indicators. In
instances where an institution's performance is below the performance of its peers, the
institution was required to identify actions that it will take to improve performance. Anexception was made for an institution that demonstrates progress towards achieving its
benchmarks on related indicators established within the MFR initiative.
This report contains a comprehensive assessment of the performance of each University
System of Maryland institution and Morgan State University in comparison to their
performance peers. The report includes a discussion of the performance measures,
criteria used to assess institutional performance, and issues related to data availability. In
addition, each institution was given an opportunity to respond to the Commission'sassessment of its performance in comparison to its peers. Institutional responses and
Comments are summarized in the analysis section.
5
Background
In September 1999, the Maryland Higher Education Commission adopted fundingguidelines; a peer-based model designed to inform the budget process by providing both
a funding standard and a basis for comparison between institutions. The basic concept of
the funding guidelines is to identify peer institutions (i.e. 'funding peers') that are similar
to the Maryland institution (i.e. "home" institution) in mission, size, program mix,enrollment composition, and other defining characteristics. These funding peers are then
compared and contrasted with the Maryland institution.
One component critical in determining whether the State's higher education institutions
are performing at the level of their funding peers is performance accountability. To
compare performance, the presidents of each Maryland institution (except the University
of Maryland, College Park; University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Morgan State
University) selected ten 'performance' peers from their list of 'funding' peers. The
presidents based this selection on criteria relevant to their specific institutional objectives.
The University of Maryland, College Park is measured only against its 'aspirational
peers' - those institutions that College Park aspires to emulate in performance and
reputation. For the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB), 'composite peers' areused to recognize UMB's status as the State's public academic health and law university
with six professional schools. UMB's peers include institutions classified by the
Carnegie Foundation as 'specialized' and institutions classified as 'Research I'
institutions. Morgan State University's performance peers are the same as its funding
peers. Appendix A lists the criteria used by each institution to select their performance
peers.
Refining Funding Guidelines
Fiscal Year 2002 was the second year that funding guidelines influenced the allocation of
State resources. For the first time, the Commission provided a report to the GeneralAssembly on the University System of Maryland's performance relative to theirperformance peers. The budget committees expressed concern that this report was notcomprehensive because the performance indicators did not place enough emphasis on
outcome and achievement measures. The committees requested that the Commission
address this gap by developing more comprehensive and outcome-oriented accountability
indicators.
The Commission, in consultation with the representatives from the University System ofMaryland, the Department of Budget and Management, the Department of Legislative
Services and Morgan State University, established a workgroup to address the gap in the
peer performance component of the funding guidelines. Based on collaborativedecisions, the workgroup identified a set of performance measures to compare Maryland
institutions against their 'performance' peers. In addition, the workgroup developed amethod to assess institutional performance.
16
This report contains a comprehensive assessment of the performance of each UniversitySystem of Maryland institution and Morgan State University in comparison to theirperformance peers. A discussion of the performance measures, criteria used to assessinstitutional performance, and issues related to data availability follow.
Performance Measures
For the University System of Maryland institutions, there are 17 performance measures(see Table 1). Not all institutions are required to provide data on all of the measures.There are separate sets of indicators for Maryland's comprehensive institutions and for
the research universities. Furthermore, institutions have the flexibility to add specific
indicators that are more reflective of their role and mission. The indicators includeretention and graduation rates and outcome measures such as licensure examinationpassing rates, the number of faculty awards, and student and employer satisfaction rates.All indicators are consistent with the State's Managing for Results initiative and reflectstatewide policy goals. Appendix B lists the operational definitions for each indicator.
There are 14 performance measures for Morgan State University (see Table 2). These
indicators include retention and graduation rates, student and employer satisfaction rates,
and the passing rate on the Praxis II examination (an assessment that measures teachercandidate's knowledge of the subjects that they will teach). Appendix C lists theoperational definitions for Morgan's indicators.
Assessing Institution Performance
Maryland institutions are expected to perform at or above their performance peers on
most indicators. Furthermore, Commission staff assessed institutional performancewithin the context of the State's Managing for Results (MFR) initiative. In general,
institutions were expected to make progress towards achieving their benchmarksestablished within the MFR initiative. Commission staff examined trend data andbenchmarks for indicators that are comparable to the peer performance indicators. In
instances where an institution's performance is below the performance of its peers, theinstitution is required to identify actions that it will take to improve performance. Anexception will be made for an institution that demonstrates progress towards achieving its
benchmarks on related indicators established within ihe MFR initiative.
For this report, each institution was given an opportunity to respond to the Commission'sassessment of its performance in comparison to its peers. Institutional responses andcomments are summarized in the analysis section of this report.
In future years, the performance component will influence the integration of aspirational
peers into the funding guideline process. Institutions may be eligible for enhancedguideline funding if the institution's performance on a set of the approved indicatorsmeets or exceeds the performance of its peers. In the coming year, the Commission willwork with the public campuses, the Department of Budget and Management and theDepartment .of Legislative Services to develop criteria under which an institution wouldbe eligible for enhanced guideline funding.
Data Availability
It should be noted that it was difficult to obtain nationally comparable outcome-based
performance measures. To the extent possible, the measures identified for peer
comparisons use data that are verifiable and currently available from national data
systems such as the National Center for Education Statistics' Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Database Systems (1PEDS), the National Science Foundation, and US. Newsand World Report. Although the National Center for Education Statistics is currently in
the process of designing methods to gather outcome-based indicators, many of these data
are not readily available. For example, peer data are not available for alumni giving,
graduate satisfaction, employers' satisfaction, and passing rates on several professionallicensure examinations. In cases where data are not available through national datasystems, Maryland institutions obtained data either directly from their peer institutions orcompared its performance to Maryland institutions that are in the same Carnegieclassification. For one measure, employers' satisfaction, USM institutions are compared
to the University of North Carolina System institutions that are of the same Carnegieclassification. The University of North Carolina System conducts an annual survey ofemployers who hire their graduates and this survey is comparable to University System
of Maryland's annual survey. In the future, as more data become available, the
Commission will incorporate additional outcome-based measures into the peerperformance process.
It should be noted that for one measure, the pass rate on the Praxis II examination,research suggests that comparisons of pass rates across state lines is not advisablebecause of major differences in the testing requirements from one state to another. Sinceeach state independently determines the level of performance required for teachercertification, this indicator is useful only for comparing institutional performance to other
Maryland institutions.
In addition, there are subtle differences between the operational definitions found in this
analysis and the definitions used in the MFR for several performance indicators. For
example, in this analysis, the second-year retention rate and the six-year graduation ratemeasures the proportion of first-time, full-time degree seeking undergraduate studentswho either returned to or graduated from the same college or university. In addition, thegraduation data used in this analysis are based on the Federal Graduation Rate Survey(GRS), a federal initiative that collects data required by the Student Right-to-Know Actof 1990. In contrast, the MFR captures students who re-enroll or graduate from the sameinstitution as well as those students who transfer to any Maryland public four-yearinstitution. Because of these subtle differences, it was not possible to assess institutionalperformance on retention and graduation within the context of the MFR initiative.
\ Despite the overall difficulties in obtaining nationally comparable performance measures,institutions were expected to take appropriate steps to collect data on all performancemeasures. In the analysis section of this report, institutions were asked to identify actions
that they are taking to collect data.
Tab
le 1
. UN
IVE
RSI
TY
SY
STE
M O
FM
AR
YL
AN
DPE
RFO
RM
AN
CE
ME
ASU
RE
S FO
R F
UN
DIN
GG
UID
EL
INE
S
Perf
orm
ance
Ind
icat
orB
SUC
SCFS
USU
TU
UB
UM
BU
MB
CU
MC
PU
ME
SU
MU
C
1. A
vera
ge S
AT
sco
re o
f in
com
ing
stud
ents
I
2. %
min
ority
of
all u
nder
grad
uate
s3.
% A
fric
an-A
mer
ican
of
all u
nder
grad
s.e
4. S
econ
d ye
ar r
eten
tion
rate
5. S
ix y
ear
grad
uatio
n ra
te6.
Six
yea
r gr
adua
tion
rate
: all
min
oriti
es7.
Six
yea
r gr
adua
tion
rate
: Afr
ican
-Am
.8.
Pas
s ra
te o
n Pr
axis
H e
xam
9. P
assi
ng r
ate
in n
ursi
ng li
cens
ing
exam
10. P
assi
ng r
ates
in o
ther
lice
nsur
e ex
ams
2M
edL
awL
awD
ent.
SWSW
Phar
m
1 1.
Gra
duat
es s
atis
fact
ion
3
12. E
mpl
oyer
s' s
atis
fact
ion
40
0
13. A
vera
ge a
lum
ni g
ivin
g ra
te/a
vera
ge u
nder
grad
alum
ni g
ivin
g
14. T
otal
R&
D e
xpen
ditu
res
5
a
15. A
vera
ge a
nnua
l % g
row
th in
fed
eral
R&
Dex
pend
iture
s 5
16. $
s in
tota
l R&
D e
xpen
ditu
res
per
FT f
acul
ty5
17. #
of
facu
lty a
war
ds p
er 1
00 f
acul
ty18
. Ins
titut
ion-
spec
ific
mea
sure
s
I Ins
titut
ions
hav
e th
e op
tion
of u
sing
the
25th
and
75t
h pe
rcen
tile
of S
AT
sco
re fo
rent
erin
g fr
eshm
en.
2F
or s
ome
licen
sing
exa
min
atio
ns, o
vera
ll M
aryl
and
pass
ing
rate
may
be th
e ap
prop
riate
ref
eren
ce r
athe
r th
an th
e pe
er in
stitu
tions
3C
ompa
rabl
e pe
er d
ata
are
not a
vaila
ble.
Dat
a fo
r U
SM
inst
itutio
ns.
4U
nive
rsity
of N
orth
Car
olin
a S
yste
m's
sch
ools
will
be
used
for
peer
com
paris
on
s F
or in
stitu
tions
oth
er th
an U
MB
, pee
r's m
edic
al R
&D
exp
endi
ture
s w
ill b
e ex
clud
ed,
910
TA
BL
E 2
. MO
RG
AN
ST
AT
E U
NIV
ER
SIT
YPE
RFO
RM
AN
CE
ME
ASU
RE
S FO
R F
UN
DIN
GG
UID
EL
INE
S
Mea
sure
'C
ompa
risi
on G
roup
I. S
econ
d ye
ar r
eten
tion
rate
of
a co
hort
of
firs
t-tim
e,fu
ll-tim
e un
derg
radu
ates
2. S
econ
d ye
ar r
eten
tion
rate
of
a co
hort
of
firs
t-tim
e, f
ull-
time
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an u
nder
grad
uate
s3.
Sec
ond
year
ret
entio
n ra
te o
f a
coho
rt o
f fi
rst-
time,
full-
time
min
ority
und
ergr
adua
tes
4. S
ix-y
ear
grad
uatio
n ra
te o
f a
coho
rt o
f fi
rst-
time,
full-
time
unde
rgra
duat
es5.
Six
-yea
r gr
adua
tion
rate
of
a co
hort
of
firs
t-tim
e, f
ull-
time,
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an u
nder
grad
uate
s
6. S
ix-y
ear
grad
uatio
n ra
te o
f a
coho
rt o
f fi
rst-
tIm
e, f
ull-
time,
min
ority
, und
ergr
adua
tes
7. P
erce
nt in
crea
se in
doc
tora
l deg
rees
aw
arde
d ov
er b
ase
year
FY19
998.
Gra
duat
e/pr
ofes
sion
al s
choo
l goi
ng r
ate
9. S
atis
fact
ion
with
adv
ance
d st
udie
s pr
epar
atio
n
10. S
atis
fact
ion
with
job
prep
arat
ion
11. P
RA
XIS
II
pass
rat
e12
. Sum
mar
y m
easu
re o
f em
ploy
er s
atis
fact
ion
13. A
lum
ni g
ivin
g
14. P
erce
nt g
row
th in
gra
nts
and
cont
ract
s ex
pend
iture
s
Nat
iona
l Pee
rsN
atio
nal P
eers
Nat
iona
l Pee
rsN
atio
nal P
eers
Nat
iona
l Pee
rsN
atio
nal P
eers
Nat
iona
l Pee
rsN
atio
nal P
eers
, if
avai
labl
e, e
lse
appr
opri
ate
Mar
ylan
d in
stitu
tions
Nat
iona
l Pee
rs, i
f av
aila
ble,
els
eap
prop
riat
e M
aryl
and
inst
itutio
nsN
atio
nal P
eers
, if
avai
labl
e, e
lse
appr
opri
ate
Mar
ylan
d in
stitu
tions
App
ropr
iate
Mar
ylan
d in
stitu
tions
Nat
iona
l Pee
rs, i
f av
aila
ble,
els
eap
prop
riat
e M
aryl
and
inst
itutio
nsN
atio
nal P
eers
, if
avai
labl
e, e
lse
appr
opri
ate
Mar
ylan
d in
stitu
tions
Nat
iona
l Pee
rs
For
all
mea
sure
s, th
e m
ost r
ecen
t dat
a av
aila
ble
will
be
used
.
1112
Peer Performance Analysis
1 3-9-
Bowie State University
Bowie State University exceeds the performance of its peers on several performance
measures. The university's second-year retention and six-year graduation rates are higher
than any of its peer institutions. The percentage of minority and African-American
undergraduate students attending the institution exceeds the peers' average.
There are, however, a few cases where the institution performs below the level of its
peers. Compared to the University of North Carolina System institutions, Bowie ranks
last in the proportion of employers who would hire another graduate from the university.
Furthermore, Bowie's performance on this indicator could not be assessed within the
context of the State's Managing for Results (MFR) initiative because data for this
indicator were not available.
Bowie selected four institution-specific indicators: the percent of faculty with terminal
degrees; acceptance rate; yield rate (enrollment rate); and research and development
(R&D) expenditures per full-time faculty. In terms of faculty quality, Bowie has the
second highest percentage of faculty with terminal degrees and exceeds its peers'
average. The university's level of expenditures for research and development per full-
time faculty exceeds the peers' average and is higher than most of its peers. In this case,
however, only three of its peers reported expenditures in this area. Bowie's average
acceptance rate on offers of admission is 43.4 percent; a figure below the peers' average
of 87.2 percent. In addition, the university's yield rate (or enrollment rate) is slightly
below its peers' average.
In many cases, Commission staff was unable to compare the performance of Bowie
relative to its peers due to missing data for a number of measures. For example, data for
the alumni-giving category are not available for seven of Bowie's peers. Among the
indicators where Bowie's performance exceeds its peers' average (e.g. graduation rate for
all students, minorities and African-Americans; and the proportion . of faculty with
terminal degrees) data are missing from at least three institutions.
The Institution's Response
Bowie plans to improve performance on employer satisfaction by enhancing workforce
skills through the implementation of two new technology initiatives. Furthermore, the
institution states that the comparison of this indicator could also become more favorable
when comparable institutions within the North Carolina system are included as peers. In
future reports, several comprehensive institutions with similar academic offerings and
student body profiles will be included. To improve the yield rate (enrollment rate), the
institution expects this percentage to increase, as the quality of their educational product
becomes better known.
The university has been diligent in its efforts to acquire peer data. When data were not
available through national data systems or through university websites, Bowie made
direct inquiries to its peer institutions. In most of these cases, institutions responded that
the requested data were not collected or available and in some cases the promise to
provide data was not fulfilled. For future reports, the university will seek other possiblesources for data.
1512
Bow
ie S
tate
Uni
vers
ityPe
er P
erfo
rman
ce D
ata
Uni
vers
ity
SA
T25
11s1
75th
%ile
% m
inor
ityof
all
unde
rgra
duat
es
% A
fric
an-
Am
eric
an o
f all
unde
rgra
duat
es
Ave
rage
(4-
yr.)
seco
nd-y
ear
rete
ntio
n ra
te
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
Bow
ie S
tate
U.
810-
982
--89
.9%
86.1
%72
.0%
34.2
%
Aub
urn
U.,
Mon
tgom
ery
AC
T 1
7-22
34.5
%31
.4%
57.0
%N
/A
Aug
usta
Sta
te U
.87
0-10
8030
.2%
24.7
%55
.0%
21.6
%
Che
yney
U. o
f Pe
nn.
N/A
98.9
%96
.8%
62.0
%26
.8%
Col
umbu
s St
ate
U.
N/A
31.6
%26
.4%
62.0
%27
.7%
Indi
ana
U.,
Nor
thw
est
770-
1000
36.0
%25
.2%
61.0
%N
/A
New
Jer
sey
City
U.
N/A
56.2
%19
.2%
70.0
%29
.3%
Prai
rie
Vie
w A
& M
U.
720-
930
94.6
%92
.3%
63.0
%32
.4%
Sul R
oss
Stat
e U
.A
CT
15-
2058
.2%
3.1%
50.0
%21
.4%
Vir
gini
a St
ate
U.
710-
900
96.0
%94
.7%
71.0
%29
.2%
Wes
tern
New
Mex
ico
U.
AC
T 1
648
.2%
1.9%
51.0
%N
/A
Ave
rage
of P
eers
58.4
%41
.6%
60.2
%26
.9%
BS
U in
stitu
tion-
spec
ific
indi
cato
rs
Alu
mni
% o
f fac
ulty
with
R&
D e
xpen
ditu
res
per
FT
facu
lty
Uni
vers
itygi
ving
rat
ete
rmin
alde
gree
Acc
epta
nce
rate
Yie
ld r
ate
($0O
O)
l3ow
iest
ate
U.
: 3.3
% .
70.5
%43
.4%
51.8
%$2
4.1.
Aub
urn
U.,
Mon
tgom
ery
N/A
N/A
98.9
%N
/A0.
0
Aug
usta
Sta
te U
.N
/A70
.1%
64.3
%83
.7%
0.0
Che
yney
U. o
f Pe
nn.
2.4%
56.5
%77
.7%
36.1
%0.
0
Col
umbu
s St
ate
U.
11.5
%69
.8%
N/A
N/A
0.0
Indi
ana
U.,
Nor
thw
est
N/A
. 65.
9%79
.3%
90.2
%0.
0
New
Jer
sey
City
U.
N/A
N/A
58.4
%49
.8%
0.0
Prai
rie
Vie
w A
& M
U.
1.3%
N/A
96.0
%58
.7%
110.
4
Sul R
oss
Stat
e U
.N
/AN
/AN
/AN
/A6.
6
Vir
gini
a St
ate
U.
N/A
79.2
%86
.9%
37.0
%16
.7
Wes
tern
New
Mex
ico
U.
N/A
N/A
100.
0%37
.8%
0.0
Ave
rage
of P
eers
5.1%
68.3
%82
.7%
56.2
%51
3.4
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
all m
inor
ities
Six
-yea
r
grad
uatio
n ra
teA
fric
an A
mer
ican
s
34.3
%34
.3%
N/A
N/A
17.8
%16
.0%
26.7
%27
.1%
16.7
%17
.1%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
32.7
%33
.1%
24.7
%33
.3%
29.1
%29
.4%
N/A
N/A
24.6
%26
.0%
Pas
sing
rat
eon
Pra
xis
IIex
am (
A)
98%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Nor
th C
arol
ina
com
paris
ons
Em
ploy
ers'
Gra
duat
es'
satis
fact
ion
satis
fact
ion
Bow
ie S
t* U
.'-,
. 93.
1% .
Wes
tern
Car
olin
a St
ate
U96
.3%
App
alac
hian
Sta
te U
99.0
%Fa
yette
ville
Sta
te U
98.3
%N
orth
Car
olin
a A
&T
U96
.3%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Cen
tral
U94
.7%
UN
C -
Cha
rlot
te97
.8%
UN
C -
Pem
brok
e98
.7%
UN
C -
Wilm
ingt
on99
.0%
Ave
rage
97.5
%
Not
es:
N/A
- D
ata
not a
vaila
ble
(A)
Com
pari
sons
of
pass
rat
es a
cros
s st
ate
lines
is n
ot a
dvis
able
.D
epen
ding
on
inst
itutio
nal r
equi
rem
ents
, the
exa
m m
ay b
e re
quir
ed a
t dif
fere
nt ti
mes
in a
stu
dent
's e
duca
tion.
At s
ome
inst
itutio
ns, P
raxi
s II
is a
gra
duat
ion
requ
irem
ent;
at o
ther
inst
itutio
ns it
is n
ot. B
ecau
se o
f th
ese
inst
itutio
nal d
iffe
renc
es, c
ompa
riso
n of
Pra
xis
11 p
assi
ng r
ates
acr
oss
inst
itutio
ns m
ay n
ot b
e va
lid.
1617
Coppin State College
Compared to its peers, Coppin State College has the third highest second-year retention
rate and this rate exceeds the peers' average. In addition, the percentage of minority andAfrican-American undergraduate students attending the institution is well above thepeers' average.
The college performs below the average of its peers on a number of performancemeasures. Coppin ranks seventh in six-year graduation rate for all students and this rateis below its peers' average. The six-year graduation rate for all minorities and African-American students are also well below the peers' average. In terms of the college'seffectiveness in preparing nursing students, Coppin ranks third and is below the peers'average in the percentage of students passing the nursing exam. In addition, the college'sperformance on this indicator has not improved. According to the MFR, the proportionof students passing this exam has declined from 95 percent in 1998 to 83 percent in 2000.Compared to the University of North Carolina System institutions, Coppin is belowaverage in the proportion of employers who would hire another graduate from thecollege. According to the MFR, Coppin's performance on this indicator has improved;increasing from 91 percent to 95 percent. This is also the institution's benchmark forthis indicator.
The college added five institution specific indicators: percent of undergraduatesattending part-time; percent of graduate students enrolled; unrestricted, non-auxiliaryrevenue as a percent of total unrestricted revenue; the average age of full-timeundergraduates; and the proportion of commuter students. Although these are primarilydescriptive measures, they provide an indication of the type of student populationattending the institution. For example, approximately 30 percent of Coppin's student
population attends part-time which is slightly higher than its peers' average.
Furthermore, the average age for full-time undergraduate students is 25, slightly higherthan the peers' average and compared to its peers, the vast majority of the studentscommute. The percentage of graduate students attending the institution is relatively low.Compared to its peers, the proportion of graduate students is slightly lower than thepeers' average.
In a few cases, it is difficult for Commission staff to compare the performance of Coppinrelative to its peers due to the number of missing data. For example, Coppin has thehighest alumni-giving rate yet data are not available for eight of its peers. For thepercentage of students passing the nursing exam, data are not available for five ofCoppin's peer institutions. In addition, data are missing from a number of peerinstitutions on the six-year graduation rate for all minorities and African-Americanstudents.
The Institution's Response
The college has implemented several retention initiatives in order to improve its six-year
graduation rate for all students, all minorities, and African-American students. These
initiatives include cohort-based, campus wide campaign, which is an intensive effort tocontact and provide advisement and problem identification services to students in the
18
1996, 1997, and 1998 cohorts. These students are routinely monitored throughout thesemester and academic year.
In addition, Coppin has implemented several strategies to improve the pass rate on thenursing exam. The college developed an action plan, which includes specific strategiesfor correction, dates for accomplishment, preparatory and remedial support for students,guidelines for student selection, and changes in academic hours. Furthermore, Coppin'sDivision of Nursing now requires a full-time faculty team leader for senior medical-surgical nursing. The college has decreased the number of adjunct faculty and adjustedfull-time faculty teaching loads to meet student needs. The college has implementedseveral other strategies including using computer assisted practice tests to aid preparationfor the comprehensive exam and Nursing Student Enrichment Specialists to assist senior
students test preparation.
The college has made a number of efforts to acquire peer data. For the alumni-givingrate, the national database used to collect data on alumni giving did not receive reportsfrom many of Coppin's peer institutions. However, in the future, Coppin will contactindividual offices at its peer institutions for these data. In addition, the college workeddiligently to collect data directly from its peers regarding the six-year graduation rate for
all minorities and African-American students. In many cases, institutions promised toprovide data but never followed-up on this promise or Coppin was unable to get anyone
to commit to follow-up with their request.
-1 6- 19
CO
ppin
Sta
te C
olle
geP
eer
Per
form
ance
Dat
a
Uni
vers
ity
SA
T25
th/7
5th
%H
e
% m
inor
ityof
all
unde
rgra
duat
es
% A
frie
s n-
Am
eric
an o
f all
unde
rgra
duat
es
Ave
rage
(4-
yr.)
seco
nd-y
ear
rete
ntio
n ra
te
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
all m
inor
ities
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
Afr
ican
Am
eric
ans
Pas
sing
rat
eon
Pra
xis
11
exam
(A
)
Pas
sing
rat
ein
nur
sing
licen
sing
exa
m
Cop
pin
Sta
te C
olle
geA
laba
ma
Sta
te U
.
Alc
orn
Sta
te U
.C
olum
bus
Sta
te U
.
For
t Val
ley
Sta
te U
.N
ew J
erse
y C
ity U
.N
ew M
exic
o H
ighl
ands
U.
Nor
th C
arol
ina,
U. o
f, P
embr
oke
Sul
Ros
s S
tate
U.
Tex
as A
&M
U.,
Cor
pus
Chr
isti
Wes
tern
New
Mex
ico
U.
Ave
rage
of P
eers
Uni
vers
ity
929
AC
T 1
3-18
AC
T 1
6-19
N/A
N/A
N/A
AC
T 1
6-21
920-
1030
AC
T 1
5-20
890-
1100
AC
T 1
6
96.4
%94
.0%
96.3
%31
.6%
95.6
%56
.2%
76.0
%44
.5%
58.2
%44
.5%
48.2
%
64.5
%
- 95
.3%
.
93.4
%96
.2%
26.4
%95
.0%
19.2
%
2.8%
17.6
%
3.1%
2.9%
1.9%
35.9
%
71.0
%57
.0%
72.0
%62
.0%
77.0
%70
.0%
54.0
%70
.0%
50.0
%65
.0%
51.0
%
62.8
%
17.4
%18
.3%
23.4
%23
.6%
46.7
%46
.3%
27.7
%16
.7%
15.0
%15
.2%
29.3
%N
/AN
/AN
/A36
.9%
37.7
%
21.4
%24
.7%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
28.6
%27
.4%
18.7
%23
.7%
46.5
%17
.1%
12.2
%
N/A
N/A
42.3
%33
.3%
N/A
N/A
29.2
%
100.
0%N
/R10
0.0%
N1R
N/A
N/A
100.
0%
100.
0%
87.0
%80
.0%
000
93.4
%
83.0
%N
/A10
0.0%
100.
0%N
/AN
/AN
/A10
0.0%
will
sta
rt F
all 2
002
76.6
%88
.0%
92.9
%
CS
C in
stitu
tion-
spec
ific
indi
cato
rsN
orth
Car
olin
a co
mpa
rison
s
Unr
estr
. non
-aux
iliar
y.A
vera
ge a
geA
lum
niP
art-
time
unde
rgra
ds G
radu
ate
stud
ents
as
% r
even
ue a
s %
of t
otal
full-
time
givi
ng r
ate
as %
of t
otal
hdc
t.of
tota
l hea
dcou
ntun
rest
r. r
even
ueun
derg
radu
ate
Cop
pin
Sta
te C
.A
laba
ma
Sta
te U
.
Alc
orn
Sta
te U
.C
olum
bus
Sta
te U
.F
ort V
alle
y S
tate
U.
New
Jer
sey
City
U..
New
Mex
ico
Hig
hlan
ds U
.N
orth
Car
olin
a, U
. of,
Pem
brok
eS
ul R
oss
Sta
te U
.
Tex
as A
&M
U.,
Cor
pus
Chr
isti
Wes
tern
New
Mex
ico
U.
Ave
rage
of P
eers
30.1
%N
/AN
/A11
.5%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.8%
N/A
8.2%
% C
omm
uter
stud
ents
Em
ploy
ers'
satis
fact
ion
30.1
%16
.4%
2590
%C
oppi
n S
tate
C.
13.9
%17
.3%
83.4
%19
57%
Wes
tern
Car
olin
a S
tate
U96
.3%
6.7%
16.3
%85
.9%
2121
%A
ppal
achi
an S
tate
U99
.0%
38.9
%12
.9%
95.4
%26
40%
Fay
ette
ville
Sta
te U
98.3
%
9.7%
12.0
%82
.0%
2431
%N
orth
Car
olin
a A
&T
U"
96.3
%
36.9
%25
.8%
95.1
%25
95%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Cen
tral
U94
.7%
20.9
%39
.2%
92.6
%25
N/A
UN
C -
Cha
rlotte
97.8
%
22.1
%8.
9%79
.8%
2577
%U
NC
- P
embr
oke
98.7
%
34.9
%31
.5%
92.3
%21
66%
UN
C -
Wilm
ingt
on99
.0%
29.0
%23
.8%
93.9
%25
90%
34.8
%21
.2%
94.0
%25
N/A
24.8
%20
.9%
89.4
%23
.659
.6%
Ave
rage
97.5
%
Gra
duat
es'
satis
fact
ion
94,9
% .
N/A
-D
ata
not a
vaila
ble
N/R
- P
raxi
s 11
not
req
uire
d
Less
than
10
test
take
rs, n
o da
ta g
iven
.(A
) C
ompa
rison
s of
pas
s ra
tes
acro
ss s
tate
line
s is
not
adv
isab
le. D
epen
ding
on
inst
itutio
nal r
equi
rem
ents
, the
exa
m m
ay b
c re
quire
d at
diff
eren
t tim
es
21
20
Frostburg State University
Frostburg State University's performance on a number of performance indicators meets
or exceeds its peers' average. The percentage of minority and African-Americanundergraduate students attending the institution is well above the peers' average. In
addition, the university has the third highest six-year graduation rate for all minorities and
the fourth highest six-year graduation rate for African-American students. In both cases,Frostburg's performance on these indicators exceeds its peers' average. It should benoted that compared to its peers, Frostburg State Uriiversity enrolls students with lower
SAT scores.
Compared to the University of North Carolina System institutions, Frostburg'sperformance is above its peers' average in the proportion of employers who would hireanother graduate from the institution. In addition, according to the MFR, the university'sperformance on this indicator has improved; increasing from 65 percent in 1999 to 98percent in 2001. This is also the institution's benchmark for this indicator. The
university also compares favorably in its undergraduate alumni-giving rate. Compared toits peers, Frostburg performs at the average of its peers.
The university performs below the average of its peers on a number of performancemeasures. Frostburg ranks seventh in the second-year retention rate for all students andsixth in the six-year graduation rate. In both cases, the university performs slightly below
its peers' average.
In terms of the institution's effectiveness in preparing teacher candidates and socialworkers, Frostburg ranks first among its peers on the percentage of students passing thePraxis II exam and reports a 100 percent passing rate on the social work licensing exam.
Frostburg added two institution-specific indicators: student-faculty ratio and educationaland general (E&G) expenditures per degree awarded. The university's student-facultyratio equals its peers' average. However, Frostburg receives a lower level of resourcesthan its peers. The university has the lowest E&G expenditures per degree awarded andis substantially below its peers' average.
On professional licensure examinations, Frostburg has a high proportion of studentspassing the Praxis II exam. Many of Frostburg's peer institutions however use alternative
certification tests. It was difficult to assess Frostburg's performance on the social work
exam because of missing data from its peer institutions. Although Frostburg has thehighest proportion of students passing the social work licensing exam, data are notavailable from most of its peer institutions nor is historical data provided in theinstitution's MFR.
The Institution's Response
To improve the second-year retention and six-year graduation rate, Frostburg hasimplemented and published an admissions matrix as part of its recruitment process. This
action is intended to recruit students who represent the best fit to be successful andpossess the highest probability for retention. Furthermore, more scholarship funds are
192 2
being awarded to attract and retain students. The university notes that the graduation ratewill return to its customary level once Frostburg recovers from a one-year drop insecond-year retention that occurred in 1994.
With regards to the need to collect peer data on the social work licensure exam, Frostburgnotes that of its current peers, those institutions that offer an undergraduate Social Work(BSW) program do not require completion of licensing examinations. In some states,eligibility to complete Social Work licensing examinatidns requires the Master's inSocial Work (MSW); therefore, these BSW programs will not have data on theirundergraduate programs. Furthermore, Frostburg notes that many institutions continue tobe reticent about disclosing the performance of their graduates. The university however,receives annual reports from the Association of Social Work Boards, which provides theaverage national pass rate. Below is a comparison of Frostburg's performance on thisexam and the national average.
Passing Rate in Nursing Licensing Exam: FY 1998 to FY 2000
National 83 83 79
FSU 100 100 100
20 2 3
Fro
stbu
rg S
tate
Uni
vers
ityPe
er P
erfo
rman
ce D
ata
Uni
vers
ity
SA
T
25th
/75t
h %
He
% m
inor
ityof
all
unde
rgra
duat
es
% A
fric
an-
Am
eric
an o
f all
unde
rgra
duat
es
Ave
rage
(4-
yr.)
seco
nd-y
ear
rete
ntio
n ra
te
Fro
stbu
rg S
tate
U.
870-
1080
15.2
%11
.3%
72.0
%
Cal
iforn
ia U
. of P
enn:
850-
1030
5.3%
4.1%
69.0
%
Cla
rion
U. o
f Pen
n.N
/A5.
4%4.
3%73
.0%
Eas
t Str
ouds
burg
U. o
f Pen
n.86
0-10
507.
6%3.
5%73
.0%
Mas
sach
uset
ts, U
. of,
Dar
tmou
th95
0415
010
.2%
5.4%
78.0
%
Son
oma
Sta
te U
.93
0-11
4018
.1%
2.0%
77.0
%
SU
NY
, C. a
t One
onta
950-
1110
9.5%
3.3%
63.0
%
SU
NY
, C. a
t Pla
ttsbu
rgh
970-
1140
8.0%
2.8%
79.0
%
SLJ
NY
, C. a
t Pot
sdam
930-
1140
7.9%
3.0%
75.0
%
Wes
tern
Con
nect
icut
Sta
te U
.85
0-10
6014
.6%
5.6%
65.0
%
Win
thro
p U
.94
0-11
3026
.1%
23.8
%76
.0%
Ave
rage
of P
eers
11.3
%5.
8%72
.8%
I tv Uili
vers
ity
FS
U in
stitu
tion-
spec
ific
indi
cato
rsR
atio
of
FT
ES
to F
rfa
culty
E&
G e
xpen
ditu
repe
rde
gree
aw
arde
d
Fro
stbu
rg S
tate
U.
21.
$9,2
64:
Cal
iforn
ia U
. of P
enn.
1811
,779
Cla
rion
U. o
f Pen
n.20
10,3
17
Eas
t Str
ouds
burg
U. o
f Pen
n.21
10,9
54
Mas
sach
uset
ts, U
. of,
Dar
tmou
th19
13,7
24
Son
oma
Sta
te U
.25
14,4
19
SU
NY
, C. a
t One
onta
3010
,937
SU
NY
, C. a
t Pla
ttsbu
rgh
2210
,851
SU
NY
, C. a
t Pot
sdam
1812
,384
Wes
tern
Con
nect
icut
Sta
te U
.22
10,0
69
Win
thro
p U
.19
9,56
5
Ave
rage
of P
eers
21$1
1,50
0
Not
es:
N/A
- D
ata
not a
vaila
ble
Nor
th C
arol
ina
com
paris
ons
Em
ploy
ers'
satis
fact
ion
Fro
stbu
rg S
tate
U (
5)98
%W
este
rn C
arol
ina
Sta
te U
96.3
%
App
alac
hian
Sta
te U
99.0
%
Fay
ette
ville
Sta
te U
98.3
%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
A&
T U
96.3
%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Cen
tral
U94
.7%
UN
C -
Cha
rlotte
97.8
%
UN
C -
Pem
brok
e98
.7%
UN
C -
Wilm
ingt
on99
.0%
Ave
rage
97.5
%
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
all m
inor
ities
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
Afr
ican
Am
eric
ans
Pas
sing
rat
e
on P
raxi
s II
exam
(A
)
Pas
sing
rat
e
in B
SW
soc
ial w
ork
licen
sing
exa
m (
4)
Ave
rage
(2-
yr.)
unde
rgra
d ua
teal
umni
givi
ng r
ate
49.8
%40
.6%
43.5
%92
.0%
100.
0%.!§
%43
.0%
39.1
%43
.8%
83.0
%N
/A12
%
51.9
%33
.3%
31.3
%81
.0%
N/A
13%
50.8
%33
.9%
25.8
%86
.0%
N/A
21%
43.7
%31
.3%
25.5
%no
te 1
N/A
20%
N/A
N/A
N/A
note
2N
/A5%
44.8
%28
.6%
25.0
%no
te 3
N/A
15%
57.4
%39
.5%
33.3
%no
te 3
N/A
15%
74.9
%56
.0%
50.0
%no
te 3
N/A
17%
41.6
%27
.2%
22.7
%88
.0%
N/A
N/A
55.2
%55
.2%
56.7
%92
.0%
N/A
22%
51.5
%38
.2%
34.9
%86
.0%
16%
Gra
duat
es'
satis
fact
ion
86%
(1)
Tea
cher
cer
tific
atio
n te
st is
Mas
s. T
each
er T
cst.
Pas
sing
rat
e =
61%
.(2
) T
each
er c
ertif
icat
ion
test
is R
eadi
ng In
stru
ctio
n C
ompe
tenc
e A
sses
smen
t (R
ICA
).(3
) T
each
er c
ertif
icat
ion
test
is L
iber
al A
rts
& S
cien
ce T
est &
Ass
essm
ent o
f Tea
chin
g S
kills
Writ
ten
(NE
S).
Pas
sing
rat
es: S
UN
Y, O
neon
ta -
99%
;
SU
NY
, Pla
ttsbu
rgh
=99
%; S
UN
Y, P
otsd
am99
%.
(4)
Pas
sing
rat
es fo
r pe
ers
are
not a
vaila
ble
from
any
of t
he fo
llow
ing
sour
ces
all o
f whi
ch w
ere
cont
acte
d: p
eers
, sta
te s
ocia
l wor
kor
gani
zatio
ns, a
nd th
e
natio
nal s
ocia
l wor
k or
gani
zatio
n. T
his
appl
ies
to B
SW
gra
duat
es.
(5)
BS
, BA
, & I3
FA
rec
ipie
nts
2425
Salisbury University
Salisbury University exceeds the performance of its peers on almost every performanceindicator. The university attracts highly qualified, new freshmen ranking second among
its peers for the SAT 25th percentile and first for the 75th percentile. The percentage ofminority and African-American undergraduate students attending the institution is above
the peers' average. In addition, Salisbury performs well compared to its peers in second-
year retention and six-year graduation rates. The university has the highest second-year
retention rate for all students and the highest six-year graduation rate for minority
students. Salisbury ranks second in the six-year graduation rate for all students and for
African-American students.
In -terms of the institution's effectiveness in preparing teacher candidates and nursingstudents, the university has high passing rates on several licensure examinations.Salisbury's passing rate on the Praxis II exam is the highest among the institutionsreporting pass rates for this teaching examination. The university reports a 90 percent
passing rate on nursing licensing examination; a rate that exceeds the peers' average of
87 percent.
Compared to the University of North Carolina System institutions, Salisbury is slightly
above its peers' average in the proportion of employers who would hire another graduate
from the university. The university also compares favorably in its undergraduate alumni-
giving rate. Compared to its peers, Salisbury is above the average of its peers on this
indicator.
Salisbury selected five institution-specific indicators: acceptance rate; percentage of full-
time faculty who have earned a doctorate, first-professional or other terminal degree;student-faculty ratio; average high school grade point average of first-time freshmen; and
state appropriations per full-time equivalent student. Compared to its peers, Salisbury is
more selective. The university's acceptance rate is 57 percent compared to its peers'
average of 86 percent. Salisbury's focus on enrolling high quality students is also
evidenced by the average high school grade point average of incoming freshmen. For
the entering class, the average high school GPA is 3.4, which is above the peers' average
of 3.22. In addition, Salisbury's student-faculty ratio is below the average of its peers.
In terms of faculty quality, Salisbury performs below the aVerage of its peers on thepercentage of faculty with terminal degrees. Only 76 percent of Salisbury's faculty hasearned a terminal degree compared to its peers' average of 86 percent. In addition,
Salisbury receives the second lowest state appropriation per full-time equivalent students;
a level that is well below the peers' average.
On professional licensure examinations, Salisbury has a high proportion of studentspassing the Praxis II exam. Many of Salisbury's peer institutions however use alternativecertification tests. On the nursing licensing exam, it was difficult to assess Salisbury'sperformance due to missing data from its peer institutions. For the nursing exam, four ofits peer institutions do not have a nursing program and data are not available for three of
the institutions.
2326
The Institution's Response
The university has taken a number of actions to increase the number of faculty withterminal degrees. In order to keep pace with burgeoning enrollments and the concurrentimpact of diminishing its reliance upon contractual faculty, Salisbury plans to add 35 newtenure-track faculty positions between FY 2002 and FY 2004, all of which requireterminal qualifications. It is important to note that the peer measure referenced in thisanalysis includes all full-time faculty, which includes full-time contractual faculty, andwhich consequently lowers the overall percentage of faculty with terminal degrees. In
fact, although 76 percent of all full-time faculty have terminal degrees, Salisbury reportsthat 90 percent of its full-time tenured/tenure-track faculty earned terminal degrees.
Although Salisbury recognizes and values the extremely generous support it has receivedover the past few years, when compared against institutional peers the fundingdeficiencies remain significant. This places the university in a position where it receives
state appropriations that are fully $1,697 per full-time equivalent student below the peer
funding average. Salisbury notes that since state appropriations remain paramount forany significant progress to occur in attracting and retaining additional highly qualifiedfaculty, state funding to guideline levels is a prerequisite.
Regarding the collection of peer data, these complexities are compounded at theuniversity level where each peer institution must be contacted separatelya processcomplicated further by requests from other institutions and agencies that threaten toinundate university offices. To enhance peer data collection, the university is
investigating consortia data exchange agreements, and involving various campusdepartments, particularly those in Nursing and Education, to assist with the datacollection from colleagues at peer institutions. Additionally, the institution is consideringthe employment of an additional full-time staff member to focus exclusively on thecollection, verification, analyses, and update of data used in accountability reports, peercomparisons, MFR, minority achievement reports, Title II, assessment, and accreditation
reporting.
Sal
isbu
ry U
nive
rsity
Pee
r P
erfo
rman
ce D
ata
Uni
vers
ity
SAT
2501
/75t
h %
ile
% m
inor
ityof
all
unde
rgra
duat
es
% A
f r
ican
-
Am
eric
an o
f al
l
u nd
ergr
ad n
otes
Ave
rage
(4-
yr.)
seco
nd-y
ear
rete
ntio
n ra
te
Six-
year
grad
uat
ion
rate
Six-
year
grad
uatio
n ra
teal
l min
oriti
es
Salis
bury
U.
1030
1200
10.4
%7.
7%83
.0%
61.2
%51
.4.%
Cen
tral
Was
hing
ton
U.
880-
1080
12.7
%2.
0%74
.0%
45.3
%43
.3%
Mas
sach
uset
ts, U
. of,
Dar
tmou
th95
0-11
5010
.2%
5.4%
78.0
%.
43.7
%31
.3%
Nor
th C
arol
ina,
U. o
f, W
ilmin
gton
1000
-116
08.
7%5.
3%79
.0%
59.8
%51
.1%
Ship
pens
burg
U. o
f Pe
nn.
960-
1150
5.8%
3.5%
77.0
%63
.6%
40.8
%
Sono
ma
Stat
e U
.93
0-11
4018
.1%
2.0%
77.0
%N
/AN
/A
Sout
heas
t Mis
sour
i Sta
te U
.A
CT
19-
256.
6%4.
5%71
.0%
N/A
N/A
SUN
Y, C
. at O
sweg
o10
40-1
190
8.4%
3.7%
80.0
%57
.5%
46.1
%
SUN
Y, C
. at P
latts
burg
h97
0-11
408.
0%2.
8%79
.0%
57.4
%39
.5%
Wes
tern
Car
olin
a U
.89
0-10
908.
5%5.
1%69
.0%
47.1
%44
.4%
Wes
tern
Ore
gon
U.
N/A
9.8%
1.2%
72.0
%N
/AN
/A
Ave
rage
of
Peer
s9.
7%3.
6%75
.6%
53.5
%.
42.4
%
SU in
stitu
tion-
spec
ific
indi
cato
rs
Alu
mni
Acc
epta
nce
of f
acul
tyR
atio
of
Ave
rage
IIS
Tot
al s
tate
Uda
ersi
tygi
ving
rat
era
tew
ith te
rmin
al d
egre
esE
TE
S to
FT
EF
CPA
appr
opri
atio
nfE
TE
S
C.7
1
Sahs
bury
U.
18.6
%76
%17
.13.
40 ..
$4,3
05
Cen
tral
Was
hing
ton
U.
N/A
83%
84%
20.2
3.10
5,17
2
Mas
sach
uset
ts, U
. of,
Dar
tmou
thN
/A65
%86
%15
.22.
928,
188
Nor
th C
arol
ina,
U. o
f, W
ilmin
gton
14.7
%58
%87
%20
.93.
486,
078
Ship
pens
burg
U. o
f Pc
nn.
30.5
%64
%90
%17
.8N
/A4,
798
Sono
ma
Stat
e U
.1.
5%84
%10
0%18
.93.
237,
644
Sout
heas
t Mis
sour
i Sta
te U
.5.
9%94
%80
%17
.93.
206,
607
SUN
Y, C
. at O
sweg
o26
.4%
59%
76%
18.7
3.10
4,39
6
SUN
Y, C
. at P
latts
burg
h15
.6%
69%
87%
17.3
3.50
4,78
6
Wes
tern
Car
olin
a U
.27
.3%
82%
80%
19.3
3.14
8,90
6
Wes
tern
Ore
gon
U.
N/A
93%
86%
13.5
3.30
3,44
8
Ave
rage
of
Peer
s17
.4%
.75
86%
18.0
3.22
S6,0
02
Six-
year
grad
uatio
n ra
teA
fric
an A
mer
ican
s
Pass
ing
rate
on P
raxi
s II
exam
(A
)
50.0
%30
.8%
25.5
%
52.9
%
31:8
%
N/A
N/A
37.7
%33
.3%
46.0
%N
/A
36.9
%
96%
pend
ing
61%
note
note
N/A
- n
ot r
equi
red
pend
ing
94%
pend
ing
note
pend
ing
78%
Pass
ing
rate
in n
ursi
ng
licen
sing
exa
m'
90%
no n
ursi
ng p
rog.
96%
3
79%
no n
ursi
ng p
rog.
pend
ing
pend
ing
no n
ursi
ng p
rog.
pend
ing
87%
no n
ursi
ng p
rog.
83%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
com
pari
sons
Em
ploy
ers'
satis
fact
ion
Gra
duat
es'
satis
fact
ion
Salis
buty
U.
97.8
%
Wes
tern
Car
olin
a St
at96
.3%
App
alac
hian
Sta
te U
99.0
%
Faye
ttevi
lle S
tate
U98
.3%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
A&
T I
96.3
%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Cen
trs
94.7
%
- C
harl
otte
97.8
%
UN
C -
Pem
brok
e98
.7%
UN
C -
Wilm
ingt
on99
.0%
Ave
rage
97.5
%
Not
es:
N/A
- D
ata
not a
vaila
ble
(A)
Com
pari
sons
of
pass
rat
es a
cros
s st
ate
lines
is n
ot a
dvis
able
. Dep
endi
ng o
n in
stitu
tiona
l req
uire
men
ts,th
e ex
am m
ay b
e re
quir
ed a
t dif
fere
nt ti
mes
in a
stu
dent
's e
duca
tion.
At s
ome
inst
itutio
ns, P
raxi
s II
is a
gra
duat
ion
requ
irem
ent;
at o
ther
inst
itutio
nsit
is n
ot. B
ecau
se o
f th
ese
inst
itutio
nal d
iffe
renc
es, c
ompa
riso
n of
Pra
xis
II p
assi
ng r
ates
acr
oss
inst
itutio
ns m
ay n
ot b
e va
lid.
(I)
In th
e ab
senc
e of
PR
AX
IS I
I an
d/or
N1E
sum
mar
y to
tals
and
pas
s ra
tes,
Ele
men
tary
Edu
catio
n pa
ss r
ates
are
prov
ided
: Nor
th C
arol
ina,
Wilm
ingt
on =
97%
; Shi
ppen
sbur
g =
96%
; Wes
tern
Car
olin
a =
95%
.
(2)
Prax
is 1
1 an
d N
ursi
ng e
xam
pas
sing
rat
es a
bove
wer
e ob
tain
ed b
y SU
's E
duca
tion
and
Nur
sing
Dep
artm
ents
resp
ectiv
ely
from
the
corr
espo
ndin
g de
part
men
ts a
t SU
pee
r in
stitu
tions
.
Giv
en th
e sh
orte
ned
time
fram
e, s
ome
data
are
inco
mpl
ete
but r
espo
nses
are
pen
ding
.(3
) E
stim
ate
from
the
Dea
n of
Nur
sing
29
.. 88
.3%
29
Towson University
Towson University compares favorably to its peers on the vast majority of itsperformance indicators. The university ranks second among its peers for the SAT 25thpercentile and the 75th percentile. The percentage of African-American undergraduatestudents attending the institution is above the peers' average. In addition, Towsonperforms well compared to its peers in second-year retention and six-year graduation rate.
The university has the second highest retention and graduation rates among its peers. In
terms of Towson's effectiveness in preparing teacher candidates and nursing students, theuniversity's passing rate on the nursing exam is slightly above the peers' average.
Compared to the University of North Carolina System institutions, Towson ranks first
among its peers in the proportion of employers who would hire another graduate from theuniversity. The university also compares favorably in the undergraduate alumni-givingrate. Towson is above the average of its peers on this indicator.
The university performs below the average of its peers on the percentage of minoritiesenrolled as undergraduate students. However, according to the MFR, this percentage has
increased over the last few years; from 14.4 percent in 1998 to 15.3 percent in 2000.
Furthermore, a closer analysis of Towson's peer institutions reveals that five of theseinstitutions enroll a high proportion of Hispanic students.
Towson selected four institution-specific indicators: average high school grade point
average of incoming, freshmen; percent of undergraduates who live on campus; student-faculty ratio; and acceptance rate. In terms of freshmen quality, the average high schoolGPA is 3.2, which is below the peers' average of 3.30. In addition, Towson's peerinstitutions are more selective. The university reports an acceptance rate of 69 percent
a level slightly above its peers' average. In addition, roughly a quarter of Towson'sundergraduate students reside on campus and Towson's student-faculty ratio is below the
average of its peers.
In some cases, Commission staff was unable to assess Towson's performance relative to
its peers because of missing data. For example, it was difficult to assess Towsonperformance on the Praxis II. On this exam, data was not provided for Towson. In
addition, data on the average high school grade point average for incoming students are
not provided for four of Towson's peers.
The Institution's Response
Towson chose characteristics that are highly correlated with retention and graduation andthat are important to the University's strategic planning. Towson is' committed toimproving retention and graduation rates. A review of national data suggests that thatinstitutions with high graduation rates have higher entering high school grade pointaverages, higher percentages of undergraduates living on campus, lower student facultyratios, and lower percentages admitted compared with institutions with lower graduationrates.
273 0
In addition, research suggests that high school grade point average is a far more valuablepredictor of retention and graduation than is the SAT score. For that reason, theuniversity is emphasizing high school grade point averages over SAT scores in theadmission decision process. As a result, the high school grade point average for enteringfreshmen increased from 3.20 in 1999 to 3.43 in 2001.
The university uses the Common Data Set (CDS) as the source of data on high schoolgrade point average for entering students. This is one of the most reliable methods ofobtaining peer data. The formation of the CDS was a collaborative effort among the
higher education community with the goal to improve the quality and accuracy ofinformation provided to external constituencies. Standard data items and definitions areprovided and institutions are encouraged to post the CDS to their website. Completion ofthe CDS is voluntary, however, and some of Towson's peer institutions omitted thisinformation from their submissions. In the future, if the institution is unable to obtainsufficient data in the future, Towson plans to consult other resources.
31
-28-
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ityP
eer
Per
form
ance
Dat
a
Uni
vers
ityS
AT
251h
175t
h %
ile
% m
inor
ityof
all
unde
rgra
duat
es
% A
fric
an-
Am
eric
an o
f all
unde
rgra
duat
es
Ave
rage
(4-
yr.)
seco
nd-y
ear
rete
ntio
n ra
te
Six
-yea
r
grad
uatio
nra
te
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
all m
inor
ities
Tow
son
U.
980-
1160
15.3
%10
.4%
82.0
%56
.4%
42.4
%C
alifo
rnia
Sta
te U
., F
resn
o80
0-10
6046
.3%
.5.6
%82
.0%
40.7
%33
.4%
Cal
iforn
ia S
tate
U.,
Nor
thrid
ge67
5-99
648
.1%
8.5%
76.0
%N
/AN
/AC
alifo
rnia
Sta
te U
., S
acra
men
to84
0-11
2039
.1%
6.6%
77.0
%37
.5%
33.3
%M
ontc
lair
Sta
te C
.88
0-11
0031
.0%
10.6
%84
.0%
53.6
%39
.5%
Nor
th C
arol
ina.
U. o
f, C
harlo
tte93
0-11
3024
.7%
17.8
%77
.0%
49.6
%43
.7%
Nor
th C
arol
ina,
U. o
f, W
ilmin
gton
1000
-116
08.
7%5.
3%79
.0%
59.8
%51
.1%
Sou
thw
est T
exas
Sta
te U
.94
0-11
2026
.5%
5.0%
68.0
%38
.9%
35.3
%S
UN
Y, B
uffa
lo S
tate
C.
860-
1060
16.5
%11
.4%
70.0
%N
/AN
/AW
este
rn Il
linoi
s U
.A
CT
19-
2410
.8%
6.7%
72.0
%43
.2%
31.0
%W
este
rn K
entu
cky
U.
AC
T 1
8-24
9.6%
7.7%
70.0
%37
.1%
29.3
%
Ave
rage
of P
eers
26.1
%8.
5%75
.5%
45.1
%37
.1%
Tow
son
inst
itutio
n-sp
ecifi
c in
dica
tors
Alu
mni
Ave
rage
Hig
h%
Res
iden
tial
Stu
dent
/Fac
ulty
Sel
ectiv
ityU
nive
rsity
givi
ng r
ate
Sch
ool C
PA
Stu
dent
sR
atio
(Acc
epta
nce
Rat
e)
Tow
son
U.
13.6
%3.
20..
25%
16/1
.69
%C
alifo
rnia
Sta
te U
., F
resn
o5.
1%3.
235%
17/1
66%
Cal
iforn
ia S
tate
U.,
Nor
thrid
ge2.
9%3.
0710
%21
/180
%C
alifo
rnia
Sta
te U
., S
acra
men
to10
.5%
N/A
N/A
21/1
41%
Mon
tcla
ir S
tate
C.
12.3
%N
/A20
%17
/149
%N
orth
Car
olin
a, U
. of,
Cha
rlotte
9.6%
3.43
27%
16/1
70%
Nor
th C
arol
ina,
U. o
f, W
ilmin
gton
14.7
%3.
4823
%18
/158
%S
outh
wes
t Tex
as S
tate
U.
10.7
%3.
5322
%24
/167
%S
UN
Y, B
uffa
lo S
tate
C.
N/A
N/A
17%
19/1
00%
Wes
tern
Illin
ois
U.
18.5
%N
/A52
%15
/166
%W
este
rn K
entu
cky
U.
16.0
%3.
0833
%18
/185
%
Ave
rage
of P
eers
11.1
%3.
3023
%18
/164
%N
otes
:
N/A
- D
ata
not a
vaila
ble
(A)
Com
paris
ons
of p
ass
rate
s ac
ross
sta
te li
nes
is n
ot a
dvis
able
. Dep
endi
ng o
n in
stitu
tiona
l req
uire
men
ts, t
he e
xam
may
be
requ
ired
at d
iffer
ent t
imes
in a
stu
dent
's e
duca
tion.
At s
ome
inst
itutio
ns, P
raxi
s II
is a
gra
duat
ion
requ
irem
ent;
at o
ther
inst
itutio
ns it
is n
ot. B
ecau
se o
f the
sein
stitu
tiona
l diff
eren
ces,
com
paris
on o
f Pra
xis
II pa
ssin
g ra
tes
acro
ss in
stitu
tions
may
not
be
valid
.
32
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
Afr
ican
Am
eric
ans
Pas
sing
rat
eon
Pra
xis
IIex
am (
A)
Pas
sing
rat
ein
nur
sing
licen
sing
exa
m
43.6
%23
.8%
N/A
24.2
%
36.1
%42
.0%
52.9
%39
.0%
N/A
27.6
%28
.6%
34.3
%
97.0
%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exa
m n
ot u
sed
N/A
86.0
%
87.5
%85
.3%
89.0
%
No
nurs
ing
prog
ram
83.0
%79
.0%
No
nurs
ing
prog
ram
No
nurs
ing
prog
ram
No
nurs
ing
prog
ram
88.0
%
85.3
%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
com
paris
ons
Em
ploy
ers
Gra
duat
es'
satis
fact
ion
satis
fact
ion
Tow
son
U.
.
Wes
tern
Car
olin
a S
tate
U
App
alac
hian
Sta
te U
Fay
ette
ville
Sla
te U
Nor
th C
arol
ina
A&
T U
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Cen
tral
UU
NC
- C
harlo
tteU
NC
- P
embr
oke
UN
C -
Wilm
ingt
on
Ave
rage
100%
96.3
%
99.0
%
98.3
%
96.3
%94
.7%
97.8
%
98.7
%
99.0
%
97.5
%
80.3
%
33
University of Baltimore
Due to the University of Baltimore's mission to provide upper division bachelor's,master's, and professional degrees, the university does not have traditional performance
measures such as SAT scores, acceptance rate and average high school grade pointaverage for incoming freshmen. Overall, the university exceeds the performance of itspeers on every indicator. The percentage of African-American and minorityundergraduate students attending the institution is above the peers' average. In addition,the university is strong in the number of awards per full-time instructional faculty. Theuniversity reports a 67 percent passing rate on the law-licensing exam: a level equal to
the pass rate for the only other peer institution with a law school, the University ofArkansas, Little Rock.
Compared to the University of North Carolina System institutions, UB ranks first among
its peers in the proportion of employers who would hire another graduate from theuniversity. The university also compares favorably in its undergraduate alumni-giving
rate. Compared to its peers, the institution exceeds the average of its peers on thisindicator. It should be noted however, that only three of the peer institutions provide data
for alumni giving.
The university selected two institution-specific indicators: expenditures for research and
the proportion of part-time faculty. For both of these indicators, the university'sperformance exceeds its peers' average. UB reports the third highest expenditures forresearch and ranks fourth in the percentage of faculty employed part-time.
For two indicators, it was difficult to assess UB's performance due to missing data.Although the university has a high alumni-giving rate, data are missing for seven of its
peers. In addition, for the number of awards per full-time faculty, data are not providedfor three of its peer institutions.
The Institution's Response
Data for the number of awards per, full-time faculty come from a USM database builtfrom national publications and databases. The data are missing for three institutionsbecause for the last several years, these schools have not completed the AAUP FacultyCompensation Survey. Data on the alumni-giving rate come from the Council for Aid toEducation, 2000 Voluntary Support of Education. In the future, the university will seekan alternative source for both of these data.
31 3 4
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
altim
ore
Peer
Per
form
ance
Dat
a
Uni
vers
ity
% m
inor
ityof
all
unde
rgra
duat
es
% A
fric
an-
Am
eric
an o
f al
lun
derg
radu
ates
Bal
timor
e, U
. of
..,33
.7%
28,7
%A
rkan
sas,
U. o
f, L
ittle
Roc
kN
/AN
/AC
alif
orni
a St
ate
U.,
Bak
ersf
ield
43.8
%6.
5%G
over
nors
Sta
te U
.33
.7%
27.7
%H
oust
on, U
. of,
Cle
ar L
ake
28.0
%7.
2%Il
linoi
s, U
. of,
Spr
ingf
ield
10.4
%7.
5%In
dian
a U
., N
orth
wes
t36
.0%
25.2
%N
ew J
erse
y C
ity U
.56
.2%
19.2
%Pe
nn S
tate
U, H
arri
sbur
g, C
apita
l C.
12.6
%5.
3%T
exas
A&
M U
., C
orpu
s C
hris
ti44
.5%
2.9%
Wis
cons
in, U
. of,
Whi
tew
ater
6.8%
3.5%
Ave
rage
of
Peer
s30
.2%
11.7
%
UB
inst
itutio
n-sp
ecif
ic in
dica
tors
Exp
endi
ture
sU
nive
rsity
for
rese
arch
% p
art-
time
facu
lty
Bal
timor
e, p
... o
f::;
:..$,
7.74
,592
53,5
%A
rkan
sas,
U. o
f, L
ittle
Roc
k6,
859,
380
N/A
Cal
ifor
nia
Stat
e U
., B
aker
sfie
ld39
.9%
Gov
erno
rs S
tate
U.
59,6
9553
.8%
Hou
ston
, U. o
f, C
lear
Lak
e6,
233,
442
60.0
%Il
linoi
s, U
. of,
Spr
ingf
ield
179,
437
34.7
%In
dian
a U
., N
orth
wes
t26
,456
51.5
%N
ew J
erse
y C
ity U
.59
,866
53.9
%Pe
nn S
tate
U, H
arri
sbur
g, C
apita
l C.
2,62
5,63
544
.8%
Tex
as A
&M
U.,
Cor
pus
Chr
isti
1,61
3,55
918
.9%
Wis
cons
in, U
. of,
Whi
tew
ater
313,
326
16.9
%
Pass
ing
rate
in L
AW
licen
sing
exa
m
67.0
%67
.0%
no la
w s
choo
lno
law
sch
ool
no la
w s
choo
lno
law
sch
ool
no la
w s
choo
lno
law
sch
ool
nu la
w s
choo
lno
law
sch
ool
no la
w s
choo
l
67.0
%
Alu
mni
givi
ng r
ate
Aw
ards
per
100
F-T
fac
ulty
(5 y
rs.)
21.3
%2.
802.
8%1.
01
6.0%
2.01
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.64
N./A
1.36
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.83
N/A
N/A
4.8%
0.52
N/A
1.99
4.5%
1.19
Nor
th C
arol
ina
com
pari
sons
Em
ploy
ers'
satis
fact
ion
'Bal
timor
e, U
. of
100%
Wes
tern
Car
olin
a St
ate
U96
.3%
App
alac
hian
Sta
te U
99.0
%Fa
yette
ville
Sta
te U
98.3
%N
orth
Car
olin
a A
&T
U96
.3%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Cen
tral
. U94
.7%
UN
C -
Cha
rlot
te97
.8%
UN
C -
Pem
brok
e98
.7%
UN
C -
Wilm
ingt
on99
.0%
Ave
rage
of
Peer
sSI
,996
,755
41.6
%A
vera
ge97
.5%
Not
es:
N/A
- D
ata
not a
vaila
ble
Bar
exa
m p
assa
ge r
ates
var
y co
nsid
erab
ly fr
om s
tate
to s
tate
. Num
ber
repo
rted
for
each
sch
ool i
s fo
r th
e st
ate
in w
hich
that
sch
ool h
ad th
e lar
gest
num
ber
of fi
rst-
time
take
rs.
3536
University of Maryland, Baltimore
The University of Maryland, Baltimore's (UMB) peer institutions reflect the university's
status as the State's public academic health and law university with six professionalschools. UMB's peers include institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as'specialized' and institutions classified as 'Research I' institutions. Compared to its peerinstitutions, the university shows a wide range of performance. The university's uniquestructure permits only a few generalizations.
The percentage of minority and African-American undergraduate students attending theinstitution is above the peers' average. The university's performance against its peers in
the level of research and development (R&D) expenditures is mixed. The institution hasthe highest total R&D expenditures per full-time faculty but ranks last in total R&Dexpenditures and in total R&D medical spending. Compared to its peers, UMB has thelowest number of awards per full-time faculty. Furthermore, the university's averageannual percent growth in federal R&D expenditures exceeds its peers' average.
In terms of the university's effectiveness in preparing health and law students, UMB hasthe second highest medical licensure exam pass rate and performs at a level that is equal
to its peers' average. However, the university performs below the average of its peers in
the pass rate for the nursing and law examinations. Although the institution'sperformance on the nursing exam is below its peers' average, the percentage of studentspassing this examination has improved over the last few years. According to the MFR,
the proportion of nursing students passing the nursing examination increased from 82percent in 1998 to 85 percent in 2000. In addition, UMB's performance on the bar examis well below the average of its peer institutions and below the performance of studentsattending the University of Connecticut, the University of Texas, Austin and theUniversity of Virginia. According to the MFR however, the university continues to show
improvement on this indicator. UMB's performance on this exam has increased from 69
percent in 1998 to 79 percent in 2000. For the university's effectiveness in training socialworkers, the university reports an 87 percent pass rate on the social work exam.
The university selected six institution-specific indicators: total medicine R&Dexpenditures; medicine research grants per basic research faculty; medicine researchgrants per clinical faculty; percent of minority students enrolled; total headcountenrollment; and percentage of graduate and professional students enrolled. These datashow that UMB's school of medicine has the second highest level of research grants perbasic research faculty and the third highest level of research grants per clinical faculty.
Although the remaining institution-specific indicators are primarily descriptiveindicators, they provide an indication of the type of student population attending the
institution. Compared to its peers, UMB has the second lowest total headcountenrollment and ranks second in the percentage of graduate and professional studentsenrollment. In addition, the percent of minorities of total enrollment is below the peers'
average.
Peer data are not available to compare UMB's performance on both social work anddental examinations. Although UMB has a high pass rate on the medical exam, peer data
are not available for three of the peer institutions.
-35- 37
The Institution's Response
The university has implemented several actions to improve the proportion of minoritiesenrolled and total medicine R&D spending. UMB is committed to demonstratingresponsiveness to the State's critical need for health and human services professionals byincreasing access to professional careers. To meet this goal, UMB's stated objective is toincrease the number of nursing and pharmacy graduates by 30 percent between 2001 and2005. Over the past year, UMB increased enrollments in undergraduate nursing andentry-level PharmD programs by 12 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Attaining thisgoal will increase the percent of minorities of total enrollment, as 55 percent of entry-level PharmD students and 36 percent of undergraduate nursing students identifythemselves as minority.
A new research facility, scheduled to open in December 2002, will address significantdeficiencies in research space for programs in medicine and pharmacy, increasing theproductivity of existing faculty and serving as an important tool in the recruitment ofleading researchers. Additional research facilities are planned to further expand andimprove UMB's inventory of research space, assuring continued improvement inattaining grants from federal, state, and private sources.
In terms of the number of awards per faculty, UMB suggests omitting this indicator. Dueto the specialized nature and limited scope of degree programs at UMB, the majority ofUMB faculty is not eligible for the awards encompassed by the indicator of awards perfull-time faculty.
The university has taken a number of actions to improve peer data collection for medical,social work, and dental licensure examinations. UMB states that these data are notavailable through national sources. The UMB professional schools individuallycontacted their respective peers in an effort to obtain this information. Three of themedical schools, one of the social work schools, and all of the dental schools declined toprovide data on licensure exam passage rates. In addition, even if the data were madeavailable to UMB, comparisons among the peer dental schools are not valid, because allbut one uses a different examining agency.
38-36-
Uni
vers
ity o
f Mar
ylan
d, B
altim
ore
Pee
r P
erfo
rman
ce D
ata
Llni
vers
ity
% m
inor
ity%
Afr
ican
-of
all
Am
eric
an o
f all
unde
rgra
duat
esun
derg
radu
ates
Nur
sing
Pas
sing
rat
e in
oth
er li
eens
ure
exam
sM
edic
alLa
w
Mar
ylan
d, U
. of,
Bal
timor
e
Ala
bam
a, U
. of,
Birm
ingh
am
Cal
iforn
ia, U
. of,
San
Fra
ncis
coIll
inoi
s, U
. of,
Chi
cago
Mic
higa
n, U
. of,-
Ann
Arb
orN
orth
Car
olin
a, U
. of,
Cha
pel H
illC
onne
ctic
ut, U
. of
Tex
as. U
. of,
Aus
tinV
irgin
ia, U
. of
Ave
rage
of P
eers
31.1
%22
.3%
85%
30.6
%26
.9%
92%
27.5
%1.
1%W
A49
.7%
9.8%
94%
24.4
%8.
1%83
%18
0%
11.1
%92
%
94%
79%
92%
no la
w s
choo
l96
%no
law
sch
ool
N/A
no la
w s
choo
lN
/A90
%N
/A86
%
87%
94%
97%
30.0
%11
.4%
90%
94%
91%
Den
tal
Soc
ial W
ork
Alu
mni
givi
ng r
ate
Tot
al R
&D
expe
nditu
res
(000
s)
87%
14.9
%$1
40,9
03D
ata
requ
este
d10
.9%
232,
115
No
soci
al w
ork
prog
.22
.8%
417,
095
Dat
a re
ques
ted
N/A
175,
093
See
not
e I
17.4
%50
8,61
9D
ata
requ
este
d27
.3%
252,
767
Ave
rage
ann
ual
Tot
al R
&D
% g
row
th (
5-yr
.)ex
pend
iture
sin
fede
ral R
&D
per
FT
facu
ltyex
pend
iture
s
$259
.490
8.3%
204,
868
13.5
%N
/A1.
9%13
4,79
110
.3%
230,
876
5.3%
152,
729
4.5%
19.6
%$3
17,1
38$1
80,8
167.
1%
1U
nive
rsity
UM
B in
stitu
tion-
spec
ific
indi
cato
rsA
war
ds p
erT
otal
Med
icin
eM
edic
ine
% m
inor
ities
Tot
alG
rad.
& I
st p
rof.
100
F-T
facu
ltym
edic
ine
R&
Dre
sear
ch g
rant
s pe
rre
sear
ch g
rant
s pe
rof
tota
lhe
adco
unt
as %
o f
(5 V
I's.)
!pen
ding
Bas
ic R
es. f
acul
tyC
linic
al fa
culty
enro
llmen
ten
rollm
ent
tota
l hea
det.
Nor
th C
arol
ina
com
paris
ons
Em
ploy
ers'
Gra
duat
es'
satis
fact
ion
satis
fact
ion
Mry
land
, U. o
f, B
altim
ore
1.34
$101
.5$1
61,0
08$9
1,39
728
.7%
-5,5
5386
.4%
Ala
bam
a, U
. of,
Birm
ingh
am2.
7012
6.8
138,
843
110,
967
26.5
%15
,098
31.0
%C
alifo
rnia
, U. o
f, S
an F
ranc
isco
1.83
280.
257
4,55
515
0,63
446
.6%
3,49
197
.4%
Illin
ois,
U. o
f, C
hica
go4.
35N
/A68
,350
29,3
9142
.4%
24,6
1034
.3%
Mic
higa
n, U
. of,
Ann
Arb
or5.
6511
8.4
134,
289
67,4
4722
.2%
37,8
4635
.3%
Nor
th C
arol
ina,
U. o
f, C
hape
l Hill
3.89
111.
713
9,29
546
,690
16.9
%24
,653
37.4
%
Ave
rage
of P
eers
3.68
$159
.3$2
11,0
66$8
1,02
630
.9%
21,1
4047
.1%
Not
es:
N/A
- D
ata
not a
vaila
ble
Not
e I:
1999
dat
a no
t ava
ilabl
e. E
xam
cha
nged
bet
wee
n 19
98 a
nd 1
999
so th
at 1
998
data
arc
not
com
para
ble
to 1
999
data
for
UM
B.
Bar
exa
m p
assa
ge r
ates
var
y co
nsid
erab
ly fr
om s
tate
to s
tate
. Num
ber
repo
rted
for
each
sch
ool i
s fo
r th
e st
ate
in w
hich
that
sch
ool h
ad th
c la
rges
t num
ber
of fi
rst-
time
take
rs.
The
follo
win
g un
iver
sitie
s ar
e ad
ded
for
com
paris
on w
ith b
ar p
assi
ng r
ates
onl
y: C
onne
ctic
ut; T
exas
, Aus
tin; a
nd V
irgin
ia.
100%
77%
99.4
%
University of Maryland Baltimore County
The University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) exceeds the performance of itspeers on the majority of its indicators. In terms of quality of new freshmen, theUniversity ranks first among its peers for the SAT 25th percentile and second for the 75thpercentile. The percentage of minority and African-American undergraduate studentsattending the institution is far above the peers' average. Furthermore, the university'ssecond-year retention rate and six-year graduation rates for minority and African-American students exceeds the peers' average. In terms of faculty quality and research,the university ranks second in the total number of awards per full-time instructionalfaculty and over the last five years, had the highest average annual percent growth infederally financed research and development expenditures.
The university however, performs below the average of its peers on several ofperformance measures. For the six-year graduation rate, UMBC is slightly below theaverage of its peers. The university ranks last in the total amount of research anddevelopment expenditures received from federal, state, industry and other sources. Inaddition, UMBC ranks last in total research and development (R&D) expenditures perfull-time faculty. In both instances, the university falls well below the average of itspeers on these indicators. According to the MFR however, total R&D expenditures haveincreased substantially over the last fewsyears; from $18 million in 1998 to $26 million in2000.
UMBC has the lowest percentage of alumni giving among its peers. The university's 7.4percent alumni giving rate is substantially lower than its peers' average. According to theMFR, the university's performance on this indicator has declined from 10 percent in 1998to 7 percent in 2000. The institution however, anticipates that the alumni-giving rate willincrease to 9 percent in 2001.
The university selected three institution-specific indicators: rank in the number ofbachelor's degrees awarded in information technology; rank in the ratio of inventiondisclosures to million in R&D expenditures; and student-to-faculty ratio. Among theuniversity's institution specific indicators, UMBC ranks first in the number of bachelor'sdegrees awarded in information technology and ranks first in the ratio of inventiondisclosures to research and development expenditures. In addition, the university has thethird highest student-to-faculty ratio. According to the MFR, the student-to-faculty ratiohas increased slightly since 1998.
The Institution's Response
The university has taken a number of actions to try to understand and improve thegraduation rate. A telephone drop-out survey conducted late Spring 2001 revealed thatthe primary reason students (who had matriculated as first-time freshmen) leave UMBCwithin the first two years is because the major they wanted is not available. Compared tothe average of UMBC's peers, the campus awards bachelor's degrees in fewer than halfthe number of majors (27 compared to 67). For example, UMBC is the only campusamong its peers that does not offer a business program, one of the most popular majorsfor undergraduates nationwide. UMBC has proposed and plans to continue to propose,
3941
new undergraduate programs in selected mission-related areas to increase the breadth ofmajors offered.
Nationally, research suggests that living on campus and being involved in campusactivities are positively related to retention and graduation rates. In the last three years,UMBC has added 750 beds to its residence hall complex, increasing the percentage offreshmen living on campus from 60 percent to 70 percent. Additional plannedinitiatives, such as learning-living communities and an enhanced first- year experienceprogram, are designed to enhance student engagement beyond the classroom. The newCampus Commons building, scheduled to open in January 2002, will facilitate campusefforts to increase student activity and event programs. Obviously, it will take severalyears for these initiatives to positively impact UMBC's six-year graduation rate.
For the alumni-giving rate, the number of donors and the dollars donated has increasedsubstantially since FY 1998. UMBC is a young institution and, until recently, campusefforts in this area have focused more on maximizing funds through corporate andfoundation philanthropy rather than through alumni giving. Actions taken to improveperformance include: outsourcing the phonathon to reach a greater percentage of alumni,increasing direct mail communication with targeted donor segments and data research torefine alumni contact information.
The university has made efforts to improve its student-faculty ratio. However, attrition offaculty through retirement and death has increased the challenge. UMBC has identifiedincreasing the number of full-time faculty (and lowering the ratio of students to faculty)as a top planning priority.
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
aryl
and
Bal
timor
e C
ount
yPe
er P
erfo
rman
ce D
ata
Uni
vers
ityS
AT
25th
f751
h %
lle
% m
inor
ityof
all
unde
rgra
duat
es
% A
fric
an-
Am
eric
an o
f all
unde
rgra
duat
es
Ave
rage
(4-
yr.)
seco
nd-y
ear
rete
ntio
n ra
te
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
all m
inor
ities
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
Afr
ican
Am
eric
ans
Pas
sing
rat
eon
Pra
xis
IIex
am (
A)
Alu
mni
givi
ng r
ate
UM
RC
1060
-127
035
.6%
16.0
%,
:84
.0%
50.1
%53
.2%
56.1
%95
.07.
4%
Ark
ansa
s, U
. of,
Mai
nA
CT
21-
2712
.6%
6.5%
76.0
%45
.3%
30.4
%26
.3%
83.0
17.2
%
Cal
iforn
ia, U
. of,
Riv
ersi
de92
0-11
9067
.4%
5.4%
86.0
%66
.0%
65.2
%58
.5%
N/A
44.8
%
Cal
iforn
ia, U
. of,
San
ta C
niz
1040
-128
029
.9%
2.2%
85.0
%67
.7%
61.2
%53
.7%
N/A
50.3
%
Cle
mso
n U
.10
60-1
260
10.2
%7.
8%83
.0%
71.8
%64
.5%
66.2
%N
/A17
.4%
Del
awar
e, U
. of
1040
-124
011
.6%
6.2%
86.0
%N
/AN
/AN
/AN
/A20
.6%
Mis
siss
ippi
Sta
te U
.A
CT
19-
2720
.3%
17.8
%78
.0%
49.6
%38
.2%
35.7
%99
.010
.9%
Okl
ahom
a S
tate
U.,
Mai
nA
CT
21-
2714
.3%
3.3%
81.0
%50
.7%
45.7
%26
.3%
N/A
11.7
%
Rho
de Is
land
, U. o
f99
0-11
9011
.4%
3.8%
77.0
%N
/AN
/AN
/AN
/A14
.7%
SU
NY
, Alb
any
1020
-121
022
.5%
8.9%
84.0
%61
.7%
56.5
%53
.3%
99.4
38.5
%
Wyo
min
g, U
. of
AC
T 2
1-26
6.8%
1.1%
75.0
%48
.8%
37.5
%33
.3%
N/A
18.0
%
Ave
rage
of P
eers
20.7
%6.
3%81
.1%
57.7
%49
.9%
44.2
%94
324
.4%
UM
BC
inst
itutio
n-sp
ecifi
c in
dica
tors
Nor
th C
arol
ina
com
paris
ons
Uni
vers
ity
Tot
al R
&D
ex p
endi
ture
s(0
00s)
Tot
al R
&D
expe
nditu
res
per
FT
facu
lty
Ave
rage
ann
ual
% g
row
th (
5-yr
.)in
fede
ral R
&D
expe
nditu
res
Aw
ards
per
100
F-T
facu
lty
(5 Y
rs.)
Ran
k in
ITba
chel
or's
deg
rees
'aw
arde
d
Ran
k In
rat
ioof
inve
ntio
n di
sclo
sure
sto
Sm
illio
n R
&D
expe
nditu
res
Rat
io o
f FT
E s
tude
nts/
F-T
facu
lty
UM
SC
$21,
854
$63,
162
31,4
%,
4.16
.:-'
.lit
lst 2
4.6
umei
c
Ark
ansa
s, U
. of,
Mai
n61
,585
180,
601
-0.2
%1.
722n
d5t
h19
.1N
orth
Car
olin
a S
tate
U
Cal
iforn
ia, U
. of,
Riv
ersi
de75
,142
167,
354
-2.6
%3.
35la
th3r
d22
.8U
NC
-C
hape
l Hill
Cal
iforn
ia, U
. of,
San
ta C
ruz
52,9
0213
2,25
51.
1%'6
.15
7th
N/A
26.9
Cle
mso
n U
.98
,573
121,
695
2.6%
1.67
3rd
7th
18.5
Del
awar
e, U
. of
73,5
2181
,060
6.4%
2.73
6th
4th
20.3
Mis
siss
ippi
Sta
te U
.10
4,44
514
5,06
37.
2%1.
334t
h6t
h18
.0
Okl
ahom
a S
tale
U.,
Mai
n79
,280
97,5
152.
6%1.
695t
h6t
h21
.4
Rho
de Is
land
, U. o
f44
,452
72,7
531.
4%1.
44llt
h2n
d18
.7
SU
NY
, Alb
any
64,2
7812
5,78
98.
4%2.
708t
h5t
h27
.8U
MB
C
Wyo
min
g, U
. of
45,9
5886
,713
5.6%
3.16
9th
N/A
17.5
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Sta
te U
UN
C -
Cha
pel H
ill
Ave
rage
of P
eers
$70,
014
$121
,080
3.3%
2.59
21.1
Not
es:
N/A
- D
ata
not a
vaila
ble
(A)
Com
paris
ons
of p
ass
rate
s ac
ross
sta
te li
nes
is n
ot a
dvis
able
.D
epen
ding
on
inst
itutio
nal r
equi
rem
ents
, the
exa
m m
ay b
e re
quire
d at
diff
eren
t tim
es
4 3
4 4
Em
ploy
ers!
satis
fact
ion
100%
98.0
%99
.4%
IG
radu
ates
'
satis
fact
ion
84%
University of Maryland, College Park
The University of Maryland, College Park is measured only against its 'aspirational
peers' - those institutions that College Park aspires to emulate in performance and
reputation. Therefore, College Park is not yet performing at their level on manyindicators. The university is below its peers in the proportion of minority undergraduate
students. According to the MFR, College Park's goal is to increase the proportion ofminority undergraduate students to 35 percent. However, this proportion has declined
since 1998. It should be noted however, that the percentage of minorities enrolled atCollege Park is higher than the non-California institutions and the university has thehighest percentage of African American undergraduate students enrolled.
Compared to its peers, the university has the lowest retention and graduation rates.College Park has the lowest percentage of alumni giving among its peers. The
university's 13 percent alumni-giving rate is slightly below its peers' average. Accordingto the MFR however, the number of annual alumni donors has increased 19 percentbetween 1998 and 2000. In addition, the university anticipates that the number of alumni
donors will continue to increase.
As an indication of the quality of the university's research efforts, College Park performs
well compared to its peers in research and development (R&D) expenditures. The totalR&D expenditures per full-time faculty exceed its peers' average. In addition, theuniversity ranks first in the annual percent growth of federal R&D expenditures.Although College Park's total R&D expenditures are slightly below the peers' average,this level is higher than R&D expenditures at Chapel Hill and UCLA. As reported in theMFR, the university's total R&D expenditures increased 19 percent between 1998 and
2000.
College Park added four institution-specific indicators: the number of graduate-levelcolleges, programs or specialty areas ranked among the top 25 in the nation; the numberof graduate-level colleges, programs or specialty areas ranked among the top 15 in thenation; the percent change over five years in the number of faculty holding membershipin one of three national academies; and the number of invention disclosures reported per$100 million in total research and development expenditures. Although College Park
ranks last in both the number of graduate-level programs ranked among the top 25 and
among the top 15 in the nation, the university has improved. As reported in the MFR, the
number of programs ranked among the top 25 and the top 15 have increased substantially
over the last few years. Furthermore, the university is well on its way to achieving itsMFR goal for these indicators.
In terms of faculty quality, the percentage increase in the number of Maryland facultymembers holding membership in one of the national academies exceeds its' peersaverage. In addition, College Park exceeds its peers' average surpassing UC Berkeleyand Michigan in the number of invention disclosures per $100 million in total R&Dexpenditures. In preparing teacher candidates, the university reports a pass rate of 95
percent.
43 4 5
The Institution's Response
The university notes that comparing its performance against 'aspirational peers' whichconsists of some of the best public universities in the U.S., reflects the eminence CollegePark is striving to achieve. Although the university is not performing at the level of itspeers on all indicators, UMCP is steadily gaining ground on its peers, and on somemeasures have surpassed them. Of the sixteen indicators, the university leads thiseminent group of peers on three measures: percentage of African American of allundergraduates; average percentage growth in federal research and development (R&D)expenditures; and percentage change over five years in faculty memberships in nationalacademies.
To improve the alumni-giving rate, the university contends that by 2004, rapid growth inthe number of annual alumni donors will lead to an increase in the alumni-giving rate andthe MFR goal will be achieved.
UMCP does recognize that in key areas, such as retention and graduation, more needs tobe done. The university has undertaken a number of initiatives/efforts to improvegraduation and retention. These initiatives are aimed primarily at the overallundergraduate population with, in some instance, particular influence on minorityundergraduate students populations expected. Examples include: creating moreliving/learning programs designed to make the "big campus" small and engage.studentsmore fully in the educational process; fully implementing a Web-based degree creditsystem to improve student advising systems; and developing proposals through thePresident's Task Force on Student Success to increase graduation rates. College Parkbelieves that the programs outlined above will not only increase the retention andgraduation rate of all undergraduates, but also will increase the retention and graduationrate of African American and other minority students in particular.
Uni
vers
ity o
f Mar
ylan
d, C
olle
ge P
ark
Pee
r P
erfo
rman
ce D
ata
Uni
vers
ity
SA
T25
th1'
lStli
%D
e
% m
inor
ityof
all
unde
rgra
duat
es -
% A
fric
an-
Am
eric
an o
f all
unde
rgra
duat
es
Ave
rage
(4-
yr.)
seco
nd-y
ear
rete
ntio
n ra
teS
ix-y
ear
grad
uatio
n ra
te
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
all m
inor
ities
Six
-yea
rgr
adua
tion
rate
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an!
Pas
sing
rat
eun
Pra
xis
IIex
am (
1)
Ave
rage
(2-
yr.)
unde
rgra
duat
eal
umni
givi
ng r
ate
Tot
al R
&D
expe
nditu
res
(000
5)
Mar
ylan
d, U
. 0(
Col
lege
Par
k11
40-1
340
33.1
%14
.2%
89.9
%'6
3.5%
55.8
%46
0%95
%13
%52
57,6
28
Cah
forn
ia, U
. of,
Ber
kele
y12
00-1
430
55.3
%4.
7%95
.9%
82.3
%82
.9%
63.7
%14
/A18
%38
9,37
2
Cal
iforn
ia, U
. of,
Los
Ang
eles
1170
-140
057
.0%
4.7%
96.1
%78
.6%
76.8
%61
.6%
N/A
13%
197,
361
Illin
ois,
U. o
f, U
rban
a-C
ham
paig
n11
40-1
260
25.5
%7.
2%91
.9%
75.5
%67
.3%
56.9
%N
/A14
%35
3,67
6
Mic
higa
n, U
. of,
Ann
Arb
or.
1180
-134
024
.4%
8.1%
95.1
%22
.2%
73.6
%59
.0%
N/A
13%
348,
775
Nor
th C
arol
ina,
U. o
f. C
hape
l Hill
1140
-136
018
.0%
1 1
1%93
.9%
79.7
%68
.7%
60.8
%98
%,
26%
161.
938
Ave
rage
of P
eers
36.0
%7.
2%94
.7%
79.7
%73
.9%
60.4
%98
%17
%52
90,2
24
Uni
vers
ity
Ave
rage
013
1.11
1i
% g
row
th (
5-yr
.)id
fede
ral R
&D
expe
nditu
res
Aw
ards
per
100
F-T
facu
lty
(5 y
rs.)
1JM
CP
inst
itutio
n-sp
ecifi
c in
dica
tors
N g
rad
leve
l
colle
ges/
pgrm
s/sp
ecia
lty a
reas
rank
ed in
top
25
0 gr
ad le
vel
colle
ges/
prog
ram
a/sp
ecia
lty a
reas
rank
ed in
top
IS
% c
hang
e ov
er 5
yrs
in fa
culty
mem
ber-
ship
s in
nat
iona
lac
adem
ies
(2)
4 of
inve
ntio
ndi
sclo
sure
s
per
mom
in to
tal R
&D
(3)
Mar
ylan
d, U
. oC
Col
lege
?U
R12
.7%
4.02
5639
.83%
33M
aryl
and,
U. o
f, C
olle
ge P
ark
Cal
iforn
ia, U
. of,
Ber
kele
y4.
9".
7.62
120
107
18%
21
Cal
iforn
ia, U
. of,
Los
Ang
eles
6.2%
6.21
9877
20%
32
Illin
ois,
U. o
f, U
rban
a-C
ham
paig
n6.
8%5.
4482
656%
29
Mic
higa
n, U
of,
Ann
Arb
or4.
9%5.
6511
497
20%
31
N4r
th C
arol
ina,
U. o
f, C
hape
l Hill
3.6%
3.89
6747
-3%
46N
orth
Car
olin
a, U
. of,
Cha
pel H
ill
-1:1
Ale
rage
of P
eers
5.3%
5.76
9679
12%
32
Not
es:
(1)
Com
paris
on o
f Pra
xis
U s
core
s ac
ross
inst
itutio
ns is
not
adv
isab
le. D
epen
ding
on
inst
itutio
nal r
equi
rem
ents
,th
e ex
am m
ay b
e re
quire
d at
diff
eren
t tun
es in
a s
tude
nt's
edu
catio
n. A
t som
e in
stitu
tions
, Pra
xis
II
is a
gra
duat
ion
requ
irem
ent;
at o
ther
inst
itutio
ns it
is n
ot. B
ecau
se o
f the
se in
stitu
tiona
l diff
eren
ces,
com
paris
on o
fPra
xis
II pa
ssin
g ra
tes
acro
ss in
stitu
tions
may
not
be
valid
(2)
Ave
rage
incr
ease
in m
embe
rshi
ps o
f 3 a
cade
mie
s (A
AA
S. N
AE
, and
NA
S),
equ
ally
wei
ghtin
g th
e pe
rcen
t cha
ngefo
r ca
ch o
f the
aca
dem
ics
(3)
R&
D to
tal I
NC
LUD
ES
fede
rally
fina
nced
exp
endi
ture
s in
med
ical
sci
ence
Nor
th C
arol
ina
com
paris
ons
Tot
al R
&D
expe
nditu
res
per
FT
facu
lty
8220
,007
296,
100
130,
963
207,
922
197,
383
144,
717
5195
,417
Em
ploy
ers'
Gra
duat
es'
satis
fact
ion
satis
fact
ion
97.4
%-
90.1
%
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
While the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) ranks fourth among its peers
for the 25th and 75th percentile of the SAT, the institution exceeds the performance of its
peers on a number of indicators. The percentage of minority and African-Americanundergraduate students attending the institution is far above the peers' average. The
university's second-year retention rate, six-year graduation rate for all students and thesix-year graduation rates for all minorities and for African-Americans exceed the peers'
average. It should be noted however, that peer data are missing on many of these
indicators.
In terms of faculty and research efforts, UMES ranks first among its peers in the average
annual percent growth in federally financed research and development expenditures,second in total research and development expenditures per full-time faculty, and third in
total research and development expenditures from federal, state, and other sources. In allinstances, the university is well above the average of its peers on these indicators.
Compared to the University of North Carolina System institutions, UMES is below
average in the proportion of employers who would hire another graduate from the
college. The institution reports a satisfaction rate of 95 percent, which is below the UNC
system average of 97.5 percent. In terms of teacher preparation, the institution reports a
passing rate of 59 percent on the Praxis II examination.
The university added three institution specific indicators: the graduation rate of enteringfreshmen with SAT score of 900 or below; the graduation rate of entering freshmen with
family income of less than $30,000; and the percent of all students passing allcertification examinations. These indicators provide a measure of the university'seffectiveness in graduating students from different socio-economic backgrounds. UMES'performance on all three indicators exceeds its peers' average yet data are not provided
for most of the peer institutions.
Among several indicators, it is difficult to compare the university's performance relativeto its peers due to the number of missing data. For example, the university has a low
alumni-giving rate (2.1 percent) yet data are not available for any of its peers.Furthermore, historical data on employer satisfaction are not provided in the MFR, which
makes it difficult to assess the university's past performance on this indicator.
The Institution's Response
To improve employers' satisfaction with the university's graduates, UMES has formeddiscipline-specific advisory boards, which assist the appropriate academic departments in
the development of curricula to ensure compatibility with the demands of industry and
graduate/professional schools. These boards are composed of individuals from thebusiness community and other educational institutions, many of which are employersand/or potential employers of graduates of the institutibn.
In addition to the employers' satisfaction survey coordinated by the University System ofMaryland, UMES conducts its own survey with the employers of its graduates every
474 9
three years. The results of these surveys are used to develop curricula and supportservices. The survey includes questions concerning knowledge of discipline, the abilityto engage new situations, work habits, ability to work with others as well asindependently, and critical thinking skills.
To improve the collection of peer data on performance indicators, the university is incontact with the appropriate offices of its peer institutions and has made requests forinformation. However, much of the data requested was either not available or notcollected in a format compatible for peer comparison.
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
aryl
and
Eas
tern
Sho
rePe
er P
erfo
rman
ce D
am
Uni
vers
itySA
T25
th/7
5th
%ile
% m
inor
ityof
all
unde
rgra
duat
es
Afr
ican
-A
mer
ican
of
all
unde
rgra
duat
es
Ave
rage
(4-
yr.)
seco
nd-y
ear
rete
ntio
n ra
te
Six-
year
grad
uatio
nra
te
Six-
year
grad
uatio
n ra
teal
l min
oriti
es
Six-
year
grad
uatio
n ra
teA
fric
an A
mer
ican
s
Pass
ing
rate
on P
raxi
s II
exam
(A
)A
lum
nigi
ving
rat
e
Tot
al R
&D
expe
nditu
res
(000
s)
Mat
ylan
d, U
. of,
Eas
tern
Sho
re74
0-95
082
.2%
79.7
%74
.0%
49.1
%49
.9%
49.7
%59
%2.
1%82
,508
Alc
orn
Sta
te U
.A
CT
16-
1996
.3%
96.2
%72
.0%
45.1
%N
/AN
/AN
/AN
/A5,
223
Eas
tern
New
Mex
ico
U.,
Mai
nA
CT
17-
2232
.6%
33%
58.0
%N
/AN
/AN
/AN
/AN
/A0
For
t Val
ley
Sta
te U
.N
/A95
.6%
95.0
%77
.0%
43.7
%N
/AN
/A77
%N
/A2,
937
Ken
nick
y S
tate
U.
AC
T 1
7-22
61.3
%59
.2%
63.0
%32
.7%
37.4
%37
.9%
58%
N/A
713
Linc
oln
U. (
PA
)N
/A93
.7%
93.3
%68
.0%
46.3
%45
.5%
45.7
%N
/AN
/A97
2N
orth
Car
olin
a, U
. of,
Pem
btok
e92
0-10
3044
.5%
17.6
%70
.0%
52.5
%47
.8%
55.0
%N
/AN
/A0
Wes
tern
New
Mex
ico
U.
AC
T 1
648
.2%
1.9%
51.0
%N
/AN
/AN
/AN
/AN
/A0
Ave
rage
of
Peer
s.6
7.5%
52.4
%65
.6%
44.1
%43
.6%
46.2
%68
%N
/AS
I,406
UM
ES
inst
itutio
n-sp
ecif
ic in
dica
tors
Nor
th C
arol
ina
com
pari
sons
Tot
al R
&D
Ave
rage
ann
ual
% g
row
th (
5-yr
.)G
radu
atio
n ra
te o
fen
teri
ng f
resh
men
Gra
duat
ion
rate
of
ente
ring
fre
shm
en%
of
stud
ents
pass
ing
all
expe
nditu
res
infe
dera
l R&
Dw
ith S
AT
sco
re o
f 90
0w
ith f
amily
inco
me
ofce
rtif
icat
ion
Em
ploy
er&
Gra
duat
m'
Uni
vers
ityPe
r FT
fer
ule,
'ex
pend
iture
sor
bel
ow (
19 S
AT
)53
0,00
0 or
bel
owex
amin
atio
nssa
tisfa
ctio
nsa
tisfa
ctio
n
Mar
ylan
d, U
. of,
Eas
tern
Sho
re$2
6,40
024
.5%
37%
33%
.81
%U
ME
S95
%87
%io
rn S
tate
U.
47,4
8214
.4%
32%
30%
N/A
Wes
tern
Car
olin
a S
tate
U96
.3%
*ter
n N
ew M
exic
o U
., M
ain
00.
0%N
/AN
/A80
%A
ppal
achi
an S
tate
U99
.0%
Far
t Val
ley
Sta
te U
.N
/A-2
.1%
19%
17%
76%
Fay
ette
ville
Sta
te U
98.3
%K
entu
cky
Sta
te U
.N
/A-1
4.7%
16%
15%
N/A
Nor
th C
arol
ina
A&
T U
96.3
%Li
ncol
n U
. (P
A)
13,8
8618
.7%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Cen
tral
U94
.7%
Nor
th C
arol
ina,
U. o
f, P
embr
oke
00.
0%N
/AN
/AN
/AU
NC
- C
harl
otte
97.8
%W
este
rn N
ew M
exic
o U
.0
0.0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
UN
C -
Pem
brok
e98
.7%
UN
C -
Wilm
ingt
on99
.0%
Ave
rage
of
Peer
s$1
2,27
42.
3%22
%21
%78
%A
vera
ge97
.5%
Not
es:
N/A
- D
ata
not a
vaila
ble
(A)
Com
paris
ons
of p
ass
rate
s ac
ross
sta
te li
nes
is n
ot a
dvis
able
.D
epen
ding
on
inst
itutio
nal r
equi
rem
ents
, the
exa
m m
ay b
e re
quire
d at
diff
eren
t tim
esin
a s
tude
nt's
edu
catio
n. A
t som
e in
stitu
tions
, Pra
xis
II is
a g
radu
atio
n re
quire
men
t; at
oth
er in
stitu
tions
it is
not
. Bec
ause
of t
hese
inst
itutio
nal d
iffer
ence
s, c
ompa
rison
of P
raxi
s II
pass
ing
rate
s 'a
cros
s in
stitu
tions
may
not
bc
valid
.
5152
University of Maryland University College
There are very few peer indicators for the University of Maryland University College(UMUC) due to the unique nature of this institution. For example, the majority ofstudents attending UMUC attend part-time which reflects the university's targetpopulation: working adults. In addition, the university's indicators reflect other uniquecharacteristics such as the university's goal to serve students through distance education.Therefore, the university does not have traditional performance measures such as SATscores, acceptance rate and average high school grade point average for incomingfreshmen.
Overall, the university compares favorably to its peers. The university's performance on
alumni giving is equal to the peers' average. The percentage of African-Americanundergraduate students attending the institution is far above the peers' average.However, the university is below its peers in the proportion of minority undergraduate
students. According to the MFR however, the university has made progress on this
measure. The percentage of minority undergraduates has increased from 37 percent in1998 to 42 percent in 2000. Furthermore, UMUC is well on its way to achieving its goal
of 43 percent.
Compared to the University of North Carolina System institutions, UMUC is well aboveaverage of its peers in the proportion of employers who would hire another graduate fromthe college. The institution reports a 100 percent satisfaction rate.
The university selected five institution-specific indicators: the percentage of African-American graduates in information technology; the percentage of undergraduatesstudents over the age of 25; the number of post-baccalaureate degrees awarded intechnology and business; the number of worldwide online courses; and the number ofworldwide online enrollments. The university exceeds the performance of its peers on all
of these indicators. Unique among these institution-specific indicators is the number ofworldwide online courses and enrollments. According to the MFR, enrollments in theseareas has increased significantly; over 500 percent in four years.
Among several indicators, it is difficult to compare the university's performance relative
to its peers due to the number of missing data. For example for alumni giving, peer dataare not provided for five of the peer institutions. Although the university has the highestperformance on the number of online courses and enrollments, peer data are not provided
for most of the peer institutions.
The Institution's Response
There are two types of measures for which the institution is missing data. In some cases,institutions did not have their data included in the IPEDS national databases (e.g. degree
completion). Hopefully, this was a one-time incident, since by and large, all highereducational institutions are required to provide NCES with certain data sets. In thefuture, UMUC will substitute older (but available) data in those instances where theinstitution's most recent information is not yet available in the national databases.
51 53
UMUC will also contact its peer institutions for 'unofficial' counts and note it in theirreport.
The second type of missing data focuses on information that is not readily available innational databases but which are central to its mission e.g. online courses andenrollments. In these instances, UMUC is dependent on the good will of the peerinstitutions. UMUC is fully committed to getting as much data as it can from the peers.The university believes that as it builds relationships with those ten institutions, it willreceive more cooperation from them and be in a position to provide data for more peerinstitutions than it was able to do this year.
In addition, UMUC plans to continue to explore the possibility of adding data from otherinstitutions, public and private, whose focus is distance education. The universitybelieves that data submitted to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) through theDistance Education Demonstration Project would be ideal however at this time, USDE isnot releasing the data until it finalizes its report to Congress.
5 4-52-
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
aryl
and
Uni
vers
ity C
olle
gePe
er P
erfo
rman
ce D
ata
Uni
vers
ity
% m
inor
ityof
all
unde
rgra
duat
es
% A
fric
an-
Am
eric
an o
f all
unde
rgra
duat
es
Alu
mni
givi
ng r
ate
UM
UC
inst
itutio
n-sp
ecifi
c in
dica
tors
# of
Afr
ican
-A
mer
ican
1T g
radu
ates
*
% o
f und
ergr
adua
tes
25 a
nd
olde
r**
# of
pos
t-ba
ccal
aure
ate
degr
ees
in
tech
nolo
gy &
nig
mt.
Num
ber
ofw
orld
wid
e on
line
cour
ses
Num
ber
ofw
orld
wid
e on
line
enro
llmen
ts (
regi
stra
tions
)
Mar
ylan
d, U
. of,
Uni
vers
ity C
olle
ge42
.1%
30.3
%5.
7%13
484
.5%
735
382
62,6
86
Ark
ansa
s, U
. of,
Littl
e R
ock
N/A
N/A
2.8%
2N
/A11
022
195
Cal
iforn
ia S
tate
U.,
Dom
ingu
ez H
ills
71.1
%29
.7%
1.2%
357
.1%
192
N/A
N/A
Cen
tral
Con
nect
icut
Sta
te U
,16
.3%
7.5%
N/A
N/A
28.2
%44
349
CU
NY
Ber
nard
Bar
uch
C.
64.2
%21
.6%
5.4%
6838
.1%
569
N/A
N/A
CU
NY
Her
bert
H. L
ehm
an C
.86
.0%
37.6
%N
/A35
55.3
%22
1025
0
CU
NY
Hun
ter
C.
56.1
%19
.8%
12.3
%4
37.4
%N
/AN
/AN
/A
CU
NY
Que
ens
C.
42.3
%10
.5%
N/A
738
.3%
76N
/AN
/A
Gov
erno
rs S
tate
U.
33.7
%27
.7%
N/A
1569
.5%
58o
o
Mas
sach
uset
ts, U
. of,
Bos
ton
27.0
%12
.2%
N/A
N/A
48.0
%15
8N
/AN
/A
Wirt
h F
lorid
a, U
. of
19.1
%9.
9%6.
8%8
33.3
%16
222
414
Ave
rage
of P
eers
46.2
%19
.6%
5.7%
1845
.0%
155
1118
2
CT
IC
raN
orth
Car
olin
a co
mpa
rison
s1
Uni
vers
ityE
mpl
oyer
s'G
radu
ates
'sa
tisfa
ctio
nsa
tisfa
ctio
n
umpc
91°4
Wes
tern
Car
olin
a S
tate
U96
.3%
App
alac
hian
Sta
te Ii
99.0
%
Fay
ette
ville
Sta
te U
98.3
%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
A &
T U
96.3
%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Cen
tral
U94
.7%
UN
C -
Cha
rlotte
97.8
%
UN
C-
Pem
brok
e98
.7%
UN
C -
Wi I
m in
gton
99.0
%
Ave
rage
97.5
%
Not
es:
N/A
- D
ata
not a
vaila
ble
Bac
helo
r's d
egre
es**
Pro
xy fo
r m
edia
n ag
e of
bac
helo
r's r
ecip
ient
s, w
hich
is n
ot a
vaila
ble
for
peer
s
5556
Morgan State University
Morgan State University exceeds the performance of its peers on the majority of itsindicators. The university's second-year retention rate for minority and African-American students as well as the six-year graduation rates for minority and African-American students are well above the peers' average. In addition, Morgan has had asubstantial increase in the percentage of doctoral degrees awarded which reflects theuniversity's goal of increasing the number of graduate degrees awarded to African-Americans. The tendency for Morgan graduates to enroll in graduate and professionalschools is above its peers' average and well above the statewide average. Furthermore,Morgan has had a substantial increase in research grant and contract activity over the last
decade.
The university performs below the average of its peers on a number of performancemeasures. Morgan has next to the lowest second-year retention rate for all students and
this rate is well below the peers' average. In addition, the six-year graduation rate for allstudents is slightly below the peers' average. In terms of the institution's effectiveness inpreparing teacher candidates, the passage rate on the Praxis II is 73 percent. It should be
noted however, that five of Morgan's peer institutions do not administer this exam.Furthermore, the Praxis II examination is not an indicator used in Morgan's MFR.
Morgan graduates tend to be very satisfied with the preparation they received forgraduate school or employment. Approximately 97 percent of undergraduate alumniexpressed satisfaction with the way in which Morgan has prepared them for advanceddegree programs. In addition, 96 percent of undergraduate alumni expressed satisfaction
with the way the institution prepared them for employment. In both cases, Morgan'sperformance exceeds the performance of its peers on these indicators. However, it
should be noted that only two of its peer institutions collect these data. To compensatefor these missing data, Morgan compared its performance to Maryland institutions that
are in the same Carnegie classification. On both of these indicators, Morgan'sperformance is slightly below the statewide average. However according to the MFR,Morgan's performance on both indicators has improved.
In many cases, it is difficult to compare the performance of Morgan relative to its peers
due to the large number of missing data. For example, data for the alumni-givingcategory are not available for four of its peers. Among those indicators where Morganhas the highest performance (i.e. second-year for all minorities and African-Americans)data are missing from at least four institutions. In addition, North Carolina A&T StateUniversity is the only peer institution that provides data on employer satisfaction.Furthermore, although Morgan's alumni-giving rate is above its peers' average, data arenot available for four of its peer institutions.
The Institution's Response
The university has been diligent in its efforts to acquire peer data and plans to continue toseek other possible data sources. Furthermore, Morgan kept the Commission informed ofthe difficulties it experienced in obtaining certain peer data. This was a problem othercampuses faced as well. In particular, the four performance measures consistently not
-55-57
collected by most of Morgan's peer institutions are graduate or professional school-goingrate, satisfaction with advanced studies preparation, satisfaction with job preparation, andemployer satisfaction. It should be noted that Morgan has no authority to ask the peerinstitutions to collect data for institutional use.
Morgan is committed to improving retention and graduation rates. The university'scomprehensive, campus-wide retention committee monitors appropriate policies andpractices and makes recommendations for change, where relevant, to improve studentpersistence. The university plans to continue to work toward a lower student-facultyratio. It also continues to seek additional aid through grants and changes in stateprograms.
-56- 58
Mor
gan
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
Peer
Per
form
ance
Dat
a
Uni
vers
ity
Seco
nd-y
ear
Seco
nd-y
ear
Sis-
year
Sit-
year
% in
crea
se
Seco
nd-y
ear
rete
ntio
n ra
tem
inor
itySi
t-ye
argr
adua
tion
rate
min
ority
in d
octo
ral
rete
ntio
n ra
teA
fric
an-A
mer
ican
rete
ntio
n ra
tegr
adua
tion
rate
Afr
ican
-Am
eric
ao g
radu
atio
n ra
tede
gree
s ov
er
Mor
gan
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
laba
ma
- H
unts
ville
Flor
ida
A &
M U
nive
rsity
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
- D
artm
outh
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
assa
chus
etts
Low
ell
Mic
higa
n T
echn
olog
ical
Uni
vers
ityO
akla
nd U
nive
rsity
Jack
son
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
The
Col
lege
of
New
Jer
sey
City
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew Y
ork
City
Col
lege
Nor
th C
arol
ina
A &
T S
tate
Uni
vers
ity
Ten
ness
ee S
tate
Uni
vers
ityT
exas
A &
64
Uni
vers
ity -
Kin
gsvi
llePe
er A
vera
ge
77°.
'.73
%74
%
74%
86%
81%
87%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
7981
%76
%
74%
67%
73%
80%
59%
(17
129)
66%
74%
Num
ber
too
smal
l67
%
77%
Not
col
lect
ed
93%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
79%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
72%
Not
col
lect
ed'
78%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
61%
4 7%
61%
77%
70%
71%
41%
42%
42%
35%
18%
19%
44%
44%
44%
44%
21%
23%
43%
22%
22%
67%
43%
45%
40%
26%
33%
31%
31%
31%
78%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
23%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
42%
43%
43%
38%
40%
40%
21%
12%
21%
42%
30%
32%
120% -6%
800% 0% 18
%27
%-5
8%
-44% -9
%64
%
Mar
ylan
d In
stitu
tions
in M
orga
nSt
ates
Car
negi
e C
lass
ific
atio
nB
owie
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
Fros
tbur
g St
ate
Uni
vers
ity
Salis
bury
Uni
vers
ityT
owso
n U
nive
rsity
Uni
veis
ity o
f B
altim
ore
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
aryl
and
Uni
vers
ity C
olle
geSt
ates
Car
negi
e C
lass
ific
atio
n A
vera
ge
Gra
duat
e/pr
of S
atis
fact
ion
with
Sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith
scho
ol-g
oing
adv
stud
ies
job
prep
arat
ion'
prep
aret
ion'
PRA
XIS
11
Em
ploy
erA
lum
ni
pass
rat
e'sa
tisfa
ctio
n'gi
ving
% g
row
th in
gran
ts &
con
trec
ts(r
esea
rch)
'
48%
97%
96%
73%
100%
16%
323%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
Not
col
lect
edT
est n
ot u
sed
Not
col
lect
ed7%
31%
No
resp
onse
No
resp
onse
No
resp
onse
Tes
t not
use
d N
o re
spon
se n
ot a
vaila
ble
162%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
Not
col
lect
edT
est n
ot u
sed
Not
col
lect
ed23
%60
%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
Not
col
lect
ed96
% N
ot c
olle
cted
not
ava
ilabl
e17
8%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
,-,
Not
col
lect
ed10
0°,'.
Not
col
lect
ed19
0/.
66%
14%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
Tes
t not
use
d N
ot c
olle
cted
I 31
.16
%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
Not
col
lect
ed10
0% N
ot c
olle
cted
not
ava
ilabl
e19
1%
98%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
98%
Not
col
lect
ed10
%12
98%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
Not
col
lect
edT
est n
ot u
sed
Not
col
lect
eday
.
25%
50%
'81
%64
%96
%6%
39%
Not
col
lect
edN
ot c
olle
cted
See
note
c97
% N
ot c
olle
cted
not
ava
ilabl
e2)
4%
Not
col
lect
ed91
%81
% N
ot c
olle
cted
5%11
8%
46%
70%
66%
91%
96%
11%
201%
32%
96%
95%
25%
96%
97%
27%
98%
98%
23%
99%
96%
23%
100%
99%
21%
100%
97%
25%
98%
97%
Not
es:
In s
ame
inct
itutio
ns, t
he A
fric
an A
mer
ican
and
ove
rall
min
ority
pop
ulat
ions
are
sm
allPl
ease
exe
rcis
e ca
re s
houl
d w
hen
inte
rpre
ting
the
;Men
tion
and
grad
uatio
n ra
tes
for
thes
e ca
tego
ries
of s
tude
nts.
In a
dditi
on, p
leas
e be
aw
are
that
in s
ome
inst
itutio
ns, t
he m
inor
ity p
opul
atio
n ls
ove
nehe
lmin
gly
mad
e up
by
one
raci
al g
roup
, Afr
ican
Am
eric
ans
or k
liipa
nie
Am
eric
ans.
FYI9
99 d
egre
e re
cipi
ents
for
Mor
gan
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
end
Mar
ylan
d in
stitu
tions
; mos
t cur
rent
for
peer
inst
itutio
ns, w
here
ava
ilabl
e.
Com
puis
ons
of p
ass
rate
s ac
ross
sta
te li
nes
is n
ot a
dvis
able
. Dep
endi
ng o
n in
stitu
tiona
l req
uire
men
ts,th
e ex
am m
ay b
e re
quir
ed a
t dif
fere
nt ti
mes
inst
uden
t's e
duca
tion.
At s
ome
inst
itutio
ns, P
raxi
s II
is a
gra
duat
ion
requ
irem
ent;
at o
ther
inst
itutio
ns it
is n
ot. B
ecau
se o
f th
ese
inst
itutio
nal d
iffe
renc
es, c
ompa
riso
n of
Pre
xis
Il p
assi
ng r
ates
acr
oss
inst
itutio
ns m
ay n
ot b
e va
lid.
Spri
ng 2
001
for
Mor
gan
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
; mos
t cur
rent
dat
a fo
r ot
her
inst
itutio
ns,w
here
ava
ilabl
e.
Bas
e ye
ar w
as F
Y19
90; c
urre
nt y
ear
was
FY
I999
Oak
land
exc
lude
d A
sian
Am
eric
an e
mde
nts
beca
use
dtei
r re
tent
ion
fIlle
was
abo
ve th
e no
rm
As
repo
rted
by
the
inst
itutio
n's
Plac
emen
t Off
ice;
may
incl
ude
pers
ons
atte
ndin
g gr
adua
tesc
hool
as
wel
l as
thos
e w
ho in
tend
to a
ttend
°Ins
titut
ion'
s un
derg
radu
ate
popu
latio
n is
96%
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an.
Inst
itutio
n's
unde
rgra
duat
e po
pula
tion
is o
ver
90%
Afr
ican
Am
eric
ans.
The
inst
itutio
n's
ques
tions
gau
ges
the
degr
ee to
whi
ch th
e al
umni
's e
duca
tion
adde
d to
'Pra
ctic
esk
ills
nece
ssar
y to
obt
ain
empl
oym
ent i
n yo
ur f
ield
?" E
ight
y-se
ven
perc
ent o
f th
e re
spon
dent
s (w
ho g
radu
ated
in19
97/9
8 no
ted
"som
ewha
t' or
vety
muc
h.'
Thi
s ite
m is
net
com
para
ble
to th
e ite
m u
sed
by M
orga
n en
d th
e re
st o
f th
e ot
her
Mar
ylan
d pu
blic
fou
r-ye
ars
inst
itutio
ns. T
his
is d
m r
easo
n fo
r no
t tep
ortin
g th
e pe
er in
stitu
tion'
s re
spon
se in
the
tabl
e.
Ave
rage
of
sete
ntio
n ra
tes
for
the
Fall
1991
,199
2, a
nd 1
993
coho
rts.
Ave
rage
of
grad
uatio
n ra
tes
for
the
Fall
1997
,199
8, a
nd 1
999
coho
rts.
Off
ice
of I
nstit
utio
nal R
esea
rch
Prep
ared
by
the
Div
isio
n of
Pla
nnin
g an
d In
form
atio
n T
echn
olog
y
5960
Appendices
-59- 61
A. Methodology for Selecting Performance Peers
The process of selecting peers involved narrowing a long list of colleges and universities
(approximately 3,600) to a medium-sized list (fewer than 250), then to a small group with
key characteristics like those of the 'home' institution (between 22 and 60). The
institutions in the smaller group are termed funding peers. Ultimately, USM institutions
were asked to choose 10 performance peers from their lists.
The narrowing process proceeded as follows:
1. Only public universities were considered.
2. Institutions were categorized by Carnegie classification.
3. Six sets of variables were mathematically analyzed for each institution. Examples
of these variables include:SizeStudent mixNon-state revenuesProgram mixLocation (urban vs. rural)
The analysis aimed to provide a cOmparatively short list of institutions, which are most
like each USM institution. From the narrowed list, each USM institution then selected 10
performance peers based on criteria relevant to their specific institutional objectives.
Below is a list of top criteria used by each institution to select their performance peers.
BowieSATs and/or ACT profilesAcademic missionTypes of programsGeneral academic reputationComparable student communities served
CoppinProgram mix, especially teacher preparation
SizeGeographic location
FrostburgSimilar unrestricted budgetsSizeProgram mixGeographic location
61 62
SalisburySizeProgram mixMission
TowsonSizeStudent mixGeographic location
University of BaltimoreProgram mixSizeUrban setting
University of Maryland Baltimore CountySizeMission, emphasis on science and technologyMinority mixExclusion of institutions with medical schools
University of Maryland Eastern ShoreSimilar unrestricted budgetsProgram mixMinority mix
University of Maryland University CollegePercentage of students over the age of 25Institution rankingType of delivery formats used especially on-line distance education programs
62
B. U
nive
rsity
Sys
tem
of
Mar
ylan
d O
pera
tiona
lDef
initi
ons
for
Perf
orm
ance
Ind
icat
ors
Mea
sure
Sour
ce o
f pe
er d
ata
Ope
ratio
nal d
efin
ition
Dat
e U
sed
1SA
T s
core
25t
h/75
th %
ilePe
er in
stitu
tions
For
all i
ncom
ing
fres
hmen
, com
posi
te S
AT
sco
re.
For
peer
inst
itutio
ns w
hose
stu
dent
pri
mar
ily r
epor
tA
CT
sco
res,
AC
T s
core
s re
port
ed b
ut n
ot c
onve
rted
.
Fall
1999
2%
Min
oriti
es o
f al
l und
ergr
adua
tes
IPE
DS,
Fal
l Enr
ollm
ent
surv
eyM
inor
ities
incl
ude
Afr
ican
-Am
eric
an, A
sian
,H
ispa
nic,
& N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
, but
do
not i
nclu
deN
onre
side
nt A
lien
or U
nkno
wn
Rac
e.
Fall
1999
3%
Afr
ican
-Am
eric
an o
f al
l und
ergr
adua
tes
IPE
DS,
Fal
l Enr
ollm
ent
surv
eySe
lf-e
xpla
nato
ryFa
ll 19
99
4A
vera
ge s
econ
d-ye
ar r
eten
tion
rate
U.S
. New
s &
Wor
ldR
epor
t, A
mer
ica'
s B
est
Col
lege
s, 2
001
editi
on
The
per
cent
age
of f
irst
-yea
r fr
eshm
en th
at r
etur
ned
to th
e sa
me
colle
ge o
r un
iver
sity
the
follo
win
g fa
ll,av
erag
ed o
ver
the
rust
-yea
r cl
asse
s en
teri
ng b
etw
een
1995
and
199
8.
Dat
a on
web
site
: Feb
ruar
y,20
01
5Si
x-ye
ar g
radu
atio
n ra
tePe
er in
stitu
tions
fro
mIP
ED
S, G
radu
atio
n R
ate
Surv
ey
The
per
cent
age
of f
irst
-tim
e, f
ull-
time
degr
ee-
seek
ing
stud
ents
who
ear
ned
a ba
chel
or's
deg
ree
with
in s
ix y
ears
at t
he in
stitu
tion
at w
hich
they
fir
sten
rolle
d. I
nitia
l coh
ort (
line
10)/
com
plet
ers
ofba
chel
or's
deg
rees
, tot
al (
line
18)
1999
(199
3 co
hort
)
6Si
x-ye
ar g
radu
atio
n ra
te: a
ll m
inor
ities
Peer
inst
itutio
ns f
rom
IPE
DS,
Gra
duat
ion
Rat
eSu
rvey
Min
oriti
es in
clud
e A
fric
an-A
mer
ican
, Asi
an,
His
pani
c, &
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an, b
ut d
o no
t inc
lude
Non
resi
dent
Alie
n or
Unk
now
n R
ace.
Sam
eca
lcul
atio
n as
for
item
7.
1999
(19
93co
hort
)
7Si
x-ye
ar g
radu
atio
n ra
te: A
fric
an-A
mer
ican
sPe
er in
stitu
tions
fro
mIP
ED
S, G
radu
atio
n R
ate
Surv
ey
Self
-exp
lana
tory
. Sam
e ca
lcul
atio
n as
for
item
7.
1999
(19
93co
hort
)
64
65
B. U
nive
rsity
Sys
tem
of
Mar
ylan
dM
easu
re8
Pass
ing
rate
on
Prax
is I
l exa
m
Ope
ratio
nal D
efin
ition
s fo
r Pe
rfor
man
ce I
ndic
ator
s (C
ontin
ued)
Sour
ce o
f pe
er d
ata
Peer
inst
itutio
ns
9Pa
ssin
g ra
te in
nur
sing
lice
nsin
g ex
amPe
er in
stitu
tions
Ope
ratio
nal d
efin
ition
Nui
nber
of
unde
rgra
duat
e an
d po
st-b
acca
laur
eate
stud
ents
who
pas
sed
Prax
is 1
1 (o
r N
TE
if a
pplic
able
)di
vide
d by
the
num
ber
of u
nder
grad
uate
and
pos
t-ba
ccal
aure
ate
stud
ents
who
took
Pra
xis
ILN
umbe
r of
BSN
gra
duat
es in
the
Cla
ss o
f 20
00 w
hopa
ss th
e N
CL
EX
exa
min
atio
n on
the
firs
t atte
mpt
divi
ded
by th
e nu
mbe
r of
gra
duat
es w
ho to
ok th
eex
am.
Dat
e U
sed
2000
gra
duat
es
2000
gra
duat
es
10Pa
ssin
g ra
tes
in o
ther
lice
nsur
e ex
ams
10a
Law
Bar
exa
min
atio
nA
BA
-LSA
C O
ffic
ial
Gui
de to
AB
A-A
ppro
ved
Law
Sch
ools
, 200
2ed
ition
Perc
enta
ge o
f 19
99 g
radu
ates
who
took
the
bar
exam
inat
ion
for
the
firs
t tim
e in
Sum
mer
199
9 an
dFe
brua
ry 2
000
and
pass
ed o
n th
eir
firs
t atte
mpt
.Pa
ss r
ates
are
rep
orte
d on
ly f
or th
e ju
risd
ictio
n in
whi
ch th
e sc
hool
had
the
larg
est n
umbe
r of
fir
st-t
ime
take
rs.
1999
gra
duat
es
10b
Phar
mac
yL
icen
sure
exa
min
atio
nPe
er in
stitu
tions
10c
Soci
al W
ork
Lic
ensu
re e
xam
inat
ion
Peer
inst
itutio
ns
Num
ber
of p
harm
acy
grad
uate
s in
the
Cla
ss o
f 20
00w
ho p
asse
d th
e N
APL
EX
on
the
firs
t atte
mpt
div
ided
by n
umbe
r of
gra
duat
es w
ho to
ok th
e ex
am.
For
UM
B: n
umbe
r of
MSW
gra
duat
es w
ho p
asse
d19
99th
e L
icen
sed
Gra
duat
e So
cial
Wor
k E
xam
in 1
999
divi
ded
by n
umbe
r of
gra
duat
es w
ho to
ok th
e ex
am.
For
FSU
: num
ber
of B
SW g
radu
ates
in th
e C
lass
of
2000
who
pas
sed
the
LC
SW e
xam
inat
ion
on th
e fi
rst
atte
mpt
div
ided
by
num
ber
of g
radu
ates
who
took
the
exam
.
2000
gra
duat
es
2000
gra
duat
es
10d
Den
tistr
yE
xam
inat
ion
Peer
inst
itutio
ns
10e
Med
ical
Exa
min
atio
nPe
er in
stitu
tions
Num
ber
of D
DS
grad
uate
s in
the
Cla
ss o
f 20
00 w
hopa
ss th
eir
resp
ectiv
e re
gion
al d
enta
l exa
min
atio
n by
Dec
embe
r 31
, 200
0 di
vide
d by
num
ber
of g
radu
ates
from
Den
tal S
choo
l Cla
ss o
f 20
00.
Num
ber
who
pas
s th
e 20
00 U
SML
E S
tep
11 o
n fi
rst
Cla
ss o
f 20
00at
tem
pt d
ivid
ed b
y nu
mbe
r of
exa
min
ees
from
the
Scho
ol o
f M
edic
ine.
2000
gra
duat
es
6 6
6 7
B. U
nive
rsity
Sys
tem
of
Mar
ylan
d O
pera
tiona
lD
efin
ition
s fo
r Pe
rfor
man
ce I
ndic
ator
s (C
ontin
ued)
Ope
ratio
nal d
efin
ition
Dat
e U
sed
Per
cent
age
of g
radu
atin
g se
nior
s in
dica
ting
that
if th
ey20
01
coul
d st
art c
olle
ge a
gain
, the
y w
ould
atte
nd th
e sa
me
inst
itutio
n. (
On
ques
tion
15, n
umbe
r of
per
sons
resp
ondi
ng 1
or
2 di
vide
d by
num
ber
resp
ondi
ng 1
, 2, 3
,4
or 5
.)
Mea
s4re
IS
ourc
e of
pee
r da
ta
11G
radu
ates
' sat
isfa
ctio
nU
SM
Sur
vey
ofG
radu
ates
& E
mpl
oyer
s,20
01
12E
mpl
oyer
s' s
atis
fact
ion
US
M S
urve
y of
Gra
duat
es &
Em
ploy
ers,
2001
;UN
C 1
999
Em
ploy
er S
urve
y
13A
lum
ni g
ivin
g ra
te
OR
Ave
rage
und
ergr
adua
te a
lum
ni g
ivin
g ra
te
Cou
ncil
for
Aid
toE
duca
tion,
200
0V
olun
tary
Sup
port
of
Edu
catio
n
U.S
. New
s &
Wor
ldR
epor
t, A
mer
ica'
s B
est
Col
lege
s, 2
001
editi
on
14T
otal
R&
D e
xpen
ditu
res
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Fou
ndat
ion
Per
cent
age
of e
mpl
oyer
s th
at w
ould
hire
ano
ther
grad
uate
from
the
sam
e in
stitu
tion.
(O
n qu
estio
n 4,
num
ber
of p
erso
ns r
espo
ndin
g 1
or 2
div
ided
by
num
ber
resp
ondi
ng 1
, 2, 3
, 4 o
r 5.
)A
lum
ni d
onor
s as
a p
erce
ntag
e of
alu
mni
sol
icite
d(D
efin
ition
and
sou
rce
used
by
all i
nstit
utio
ns e
xcep
tU
MC
P &
FS
U a
nd th
eir
peer
s)
2001
Ave
rage
per
cent
of u
nder
grad
uate
alu
mni
of r
ecor
d w
hodo
nate
d m
oney
to th
e in
stitu
tion.
Alu
mni
of r
ecor
d ar
efo
rmer
full-
or
part
-tim
e st
uden
ts w
ith a
n un
derg
radu
ate
degr
ee fo
r w
hom
the
inst
itutio
n ha
s a
curr
ent a
ddre
ss.
Und
ergr
adua
te a
lum
ni d
onor
s m
ade
one
or m
ore
gifts
for
eith
er c
urre
nt o
pera
tions
or
capi
tal e
xpen
ses
durin
gth
e sp
ecifi
ed a
cade
mic
yea
r. T
he a
lum
ni g
ivin
g ra
te is
the
num
ber
of a
ppro
pria
te d
onor
s du
ring
a gi
ven
year
divi
ded
by th
e nu
mbe
r of
app
ropr
iate
alu
mni
of r
ecor
d.T
he r
ates
wer
e av
erag
ed fo
r 19
98 a
nd 1
999.
(D
efin
ition
and
sour
ce u
sed
by U
MC
P &
FS
U a
nd th
eir
peer
s.)
Exp
endi
ture
s on
R&
D fr
om fe
dera
l, st
ate,
indu
stry
,in
stitu
tiona
l & o
ther
sou
rces
. Exc
lude
s ex
pend
iture
s in
med
ical
sci
ence
for
inst
itutio
ns o
ther
than
UM
B.
2000
1998
-199
9
FY
99
6 9
68
B. U
nive
rsity
Sys
tem
of
Mar
ylan
d O
pera
tiona
l Def
initi
ons
for
Perf
orm
ance
Ind
icat
ors
(Con
tinue
d)M
easu
reSo
urce
of
peer
dat
aO
pera
tiona
l def
initi
onD
ate
Use
d15
Tot
al R
&D
exp
endi
ture
s pe
r fu
ll-tim
e fa
culty
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Exp
endi
ture
s on
R&
D f
rom
fed
eral
, sta
te, i
ndus
try,
FY99
Foun
datio
n (R
&D
$),
inst
itutio
nal &
oth
er s
ourc
es p
er f
ull-
time
AA
UP
or N
CE
S, F
all
inst
ruct
iona
l fac
ulty
mem
ber
at th
e ra
nks
of p
rofe
ssor
,St
aff
Surv
ey (
facu
ltyas
soci
ate
& a
ssis
tant
pro
fess
or. E
xclu
des
expe
nditu
res
coun
ts)
in m
edic
al s
cien
ce f
or in
stitu
tions
oth
er th
an U
MB
.Fa
culty
are
ful
l-tim
e, n
on-m
edic
al in
stru
ctio
nal
facu
lty f
rom
mos
t rec
ent A
AU
P co
unts
for
inst
itutio
nsot
her
than
UM
B. F
or U
MB
, fac
ulty
are
ful
l-tim
efa
culty
who
se a
ssig
nmen
ts a
re f
or in
stru
ctio
n,re
sear
ch, o
r pu
blic
ser
vice
and
incl
ude
med
ical
fac
ulty
and
adm
inis
trat
ive
offi
cers
who
se p
rinc
ipal
act
ivity
isin
stru
ctio
n, r
esea
rch,
or
publ
ic s
ervi
ce. F
or U
MB
,fa
culty
cou
nts
are
take
n fr
om N
CE
S, F
all S
taff
Surv
ey.
16A
vera
ge a
nnua
l % g
row
th (
5-yr
.) in
fed
eral
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Ave
rage
ann
ual g
row
th r
ate
in f
eder
ally
fin
ance
dR
&D
exp
endi
ture
sFo
unda
tion
R&
D e
xpen
ditu
res
over
the
5-ye
ar p
erio
d fr
om F
Y94
thro
ugh
FY99
. Exc
lude
s fe
dera
lly f
inan
ced
expe
nditu
res
in m
edic
al s
cien
ce f
or in
stitu
tions
oth
erth
an U
MB
.
FY94
FY99
17N
umbe
r of
fac
ulty
aw
ards
per
100
fac
ulty
(5
yrs.
)U
SM d
ata
base
(bu
iltT
he to
tal n
umbe
r of
aw
ards
per
100
ful
l-tim
efr
om n
atio
nal
inst
ruct
iona
l fac
ulty
at t
he r
anks
of
prof
esso
r,pu
blic
atio
ns a
ndas
soci
ate
& a
ssis
tant
pro
fess
or o
ver
the
5-ye
ar p
erio
dda
taba
ses)
from
199
7 th
roug
h 20
01. A
war
ds c
ount
ed:
Fulb
righ
ts, G
ugge
nhei
ms,
NE
I-I
fello
wsh
ips,
CA
RE
ER
(Y
oung
Inv
estig
ator
) aw
ards
, Slo
anfe
llow
ship
s. F
acul
ty a
re f
ull-
time,
non
-med
ical
inst
ruct
iona
l fac
ulty
fro
m m
ost r
ecen
t AA
UP
coun
ts.
1997
- 2
001
7 0
71
B. U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y S
YST
EM
OF
MA
RY
LA
ND
Ins
titut
ion-
Spec
ific
Pee
r Pe
rfor
man
ceM
easu
res
Mea
sure
Sou
rce
of p
eer
data
Ope
ratio
nal d
efin
ition
Dat
e U
sed
Bow
ie S
tate
Uni
vers
ity%
facu
lty w
ith te
rmin
al d
egre
esC
olle
ge B
oard
Ann
ual
Per
cent
age
of fu
ll-tim
e fa
culty
who
hav
e ea
rned
Fal
l 199
9
Sur
vey
of C
olle
ges,
doct
orat
e or
term
inal
deg
ree
in th
eir
field
2000
-200
1
2 3
Acc
epta
nce
rate
Yie
ld r
ate
Tot
al R
&D
exp
endi
ture
s pe
r fu
ll-tim
efa
culty
Col
lege
Boa
rd A
nnua
lS
urve
y of
Col
lege
s,20
00-2
001
Col
lege
Boa
rd A
nnua
lS
urve
y of
Col
lege
s,20
00-2
001
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Fou
ndat
ion
and
WE
DS
Per
cent
age
of fr
eshm
an a
pplic
ants
who
wer
eF
all 1
999
acce
pted
for
adm
issi
on
Per
cent
age
of fr
eshm
an a
pplic
ants
who
enr
olle
dF
all 1
999
Ave
rage
dol
lars
spe
nt o
n R
&D
from
fede
ral,
stat
e,in
dust
ry, i
nstit
utio
nal &
oth
er s
ourc
es p
er c
ore
facu
lty (
full-
time
tenu
re a
nd te
nure
-tra
ck fa
culty
)
FY
199
9
Cop
pin
Sta
te C
olle
ge%
par
t-tim
e un
derg
radu
ates
of t
otal
IPE
DS
, Fal
l Enr
ollm
ent
Sel
f-ex
plan
ator
yF
all 1
999
unde
rgra
duat
e en
rollm
ent
Sur
vey,
199
9
2%
gra
duat
e st
uden
ts o
f tot
al h
eadc
ount
IPE
DS
, Fal
l Enr
ollm
ent
Sel
f-ex
plan
ator
yF
all 1
999
enro
llmen
tS
urve
y, 1
999
3U
nres
tric
ted
non-
auxi
liary
fund
s as
% o
fIP
ED
S, F
inan
ce S
urve
y,T
otal
unr
estr
icte
d cu
rren
t fun
ds r
even
ues
min
usF
Y 1
999
tota
l fun
dsF
Y99
unre
stric
ted
reve
nues
from
aux
iliar
y en
terp
rises
divi
ded
by to
tal u
nres
tric
ted
curr
ent f
unds
rev
enue
s
4
7 2
Ave
rage
age
full-
time
unde
rgra
duat
eC
olle
ge h
ome
page
Sel
f-ex
plan
ator
y19
99-2
000
Col
lege
Edg
e.co
m
73
B. U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y S
YST
EM
OF
MA
RY
LA
ND
Ins
titut
ion-
Spec
ific
Pee
r Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
res
(Con
tinue
d)M
easu
reFr
ostb
urg
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
1FT
E s
tude
nts
per
full-
time
inst
ruct
iona
lfa
culty
E&
G e
xpen
ditu
re p
er d
egre
e aw
arde
d
Sour
ce o
f pe
er d
ata
Ope
ratio
nal d
efin
ition
Dat
e U
sed
IPE
DS,
Fal
l Enr
ollm
ent
Surv
ey, 1
999
and
AA
UP
IPE
DS,
GR
S an
dFi
nanc
e Su
rvey
Self
-exp
lana
tory
E&
G e
xpen
ditu
re/n
umbe
r of
gra
duat
es
Fall
1999
FY 2
000
Salis
bury
Uni
vers
ity1
Acc
epta
nce
rate
2 4 5
Perc
ent o
f fa
culty
with
term
inal
deg
ree
Rat
io o
f FT
ES
to F
TE
F
Ave
rage
hig
h sc
hool
GPA
Tot
al s
tate
app
ropr
iatio
n pe
r FT
ES
US.
New
s &
Wor
ldR
pt, A
mer
ica'
s B
est
Col
lege
s, 2
001
editi
on
US.
New
s &
Wor
ldR
pt, A
mer
ica'
s B
est
Col
lege
s, 2
001
editi
on
1PE
DS
Peer
Ana
lysi
sSy
stem
US.
New
s &
Wor
ldR
pt, A
mer
ica'
s B
est
Col
lege
s, 2
001
editi
on
1PE
DS
Peer
Ana
lysi
sSy
stem
The
rat
io o
f ad
mitt
ed f
irst
-tim
e, f
irst
-yea
r, d
egre
e-se
ekin
g st
uden
ts to
tota
l app
lican
ts. T
otal
app
lican
tsin
clud
e st
uden
ts w
ho m
eet a
ll re
quir
emen
ts to
be
cons
ider
ed f
or a
dmis
sion
AN
D w
ho w
ere
notif
ied
of a
nad
mis
sion
dec
isio
n.
The
per
cent
age
of f
ull-
time
facu
lty (
both
tenu
red/
tenu
re-t
rack
and
con
trac
tual
) w
ho h
ave
earn
eda
doct
orat
e, f
irst
pro
fess
iona
l or
othe
r te
rmin
al d
egre
e.
The
rat
io o
f fu
ll-tim
e eq
uiva
lent
stu
dent
s to
ful
l-tim
eeq
uiva
lent
fac
ulty
. Bot
h nu
mbe
rs a
re c
alcu
late
dva
lues
: FT
hea
dcou
nt +
1/3
PT
hea
dcou
nt. F
TE
S is
deri
ved
from
the
Fall
Enr
ollm
ent S
urve
y, a
nd F
TE
F is
deri
ved
from
the
Fall
Staf
f Su
rvey
.
Fall
1999
Fall
1999
Fall
1999
Ave
rage
hig
h sc
hool
GPA
of
all d
egre
e-se
ekin
g, f
irst
-Fa
ll 19
99tim
e, f
irst
-yea
r fr
eshm
an s
tude
nts
who
sub
mitt
ed G
PA.
Unr
estr
icte
d st
ate
appr
opri
atio
n di
vide
d by
FT
ES.
Unr
estr
icte
d st
ate
appr
opri
atio
n is
fro
m th
e Fi
nanc
eSu
rvey
, and
FT
ES
from
the
Fall
Enr
ollm
ent S
urve
y.
FY 1
999
Fall
1998
7475
B. U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y S
YST
EM
OF
MA
RY
LA
ND
Ins
titut
ion-
Spec
ific
Pee
rPe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
res
(Con
tinue
d)M
e4su
r4So
urce
of
peer
dat
aO
pera
tiona
l def
initi
on
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity1
Ave
rage
hig
h sc
hool
GPA
Com
mon
Dat
a Se
t 199
9A
vera
ge h
igh
scho
ol G
PA o
f al
l deg
ree-
seek
ing,
fir
st-
Fall
1999
(C12
)tim
e, f
wst
-yea
r (f
resh
man
) st
uden
ts w
ho s
ubm
itted
GPA
Dat
e U
sed
2 3 4
% u
nder
grad
uate
s w
ho li
ve o
n ca
mpu
sC
omm
on D
ata
Set 1
999
Perc
enta
ge o
f al
l deg
ree-
seek
ing
unde
rgra
duat
es
(Res
iden
tial S
tude
nts)
(F1)
enro
lled
in F
all 1
999
who
live
in c
olle
ge-o
wne
d,-o
pera
ted,
or
affi
liate
d ho
usin
g
Smde
nt-t
o-fa
culty
rat
ioC
omm
on D
ata
Set 1
999
(12)
Sele
ctiv
ity (
Acc
epta
nce
Rat
e)U
.S. N
ews
& W
orld
The
rat
io o
f fu
ll-tim
e eq
uiva
lent
stu
dent
s to
ful
l-tim
eeq
uiva
lent
inst
ruct
iona
l fac
ulty
. Und
ergr
adua
te o
rgr
adua
te s
tude
nt te
achi
ng a
ssis
tant
s ar
e no
t cou
nted
as
facu
lty.
Fall
1999
Fall
1999
The
num
ber
of f
resh
men
app
lican
ts d
ivid
ed b
y th
eFa
ll 19
99
Rep
ort
num
ber
of f
resh
men
adm
itted
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
altim
ore
1E
xpen
ditu
res
for
rese
arch
IPE
DS,
Fin
ance
For
m,
Tot
al d
olla
rs e
xpen
ded
for
rese
arch
FY 1
999
Part
B, l
ine
2
2%
par
t-tim
e of
all
facu
ltyIP
ED
S, F
all S
taff
, lin
esPe
rcen
tage
of
facu
lty w
ho a
re n
ot e
mpl
oyed
ful
l-tim
eFa
ll 19
99
22 a
nd 7
7
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
aryl
and,
Bal
timor
e1
Tot
al m
edic
ine
rese
arch
& d
evel
opm
ent
AA
MC
spen
ding
2M
edic
ine
rese
arch
gra
nts
per
basi
cA
AM
Cre
sear
ch f
acul
ty
3M
edic
ine
rese
arch
gra
nts
per
clin
ical
AA
MC
facu
lty
7677
B. U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y S
YST
EM
OF
MA
RY
LA
ND
Ins
titut
ion-
Spec
ific
Pee
r Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
res
(Con
tinue
d)M
easu
re
Sour
ce o
f pe
er d
ata
Ope
ratio
nal d
efin
ition
Dat
e U
sed
4Pe
rcen
t min
oriti
es o
f to
tal h
eadc
ount
enro
llmen
tIP
ED
S, F
all E
nrol
lmen
tsu
rvey
Min
oriti
es in
clud
e A
fric
an-A
mer
ican
, Asi
an,
His
pani
c, &
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an, b
ut d
o no
t inc
lude
Fall
1999
Non
resi
dent
Alie
n or
Unk
now
n R
ace.
5T
otal
hea
dcou
nt e
nrol
lmen
tIP
ED
S, F
all E
nrol
lmen
tsu
rvey
All
stud
ents
: und
ergr
adua
te, g
radu
ate,
and
fir
stpr
ofes
sion
al
6Pe
rcen
t gra
duat
e &
fir
st p
rofe
ssio
nal a
spe
rcen
t of
tota
l hea
dcou
ntW
ED
S, F
all E
nrol
lmen
tsu
rvey
Self
-exp
lana
tory
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
aryl
and
Bal
timor
e C
ount
y1
Ran
k in
IT
bac
helo
r's d
egre
es a
war
ded
IPE
DS
com
plet
ions
Ran
k am
ong
UM
BC
and
its
peer
inst
itutio
ns. F
Y20
00FY
200
0C
ompl
etio
ns. I
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy d
egre
es in
clud
eth
e fo
llow
ing:
Com
pute
r &
Inf
orm
atio
n Sc
ienc
es;
Com
pute
r Pr
ogra
mm
ing;
Dat
a Pr
oces
sing
Tec
h;In
form
atio
n Sc
ienc
es &
Sys
tem
s; C
ompu
ter
Syst
ems
Ana
lysi
s; C
ompu
ter
Scie
nce;
Com
pute
r E
ngin
eeri
ng;
Ele
ctri
cal,
Ele
ctro
nics
& C
omm
unic
atio
n.
2R
ank
in r
atio
of
inve
ntio
n di
sclo
sure
s to
AU
TM
, Nat
iona
lR
ank
amon
g U
MB
C a
nd it
s pe
er in
stitu
tions
. Num
ber
FY 2
000
$mill
ion
R&
D e
xpen
ditu
res
Scie
nce
Foun
datio
nof
inve
ntio
n di
sclo
sure
s, n
o m
atte
r ho
wco
mpr
ehen
sive
, cou
nted
by
inst
itutio
n (A
UT
M)
divi
ded
by $
mill
ion
in R
&D
exp
endi
ture
s (N
SF)
from
fede
ral,
stat
e, in
dust
ry, i
nstit
utio
nal &
oth
er s
ourc
es
3R
atio
of
FTE
stu
dent
s/ F
T f
acul
tyIP
ED
S E
nrol
lmen
t File
s,A
AU
PR
atio
of
FTE
stu
dent
s (F
T +
1/3
PT
) to
FT
fac
ulty
(per
AA
UP
base
d on
cat
egor
ies
of P
rofe
ssor
,A
ssoc
iate
Pro
fess
or, a
nd A
ssis
tant
Pro
fess
or)
for
Fall
Fall
1999
1999
.
7 8
7 9
B. U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y S
YST
EM
OF
MA
RY
LA
ND
Ins
titut
ion-
Spec
ific
Pee
r Pe
rfor
man
ceM
easu
res
(Con
tinue
d)M
easu
reU
nive
rsity
of
Mar
ylan
d, C
olle
ge P
ark
1#
of g
radu
ate-
leve
l col
lege
s, p
rogr
ams,
or
spec
ialty
are
as r
anke
d am
ong
the
top
25in
the
natio
n
2
Sour
ce o
f pe
er d
ata
Ope
ratio
nal d
efin
ition
Dat
e U
sed
# of
gra
duat
e-le
vel c
olle
ges,
pro
gram
s, o
rsp
ecia
lty a
reas
ran
ked
amon
g th
e to
p 15
in th
e na
tion
3%
cha
nge
over
fiv
e ye
ars
in f
acul
tym
embe
rshi
ps in
nat
iona
l aca
dem
ies
4N
umbe
r of
inve
ntio
n di
sclo
sure
s pe
r$1
00M
in R
&D
Nat
iona
l Res
earc
hC
ounc
il, U
.S. N
ews,
The
Wal
l Str
eet J
ourn
al,
Fina
ncia
l Tim
es,
Bus
ines
s W
eek,
Suc
cess
Nat
iona
l Res
earc
hC
ounc
il, U
S. N
ews,
The
Wal
l Str
eet J
ourn
al,
Fina
ncia
l Tim
es,
Bus
ines
s W
eek,
Suc
cess
USM
dat
abas
e
Ass
ocia
tion
ofU
nive
rsity
Tec
hnol
ogy
Man
ager
s (A
UT
M),
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Foun
datio
n (N
SF)
Tot
al n
umbe
r of
gra
duat
e-le
vel c
olle
ges,
pro
gram
s, o
rsp
ecia
lty a
reas
ran
ked
amon
g th
e to
p 25
in th
e na
tion
by o
ne o
r m
ore
of f
ive
spec
ifie
d pu
blic
atio
ns in
thei
rm
ost r
ecen
t ran
king
s of
that
par
ticul
arco
llege
/pro
gram
/spe
cial
ty a
rea.
Ran
king
s ar
eun
dupl
icat
ed, m
eani
ng th
at n
ot m
ore
than
one
top
25ra
nkin
g ca
n be
cla
imed
per
dis
cipl
ine
or s
peci
alty
area
, and
the
disc
iplin
e/pr
ogra
m d
ata
mus
t be
com
para
ble
acro
ss a
ll pe
er in
stitu
tions
.
Tot
al n
umbe
r of
gra
duat
e-le
vel c
olle
ges,
pro
gram
s, o
rsp
ecia
lty a
reas
ran
ked
amon
g th
e to
p 15
in th
e na
tion
in o
ne o
r m
ore
of f
ive
spec
ifie
d pu
blic
atio
ns in
thei
rm
ost r
ecen
t ran
king
s of
that
par
ticul
arco
llege
/pro
gram
/spe
cial
ty a
rea.
Ran
king
s ar
eun
dupl
icat
ed, m
eani
ng th
at n
ot m
ore
than
one
top
15ra
nkin
g ca
n be
cla
imed
per
dis
cipl
ine
or s
peci
alty
area
, and
the
disc
iplin
e/pr
ogra
m d
ata
mus
t be
com
para
ble
acro
ss a
ll pe
er in
stitu
tions
.
The
per
cent
cha
nge
over
fiv
e ye
ars
in th
e nu
mbe
r of
facu
lty h
oldi
ng m
embe
rshi
p in
one
of
thre
e na
tiona
lac
adem
ies
(Am
eric
an A
cade
my
of A
rts
and
Scie
nces
,N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of E
ngin
eeri
ng, a
nd N
atio
nal
Aca
dem
y of
Sci
ence
s), e
qual
ly w
eigh
ting
the
perc
ent
chan
ge f
or e
ach
of th
e ac
adem
ies.
The
num
ber
of in
vent
ion
disc
losu
res
repo
rted
by
the
inst
itutio
n to
AU
TM
, per
eac
h $1
00 m
illio
n in
TO
TA
L r
esea
rch
and
deve
lopm
ent (
R&
D)
expe
nditu
res
repo
rted
for
the
inst
itutio
n by
NSF
.
Mos
t rec
ent
rank
ings
publ
ishe
d fo
r a
part
icul
arco
llege
,pr
ogra
m, o
rsp
ecia
lty a
rea
Mos
t rec
ent
rank
ings
publ
ishe
d fo
r a
part
icul
arco
llege
,pr
ogra
m, o
rsp
ecia
lty a
rea
1997
-200
1
Fall
1999
8081
B. U
NIV
ER
SIT
YS
YS
TE
M O
F M
AR
YLA
ND
Inst
itutio
n-Sp
ecif
ic P
eer
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
s (C
ontin
ued)
Meg
sur
4S
ourc
e of
pee
r da
taO
pera
tiona
l def
initi
onD
ate
Use
d
Uni
vers
ity o
f Mar
ylan
d E
aste
rn S
hore
1G
radu
atio
n ra
tes
of e
duca
tiona
llydi
sadv
anta
ged
stud
ents
2 3
Pee
rs in
stitu
tions
Gra
duat
ion
rate
s of
eco
nom
ical
lyP
eer
inst
itutio
nsdi
sadv
anta
ged
stud
ents
Per
cent
of f
ull-t
ime,
deg
ree-
seek
ing
ente
ring
fres
hmen
with
SA
T s
core
s of
900
or
less
who
grad
uate
with
in 6
yea
rs
Per
cent
of f
ull-t
ime,
deg
ree-
seek
ing
ente
ring
fres
hmen
with
fam
ily in
com
es o
f $30
,000
or
less
who
gra
duat
e w
ithin
6 y
ears
Ave
rage
pas
sing
rat
es o
n al
l cer
tific
atio
nP
eer
inst
itutio
nsP
erce
nt o
f stu
dent
pas
sing
all
cert
ifica
tion
exam
inat
ions
exam
inat
ions
giv
en a
t the
Uni
vers
ity
Fal
l 199
9
Fal
l 199
9
Fal
l 199
9
Uni
vers
ity o
f Mar
ylan
d U
nive
rsity
Col
lege
1N
umbe
r of
Afr
ican
-Am
eric
ans
of a
ll IT
grad
uate
s
2%
of u
nder
grad
uate
stu
dent
s w
ho a
re 2
5an
d ol
der
3 4 5
Num
ber
of p
ost-
bacc
alau
reat
e de
gree
saw
arde
d in
tech
nolo
gy a
ndbu
sine
ss/m
anag
emen
t fie
lds
Num
ber
of w
orld
wid
e on
line
cour
ses
MA
ITI r
epor
t for
UM
UC
; IP
ED
Sco
mpl
etio
n da
ta fo
r pe
erin
stitu
tions
IPE
DS
, Fal
l Enr
ollm
ent
surv
ey
IPE
DS
, Com
plet
ions
surv
ey
Pee
r in
stitu
tions
Num
ber
of w
orld
wid
e on
line
enro
llmen
tsP
eer
inst
itutio
ns
Num
ber
of g
radu
ates
of I
T (
MA
ITI)
und
ergr
adua
teF
Y 2
000
prog
ram
s w
ho a
re A
fric
an-A
mer
ican
. Pro
gram
sin
clud
e co
mpu
ter
prog
ram
(C
IP 1
1.00
), c
ompu
ter
engi
neer
ing
(CIP
14.
09),
and
ele
ctric
al e
ngin
eerin
g(C
1P 1
4.10
).
Per
cent
of u
nder
grad
uate
stu
dent
s w
ho a
re o
lder
than
Fal
l 199
925
yea
rs o
f age
Num
ber
of p
ost-
bacc
alau
reat
e de
gree
s aw
arde
d in
FY
200
0'te
chno
logy
and
bus
ines
s/m
anag
emen
t fie
lds.
Pro
gram
s in
clud
e co
mpu
ter
prog
ram
(C
IP 1
1.00
),co
mpu
ter
engi
neer
ing
(CIP
14.
09),
ele
ctric
alen
gine
erin
g (C
IP 1
4.10
), m
anag
emen
t inf
orm
atio
nsy
stem
s (C
1P 5
2.12
01),
sys
tem
netw
orki
ng/te
leco
mm
unic
atio
n (C
IP 5
2.12
04).
Num
ber
of c
ours
es o
ffere
d on
line
FY
200
1
Num
ber
of e
nrol
lmen
ts in
onl
ine
cour
ses
FY
200
1
8283
C.
Mor
gan
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
Ope
ratio
nal D
efin
ition
s fo
r Pe
rfor
man
ceIn
dica
tors
Mea
sure
Sou
rce
of p
eer
data
1S
econ
d ye
ar r
eten
tion
rate
Mar
ylan
d H
ighe
rE
duca
tion
Com
mis
sion
(MH
EC
)E
nrol
lmen
tIn
form
atio
n S
yste
m(E
IS),
Deg
ree
Info
rmat
ion
Sys
tem
(D1S
).
US
New
s an
d W
orld
Rep
ort,
Am
eric
a's
Bes
tC
olle
ges.
2S
econ
d ye
ar r
eten
tion
rate
of A
fric
an A
mer
ican
sM
HE
C E
IS, D
IS.
Pee
r in
stitu
tions
.
3S
econ
d ye
ar r
eten
tion
rate
of m
inor
ities
MH
EC
EIS
, DIS
.P
eer
inst
itutio
ns.
Ope
ratio
nal d
efin
ition
The
per
cent
age
of fi
rst-
time,
full-
time
degr
ee s
eeki
ngun
derg
radu
ates
that
re-
enro
lled
at th
e or
igin
alin
stitu
tion
one
year
afte
r m
atric
ulat
ion.
Dat
e U
sed
Fal
l 199
9co
hort
The
per
cent
age
of fi
rst-
time,
full-
time
degr
ee s
eeki
ngF
all 1
999
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an u
nder
grad
uate
s th
at r
e-en
rolle
d at
coho
rtth
e or
igin
al in
stitu
tion
one
year
afte
r m
atric
ulat
ion.
In th
is c
onte
xt, t
he te
rm "
min
oriti
es"
refe
rsto
Fal
l 199
9m
embe
rs o
f th
e A
fric
an A
mer
ican
, Nat
ive
Am
eric
an,
coho
rtA
sian
, and
His
pani
c st
uden
t gro
ups.
The
per
cent
age
of fi
rst-
time,
full-
time
degr
ee s
eeki
ngA
fric
an A
mer
ican
, Nat
ive
Am
eric
an, A
sian
, and
His
pani
c un
derg
radu
ates
that
re-
enro
lled
at th
eor
igin
al in
stitu
tion
one
year
afte
r m
atric
ulat
ion.
4S
ix y
ear
grad
uatio
n ra
teM
HE
C E
IS, D
IS.
IPE
DS
, Gra
duat
ion
Rat
eS
urve
y; N
CA
A.
The
per
cent
age
of fi
rst-
time,
full-
time
degr
ee s
eeki
ngF
all 1
993
unde
rgra
duat
es th
at g
radu
ated
from
the
orig
inal
Coh
ort
inst
itutio
n w
ithin
six
yea
rs o
f mat
ricul
atio
n.
5S
ix y
ear
grad
uatio
n ra
te o
f Afr
ican
Am
eric
ans
MH
EC
EIS
, DIS
.
IPE
DS
, Gra
duat
ion
Rat
eS
urve
y; N
CA
A.
The
per
cent
age
of fi
rst-
time,
full-
time
degr
ee s
eeki
ngF
all 1
993
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an u
nder
grad
uate
s w
ho g
radu
ated
Coh
ort
from
the
orig
inal
inst
itutio
n w
ithin
six
yea
rs o
fm
atric
ulat
ion.
8485
C.
Mor
gan
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
Ope
ratio
nal D
efin
ition
s fo
r Pe
rfor
man
ce I
ndic
ator
s (C
ontin
ued)
Mea
sure
6Si
x ye
ar g
radu
atio
n ra
te o
f m
inor
ities
Sour
ce o
f pe
er d
ata
MH
EC
EIS
, DIS
.
IPE
DS,
Gra
duat
ion
Rat
eSu
rvey
; NC
AA
.
Ope
ratio
nal d
efin
ition
In th
is c
onte
xt, t
he te
rm "
min
oriti
es"
refe
rs to
mem
bers
of th
e A
fric
an A
mer
ican
, Nat
ive
Am
eric
an, A
sian
, and
His
pani
c st
uden
t gro
ups.
The
per
cent
age
of f
irst
-tim
e, f
ull-
time
degr
ee s
eeki
ngA
fric
an A
mer
ican
, Nat
ive
Am
eric
an, A
sian
, and
His
pani
cun
derg
radu
ates
who
gra
duat
ed f
rom
the
orig
inal
inst
itutio
n w
ithin
six
yea
rs o
f m
atri
cula
tion.
Dat
e U
sed
Fall
1993
Coh
ort
7Pe
rcen
t inc
reas
e in
doc
tora
l deg
rees
aw
arde
dM
orga
n St
ate
Uni
vers
ityov
er b
ase
year
FY
1999
(MSU
) D
IS.
IPE
DS,
Pos
tsec
onda
ryC
ompl
etio
ns.
Self
-exp
lana
tory
8G
radu
ate/
Prof
essi
onal
sch
ool
goin
g ra
teM
SU/M
HE
C f
ollo
w-u
psu
rvey
of
grad
uate
s.
Peer
inst
itutio
ns o
rap
prop
riat
e M
aryl
and
inst
itutio
ns.
The
per
cent
age
of b
ache
lor's
deg
ree
reci
pien
ts w
hoen
rolle
d in
gra
duat
e or
pro
fess
iona
l sch
ool w
ithin
one
year
of
grad
uatio
n.
App
ropr
iate
Mar
ylan
d in
stitu
tions
ref
er to
Mar
ylan
din
stitu
tions
that
are
in th
e sa
me
Car
negi
e cl
assi
fica
tion
asM
orga
n St
ate
Uni
vers
ity.
FY 1
999
bach
elor
'sde
gree
reci
pien
ts
9St
uden
t sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith a
dvan
ced
stud
ies
MSU
/MH
EC
fol
low
-up
prep
arat
ion
surv
ey o
f gr
adua
tes
Peer
inst
itutio
ns o
rap
prop
riat
e M
aryl
and
inst
itutio
ns
The
per
cent
age
of b
ache
lor's
deg
ree
reci
pien
ts w
hoen
rolle
d in
gra
duat
e or
pro
fess
iona
l sch
ool w
ithin
one
year
of
grad
uatio
n an
d w
ho r
ated
thei
r pr
epar
atio
n fo
rad
vanc
ed e
duca
tion
as e
xcel
lent
, goo
d, o
r ad
equa
te (
fair
)pr
epar
atio
n fo
r th
eir
job.
App
ropr
iate
Mar
ylan
d in
stitu
tions
ref
er to
Mar
ylan
din
stitu
tions
that
are
in th
e sa
me
Car
negi
e cl
assi
fica
tion
asM
orga
n St
ate
Uni
vers
ity.
FY 1
999
bach
elor
'sde
gree
reci
pien
ts
10St
uden
t sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith jo
b pr
epar
atio
n.
86
MSU
/MH
EC
fol
low
-up
surv
ey o
f gr
adua
tes.
Peer
inst
itutio
ns o
rap
prop
riat
e M
aryl
and
inst
itutio
ns.
The
per
cent
age
of b
ache
lor's
deg
ree
reci
pien
ts e
mpl
oyed
FY 1
999
full-
time
with
in o
ne y
ear
of g
radu
atio
n an
d w
ho r
ated
bach
elor
'sth
eir
educ
atio
n as
exc
elle
nt, g
ood,
or
adeq
uate
(fa
ir)
degr
eepr
epar
atio
n fo
r th
eir
job.
App
ropr
iate
Mar
ylan
dre
cipi
ents
inst
itutio
ns r
efer
to M
aryl
and
inst
itutio
ns th
at a
re in
the
sam
e C
arne
gie
clas
sifi
catio
n as
Mor
gan
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
.
87
C.
Mor
gan
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
Ope
ratio
nal D
efin
ition
s fo
r Pe
rfor
man
ce I
ndic
ator
s (C
ontin
ued)
Mea
sure
Sour
ce o
f pe
er d
ata
11PR
AX
IS H
pas
s ra
teH
EA
Titl
e II
: Agg
rega
tean
d Su
mm
ary
Inst
itutio
n- L
evel
Pas
sR
ate
Dat
a: R
egul
arT
each
er P
repa
ratio
nPr
ogra
m.
Peer
Ins
titut
ions
or
appr
opri
ate
Mar
ylan
din
stitu
tions
.
12E
nipl
oyer
sat
isfa
ctio
nM
SU S
urve
y E
mpl
oyer
s.
Peer
inst
itutio
ns o
rap
prop
riat
e M
aryl
and
inst
itutio
ns.
13A
lum
ni g
ivin
gM
SU D
evel
opm
ent
Off
ice.
Peer
inst
itutio
ns o
rap
prop
riat
e M
aryl
and
inst
itutio
ns.
14Pe
rcen
t gro
wth
in g
rant
s an
d co
ntra
cts
(res
earc
h)ex
pend
iture
s ov
er b
ase
of F
Y19
90M
SU B
udge
t Off
ice.
IPE
DS
Peer
inst
itutio
ns.
Ope
ratio
nal d
efin
ition
Num
ber
of c
ompl
eter
s w
ho s
ucce
ssfu
lly c
ompl
eted
one
or m
ore
test
s ac
ross
all
cate
gori
es u
sed
by th
eSt
ate
for
licen
sure
and
the
tota
l pas
s ra
te.
App
ropr
iate
Mar
ylan
d in
stitu
tions
ref
er to
Mar
ylan
din
stitu
tions
that
are
in th
e sa
me
Car
negi
ecl
assi
fica
tion
as M
orga
n St
ate
Uni
vers
ity.
Dat
e U
sed
1999
-200
0ac
adem
ic y
ear
Ave
rage
of
nine
dim
ensi
ons
of e
mpl
oyer
s' r
atin
g of
satis
fact
ion
with
Mor
gan
alum
ni.
App
ropr
iate
Mar
ylan
d in
stitu
tions
ref
er to
Mar
ylan
din
stitu
tions
that
are
in th
e sa
me
Car
negi
ecl
assi
fica
tion
as M
orga
n St
ate
Uni
vers
ity.
Perc
ent o
f M
orga
n's
grad
uate
s w
ho m
ade
cont
ribu
tions
to th
e U
nive
rsity
dur
ing
a fi
scal
yea
r.T
he b
ase
for
deri
ving
the
perc
enta
ge is
the
tota
inu
mbe
r of
Mor
gan
grad
uate
s fo
r w
hom
goo
d co
ntac
tin
form
atio
n is
ava
ilabl
e
App
ropr
iate
Mar
ylan
d in
stitu
tions
ref
er to
Mar
ylan
din
stitu
tions
that
are
in th
e sa
me
Car
negi
ecl
assi
fica
tion
as M
orga
n St
ate
Uni
vers
ity.
FY 1
999
bach
elor
'sde
gree
reci
pien
ts
Mos
t cur
rent
data
ava
ilabl
e
Self
-exp
lana
tory
8889
Li
U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Libraiy of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
Reproduction Basis
ERIC
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").
EFF-089 (3/2000)