1 / 26

NMSU College of Engineering Dean’s Advisory Council Strategic Plan Committee Report November 28, 2010

NMSU College of Engineering Dean’s Advisory Council Strategic Plan Committee Report November 28, 2010. John Galassini Bill Garcia Walter Hines Mike Steinzig (chair) Jeff Weiner. Why was the Strategic Plan Committee formed?.

yair
Télécharger la présentation

NMSU College of Engineering Dean’s Advisory Council Strategic Plan Committee Report November 28, 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NMSU College of EngineeringDean’s Advisory CouncilStrategic Plan Committee ReportNovember 28, 2010 John Galassini Bill Garcia Walter Hines Mike Steinzig (chair) Jeff Weiner

  2. Why was the Strategic Plan Committee formed? • Genesis: Strategic Plan discussion at the August 2010 meeting of the COE Dean’s Advisory Council • Dr. Jacquez requested two initiatives • Imperative 1: Review the U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) evaluation criteria and assess whether the two related objectives in Goal 1 of the COE Strategic Plan are achievable • Imperative 2: Review each of the three major goals in the Strategic Plan and make initial recommendations regarding their prioritization, including how to achieve the various metrics and measures within each major goal

  3. What was the methodology for these initiatives? • Advisory Council formed a committee composed of 5 members • John Galassini • Bill Garcia • Walter Hines • Mike Steinzig, chair • Jeff Weiner • Committee activities • Periodic conference calls • Work assignments • Obtained and reviewed the most recent (2010) USNWR Rankings and criteria descriptions • Scrutinized and discussed the goals, objectives, strategies, and measures within the Strategic Plan

  4. What are the Strategic Plan goals that were the basis for this effort? • Goal 1 – to be nationally and internationally recognized for academic and research programs • Goal 2 – to provide world-class engineers and technologists for industrial, government and academic constituents of NMSU Engineering • Goal 3 – to be the “university of choice” for undergraduate engineering, education and outreach in the region

  5. Imperative 1 – Walter HinesU.S. News and World Report rankings

  6. What are the 2 facets of the USNWR rankings to be considered? • Imperative: Review the U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) evaluation criteria and assess whether the two related objectives in Goal 1 of the COE Strategic Plan are achievable • Category a -- rank within top 50 USNWR "best undergraduate engineering programs that also have PhD degrees.” • Category c -- rank within top 25 public engineering graduate programs in USNWR

  7. What are the characteristics of the two USNWR categories? • Category a • Based solely on the peer judgments of Deans and senior faculty who rate each program they are familiar with on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished) • Includes public and private institutions • Category c • Various criteria • The Committee has culled out public institutions separately, in accordance with Strategic Plan objectives • Category c criteria • Quality Assessment (.40)  • Peer Assessment Score (.25) • Recruiter Assessment Score (.15) • Student Selectivity (.10)  • Mean GRE Quant Scores (.0675) • Acceptance Rate (.0325) • Faculty Resources (.25)  • MS Student to Faculty Ratio (0.0375) • PhD Student to Faculty Ratio (0.075) • Percent of Faculty in the National Academy of Engineering (.075) • Doctoral Degrees Awarded (.0625) • Research Activity (.25)  • Total Research Expenditures (.15) • Avg Research Exp Per Faculty (.10)

  8. Who are NMSU’s peer institutions? • Arizona • Colorado State • Idaho • Iowa State • Kansas State • Montana State • Nevada • New Mexico • NMSU • Oklahoma State • Oregon State  • Texas Tech • UTEP • Utah State • Washington State • Wyoming Source: Krist Petersen

  9. What are the USNWR rankings of our peer institutions?

  10. What are our observations about the USNWR rankings? (1) • Undergraduate rankings totally based upon subjective criteria • Graduate rankings criteria • 40% subjective • 25% on research funding levels • 35% on number of NAE faculty, number of PhD students, GRE scores, total graduate enrollment, and several other criteria • Undergraduate programs with PhD rankings • NMSU ranks 110 (out of about 200) for all institutions • NMSU ranks about 80 for public institutions • Graduate engineering programs rankings • NMSU ranks 86 for all institutions • NMSU ranks 51 for public institutions

  11. What are our observations about the USNWR rankings? (2) • NMSU does considerably better in the graduate program rankings • Positive factors affecting NMSU’s graduate rankings • Includes a number of objective criteria • Includes subjective rankings by companies and recruiters that employ students • Negative factors affecting NMSU’s graduate rankings • Low number of PhDs awarded: 8 for NMSU (vs. 52 for UNM) in 2009 • No faculty in the NAE • NMSU rankings against 16 regional peer institutions • 11 for undergraduate programs with PhDs • 7 for graduate engineering programs • NMSU graduate rankings are ahead of Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Utah State (among others) • Conclusion:It is extremely difficult for NMSU to attain present Strategic Plan objectives relating to USNWR

  12. What are potential COE mechanisms for addressing Imperative 1? • Undergraduate rankings • Pursue a program to better inform other Engineering Deans about NMSU’s undergraduate engineering program • Graduate rankings • The Committee has identified several criteria that can have major impact • Study these three areas and develop an approach for improvements in each area

  13. What are our summary recommendations for Imperative 1? • Regarding the Goal 1 objectives in the Strategic Plan, the Committee recommends that the top 50 (undergraduate) and top 25 (graduate, public institutions only) objectives be replaced with objectives to “consistently rank within the top 5 or our regional peer institutions” • Vigorously pursue an initiative to increase other Engineering Deans’ knowledge of the NMSU undergraduate program • Study the high impact criteria (GRE scores, number of applicants accepted, faculty in NAE, number of PhDs awarded, and PhD/faculty ratio) on the graduate rankings and construct a plan to pursue improvements to these metrics

  14. Imperative 2 – Jeff Weiner Strategic Plan goals prioritization

  15. What are the existing goals? • Goal 1: To be nationally and internationally recognized for academic & research programs in Engineering & Engineering Technology • Goal 2: Provide world-class engineers & engineering technologists for industrial, government, and academic constituents of the College of Engineering • Goal 3: To be the “University of Choice” for undergraduate engineering, engineering technology education, and outreach in the region

  16. Here is a simplified view of our existing goals • Goal 1: National reputation-centric • Goal 2: Industry/government/constituent-centric • Goal 3: Student-centric

  17. What are the key principles behind this goal prioritization exercise? • Goal 2 needs work! • Despite the fact that a key element in the previous strategic plan exercise was to ensure that information for all metrics is available, the objectives metrics for this goal are sorely lacking • Cognitively address the fact that this goal has the fewest number of objectives, strategies, and measures (If this is correct, does this imply lesser priority vs. the other 2 goals?) • Relatively low levels of research funding is a serious impediment to attaining some Goal 1 objectives • Our goals are NOT mutually exclusive • In many instances, making progress on one goal will assist in making progress with other goals • For example, increased research funding (Goal 1) helps with Goal 3 • The COE strategic plan should start with the student (Goal 3) • First principle: The student comes first • Addressing the student is an excellent foundation for the other 2 goals

  18. What is the current state ofGoal 2 objectives? a) Full employment of graduates seeking positions in industry and government. b) Increase # of PhDs/year securing faculty positions at research 1 institutions c) Increase percentage of graduates going to graduate studies at R 1 institutions

  19. What is our proposed goals prioritization? • Goal 3: To be the “University of Choice” for undergraduate engineering, engineering technology education, and outreach in the region • Student-centric • Excellent foundation for other 2 goals • Goal 1: To be nationally and internationally recognized for academic & research programs in Engineering & Engineering Technology • National reputation-centric • Goal 2: Provide world-class engineers & engineering technologists for industrial, government, and academic constituents of the College of Engineering • Industry/government/constituent-centric • After addressing previously stated Goal 2 issues, revisit prioritization vs. Goal 1

  20. What are the key principles behind our strategies prioritization? • Start with Goal 3 • Give high priority to the Goal 3 strategies that positively impact Goals 1 and 2 • Revisit strategies prioritization after Goal 2 issues are addressed

  21. What are the high priority Goal 3 strategies and key measures? • Inspire and guide K-12 students to pursue engineering careers at NMSU • Number of freshmen enrolled with Math ACT > 30 • Develop resources to promote and support academic and research excellence • Increase total dollar value of endowed scholarships • Funds available for current use scholarships • Number of undergrads supported by research • Funds available for senior capstone & student projects • Develop marketing plan to increase awareness in high school students of engineering and NMSU COE • All 5 measures • Develop an engineering extension to serve the local economy • Number of businesses assisted in product development • Number of students assisting businesses • Number of economic development projects

  22. What are shortcomings in statuses of priority Goal 3 strategies? (1) • (Increase) number of freshmen enrolled with Math ACT > 30 • The 2015 target is 40, but the metric has only increased from 16 to 24 since the inception of the Strategic Plan • Were there assumed actions when the 2015 target was set that have not occurred? Is the 2015 target unrealistic and in need of adjustment? • Increase total dollar value of endowed scholarships • This item has not been tracked since 2008 and needs to be updated • The 2015 target of $250M would seem to be in error • (Increase) funds available for current use scholarships • The 2015 target has already been surpassed • A new target needs to be set

  23. What are shortcomings in statuses of priority Goal 3 strategies? (2) • (Increase) number of undergrads supported by research • This item has not been tracked since 2006 • (Increase) funds available for senior capstone & student projects • This item has not been tracked since 2007 • Develop marketing plan to increase awareness in high school students of engineering and NMSU COE (all 5 measures!) • This strategy’s measures have not been tracked since 2007 • No 2015 targets have ever been set • Develop an engineering extension to serve the local economy (all measures) • This strategy and measures were added to the Strategic Plan as part of the 2009 Strategic Plan revisions • 2015 targets need to be set and tracking needs to be instituted

  24. What are our summary recommendations for Imperative 2? • Revisit Goal 2 to validate that it is sufficiently defined, set 2015 targets, and update 2010 tracking information • Assign top priority to Goal 3 due to its student-centricity. Prioritize Goal 1 next and Goal 2 last. Revisit these priorities after the Goal 2 recommendation has been addressed • Give priority to Goal 3 strategies that have positive impact on the other goals. Within those strategies, give priority to measures that serve that same purpose. Address the Goal 3 weaknesses described in this report • Form a small committee to review National Academy of Engineering qualifications and identify faculty that are good candidates for that organization

  25. What are the Committee’s concluding remarks? • The COE Strategic Plan has been on hold for almost 2 years. The Committee is pleased that Dr. Jacquez is putting renewed focus on the Strategic Plan • Some of the recommendations made in this report are very straightforward, relatively simple to pursue, and rapid action is possible. The Committee is hopeful that significant progress can be made on these recommendations prior to the February, 2011, meeting of the Dean’s Advisory Council • During the course of addressing its two imperatives, the Committee gained important insights into various aspects of the Strategic Plan. Dr. Jacquez is in the process of establishing a team to broadly scrutinize the Strategic Plan and the Committee is looking forward to the opportunity to participate and otherwise interact with that team to assist in this important effort

  26. THANK YOU! Questions? Contact Mike Steinzig: steinzig@lanl.gov

More Related