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

Funding Comparisons: UM and Peers

A comparison of funding resources available to UM and to its peers shows that the University has achieved its remarkable success with less support and greater efficiency than any of its peers.

The sum of the State general fund appropriation plus tuition per student is compared to the average of the peer group (Berkeley, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, UCLA). Over the period shown from 1996 to 2002, the campus funding has been $3,000 to $4,000 per student below the average of the peer group. This translates into an operating budget has been at least $80 million short of the average 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. We are unfortunately leading the nation here as well.

Efficiencies

The rightsizing of funding and staffing can be examined by comparing our data to those of our peers.

The number of students per faculty member is about equal to our peers. The number of staff serving students, however, is far too small. And while Maryland has 3.3 staff members per faculty member, the peer group average is 5.9. The principal result of the budget shortfall has been the employment of a staff that is only 56% the size of our peers. We have competed with our peers by short-staffing the campus.

Furthermore, the number of Maryland's vice presidents (6) is on par with peers and the number of assistant vice presidents (19) is 20% lower than at our peers. The average salary for all UM vice presidents is lower than average among peers

>>Making It into the Top Echelon

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