10b Peer Institutions and Criteria draft 5

The third was, using the comparisons, to identify those schools that perform at a higher level than Western in many important criteria.. Tenured/tenure-track faculty as 65% or more of to

Peer Institutions and Criteria

The Strategic Planning Committee is pleased to present for campus feedback its list of aspirational peer institutions and selection criteria The attached document presents both the institutions, the criteria, and the reasoning behind both selections

Part of the committee’s charge was to develop a list of peer schools The charge specified, however, that the committee “establish a new peer institution list that would help drive establishing stretch goals for the institution”—that is, a set of peers that help us see what we can become as a University, a better version of ourselves, better at what we do This understanding has guided our work in developing the list we are presenting to the campus community

“Peer” means many things It can be defined very broadly, as with a jury member in a criminal or civil trial It can be defined very narrowly, as a member of the British House of Lords It can be defined in relation to one’s work

“Aspirational” also can mean different things One might see it as meaning what it means literally, as what we want to become It might be seen as connoting something desirable, even if it is unattainable except in dreams

Definitions of “aspirational” and “peer” become important when considering a list of aspirational peers, because those definitions become constraints to the selection process How narrowly do we define ourselves to determine who our peers might be? Do we want to have a list of institutions that reflects aspirations, even if we can’t reach those heights, or do we want to achieve our aspirations?

In past peer lists, Western has defined these terms in specific ways Peer does not encompass the entirety of institutions of higher education Rather, it encompasses institutions that are in similar

categories to us and face similar types of challenges

In terms of aspiration, we thought in terms of challenging but achievable outcomes As with any

university, Western has constraints that make some achievements practically impossible However, in important areas Western performs well but has the potential to perform better—as evidenced by schools operating with similar constraints that do perform better

In this regard, we limited ourselves to public masters granting comprehensive schools, discarding

universities that may have some commonalities with us and that may present some ideas in terms of aspirations, but whose nature implies that they would be facing challenges and opportunities different than our own Because of this, institutions such as University of Washington or College of William and Mary, two places that were mentioned on several occasions as possible peers when we requested feedback from the campus community, were not considered when building our list Both of them are public research universities, as opposed to public masters comprehensive schools such as ourselves The difference in the nature of those institutions with respect to ourselves made them, in our view,

inappropriate as peers

Taking those perspectives together, we decided that Western’s aspirational peer list should be such that

if we reach our aspirations, we will be at or near the top of that list in areas we believe are important To populate that list, we took a three-step approach The first was to identify criteria that would be helpful

in narrowing a large group of institutions to a manageable size The second was to identify criteria with which to measure ourselves against that smaller group of institutions to see where we are performing well and where we have room to improve, relatively speaking The third was, using the comparisons, to identify those schools that perform at a higher level than Western in many important criteria This final step would yield our list of aspirational peers

Step One

Our first work was to decide on criteria, and limits within those criteria, that would help us narrow a list

of more than 1,162 schools provided to us by Institutional Research to a manageable number This list included Baccalaureate schools with an arts and sciences focus, masters universities of all sizes, and doctoral institutions not at the highest level of research activity, all in the United States The chosen criteria were:

1 Not-for-profit institutions only;

2 Carnegie Masters Universities, medium and larger programs (Western: Masters larger)

3 Between 6,000 and 25,000 FTE students (Western 14,529)

4 Student body 85 percent undergraduate or higher (Western 93.9%)

5 Six-year graduation rate of 60 percent or higher (Western 71.3%)

6 Freshman class including 10 percent or more Pell Grant recipients (Western 26%)

7 Student-to-faculty ratio of between 12 and 25 to 1 (Western 20.52)

8 Tenured/tenure-track faculty as 65% or more of total FTE faculty (Western 69.11%)

We felt these criteria reflected basic facts about Western’s students and faculty In applying them, somewhat to our surprise, we reduced the number of schools to 17 These schools, listed alphabetically

by state, were:

California State University-Chico CA

Georgia College and State University GA

Appalachian State University NC

University of North Carolina Wilmington NC

Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania PA

Millersville University of Pennsylvania PA

Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania PA

West Chester University of Pennsylvania PA

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater WI

University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire WI

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse WI

Step Two

Our next task was to select criteria that we believed touched on important areas where Western could improve We worked from IPEDS data but considered other criteria as well and attempted to gather data in those areas This list included the following criteria (again, Western data from 2014-15):

1 Five-year graduation rate; used as Western’s six-year graduation rate was higher than that of all but three institutions (Western: 66.20%)

2 Freshman retention rate (Western: 82.00%)

3 Value of endowment assets at the end of the fiscal year (Western; $72 million)

4 Institutional grants-in-aid from all sources per FTE student (not including federal or state funds; Western: $1,582.99)

5 Six-year graduation rate for minority students; used because only available graduation rate for minority students (Western: 65.00%)

6 Student-to-faculty ratio (Western: 20.52)

7 Student-to-staff ratio (Western: 14.00)

8 Percentage of international students (Western: 1.00%)

9 Percentage of minority students (Western: 24.90%)

10 Gap between minority and overall six-year graduation rates (Western: 6.30%)

11 Percentage of tenured/tenure-track faculty among all faculty (FTEF; Western: 69.11%)

12 Percentage of students who study abroad (Western: 3.65%)

13 Percentage of faculty of color (Western: 12.90%)

14 Percentage of staff of color (Western: 14.60%)

15 Total operating grants and contracts per FTE faculty (Western: $15,537)

These criteria were chosen because they reflect important goal areas for Western: recruitment,

retention, and graduation of a diverse student body, commitment to tenure-track faculty,

internationalization, student support, and resources more generally The number of schools whose performance could be considered “better” than that of Western varied by criterion from two

(percentage of minority students) to 17 (student-to-faculty ratio) The attached table shows all schools

in the list, plus Washington public institutions (including the University of Washington’s Bothell and Tacoma campuses where data are available)

Step Three

Once criteria were selected and data gathered, the final step was to determine the list of aspirational peers We decided that truly aspirational peers would be those schools that were performing at a higher level than Western broadly across the criteria Accordingly, we used a combination of techniques First,

we looked at each school and the number of criteria on which they were performing at a higher level than Western Then we scanned the data for those institutions to be sure the criteria were spread

broadly and not just in one area, such as faculty The preliminary list of aspirational peers we developed using this process is (again alphabetically by state):

Georgia College and State University GA

Appalachian State University NC

University of North Carolina Wilmington NC

Some observations may be in order For example, only two of these schools had a higher percentage of minority students than Western in 2014-15; however, all but one school graduated their minority students at a rate closer to their overall rate than did Western All the schools one had a lower student-to-faculty ratio than Western, and all but one also had a lower student-to-staff ratio Three schools had

a higher percentage of tenured/tenure-track faculty than did Western Four schools had a higher endowment value than did Western, but only two had more institutional grant dollars per student than did Western Six schools had a higher freshman retention rate, and five had a higher five-year

graduation rate Four had a higher percentage of faculty of color, while five had a higher percentage of staff of color

In criteria where Western compares well with the aspirational peers, it does not always compare well to Washington schools To cite two examples; Western’s percentage of minority students and institutional grants per student both are lower than any other Washington school However, Western’s five-year graduation rate, freshman retention rate, and six-year minority student graduation rate are higher than any Washington school except the University of Washington, and Western’s tenured/tenure-track percentage is higher than any other Washington school