Testimony, February 19, 2004, Office of the President, University of Maryland

Executive Summary

The testimony I am pleased to submit today to the General Assembly will answer two questions: Have we used the State subsidies granted us in the past years wisely, and how close have we come to the goal of becoming a university of national eminence, as mandated by the State?

It is important to measure the University's progress, an indicator of its accountability for the funds the State has invested in us, against external benchmarks. In 1999, the Maryland Higher Education Commission designated five peer institutions for the University whose quality indicators and funding could serve as benchmarks to gauge the progress of the University. They are the University of California-Berkeley, the University of California-Los Angeles, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. These institutions have historically set the standards for quality by which public research universities across the country are measured—quality of faculty, students, academic programs, research and service activities. They all have missions similar to ours and share essential characteristics of first-rate public flagship universities.

An analysis of our activities as measured against our peers leads to four conclusions.

1. If we measure University progress in achieving the State's goal of national eminence, we find that we have taken long strides toward closing the gap between the University and its designated peers.

You have dealt with us generously, and the flagship of the University System is well on its way to achieving the greatness you mandated. Over recent years the University has outpaced all other major universities in its growth in stature and has a trajectory of success that is closing the gap between our peers and us. Essentially every measure of performance reveals a remarkable progress. We attract students with qualifications competitive with those of our peers; our most recently admitted class has average GPAs of 3.9 and SATs of 1259. The faculty bring an average $226,000 per year in research funds. The University leads the area in entrepreneurship, science, and technology, and is out front in service to business development through its support programs for State enterprises and industry. A new research park is attracting major partnerships with federal agencies. From performing arts at the Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center, which has become a major venue for the arts, to nationally competitive athletics, the University has received the highest recognition for its advancement. National visibility and rankings have followed: We are ranked 17th among publics by U.S. News & World Report—up from 30th five years ago. The number of donors to the campus has nearly doubled since 1998, and over the last five years, faculty and staff have donated private gifts totaling more than $14 million to the campus through 6,100 individual contributions.

2. Because of the intensely competitive environment among universities and because of the relatively short time we have been recognized as a challenger for the top ranks, we cannot relax our combined efforts to move forward. Sustaining our momentum is crucial to our future achievement.

The academic world of today is very competitive. Faculty, students and staff are free agents, and the best are sought and courted by universities from coast to coast. In this competitive environment, maintaining the highest quality is essential if we are to continue to compete successfully for outstanding faculty, students and staff. Competition is keen among universities for the partnerships with businesses and government agencies that fuel research and transfer research to technological applications. Our rise in reputation has made us a partner that attracts top federal agencies and businesses to the State and is a boon to the State's economic development and future prosperity and leadership.

3. Through strategic use of available resources, we have managed to move close to the top rank of universities in spite of the major funding gaps between us and the public universities at the top.

The primary emphasis of the University has been to maintain and improve the quality of our educational and research programs. The number of tenure/tenure track faculty is about right for our number of students, with the number of students per faculty member, 21.5, that is about equal to the peer mean 22.1. The number of staff, however, is 70% too small. While Maryland has 6.4 students per staff member, the peer group average is 3.8. And while Maryland has 3.3 staff members per faculty member, the peer group average has 5.9. The shortfall in staff is reflected in the operating expenditures that are about 15% below the peer average. The number of Maryland's vice presidents (6) is on par with peers and the number of assistant vice presidents (19) is 20% fewer than our peer average. The average salary for all UM vice presidents is lower than average among peers.

From 1996 to 2002, the campus funding, consisting of State general fund appropriations plus tuition support per student, has been $3,000 to $4,000 per student below the average of the peer group. As a consequence, the operating budget has been at least $80 million short of the average of our peers every year. The operating budget reduction in FY04 of $81 million ($54 million in cuts plus $27 million in mandatory increases) was partially offset by the tuition increases ($39 million) but it will result in a substantially greater comparative shortfall because other universities have not experienced reductions of this magnitude.

4. The University has demonstrated that it can achieve the next level of excellence and become an even greater asset for the State, but to do so requires a new partnership of funding built on State support, tuition provided by students and their parents, and funds generated by the University's initiatives.

The pathway forward that will preserve access and affordability and simultaneously provide the quality needed to build the great university will be lighted by a partnership on funding between the State, the students and the university. With the peer average funding as the guide for the expected quality and performance, the partnership needs to distribute the responsibility for providing these funds in an appropriate manner.

As measures of quality show, we have closed the gap in five years. We can be ranked at the top in the next five years. We have been remarkably efficient in achieving our successes. It is clear, however, that the University cannot reach the goal on a funding base that is consistently decreasing and is lower than that of our peers. It is equally clear that the State needs the essential asset of a great, nationally influential flagship campus if it is to build its future as a leader in this coming century. To be this close to the goal and not go the distance would be a great disservice to the State and its citizens in the years to come.

>>Highlights of the Year

Office of the President, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742