From Excellence to Eminence: Indicators of our Progress Proposal For a New Set of Benchmarks

1. From Excellence to Eminence: Indicators of our ProgressProposal For a New Set of Benchmarks Julie Carpenter-Hubin Institutional Research & Planning

2. Benchmark Universities • Characteristics of the Proposed New Benchmarks • High Quality Public Research Universities • Members of the AAU • Large Student Populations • 35,000 or more students • Structured Similarly to OSU, with either or both a medical school and land grant status

3. Proposed Benchmark Set The benchmark set includes universities with excellent reputations and universities that stand out as being truly eminent. Comparing Ohio State to these institutions allows us to track our progress as we move from excellence to eminence. Excellent • PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY • UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA • UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA • UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND-COLLEGE PARK • UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES Eminent • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN • UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN • UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON • UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

4. Sample Indicators with Proposed Benchmarks

5. Sample Indicators with Proposed Benchmarks Source: Academic R&D Expenditures, 2006, NSF

6. Sample Indicators with Proposed Benchmarks

7. How does the proposed set compare to the historical set? Dropped University of Texas –Austin: does not have a Med School and is not a Land Grant Added Florida Med School and Land Grant Maryland Land Grant (Med School is at Baltimore campus)

8. What other universities were considered for inclusion? • Publics • UC Berkeley: We chose not to include two universities from the same state. UCLA has a medical school, while Berkeley does not, and UCLA has the larger enrollment of the two. • North Carolina and Virginia: Both are considerably smaller than Ohio State, with enrollments below 30,000. • Michigan State: MSU and the University of Michigan both meet the criteria for inclusion, but again, we included only one from a state. Including the U of M rather than MSU balances our benchmark group, with five excellent universities, and five we have deemed eminent.

9. What other universities were considered for inclusion? • While all AAU schools were initially considered, no privates are proposed for inclusion in the institutional benchmark set • The average enrollment at AAU private universities is about 15,000. Only USC and NYU have enrollments greater than 30,000. • Private universities engage in only limited data sharing. • Programs may wish to benchmark against similar programs at private universities. The exclusion of privates from the institutional set should not prohibit such comparisons.

10. How does the proposed set compare to the proposed BOR set? OBOR Proposed Set Louisiana State Michigan State Texas A&M Arizona UC Davis Florida Georgia Illinois Kentucky Maryland Minnesota OSU Proposed Set Penn State Arizona UCLA Florida Illinois Maryland Michigan Minnesota Washington Wisconsin Institutions in red are the same in both sets. We are invited by the BOR to suggest changes to their set, and must provide our rationale by May 1, 2008

11. How do the financial data for the BOR and the OSU proposed sets compare?

12. Additional Remarks • Providing our place among the benchmarks rather than comparing OSU numbers to a benchmark average gives a better sense of our progress and where we need to go • We will not have data for every benchmark institution for every indicator. For example, Penn State files different financial reports with the federal government than does OSU or do the other benchmarks, so their data are not comparable.